Here I introduce the thought of Plutarch and how what we refer to today as “history” initially had a much richer understanding, both theoretically and practically
It’s from my forthcoming sequel on the thought of Nietzsche, but it can stand on its own
@SperglerAcolyte Yes, the Nichols translation is the best in English, and his footnotes throughout explaining his choices for translating various words and differences in various manuscripts are invaluable
@nyktophilos@SperglerAcolyte@dominbydigdug It’s always helpful to have a couple translations for comparison, especially if your knowledge of Greek is like most students (ie only at the beginning/intermediate level)
I prefer the Nichols translation for the reasons I mentioned above.
Nietzsche’s Poetry: Thucydides, Plato, and Aristotle
—Nietzsche on “interpretation” and History
—The “old quarrel” of poetry and philosophy in Plato: “Theology” as “the Ancients and Moderns”
—Greatness of Soul and Poetry in Aristotle
—The Sicilian expedition in Thucydides
I’ve made this free because I think the topic is so relevant for the problems we face today and, unfortunately, far too few people read Thucydides
I think you will enjoy it:
—War
—What is “education”?
—What is “technology”?
—What is man?
—How should we even read “great books”?
Here I introduce the virtue of greatness of soul for better understanding the depths of:
— Aristotle’s entire Nicomachean Ethics
— Thucydides
— Plato
— Shakespeare
— Nietzsche
— Ourselves (!)
I also discuss the enormity of its problems for even being a virtue in Christianity
@PierreBalinski … for instance, Hankins is effectively illiterate from literally everything I’ve seen him say about Plato, Aristotle etc
And even his historicism is of the facile kind that would get an undergrad failed in a survey course
He is simply wrong
Everything depends upon whether:
— You accept Lucretius’s claim that the beautiful is (merely) incidental, or
— You agree with Thucydides, Plato/Aristotle that the most significant beauty is not subject to temporality but, rather, it is sempiternal
There is no great book that did not begin without the author being alarmed by what was happening around him and wanting to change or reform his world. The idea that you can understand Aquinas in his full richness for example, without understanding the 3rd Lateran Council or the history of Aristotle’ reception is an impoverishment of understanding, not an enhancement.
@PierreBalinski Once I see someone who takes seriously the reading of the thought of a text before they jump to “contextualize” it historically I will consider such questions. But as things stand presently I’ve not encountered such a person in this discussion
… and you only come to know that by studying the “great books,” not their historical context
The problem with historians is that they’re mere (ideological) simplifiers when not outright reductionists even and especially *despite* their endless appeals to minutia
@FischerKing64 A friend of mine was offered a full-ride scholarship to play football at Yale and wanted to go but ultimately turned it down because he said the kitchen in the frat houses he visited on campus were too disgusting
He accepted Columbia’s offer to play there instead
The funniest thing about the result of that conflation for us today — seen in the effeminate passive aggression motivating the pedantry of so many academics — is how the claims of “impartiality” in writing history etc initially arose *from* the manly virtue of honor
It’s a huge mistake to conflate “truth” with “objectivity,” where what’s typically meant by “objectivity” is “unbiased,” “dispassionate,” etc
That conflation invites pettiness, smallness of soul, and outright unmanliness — all disguised as scholarship! — more than anything else
It’s a huge mistake to conflate “truth” with “objectivity,” where what’s typically meant by “objectivity” is “unbiased,” “dispassionate,” etc
That conflation invites pettiness, smallness of soul, and outright unmanliness — all disguised as scholarship! — more than anything else
@philo_islamica@FirstDoctor Yes I thought about taking that direct approach, but notice that the approach I chose instead says the same thing:
The purpose of intoxication is to show how well (or poorly) one’s education has become a new first nature
@PhilipDBunn But keep in mind few readers realize “the best city in speech”/ “the city one would pray for” are very explicitly limited in size
For example, these two below are so hasty in wanting to make Plato/Aristotle say what they want them to say that they’re effectively illiterate