Francis Bacon's The New Atlantis

Francis Bacon, The New Atlantis, Dover Publications, Mineola, 2003

A near-contemporary of Descartes, Bacon was born 35 years earlier, in 1561.  I have to say I loved the archaic language of this text.  It reminded me of stories I read when I was young though I can't remember what these were: perhaps Robinson Crusoe, Swiss Family Robinson, Joshua Slocum's travels etc.  Sentences like, "So that, finding ourselves, in the midst of the greatest wilderness of waters in the world, without victual, we gave ourselves up for lost men, and prepared for death."; "But straightaway we saw divers of the people..."; "Ye knit my heart to you by asking this question ..."

Bacon's book is about a Utopic island.  His narrator is travelling by ship with 50 other people, leaving from Peru and sailing the southern sea heading for China and Japan.  They end up on the island of Bensalem.  It's described as an island that, shortly after Jesus' ascension into heaven, saw a column of light in the ocean nearby and found a wooden chest (an ark) containing the bible (Old and New testaments) and a letter written by one of Jesus' apostles, Bartholomew.  The island was "saved from infidelity (as the remains of the old world was from water) by an ark, through the apostolical and miraculous evangelism of St Bartholomew." Bacon's narrator makes careful distinction in the book (pg 15) between  something supernatural being "rather as angelical than magical."  A governor of Bensalem tells the company that "about three thousand years ago, or somewhat more, the navigation of the world (especially for remote voyages) was greater than at this day," referring to the fleets of the Phoenicians, the Carthaginians, Egpyt, China and "the great Atlantis (that you call America)."  He speaks about the descendants of Neptune, with temples, palace, city in the country of Atlantis and speaks of two great expeditions: from [present-day] Mexico across the Atlantic to the Mediterranean Sea; and from [present-day] Peru via the South Sea to the island of Bensalem.  The governor recounts a great Flood (deluge or inundation) that destroyed Great Atlantis leaving a scarce young population (the aboriginal peoples at the time of contact).

Bensalem had a great king almost 2000 years earlier, called Salomona (with a later reference to Solomon, king of the Hebrews).  He made many laws including laws "touching entrance of strangers" adding that this was "after the calamity of America," and referring to China having a law against the entrance of strangers without license.  Salomona founded an institution called Salomon's House, or the College of the Six Day's Work (being a Christian island), dedicated to finding out the true nature of all things.

Like Descartes, Bacon uses the metaphor of knowledge as light.  "But thus you see we maintain a trade, not for gold, silver, or jewels, nor for silks, nor for spices [...]; but only for God's first creature, which was light; to have light, I say, of the growth of all parts of the world." (pg 21).

The narrator receives a private audience with one of the fathers of Salomon's House who tells him their purpose is: "The end of our foundation is the knowledge of causes, and secret motions of things; and the enlarging of the bounds of human empire, to the effecting of all things possible" (pg 31).  They do this via various deep caves and high towers on hills and other locations in the natural world where they make observations and experiments.  They have developed a "water of Paradise" for "health and prolongation of life" (very Ponce de Leon).  Somewhat jarringly, in the middle of a description of a Paradisical park with divers plants, beasts and birds, there is a reference to animal experiments and vivisection "that thereby may take light what may be wrought upon the body of man. [...] We try also all poisons, and other medicines upon them, as well of chirurgery as physic."  There is quite a bit of description of some genetic engineering with the human hubris that holds true today with scientists and breeders thinking they are wiser than Nature in deciding what types of characteristics should be fostered and cultivated.  Also lots of descriptions of magical foods, medicines.

In the descriptions of what they have discovered and invented in Bensalem, you get intriguing hints of the various discoveries being made during and preceding Bacon's time and how this powered people's imaginations - and how imperfect their understanding of physics, biology etc were.  There is a description or imagining of a "perspective-house" where they manipulate light and various spectra and can see things as far off as the heavens, descriptions of microscopes etc (which were being invented in the 17th century), microphones, the telephone even: "We have all means to convey sounds in trunks and pipes, in strange lines and distances." (pg 37), planes, submarines.

They have galleries full of statues honouring inventors and Bacon lists numerous inventors and their discoveries.  This is a land where inventors and scientists are honoured and revered.

It's a slight text but very interesting.  I'm curious about what the class discussion will be.  I don't know that I came away with a clear idea of Bacon's contributions to 16c. (and later) thought but as I read various thinkers who came after him, his contributions became clearer.  He is described as an empiricist.
The Stanford site mentions him during a section on the Enlightenment:

Though Bacon's work belongs to the Renaissance, the revolution he undertook to effect in the sciences inspires and influences Enlightenment thinkers. The Enlightenment, as the age in which experimental natural science matures and comes into its own, admires Bacon as “the father of experimental philosophy.” Bacon's revolution (enacted in, among other works, The New Organon, 1620) involves conceiving the new science as (1) founded on empirical observation and experimentation; (2) arrived at through the method of induction; and (3) as ultimately aiming at, and as confirmed by, enhanced practical capacities (hence the Baconian motto, “knowledge is power”).

Machiavelli's The Prince

Machiavelli's THE PRINCE
Assigned Text: Machiavelli, The Prince,  (J.M.Dent, Everyman, 1995
Text I read: Machiavelli, The Prince, Transl. Luigi Ricci, Oxford University Press' World's Classics, New American Library, 1952, New York, Intro by Christian Gauss



The Prince was another one of those texts on my "TO READ" list.  I'd actually started to read this many years ago but never got very far.  I felt this text was very suited to the corporate or political world.  It was a very cold text and hard to read because of that, especially the 1st half where Machiavelli writes about killing all your enemies and if you are going to be brutal and cruel, do it all at once when you 1st take power and people will be overwhelmed by the amount of violence and brutality occurring all at once.  Then later, you can be a bit more benevolent and people will start to think you are a good leader and forget about your initial brutality.

pg 36
...and to possess them securely it suffice that the family of the princes which formerly governed them be extinct..."

It was strange - and a little sad - to think about Niccolo Machiavelli (1470-1503) writing this in exile from Florence.  An old man, trying to still be useful and needed.

In the latter parts of the book he seemed to have some thoughts that were a little more relevant to spheres other than the corporate or political:
He writes about how a prince can avoid being despised and hated.  That it is better to be loved than to rely on fortresses (not because it's  good to be loved but because it's more effective in retaining power).

He had a great observation (pg 39) about problems (in a kingdom or society) that sums up much of medicine today.  He wrote about things which are easy to cure but difficult to recognize vs things which are easy to recognize but difficult to cure.

He spoke (pg 168) about it being easier to keep people who were contented before you took over even if these people are initially your enemy, than to keep people who were discontented but may have been supportive initially - as the latter will probably remain discontented and then start to oppose you and undermine or actively fight you.  It made me think about the US presidential debates going on now and how it's all for the very small undecided vote.  For all the work, money and effort being expended to try and sway the undecided vote, if the voter is undecided because they are unhappy, they probably won't be a useful demographic nor a permanent supporter.

He writes about defendign yourself and the use of fortresses and says (pg 108)
"A prince who fears his own people more than the foreigners ought to build fortresses"
"... the best fortress to be found is the love of the people"

He also has some wise observations about keeping people's support, writing that a prince has to make sure that his subjects can prosper securely, that they will benefit from their hard work or even innovation, that the rewards won't be taken from them (either by excessive taxes or by outright force).

He also writes about how you can judge leaders (pg 114): "First impression of a ruler and of his brain is from seeing the men that he has about him."

He then goes on to list the various intellects that there are: "Three kinds of brains, the one that understands things unassisted, the other understands things when shown by others, and the third understands neither alone nor with the explanations of others."  Machiavelli says the 1st is excellent and the 3rd is useless, a harsh but likely practical judgement.  He writes about judging ministers by whether they think more of themselves or their "prince" and says the prince should reward them and give them honours so that they don't seek them elsewhere.

He also devotes a chapter (albeit short) to flattery.  He says there is no other way of guarding one's self against flattery than by letting men understand that they will not offend you by speaking the truth; but when everyone can tell you the truth, you lose their respect."  Machiavelli's strategy is to have trusted advisers (likely with the 1st kind of mind) around you that know you wish them to speak the truth to you, ask and encourage them at every opportunity to speak the truth to you (but only when you ask) and don't encourage it in others or unasked for.

Wisely he also says (pg 119) that it is a "common fault of man not to reckon on storms in fair weather".  He counsels not to rely on others but ultimately to only rely on yourself: nobody would desire to fall because he believed that he would then find some one to pick him up."  "Only those defences are good, certain and durable, which depend on yourself alone and your own ability".

Regarding LUCK, he thinks that Fortune is the ruler of 1/2 of our actions but that she allows the other half to be governed by us.  He also has some very acute observations to make about luck, fate and people's abilities or strengths or ways of doing things (he calls them procedures in this translation), saying that (pg 121)
"he is happy whose mode of procedure accords with the needs of the times, and similarly he is unfortunate whose mode of procedure is opposed to the times."  This is probably the most relevant observation as far as being applicable to today (or applicable forever).
He wrote that it is hard for men to change their procedure either because they can't change or because "having always prospered by walking a path, he cannot persuade himself that it is well to leave it."  Again we could probably do a forensic exam of the successes and failures of the business world and be able to categorize the leaders by these principles.

On the reason:passion scale, The Prince comes in at a solid 10 on the 10-point scale.

MARCUS AURELIUS: MEDITATIONS

Marcus Aurelius  Meditations , Translated by Robin Hard, Oxford World's Classics 2011



There are worse ways of spending a few days than sitting on the back deck, enjoying the Autumn sunshine and reading Mencius and Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations.  Both books were new to me and were a wonderful surprise.  I enjoyed Mencius but towards the end I was feeling a bit bogged down by the structured formality of the rites and courtesies as well as by the plethora of Chinese names that looked very similar to my western eyes (Chou, T-chou, Tsou, Ch’i, Chi, Ch’iu, Ch’u, Chieh, Chiao etc).  When you add in nicknames and honorifics etc, it left me quite lost.

 I really enjoyed Marcus Aurelius.  First of all, the thought that these meditations were written by the emperor of the Roman Empire, while he was fighting in Northeastern Europe to fend off the German hordes, is awe-inspiring.  He wrote as thoughtfully as the scholar-writers I’ve been reading during the previous weeks (Lucretius, Mencius, Plato).  Incredible.  I found his words very accessible and much of it still valid today – in that if you tried to follow his advice, you would probably be considered a good person, a moral person.  It was also interesting as I read through the book to see how his attitude or mood would alter in various sections.  Some of it was quite full of hope, in other sections he seemed quite down-hearted and cast down.  His words created a picture of a man who had spent his lifetime thinking about the meaning of life, how to live a moral life – and reading various philosophers and the writings of other thinkers that came before him.  It was hard to think of him as a man of action, of warfare.

 Marcus Aurelius lived from AD 121 to 180.  He was adopted by his uncle (emperor in AD 138-161).  He himself became emperor in 161, co-emperor with another adopted son, Lucius Verus until Lucius died in 169.  Marcus Aurelius died in 180.  During his lifetime he was a follower of the Stoic teachings.  Stoicism was started by Zeno and greatly expanded by Epictetus who wrote the discourses.  It was very interesting reading about the Stoic view of the world a few days after reading Lucretius, the Roman scholar-poet from the 1^st century BCE who followed the Epicurean school of thought.

The Stoics practiced 'practical ethics'.  For Marcus Aurelius this involved stripping down things to their essential reality, deciding what was really necessary, avoiding rash judgements or reactive emotions.

There were 3 branches of the teachings:

• logic (dialectic)
• physics (the study of nature)
• ethics

Marcus Aurelius covered 5 Stoic themes in his writings:

1. Living a virtuous life led to a happy life (virtue was all that was needed to ensure happiness).
2. Emotions and desires depend directly on beliefs about what is valuable or desirable.  Stoics should avoid reactive beliefs and be wary of judgements (as these may be inappropriate or misguided).  Consider priorities.
3. Humans have an inbuilt natural instinct to benefit others and all humans are capable of progressing towards the ideal state (complete virtue and happiness).
4. The natural world or Nature, has an inbuilt purpose or plan (or meaning).
5. Philosophy is a unified and systematic body of knowledge about the universe.

In much of his writings you can see a man trying to remind himself to do the right thing, to live a good life and avoid descending into pettiness or misguided emotion.  In Book 1 he describes what he has learned from various people (men) in his life:

Some of them could be written by any teenager struggling with how to grow up and become a good person.  Book 1.5.

[...] to endure hardship, and have few needs; to do these things for myself and not meddle in the affairs of others; and to turn a deaf ear to slander.

Some of them are reminders that life steadily moves on.  Book 2.4
Remember how long you have been deferring these things, and how many times you have been granted further grace by the gods, and yet have failed to make use of it.  But it is now high time that you realized what kind of universe this is [...] and that your time here is strictly limited and, unless you makes use of it to clear the fog from your mind, the moment will be gone, as you are gone, and never be yours again.

He revisits this theme in Book 10.16
No more of this talk about what a good man should be, but simply be one!

Though the Stoics are considered to be somewhat austere and not pleasure-loving (as compared to the Epicureans), Marcus Aurelius shows a slightly rosier view of life's possibilities.  In Book 5.5 he lists qualities he admires:

• disdain for sensual pleasures
• sincerity
• dignity
• endurance
• kindness
• freedom
• frugality

It's a somewhat austere list but in Book 3.2 he describes many simple daily aspects of life and the pleasure they can provide.  It reminds me of Lorna Crozier's new book "The Book of Marvels: A Compendium of Everyday Things" which celebrates the ordinary everyday things in our lives.  Marcus Aurelius notes many banal things and their beauty (such as the crack that develops on the crust of a loaf of bread during baking) and says:
[...] So if a person is endowed with sensibility and has a deep enough insight into the workings of the universe, he will find scarcely anything which fails to please him in some way by its presence [...]

Like the Epicureans, the Stoics felt that we should not worry about or fear death.  Similarly lusting after fame is useless as eventually no one will remember.  Aurelius spends many pages writing about death, fame, the expanse of time in which the universe exists etc.  I can't help but remember that he is writing these words towards the end of his life, and as he is facing battle and warfare daily.  He is constantly warning himself about how fleeting our time on earth is.  Aurelius counsels [himself?]  to remember (Book 4.3):
[...] that things of themselves have no hold on the mind, but stand motionless outside it, and all disturbances arise solely from the opinions within us; and secondly, that all that you presently behold will change in no time whatever and cease to exist [...]
'The universe is change, and life mere opinion.'  - Democritus No. 85

Book 4.35
All is ephemeral, both that which remembers and that which is remembered.

For Marcus Aurelius, intelligence and a sense of law were 2 qualities characteristic and universal to mankind.  Like Lucretius he feels that nothing proceeds from nothing, though where the Epicureans feel that the universe is random, the Stoics believe in Fate, in Nature's plan.
"Providence or atoms" (Book 4.3).  Marcus Aurelius frequently wrote about the fact that we don't know what Nature's plan is, what the big picture is - but Nature isn't wrong and so nothing that happens is wrong, it's all part of Nature's master plan.

LIke Mencius, Marcus Aurelius warned about being narrow-minded or having tunnel vision. 
Book 4.12
[...] be prepared to change your mind if someone is at hand to put you right and to guide you away from some ill-grounded opinion.  But this change of view must always be based on a conviction that it serves justice or the common benefit; and this or something like it should be the sole reason for your choice, rather than the impression that it would be pleasant or popular.

Book 6.21
If anyone can give me good reason to think that I am going astray in my thoughts or in my actions, I will gladly change my ways.  For I seek the truth, which has never caused harm to anyone; no, the person who is harmed is one who persists in his self-deception and ignorance.

Marcus Aurelius writes about Reason.  Book 6.23
[...] Towards irrational creatures and material things in general, act in a generous and liberal manner, because you have reason and they have none [...]

He also rejects imagination - because it leads to desire.  Book 7.17
[...] my imagination.  Go away in the name of the gods [...] for I have no need of you [...]

Book 9.7
Blot out imagination; put a curb on impulse; quench desire; ensure that your ruling centre remains under its own control.

In this he is much like Krishna in the Gita, recommending to let go of desire and of wanting. 
In Book 9.40 Marcus Aurelius gives advice on how to turn your prayers around. Don't pray for your desires to be fulfilled, pray to not have those desires, to release them, pray to not be afraid of losing things (even a child).  Pray to be released from these emotions and needs.  Importantly the Stoics advised to avoid over-valuation of non-important things (they call them 'indifferents').

He has a couple of great lines that would be wonderful to pull out in an argument:
"an abscess on the body of the universe" and a line from Epitectus "You are a little soul carrying a corpse around".  But I digress.

Reassuringly Marcus Aurelius feels that we all contain the possibility of these virtues and strengths.  Like Mencius he feels that we need to look within ourselves for the answers and solutions.
Book 10.33
[...] But mind and reason can find their way through every obstacle as their nature and will dictate.[...]

In Book 12.1 Marcus Aurelius says not to be afraid of dying but to be afraid of not living your life.  This book is full of bits wise advice and insight.  It is hard not to feel jaded about it and cynical.  The last few decades have been so full of self-help books that it is hard to read advice such as this without feeling a bit sceptical or even disparaging.  It helps to remember that this was written by a man who was leader of the Roman Empire and who had spent decades fighting battles for the survival of his empire.  This isn't Dr. Phil.

Mediations is a book I want to reread slowly and think about.

MENCIUS

MENCIUS Translated by D.C. Lau; Penguin Classics London 2004



An author completely unknown to me, Mencius lived in China in the 4^th century BCE.  He followed the teachings of Confucius who lived about a century earlier.  There was much change going on in China at the time with feudal states being expanded and annexed, government becoming centralized and individual ownership of the land permitted.  One interesting event that Mencius refers back to a few times was the Great Flood during the time of Yao, where Yü dredged “the Nine Rivers” forming the Yangtse, the Yellow River, the Huai and the Han.  Lucretius in De Rerum Natura, mentions Deucalion (the Greek Noah) and the Great Flood and of course the story of Noah and his ark is prominent in the 1^st book of old Testament of the bible (Genesis).

 I found much of what Mencius wrote (based on Confucius’ teachings) to be of interest and still useful today.  The text was a tough slog at times partly because of the plethora of Chinese names, nicknames or honorifics and partly because, mixed in with advice and observations that still resonate, was a lot of  analogy and advice about observing the rites, about the duties of the “higher” and “lower” members of society, about archaic very formalized courtesies etc.

 Mencius writes about ming: the moral commands or moral mandate from heaven which apply to both rulers and individuals.  There is much discussion of this mandate from Heaven in Mencius.  During his time the Yin dynasty was overthrown and I’m sure that the people and philosophers had to reconcile the divine right of the emperors and other rulers with the legitimacy of overthrowing of tyrants.  They seem to have accomplished this by concluding that mandates from Heaven can be bestowed and can be taken away, they aren’t forever. 

III.A.4

There are those who use their minds and those who use their muscle.  The former rule, the latter are ruled.

 Two central qualities or virtues valued by Mencius were:

Jen  = benevolence

Yi  = righteousness, duty

Mencius acknowledges that desires and appetites are part of human nature but because these are also part of animal nature, these aren’t the distinguishing components of human beings.  He felt that the distinguishing component or trait of humans was ‘heart’ or hsin.  The heart for Mencius was the thinking, moral part of man.  For Mencius it wasn’t wrong to enjoy pleasures etc but it came down to how you obtained the pleasures, what priority you assigned to the pleasure, how you lived your life.

Mencius describes 4 types of heart:

Heart of compassion                         =          benevolence

Heart of shame                                   =          dutifulness

Heart of Courtesy & Modesty         =          observance of rites

Heart of Right & Wrong                   =          wisdom

In Book IV.B.8

“Only when there are things a man will not do is he capable of doing great things”

Mencius felt that people were innately capable of good, of compassion.  He considers that we are all born with a good heart but we inevitably stray from this.

VI.A.11

The sole concern of learning is to go after this strayed heart.  That is all.

Mencius feels that most people don’t even realize their heart has strayed and that this is due to “ignorance of priorities”.  It’s not wrong to enjoy pleasures but if we put desire and pleasure above leading a moral life and following the Way, then our heart stays astray.  In this matter of priorities he is like the Epicureans.  The Epicureans would not have been in agreement about the importance of observing the rites and formalities but they felt that we should not be governed by our desires.

Whether people realize their potential depends mainly on their will/commitment to follow the Way, as well as on external circumstances.  Mencius has a great analogy about this.  He describes how lush and heavily treed Ox Mountain was in ancient times but because it was near a city, men kept cutting down the trees.  The forest might have been able to survive this over-harvesting because the environment (cool night air and morning dew) provided support and nurturing but it couldn’t survive the additional daily onslaught of the pigs and deer eating all the new young shoots of trees.  Similarly a person may be able to withstand much of what drains them by resting and replenishing their resources (mental, spiritual, moral) but if they are faced with a daily grinding away at them, their good qualities can’t survive.

The text is full of basic maxims about life.  One section quotes a saying of the people of Ch’i

You may be clever

But it is better to make use of circumstances

You may have a hoe

But it is better to wait for the right season

 VII.A.29

To achieve anything is like digging a well. You can dig a hole 9 fathoms deep, but if you fail to reach the source of water, it is just an abandoned well.

While many of these were apt, they weren’t as interesting as the sections where Mencius sets out what he thinks living a “good” life is.  Many of the precepts are quite austere. 

III.B.1

There has never been a man who can straighten others by bending himself

 III.B.8

When one realizes that something is morally wrong, one should stop it as soon as possible.

Mencius also had some interesting ideas on the value of adversity.  In Book VI.B.15

[…] As a rule, a man can mend his ways only after he has made mistakes.  It is only when a man is frustrated in mind and in his deliberations that he is able to innovate […] Only then do we learn the lesson that we survive in adversity and perish in ease and comfort.

 I am sure that there are many entrepreneours today that would find alot of wisdom in this.

One aspect of Mencius’ advice that I’ll be thinking about and trying to put into practice myself is his advice not to always look to others or be affected by others or blame others but to look to yourself.  It’s usually easier to blame someone or something else when you run into problems but your 1st step should be looking into yourself. 

IV.A.4

If others do not respond to your love with love, look to your benevolence;
If others fail to respond to your attempts to govern them with order, look into your own wisdom;
if others do not return your courtesy, look into your own respect. 
In other words, look into yourself whenever you fail to achieve your purpose.

In Book IV.A.8 he also offers some reassurance from the T’ai chia, albeit some tough love, putting the onus back on the individual:

When heaven sends down calamities,

There is hope of weathering them;

When man brings them on himself,

There is no hope of escape.

Once again, this entire text is written for men.  Women are assumed not to be part of any higher purpose.  It would be wonderful if we could discover ancient hidden texts written by women that let us know what their discussions were, something similar to the Nushu script that women in China used to learn and communicate with each other.

Mencius describes (Book III. B. 2) the way of women:

When a girl marries, her mother gives her advice […] “you must be respectful and circumspect.  Do not disobey your husband.” It is the way of a wife or concubine to consider obedience and docility the norm.

 Ultimately, Mencius' advice about personal integrity, self-reliance and self-analysis and about the value of reason and passion (priorities) hold true and have value to this day.

Plato's SYMPOSIUM

(Plato's Symposium, Tr. Christopher Gill, Penguin Classics, 1999)

(Plato's Symposium, Tr.Alexander Nehamas & Paul Woodruff, Hackett, 1989)

I read Plato’s Phaedrus for our introductory text back in July.  Phaedrus was an innocuously thin book that I found surprisingly tough to read.  I started to read his Symposium with some trepidation but found it much more accessible.  The Symposium contains a series of speeches about Eros or Love.  A relaxed group of post-prandial Athenian intellectuals are lying on their couches in the andrôn or male section of the house, attended by slaves, drinking wine and making speeches.  I tried to picture the scene.  I wish I had had some familiarity with the Athens of Plato and Socrates’ time when I was in my 20s and exploring Athens during a month travelling around Greece.  I would have loved to have contemplated life back in the 5^th century as I wandered around the city.  I enjoyed this book with its glimpse into the male Athenian intellectual world of 400-500 BCE.  I’ve decided to summarize what each speaker had to say as an aid to keeping the various ideas straight.

The SPEAKERS

Phaedrus speaks about love as LOVE, Eros the ancient, insufficiently-venerated God of love.  Created 3^rd, after Chaos and Earth.  This love is the love of an older lover for a younger boy where “guidance” is imparted, leading to a good life.  This love stops men from acting shamefully for fear of appearing shameful in the loved one’s eyes; encouraging men to behave well.  He cites  the story of Alcestis who took Admetus’ (her husband’s) place in Hades to save his life (and so the gods gave Alcestis her soul back). Alcestis is held up as an example of the ‘courage of love’.  Her bravery and love are overshadowed however by Achilles’ action in avenging his doomed lover Patroclus.  Because Achilles was the beloved rather than the lover, his sacrifice was considered nobler, and as reward, the gods sent him to the Isles of the Blest.

Phaedrus’ conclusion is that Love is the most powerful of the gods in helping men gain virtue and blessedness.

Pausanias, lover of Agathon, spoke next.  He discussed Aphrodite (companion of Love/Eros) as being 2 goddesses: ‘Heavenly’ Aphrodite, motherless daughter of Uranus who because of this purely male descent, “finds pleasure in what is by nature stronger and more intelligent.”  This Aphrodite is an older goddess and “free from the lewdness of youth”, preferring older boys who “have begun to form minds of their own.”  The relationship of an older lover to such a boy is not founded in deceit, but is about the imparting of knowledge, guidance – and is more enduring.  This speech seems a bit self-serving in its idealizing of the actual relationship of Pausanias and Agathon.

 ‘   'Common’ Aphrodite’s love “is truly common”.  It’s the love of an older man for young boys, or for women, “to the body more than the soul”.  This younger Aphrodite “partakes of the nature both of the female and the male” – hence vulgar.

      Pausanias groups philosophy, sport and Love together – as leading to ambition or bonds of friendship which is why he says Love is condemned by Rulers in their “lust for power”.  To be honorable, Pausanias feels that love should be openly declared.  He feels love is complex and that its character (honorable or shameful) “depends entirely on the behaviour it gave rise to.”

While Pausanias’ speech seems a bit pompous, he does support love of character rather than physical beauty.  Love of beauty “is bound to be inconstant, since what [is] love[d] is itself mutable and unstable.  The moment the body is no longer in bloom, “he flies off and away,” his promises and vows in tatters behind him.  How different from this is a man who loves the right sort of character, and who remains its lover for life, attached as he is to something that is permanent.”  Pausanias goes on to describe the only way in which these honorable love affairs should be conducted, a narrow viewpoint that has not held up 2500 years later.

Eryximachus spoke next.  He was a medical doctor and his speech addressed love from a corporal point of view.  He contended that our bodies “manifest the two species of Love.”  “Good” love is like good health and “bad” love is like disease in a body.

“The physician’s task is to effect a reconciliation and establish mutual love between the most basic bodily elements.”

He saw conflict within the body: between hot and cold, bitter and sweet, wet to dry; and he refers back to Asclepius as being the first to learn how to reconcile these opposing elements. 

Eryximachus extends this theory of the reconciling of opposites to music, with harmony being produced when high and low notes are brought into agreement.

Fourth to speak was Aristophanes who wove a beguiling myth about the original 3 kinds of human beings: male-male (offspring of the sun), female-female (offspring of the earth) and male-female (offspring of the moon).  These original beings had 4 hands and legs, 2 faces etc.  The gods decided to punish them after the humans attempt to “make an ascent to heaven” – an event very reminiscent of God’s punishment for the hubris of the Tower of Babel in Genesis.  In this myth however, instead of sowing linguistic confusion and scattering mankind to the 4 corners of the earth, the gods cut each human being in two.  Most fascinating in this was the description of Apollo drawing all the skin into a pouch with a drawstring, forming the navel.

Aristophanes’ myth proposes that love is the attempt by each human being to find and reunite with their separated half – a very appealing (though limiting) idea.

Agathon spoke next and his theory of love is that Eros or Love is the happiest, most beautiful and best of the gods.  “Love was born to hate old age.”  Not a very inspiring viewpoint for the Zoomer generation.  Agathon posits that Love “makes his home in the characters, in the souls, of gods and men.”  He goes on to describe Love’s moral character which is comprised of justice, moderation, wisdom and ‘manly bravery’.

In Agathon’s words, Love

Gives peace to men and stillness to the sea,

Lays winds to rest, and careworn men to sleep.

His view of Love also seemed constrained and limiting but without the appeal of Aristophanes' myth.

Socrates spoke last of those present.  He described how a speaker should construct their speech, at 198d:

“In my foolishness, I thought you should tell the truth about whatever you praise, that this should be your basis, and that from this a speaker should select the most beautiful truths and arrange them most suitably.”

He began by questioning Agathon and showing him where he has erred in logic in his speech.  He then recounted a discussion he had with a foreign priestess, Diotima, who taught him about love.  Socrates argues that Love is the desire for “good things” or for happiness and to have them forever.  Diotima described a myth about Love: a child of Necessity and Poverty, conceived on the day of Aphrodite’s birth and therefore her companion, lover of the beautiful since Aphrodite was beautiful, lover of wisdom.  Love is described as poor, resourceful, a schemer and great hunter: “brave, impetuous and intense.”

Diotima/Socrates ends by saying that what Love wants is reproduction in beauty and hence immortality.

A final speaker appears when Alcibiades arrives late and very drunk.  His speech focuses on Socrates and he describes him as both a man, ugly and unappealing on the outside, and a sage with many good qualities such as courage, endurance, wisdom on the inside; comparing him to the statue of Silenus which though ugly and base on the outside, opened to show beautiful idols inside.  Alcibiades’ speech goes on to describe Socrates as the beloved rather than the lover and then shows that Socrates loved beauty and wisdom.  He quotes Socrates as saying, at 218c, “You’re trying to get true beauty [Socrates’ wisdom or philosophical ideas] in return for its appearance [beautiful young boy].”

What was appealing to me about Alcibiades' eulogy of Socrates and of Love, was that though he started by ridiculing Socrates’ appearance and his role as aged lover of beautiful young boys, he ended up praising his understanding and wisdom, his integrity.

“If you’re prepared to listen to Socrates’ discussions, they seem absolutely ridiculous at first. … But if you can open them up and see inside, you’ll find they’re the only ones that make any sense. … They range over most – or rather all – of the subjects that you must examine if you’re going to become a good person.”

When I think about the topics for this course, Reason and Passion, I find both present throughout the Symposium.  The entire book is about Eros, love or desire, and discusses the passions that motivate and torment men but also as a path to beauty or the divine. The book is a constructed as a series of speeches attempting to present a point of view and persuade the listener, usually by reason and logic, of the truth of the speaker’s viewpoint.

GENESIS

GENESIS
(online text)

It was interesting to read Genesis after reading the Bhagavad Gita.  Both texts begin with a listing of family members: in the Gita both Dhritarashtra and Arjuna, his nephew, list family members as the cousins prepare for battle, a battle between the sons of Dhritarashtra and the sons of his brother Pandu.  Genesis contains a recounting of mankind’s lineage beginning with Adam (and Eve) and extending down to Joseph, younger son of Israel (Jacob) and Rachel.

Lineage and family seem to be important in both cultures and times (India before 150 BCE and the Middle East prior to 1250 BCE.  In the Gita the family relationships are in the background but in the Old Testament the lineages described comprise the main framework of the text.  It describes mankind's original descendants and in particular their interactions and covenants with the Lord.  Genesis ends with mention that from the 12 sons of Jacob (Israel) came the 12 tribes of Israel.

Genesis seems to be an attempt to explain how mankind came to be, and why life in the world is so hard: 

• the fall from grace when Eve and Adam ate the apple and were banished from the Garden of Eden, when Adam was condemned to a hard life of labour and Eve was condemned to the pains of childbirth;
• the great flood which was punishment for the wickedness in the world, wiping out all living things except Noah, his family and the pairs of animals he had selected to save in the Ark;
• the Tower of Babel where man’s one language was forever confused by God because mankind had dared to aspire to reach for heaven;
• the covenant with Abraham and his descendants, a covenant renewed with Isaac, one of Abraham’s descendants.

Both texts (the Gita and Genesis) deal to some extent with living a good life (as opposed to living "the good life"), though the Gita’s message or advice is more structured and consistent.  Genesis seems to be more descriptive of ‘historical’ events that led to the known world (or as it was known prior to 1250 BCE) rather than a  carefully thought out set of advice on how to live one’s life.  Aside from fear and devotion to one god, there is no consistent message in Genesis on how to reach Paradise.

I was struck while I was reading Genesis on how much of it still is present in our everyday conversation or literature.  The text itself has a very archaic style and structure but the words and concepts are very much present and in use today:

In the beginning, God created…

And God saw that it was good

Let us make man in our image

Be fruitful and multiply

Garden of Eden

And on the 7^th day…he rested

You are dust and to dust you shall return

Cain & Abel

Am I my brother’s keeper?

A mark on Cain

Dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden [where Cain dwelt]

40 days and 40 nights

Two and two, male and female, went into the ark

The dove came back to the ark after the flood with an olive leaf in her beak (so Noah knew the flood waters had subsided from the earth)

For God made man in his own image

Sold his birthright for a mess of pottage

Tower of Babel

Sodom & Gomorrah

Sold into Egypt

The great Flood

The 12 tribes of Israel

There were many sections that I did not know or remember from growing up in the Catholic school system in Quebec, such as God saying that he would set his bow in the clouds as a sign of his everlasting covenant with the earth that he will never again wipe out all living things with a great flood.   I can see how the terms “old testament” came to mean a severe God and harsh punishment.  There were definite, harsh consequences for actions or sins.  I have more remembrance of New Testament readings from going to mass as a child.  These were very different with their themes of “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” and of forgiveness and redemption: the forgiving of the prodigal son, of Judas, of Mary Magdalene, the concept of repentance.

As a guide on how to live a good life, the Bhagavad Gita seems more useful and relevant than Genesis.