The only question I have is that if it’s the tot’s destiny to be eaten, are the tots in the container truly random?

WP3

Aristotle defines virtue as habitually and knowingly choosing the good from an unshakeable character, to the appropriate extent and in the same manner as a virtuous person would act. Regarding habituation, it is not sufficient to perform a virtuous act once or twice. Actors perform multiple identities once or twice and act in similar fashion. Rather, a person must habitually and consistently choose the good in order to be properly labelled virtuous. Second, the agent must be cognizant that his choice is virtuous in order to be properly labelled virtuous. An individual who just happens to perform virtuous acts cannot be considered virtuous because his actions subject him just happening to choose a virtuous act. An unskilled golfer or athlete can every now and then pull off a very skilled act, but since this act occurred by sheer chance and not through habituation and without knowledge to consistently repeat the act, his action cannot be considered skilful.

Third, the act must aim towards a good to be labelled virtuous. Acts that do not aim towards goods are inherently reproachful and vicious. Since all acts aim towards something (all acts contain a specific telos), acts that wish to achieve the good are accomplished through virtue. Fourth, the agent must choose the good from an unshakable character. It the agent struggles in his choice, it is apparent that he has not fully habituated himself in consistently choosing the good. Fifth, in order for an act to be virtuous, the agent must perform the act according to correct proportions. Virtues exist as means between the extremes of deficiency and excess. Both extremes are vices. Therefore, an act must be performed to the correct extent in order for it to be appropriately called virtuous. Finally, the individual must perform the act just as a virtuous person would act given similar circumstances. This requirement seems to serve as a catch-all to get anything Aristotle forgets to specifically mention. In order for an act to be called virtuous, a truly virtuous person must act in similar fashion given similar circumstances.

Purpose plays an integral role in ethical behaviour in the matrix films. As stated above, all actions aim towards a particular end. In the Matrix, purpose is inherent to the existence of both man and machine. For machines, there is a specific function for which they are created to successfully and consistently perform. If programs are created that perform a specific function more efficiently than a current program, the current program becomes obsolete and returns to the Source for deletion. Further, programs that do not have any purpose are immediately sought for deletion. Programs must successfully, consistently and unswervingly perform their tasks. Therefore, it seems that the behaviour of the machines reflect Aristotle’s requirements for virtue. Additionally, vice seems apparent in the machine world. Programs that refuse deletion can live as exiles (such as the Merovingian) or can decide to generally wreak havoc (such as Smith).

For humans, purpose also seems to play an integral role regarding Neo’s role as the One. The matrix employed the anomaly of the One as a means to continue controlling humanity. The One’s purpose was to select a given amount of people to successfully repopulate Zion and then reboot the system, ensuring the continuance of the cycle of subjugation. In contrast with is predecessors, Neo refuses to fulfil his telos and instead decides to save Trinity instead. The One is created to have a general affinity for humanity, which would motivate him to act in such a way that would continue the existence of his species. However, Neo loves a specific human, and this specific love trumps any general affection he feels towards humanity and allows him to further divorce himself from his original purpose. Throughout the films, Neo consistently chooses love of specific individuals over love of general humanity. Not only does he venture to save Trinity but he also moves to rescue Morpheus despite Morpheus allowing himself to be captured in order to allow Neo to escape.

At this point it seems that, while Neo successfully and habitually chooses the good (humanity’s salvation), he does it from a purpose different than what is originally determined for him. He especially does not act like his predecessors act, who serve as models for how Neo should act. Therefore, it cannot be said that Neo acts according to Aristotelian virtue. However, it could be argued that ultimately, Neo fulfils the purpose of the One at a deeper level than any of his predecessors. Through sacrificing himself in his battle against Smith, Neo successfully preserves the human race while also allows the machines to keep those who desire to remain in the matrix under their control. Since the original function of the One was to ensure stability and order, Neo has successfully accomplished this purpose by ending the war between man and machine. He therefore successfully fits Aristotle’s requirements for virtue.

WP3

The life of the mind forms another important aspect within the matrix films. Aristotle describes the contemplative life as a continuous activity of the mind in which an individual focuses on theoretical wisdom or the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake.

Aristotle describes the contemplative life as a life most blessed and happiest. Whereas the life of activity is happy in a secondary sense, the life of the mind is happy in a primary sense. This is because the contemplative life is not as subject to external factors like the life of activity. The active life requires others in order to successfully achieve happiness. In contrast all that the contemplative life requires is oneself.

Additionally, the active life can happen only so long as others are present and the right opportunity arises and is therefore not as continuous as the contemplative life. Further, contemplation emphasizes and focuses on the highest aspect within humanity-his reason. It is in this sense that through contemplation man is capable of joy similar to that experienced by the divine. In order to properly achieve the life of the mind, the individual must first possess all of the virtues of the active life.
In the matrix films, there is a divorce between the life of the mind and the life of activity. Those imprisoned within the matrix are simply imprisoned within their minds and therefore cannot achieve any active life. Similarly, those unplugged from the matrix might be able to achieve active virtue, but intellectual and contemplative virtues are still divorced from the body and form part the matrix. This is evidenced by their rugged existence whose only meaning is to insure the survival of humanity.

Through Neo both the active and contemplative lives are united. After he refuses to return to the Source in the second film Neo’s powers as the One cross over from existing solely within the matrix to being apparent in both the real world and in the matrix. With both lives united within him, Neo returns to the Source in order to end the war. His sacrifice renders those within matrix freedom and a chance to pursue the virtuous active life while those living unplugged from the matrix are now free to cultivate the life of the mind in the absence of the threat of destruction by the machines.

WP3

The problems of choice and free will are inherent themes in the matrix trilogy. Aristotle breaks down free will into voluntary and involuntary acts.

Involuntary acts are acts performed either by constraint or ignorance. Acts performed by constraint are acts performed by the agent through an external force. A tyrant commanding a slave to perform a particular act or wind blowing a ship off course are examples of involuntary acts performed by the slave and the ship. Acts performed by ignorance are performed by an agent unaware of himself or unaware of the nature of his own actions. They may be aware of the universal goods but are ignorant of the means to achieve them.

In contrast, voluntary acts are acts performed where the origin of the action lies within the agent. The agent is moved internally (rather than externally by involuntary actions) to act. Another requirement of voluntary actions is that the agent must be aware of the particular circumstances which the action is to be performed (NE 3.1.23). An example of a voluntary action is an individual submitting to a tyrant’s demands in order to save his family. While there exists a slight hint of involuntary action in the agent’s activity (An external movement prompts the agent’s action), ultimately the individual is aware to the particular circumstances of the situation and chooses to save his family by submitting to the tyrant’s will. His action is therefore more similar to a voluntary act.

Within the sphere of voluntary actions is choice. According to Aristotle, choice lies independent of appetites, wishes and personal opinions. Rather, choice has to do with things that lie within our power (3.2.30). More specifically there is a deliberative element inherent within choice. Aristotle defines deliberation as a process in which methods are determined in order to achieve a particular end. In this case, people are already aware of the end and the good at which they aim. The problem is that they are unaware as to how to achieve this end through particular circumstances. The process of deliberation allows an agent to determine and develop means to achieve this end: “we deliberate not about ends but about the means to attain ends” (3.3.12).

In the matrix films, choice is presented in two opposing views as either illusory or real. Regarding truth as illusory, Smith is greatest proponent. He perceives choice as simply another illusion meant to control and subjugate everything. He thanks Neo for setting him free from serving the machines but then remarks that, since he and Neo are still within the matrix, they remain controlled by the machines. . For the machine world, all things are governed by the parameters of the matrix. Similarly, humanity’s actions are driven by desires to survive and to give meaning to their lives. Therefore, machines are controlled by their own parameters and men are controlled by their own desires for self preservation and thirst for meaning. Smith concludes that all things are therefore inherently enslaved an begins to wreak havoc in both the real world and the matrix.

Another major proponent of choice as illusory is the Merovingian. He recognizes an extreme form of determinism in which the actions of all creatures are simply the result of a combination of antecedent factors. An agent performs a certain act because certain antecedent factors just happened to align. Choice is therefore an illusion created by those in power in order to maintain their power. The aim of life therefore is to become aware the power of causality and seek to understand what factors cause events to occur (sounds like Spinoza). Such views of man affected solely by external forces such as causes and happenstance would render individuals as merely involuntary agents unable to really decide anything.

In contrast, the Oracle and in turn Neo view choice as a real aspect integral reality. In the face of what looks like extreme determinism, the Oracle remarks that people have already chosen what they will do. What they are to do now is understand why they chose what they did. For example, those enslaved by the matrix have simply chosen to remain within the matrix. Similarly, Neo had already chosen to become the One, to save Trinity instead of rebooting the matrix and to sacrifice himself in order to save humanity. What he must do in order to fully have these choices realized is to understand the nature of these actions and why he has chosen them.

Comparing this view of choice with that of Aristotle, people must have had the ability to choose what they did in order to fit Aristotle’s definition. It seems fitting that people did indeed have the ability within themselves to properly choose; otherwise, they wouldn’t have been able to choose in the first place. However, Aristotle also states that people must be aware of their particular circumstances in order to properly and voluntarily choose. Regarding those who have chosen to be in the matrix, it doesn’t seem that they could be capable of knowing their particular circumstances since they were but infants grown by the machines in order to serve as energy. Perhaps this choice to be in the matrix possesses an unconscious element that allows the agent to choose. However, (to my knowledge) Aristotle does not distinguish between conscious and subconscious aspects of an individual’s identity. When speaking of actions from ignorance, regards ignorance of one’s identity as nonsense, since people are incapable of lacking knowledge of their own identity. Therefore, it seems that choice as presented in the matrix trilogy does not align with Aristotle’s conception of choice.

WP3

My next three posts are selections from my final paper in Ancient philosophy regarding the interaction between the matrix and Hellenic thought. Pardon my lack of pictures. Since I’m rather pressed for time I hope only my words will suffice. Enjoy.

Plato depicts Love as an intermediate spirit neither good nor beautiful but that desires the Good and the Beautiful. It assists those seeking the Beautiful in their attempt to successfully achieve their goal. It is only by Love that the soul is able to achieve Beauty.

This process occurs through several stages. First, the lover must devote himself at first to one beautiful body and then to beautiful bodies in general. Through this devotion he begins to beget beautiful ideas. Second, the lover must transition from love of beautiful bodies to love of beautiful souls. He will then be capable of begetting beautiful ideas that are beneficial towards cultivating goodness within man. The lover’s devotion towards cultivating the goodness of men’s souls compels him to become a student of laws and customs. At this point the lover transitions towards becoming a lover of not just particular customs and laws but a lover of all kinds of knowledge and wisdom; this transition marks him as a philosopher. Through much dedication and devotion the philosopher prepares his soul for an encounter with the Beautiful itself. This encounter further strengthens his soul until (if he is fortunate enough) he is able to remain in Beauty’s presence. It is at this point that the philosopher begets mire than simple images of virtue (as beautiful as those are). Rather, he is capable of begetting virtue itself which beautifies not only himself but all those that come in contact with his beautiful ideas.

Love plays an essential role in the matrix trilogy. It is through love that the characters are capable of not only advancing the plot but also love grants them the ability to accomplish great things in order to establish peace between man and machine.

Through love, Morpheus is capable of finding the One and freeing Neo. His love of humanity spurs him to forsake all and seek the One who according to prophecy will end the war. He finds Neo and liberates him from the prison of the matrix. He educates Neo in the nature of reality and alludes to his purpose as the One. Through is love of Neo he sacrifices himself by allowing himself to be captured by the agents in order to preserve Neo’s life. In the later films Morpheus continues to have faith in Neo despite many detractors and non-believers. He goes against the orders of Zion by leaving a ship behind in order to receive word from the Oracle. He further assists Neo by helping him meet the Architect in the second film. Finally, he helps rescue Neo from the Merovingian’s custody despite overwhelming odds against him.

Through love, Trinity also plays a role in allowing Neo to save humanity. She plays an integral role in freeing Neo from the matrix. Next, by the end of the first film it is through love that she returns Neo to life and subsequently unleashes the power of the One within him. Additionally, it is through love that Trinity jacks into the matrix in order to destroy the power plant and insure that Neo is able to safely encounter the Architect. In so doing she essentially resigns herself to death as, on her way out of the matrix she is confronted with an Agent and must fight for her life. Furthe,r it is through love that Trinity manages to rescue Neo from the Merovingian. She declines the Merovingian’s deal to retrieve the eyes of the Oracle in turn for Neo’s freedom and resorts to more direct means of negotiation, offering her life and the Merovingian’s in turn for Neo’s freedom. Finally, it is through love that she faces death in delivering Neo to Machine City in order to end the war.

Through love, Neo is able to not only save his friends but all of humanity. It is for love of Morpheus that he risks certain death and assaults a compound rife with Agents and guards in order to rescue his mentor. It is also through this rescue that Neo begins to believe himself to be the One. Next, it is through love that Neo chooses to go against the original purpose of the One to save Zion and reboot the matrix and instead set out to save Trinity. Through is love of Trinity he is able to resurrect her from death. Finally, through love of humanity Neo sacrifices himself in order to defeat Smith. In turn Neo not only saves humanity from destruction by the machines but also saves the machines from destruction by Smith.

Finally regarding the machines, it is through love that the parents of Sati save their daughter by sacrificing themselves. Since all programs must have a purpose, programs without a purpose must return the Source and face deletion. However, Sati’s parents love her and do not want her to be deleted. They negotiate a deal with the Merovingian that bestows upon Sati a purpose-to raise the sun. However, this deal is at the expense of both parents, as they are consigned to deletion. Through love, Sati’s parents sacrifice themselves in order to allow their daughter to continue to live.

WP3

]]> http://phylakas.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/matrix-plato-and-love/feed/ 1 phylakas Matrix Reloaded http://phylakas.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/philosophers/ http://phylakas.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/philosophers/#comments Mon, 10 May 2010 20:04:58 +0000 phylakas http://phylakas.wordpress.com/?p=270 ]]>

By demonstrating how the lover fails to parallel the scholar, I hope I have also alluded to how he greatly aligns with Nietzsche’s conception of the philosopher. I will now briefly compare the lover to the philosopher and demonstrate how both types undergo similar experiences and possess similar characteristics in their quests for beauty and authenticity.

First both warn against placing faith in opposites. Conventional perspectives of the world view good and evil, up and down, etc as equally and oppositely opposed—a wide gulf separates the two. However upon further inspection Nietzsche argues that there is more going on beneath the surface—that up and down, left and right are simply matters of perspective while atrocities can be committed in the name of good and “evil” acts are simply good things in disguise. At bottom seeming opposites are actually intricately interwoven.

This sentiment is echoed in the Symposium. At the beginning of Diotima’s conversation with Socrates, the priestess tells Socrates that Love is neither good nor beautiful. A bewildered Socrates wonders whether or not Love is therefore bad and ugly. Diotima immediately dismisses Socrates’ wonderings and begins to instruct him in the intricacies of love. In similar fashion, the philosopher is aware of the interplay between entities that appear prima facia polar opposites.

Second both the lover and the philosopher perceive education as a sort of liberation. Through education the lover can be led up towards the heights of Beauty and become transformed, giving birth to truly beautiful ideas and basking in its presence. Diotima educates Socrates in the arts of love and Socrates in turn educates the members of the party the steps required in order to encounter the Beautiful. Likewise, the philosopher is a sort of liberation of the self; it is the task of the educator to reveal to their students the student’s original, authentic essence: “Education is rather liberation, the clearing away of all weeds, rubble and vermin that might harm the delicate shoots” (SE 166). Education helps reveal to the student his authentic self and spurs him to further cultivate it.

The necessity of the type of individual also plays an integral role in their education. Nietzsche warns that apart from education, those who descend within themselves in search of their authentic identity risk doing more harm than good: “a man may easily do himself such damage that no doctor can cure him” (SE 166). Likewise, Plato implies that knowing one’s goal does not inherently entail that one pursue that goal. Rather, it depends on the character of the individual and whether or not he is committed enough (Nietzsche would say bold enough and not lazy) towards achieving one’s goal. This is most evident at the Symposium’s end where Alcibiades, a former student of Socrates, drunkenly disrupts the party begins to mock Socrates while lamenting his own failure at seducing his teacher. While educators can reveal to their students the shoots of their authentic self, it is up to the individual to cultivate this authentic self within them.

Another important similarity between the lover and the philosopher is the notion of ascent. The whole of the lover’s journey is an ascent towards the Beautiful. Likewise, Nietzsche remarks that the individual’s true authentic self lies not within himself but above; it is a higher type of being: “for your true nature does not lie hidden deep inside you but immeasurably high above you.” (SE 166). Both the lover and the philosopher must embark on an ascent in order to achieve their goals.

However, along with this ascent must come a strong sense of dedication and also a readiness to struggle. Nietzsche remarks that the philosopher must be prepared to forget himself and embrace the suffering inherent in the ascent towards authenticity. In order to break through the vicious flux of Becoming and the temporal, the philosopher must go against society and even go against himself in order to truly reach the realm of authentic Being. Similarly the lover must utterly dedicate himself to his task of encountering Being if he is to have any hope of success. He too must forget himself and love others and then all sorts of knowledge before reaching the pinnacle of his ascent.

Such dedication and suffering readily answers the question of the rarity of both the lover and the philosopher. Nietzsche observes that the rarity of the philosopher (and the artist and saint for that matter) are largely in part due to people’s laziness; they are caught up in too many activities of this current age to cultivate their unique identity. In short, they are too distracted and too lazy to achieve something higher than what they already do. Society and the state further hamper self cultivation as they both seek to maintain order and control over its people to insure that those in power remain in power and the state remains secure. They perpetuate and encourage individuals to remain distracted and oppose those dedicated enough to seek their authentic identity apart from the masses.

This dedication also commits both the philosopher and the lover to solitude. The lover begins by devoting himself to first bodies then souls, but ultimately moves on to acquiring all sorts of knowledge in his pursuit of the Beautiful. He must devote a significant amount of time studying , living and doing in order to achieve his goal. Such activities require an ample amount of focus and creativity in order successfully ascend. Likewise, in opposing culture, the state and society in general, the philosopher operates outside the demands of the state. He does not live life to make money or keep busy but rather seeks leisure so that he can devote his time towards achieving his authentic self.

However, this dedication and solitude achieve noble states for both the lover and the philosopher. The lover encounters the Beautiful itself, the noblest of all and the source of all beauty. Likewise the philosopher achieves and cultivates a higher type. He is strong, self-sufficient and lives actively. He does not passively lie down and enslave himself to the fickle whims of society and the state. He stands over and above the baser moralities and the baser types of beings.

Inherent in this nobility is the ability for both the lover and the philosopher to create. As previously mentioned, throughout the lover’s journey he continually gives birth to beautiful ideas. In similar fashion, the philosopher creates his own morality and virtue independent of society or convention. From the depths of his authentic, strong and self-sufficiency the philosopher forges a new trail independent of the stirrings of those weaker, lower types who passively and unknowingly subjugate themselves to the will of the state. His is inherently and ruggedly virile in his creation.

Along with this creative aspect within both the lover and the philosopher is the call to cultivate within others an ability to pursue their goals. Just as the lover encounters the Beautiful and is now capable of begetting virtue itself, so the philosopher achieves his authentic identity and powerfully creates his morality. Both now are capable of leading and helping others cultivate their own selves and achieve their own goals as best they know how. Such is Socrates’ mission as he strives to teach others to honour the rites of love in order to encounter the Beautiful. Similarly, Nietzsche perceives the ideal culture as one whose sole purpose is the production of the higher types. The philosopher moves beyond encountering nature like the lover and transforms it. He transfigures nature and helps produce the higher types which nature unsuccessfully strives to produce.

Perhaps the greatest difference between Nietzsche’s philosopher and the lover is the lover’s “invention of the pure spirit and the good as such” (BGE preface). The lover’s fixation on the transcendent raises a problem that he is so otherworldly that he neglects authentic living by dogmatically pursuing some strange “reality.” Another problem facing the lover is his dogmatic pursuit in the first place. The lover prejudices the existence of the Beautiful and that perhaps he could have an encounter with it. This conviction of a transcendent realm apart from reality possibly skews the lover’s perception of Truth, standing her on top of her head while simultaneously becoming so ingrained within the lover’s psyche that he is unable to rectify or even question the foundations of these convictions. Rather, he takes them for granted and pursues Beauty.

WP3

I will now proceed with my comparison of this ascent of the lover with Nietzsche’s thought by describing negatively his perception of what a philosopher looks like. By philosopher, Nietzsche does not readily want to include scholars in academia. In his “Schopenhauer as Educator,” he labels scientific scholarship among the selfishness of the elite and the selfishness of the state as hindering the formation of a culture that aims to produce the geniuses of the higher types such as the philosopher, artist and saint.

In contrast to the pure philosopher, scholars are composed of mixed metals—hunters more concerned with the pursuit of truth rather than truth itself. Scholars contain the strong, hardened element of a philosopher: “a strong and constantly intensifying curiosity, a craving for intellectual adventure, the perpetually attractive power of the new and rare as opposed to the old and boring” (SE 204). The scholar possesses a drive to create and delights in the new, his curiosity compelling him in pursuing truth. In this sense, the scholar parallels the lover in his pursuit of achieving beauty. Both the scholar and the lover drive towards learning and understanding new things and new fields of knowledge.

However, the scholar’s essence is also alloyed with softer, baser elements. One such element is “a certain bent for blood sports, the hunter’s joy in tracking the crafty fox of thought” (204). The pursuit of truth becomes a sort of intellectual game rather than a striving for authenticity and truth itself. In opposition to the scholar, the lover’s pursuit of Beauty forms an integral aspect in the formation of his character and prepares him for his ultimate encounter with the Beautiful. While a fundamental and necessary aspect, the journey towards Beauty does not trump the encounter with it.

This softer aspect within the scholar is further weakened by a hunger for fame amongst his peers: “the battle becomes a pleasure, and the aim a personal victory, the battle for truth a pretext,” (204). The scholar shows more concern for being right and insuring others know of his rightness rather than show any real care for truth. In stark contrast, the lover does not place himself in front of his encounter such that his presence distracts his peers from perceiving beauty. Rather, he strives to direct his peers’ gaze towards the Beautiful rather than towards himself.

A final weakening element to the scholar’s nature that contrasts with the lover is a desire to focus his pursuit of truth solely on aspects palatable to his current time and to those currently in power:

“the scholar also contains a strong admixture of the impulse to discover certain truths, which comes from his servility to certain [people or groups in power] since he feels that he profits by bringing ‘truth’ to their side” (204).

The scholar focuses only on particular ‘truths’ or ideas soothing to his superiors and suitable for his own profit. Diotima labels such men who see beauty in single examples as servants: “being a slave, of course, he’s low and small-minded” (Sym 210D). In contrast, the lover understands that Beauty cannot be confined according to any one particular idea—especially ideas that are simply pleasing for means of simple profit and pleasing superiors.

Another difference between the scholar and the lover is their education. As educated by a state bent towards preserving and propagating its own ends, Nietzsche describes the education of the scholar as quick and one that advances the interests of the state. He is trained to be contemporary and current, to be caught up in the trappings of his current age. His education is swift and promises to equip him to make money: “a speedy education designed to make its recipient a money-maker as speedily as possible” (SE 200).

Meanwhile the lover instructed in the ways of love must begin his education while still young: “A lover who goes about this matter correctly must begin in his youth to devote himself to beautiful bodies” (Sym 210B). His education is a long and arduous process whose end is not money or fleeting bodily pleasures but an encounter with the unchanging nature of Beauty itself. Whereas the scholar is subjugated to the state of his present age, the lover moves beyond particular cultures and customs in order to encounter a timeless Beauty.

Perhaps the most key distinction between the lover and the scholar is birth and sterility. Throughout the course of his ascent the lover continually begets increasingly beautiful and good ideas and theories. Not only does the lover passively learn, observe and appreciate all fields of knowledge, he also gives birth and actively creates new ideas.

This creativity inherent in the lover is completely alien to the scholar. Scholars pride themselves on their objectivity—their ability to completely remove themselves form their own particular selves and situation and impartially state a given stance on any issue. However, Nietzsche observes, such impartiality renders them as simple tools rather than entities that create: “The objective man is indeed a mirror; he is accustomed to submit before whatever wants to be known” (BGE 207). In the process the scholar’s identity is crushed under the ponderous weight of his objectivity. This minimization of the scholar’s identity ultimately results in his sterility. He is excellent at stating any position yet he is incapable of formulating his own. Nietzsche equates these sterile scholars with old mains incapable of conception and giving birth: “like her he is not conversant with the two most valuable functions of man” (BGE 206). Rather, his mirror like nature renders him completely subjected to the whims of others and makes him easily subjugated to the mockery of stronger natures striving for power.

Paralleling the scholar’s sterility is his inaction. Rather than understand life through experience and action, the scholar possesses merely book knowledge: “Books are his comfort, that is, he listens to other men thinking and by so doing manages to amuse himself all day long” (SE 206). In contrast the lover’s ascent inherently entails that he experience beauty in order to truly encounter Beauty. Experience is inherent to the lover’s ascent. The lover spends time with beautiful bodies, souls, laws and all sorts of knowledge before encountering Beauty itself.
Finally, scholars possess an intense hatred for the natural while the lover’s aim is for the source of all nature itself. As sterile creatures, scholars stand in opposition towards nature, which continually produces, moulds and crafts all things. It follows that scholars therefore have no respect for nature but desire to but it to the rack of intense speculation and subjugation: “Scholars want to kill nature, to dissect it and understand it” (SE 208). Like an awkward, groping hound, the scholar abuses Truth instead of wooing it. In contrast, the lover wished to encounter nature, the source from which all things derive their beauty. The lover shows reverence in its pursuit of Beauty, wishing to bask in its presents rather than objectify and subdue it.

WP3

Nietzsche’s thought continually interacts with his predecessors the Greeks. As a philologist, his knowledge and reverence for Hellenic thought is evidenced throughout his writings. This paper seeks to find parallel between the ascent passage in Plato’s Symposium and certain attributes of Nietzsche’s ideal philosopher. I will begin by outlining the assent passage found in the Symposium, followed by contrasting Nietzsche’s description of the scholar as failing to align with Plato’s ascent. Next, I will move on to describe Nietzsche’s description of the philosopher in contrast to the scholar and compare the attributes of the philosopher with the attributes found in the ascent passage. I will conclude by raising problems as to how well the lover in the ascent passage fits with Nietzsche’s philosopher.

First, some context for Plato’s ascent passage. Socrates has attended a party in celebration of the tragedian Agathon’s victory at a festival. Those in attendance give speeches on the nature of love. Socrates begins his account of love by telling a story of a priestess named Diotima who reveals to Socrates the nature of Love as a spirit not beautiful itself but strives after Beauty. Through love’s assistance individuals are capable of encountering the Good and the Beautiful. She then informs Socrates how he can become initiated in the rites of love. This process of initiation in the rites of love is an ascent that that culminates in the individual encountering the Beautiful itself.

The initiate in love begins his ascent by devoting himself to beautiful bodies. He begins with one particular body and through this relationship “begets beautiful ideas there” (Sym 210B). He then realizes that beauty is not confined to one body but is inherent in all bodies. From this realization the initiate “become[s] a lover of all beautiful bodies, and he must think that this wild gaping after just one body is a small thing and despise it” (210B).

In order to continue his ascent, the initiate must transition from this stage as a lover of bodies to a lover of souls: “if someone in decent in his soul, even though he is scarecely blooming in his body, our lover must be content to love and care for him” (210C). The initiate’s begetting of beautiful ideas will then become begetting ideas that are not only beautiful but also can improve and make men better. This shift towards cultivating goodness within other men’s souls shifts the initiates focus entirely away from bodies and towards laws and customs: “our lover will be forced to gaze at the beauty of activities and laws and to see that all this is akin to itself” (210C).

From focusing on laws and customs the initiate will turn his gaze to studying all kinds of knowledge. In time he will recognize the beauty of knowledge itself-delighting not simply in certain particulars but rather delighting in overarching principles. The initiate is now capable of effectively begetting beautiful ideas that cultivate the soul and develop theories that far surpass his earlier creations: “but the lover is turned to the great sea of beauty, and, gazing upon this, he gives birth to many gloriously beautiful ideas an dtheories, in unstinting love of wisdom” (210E). It is at this stage that the initiate stays awhile to further cultivate and develop his own self.

One he is strong enough the initiate, after basking in the beauty of knowledge, catches sight of knowledge of the Beautiful. Thus the initiate nears the end of his ascent and, if he has successfully transitioned between each phase, he is able briefly glimpse upon Beauty itself. Diotima describes the Beautiful as constant, unchanging and eternal. It is also beautiful without qualification and is not confined to one particular idea or field of knowledge. Further, Beauty is a self sufficient source from which all things derive their beauty. Through is encounter with Beauty, the initiate has reaches the end of his goal and possesses understanding of the beautiful: “In the end at this lesson, which is learning of this very Beauty, so that in the end he comes to know just what it is to be Beautiful” (211D).

This encounter with the Beautiful changes the initiate. After much labour and strife, once the initiate has reached the pinnacle of his ascent, he sees Beauty in its unmixed, undiluted form. An encounter of such magnitude leaves its beholder with nothing worldly or mundane by which to compare it. If such a soul was fortunate, daring and disciplined enough, he would remain in its presence as much as he could: “There if anywhere should a person live his life, beholding that Beauty” (211D). No longer does he beget ideas or images of virtue; rather, he is capable of begetting virtue itself:

“When he looks at Beauty in the only way that Beauty can be seen—only then will it become possible for him to give birth not to images of virtue (because he’s in touch with no images), but to true virtue (because he is in touch with the true Beauty)” (212A).

This encounter with Beauty comes only as a result of buffeting and disciplining oneself in the arts of love. It is either through strength of will or being led by another that the initiate is capable of attaining such heights. Alongside this strong will or teacher must be a dedication of oneself to pursuing these heights. Acedia and softness of resolve are forbidden if the soul is to have any hope of encountering the Beautiful. After such encounter, initiate returns transformed and seeks to transform and cultivate others, as evidenced in Socrates’ statements regarding his own commitment to Love: “And once persuaded, I try to persuade others too that the huan nature can find no better workmate for acquiring this than Love” (212C).

WP3

I was thinking about CS Lewis’s description of Edmund’s deception in The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. In his encounter with the witch, she deceives him by feeding him Turkish delights. These Turkish delights make Edmund more susceptible to the White Queen’s lies. It has always bothered me that it’s Turkish delights that fuel Edmund’s deception. While the other three experience the joy of community with the beavers and the awe of Aslan’s presence, Edmund’s experience of these events is corrupted all because of some Turkish delights. It’s completely absurd that due to some food Edmund believes the queen’s lies and betrays everyone.

However, isn’t it equally absurd that humanity would betray natural order and the true, authentic joy of a relationship with the Divine for transient dalliances? We, created in the image and likeness of God, continually trade our identity as such for lesser, trivial, and oftentimes awful things. In the process we move further away from Being and further into nonbeing—death. What prompts us to do such? Why do we trade Good itself for evil?

I used to think that if only people knew how good Good is, that they would seek the good. Failure, sin and evil are the results of lacking knowledge. If people truly understood the Good, they would pursue it. However, clearly this isn’t the case. In Plato’s Symposium, Alcibiades clearly has knowledge of the good yet persists in vice. His case is echoed throughout history as individuals knowledgeable of the good willingly turn their backs on it and lustily pursue vice.

In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle grapples with why people run after evil instead fo pursuing the good. He concludes that the weakness of the will or what he calls akrasia plays a role in man chasing after vice. The inclinations within the self are out of control and the will is not powerful enough or not habituated enough to pursue the good. Therefore, man must struggle with himself in order to set his inclinations in order. Those who struggle with their inclinations and continually prevail he calls the morally strong. In contrast, the morally weak are those who struggle with their inclinations and continually fail.

However, one of Aristotle’s requirements for virtue is that the virtuous act must be performed from an unshakable character. Therefore, the truly virtuous individual does not struggle with pursuing the good. He recognizes what is good and performs it without struggle. This virtue of readily choosing the good Aristotle labels temperance. The temperate man has successfully ordered his inclinations such that they are not scattered and all over the place; rather, they function according their nature and according to the appropriate extent.

Within the Christian tradition, akrasia has been used to describe man’s inclination towards sin. In my next post on this topic, I’ll discuss how one Christian depiction of the Fall describes Original Sin as a proclivity for sin and akrasia. I will then move on to discuss a particular vice I’ve mentioned before, the vice of acedia (sloth) and how it works with akrasia.

WP3

]]>