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

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"

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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 willfulness (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

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

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 Nietzsche'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"

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

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

1. Why, according to Hume, do "some philosophers" think "the strongest sensation, the most violent passion" makes us more aware of the self? (p. 65)
2. If we doubt of the self, then is there "anything of which we can be certain" (p. 65)?
3. Why does Hume define "self" as mind or consciousness? Are there other possible definitions?
4. 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)
5. Is mind just a "bundle or collection of different perceptions"? (p. 66)
6. Can you conceive of the mind as a "kind of theatre" (p. 67)?
7. 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."
8. 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?
9. 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?
10. 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."
11. 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."
12. 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"?
13. 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?
14. 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."
15. Can something that changes still be the same?
16. 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)

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

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

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

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

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.