HPL Great Books Reading and Discussion Group

Questions on Gilgamesh

2012-01-18T09:37:00.002-05:00

At our meeting on Monday, January 23rd, we will discuss the questions on pp. 58 and 59 in Great Conversations I, and take a close look at these sections of the work:

The Killing of Humbaba: Tablet IV (columns iii and iv)
The Spurning of Ishtar: Tablet VI (columns ii and iii)
The Death of Enkidu: Tablet VII (columns i, iii and iv)

And here's a bonus question:

Since the "Epic of Gilgamesh" is a title given by modern redactors of this work, if you could assign an alternate title, what would it be?

See you on the 23rd!

Epic of Gilgamesh

2012-01-11T10:55:00.000-05:00

We usher in 2012 with the Epic of Gilgamesh, famous in the popular imagination as the oldest written epic of any civilization (at least as far as we know). The modern-day text comes to us via clay tablets painstakingly translated by British archaeologists in the nineteenth century. Versions of the saga have since been discovered in various places in the Middle East. In approaching this text, I found a need to suspend my strong curiosity concerning the context of the Gilgamesh epic, and just enjoyed the story of Gilgamesh the king and demi-god who visited the "other" world and returned to tell the tale.

Cunieform table containing famous Gilgamesh epic version of the flood.

Statue of Gilgamesh at University of Sydney, Australia (credit: D. Gordon E. Robertson)

9th century BC orthostat relief found in Kapara's palace, Tell Halaf, depicting "Gilgamesh Between Two Bull-Men Supporting a Winged Sun Disk".

Some Afterthoughts on Our Discussion of Plato's "Republic"

2011-12-06T16:02:00.019-05:00

Our reading selection focused on Socrates's discussion about justice with Glaucon and Adeimantus from Books II and IV of the "Republic," and hinges on a proof of the proposition that it is good to be just both for its own sake and for what comes of it. Here's Glaucon:

If life doesn't seem livable with the body's nature corrupted, not even with every sort of food and drink and every sort of rule, will it then be livable when the nature of the very thing by which we live is confused and corrupted, even if a man does whatever else he might want except that which will rid him of vice and injustice and will enable him to acquire justice and virtue? [Emphasis added]

Socrates has led the discussion to the point where to think otherwise would be considered, in his words, "ridiculous." Did Socrates set out to argue this point, or did he become convinced of it during the course of the discussion? It's a tough call in the Platonic dialogues.

We're left with a defense of "justice" (or "virtue," or "goodness," or whatever you choose to call it) arrived at through dialogue. It is an appeal to maintain order in one's soul ("the very thing by which we live") by means of the guidance of reason.

Shown above: Sculpture of Plato at the modern Academy in Athens. Below: Our group after its Socratic experience on the 26th of November.

Questions on Plato's "Republic"

2011-11-21T21:29:00.002-05:00

Interpretive Questions

What does it mean for a person to be "just"?

Socrates says (p. 243) that there are three kinds of good: (1) things we desire for their own sake, ( (2) things we desire both for their own sake and because of what comes of them, (3) things we desire only because of what comes of them. Is this a useful construct in talking about justice? In which category does justice belong?

Why does Plato have Glaucon and Adeimantus believe it is better to be just than unjust before Socrates begins is argument. Isn't Socrates trying to persuade them to his view and away from theirs (p. 244)?

Does Socrates believe that a man who is unjust yet self-controlled, like Glaucon's perfectly unjust man, could actually exist? (pp. 247-248, 268-9)

Can one, according to Socrates, be just in a society that is not properly ordered?

Do the guardians act from altruism or self-interest? (p. 259-260)

Is Plato correct in ordering both the individual and society according to the reasonable, spirited, and appetitive parts of the soul?

Evaluative Questions

Should only a small group of wise and just men rule society?

Are some people cut out to debate amongst themselves and govern, and others to do manual labor?

Is it better to be just but perceived as injust, or to be injust and perceived virtuous?

Simon Blackburn has written, "Our future may well depend on how profoundly we respond to the 'Republic.'" Based on what you've read, what do you think of this statement?

For Textual Analysis

Pages 245 to 247, starting "They say that doing injustice is naturally good, and suffering injustice naturally bad" to "So much for that."

Pages 264 to 266, "So we won't be irrational" to "and the many do so quite late."

Pages 267 to 269, "Then we must remember that, for each of us too, the one within whom each of the parts minds its own business will be just and mind his own business" to the end of the selection.

Some Afterthoughts on Monday Night's Discussion

2011-10-25T10:00:00.010-04:00

Left: Aristotle (384 B.C. to 322 B.C.), computer generated graphic by Kolja Mendler.

Kudos to the twelve participants in Monday night's discussion of Aristotle's "On Tragedy," a selection from his "Poetics."

We talked about Aristotle's prescription for tragedy: it must contain (a) a peripety, or turning point, (b) a discovery, or revelation, and (c) "suffering." He also says tragedy must elicit fear and pity in the audience.

Aristotle's tragic hero is what he calls an "intermediate type," i.e., neither a very good person nor a very bad one, and the hero's change in fortune "must be due not to any depravity, but to some grave mistake on the part of a man ..."

In looking back at Sophocles's Oedipus the King (the subject of our Aug. 2010 meeting), we talked about how the play fits the bill for an Aristotelian tragedy. When I asked the group what was Oedipus's "grave error", the response was his slaying of his father Laius in an ancient act of "road rage."

Further questions: What if Oedipus had never discovered that he had killed his birth father and married his birth mother? Does the tragedy lie solely in finding out that he has commited parricide and engaged in incest? Or does it lie in the actions that ensue (Joscasta killing herself, Oedipus poking his eyes out and fleeing Thebes)?

If he had never found out, would his ignorance be at the expense of Thebes, which would still suffer pestilence because of Oedipus's actions years earlier? Oedipus must take the hit so that his city can heal itself.

Questions on "On Tragedy," by Aristotle

2011-10-18T09:15:00.005-04:00

Interpretive Questions

Aristotle says (p.227) the six elements of tragedy are (a) Spectacle, (b) Melody, (c) Diction, (d) Character, (e) Thought, and (f) Plot. He then says that of these, the most important is plot. Why?

"Peripety" is defined by Aristotle as the change from one state of things to its opposite. "Discovery" is defined as moving from ignorance to knowledge. The third part of tragedy, he says, is "Suffering" (p. 234). Does knowledge help to lessen suffering?

He says the aim of tragedy should be to arouse "pity and fear," and that the plot must be "not simple but complex" in order to arouse pity and fear. Do you agree with these stated aims of tragedy? What about the mechanism to achieve it?

According to Aristotle, these "incidents arousing pity and fear provide an outlet for such emotions." The Greek word for "outlet" is "catharsis." What does a "catharsis" feel like?

Do you agree with what Aristotle says in the section on "Delineation of Character" (p. 238) to the effect that all characters in a tragedy should be good?

In the section on "the Proper Length of a Tragic Play," Aristotle discusses the importance of magnitude of a plot. A tragic play must not only have a beginning, middle, and end, it must also have the proper magnitude, which he defines as "sufficient if the period allows the hero to pass by a series of probable or necessary stages from happiness to misfortune, or vice versa (p. 231)." How do you know when the proper magnitude has been achieved?

On p. 235 it is stated that a character's tragic fate must be the result not of any moral failing ("depravity") but of an "error of judgement." Can a depraved person have a tragic end? If there's no error in judgement but only an accidental circumstance, can there still be a tragedy?

Does Sophocles Oedipus Rex (cf. volume 1, Fifth Series, Great Books Reading and Discussion Program) fit Aristotle's criteria for a well-wrought tragedy?

Evaluative Questions

Why do we enjoy tragedy? Is it because we take solace in viewing the misfortunes of others? A voyeuristic thrill? Or to cultivate, as Unamuno put it, philosophical tragic sense of life? Why do we need art to do this, isn't there enough tragedy in real life?

What is this text for? To make tragedians better at what they do? To make us appreciate tragedy as an art form better? To show us how tragedy works?

Is there still a market for tragedy in America? If so, is it tragedy of a different nature than it was in Aristotle's time? Can you give examples?

For Textual Analysis

pages 227 to 228, from the beginning of the selection to "... admit of Spectacle, Melody, Diction, Character, Thought, and Plot."

pages 231 to 232, beginning, "It is clear from what has been said ... " to "...and they are a delight none the less to all."

pages 235 to 236 beginning "After what has been said above ..." to "... no one is slain by anyone."

Questions on "King Lear" for September 26th

2011-09-19T10:15:00.011-04:00

Why does Lear demand a public declaration of affection from his daughters before dividing his kingdom?

Why does Cordelia refuse to play along with her father's game?

When Gloucester attempts suicide, why does Edgar decline to reveal his true identity (Act IV, Scene Six)?

What is Lear's attraction to the "philosopher," Tom O'Bedlam? (Act III, Scene Four, pp. 175-177, Act III, Scene Six, pages 178-80)?

Why do Goneril and Regan end up in fatal competition for Edmund?

Does "King Lear" suggest that human sexuality is the root cause of all corruption?

Evaluative Questions

In Act III, Scene One, How does the storm in the open country mirror the king's emotional state?

What is the significance of the word "nothing" in the play (it appears in many places, cf. Act I, Scenes One and Two.)

What is the meaning of Edgar's lines:

Men must endure
Their going hence, even as their coming hither;
Ripeness is all

Is it possible to envisage an alternative, happy, ending to the play?

If no, is the ending the best one could hope for? Is Edgar going to be King? Will he be a better King than Lear?

Passages for Textual Analysis

A. Act I, Scene Two, pages 129-130, from Gloucester's speech beginning, "These late eclipses in the sun and moon ..." to Edmund's speech ending, "O, these eclipses do portend these divisions, Fa, sol, la, mi."

B. Compare the Fool's speeches,

1. Act I, Scene Four, pages 136-137 beginning, "That lord that counsell'd thee ..." to "All thy other titles thou has given away; that thou wast born with."

2. Act II, Scene Four, page 157 beginning, "Fathers that wear rags ..." to "daughters as thou canst tell in a year."

3. Act II, Scene Four, pages 157-58, beginning, "We'll set thee to school to an ant ..." to "Not 'i the stocks, fool."

4. Act III, Scene Two, page 168, beginning, "the cod-piece that will house ... " to "For there was never yet fair woman but she made mouths in a glass."

5. Act III, Scene Two, page 170 beginning, "He that has and a little tiny wit ..." to "This prophecy Merlin shall make; for I live before his time."

C. Act IV, Scene Six, pages 200-203 from Lear's speech beginning, "Ha, Goneril, with a white beard," to Lear's speech ending, "you shall get it by running, Sa, Sa, Sa, Sa.

D. Act V, Scene Three, pages 213-214, from Lear's speech beginning, "No, no, no, no! Come let's away to prison." to Lear's speech ending, "We'll see 'em starv'd first. Come."

Questions on "The Education of Henry Adams" by Henry Adams

2011-08-12T11:04:00.006-04:00

Interpretive Questions

Why is this autobiography called The Education of Henry Adams? Of what does Adams consider his education to have truly consisted? What is his critique of his education?

On p. 66 Adams writes, "Supposing he had seen a New York stocklist of 1900, and had studied the statistics of railways, telegraphs, coal and steel -- would he have quitted his eighteenth century, his ancestral prejudices, his abstract ideals, his semiclerical training, and the rest, in order to perform an expiatory pilgrimage to State Street, and ask for the fatted calf of his grandfather Brooks and a clerkship to the Suffolk Bank?" What in Adams's mind, are the relative "advantages" of Quincy vs. Boston (as represented by State Street)?

Page 80: "This is the story of an education, and the person or persons who figure in it are supposed to have values only as educators or educated." This might make for a good intellectual autobiography, but does it give too narrow a portrait of its subject?

As a young boy Adams visited a slave state for for the first time. He writes (p.87, 88), "He took education politically," and "The more he was educated, the less he understood." Is the latter statement in keeping with Adams's theme of a proper education?

On page 109, Adams writes of the typical Harvard College graduate, "Afraid of serious risks, and still more afraid of personal ridicule, he seldom made a great failure of life, and nearly always led a life more or less worth living." Why does Adams have such a lukewarm view of his famous alma mater?

Does anything in this work presage Adams's future interested in politics? Will Adams regret not pursuing a high-profile political career as his illustrious relatives had?

Is Adams proud of the life he has led?

Why does Adams write in the third person if the subject is himself?

Who is the intended audience for The Education of Henry Adams?

Evaluative Questions

Adams writes (p.51) : "Politics as a practice, whatever its professions, had always been the systematic organization of hatreds." Your reaction?

Which does Adams prefer, the "unity" of medieval life or the "multiplicity" of modern life?

For Textual Analysis

1. Pages 45 to 46, the Preface

2. Pages 73 to 75, beginning, "This political party became a chief influence ... " to "... but Mr Sumner was a different order -- heroic."

3. Pages 77 to 79, beginning, "Viewed from Mt. Vernon Street" ... to "... they exaggerated the literary and the political interests."

4. Pages 110 to 112, beginning, "Inevitably and effort leads to an ambition" to the end of the selection."

Henry Adams (1838-1918)

2011-08-12T10:36:00.007-04:00

Henry Adams's Education recounts the author's life up through the year 1904. The book wasn't published until 1918, the year Adams died. It won a Pulitzer Prize for Biography/Autobiography in 1919.

Our selection this month consists of four chapters from the Education covering years he spent in four places: Quincy (1838-1848), Boston (1848-1854), Washington (1850-1854), Harvard College (1854-1858).

Adams was the great-grandson of President John Adams, grandson of Quincy Adams, and son of Charles Francis Adams, a politician and diplomat. Henry made his mark with his pen as a political lobbyist, journalist, and historian. For many years he circulated in elite circles of American politics and cultivated friendships with leading artists, scientists, and intellectuals on both sides of the Atlantic.

Adams is pictured here in his Harvard College graduation photo.

Questions re: "The Revolution in France," by Edmund Burke

2011-07-16T16:41:00.007-04:00

Edmund Burke (1727 to 1797) was an English statesman, philosopher, and writer. He was a Whig member of Parliament for many years. In the year 1790, during the early stages of the French Revolution, he wrote an extended letter to a young Parisian acquaintance, Charles-Jean-François Depont, stating his views on the Revolution. Also intended as a rebuttal to London societies that had arisen in support of the Revolution, his "Reflections on the Revolution in France," was published in November of that year as an extended pamphlet. It was a golden age of the political pamphlet, and Tom Paine's "Rights of Man" was written as a rebuttal to Burke.

Interpretive Questions

What is a "manly, moral, regulated liberty" (p.1), and why does Burke tell us that he loves it "as well as any gentleman."

What are Burke's beliefs on meritocracy (i.e., that citizens achieve their rank through personal ability and accomplishment), and how does he react to some who came to the fore in the revolution (p. 18-19)?

On p. 18 Burke writes of hairdressers and tallow-chandlers, "Such descriptions of men ought not to suffer oppression from the state; but the state suffers oppression if such as they, either individually or collectively, are permitted to rule. In this you think you are combatting prejudice, but you are at war with nature." If Burke is against workers assuming positions of power, what would be his criteria for a suitable leader?

Why does Burke think the "principle of property" (p. 19-20) so important to the political system?

P. 20: "Some decent, regulated preeminence, some preference (not exclusive appropriation) given to birth is neither unnatural, nor unjust, nor impolitic." Do you think preference given to birth is (a) natural, (b) just, (c) politic, (d) all three?

P. 24: "What is the use of discussing a man's abstract right to food or medicine? The question is upon the method of procuring and administering them. In that deliberation I shall always advise to call in the aid of the farmer and the physician rather than the professor of metaphysics." Can there be any argument here?

What, according to Burke, caused the revolution (p. 28)?

Why does Burke say that in a government not headed by a hereditary monarch, "Men would become little better than the flies of summer." (p.32)

What is meant by Burke's use of the phrase, "the sense of mankind" (p. 36), and does it reflect on the role of philosophy in sorting out the many challenges inherent in human society? Given his earlier critique of placing reason over sentiment, is there a contradiction?

Burke at various points invokes a divine power (p. 38, "parental Guardian and Legislator", p. 30, "Master Author and Founder of society"). What role does this power play in his politics?

Why at the end of the piece does he take a dig at people who are too busy finding fault with things to try to make them better?

Based on what you know of French history, could the French truly have sustained themselves on memories of more glorious past rulers than Louis XVI and refrained from revolution?

Evaluative Questions

P. 17: "Believe me sir, those who attempt to level, never equalize." Do you agree?

Is Burke's discussion of civil society, (p. 23, "Men cannot enjoy the rights of an uncivil and of a civil state together. That he may obtain justice, he gives up his right of determining what it is in points the most essential to him. That he may secure some liberty, he makes a surrender in trust of the whole of it," etc.) a good assessment of civil society's the costs and benefits?

Is Burke's essay, in its explicit critique of the events in France. an implicit defense of the English system? Is the piece really more about England than about France?

Is this a great book or an important book? Is it both?

Passages to Discuss

Pages 3 to 5, beginning, "You will observe that from Magna Carta ... to "...for the great conservatories and magazines of our rights and privileges."

Pages 13 to 16, beginning, "Judge, Sir, of my surprise ... " to "the natural landed interest of the country."

Pages 17 to 19, beginning, "Believe me, sir, those who attempt to level ..." to "by some difficulty and some struggle."

Pages 28 to 30, beginning, "History will record that on the morning..." to "with fervent prayer and enthusiastic ejaculation."

Pages 34 to 35, beginning, "Society is indeed a contract" to "madness, discord, vice, confusion, and unraveling sorrow."

Questions about Dante's Inferno, Cantos 17-34, for June 27th

2011-06-20T21:09:00.007-04:00

Interpretive Questions

Why do Dante and Virgil descend to Lower Hell on Geryon's back?

Does Dante uniformly show pity ("pietà") towards the denizens of hell?

Why is Lucifer portrayed as a weeping demon frozen in the center of the Earth? Why are the betrayers of Julius Caesar (Brutus and Cassius) portrayed as being as wicked as the betrayer of Jesus Christ (Judas Iscariot)?

Why must Virgil and Dante ascend through the other side of the earth at the end?

Evaluative Questions

Has Dante constructed a just hierarchy of sins?

How well does Dante juggle his roles as pilgrim, judge, narrator, and poet?

What are Dante's views on Jews and Muslims (cf. cantos IV, XXIII, XXVIII)

Speculative Questions

Who was Dante's intended audience? How was the poem disseminated? Why has the poem become so wildly popular?

Who other than Virgil might have been a good guide to hell?

For Textual Analysis

V. Canto XXVI, pages 220 to 223 : the Fate of Ulysses, beginning "So when the flame had reached us, and my guide ... " to the end of the Canto.

VI. Canto XXXIII, pages 255 to 260, Tale of Ugolino and Ruggieri.

JFK and Dante

2011-06-03T09:24:00.008-04:00

In Canto III of "Inferno," Dante and Virgil visit the Vestibule of Hell, an antechamber for indecisive souls. According to Dante, this place is reserved for "those sad souls who lived a life but lived it with no blame and no praise."

President John F. Kennedy is reported to have admired Dante's line about "the coward who made the great refusal," which scholars believe refers to Pontius Pilate. The Vestibule is reserved for those who could not make up their minds. Dante imputes a strong element of willfullness (the "great refusal") to this condition of moral indecision. He says,

Heaven, to keep its beauty, cast them out,
but even Hell itself would not receive them,
for fear the damned might glory over them.

In other words, sometimes a decisive sinner will outshine a namby-pamby fence-sitter, and Dante won't let this happen in his moral universe.

Illustration: Fresco by Domenico di Michelino in the nave of Florence's cathedral (1465). Though banished from Florence on political grounds in his lifetime, Dante definitely made it back big time later on. Note that with his right hand he gestures to the parade of sinners, and holds his poem in the left for the world to see.

Questions about "The Inferno," by Dante for May 23d

2011-05-16T09:38:00.006-04:00

Gentle Readers: Dante's "Inferno" is the most ambitious project we've undertaken, which is why I decided to break it up into two parts. The cross section of Hell portrayed on page 124 is quite helpful. It shows you where the different categories of sinners and the various landmarks of Dante's hell are situated. On the 23d we'll work our way through some of these questions. Bring a favorite passage to share.

An excellent online resource about the Commedia is http://www.worldofdante.org. You can find extensive notes on the historical, religious, and literary background of the poem.
--Tom

Interpretive Questions

Why does Dante need Virgil as his guide?

What sin did Dante commit in the "dark wood" (p. 113) that necessitated his "pilgrimage"?

How does Beatrice's speech (p. 120 to 122) affect Dante?

Why are the rings of hell circular?

What differentiates Upper Hell from Lower Hell?

What do they do in the city of Dis? (Cantos VIII and IX)

Why are the Epicurean heretics placed lower in hell than the arch heretics (Canto X)

Why are suicides portrayed as trees? Why are they able to speak only when their limbs are broken and bleeding? (Canto XIII)

Why is Lucifer portrayed as a weeping demon frozen in the center of the Earth?

Why must Virgil and Dante ascend through the other side of the earth at the end of the story?

Evaluative Questions

What was Dante's intended audience?

What are Dante's views on Jews and Muslims (cf. cantos IV, XXIII, XXVIII)

Has Dante constructed a reasonable hierarchy of sins?

How well does Dante juggle his roles as pilgrim, judge, narrator, and poet?

For Textual Analysis

I. Canto V, pages 138 to 41 : tale of Francesca and Paolo, beginning, "After I heard my teacher call the names .. " to the end of the canto.

II. Canto XI, pages 165 to 170 : The Punishments of Hell

III. Canto XV, pages 183 to 186 : The Pilgrim and Ser Brunetto.

IV. Canto XXV, pages 214 to 217 : A Thief's Metamorphosis

V. Canto XXVI, pages 220 to 223 : the Fate of Ulysses, beginning "So when the flame had reached us, and my guide ... " to the end of the Canto.

VI. Canto XXXIII, pages 255 to 260, Tale of Ugolino and Ruggieri.

Questions on "Thus Spake Zarathustra," by Nietzsche

2011-04-20T09:41:00.002-04:00

Interpretive questions

Prologue

Why must Zarathustra, like the sun, "go under" ? (p. 79) Was his ten years of solitude in the mountains a necessary precondition of "going under"?

Page 79 : Zarathustra to sun: "For ten years you have climbed to my cave: you would have tired of your light and of the journey had it not been for me and my eagle and my serpent." What do the eagle and the serpent represent (see also p. 93, section #10)?

Why does the saint whom Zarathustra encounters in the forest counsel him to "Give them [men] nothing! Rather, take part of their load and help them to bear it -- that will be best for them, if only it does you good!" (p. 81)

Zarathustra answers, "I give no alms. For that I am not poor enough?" What does this mean and why does the saint laugh when he hears it? (p. 81)

If Zarathustra has been in solitude himself for so long, why is he surprised to learn the saint doesn't know that "God is dead." (p. 81)?

P. 82: Zarathustra preaches to the people, "Behold, I teach you the overman. The overman is the meaning of the earth ..." Who is the "overman," and why is he the "meaning of the earth? What does Zarathustra mean by his next statement," viz., "I beseech you my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes."

P. 83: What is the "hour of great contempt" and why is it "the greatest experience you can have"?

Does the tightrope walker represent the overman? Is there a symbolism to Zarathustra carrying his corpse and then finally placing it in a hollow tree to protect it from wolves?

Interpret this line on p. 84: "What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end: what can be loved in man is that he is an overture and a going under.

Who is the "last man" referred to on page 86, and why is he contemptible?

Why is it an insight that Zarathustra will speak "not to the people but to companions"? (p.91) He also says, "Zarathustra shall not become the shepherd and dog of a herd." Why this apparent renunciation of a leadership role?

Zarathustra's Speeches

On the Three Metamorphoses

How does the spirit become a camel, a lion, and finally, a child (p.93)?

Zarathustra says (p. 93), "Why must he preying lion become a child?" Why, indeed?

What is the meaning of the "sacred Yes" (p. 93)

Why is the town in which Zarathustra sojourns for a awhile called "The Motley Cow" (p.93).

On the Afterworldly

What is Nietsche's position on the "afterworld" as expressed in this section? Must people reject the afterworld to achieve the "overman"? (pp.95-98)

On the Despisers of the Body

What is Zarathustra's critique of the "despisers of the body." What does he mean when he says that they have become despisers of the body because their "self" wants to go under?

On the Preachers of Death

Who are "Preachers of Death?"

On the Thousand and One Goals

P. 103: "'To honor father and mother and to follow their will to the root of one's soul': this was the tablet of overcoming that another people hung up over themselves and became powerful and eternal therby'" Is this a reference to the Ten Commandments?

P. 104: Why does Zarathustra refer to good and evil as "lovers"?

On Free Death

P. 104: What does it mean to "die at the right time"?

What is the "golden ball" referred to on p. 105?

What is Zarathustra's critique of the life of Jesus (p.106)

On the Gift-giving Virtue

Is speaking in parables "the origin of virtue" (p. 108)

P. 110: "The man of knowledge must not only love his enemies, he must also be able to hate his friends." Discuss this alteration of a familiar maxim.

P. 110: "Dead are all gods: now we want the overman to live" Does this statement encapsulate Zarathustr's (Nietzsche's) message?

Evaluative Questions

Why does Nietzsche employ the literary device of an ancient Persian prophet to serve as his mouthpiece?

Is Zarathustra a poet? Philosopher? Prophet?

"A Book for All and None"

2011-04-12T09:22:00.006-04:00

When Friedrich Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra was first published in the 1880s by E. W. Fritzsch in Leipzig, it carried the subtitle "ein büch für alle und keinen," ("a book for all and none").

The philosopher Karl Jaspers wrote of Thus Spake Zarathustra in his introduction to Nietzsche's philosophy, "What Nietzsche regarded as his magnum opus resists all traditional means of classification; it is to be taken as poetry as well as prophecy and philosophy; and still it cannot be viewed as precisely any of these (emphasis added).

Scholars dispute whether any one of Nietzsche's books really encapsulate the Nietzschean philosophy. In any event, as you read this month's selection, ask yourself, "Why is this 'for all and none'?"

A Few Tips on Hume

2011-03-22T09:59:00.004-04:00

I offer the following tips in the hope they may be of assistance in addressing the discussion questions raised in my previous post:

Hume's epistemology (his theory of knowledge) is based on his definitions of impressions and ideas, which he has given earlier in A Treatise of Human Nature, of which "Of Personal Identity" is one short chapter.

Impressions: "Those perceptions which enter with most force and violence we may name impressions; and under this name I comprehend all our sensations, passions, and emotions, as they make their first appearance in the soul."

Ideas: "By ideas I mean the faint images of these [impressions] in thinking and reasoning; such as, for instance, are all the perceptions excited by the present discourse, excepting only those which arise from the sight and touch, and excepting the immediate pleasure or uneasiness it may occasion."

In "Of Personal Identity," Hume talks about objects. These are the impressions and ideas that constitute our mental activity. The key question to ask in reading the piece is, How are these objects, to employ a more modern term, processed? Does the "process" afford a true sense of personal identity to the individual? Or do the many changes in our perceptions through time, and our difficulty in summarizing past perceptions at any given time, undermine the sense of personal identity? Think of Heraclitus's river: Is it the same or constantly changing?

Hume asks, Can our mind change and still be the same?

Questions for "Of Personal Identity," by David Hume

2011-03-21T22:30:00.003-04:00

Why, according to Hume, do "some philosophers" think "the strongest sensation, the most violent passion" makes us more aware of the self? (p. 65)
If we doubt of the self, then is there "anything of which we can be certain" (p. 65)?
Why does Hume define "self" as mind or consciousness? Are there other possible definitions?
Is Hume convincing when he says that because "pain and pleasure, grief and joy, passions and sensations" occur at different times, the "idea of self" cannot exist? (p. 66)
Is mind just a "bundle or collection of different perceptions"? (p. 66)
Can you conceive of the mind as a "kind of theatre" (p. 67)?
For analysis: "We have a distinct idea of an object that remains invariable ... " (p. 67) to "... nor find anything invariable and uninterrupted to justify our notion of identity."
Is a person comparable to a church that was originally built of brick but has been rebuilt of freestone? Is it a problem to call them the same church?
On page 72 Hume writes, "The identity which we ascribe to the mind of man is only a fictitious one, and of a like kind with that which we ascribe to vegetable and animal bodies. It cannot have a different origin, but must proceed from a like operation of the imagination upon like objects." Can we really use the same criteria in identifying a human mind as we would in indentifying a shrub or a crustacean?
Read and analyze paragraph starting on page 73 (ending page 74), "But lest this argument should not convince the reader .." to "according to the principles explained above."
Read and analyze Hume's discussion of the successive parts our thoughts as to their resemblance and causation on pages 74 and 75, starting "To begin with resemblance" and ending "And in this view our identity with regard to the passions serves to corroborate that with regard to the imagination, by making our distant perceptions influence each other, and by giving us a present concern for our past or future pains or pleasures."
Do you agree with Hume (p. 75) that memory is the source of personal identity, because it "acquaints us with the continuance and extent of this succession of perceptions"?
Hume asks (p. 75) "Who can tell me, for instance, what were his thoughts and actions on the first of January 1715, the eleventh of March 1719, and the third of August 1733?," and says the many gaps in our memory detract from our sense of personal identity. Do you agree?
Is Hume correct in arguing that "all the nice and subtle questions concerning personal identity can never possibly be decided, and are to be regarded rather as grammatical than as philosophical difficulties."
Can something that changes still be the same?
Is Hume saying (a) there is no self, or that it's (b) simply not something we are capable of knowing (i.e., not a "philosophical difficulty")?

David Hume (1711-1776)

2011-03-04T13:23:00.008-05:00

Back in January of 2006, we discussed an excerpt from David Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature entitled "Of Justice and Injustice." This month we return to the Treatise with a piece called "Of Personal Identity."

Interesting that the editors of the Great Books Reading and Discussion Program would pick not one but two selections from the Treatise, since the book generated little excitement when it was first published in 1739. Hume later repackaged his ideas in a work entitled "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding."

D. G. C. McNabb in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy informs us that Hume was never an academic philosopher, but a "man of letters and to a lesser extent a man of affairs." He holds an important place in the history of philosophy as a radical empiricist and foil to rationalists like Immanuel Kant.

McNabb says Hume's primary motivation was to achieve fame in the literary and not in the philosophy world. If that were the case, why did he publish many of his works (including the Treatise) anonymously?

Questions on "A Simple Heart," by Flaubert

2011-02-20T22:20:00.003-05:00

Did Félicité live a life worth living? Did Madame Aubain?

Is "A Simple Heart" a love story?

Why are the men in this story so unimpressive?

Why is Félicité's first communion less moving to her than Virginie's?

What is Flaubert's religious position? Is his realism to be taken at face value?

Is there a parallelism between the deaths of Victor and Virginie?

Why does Théodore's jilting of Félicité play an such an important role in the rest of her life?

Why is Madame Aubain so mean to Félicité?

Why does Flaubert have Félicité reject the Polish suitor over his theft of a salad (p. 49)?

Why, after Félicité and Madame Aubain exchange a kiss, does Flaubert say of Félicité that "Her native goodness unfolded in her heart"?

What does Loulou symbolize?

Is Loulou important in tying together the story?

For Textual Analysis

Pages 36-38, from "After bending her knee at the door" to "...but did not feel the same thrill."

Pages 46-48, from "For two whole nights Félcité did not leave to "...who had been paralyzed for some time."

Pages 55-56 from "The place contained such an assortment" to ..."stray in the direction of the bird."

Pages 60-62 , whole chapter

Author of the Month: Gustave Flaubert

2011-02-09T09:44:00.010-05:00

The great French realist writer Gustave Flaubert (1821-1880) wrote to a female friend about month's selection, "A Simple Heart" (originally titled "L'Histoire d'un Coeur Simple" -- the "Story of a Simple Heart"). He said it "is nothing more or less than the account of an obscure life, that of a poor country girl, devout but not mystical, matter-of-factly devoted, tender with a tenderness redolent of freshly baked bread."*

*Letter to Edma Roger des Genettes, dated June 19, 1876 ; cited in Brown, Frederick, Flaubert: a Biography, New York: Little, Brown, 2006.

Some Questions about "First Principles of Morals," by Kant

2011-01-18T10:09:00.005-05:00

Interpretive Questions

Kant asserts (p. 16) that "Now all imperatives command either hypothetically or categorically." What is a "hypothetical imperative"? What is a "categorical imperative"?

Read pages 15-17, beginning "Everything in nature works according to laws ..." to "action is good for some purpose, possible or actual ..."

Read pages 2-5, beginning, "There is, however, something so strange ..." to "may involve many a disappointment to the ends of inclination."

Re-read the last sentence, "For reason recognizes the establishment of a good will as its highest practical destination, and in attaining this purpose is capable only of a satisfaction of its own proper kind, namely, that from the attainment of an end, which end again is determined by reason only, notwithstanding that this may involve many a disappointment to the ends of inclination."

How is reason to cope with such a disappointment?

On page 8, Kant writes, "the second proposition is: That an action done from duty derives its moral worth, not from the purpose which is to be attained by it, but from the maxim by which it is determined, and therefore does not depend on the realization of the object of the action, but merely on the principle of volition by which the action has taken place, without regard to any object of desire." How can "moral worth" come from the source of the action, and not from its outcome?

Read pp. 8 through 11, from "The third proposition ..." to "Hence my maxim, as soon as it should be made a universal law, would necessarily destroy itself."

Re-read the sentence on p. 9, "I am never to act otherwise than so that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law." Apply this to Kant's position on lying. What is the role of will in turning a maxim into a universal law?

Read pp. 11 through 13, from "If we have hitherto drawn our notion of duty from the common use of our practical reason" ... to "this duty is involved as duty in the idea of a reason determining the will by a priori principles." Why is Kant's notion duty based on a priori principles. (Note: "a priori" means "from before," that is, before experience).

Read pp. 19 through 22, from "There is therefore but one categorical imperative, namely this: Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law ." to "Thus it has been completely shown by these examples how all duties depend as regards the nature of the obligation (not the object of the action) on the same principle."

Discuss how Kant applies his principles to four imagined individuals, who may be described as (1)depressive, (2) indebted, (3) hedonistic, and (4) self-satisfied. Are you convinced that all four would be unsuccessful in willing his actions into universal laws?

Capstone question: Why, according to Kant, does reason control will by means of a priori principles?

The last sentence of the selection reads, "We have not yet, however, advanced so far as to prove a priori that there actually is such an [categorical] imperative, that there is a practical law which commands absolutely of itself and without any other impulse, and that the following of this law is duty." Will Kant go on to prove this, and how?

Evaluative Question

Is it possible to identify people of "pure and good will." (p.1) Can someone who "is not adorned with a single feature of a pure and good will, enjoying unbroken prosperity ... never give pleasure to an impartial rational spectator." [Emphasis added]. In other words, is it universally unacceptable for good things to happen to bad people?

Author of the Month

2011-01-17T11:43:00.009-05:00

W.H. Walsh, in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, offers the following concise descriptor for Kant: "Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), propounder of the critical philosophy." Here is the statue of Kant in his native Königsberg (currently Russian Kaliningrad), where his daily constitutional was famous for its regularity.

The Last Universal Man?

2010-12-01T10:33:00.008-05:00

To the left you see a portrait of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832). It was painted by Gerhard von Kügelgen in 1808. That was the year Faust, Part One was first published. It was also the year that Goethe met Napoleon (a big fan of Goethe's novel The Sorrows of Young Werther) in the German city of Erfurt.

It is remarkable to note that Faust, Part One wasn't performed for the first time until 1829, twenty years later, in Brunswick. This speaks to some of the difficulties in staging this work. As one of our discussants noted in our meeting last week, getting horses up on stage (as directed) can be a challenge.

Goethe can be considered the last universal man. He was a man of letters and a man of science. He is credited with founding the science of morphology and "discovered" the intermaxillary bone in humans. He put forward a powerful critique of Newton's optics. He also had a longstanding interest in meteorology.

Goethe's aesthetic concerns jibed with this scientific interests. Morphology, for example, can be a form of poetry in the way it matches object and word.

It is the persistence of Goethe's intellect that most qualifies him as a "universal." A close reading of Faust confirms this. Goethe spent at least 40 years writing and revising the two parts of Faust. His motto, after all, was

Ohne rast aber ohne hast.

Which, translated into English, means "Without rest BUT without haste."

Resource: Steuer, Daniel, "In defence of experience: Goethe's natural investigation," In The Cambridge Companion to Goethe," Lesley Sharpe, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Discussion questions re: Goethe's Faust

2010-11-16T15:44:00.003-05:00

Is the heaven of the Prologue a Christian heaven?

What is the wager between Faust and Mephistopheles? What does each party stand to gain or lose?

Why does Mephistopheles tell Faust he must be asked into the study three times before he will comply with the invitation?

Why does Mephistopheles first appear as a black poodle?

What is the meaning of Mephistopheles's remark to Faust (p. 196) that "Time's short, my friend, and art is long"?

Why does Mephistopheles (p. 199) encourage the student to enroll first in a course of logic?

Why does Faust say that if he's not able to seduce Gretchen, then Mephistopheles will be through with him?

How and why does the witch-potion cause Faust to "see a Helen in every housewife" (p. 225)?

Why does Gretchen say (p. 260), "And now I'm just as bad myself!/But -- everything that made me do it/God was so good! Oh, was so sweet! (p. 261)"

What's the reason Mephistopheles takes Faust to Walpurgisnacht to take his mind off the terrible consequences of his liaison with Gretchen?

Why does the dialogue change to prose in Chapter xxiii (p.283) ("Dreary Day")

Why did Goethe choose his settings (e.g., Burgdorf, Auerbach's Celler in Leipzig, the Witch's Kitchen)?

Morphed

2010-10-27T15:08:00.003-04:00

Many thanks to the twenty participants in Monday's meeting on Kafka's "Metamorphosis." It certainly confirmed the results of Professor Stanley Corngold's study in which he put forward one hundred and thirty different interpretations of the story.

Members of the group also enlightened us on sundry related topics such as the similarity of Gregor Samsa's name to the Sanskrit word "samsara," which means rebirth and renewal, and the diet of the dung beetle.

I realized at the end of the evening that I had forgotten to pose my "big question": If one reads "Metamorphosis" as a fable (i.e., of a man who turns into an insect, and of the reactions of his parents and sister to this circumstance), then what is the moral to be drawn from it?

I could attribute my lapse to being "under the influence" of Kafka, in whose world trivial questions can become quite important (and vice versa). At any rate, responses are welcomed.

"The Metamorphosis" : Questions for Discussion

2010-10-19T09:30:00.004-04:00

Interpretive Questions

Why does Gregor worry about his job when's he's been transformed into a giant cockroach?

Why did the chief clerk show up at Gregor's home to inquire why he was not on the early train? (p.97)

Why does Gregor have no appetite for fresh food? (p.112)

Why do his sister's "ministrations" oppress Gregor (p. 117)?

When Grete sees Gregor on the wallpaper, Kafka tells us it "was the first time she had directly addressed him since his metamorphosis (p. 124)." Why not before?

Why does Mr. Samsa throw the apples at Gregor (p. 127)?

Why did the three lodgers have a "passion for order," especially in the kitchen (p. 133)?

Why did the charwoman wear an ostrich feather, and why did it annoy Mr. Samsa (p. 145)?

Are the changes Gregor's transformation engenders in his family -- in his father especially -- healthy?

Why does Greta finally decide that the Samsa family household can no longer continue under such conditions?

Is Gregor's decision to disappear a charitable or pathetic act?

Evaluative Questions

If you take the story at its face value (i.e., that Gregor could be transformed into an insect), are the characters' actions believable?

--Are we made to feel at all curious as to why Gregor turned into and insect?

--Does it matter?

Is Gregor Samsa a hero?

Textual Analysis

pp. 120-124, from "And this time he did not peer out from under it" to "fell down onto the middle of the big table."

pp. 135-137, from "Gregor's sister began to play" to "she kept free of any ribbon or collar."

pp. 143-end of story, starting with "At that the door of the Samsa's bedroom opened and Mr. Samsa appeared in his uniform ..."

Kafka-esque?

2010-10-12T09:14:00.008-04:00

Franz Kafka's story The Metamorphosis is a fable of a man, Gregor Samsa, who awakes one morning to find himself changed into a giant insect, and of his family's efforts to deal with their former breadwinner's radical transformation.

Elif Batumen recently published a piece in the September 26th New York Times Magazine, "Kafka's Last Trial," on the legal battle over roughly one-third of Kafka's literary estate. This estate, which had been held by Kafka's friend and literary executor, Max Brod, was passed upon Brod's death in 1968 to his former secretary Esther Hoffe. When Hoffe died in 2007 at age 101, her will decreed the transference of the legacy to her daughters, who stated their intention to sell it to the German Literature Archive in Marbach, Germany. The National Library of Israel, however, has claimed rights to the estate under the term's of Brod's will. The case is now being argued in the Israeli courts.

Kafka's work published during his lifetime (which included the Metamorphosis) amounted to less that 450 pages. According to Batumen, however, recent estimates are that a new book on Kafka's work has been published every 10 days for the last 14 years. "Kafka studies now proliferate at a rate inversely proportional to that of Kafka's own production," Elif Batumen writes.

How do we account for the enormous fascination with Kafka? It must have something to do with Kafka having lived on so many levels as an outsider. He was born and raised in Prague of Jewish parents during the final years of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and he wrote in German.

He was also a literary outsider. According to Werner Hoffmeister's World Book article on Kafka, he has been identified with Expressionism, Surrealism and Existentialism, yet "his writings do not belong to any particular literary school." You just have to read Kafka on his own terms. Some advice on how you do this comes from no less an august literary man than Albert Camus, who wrote (in his essay "Hope and the Absurd in the work of Franz Kafka") : "Kafka's entire art consists in forcing the reader to re-read."

Questions for September 27th Great Books Discussion

2010-09-21T13:48:00.003-04:00

The Huntington Public Library's Great Books Discussion Group meets Monday, September 27th. We will discuss an excerpt from "On Dreams," by Sigmund Freud, from the Great Books Reading and Discussion Program, Fifth Series, Book 1, available at the main library's customer services desk.

My major recommendation to help you prepare is to read Freud's own "specimen dream" concerning Frau E.L. apparently making a "pass" at Freud on page 74 (beginning "company at table or table d'hôte ... spinach was being served ..."). It is only one paragraph. Freud's analysis of this dream is found on pages 74 to 76. Here are some other questions to consider:

1. What is the "manifest content" of Freud's dream?

2. Why does a taximeter remind Freud of a table d'hôte?

3. What is the significance of the Goethe quote "You lead us into life, you make the poor creature guilty."? (M. D. Eder translates this as, "To earth, this weary earth, you bring us, to guilt you let us heedless go").

4. What is a "love that costs nothing"? (p. 88)

5. On page 76 Freud says, "Frau E. L.'s speech in the dream, 'You've always had such beautiful eyes,' can only have meant, 'People have always done everything for you for love; you have always had everything without paying for it [Emphasis added by Freud!]. " Is this indeed what it can only have meant.

6. Freud then says "The truth is, of course, just the contrary: I have always paid dearly for whatever advantage I have had from other people." Do we have any way of evaluating the accuracy of this statement? Clue: read the very next sentence : "the fact that my friend took me home yesterday in a cab without my paying for it must, after all, have made an impression on me."

7. Freud tells us that the dream about Frau E.L. was a variation on something that took place during his courtship of his wife. Is it possible to say that Freud is right or wrong in this interpretation?

8. What do you think is the "latent content" of Freud's dream?

9. Freud says in the last paragraph that his regret at spending a large sum of money on a family member was not a conscious regret. What do you think was the reason for Freud's regret?

10. Is Freud's classification of dreams into three categories in terms of their relation of manifest and latent content (on p. 79) valid? What is the difference between the first and second categories (i.e., "bewildering" dreams and ones that are "disconnected, confused, and meaningless.")

Freud in Dreamland

2010-09-13T10:13:00.004-04:00

Our selection this month, "On Dreams," by Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), was first published as part of the monographic serial publication Grenzfragen des Nerven und Seelenlebens in 1901. It was eventually published in its own right in 1911. Freud intended it as a popularization of some of the ideas he put forth in his longer and denser Interpretation of Dreams, which was published a little earlier. As the historian and Freud scholar Peter Gay has noted, "Freud was always his best expounder and advocate." In reading this text, it is helpful to remember that what we have here is Freud in his earlier period. You'll note that the dream he analyzes is his own, and the piece has none of the jargon he later used to promote the psychoanalytic movement with which his name has become so closely identified. I'll also call your attention to the quotation from Goethe's Wilhelm Meister. Goethe's Faust will be the subject of our discussions in November and December.

In Memoriam: Bernard Knox

2010-08-17T11:21:00.005-04:00

This morning's New York Times brought news of the death on July 22d at the age of 95 of the renowned classicist, Bernard Knox, author of Oedipus at Thebes: Sophocles' Tragic Hero and His Time (1957). Knox also translated a 1959 edition of our reading this month, Oedipus the King.

According to the Time obituary, Knox was deployed during the Second World War by the Office of Strategic Services (O.S.S.) for service in Northern Italy. He found himself in an abandoned villa and chanced upon a copy of Virgil's Georgics. "As we ran and crawled through the rubble I thought to myself, 'If I ever get out of this, I'm going back to the classics and study them seriously."

To remember Knox, here is his translation of the Chorus's enigmatic musing on mortality -- which some claim was not written by Sophocles but rather added at a later time -- contained in the last lines of Oedipus the King:

Citizens who dwell in Thebes, look at Oedipus here, who knew the answer to the famous riddle and was a power in the land. On his good fortune all the citizens gazed with envy. Into what a stormy sea of dreadful trouble he has come now. Therefore we must call no man happy while he waits to see his last day, not until he has passed the border of life and death without suffering pain.

Questions re: "Oedipus the King"

2010-08-16T21:24:00.003-04:00

Do we know why is Thebes suffering a pestilence at the beginning of the play? (p.12)

Why does the chorus say (p. 21):

I neither killed the king nor can declare
the killer, but since Phoebus set the quest
it is his part to tell who the man is.

Why is Teiresias consulted? Why is he led in by a little boy?

Why does Oedipus think Creon put Teiresias up to telling Oedipus that he, Oedipus, was Laius's murderer? Oedipus says Creon wanted to "keep his own mouth free of any guilt," but could there be other reasons?

Why does Jocasta say to Oedipus, upon hearing of the death of Polybus, "Still in your father's death there's light of comfort."

Interpret Jocasta's line (p.52), "O Oedipus, God help you! God keep you from the knowledge of who you are."

Why does the sole survivor on the attack on King Laius's entourage say they were attacked by a band of robbers?

Why does Jocasta kill herself?

Why does Oedipus gouge his eyes out?

Why does Oedipus tell Creon at the end of the play he wants to go to live in Cithaeron, where his parents once sent him to die?

Can we be punished for our actions even if we did them without knowing they were wrong?

For Textual Analysis

From p. 22, "Teiresias, you are versed in everything," to p. 27, the end of Teiresias's speech"

Creon's speech, pp. 34-35, beginning "Not if you reflect on it as I do."

Oedipus's speech, beginning p. 41, "Polybus was my father, king of Corinth" to the end (p. 43)

His interchange with Jocasta and the First Messenger beginnig p. 47, "Ha! Ha! O dear Jocasta to p. 50, "So that from this you're called you present name."

Pages 57 to 58, starting with Oedipus "O O O, they will all come" and then segueing into the choral ode and ending with "my mouth to sleep with your name."

A Few Thoughts on Last Evening's Discussion

2010-07-27T16:11:00.007-04:00

Below: Ecclesiastes (the "Preacher"), by Gustave Doré.

Last night twenty of us met to discuss "Ecclesiastes," one of the more challenging texts our group has tackled, despite its relative brevity. Some of us came prepared to delve more deeply into the context of Ecclesiastes with King James, Jerusalem, and Jewish Publication Society editions of the Bible.

My overriding question was: What is the Preacher's prescription for a meaningful life? He is, after all, so given to making grim pronouncements about the brevity of life, the worthlessness of material possessions and worldly fame, the tiring effects of the pursuit of wisdom. All this, in short, is what the Preacher calls the "vanity of vanities," a phrase that perfectly encapsulates what one participant referred to as the cyclical, churning, nature of the Preacher's seemingly endless ruminations. Vanity, to steal a line from Carly Simon, is just s-o-o vain.

The Preacher's Rx (as I came to see it during the course of our 90-minute discussion) : A peaceful resignation to the unfairness of human life, and a consequent re-dedication to your life's work. As the Preacher says (in chapter 9, verse 10) with his inimitable literary flair: "Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave, whither thou goest."

Questions about "Ecclesiastes"

2010-07-19T08:05:00.002-04:00

1. Who is speaking? (cf. p. 1, "I the Preacher was king over Israel in Jerusalem"

2. Who is his audience?

3. Page 2: "For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow." What is the Preacher's attitude towards the examined life? Compare the statements on p. 3, "Then I saw that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth darkness," and "And how dieth the wise man? as the fool."

4. P. 4. : In the famous section that begins, "To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven," is the Preacher extolling the richness of life, or lamenting our grim destiny? Why must there be a "time to hate"?

5. Page 4: "So I returned" , page 8: "I returned and saw under the sun" From where is the Preacher returning?

Some verses to discuss:

Page 3: "For God giveth to a man that is good in his slight wisdom, and knowledge, and joy: but to the sinner he giveth travail, to gather and to heap up, that he may give to him that is good before God. This is also vanity and vexation of spirit."

Page 6: "The sleep of a labouring man is sweet, whether he eat little or much: but the abundance of the rich will not suffer him to sleep."

Page 6: "As he came forth from his mother's womb, naked shall he return to go as he came, and shall take nothing of his labor, which he may carry in his own hand."

Page 8: "For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared in an evil time: when it falleth suddenly upon them."

Page 8: "He that observeth the wind shall not sow; and he that regardeth the clouds shall not reap."

Page 9: "Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgement. Therefore remove sorrow from thy heart, and put away evil from thy flesh: for childhood and youth are vanity." Does this exhortation contradict itself at the end?

Evaluative Question

Does Ecclesiastes present a coherant life philosophy, or is it really a collection of choice aphorisms?

Questions about "The Overcoat"

2010-06-22T13:22:00.003-04:00

1. Why is copying an "interesting, pleasant world" (p. 276) for Akaky? Why doesn't he want to do other kinds of copying (p. 276-277)?

2. Why does Gogol diminish the importance of Petrovich and his wife if he mentions both several times? (p. 280)

3. Why is Akaky so upset by Petrovich's insistence that he needs a new overcoat? Is it really just about the expense?
-- What does the overcoat, old dressing gown or new overcoat, signify for Akaky?

4. Does "The Overcoat" contain a critique of the social structure of Russian in Gogol's time? (For example, in the fact that Akaky's ghost ignores this social structure by pulling coats off of people "without regard for rank or title") (p. 303).

5. How does the new overcoat change Akaky's relationship with his co-workers? In what way are his interactions with them different? The same? Specifically, is his fellow clerks' sudden interest in celebrating Akaky's new overcoat just another way to make fun of him without him realizing it? (p.290-293)

6. Why does Akaky say, "No, it would be better not to look" (p. 294) and then cross the dark square with his eyes closed only to be attacked?

7. Who attacks Akaky in the square and steals his overcoat? (p. 294)

8. What role does the supernatural play in this fairly realistic, if comic, story? (p. 303-308)

9. Why does the Important Personage only regret his habitual severity after his interaction with Akaky? (p. 304-305)

10. Why the second ghost at the end? (p. 308) Who is it supposed to be?

11. Gogol says of Akaky, "It would be unfair to say that no attention had ever been paid to him" (p. 276) and also, "No one had ever paid him the slightest attention" (p. 302). Which statement is true?

12. Is this story a comic-tragedy or a tragic-comedy?

Nabokov on Gogol

2010-06-09T09:14:00.005-04:00

New Directions published a short book entitled Nikolai Gogol by Vladimir Nabokov in 1944*. Nabokov went on to achieve fame in his own right as a novelist with works such as Lolita and Pale Fire.

Here's some of what Nabokov has to say about our featured work this month, "The Overcoat," by Gogol:

"The plot of the Overcoat is very simple. A poor little clerk makes a great decision and orders a new overcoat. The coat while in the making becomes the dream of his life. On the very first night that he wears it he is robbed of it on a dark street. He dies of grief and his ghost haunts the city. This is all in the way of plot, but of course the real plot (as always with Gogol) lies in the style, in the inner structure of this transcendental anecdote. In order to appreciate it at its true worth one must perform a kind of mental somersault so as to get rid of conventional values in literature and follow the author along the dream road of his superhuman imagination. Gogol's world is somewhat related to such conceptions of modern physics as the "Concertina Universe" or the "Explosion Universe" ; it is far removed from the comfortably revolving clockwork worlds of the last century. There is curvature in literary style as there is curvature in space, -- but few are the Russian readers who do care to plunge into Gogol's magic chaos head first, with no restraint or regret. The Russian who thinks Turgenev was a great writer, and bases his notion of Pushkin upon Chaikovsky's vile libretti, will merely paddle into the gentlest wavelets of Gogol's mysterious sea and limit his reaction to an enjoyment of what he takes to be whimsical humor and colorful quips. But the diver, the seeker for black pearls, the man who prefers the monsters of the deep to the sunshades of the beach, will find in the Overcoat shadows linking our state of existence to those other states and modes which we dimly apprehend in our rare moments of irrational perception. The prose of Pushkin is three-dimensional; that of Gogol is four-dimensional, at least."

"So, to sum up: the story goes this way: mumble, mumble, lyrical wave, mumble, lyrical wave, mumble, lyrical wave, mumble, lyrical wave, mumble, lyrical wave, mumble, fantastic climax, mumble, mumble, and back into the chaos from which they all had derived."

Do you agree with Nabokov's take on "The Overcoat"?

*From Nabokov, Vladimir, Nikolai Gogol, New York: New Directions, corrected 1961 edition.

Questions about "The Federalist"

2010-05-19T09:19:00.008-04:00

The Federalist No. 1.

How does a federal government differ from a confederation of states? A republic from a democracy?

Are there any differences between the arguments for "UNION" (p. 225) from those in favor of a Republic (e.g., could we have had a Union but not a Republic?)

Do you agree with Publius's statement (p. 223) that "a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidding appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government."

The Federalist No. 2.

Publius (p. 227) adduces as an argument in favor of Union that America was inhabited by "a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs." Is his argument outmoded?

Does the "prosperity of America" (p. 230) depend on its Union?

The Federalist No. 10.

Publius candidly concedes that factionalism is a consequence of liberty. How, then, will "a well-constructed Union" be able to "break and control the violence of faction"? (p.230)

Page 234: "The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets." What would be the role of the federal government in "controlling" the "effects" of this tendency?

On p. 237 Publius asserts that a legislature must "guard against a cabal of the few" but avoid "the confusion of the multitude." Does our legislature achieve this medium?

The Federalist No. 15.

Do people in general think they can get away with the "infamy of bad action" (p. 245) if they do so in a group (e.g., a legislative body)?

The Federalist No. 51.

P. 251. In the United States of America, is state government really a check on federal power, and vice versa?

P. 253: Is Publius correct in asserting (p. 253) that "the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government?"

The Federalists Nos. 69 and 70.

P. 259: Contrary to what Publius says, does the President's role as Head of State ("authorized to receive ambassadors and other public ministers") interfere with his role as Head of Government?

How would Publius react to the imposition of term limits on the Presidency in the 32d Amendment?

Can the Cabinet be considered a form of Executive Council?

Evaluative Question

How would Publius view some of the events of the last 18 months : the bailouts of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, AIG, the big banks, etc . ; the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (a.k.a., the "stimulus package"); the GM takeover? Would he support or oppose the vastly expanded financial and regulatory role of the federal government in the economy?

Discussion Questions for "The Tempest"

2010-04-20T21:17:00.003-04:00

What are Prospero's powers? Where do they come from? What do they accomplish in settling accounts between Prospero and Antonio/Sebastian/Alonso?

How will Prospero and the others get back to Milan? Will he be a better duke the second time?

What's the significance of the Ferdinand-Miranda partnership? Is it meant to be a model of political legitimacy?

Is Miranda portrayed as solely a possession to be passed from father to husband?

Why is the wedding masque (Act IV, sc. 1) cut short when Prospero remembers that Trinculo/Stephano/Caliban are after him?

What are the parallels between the main plot (politics on the Italian peninsula) and the subplot (i.e., what takes place on the island)?

Evaluate Prospero's fathering skills as evidenced by his relationships with (a) Miranda, (b) Ariel, and (c) Caliban.

How does Gonzalo fit his billing in the List of Characters as "an honest old Counsellor"?

Is this a "comedy" in the sense that it has a happy ending? What's left unsettled by the ending?

The Bard's Month

2010-04-09T14:09:00.005-04:00

Left: Prospero and Miranda, by William May Egley, ca. 1850.

To mark the month of April, which is: (a) National Poetry Month ; (b) Shakepeare's birthday month, AND (c) the occasion (completely coincidentally) of our discussion of The Tempest (on the 26th), allow me to offer here for your enjoyment a few of the play's more famous lines:

He receives comfort like cold porridge.
(spoken by Sebastian, Act 2, sc. 1)

Misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows.
(Trinculo, Act 2, sc.2)

The isle is full of noises,
Sounds and sweet airs that give delight and hurt not.
(Caliban, Act 3, sc.2)

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, As I foretold you, were all spirits and are melted into air, into thin air;
And like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces,
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve,
and like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life is rounded with a sleep.
(Prospero, Act 4, sc.1)

How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O, brave new world
That has such people in 't!
(Miranda, Act 5, sc.1)

Discussion Questions for "Rameau's Nephew"

2010-03-17T09:27:00.010-04:00

Left: Portrait of Denis Diderot by Louis-Michel van Loo, 1767. The great humanties scholar Jacques Barzun writes of Diderot: "Diderot was one of history's born conversationalists, and his writings repeatedly fall into dialogue. A tale, an essay, a rebuttal will start out sedately in expository form and soon dash and question mark break up the line as a living or imaginary interlocutor doubts or denies -- it is interactive prose."(1) Rameau's Nephew takes this form.

Interpretive Questions

Why is the Nephew poor if he thinks so much about his own self-interest (cf. pp. 85, 97, 144)?

What is the significance of the Nephew's little "performances" (pantomimes, impersonations, "air violin," etc.?)

P. 95: "But, Master Philosopher, it is with universal morality just as with universal grammar: there are exceptions in each language that you learned people call ... idioms." Is an "idiom" really analogous to a lapse of morality?

P. 95: "The older the profession the more the idioms; the worse the times become, the more the idioms multiply." Agree or disagree?

Rameau says of his famous uncle (p. 73), "If he ever has done anything for anybody, it must be without knowing it." Is this remark meant to be sarcastic?

Why does the dialogue end with the Nephew stating "He who laughs last laughs best."? (p.144)

Why did Nephew's wife leave him, and what effect did this have on him?

Evaluative Questions

Is the Nephew correct when he asserts (p.114): "Vice offends men only from time to time; but the symptoms of vice offend day and night." How do "vice" and its "symptoms" differ?

What does this dialogue say about the artist's role in society? The philosopher's?

Do you think the Nephew benefitted or suffered because of his uncle's fame? Is the piece a commentary on fame? If so, what position does it take?

Why was this work never published in Diderot's lifetime?

For Textual Analysis

Pp. 95-98: From "Why resort to these vile little tricks?" to ... "outside of that, all is vanity."

Pp. 102-4, From "Virtue is praised, but hated" to ... "You can guess what harm so much uncertainty does to talent."

Pp. 119-21, From "Because it is a good deal less than right" to .. "abide by the terms of the contract aforesaid."

Pp. 127-29, From "The true, the good, and the beautiful will prevail" to "... man in a passion will supply the accent."

Pp. 130-131, From "How is it that with such fineness of feeling" to "But such parents do not exist."

*From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life, 1500 to the Present, New York: HarperCollins, 2000.

A Montaigne Sampler

2010-03-01T16:41:00.003-05:00

I was interested to hear from our discussants at our February 15th meeting if they thought Montaigne's "Of Experience" hung together as a philosophical work, or if it was more a collection of random musings by the great essayist. I'm not sure we resolved this question, but most people seemed to enjoy Montaigne's bon mots, and so here I offer a few of them (from the Donald M. Frame translation):

There is no end to our researches; our end is in the other world. It is a sign of contraction of the mind when it is content, or of weariness. A spirited mind never stops within itself; it is always aspiring and going beyond its strength; it has impulses beyond its powers of achievement. If it does not advance and press forward and stand at bay and clash, it is only half alive. Its pursuits are boundless and without form; its food is wonder, the chase ambiguity.

I often say that it is pure stupidity that makes us run after foreign and scholarly examples. There is as great an abundance of them in this age as in that of Homer and Plato. But is it not true that we seek rather the honor of quoting than the truth of the statement?*

On raising children: Let them be formed by fortune under the custom of the common people and of nature; leave it to custom to train them to frugality and austerity, so that they may have rather to come down from rigorousness than climb toward it.

I am more naturally inclined to follow the example of Flaminius, who lent himself to those who needed him more than to those who could benefit him, than that of Pyrrhus, who was prone to truckle to the great and be arrogant with the weak.

[W]e should not so much consider what we eat as with whom we eat. (quoting Epicurus)

Greatness of soul is not so much pressing upward and forward as knowing how to set oneself in order and circumscribe oneself.

There is nothing so beautiful and legitimate as to play to man well and properly, no knowledge so hard to acquire as the knowledge of how to live this life well and naturally; and the most barbarous of our maladies is to despise our being.

*Present company excepted, bien sûr.

Questions for "Of Experience," by Montaigne

2010-02-08T09:16:00.004-05:00

Interpretive Questions

On p. 41, Montaigne writes, "There is nothing that should be recommended so much to youth as activity and vigilance." What does he mean by "vigilance?" Why would these things not be recommended to people of all ages?

P. 63: What does Montaigne mean by the line, "May her [Philosophy's] followers have no more right and sinews and sap in deflowering their wives than her lessons have"?

P. 63:"Nature is a gentle guide, but no more gentle than wise and just. We must penetrate into the nature of things and clearly see exactly what it demands [Cicero]. I seek her footprints everywhere. We have confused them with artificial tracks, and for that reason the sovereign god of the Academics and the Peripatetics, which is "to live according to nature," becomes hard to limit and express; also that of the Stoics, a neighbor to the other, which is "to consent to nature." What does Montaigne mean when he says he seeks nature's footprints "everywhere"?

p.64: What is the significance of the placement in this essay of the St. Augustine quote from City of God (our November reading!) : "He who praises the nature of the soul as the sovereign good and condemns the nature of the flesh as evil, truly both carnally desires the soul and carnally shuns the flesh; for his feeling is inspired by human vanity, not by divine truth."?

Is Montaigne, in his detailed accounts of his bodily functions, giving us "too much information (TMI)"?

Evaluative Questions

Comment on the following passage (p. 47) "I am more naturally inclined to follow the example of Flaminius, who lent himself to those who needed him more than to those who could benefit him, than that of Pyrrhus, who was prone to truckle to the great and be arrogant with the weak."

p. 65: "Between ourselves, these are two things that I have always observed to be in singular accord: supercelestial thoughts and subterranean conduct." Have you ever made the same observation?

Is Montaigne's philosophy based on the importance of personal experience, as the title of this piece implies, and if so, why does he need to display his extensive conversancy with classical sources?

What are Montaigne's strategies for enduring hardships, and do you find them personally relevant?

For Textual Analysis

A. Pages 1 through 9, beginning, "There is no desire more natural than the desire for knowledge ... to "There is no remedy."

B. Pages 11-14, beginning, "In this universe of things" ... to "assertion and proof precede knowledge and perception" [Cicero].

C. Pages 16-19 beginning, "The scholars distinguish and mark off" ... to ... "affection and frankness, but of much courage as well."

D. Pages 54-55 beginning, "I, who operate only close to the ground" ... to ... but "attending to it, sitting at it, not lying down at it."

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592)

2010-02-05T09:59:00.005-05:00

Montaigne was a French gentleman of Bordeaux best known for his multi-volume Essais (Essays), and he is generally regarded as the inventor of the genre. According to noted Montaigne translator Donald Frame, you might interpret the term "essay" two ways:

as a "test" or "trial" of the writer's judgement
as a "probing" or "sampling" of the writer's self.

Of that self, the nineteeth-century literary historian Edward Dowden writes:

"He was of middle temperment ... between the jovial and the melancholic, a lover of solitude, yet the reverse of morose, choosing bright companions rather than sad; able to be silent, as the mood took him, or to gossip; loyal and frank; a hater of hypocrisy and falsehood; a despiser of empty ceremony; disposed to interpret all things to the best; cheerful among his children; careless of exercising authority; incapable of househould management; trustful and kind towards his neighbors; indulgent in his judgements; yet warm in his admiration of old heroic virtue."(a)

Our selection this month, "Of Experience," is the very last in the sequence of Montaigne's Essais.

It fascinates as a capsule of Montaigne's philosophy. For example, he writes:

I would rather be an authority on myself than on Cicero. In the experience I have of myself I find enough to make me wise, if I were a good scholar. He who calls back to mind the exess of his past anger, and how far this fever carried him away, sees the ugliness of this passion better than in Aristotle, and conceives a more justified hatred for it. (b)

If Montaigne is considered a "modern" because of his reliance on his own perceptions and judgement, however, why does he cite passages from classical authors throughout the piece?

(a) Dowden, Edward, A History of French Literature, LaVergne, TN: Bibliolife, 2009.
(b) Great Books Reading and Discussion Program, Fourth Series, v.3, p.12)

Questions on "Symposium," by Plato

2010-01-17T20:58:00.009-05:00

Interpretive Questions

Why does Phaedrus (p.221) say that Love is a wonderful God and of all the proofs of this, the greatest is his birth?

What does Pausanius mean (p. 226) when he says, "Now it is the object of the Athenian law to make a firm distinction between the lover who should be encouraged and the lover who should be shunned"?

Why is Love personified in different places in the dialogue both as feminine and masculine (e.g., Pausanius talks of the two aspects of Aphrodite on p. 222, whereas Aristophanes refers to Love as a "he" on p.229)

Can you interpret Aristophanes's remark (p. 234), made after the fable about the sundering apart of the globular people, "for so may we ensure our safety and attain that blessed union by enlisting in the army of Love and marching beneath its banners."?

Why does Alcibiades say that the symposiasts are here to "try the man Socrates on the charge of arrogance" (p. 265)?

How do you interpret the remark by Alcibiades (p. 268) that "he's [Socrates] made fools of them all (i.e., "Charmides, Euthydemus, and ever so many more"), just as if he were the beloved, not the lover."

When Alcibides sat down there was laughter ("at his frankness," Plato tells us). Were the symposiasts laughing with him or at him?

What is Alcibiades's attitude towards Socrates, and does it change as he makes his discourse?

Is there a parallelism between Socrates's relationships with Diotima and Alcibiades?

Evaluative Questions

Socrates says (p. 236): "But in truth, it seems, is the last thing the successful eulogist cares about; on the contrary, what he does is simply to run through all the attributes of power and virtue, however irrelevant they may be, and the whole thing may be a pack of lies, for all it seems to matter." Is disdain for the facts really something successful eulogists have in common?

Is the whole history of how the narrative came about (i.e. that it was transmitted second-hand from Aristodemus to Apollodorus) important?

Is it significant that this symposium took place such a long time before?

Has anyone ever seen the "soul of beauty"?

For Textual Analysis

Pages 223-26, from "but I cannot help thinking, gentleman .... to ... shocked at the idea of yielding to a lover."

Pages 247-48, from "I'll try to speak more plainly, then, to ... Love is a longing for immortality."

Pages 252-255, from "Well, then, she began ... to if not, well, call it what you like."

Tips on Reading the "Symposium"

2010-01-14T18:49:00.008-05:00

Plato's "Symposium" opens with Apollodorus saying "Oh, if that's what you want to know, it isn't long since I had occasion to refresh my memory." Apollodorus's friend wants to know what happened at a famous "symposium" (literally, a "drinking together") that had taken place some years earlier, and Apollodorus had recently related them to another friend, Glaucon.

Apollodorus had heard this story from Aristodemus, who was present at the drinking party held at Agathon's house to celebrate Agathon's prize in a playfest. Apollodorus then narrates, second-hand, the events of that evening. What follows are a series of discourses on love told in succession, in our version, by Phaedrus, Pausanius, Eryximachus, the playwright Aristophanes, the philosopher Socrates and the drunken latecomer to the party, Alcibiades.

That's the narrative frame of the piece. All this can be a little confusing to pick through, coming as it does at the very beginning, but once you figure it out, all you have left to get a handle on is the philosophy!

Another piece of advice comes from John M. Cooper, editor of Plato: Complete Works (Hackett Publishing, 1997). Cooper writes of the Platonic dialogues: "It is in the entire writing that the author speaks to us, not in the remarks made by the individual speakers" (p. xxiii).

It is a good idea, at any rate, to take a pencil and write in the name of each speaker (e.g. "Pausanias:") in order to keep straight whose words are whose.

Pronunciation Guide to the Characters of the Dialogue

AG-a-thon
Al-ci-BY-a-deez
A-pol-o-DO-rus
Ar-is-TOF-a-neez
Dy-o-TEE-ma
Er-ix-IM-a-kus
GLAU-con
Pau-SAN-i-as
FEE-drus

(This guide comes from Plato: Five Great Dialogues, B. Jowett, trans., Louise Ropes Loomis, ed., New York: Walter J. Black, 1942)

Fifth Anniversary Celebration

2009-12-23T15:32:00.029-05:00

Our Fifth Anniversary Celebration took place on November 30th. It featured charades led by Carolyn Hasler, a poetry slam, and a new-fangled game we called "Who Said It?"

Lisa Gasstrom read an original anniversary poem. Its final stanza:

I do have one request, though, (from this not-very-faithful bookie).
When we come out on Monday nights,
Could we please have a better cookie?

We were honored to have with us the president of the Long Island Great Books Council, Mr. Grahme Fischer. Grahme has been involved with Great Books for some forty years, and he organizes the annual Long Island Great Books Spring Institute, a day-long event of discussion and ingestion.

To everyone, a joyous holiday season!

[Photos by Jim Shea.]

Questions about "The City of God" (Book XIV) by St. Augustine

2009-11-17T08:45:00.010-05:00

Interpretive Questions

Is there a necessary connection between Original Sin and the Two Cities (p. 171)?

Why does Augustine state (p. 172) that both the Epicureans and the Stoics live after the flesh?

What does Augustine mean by the statement (p. 175), "For he who extols the nature of the soul as the chief good, and condemns the nature of the flesh as if it were evil, assuredly is fleshly both in his love of the soul and hatred of the flesh, for these his feelings arise from human fancy, not from divine truth." Is being "fleshly" necessary a bad thing?

P. 177: "And generally in respect of all that we seek or shun, as a man's will is attracted or repelled, so it is changed and turned into these different affections. Wherefore the man who lives according to God, and not according to man, ought to be a lover of good, and therefore a hater of evil." Is it possible to live "according to man" and still be a lover of good?

Why does Augustine consider "impassibility" of spirit but not of body -- a freedom from those emotions which are contrary to reason and disturb the mind -- a "good and desirable quality, but ... not one which is attainable in this life" (p. 181)

What is "clean fear" (p. 181)?

Did Adam and Eve feel sinful inclinations before they committed Original Sin? (p. 183)

Augustine says (p. 184) that God foresaw the Fall. Did he also ordain it?

Why are Adam and Eve both to blame for the fall (p. 187)?

What role did pride, defined as "the craving for undue exaltation" play in the Fall (p. 188)?

Is Augustine being reasonable in asserting that a "friend of wisdom and holy joys" would prefer to beget children without lust, thereby commanding his sex organs with the same "volition" with which he commands other parts of his bodily apparatus (p. 194)?

What does Augustine mean (page 195) when he states that Adam and Eve became ashamed of their nakedness after eating the forbidden fruit because they were "stripped of their garment of grace" and "there began in the movement of their bodily members a shameless novelty?"

Augustine states that the fact that the sex act, even if conjugal, is universally performed in privacy is proof that it's "accompanied by a shameful begetting of sin" (p. 197) Is this an adequate proof?

Is anger also, along with lust, something that did not exist before Original Sin and needs to be restrained by reason "posted as it were in a kind of citadel (p. 197)?

What's the significance of the fact that the injunction "increase and multiply and replenish the earth" occurred before Original Sin and the advent of lust (p. 198)? Could children have been begotten in Paradise before the Fall?

What is the meaning of Augustine's statement (p. 202), "Yet there is less shame when the soul is resisted by its own vicious parts than when its will and order are resisted by the body, which is distinct from and inferior to it, and dependent on it for life itself."

Evaluative Question

How according to Augustine's "thought experiment," would humans procreate without lust? Is this reasonable to believe this could really happen?

P. 189: "There is something in humility which, strangely enough, exalts the heart, and something in pride which debases it." Your thoughts about this?

P. 208: "Why then, should God not have created those who he foresaw would sin, since he was able to show in and by them both what guilt merited, and what His grace bestowed, and since, under His creating and disposing hand, even the perverse disorder of the wicked could not pervert the right order of things?" Why indeed (cf. the next long paragraph).

Textual Analysis

173-74, From "But if anyone says that the flesh is the cause of all vices" ... to ... "the first who lied and the originator of lying as of sin."

184-85, paragraph beginning "But because God foresaw all things ..."

197-98, paragraph beginning "Hence is is that even the philosophers who have approximated..."

201-202, beginning "And therefore that marriage ... to "but these members, like all the rest, should have obeyed the will."

209, Last paragraph of the selection (a summary)

Augustine's City of God

2009-11-10T09:15:00.007-05:00

St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, was born Aurelius Augustinus in 354 in Thagaste, in current-day Algeria. Although his mother, Saint Monica, was a devout Catholic, his father converted to Christianity only one year before his death. Augustine received a rigorous education that prepared him well to be a man of letters and rhetorician. He tells in his Confesiones ("Confessions"), considered to be the first-ever autobiography, how he joined the Manichean sect in Carthage and had a son with a woman to whom he was not married.

In 387 he was baptized a Catholic in Milan under the auspices of St. Ambrose, and entered a monastic order. He was later called to the public service of the Church as Bishop of the city of Hippo (modern-day Annaba, also in modern-day Algeria, near Tunisia). Even in this highly visible role Augustine accomplished an impressive amount of literary production.

Our reading this month comes from the City of God ("De civitate Dei" in Latin). It is also known by a fuller name, The City of God against the Pagans. In 410, the Visigothic leader Alaric sacked Rome. Augustine's work can be read as a polemic against both Rome's "barbaric" adversaries and those Romans who believed the state's adoption of Christianity under the emperor Constantine to have been a cause of the humiliation at the hands of the Visigoths. The City of God in the 1993 Modern Library edition runs almost 900 pages, but our portion contains only excerpts from Book 14 in which Augustine offers his discussion of the "two cities" :

The one consists of those who wish to live after the flesh, the other of those who wish to live after the spirit; and when they severally achieve what they wish, they live in peace, each after their kind.

A sinner and saint, monk and bishop, thinker and activist, Augustine achieved a reconciliation of opposites throughout his life. He died in 430.

"Caesar and Cleopatra" : Questions for Discussion

2009-10-21T08:44:00.004-04:00

Interpretive Questions

Which Prologue do you prefer? Could you envisage the play produced with both of them?

Why does Cleopatra cry of "sob of relief" at the end of Act I (p.82) when she realizes she's been speaking with Caesar himself?

Why does Caesar rebuke the Egyptian courtiers and Lucius Septimius (p.95) for the murder of Pompey?

Apollodorus says (p. 110) that his motto is "Art for art's sake." Does his character seem out of place in this play? What is the significance of his line "Who says artist, says duelist" (p. 115). What about of his songs "My heart, my heart spread out thy wings/Shake off thy heavy load of love" and "My heart, my heart, be whole and free/Love is thine only enemy" and "Aloft aloft, behold the blue/That never shone in women's eyes" on pp. 120-126?

After Cleopatra has been smuggled out of the palace to the lighthouse in a carpet by Apollodorus, why does Caesar say he is glad, but describes Rufio as "very angry" and Britannus as "shocked." (p. 128).

Cleopatra tells Pothinus (p. 137, Act IV) "We are all Caesar's slaves -- all we in this land of Egypt -- whether we will or no. And she who is wise enough to know this will reign when Caesar departs." How does this jibe with the ending of the play?

In Act IV Caesar and Cleopatra indulge in a fantasy with Apollodorus (p. 149) about establishing a kingdom at the source of the Nile, which leads to a sphinx being consulted. What is the significance of this interlude?

Why does Cleopatra have Ftatateeta kill Pothinus?

Why does Rufio kill Ftatateeta?

Is the news of Ptolemy's death ("the little King Ptolemy was drowned," p. 162) intentionally meant to lack dramatic impact?

Caesar (p. 167) explains why he supports Rufio's action because it was done with dispatch and without lengthy legal process. Do you agree or disagree with Caesar?

Why does Cleopatra laugh (p. 167) when Caesar mispronounces Ftatateeta's name (and not for the first time!)?

Why does Caesar promise at the end of the play (p. 168) to send Mark Antony to Alexandria?

Is Cleopatra's swooning reaction to this a satisfactory ending to the play?

Evaluative Questions

How does Shaw characterize Caesar's relationship with Cleopatra? Is it that of parent to child? Teacher to student? Lover to lover? Does it change during the course of the play?

If Shaw's Caesar is notable for his clemency (e.g, he throws the letters of treachery against him into the sea, and he is revolted by the news of Pompey's murder), how do you account for his endorsement of Rufio's summary justice to Ftatateeta (calling it a "natural slaying" in which he feels "no horror" -- p. 167). What is Shaw's final assessment of Caesar's leadership skills?

Does Shaw's editorializing in his stage directions serve a worthwhile purpose? (cf. pp. 60, 83, 91, "anticipating a later statesman", 105)

Why does Shaw title the play "Caesar and Cleopatra : A History"?

For Textual Analysis

The Prologue (pp. 55 to 60)

Pages 71 to 72, Caesar's soliloquy to the Sphinx

Pages 155 to 57, Caesar's speech beginning, "If one man in the world can be found ... "and ending with "... looks his fate in the face."

Pages 165 to 167, dialogue between Cleopatra and Caesar, beginning, "Has Cleopatra no part in this leavetaking" to "Have I not made a woman of you after all"?

"G.B.S."

2009-10-06T16:55:00.019-04:00

There's a famous cartoon by E. Reed that depicts a giant Bernard Shaw standing alongside a much smaller William Shakespeare. They are both pointing towards a pedestal bearing the words "Man and Superman," one of Shaw's best-known plays. The pedestal rests on a base labeled "All the World's a Stage Society." The latter alludes of course to Jacque's line from "As You Like It," and my take on the cartoon is that it implies Shaw surpasses Shakespeare as the master playwright of the English stage.

Shaw began writing "Caesar and Cleopatra" in 1898, but nine years passed before a full production was performed in England. The play was actually published before that production, in a volume entitled Three Plays for Puritans with two other Shaw plays, "The Devil's Disciple" and "Brassbound's Conversion." Shaw himself wrote an informative preface about each of the plays, which you can read in an electronic book version of the 1906 edition of Three Plays for Puritans by clicking here. Note that Shaw's own title for this preface to "Caesar and Cleopatra" is "Better than Shakespear." Does Shaw mean to corroborate the above-mentioned view of his lofty stature among playwrights? (Whether he did or not, I am at a loss to explain why Shaw dropped the final "e" in Shakespeare.)

Shaw once wrote of his life, "Things have not happened to me; on the contrary it is I who have happened to them; and all my happenings have taken the form of books and plays. Read them, or spectate them; And you have my whole story : the rest is only breakfast, lunch, dinner, sleeping, wakening and washing, my routine being just the same as everyone's routine."
[Quoted in Peters, Sally, Bernard Shaw: The Ascent of the Superman (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996), p. ix].

My "Takeaway" from Last Evening's Meeting on "Utilitarianism" by John Stuart Mill

2009-09-22T10:22:00.003-04:00

I would like to thank the eighteen participants in last night's discussion. We seem to have touched on all of Mill's parries against the anti-Utilitarians. Mill wrote the piece in order to refute, one by one, the major objections to Utilitarian philosophy. Those objections are:

(1) Won't most people inevitably prefer the lower pleasures to the higher ones?
(2) How do you measure pleasure and pain?
(3) What good is self-sacrifice if it doesn't help anyone?
(4) Isn't Utilitarianism "too high a standard for humanity"?
(5) Is Utilitarianism a "godless doctrine"?
(6) Is it a merely an expedient one?
(7) Who has time to "calculate and weigh effects" of actions?

Mill can be tough sledding. He writes extremely systematically and to miss the point of one sentence in his singularly long-winded paragraphs is to miss his entire argument. I commend all of you for persevering.

Questions about "Utilitarianism," by John Stuart Mill

2009-09-12T10:32:00.007-04:00

Now it is an unquestionable fact that those who are equally acquainted with and equally capable of appreciating and enjoying both [i.e., two different pleasures], do give a marked preference to the manner of existence which employs the highest faculties (p.35, all citations from the Great Books Reading and Discussion Program, Fourth Series, Volume 2)

--Do you agree with Mill that this is an "unquestionable fact"?

It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides (p.36)

--Is Mill saying that every human knows what it's like to be a fool? A pig?

Men lose their high aspirations as they lose their intellectual tastes, because they have not time or opportunity for indulging them; and they addict themselves to inferior pleasures, not because they deliberately prefer them, but because they are either the only ones to which they have access or the only ones which they are any longer capable of enjoying. It may be questioned whether anyone who has remained equally susceptible to both classes of pleasures ever knowingly and calmly preferred the lower, though many, in all ages, have broken down in an ineffectual attempt to combine both (p.37)

--How does one maintain enthusiasm for "high aspirations"?

Unquestionably it is possible to do without happiness, it is done involuntarily by nineteen-twentieths of mankind, even in those parts of our present world which are least deep in barbarism (p.39) .

--Does Mill equate unhappiness with barbarism?

The Utilitarian morality does recognize in human beings the power of sacrificing their own greatest good for the good of others. It only refuses to admit that the sacrifice is itself a good. A sacrifice which does not increase or tend to increase the sum total of happiness, it considers as wasted (p. 40).

--Is self-sacrifice only justified if it leads to greater societal happiness?

The objectors to utilitarianism cannot always be charged with representing it in a discreditable light. On the contrary, those among them who entertain anything like a just idea of its disinterested character sometimes find fault with its standard as being too high for humanity (p.42)

--Does utilitarianism really set a standard that is too high?

Is utilitarianism, as Mill states (p. 43), like religion in that rather than telling people what is right and wrong, it merely equips them to judge between right and wrong?

Do you agree with Mill's argument (p.44) that lying is always inexpedient?

Does Mill draw a reasonable analogy (p. 45) when he compares utilitarianism to Christianity in stating that just as a good Christian doesn't need to read through the Bible everytime he must make an ethical judgement, the good Utilitarian needn't weight every single possible consequence of his actions on the common good?

We are told that a utilitarian will be apt to make his own particular case an exception to moral rules, and when under temptation, will see a utility in the breach of a rule, greater than he will see in its observance (p. 47).

--Would a utilitarian be more likely to commit such a breach of a rule than a follower of a religion that believes in an afterlife?

The desire of virtue is not as universal, but it is as authentic a fact as the desire of happiness. And hence the opponents of the utilitarian standard deem that they have a right to infer that there are other ends of human action besides happiness, and that happiness is not the standard of approbation and disapprobation (p.49).

--How might virtue take priority over happiness?

For Textual Analysis

pages 35-37, from Now it is an unquestionable fact to ... in an ineffectual attempt to combine both.

pages 41-42, from I must again repeat ... to giving effect to their mandates.

pages 43-45, from Again utility is often summarily stigmatized to one or the other preponderates.

pages 45-47, Again, defenders of utility to as absurdity has ever reached in philosophical controversy.

From Futility to Utility

2009-09-02T16:42:00.010-04:00

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) has given us his Autobiography, in which he describes his rigorous early classical education under the tutelage of his father James, an eminent author and philosopher in his own right. As a result of his hermetic upbringing, John suffered a mental breakdown at the age of 20. He recovered and had a productive life both in the world of commerce, as a career employee of the British East India Company, and the world of ideas, as author of numerous articles and books. He also served as a Member of Parliament and as Lord Rector of the University of St. Andrews. The irony of the latter is that as a young man Mill had foregone a traditional "Oxbridge" (Oxford/Cambridge) education.

A seldom appreciated aspect of Mill's work is that he advocated for equal rights for women. He did so in his essay "The Subjection of Women" (1869), and credited his wife Harriet Taylor Mill as a co-author. Mill was alone among the famous social theorists of his era -- all of them male -- in holding this position.

Our selection this month is taken from Mill's essay "Utilitarianism," first published as a series in three parts in Fraser's, a popular literary magazine. "Utilitarianism" was published in book form in 1863 by Parker, Son and Bourn of London in 1863.

The text begins, "The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals 'utility' or the 'greatest happiness principle' holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." The work can be profitably read either as a survey of the Utilitarian school of political philosophy of Jeremy Bentham and others OR as Mill's personal critique of that school. One of Mill's biographers has called him "a thinker who fuses logic and imagination to depict a vision of the world" (1).

(1) August, Eugene, John Stuart Mill, a Mind at Large, New York : Scribner's, 1975.

Questions re: "Job"

2009-08-15T16:01:00.003-04:00

Why does God let Satan torment Job (p.1)?

-- Why is Satan called the "son of God" (p.1)

When Job's friends showed up to comfort him in his affliction, why did they sit with him but not speak to him, "for they saw that his affliction was very great?" (p.3)

Do the statements of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar represent separate and distinct points of view?

Interpret the line "So these three men [Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar] ceased to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes" (p. 21).

-- At this point Elihu appears and we are told his "wrath" was kindled against Job. Does Elihu's appearance represent a significant turning point in the narrative? Why?

-- Interpret Elihu's statement, "My desire is that Job may be tried unto the end because of his answers for wicked men. For he addeth rebellion unto his sin, he clappeth his hands among us, and multiplieth his words against God (p. 24)"

Why does God become angry with Eliphaz and the other two friends (viz. p. 29: "for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job has")

Why in the end is Job exonerated?

Would you consider God as portrayed in the Book of Job to be fair? What other attributes would you ascribe to Him?

For Textual Analysis

Page 7: "Therefore I will not refrain my mouth" ... to ... "but I shall not be."

Pages 10-11: "What ye know, the same do I" ... to ... "as a garment that is moth eaten."

Pages 11-13 : "Man this is born of woman" ... to ... "the way whence I shall not return."

Page 28 : "Moreover the Lord answered Job" ... to ... "thine own right hand can save thee."

You and the Text

2009-08-07T16:37:00.017-04:00

The book of Job holds a unique place in the Old Testament canon. Job is not considered a Prophet, and the book is grouped in the "wisdom writings" (along with Psalms, Proverbs, the Song of Songs, Ruth, Ecclesiastes, and others). Its literary form is unusual : much of the book consists of a philosophical dialogue among Job and his friends Eliphaz (the Temanite), Bildad (the Shuhite) and Zophar (the Naamathite).

Here is a suggestion as you approach the book of Job. Stick to the text at hand (in this case, the King James Version ; you may need to brush up on your early Modern English). Resist the temptation to reach for one of the numerous biblical commentaries available. Why not take a pencil in hand and write in your own chapter headings?

Build on what you already know about the book of Job. You are probably familiar with some of these famous passages that have become part of our common culture:

From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it (spoken by Satan).

Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord (spoken by Job)

There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil (the very first lines).

Let the text do its work on you.

Satan afflicts Job with boils (from William Blake's edition of the Book of Job).

Questions about "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," by Edward Gibbon

2009-07-22T13:11:00.005-04:00

For Discussion, July 28, 2009

Chapter XV: "The Progress of the Christian Religion, and the Sentiments, Manners, Numbers, and Condition of the Primitive Christians"

Gibbon writes (p. 195): "From the first of the fathers to the last of the popes, a succession of bishops, of saints, of martyrs, and of miracles, is continued without interruption; and the progress of superstition was so gradual and almost imperceptible, that we know not in what particular link we should break the chain of tradition." In this statement and in the subsequent discussion, does Gibbon imply there was a "golden age" of miracles, and that the Church needed to sustain its traditions regardless of whether evidence supported a continued succession of miracles (cf. end of paragraph, p. 196)?

When Gibbon writes, "According to the more rigid doctors, the moral virtues, which may be equally practiced by infidels, are destitute of any value or efficacy in the work of our justification" (p. 217), does he imply that Christianity doesn't value moral actions?

Gibbon writes (p. 231): "Such is the constitution of civil society, that, while a few persons are distinguished by riches, by honors, and by knowledge, the body of the people is condemned to obscurity, ignorance, and poverty." He then states that as a natural consequence, the Christian religion recruited many from the lower orders of society into its ranks. Does he consider this form of social hierarchy to be the natural order of things?

Re: Gibbon's discussion of the "love of pleasure" and the "love of action" (p. 200): Does his sentence "The character in which both the one and the other should be united and harmonized would seem to constitute the most perfect idea of human nature" ring true? Is it a helpful distinction in his discussion of the "primitive" Christians?

Page 201: "In their censures of luxury the fathers are extremely minute and circumstantial; and among the various articles which excite their pious indignation, we may enumerate false hair, garments of any color except white, instruments of music, vases of gold or silver, downy pillows (as Jacob reposed his head on a stone), white bread (!), foreign wines, public salutations, the use of warm baths, and the practise of shaving the beard .... " Do you agree with Gibbon when he says it was easier for the poor than for the rich to accept privation, and with it a sense of moral superiority?

Chapter XVI: "The Conduct of the Roman Government Towards the Christians, from the Reign of Nero to that of Constantine"

Gibbon writes of the Jews, "Their irreconcilable hatred of mankind, instead of flaming out in acts of blood and violence, evaporated in less dangerous gratifications. They embraced every opportunity of overreaching the idolators in trade, and they pronounced secret and ambiguous imprecations against the haughty kingdom of Edom [Rome]" (p. 240). How does this jibe with Gibbon's belief that the Jews of the diaspora "assumed the behavior of peaceful and industrious subjects"?

Why did the enemies of the Christians portray them as a "society of atheists" (p. 241) ?!?

Do you buy Gibbon's conclusion at the end of his description of the persecution of Cyprian (pp. 264-269) that the fact that we don't have more accounts of funerals of Christian martyrs is evidence that there was an "inconsiderable number of those who suffered and died for the profession of Christianity"?

Does Gibbon support his argument that "the Christians, in the course of their intestine dissensions, have inflicted far greater severities on each other than they had experienced from the zeal of the infidels"? (p. 302)?

Does Gibbon allow for the possibility that the persecutions of the Christians may have been a factor in the growth of their numbers?

History's Greatest Cautionary Tale

2009-07-06T16:32:00.007-04:00

Our "author of the month" is Edward Gibbon (1737-1794). Gibbon composed his magnum opus, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (often simply referred to as the Decline and Fall) over a time period of almost 20 years.

When the first volume was published in the eventful year of 1776, it went through three editions in a short span of time. In addition to being an undeniably great and influential work, the book represents a milestone in the craft of historical writing. Peter P.Witonski, in Gibbon for Moderns, an annotated and abridged version of the Decline and Fall, remarks that Gibbon combined the "renewed historical perspective" of the Renaissance -- i.e., that contemporary authors were capable of writing histories superior to the first-hand accounts of classical authors -- with the scientific mindset developed in the 17th century.

Gibbon was unusual among British intellectuals of his time in that he was educated abroad (in Lausanne). Gibbon tells us that he conceived of The Decline and Fall "among the ruins of the Capitol" in Rome. The work is a product of Gibbon's formidable linguistic skills and his prodigious study of history. In his book The Ruins of the Roman Empire, James J. O'Donnell writes, "No page of Gibbon is not worth reading; few of his footnotes are not worth considering carefully."

It his difficult to imagine a contempory historian undertaking a work quite as massive in scope as Gibbon's. In our selection this month, we read two chapters from The Decline and Fall, which discuss the rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire.

Every subsequent age has seen a mirror of itself in the story of cycles of growth and decay of ancient Rome. Gibbon's account, written during an age of Empire and so-called Enlightenment, stands as perhaps the best.

The L.I. Great Books Council Spring Institute

2009-06-29T09:29:00.002-04:00

On Saturday, June 13th, I was excited to participate in the annual day-long Long Island Great Books Council Spring Institute. About 40 "great bookies" convened in Garden City for two discussion tracks, one on the subject of "Money," the other on "Love."

The "Love" track discussed the stories of Grace Paley, the "Money" track Niall Ferguson's The Ascent of Money: a Financial History of the World and Jerry Sterner's play "Other People's Money".

I joined the "Money" group, led by a thirty-year veteran of Great Books discussion groups. Mary launched the discussion with three guidelines, "Please stick to the question at hand, don't talk over one another, and please listen carefully to each other." I could tell Mary was a stickler about the "Shared Inquiry" discussion technique, and had honed her skills as a leader over many years. Her interest lay solely in helping us to understand better the ideas in the texts.

Perhaps you notice that the books under discussion were not part of the "Great Books" canon. At the end of our discussion of "Other People's Money," however, Grahme Fischer, the President of the Long Island Great Books Council (and leader of a Great Books group at the Commack Public Library), posed the question, "Do you think this is a great book?" The consenus was no, although Sterner's comedy about a corporate raider with a "Mom and Pop" New England cable and wire company in his sights does raise a lot of questions about the U.S. financial system. Grahme then averred that sometimes less lofty works stimulate more spirited discussions. (Maybe ones that are too perfectly beautiful leave us speechless!)

I was pleased to discover there are still a lot of serious readers out there who have chosen to affiliate themselves with the loosely organized network of Great Books Councils around the country. Upcoming events include the 53rd Annual Wachs Great Books Summer Institute on the "Art of War" at Colby College in Maine the week of August 2-8 (contact Tom Beam at agreatbook@aol.com) and the Philadelphia council's Fall Institute weekend on the "Aesthetic Dialogue" in the Poconos the weekend of November 6-7 (contact John Dalton at JD5258875@aol.com)

Discussion Questions for "The Misanthrope"

2009-06-17T16:39:00.002-04:00

Interpretive Questions

I. Is Molière's intent to expose the hypocrisy practiced in the social circles of his time and all times?

A. Are his characters created to fulfill that purpose? Do they each represent some human trait and therefore behave in stereotypical ways or do we sometimes get a glimpse of multidimensional characterization?

B. Does he present any of these characters as worthy of admiration?

C. If we all acted like the Alceste the Misanthrope, would we even have a society (p. 105, ten lines from bottom)?

D. Same question re: Philinte (p. 108, ten lines from top and p. 155, eight lines from top) or to any of the other characters.

II. Is this play funny and if so, why?

A. Is there a scene you find particularly comical?

III. Express in a few words Molière's views on love and courtship.

A. Do you think Alceste is capable of love? At the end does he give Célimène a test which she will probably fail? (Act V, Sc. 7 & 8)

B. Is Célimène totally shallow?

i. If so, why is Alceste in love with her when he strives to be so "authentic"?

C. Do Philante and Eliante, at least in part, stand for moderation and good sense? Is there a certain poetic justice when they are matched up at the end of the play?

Speculative Question

I. What possibilities would you develop if you were to write a sequel to this play?

For Textual Analysis

Act I, sc. i

Act II, sc. ii

Act V, sc. i

Castigat Ridendo Mores : "It Corrects our Manners with Laughter"

2009-06-01T16:16:00.005-04:00

Our featured author this month is the great French comic playwright Molière (1622-1673), the stage name of Jean-Baptiste Poquelin. On June 22nd we meet to discuss his Misanthrope.

Molière rose to fame under the patronage of Louis XIV. One often hears him spoken of in conjunction with the other two towering figures of the French stage of the era, Racine and Corneille. Of the three, however, Molière is the only one renowned for comedies.

Many of Molière's theatrical works, including The Misanthrope, are considered "comedies of manners" and set in Parisian salons. The Misanthrope follows Alceste as he tries to achieve the seemingly impossible task of both shunning all social pretense and winning the heart of Célimène.

Questions re: "The Spirit of Capitalism," by Max Weber

2009-05-12T14:35:00.002-04:00

1. How does Kürnberger's statement, "They make tallow out of cattle and money out of men" summarize for Weber a philosophy of avarice (p. 69)?

2. Weber ascribes to Pieter de la Court the belief that "people only work because and so long as they are poor (p. 75)." Agree or disagree?

3. Weber writes (p.76), "Today, capitalism, once in the saddle, can recruit its laboring force in all industrial countries with comparative ease. In the past this was in every case an extremely difficult problem. And even today it could probably not get along without the support of a powerful ally along the way, which, as we shall see below, was at hand at the time of its development." Who is that "powerful ally"?

4. "To speak here of a reflection of material conditions in the ideal superstructure would be patent nonsense," he writes on page 80. What is the "ideal superstructure"?

5. In the section entitled "Asceticism and the Spirit of Capitalism," Weber writes (p. 85), "True to the Puritan tendency to pragmatic interpretations, the providential purpose of the division of labour is to be known by its fruits." What is the "providential purpose" of the division of labour, and what are its fruits?

6. Page 85, "A man without a calling thus lacks the systematic, methodical character which is, as we have seen, demanded by worldly asceticism." Does this statement hang together?

7. Weber summarizes John Wesley's belief that wealth accumulation inevitable undermines religious belief. Does what Weber calls the "secularizing influence of wealth" really occur? (p.94)

7A. If so, why does Wesley nevertheless say, "we must exhort all Christians to gain all they can, and to save all they can; that is, in effect, to grow rich."? (p. 95)

8. Why does Weber consider the seventeenth century to have bequethed "an amazingly good, we may even say, a pharisaically [emphasis added] good conscience in the acquisition of money" to its "utilitarian successor."? (pp. 95-6)

9. Weber on p. 100 quotes Baxter to the effect that material acquistion should rest on a man's shoulder like a "light coat." In the modern age, however, "Fate decreed that the cloak should become an iron cage." How do you interpret this portentous line?

10. In the last paragraph of the selection Weber dismisses both the one-sided "materialistic" interpretation and the one-sided "spiritual causal" interpretation of the roots of capitalism. He calls either a "preparation" and not a "conclusion" of an investigation. If he's correct, then what's the next step in the "investigation."?

Weber's "Iron Cage"

2009-05-08T09:56:00.006-04:00

Our reading this month was first published not as a book but as a two-part scholarly article. Max Weber (1864-1920), one of the founders of modern sociology, published The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism in 1904-05 in the journal Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik (The Archive of Social Science and Social Politics).

Weber's interests lie in the parallel developments of Calvinist religious sects and the capitalist economic system in 16th-century Europe.

One of the surprise joys of exploring the classics comes when we chance upon a famous buzz line of the western tradition. Such a moment occurred for me upon revisiting The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Weber contends that whereas the English Puritans wanted to work in a "calling," we moderns work because we simply have no other choice. He quotes the Protestant theologian Richard Baxter, who wrote that the desire for material goods should only rest on the shoulders "like a light cloak, which can be thrown aside at any moment." Then comes Weber's zinger on the modern condition: "But fate decreed that the cloak should become an iron cage [emphasis added]." (See p. 100, Great Books Reading and Discussion Program, Series 4, Vol. 1).

According to Wikipedia's article on Weber's "iron cage," the original German might also translate as "steel-hard housing." Either way, it doesn't sound pleasant, and the meaning seems pretty clear. Modern, materialistic, ultra-rational society makes us all cogs in a wheel.

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism dazzled me upon my first encounter with it as a college freshman, but I still find it difficult to classify this text. Is it sociology? History? Philosophy? A political tract? An academic essay punctuated with occasional romantic/lyrical flights?

In the end it doesn't matter what you call it. A great scholar and writer produced The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, a work that offers up a great chicken-and-egg riddle:

What comes first, how we do or how we think?

Questions re: "Medea," by Euripides, for Monday, April 27th

2009-04-20T16:15:00.004-04:00

I. Is the major theme of this play the emotion of love vs. the emotion of hate?

A. The timelessness of Greek tragedy seems to lie in its ability to portray human emotions that do not change. Frequently one reads in today's papers about the tragedy of a parent who kills his spouse and children and then kills himself. Euripides creates in Medea a character so consumed with hate that she will murder her own children to avenge herself against her husband. Yet she provides an "escape hatch" for herself: she wants to live! Why is this so?

1. If Medea had not been a woman, would she have turned to such violent actions for her revenge? Could she have acted differently as a man?

2. Is there anything to admire in the character of Medea?

B. This play seems to conform to the classic requirements for a Greek tragedy in that it involves the fall of a character of "high estate" due to a "fatal/tragic" flaw in a drama taking place within 24 hours (what a difference a day makes!). In this case it seems to involve two characters: Jason and the King.

1. What are the tragic flaws that bring each one down?

2. Does Euripides's treatment of persons of lower estate (viz., the nurse and attendant, pp. 24-27) give a message to the audience that all things considered it's better to be born low than high?

3. What is the role of the chorus in this particular play and why do they seem to "befriend" Medea?

Some Key Passages to Reread

Medea's speeches on pp. 30-31; 46-47

Four chorus stanzas on pp. 35-36

Medea's speech and choral response, pp. 53-56

April the Cruelest Month?

2009-04-17T10:51:00.004-04:00

In the fall of 2006, our group read and discussed Euripides's Iphigenia at Aulis. That play portrayed a key lead-in to the Trojan War, the sacrifice of the princess Iphigenia to gain favorable winds for the voyage of the Greek fleet.

This month we are reading another Euripides play, Medea. The plot of the Medea comes not from the long saga of the Trojan War but from another great Greek mythic cycle, that of Jason, the Argonauts, Medea, and the Golden Fleece.

Medea was a princess in the far-eastern land of Colchis. In her lineage there was a strong predeliction for sorcery and witchcraft. She assists Jason and the Argonauts in the quest for the Golden Fleece, then returns to Greece as Jason's wife. A string of heroics (with an atrocity or two mixed in) leads them to Corinth in the Peloponnese. There Jason aspires to wed King Kreon's daughter, but is faced with the inconvenient fact that he's already married to Medea and has two sons by her. Medea exacts her vengeance on Jason in an unspeakable fashion, which may or may not have been Euripides own elaboration of the story.

Medea was first performed in 431 B.C. in an Athenian playfest. It took last place. The winning plays, by Euphorion, are lost, as is the Sophoclean trilogy that took second place. The Medea survives both in physical form and in popularity. According to scholar Richmond Y. Hathorn, "[w]ith the enactment of the struggle in Medea's breast between her feelings as spurned wife and as loving mother, the audience was presented with the first complete revelation of inner conflict in world literature."

Some Reflections on Last Evening's Discussion

2009-03-24T10:05:00.005-04:00

Kudos to our sixteen discussants who braved chilly March winds to attend last night's Schopenhauer discussion.

The group had a mixed verdict on "Schopy." Based on the biographical information given in the reader (for example, when he died Schopenhauer left a substantial legacy to his poodle), many felt his philosophy was too metaphysical and ignored our need for human attachments.

We talked quite a bit about fear of death vs. the knowledge of death. The former is what animals possess as a basic instinct, the latter a realization humans attain through our mental faculty. The knowledge of death sets us apart from the animals and creates what many call "the human condition."

Our reading was an excerpt from the chapter "On Death and Its Relation to the Indestructibility of our Inner Nature," from Schopenhauer's voluminous philosophical tract The World as Will and Representation.

Schopenhauer considered the will, and specifically the "will-to-live" to be a powerful motivating factor in our lives. The capstone question of our discussion was "What, according to Schopenhauer, should be our proper attitude to the will-to-live, since we all have to die?" The group concluded that Schopenhauer's answer would be we give up the will-to-live, just as it gives us up. We thereby achieve a state of nothingness, nonbeing, extinction, nirvana.

Is there consolation in this grim scenario? One of our participants took heart from Schopenauer's lovely ode-in-prose to the cycles of nature. We are each of us like a leaf on a tree, he says, "[f]ading in the autumn and about to fall, this leaf grieves over its own extinction, and will not be consoled by looking forward to the fresh green which will clothe the tree in spring, but says as a lament: 'I am not these! These are quite different leaves' Oh foolish leaf! Whither do you want to go? And whence are the others supposed to come? Where is the nothing, the abyss of which you fear? Know your own inner being, precisely that which is so filled with the thirst for existence; recognize it once more in the inner, mysterious, sprouting force of the tree."

My next-door neighbor puts it another way. Every year he stands on his back deck and makes what I call "the announcement":

"Spring, sprang, sprung!"

Discussion Questions for "The Indestructibility of Our Inner Nature," by Schopenhauer

2009-03-16T15:33:00.003-04:00

Interpretive Questions

Does Schopenhauer contradict himself when he says (p.1) that lower animals don't have a "knowledge of death," but then says (p. 3) they and we also have a fear of death?

What does he mean (p.2) when he says that "according to natural consciousness" man fears death more than anything? What is "natural consciousness"?

Is our "whole being-in-itself" the "will to live" (p.4)?

How does knowledge conflict with will (p.5)?

Do you agree that "to mourn for the time when we shall no longer exist is just as absurd as it would be to mourn for the time when we did not as yet exist" (p.6)?

How about with the notion that death is terrible because it represents the death of the will? (p.7)

Is the moment of dying really "similar to that of waking from a heavy nightmare" (p. 9)?

Does the life force endure after death (pp. 9-12)?

If we saw "deeply enough," would we agree with nature and "regard life or death as indifferently as does she" (p. 13)?

Does nature (p.12) really consider the life and death of the individual to be of absolutely no consequence?

Schopenhauer writes (p.17), "In spite of time, death, and decay, we are still all together." What does he mean?

What of the man (p.18) who says of the game "I no longer like it."?

Who is "the lord of the worlds" (p.19)?

What is "the grand disillusionment"?

Why is the death of every good person "peaceful and gentle"? (p.20)

Evaluative Questions

Are all "religions and philosophical systems," as Schopenhauer writes (p. 1), aimed at consoling us concerning death?

Why does he state that "one" religion will enable man to look death calmly in the face, but then speaks of two different religions, Brahmanism (Hinduism) and Buddhism.

On p. 4 he writes, "If we knocked on the graves and asked the dead whether they would like to rise again, they would shake their heads." Agree or disagree?

Schopenhauer writes (p. 1), "Death is the real inspiring genius or Musagetes of philosophy, and for this reason Socrates defined philosophy as 'preparation for death'. Indeed, without death there would hardly have been any philosophizing." Is he really saying that death inspires philosophy, or that philosophy "inspires" death.

"Arthur, Arthur!"

2009-03-03T09:21:00.005-05:00

Our featured author this month is Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), a German philosopher known for his pessimistic view of life. The reading selection, "On the Indestructibility of our Inner Nature," comes from his magnum opus The World as Will and Representation, first published in 1819. The World as Will and Representation did not reach a wide audience at the time.

Schopenhauer did, however, attain literary fame with his 1851 book Parerga and Paralipomena (loosely translated from the Greek as "Bits and Pieces"). It contains a multi-part essay, "The Art of Literature," with subsections entitled "On Authorship," "On Style," "On Thinking for Oneself," and "On Books and Reading." In "The Art of Literature," Schopenhauer critiques the dilettantish literary culture of his day. He spares neither the producers nor the consumers of that culture. He berates readers who read so much they never have time to think, for example. Such men, he says, "read themselves stupid."

Could the author of The World as Will and Representation, which weighs in at 700+ pages, have come to believe that thoughtful reading of expository prose was not a worthy pursuit? Schopenhauer's real beef is with those who live entirely inside a book of text instead of what he calls the "book of nature." The former are mere "men of learning," whereas the latter "have enlightened the world and carried humanity further on its way."

Still and all, Schopenhauer gives us license to indulge the reading habit, but with a caveat.

In "On Books and Reading," Schopenhauer enjoins "[B]e careful to limit your time for reading and devote it exclusively to the works of those great minds of all times and countries, who o'ertop the rest of humanity, those whom the voice of fame points to as such. These alone educate and instruct. You can never read bad literature too little, nor good literature too much. Bad books are intellectual poison ; they destroy the mind. Because people always read what is new instead of the best of all ages, writers remain within the narrow circle of the ideas which happen to prevail in their time; and so the period sinks deeper and deeper into its own mire."

Was Schopenhauer a pessimist with a capital "P" or just a curmudgeon? Read "On the Indestructibility of Our Inner Nature," which examines the theme of death we found last month in Tolstoy's "The Death of Iván Illých," and decide for yourself.

Discussion Questions for "The Death of Ivan Ilych"

2009-02-16T09:37:00.008-05:00

The Shared Inquiry discussion technique employs two kinds of questions to spur thoughtful analysis. Interpretive questions address problems having to do with the text itself. Often they concern the relation of characters, the reader, or the author vis à vis that text. Evaluative questions treat larger philosophical themes. In either case, a good question is one for which there is no one right answer!

Interpretive Questions

After viewing Iván Ilých's body, why does Schwartz say to Peter Ivánovich, "Iván Ilých has made a mess of things, not like you and me"? (p. 241)

As Peter Ivánovich views the body, it appears to him that Iván's face wears a "reproach and a warning to the living." What is the reproach and the warning? (p. 243)

After the incident of the creaky pouffe (p. 244), why does Praskóvya Fedorovna take out a clean cambric handkerchief and start to weep?

P. 248: Why does Chapter 2 begin "Iván Ilých's life had been most simple and most ordinary and therefore most terrible."?

P. 250: Why does Tolstoy throw in the detail about Iván Ilých having done things at school he knew was wrong, but forgiving himself because they were also done "by people of good position."?

On p. 253 Tolstoy writes: "To say that Iván Ilých married because he fell in love with Praskóvya Fedorovna and found that she sympathized with his views of life would be as incorrect as to say that he married because his social circle approved of the match." What is he saying about Iván's reason for marrying.?

P. 254: He writes, "from the first months of his wife's pregnancy, something new, unpleasant, depressing, and unseemly, and from which there was no way of escape, unexpectedly showed itself." What was that "something"?

Why do you think Iván's son was a "subject of dissension." (p. 257)

Why does he care so much about the home furnishings of his new abode?

As he advances in his career it seems he is able to separate his private and public lives. Why, however, does Tolstoy say that he could "in the manner of a virtuoso ... even allow himself to let the human and official relations mingle." (p. 263?)

Why in the early stages of his disease does he start to find fault with things (a chipped plate, his daughter's hair not to his liking, etc.): p. 266

Why does his daughter find the details of his medical diagnosis "tedious." (p.268)

Why (p. 274) does Iván go to the doctor with Peter Ivánovich?

Why, when his wife suggests he see the famous specialist Leschetítsky (p. 277) does he demur and feel hatred towards her?

P. 279: What is the meaning of the"It" that would stand and look at him. Can it mean anything other that death?

What is the significance of the picture album, described on p. 280, which seems to disturb the perfect beauty of the room he had decorated?

When he asks Gerásim if he's busy, and Gerásim replies "not at all, sir," what does Tolstoy mean when he says that he was "one who had learnt from the townsfolk how to speak to gentlefolk?" (p.283).

Is it realistic for a dying person to want to be "petted and cried over" (p. 285)?

Why does his wife think he's "not doing something for himself that he ought to do and was himself to blame "? Why at this point in his illness does he "hate her with his whole soul" (p. 289)?

Why (p. 299) does he wonder , "What if my whole life really has been wrong"?

Why (p. 300), after his confession, does he start to think about correcting his vermiform appendix and tell his wife he feels better? Why at that point does his screaming begin?

P. 302: "He felt that his agony was due to his being thrust into that black hole and still more to his not being able to get right into it. He was hindered from getting into it by his conviction that his life had been a good one. That very justification of his life held him fast and prevented his moving forward, and it caused him most torment of all." Can you unpack this?

Evaluative Questions

Was the life that Iván Ilých led a good or a bad one? If bad, how could it have been lived more rigteously? What were obstacles to its being lived righteously?

Elisabeth Kübler-Ross describes the process of death as consisting of five stages: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. Does Tolstoy portray some or all of these stages accurately?

>Did Iván Ilých die at peace? If so, why?

>Tolstoy in several places describes Ilých's life in terms of backward and forward or up and down. What did he mean?

Names in Tolstoy's "The Death of Ivan Ilych"

2009-02-10T09:37:00.017-05:00

Since "The Death of Iván Ilých" is a novella not a drama, it doesn't come with a printed list of characters. That seems a shame. The text contains a number of "triple-decker names" and characters who are sometimes identified by nicknames. Therefore, in the hope of promoting a better understanding of Tolstoy's work, I offer below a list of characters, grouped in terms of their relationship to the tragic Iván. Feel free to print it out. By the way, the name Iván Ilých is comparable to the English "John Doe. [Note: diacritical marks in Russian transliterations denote a stress; so, for example, "Iván" is pronounced "ee-VAHN."]. Pictured above is Count Tolstoy.

Characters in "The Death of Iván Ilých"

Family

Iván Ilých Golovín (sometimes called "Jean" by wife, known as "Vanya" in childhood)

Praskóvya Fedorovna Goloviná [née Mikhel], wife
Lisa, daughter
Vladímir ("Vasya") Ivánich, son
Feodor Petrovich, "Petríshchev," Lisa's fiancé, an "examining magistrate" (as had been Iván)
Ilya Epímovich Golovín, father, a Privy Councilor
Iván's two brothers ("Mitya" and "Volódya", cf. ch. 6?)
one sister ("Kátenka", again cf. ch. 6, married to Baron Greff)

Legal Colleagues (and Other Fellow Government Functionaries)

Iván Egórovich Shébek
Fedor Vasílievich
Peter Ivánovich
Ivan Semenovich
Alexéev
Vínnokhov
Shtábel
Schwartz
Mikháil Mikháylovich
Happe
F. I. Ilyín
Peter Petróvich
Zachár Ivánovich

Domestic Help

Sokolóv, butler
Gerásim, butler's assistant
Peter the footman
Dmítri

Doctors

Nicoláevich
Leshchetítsky
Mikhail Danílovich

"Outliers"

Princess Tráfonova ("sister of the distinguished founder of the Society 'Bear my Burden'")
Emile Zola, as author of Iván's pleasure reading
Sarah Bernhardt (in town for a show!!)

See you on the 23rd.

Discussion Questions for "The Prince," Monday, January 26th

2009-01-19T09:59:00.008-05:00

Interpretive Questions

Do you agree with Machiavelli's statement (p. 201) that "though one may have the strongest of armies, one always needs the backing of the inhabitants to take over the province?"

Why does Machiavelli say (p. 205) that in order successfully occupy a province, one must keep the "weaker powers" in check?

What does Machiavelli mean when he writes (p. 206) of the Romans, "Nor did they ever like what is constantly on the lips of our sages today, to enjoy the benefits of the present time, but rather enjoyed the benefits of their ingenuity and prudence; for time brings out everything, and it can bring with it the good as well as the bad and the bad as well as the good."

Machiavelli says (p. 207), "The desire to acquire is truly a very natural and common thing; and whenever men who can, do so, they are praised and not condemned; but when they cannot and want to do so just the same, herein lies the mistake and the condemnation." What does he mean by "the mistake and the condemnation"?

Is Machiavelli correct when he assets (p. 209) that "whoever is the cause of another's coming to power ruins himself"?

Machiavelli says (p. 209) that "a prudent man should always take the path trodden by great men ... so that, if his own ingenuity does not come up to theirs, at least it will have the smell of it." How will he or his public know that he's treading such a path?

Machiavelli says (p. 211) there are princes who are "obliged to beg" and others who are "able to use force." The first "always come to a bad end and never achieve anything," the latter "seldom find themselves in danger." Agree or disagree?

Does Machiavelli's recounting of the biography of Agathocles the Sicilian bear out his statement (p. 214) "that in capturing a state the conqueror should consider all the injuries he must inflict, and inflict them all at once, so as not to have to repeat them daily, and in not repeating them to be able to give men a feeling of security and win them over with the benefits he offers."

"A prince can never be safe when the common people are his enemy, for there are so many of them; he can be safe with the nobles, for there are so few of them." (p. 216). Does this mean a prince can afford to have some of the nobles be his enemies?

Machiavelli states (p.220), "I say that it would be good to be thought of as generous; however, generosity employed in such a way as to give you a reputation for it harms you; yet if it is employed virtuously, and as one should employ it, it may not be recognized and you will not escape the infamy of its opposite." If this is true, why be generous?

On pages 223-224 Machiavelli puts forth the proposition that it is better to be loved than feared, but one must not be hated. What is his logic and do you agree?

In the paragraph beginning "A prince must nevertheless make himself feared ..." (p. 224), is Machiavelli saying that it's better to take life or property?

In his chapter "How a Prince Should Keep his Word" (p. 225ff) what is Machiavelli's position on a what a prince's regard should be for the truth?

What does Machiavelli say (p. 227) that nothing is more essential for a prince than to have a regard for religion?

In the chapter "How a Prince Should Act to Acquire Esteem (p. 233), " Machiavelli makes statements such as "Nothing makes a prince more esteemed than great enterprises and evidence of his unusual abilities" and "a prince should strive in all his actions to give the impression of the great man of outstanding intelligence." In doing this, does he run the risk of appearing to lack humility?

"And the irresolute princes, in order to flee present dangers most often follow the neutral road, and most often they ruin themselves. " (p. 234). Does Machiavelli make a convincing case in this section against maintaining neutrality?

"A prince ... should always seek advice, but only when he wishes and not when others wish it ; indeed he should discourage everyone from giving him advice on any subject, unless he asks for it (p. 236)." Does Machiavelli go overboard here in counseling a prince to be so picky about how he receives counsel?

Evaluative Question

Is Machiavelli, as many have maintained, evil?

What profit, if any, might our new president gain from Machiavelli's text?

A great book about Great Books

2008-12-08T16:20:00.010-05:00

Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam recently published a popular book on the great books movement in 20th-century America entitled A Great Idea at the Time.

Beam entertainingly traces the movement's story its two-fold guise as both a college-curriculum reform and an adult self-education initiative. The book begins with accounts of the efforts of some early European advocates of the sustained study of the classics: Frederic William Farrar, Auguste Comte, John Lubbock. Lubbock published a list in a popular magazine of the 100 greatest books ever written, and was the forebear of subsequent efforts to delimit "best of the best" that have continued to this day. Beam also profiles leading exponents in the United States: Charles Eliot, John Erskine, Robert Maynard Hutchins, and Mortimer Adler.

The heart of A Great Idea at the Time concerns the heyday of the Great Books in America in the 1950s and 60s that coincided with the publication by the University of Chicago and the Encyclopaedia Britannica of the multivolume Great Books of the Western World. A key figure during this period was William Benton, the Chicago ad man who brought his business acumen to the project. The set sold like gangbusters, though Beam considers the biggest selling point of the set -- which included not only great works of literature, philosophy, and history, but also key texts in science and medicine such as Ptolemy's Almagest and Harvey's On the Circulation of the Blood -- to have been anxiety among middle-class Americans that the growth in their intellectual stature had not kept pace with that of their material well-being.

Beam does his homework. He travels to Annapolis to visit St. John's College, whose "all great books, all the time" curriculum was initiated by two of Hutchins's protégés, and to Chicago, still home to the Great Books Foundation. His description of campus movements of the 1990s to overthrow the legacy of DWMs (dead-white males) forms another important chapter of the saga. At the end of the book he offers a humorous annotated bibliography of works that have made the "canon" over the years.

My one critique of A Great Idea at the Time is that it's hard to discern Beam's real point-of-view regarding the classics. The subtitle: The Rise, Fall, and Curious Afterlife of the Great Books is misleading in this regard, because Beam's account is by-and-large more sympathetic, but I'll refrain from spoiling the ending for you. Let's just say that Beam might identify with his hypothetical undergraduate student sitting in the library, his assigned inscrutable though undeniably "great" tome in his lap, gazing out the window onto the quad and wishing he were playing frisbee with his buddies instead. At times all we great bookies do.

Find A Great Idea at the Time in our collection by clicking here.

Next Meeting: "The Prince," by Machiavelli, Monday, January 26th 7 p.m.

2008-12-03T09:42:00.006-05:00

The group's next meeting takes place on Monday, January 26th, 2009, in the Main Library Auditorium. The reading will be selections from The Prince, by Niccolò Machiavelli, which some commentators consider the most misunderstood book ever written. Please note there is no meeting in December (winter break!!!).

Questions for "The Beast in the Jungle" Discussion, Monday, November 24th

2008-11-17T16:30:00.002-05:00

Interpretive Questions

If you were asked to describe the relationship between John Marcher and May Bartram, and were limited to one word or a short phrase, what would that word or phrase be?

Could John have had a normal life if he had not met Meg again after an interval of ten years? (John could not remember a lot of details of their first meeting -- it was May who reminded John of the "secret" he confided in her).

Had John, in his own mind at least, had a meaningful life with May (p. 192, top of page, "The state of mind ...")?

The description of John's life is deliberately vague -- government job, some friends, work in his garden. May's life is somewhat more significant in its details: a relation who must have engendered some affection as "the old Lady" arranged in her will to provide for her so that she could have some financial independence. Has James done this deliberately?

What are May's initial intentions toward John? Have they changed by the end of the story?

The relationship between May and John is devoid of any physical intimacy. Is this a relationship that one or the other wants to make "sterile" or feels must remain so? Is the author trying to say something about this state?

When did May perceive that she knew what John's "beast" was? Was her perception correct?

Can you define that "beast" (p. 196, 2d paragraph and p. 197, line 4 -- "the man to whom nothing on earth was to happen"). Could John have changed that? Could he have done so because of or in spite of May's help?

Read the description of May during John's second-to-last visit before she died (p. 176). By her appearance and the almost stage-like setting of her house what is she meant to symbolize?

Is this a story written in hyperbole to demonstrate the neurotic relationships between two people? A passionate love story encased in refined prose?

Taming "The Beast in the Jungle"

2008-11-14T09:09:00.004-05:00

Gentle Reader,

We meet on Monday the 24th to talk about "The Beast in the Jungle," by Henry James. As I've wrestled with the Beast, a few suggestions spring to mind to help ease your way to understanding this densely thicketed product of James's mature phase:

Try reading the work as a fable, a story with a moral.
"X-ray" (survey the structure of) the story, and you will notice that the narrator's omniscient observations occupy upwards of 90 percent of the text. The rest consists of conversations between the only two characters, John Marcher and May Bartram. Do a quick read of the entire story by paying your sole attention to their conversations. It's sometimes hard to keep track of who is speaking, so pencil in your own notation of "he said:" and "she said:".
Note that the estate where the opening encounter between Marcher and May takes place is called "Weatherend." Note also: both their names contain months of the year.
Pay attention to James's scheme as to time and space. After the opening encounter, James takes you back in time to another place (Italy). He later "fast forwards" to their lives in London.
Think about how the work is divided into six numbered parts. What is James's design in doing this? Does the "deep" narrative divide neatly into six parts? Three parts? Two parts?
Take a look at the electronic version of the text by clicking here. Do a search on the word "beast" to find the contexts for this key symbol.
Finally, train yourself to take in enough oxygen during those s-o-o-o long narrator paragraphs (by my estimation some paragraphs number 500 words in length). If you keep at it, you will build up stamina and James's prose will yield its subtle meanings.

"The Beast in the Jungle," by Henry James: November 24th

2008-10-31T15:51:00.002-04:00

Our next meeting takes place Monday, November 24th at 7 p.m. We will discuss "The Beast in the Jungle," Henry James's fable-like work of short fiction.

Questions for "Agamemnon" discussion, Monday, Oct. 27th, 7:00 p.m., Huntington Public Library

2008-10-20T10:17:00.003-04:00

Interpretive questions

What is the significance of the tapestries, why does Agamemnon step on them, and why does that act seal his fate? (cf. p. 14: "Come to me now, my dearest/Down from the car of war, but never set the foot/That stamped out Troy on earth again, my great one.")

By convincing Agamemnon to go "trampling royal crimson," is she also showing her defiance of the gods to whom she was forced to give up her daughter" (p. 117, third paragraph : "There is the sea ... to bring that dear life back.")

Why is Cassandra also killed?

Why does Clytemnestra commit the killings, not Aegisthus?

Interpret Clytemnestra's line (p. 137): "By the Child's Rights, by Ruin and Fury -- the three gods to whom I sacrificed this man"?

Was Iphigenia's death a "sacrifice" or a "murder"? Agamemnon's?

Compare the roles of the watchman (pp. 83-85) and the herald (pp. 100-103, 105-107)

Why in the concluding dialog between Aegisthus and and the chorus leader does the leader question Aegithus's right to become the ruler of Argos? (pp. 143-145).

Textual analysis:

Read and interpret these two choral passages:

pp. 96-99: From "The sky stroke of god!" to "rumors voiced by women come to nothing."

pp. 107-109: From "Who -- what power named the name that drove your fate?" to "She steers all things towards their destined end."

Read and interpret the Agamemnon-Clytemnestra dialog on
pp. 110-118, from "First, with justice I salute my Argos and my gods," to "Speed our rites to their fulfillment once for all!"

Evaluative question

How does the play manifest the biblical notion (Exodus 20) of "the iniquity of the fathers being visited upon the sons"? Does this happen in real life? If it does, are we stuck or can we break free from this mold?

Tragedy and Democracy

2008-10-17T09:03:00.004-04:00

This month's reading, "Agamemnon," by Aeschylus, dates from fifth century B.C. Athens. The play was first performed as part of a festival known as the Great or City Dionysia held in honor of Dionysus, god of fertility, vegetation, ritual dance, and mysticism (big portfolio!). "Agamemnon" is the first part of the great Oresteia trilogy, the only surviving Aeschylean trilogy.

To the citizens of fifth century Athens, "Agamemnon" was a well-known tale from the legendary past. The Greek leader Agamemnon's returns in victory to his home in Argos from the Trojan war. Upon his arrival, Agamemnon and his captive, the Trojan princess Cassandra, are murdered by Agamemnon's wife Clytemnestra and her paramour Aegisthus (who also happened to be Agamemnon's cousin).

In the second play of the trilogy, "Libation Bearers," Agamemnon's son Orestes avenges his father's murder by killing his mother Clytemnestra and Aegisthus, and in the third and final play, "Eumenides," Orestes is tried for his act.

Simon Goldhill asks in his book Aeschylus: The Oresteia (Cambridge University Press, 2004) : "How does tragedy as a genre and the festival in which tragedy was performed relate to democracy? Is there a necessary link between democracy and tragedy?"

I'll take a stab (no pun intended) at a response with the not-so-original observation that human relations can be messy, and those of our prominent leaders even more so. In Greek tragedy, actors wore buskins, or cothurni (lace-up boots) that raised them higher than members of the chorus. By means of such a device, the audience perceived these central players to stand larger than the hoi polloi, the masses.

Tragedy staged in a public venue in effect helped free citizens to find mechanisms to adjudicate conflicts that arose in society.

In their classic How to Read a Book (Touchstone, 1972), Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren, both leading proponents of continuing adult education in the classic texts of Western civilization, comment that the reading of play scripts allows you to become, in effect, the director of the the play in your mind. In so "directing" a tragedy such as "Agamemnon," your imagined audience are also citizens of an imagined polity : fifth century Athens, the twenty-first century United States, etc.

"Agamemnon," by Aeschylus: Monday October 27th

2008-10-01T10:40:00.002-04:00

Our next discussion will be held on Monday, October 27th at 7 p.m. The featured selection will be "Agamemenon," by Aeschylus (ca. 525 B.C. to ca. 456 B.C.), the first play in the celebrated Oresteia trilogy. This drama recounts the return of Agamemnon, co-leader of the Trojan invasion, to his native Argos and what happens in lieu of the expected victory celebration.

Questions for Canterbury Tales Discussion, September 22d

2008-09-15T15:16:00.002-04:00

Our questions this month concern the women's issues raised by the two tales under examination, "The Wife of Bath's Tale" and "The Clerk's Tale."

Interpretive Questions

1. What common, timeless themes reflecting life and reality appear in both the "Wife of Bath's Tale" and "The Clerk's Tale"?

2. Does Chaucer's portrayal of the Wife of Bath (in the "Wife of Bath's Prologue") reflect a perceptive view of women (cf. pp. 17, 23, 31)?

a. The Wife of Bath and Griselda, at least on the surface, seem to have very different ways of relating to men and the power structure. Which does Chaucer seem to favor (p.40, 80)?

3. What is Chaucer's attitude towards the clergy? Towards religion in general (p.65)?

4. Is Griselda's submission to the king a metaphor for the submission of God's creatures to God (p.62)?

Evaluative questions

1. Can it be said in general that Chaucer liked women? People in general?

2 Do you agree with the moral of the Wife of Bath's Tale, i.e., what women want most is "sovereignty"?

Johnny's Fireside Book

2008-09-12T10:02:00.006-04:00

In the Wife of Bath’s Prologue, part of this month’s selection from Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, the Wife of Bath, “Alisoun,” relates the following about her fifth and latest husband, Johnny:

He had a book, he kept it on his shelf,
And day and night he read it to himself
And laughed aloud, although he was quite serious
He called it Theophrastus and Valerius. (Coghill, trans.)

Johnny’s book was a collection of stories from classical and biblical sources about “wicked wives” (which, by the way, contained the story of Agamemnon’s death at the hands of his wife Clytemnestra and her paramour, a story told in next month’s reading, Aeschylus’s drama "Agamemnon").

Johnny enjoyed the narrative of wicked wives, until his wife sets him straight.

And when I saw that he would never stop
Reading this cursed book, all night no doubt
I suddenly grabbed and tore three pages out
Where he was reading, at the very place
And fisted such a buffet [punch] in his face
That backwards down into the fire he fell

Johnny then hits his wife on the head and knocks her unconscious. When she comes to, he promises never to lay hands on her again. He gives her full authority over their house and land. Alisoun makes Johnny “burn that book upon the spot.”

Who published Johnny’s book? It was no doubt self-published in Chaucer’s imagination. Insofar as it confirmed Johnny’s preconceived notions about the “wickeness of women,” Chaucer tells us it provided fine fireside reading for Johnny. Then life (er, wife) intruded.

Professor Mark Edmundson writes in his book Why Read? that one function of education is “to use major works of art and intellect to influence one’s Final Narrative, one’s outermost circle of commitments.” Johnny enjoyed the narrative of his book. His wife didn’t. She revised Johnny’s narrative for him in a book discussion of unusual physicality.

Group to Discuss "The Canterbury Tales" on Monday, September 22d

2008-09-05T15:20:00.003-04:00

Our next meeting will take place on Monday, September 22d, in the Village Library Meeting Room, at 7 p.m. We'll discuss several of the "Canterbury Tales," by Geoffrey Chaucer (ca. 1340-1400), the towering figure of English literature before Shakespeare. By turns pious, romantic, and bawdy, these tales reward readers with their humor and insight. Our selection this month includes the "Wife of Bath's Tale" (and its famous prologue in which she discourses on her five marriages) and the "Clerk's Tale."

Questions for "Principles of Government," by Montesquieu.

2008-08-16T11:05:00.017-04:00

This book discussion will take place on Monday, August 25th at 7 p.m. at the Huntington Public Library, 338 Main Street, Huntington, New York.

Interpretive Questions

Montesquieu writes (p. 254) that laws "should be in relation to the climate of each country, to the quality of its soil, to its situation and extent, to the principal occupation of the natives, whether husbandmen, huntsmen, or shepherds ..." Does this mean that every nation needs to have different laws.?

What is the distinction M. draws (p.255) between the "nature" and the "principle" of government?

What does M. mean when he writes, in the section entitled "That Virtue is Not the Principle of a Monarchical Government" (p. 260), that "I am not ignorant that virtuous princes are so very rare; but I venture to affirm, that in a monarchy it is extremely difficult for people to be virtuous"?

Why does honor take the place of virtue in a monarchical government (p. 261)?

Why is honor not a principle of a despotic government (p. 262)? Indeed, why does M. state that if would be extremely dangerous (p. 263?)

What does M. mean when he writes (p. 264), "History informs us that the horrid cruelties of Domitian struck such a terror into the governors, that the people recovered themselves a little during his reign. Thus a torrent overflows one side of a country, and on the other leaves fields untouched, where the eye is refreshed by the prospect of fine meadows"?

M. writes (p. 266): Such are the principles of the three sorts of government [democratic, monarchical, despotic] : which does not imply that in a particular republic they actually are, but that they ought to be, virtuous; nor does it prove that in a particular monarchy they are actuated by honor, or in a particular despotic government by fear; but that they ought to be directed by these principles, otherwise the government is imperfect." Does this mean these governments are destined to be guided by these principles?

Is M. correct in stating that extreme equality is as great a threat to the principle of democracy as lack of equality (p. 266)?

M. states (p. 269): "The natural place of virtue is near to liberty, but it is not nearer to excessive liberty than to servitude." Agree or disagree?

Is one of the three forms of government more susceptible to corruption than another (p. 266 ff)?

M.'s final words in this selection (p. 274) are "There are very few laws which are not good, while the state retains its principles." Though the title of his book is The Spirit of the Laws, does he imply here that good government depends not on good laws, but on good people?

Evaluative Questions

M. writes (p. 256), "There is no great share of probity necessary to support a monarchical or despotic government. The force of laws in one, and the prince's arm in the other, are sufficient to maintain and direct the whole. But in a popular state, one spring more is necessary, namely, virtue." Do you agree or disagree that virtue is more important in a democracy than in a monarchy or a tyranny?

Do you agree with Hobbes or Montesquieu that "man is naturally in a state of war (p. 252)"?

Can you summarize M.'s political philosophy by the statement: "No government or country can be great unless those in charge have the will to make it great"?

Could it be said of the United States today that we are closer to Greece at its height or Greece at its steepest decline? (p. 257-58; 269) If we are headed for a decline, to what could it be attributed? Too much material success, too much freedom, lack of personal discipline (cf. p. 269).

Engaging with Great Books Redounds to Your Benefit

2008-08-13T15:21:00.002-04:00

I think of The Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu’s magnum opus from which this month’s selection, “Principles of Government,” is taken, as a work of political philosophy. Montesquieu’s arguments, however, are often based on examples from history. In his chapter “Of the Principle of Democracy,” he cites examples from classical antiquity and seventeenth-century England.

Montesquieu writes of ancient Rome: “When Sylla thought of restoring Rome to her liberty, this unhappy city was incapable of receiving that blessing. She had only the feeble remains of virtue, which were continually diminishing. Instead of being roused from her lethargy by Caesar, Tiberius, Caius Claudius, Nero, and Domitian, she riveted every day her chains; if she struck some blows, her aim was at the tyrant, not at the tyranny.” (Nugent, trans.)

This paragraph had me running to Plutarch’s Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans to fill in gaps in my knowledge about Rome. Reading one great book often leads you to other great books.

Robert Maynard Hutchins, former president of the University of Chicago and a leading light of the post-World War II movement for continuing adult liberal education that led to the establishment of the Great Books Foundation, wrote in his book The Great Conversation that great books “enlarge our fund of ideas.” In my reading of Montesquieu as a philosophical book supported by historical examples, I’ve also picked up some useful history on the way.

"Principles of Government," by Montesquieu

2008-08-07T13:20:00.002-04:00

Our next discussion takes place Monday, August 28th, at 7 p.m. in the Village Library Meeting Room. The reading is an excerpt from the Spirit of the Laws by the great Charles-Louis de Secondat de Montesquieu (1689-1755). Here Montesquieu compares and contrasts republican, aristocratic, monarchical, and despotic governments. With the presidential campaign heating up, why not take pause to ponder and discuss what this French philosopher had to say about good and bad governments?

"The Iliad," by Homer

2008-07-21T13:03:00.000-04:00

Our next meeting on Homer's "The Iliad" will be held on Monday, July 28th at 7 p.m. in the Village Meeting Room. Here are some of the questions we'll discuss (page citations are from the Great Books Reading and Discussion Program, Third Series, Vol. 2.):

Interpretive questions

After giving up Chryseis to placate Chryses, Apollo’s priest, why does Agamemnon humiliate Akhilleus by making him give up his woman Briseis (Book 1) ?

What does Paris's statement (p. 112), "My own gifts are from pale-gold Aphrodítê -- do not taunt me for them. Glorious things the gods bestow are not to be despised," say about his attitude about the war?

Is Helen the victim of a male-dominated culture or is she truly the woman whose vanity "launched a thousand ships." Does she have moments when she becomes less a "sex symbol" and more a human being capable of introspection and even guilt? (pp. 116-117, 124-126, 143-144, 246)?

Why does the duel between Hektor and Aías in Book 7 not end with the death of one of the combatants but rather with an exchange of gifts (p. 160)?

Why (p.186, Book 11), does Zeus command "Strife to the beachhead" and resolve "to crowd great warriors into the undergloom."?

How and why does Hektor's attitude upon killing Patróklos (Book 16) differ from that of Akhilleus upon killing Hektor (Book 22)?

Evaluative questions

It seems obvious that the rationale for the war becomes something other than restoring Helen to Meneláos (pp. 118-24, 164), but what would that be?

What outcome do the lesser gods desire for the war? What about Zeus? Do they achieve their ends? What side does Homer favor?

Is "The Iliad" pro-war, anti-war, or neither?

What are the core values "The Iliad" espouses for humankind (or does it only espouse them for the warrior class?)

"On Evil," by Maimonides

2008-06-11T20:52:00.000-04:00

The next discussion will take place on Monday, June 23d in the Village Library auditorium at 7 p.m. We'll discuss some of the following questions (page citations from Great Books Reading and Discussion Program, Third Series, Vol.2):

Interpretive Questions

Page 83: Based on Maimonides’s discussion of matter vs. form, do you accept or reject his statement that “All man’s acts of disobedience and sins are consequent upon his matter and not because of his form, whereas all his virtues are consequent upon his form.”

Page 87: Maimonides writes, “Matter is a strong veil preventing the apprehension of that which is separate from matter from matter as it truly is.... Hence whenever our intellect aspires to apprehend the deity or one of the intellects, there subsists this great veil interposed between the two. This is alluded to in all the books of the prophets ….” How does matter prevent our “apprehension” of pure form? Is M. speaking metaphorically, e.g, when he invokes the line from psalm 97, “Clouds and darkness are around him.”

Page 84: Is Maimonides's statement of the necessity of matter and form to coexist an argument in support of the permanent existence of evil?

Page 90: What does Maimonides mean when he writes, “All evils are privations.” Do his examples (death, illness, poverty, ignorance) support this statement?

Page 91: Maimonides states that “the prophets and the Sages” teach about the “good being in its entirety an essential act of the deity,” and goes on to quote the Talmudic saying that "Nothing that is evil descends from above," but do Maimonides’s own arguments support this belief?

Page 92: Maimonides writes, “Just as a blind man, because of absence of sight, does not cease stumbling, being wounded, and also wounding others, because he has nobody to guide him on his way, the various sects of men – every individual according to the extent of his ignorance – does to himself and to others great evils from which individuals of the species suffer. If there were knowledge, whose relation to the human form is like that of the faculty of sight to the eye, they would refrain from doing any harm to themselves and to others.” If evil comes from ignorance, does M. believe that knowledge can overcome it?

Evaluative Questions

Maimonides states there are three kinds of evil (p. 95-100) : (1) those that result from our physical imperfection ; (2) those that "men inflict on one another," and (3) those "inflicted upon any individual among us by his own action." He says the third kind is much more prevalent than the second kind. Agree? Disagree? What would be some examples of evils we perpetrate upon our own selves?

Page 86: Do you buy Maimonides's argument as to why “Thoughts about sin are worse than sin.”?

HPL Great Books Reading and Discussion Group

Questions on Gilgamesh

Epic of Gilgamesh

Some Afterthoughts on Our Discussion of Plato's "Republic"

Questions on Plato's "Republic"

Some Afterthoughts on Monday Night's Discussion

Questions on "On Tragedy," by Aristotle

Questions on "King Lear" for September 26th

Questions on "The Education of Henry Adams" by Henry Adams

Henry Adams (1838-1918)

Questions re: "The Revolution in France," by Edmund Burke

Questions about Dante's Inferno, Cantos 17-34, for June 27th

JFK and Dante

Questions about "The Inferno," by Dante for May 23d

Questions on "Thus Spake Zarathustra," by Nietzsche

"A Book for All and None"

A Few Tips on Hume

Questions for "Of Personal Identity," by David Hume

David Hume (1711-1776)

Questions on "A Simple Heart," by Flaubert

Author of the Month: Gustave Flaubert

Some Questions about "First Principles of Morals," by Kant

Author of the Month

More Faust Questions (for Meeting on December 27th, 2010)

The Last Universal Man?

Discussion questions re: Goethe's Faust

Morphed

"The Metamorphosis" : Questions for Discussion

Kafka-esque?

Questions for September 27th Great Books Discussion

Freud in Dreamland

In Memoriam: Bernard Knox

Questions re: "Oedipus the King"

A Few Thoughts on Last Evening's Discussion

Questions about "Ecclesiastes"

Questions about "The Overcoat"

Nabokov on Gogol

Questions about "The Federalist"

Discussion Questions for "The Tempest"

The Bard's Month

Discussion Questions for "Rameau's Nephew"

A Montaigne Sampler

Questions for "Of Experience," by Montaigne

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592)

Questions on "Symposium," by Plato

Tips on Reading the "Symposium"

Fifth Anniversary Celebration

Questions about "The City of God" (Book XIV) by St. Augustine

Augustine's City of God

"Caesar and Cleopatra" : Questions for Discussion

"G.B.S."

My "Takeaway" from Last Evening's Meeting on "Utilitarianism" by John Stuart Mill

Questions about "Utilitarianism," by John Stuart Mill

From Futility to Utility

Questions re: "Job"

You and the Text

Questions about "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," by Edward Gibbon

History's Greatest Cautionary Tale

The L.I. Great Books Council Spring Institute

Discussion Questions for "The Misanthrope"

Castigat Ridendo Mores : "It Corrects our Manners with Laughter"

Questions re: "The Spirit of Capitalism," by Max Weber

Weber's "Iron Cage"

Questions re: "Medea," by Euripides, for Monday, April 27th

April the Cruelest Month?

Some Reflections on Last Evening's Discussion

Discussion Questions for "The Indestructibility of Our Inner Nature," by Schopenhauer

"Arthur, Arthur!"

Discussion Questions for "The Death of Ivan Ilych"

Names in Tolstoy's "The Death of Ivan Ilych"

Discussion Questions for "The Prince," Monday, January 26th

Read More Great Literature in 2009

A great book about Great Books

Next Meeting: "The Prince," by Machiavelli, Monday, January 26th 7 p.m.

Questions for "The Beast in the Jungle" Discussion, Monday, November 24th

Taming "The Beast in the Jungle"

"The Beast in the Jungle," by Henry James: November 24th

Questions for "Agamemnon" discussion, Monday, Oct. 27th, 7:00 p.m., Huntington Public Library

Tragedy and Democracy

"Agamemnon," by Aeschylus: Monday October 27th