Franciscan At The Beach

2013 AP LANGUAGE AND COMPOSITION ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY

2017-01-13T13:45:00.001-05:00

Ownership is a many faceted and generally misunderstood concept that has been elucidated by dozens of thinkers throughout western history. These thinkers tend to define ownership in relation to a sense of self that is even less understood than the ownership that supposedly proceeds it. In the following, the reader will see a western interpretation of ownership and its inherently meaningless inclusion with a sense of self.

The average individual in the western world has been reared in a society that induces massive consumerism in all ages from toddlers to the aged. In the years that divide these two age groups the western citizen is coerced through societal pressure to have as much as possible. From this having of object foreign to the body does the idea of self emanates. Westerners tend, in general, to derive their sense of self from the objects around them. What they fail to realize is that the objects that are being bought are the ideas of someone else. The products, ranging from cars to toys, are the designs of some other person. While a person might own something in the legal sense of own a product, to derive self-worth or a sense of self from this item would be detrimental to the individual. It is detrimental in the idea that said person is merely owning a single copy of the item, rather than owning the concept of the item itself. The original designer would “own” the item in its most total sense and would, would more capably, derive a sense of self from that item. Even in this derivation of self-worth there remain problems.

As Sartre points out in his ideas regarding his waiter in the café, the sense of self that one derives from items or occupations is dependent on how the individual interprets said items to reflect on their idea of self. Here it is the individual’s interpretation that creates a sense of self rather than the item itself. While this is certainly a more nuanced view of the problem, it does not solve the problem of things outside the self reflecting an actuality of the self. In Sartre’s view the human will to create a sense of self in dependent on the individual, as it should be. Where he digresses is in the acquiescence to outside forces forming a persons will. A western citizen, cultured and grown in a world dedicated to materialism and consumerism, has little choice in their concept of self. The outside forces are, at least according to Sartre’s line of thought, so burdensome that the individual in some sense relinquishes their own created individual for the image that a society drapes upon them. People, in general, feel content to fulfill the roles that are cast upon them. This therefore is not the way to define self and is implausible due to several factors.

Chief among these factors is the willingness to let things outside the body define the body itself. If one holds a non-metaphysical understanding of the world and the things in it, (ie, that one rejects the dualistic nature of platonic forms and other such ‘informers’ of the world) then one must ask why something that is foreign to a body has the capability to define that body itself. The body, and hence the self as a product of said body, can only be defined by what is within. People would rather define themselves by what they are not, ie anything outside the body. This however is just as detrimental to the understanding of self. Definition of self through negation, ie what is outside the body, does not define what self is but rather what self it not. For example, the idea of self is contingent upon the body. If it is contingent upon the body for its primary existence then it should derive its existential meaning from the thing it is derivative of, in this case the body itself. This is much the case with many things. Take for instance the idea of a tree. When lumber is harvested from a tree the original idea, existential meaning, of the lumber was to sustain the tree. It has simply been repurposed. The repurposing of the tree into lumber does not nullify its primary existential meaning of supporting its original body. Therefore we can still define lumber as something that was in existence to support the tree it originally come from. The same can be said of the self. Its original purpose is to support the body in which it resides, almost as a soul. However, unlike a soul its existence is completely contingent on the body. As it is contingent on the body for both its creation and continued existence, the body must, by necessity provide the self its primary meaning.

Therefore, the sense of self that one cultivates can not be derived from anything external to the body. These externalities include but a certainly not limited to, the products and creations of a modern world, the ideas that one creates with external input rather that a priori. Sense of self is predicated on the body and therefore must be derivative of the body and the body alone.

Paint with Black Ink (Poem)

2015-01-07T09:01:00.000-05:00

Recently, I have undertaken a project to write a longer poem one day at a time. Each evening I will be adding one stanza to this poem. You can find the stanzas first on twitter @RedArmyFactionX.

Paint the world with black ink
Drawn with a needle through your soul
Rainbows in shades of gray
Sunsets of omniscient grief

And as you lay me down to sleep
Don't fix a smile upon my face
Set a look of despair and grief
And let me leave this cold dark place

Let me seek the glimmering light
Shed of these thoughts lighter than air
Let me paint a new and darker night
Forgetting my face lined with care

Response to Boccaccio's Decameron

2014-11-30T04:14:00.002-05:00

Boccaccio's Decameron tracks the travels of ten people fleeing the death that is brought to Florence in the form of the Bubonic Plague in 1348. The moral tone in his work displays the reaction to The Plague that ordinary people had. This reaction was not simply to The Plague but rather a reaction to what The Plague caused, death. In juxtaposition to this, my work, Welcome Aboard the Ship, is an embrace of Death and an acceptance of the inevitable end. Other than the different metaphorical approach that Boccaccio and I take towards death there are two other important areas which deserve special attention: the modern advantages that we have over death and the difference in the form of the work.

In the Decameron, Boccaccio goes into the moral and social implications of The Plague on the travelers. He says, “Husbands left wives, brothers left sisters, mothers left children.”[1] This differs from my own interpretation of death as something that, instead of separating families can ultimately, potentially unite them. This ultimately stems from the period in which either of us are reflecting. From Boccaccio's point of view The Plague was surrounding and engulfing much of Southern Europe leaving death and devastation in its wake. Boccaccio's society lacked insight into the medical causes of the plague. In short Boccaccio writes about death but as death only as a guise of fear. Compared to Boccaccio's society, ours looks positively tame. Technologically, we are able to discover and effectively fight almost every major disease. While this is dramatic, it does not necessarily make our society less fearful of death in general.

Where I believe we have a larger advantage is philosophically. Fortunately for us we are able to reflect on 150 years of existential philosophy. This philosophy puts our mental state at more of an advantage and is reflected in my poem. Awaiting Death as a friend to walk with is drawn from Ingar Bergman's The Seventh Seal, a profoundly existential and critically acclaimed Swedish film of the 1950's. The ship metaphor itself is drawn from Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra. It is used to illustrate the wonder with which many hold the sea. To wonder what is on the other side of the waves has been a question that has plagued mankind for millennium. In my poem I strive to make the ocean a soothing idea for the average person. Instead of something to fear it becomes something to recline and relax in. By attaching this to death as an idea and intertwining the two, I strive to eliminate the fear with which many people hold death. This is directly opposite of Boccaccio. In his work it feels like the menace of death is always around the next corner. Instead of focusing on when they might die they busy themselves in storytelling to while away the days. This is opposed to confronting the terrible reality of their time and coming to terms with death. In effect it is a form escapism. This escapism is supported in the introduction of the Decameron,

“Having withdrawn to a comfortable abode where there were no sick persons, they locked themselves in and settled down to a peaceable existence...They refrained from speaking to outsiders, refused to receive news of the dead or sick, and entertained themselves with music and whatever other amusements they were able to devise.” [2]

The second large difference between Boccaccio's Decameron and my work is the form in which it is presented. Boccaccio uses a frame style within his work to encompass several dozen stories. The reason he does this is to clearly lay out moral and ethical ideas. In addition to being about the Black Death, the Decameron is also about the moralities of the day. The structure allows Boccaccio to efficiently launch several tirades against the church and other powerful institutions of his day. Aside from this it also gives him the ability to cover a wide range of topics in a single work. Contrary to this, my work has taken the form of a poem in which the meter and occasional rhyme lend more emotional weight to the words and creates, hopefully, an overarching effect from beginning to end. The effect is supported by the refrain in the poem,

“Don't be scared my lad, don't be scared my lad

of what might lie beyond

its for him to know, the black dressed man

and for us to ponder so”

The refrain helps to instill a sense of calm and to reduce the cloud of fear that generally surrounds death.

In all my poem strives to create a calm feeling towards death. In order to accomplish this I have chosen the form of a poem with a refrain that puts the readers mind at ease. This is in direct opposition to the Decameron by Boccaccio. In his work he uses short stories to make a social and moral point and clearly shows people who have recoiled from the embrace of death. The differing attitudes towards death as presented in these two works can be attributed to the different time periods in which they were written and by the people who were possessed to write them.

[1]Aberth, John. The Black Death: the great mortality of 1348-1350 : a brief history with documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005.Boccaccio pg 77

[2] Aberth, John. The Black Death: the great mortality of 1348-1350 : a brief history with documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005.Boccaccio pg 75

Walking To Our Graves

2014-11-30T04:02:00.000-05:00

Walking To Our Graves

I wander around the whole world through

Seeking the answer, looking for you

You glide past and tickle the air

Leaving it smelling faint yet fair

We walk through the world loosing this smell

Locked in a prison, locked in our hell

Speaking you whisper, surrenders within

She left your side, creating your problem therein

Another day over another day strong

You enter my mind, Its for you that I long

Abandon the life, and the pain that you feel

Leave it behind, forward you heal

No more stumble in life, your doin alright

Head held high we trudge on ahead

Trudge on ahead

You see a reflection lost in uncertainty

You long to chase it but know its just me

Turning away, away in futility

I'm sorry my love its not meant to be

No, its not meant to be

Another day over another day strong

You fleet though my mind, Its for you that I long

Your breeze has swept on out over the bay

saving itself for an October day

That last that I saw you were doin just fine

Happy and thoughtless to the sadness of mind

The sadness of mind

Aways down the road our fates could cross

What to do then but call it all lost

Wander alone down highways long gone

Loves irony, loves autobahn.

Another day over but not another day strong

You're leaving my mind, leaving just another sad song

Sitting there thinking through the whole year

No more regret and no more fear

Stepping to meet life on uncertain ground

Proving that love can remain unfound

Never again will my heart be played

No beacon re-lit no no fire remade

This lost souls alone, alone on the waves

And every day he walks closer yea closer to his grave

We all walk closer, yea closer to our graves

Not day over nor another day strong

You flee from my mind, for you I can't long

On Epistemology

2014-03-18T12:42:00.000-04:00

On Epistemology

How do we know what it is that we know and how do we find what it is that we do not know but wish to know?

There are several ways to rationalize what we know, or rather what we think we know. We could attribute that knowledge that we have to Divine Providence, much like Augustine and Aquinas have done. We can admit that we know nothing, such as Plato/Socrates did. We can strive to understand through love and infinite resolution as Kierkegaard did. But it seems as though all these views of epistemology are devoid of a real answer. In the following I will survey three ways in which we think that we learn and provide a philosophical look at some of the most common way that we learn.

We learn by being taught, either by parental figures, or by professional teachers, or by peers. In this case we assume that our parents/teachers/peers have learned these things from someone or somewhere else. It may have been a book for instance. In this book are ideas that were written by its author. The author there for must have learned it from their teacher/parent/peer, and so on ad infinitum. This present the problem of an eternal regression. In order for there to be knowledge there must be a genesis. This starting point is either the starting point for all knowledge or the hope that there is a starting point for all knowledge, as knowledge cannot simply spring into existence. Or maybe it can.

Perhaps the genesis of knowledge is not in the idea that there is a definitive starting point, but in the fact that there is an infinite set of genesis points for knowledge. Here I mean the individual. Now many will say that the set of individuals is not infinite but is in fact finite. While at any one time there is a finite set of individuals in existence, there is the potential for an infinite number of individuals to exist in the future, hence an infinite amount of genesis points for knowledge albeit spread throughout time. So how does the individual become a genesis point for knowledge? We shall see.

The Darwinian idea of Natural Selection is a prime example of creating something new out of something that is, thereby creating something new. While the critical will ask where the first thing then came from, this essay will not attempt to answer that questions as it is best to let theologians and physicists to argue about it. We can imply that through our existence here there must have been a ‘first thing’ and this will be enough to work with without bothering with where it came from. Therefore, this first thing had the ability to create and to change itself over time. Much like a fish might grow larger fins to swim faster; this first thing would adapt and change over time to attempt to achieve a status of steady stability which is what all things desire, as opposed to chaos.

Given the penchant for thought that all the individuals have, the idea of self-genesis of knowledge is a completely justifiable thing in the sense that individuals, who have the power to adapt to their environments, would also have the ability to both adapt their ideas the encompass different ideas within them, and the genesis of new ideas, either new in totality or being derivative of older ideas. Throughout the course of western philosophy we see this happening. Commenting and critiquing another thinker, or another person in general, allows the individual to create new ideas. In fact it is the spark that drives all greater thought. You must look no farther than the Socratic Method that was applied in the Polis of Athens during the age of Pericles and the Thirty Tyrants. In asking questions the dialecticians are refining a thought or idea. In refining this idea they are intrinsically changing the idea. If you change an idea then it is no longer the same idea. It has become a new and separate idea. This idea then has the ability, based on its interpretation and based on debates and discourses, to propagate more ideas. And so on in an exponential factor to the effect of . A single idea has the ability to spawn an infinite amount of subsequent ideas, much the same as an individual has the capacity to spawn a single idea or thought that will perpetuate into a long string of ideas. This only begs the question as to what spawns the original idea.

Here is where Darwinism is applied. Much as the fish is able to grow larger fins to swim faster, so to the ability for humans to evolve the power to create ideas. To be the genesis of ideas. We are Creators in every sense of the word, giving ideas life, then the products of ideas a reality. With this ability the propagation of ideas is guaranteed. As long as there are people, there are ideas. We have the power to create knowledge and the power to change knowledge. Quite a scary spectacle.

Foucault and Greek Sexuality (Paper)

2012-12-23T21:26:00.000-05:00

Greek Sexuality

Greek sexuality in the ancient period can be seen in two distinct ways: that of Foucault as being devoid of sexual discrimination and that of John Boswell as being sexually defined. Between these two historians lay many examples pointing to a clear emphasis is the classical period on understood and socially constructed homosexual relationships that differed dramatically in clearly defined ways. These examples will be used to support John Boswell's illustration of sexuality in the classical Greek period as superior to Foucault's. There are two distinct areas within this sexuality that illustrate the existence of homosexuality in the classical period, in light of Foucault's insistence that this distinction is not possible. The first area is in overturning the assumption that passivity and activity in homosexual relations were necessarily different than in heterosexual ones. The second is in determining that age does define the appropriate context of a homosexual relationship.

Defining passivity and activity in the Greek classical world as a tool to be used in determining the socio-sexual determination of the participants involved is shaky at best. In need of even graver consideration is the defining of homosexual men as members of a lower class than heterosexual men based on the socio-sexual determination of activity and passivity. In his work The History of Sexuality Foucault paints a picture of homosexual men as being regarded as inferior to heterosexual men due to the perceived effeminacy that homosexuals are supposedly labeled with for their 'passive' acts. Farther from the truth Foucault could not get. Plato states in the Symposium,

“Those who love men and rejoice to lie with and be embraced by men are also the finest boys and young me, being naturally the most manly. The people who accuse them of shamelessness lie;...A clear proof of this is the fact that as adults they alone acquit themselves as men in public careers.”¹

Plato, one of the most accomplished and respected citizens of Athens, goes on to reason that homosexual soldiers would make the best army in the world.² To limit the understanding of sexuality in the classical world to socially relative terms such as activity and passivity is academically inaccurate when there is first hand accounts that clearly show the existence and celebration of the homosexual lifestyle. Even in Greek mythology there are myriad examples of homosexual action.³ The heterosexual love of ancient Greece was even displayed as something that was transcended by homosexual love. According to Boswell, ”The Attic law-giver Solon considered homosexual eroticism too lofty for slaves and prohibited it to them.”⁴

The other area in which Boswell draws a distinction between modern historical study and the actuality of the period is in the age discrimination that was purportedly applied to same sex relationships. Foucault portrays these relationships as occurring almost solely between young boys and old men. He seems to encourage the idea that same sex relationships (homosexuality) between two older men would result in those parties becoming social outcasts. However the opposite is actually true. Apart from the quotes above, Boswell also portrays this discrimination between age as against what Foucault is implying. The ageism here means that now Foucault is further distinguishing male on male sexuality not just as homosexual (a term which is supposed to subsume all other archetypes of male on male sexual relations but) act but now as a homosexual, age dependent act. For example, Euripides at age seventy was loved by and in love with Agathon.⁵ This is just one among many example that Boswell is able to provide. Furthermore, with respect to activity/passivity, there is no unambiguous document that defines age as a criterion for determining who was the one to be loved and who would love the beloved. Because of the lack of factual evidence, Foucault appears to be using later texts of the Middle Ages when attempting to explain the clearly homosexual-friendly reality of the classical Greek world.

In all Foucault is wrong in assuming that homosexual relationships in classical Greece were generally considered socially unacceptable with the only exception being based on a different age dynamic. Instead, classical Greece was a place of homosexual acceptance and even celebration with homosexual relationships being held, in many instances, in a higher regard than heterosexual relationships. Furthermore the idea that homosexual relationships were looked down upon is clearly dispelled by Boswell.

1Plato, Symposium. 192A cf. Phaedrus's Speech

2 Boswell, John. "Introduction." In Christianity, social tolerance, and homosexuality: gay people in Western Europe from the beginning of the Christian era to the fourteenth century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. p 25.

3ibid (see Hercules)

4Boswell, Christianity et al. p 27

5Boswell, Christianity et al. p28 n.52

Platonic Forms, Time, and Narrativity (Paper)

2012-12-23T21:23:00.002-05:00

Platonic Forms, Time, and Narrativity

The following paper will argue that the act of unchanging being through time is incompatible with Plato's epistemological view of humans. The argument will be preceded with a brief introduction of three core ideas: Time, Platonic Ethics, Narrativity. As Plato argues in the Euthyphro, the idea of piety must be unchanging and constant in order for the idea of piety to carry any weight. If the idea of piety must remain the same regardless of time in order for it to be 'Piety' and therefore carry metaphysical weight, humans must be able to understand piety in its fullness, which is to say that humans must be in a state of Being in order to fully understand Piety^ª.

Time is a series of interlocking moments as realized through the human(s) perception. In Heraclitus' work, with which it seems that Plato would tend to agree^*, he presents an understanding of time in which you have four basic premises: 1) That ‘X equals X’ at T¹, meaning that X exists at a moment in time, hence being. 2) That time is infinitely divisible. 3) That, because time is infinitely divisible, you can have no ‘moments in time’ because for everything that you label a moment you will be able to further divide that moment. 4) That because you cannot have any moments in time at no time can ‘X equal X’ which results in a world not of being but in a world of becoming. While this is logically correct in the sense that all the premises accurately reflect a logical conclusion we are concerned with presenting the accuracy of these premises in the first. Heraclitus uses the metaphor of a river to explain his ideas about the constant flux of the world and the constant change that takes place. Plato notes that according to Heraclitus, it is impossible to step into the same river twice. By this he means that the river is constantly changing and that the person entering the river would never be able to step into the same water twice, for this water would have been removed down river and replaced by new water. In order for this to be possible he stands in support of an ever changing world with no definable moments in time. This ever-changing phenomenon is not without faults, among them assumptions that time takes place regardless of humans and disregarding the fact that time and its divisibility is contingent upon the constructs usefulness to humans.

In order for this ever-changing world to be rational it must be exhibited by physical matter held in a vacuum otherwise this pretense does not hold up well in the physical world. We shall start with the first premise. ‘X equals X’. This premise may come across as straightforward but must be explained here for it has implications on the rest of the argument. The statement of ‘X equals X’ is a statement of Being while ‘X does not equal X’ stands to mean that the item is nonexistent. Unlike statements of Becoming, Being implies that at a specified time, T¹, a physical item actually existed whether in a physical or metaphysical form. This is juxtaposed to a statement such as Heraclitus' that we live in an ever-changing world. His world view is a clear statement in favor of Becoming in which we take a relative existence dependent upon what is exerting power upon us and the setting that we find ourselves in. According to Heraclitus, at all times then we are simply Becoming with no moment of Being.

In collusion with relativity goes dependence. Time, in order to exist, is dependent on people. Because of this time is something that is created, by humans, in order to give shape and meaning to the world around us. In the absence of humans, time does not exist. As previously stated, time is imposed by humans on a situation either while it is happening or after it has happened, and occasionally both. We require time’s dependence upon ourselves in order to construct a world in which to live with relative ease and it is for this reason that moments in time exist. This usefulness of time, in planning events, remembering actions, and keeping schedules is the reason for its existence, not some ethereal notion. Time is because we say it is. Because we create time it is of the utmost usefulness to ourselves that we also enable us to note moments in time. These moments are also relative to those viewing them. A scientist may measure things in nanoseconds for his work but an hourly worker will measure theirs in minutes. Moments, as part of a time that we create, are created for their usefulness to us. The impact of time on Platonic Ethics, particular the acquirement of knowledge of the Forms, is massive as will be shown below. The view of time that is held by Plato, via Heraclitus, is incompatible with the epistemological system which Plato describes. Before an examination of these problems the reader will find a detailed description of The Theory of the Forms and Narrativity.

Platonic Ethics is having and holding ethical virtue and knowledge over a continuous time frame with the intent on becoming more knowledgeable over time as displayed in The Republic Book V-VI. The basic principle upon which The Theory of the Forms is based is participation, particularly participation in the the Forms themselves. The Forms are metaphysical traits that exist separately from humans but are present in the world through different objects' participation in them. For instance, a person is tall because they participate in the form of Tallness. In a more basic understanding, anything that can be denoted as a adjective, whether it is a color, size, or description of any kind, is a reflection of that things participation in said forms. In addition to these forms is an overarching Form of The Good, under which all forms fall. A trait of all forms are that they are forms of good. The way in which humans understand the various objects around them and, in some sense, their own being itself, is through their understanding of forms. These forms are discoverable through dialectic discussions with other intelligent beings. This dialectical discussion introduces problems for the Theory of the Forms.

If Forms, and therefore knowledge, are discoverable through discussion then these discussions must take place between two people during a specified period of time. This time that is spent in discussion must, by necessity, take place in a world of Becoming. The reason behind this necessity is simple. If neither individual has any prior knowledge of the form they are attempting to find, such as Piety, then the individuals must be changing as they attempt to reason a definition for Piety. This dialectics will be labeled R. The time that they spend reasoning will be labeled S^†. The moment when they discover the true definition of the form of Piety will be labeled D. Now during the period of R both participants are using knowledge that they already have. This knowledge constitutes part of their Being. During S the participants are therefore to be considered in a state of Being. The problem arises that once they discover the true definition of Piety and therefore have the Form of Piety they can no longer be the same selves. Upon realizing D the participants have either: A- passed into a state of becoming during which they learn the Form of Piety and then revert into a state of Being after having learned this or B- passed from one state of Being into a new state of Being without having a state of Becoming. Through the first way of thinking the participants have retained narrativity and see themselves as the same Beings that did not have D previously but now have D. In the second way of interpretation the participants must reject narrativity in favor of Being different people, one person when they did not know D and a different person now that they know D.

One of the most important ideas contained in The Theory of the Forms is the idea that once a person has begun to understand forms as forms themselves they are ethically required to help other beings, through dialectics, to understand these forms. Now if dialectics is the only way to discover forms and forms are what allow us to understand the intelligible things around us, it stands to reason that through dialectics all knowledge has the ability to follow.

Narrativity is the act of being the same 'self' through a continuous time frame. This is to say that a being with Narrative identity sees their body and mind as existing as the same entities at different moments in time. At T¹ X is X. At T² X is X. At T³ X is X and so on. One who constructs their identity of self through a narrative time line is the same being as they were last year, 10 years ago, etc. The opposite of a narrative construction of self is a non-narrative construct. In non-narrative constructions of the self the individual sees themselves as fundamentally different people at different times. For example at T¹ the person is X, at T² the person identifies as Y and at T³ the person identifies as Z. In each of these cases the person does not necessarily identify with their previous selves because their new self is not a narrative begun in the last self. So while a person with a narrative construction of self lives in a state of Becoming the non-narrative person lives in a state of Being. The narrative person is in a state of becoming because they are constructing different ideas of themselves at different points in time while still maintaining that they are the same person. The impact of this view is tied closely to time and change over time as will be seen below.

If we are not the same person over time then it is impossible for us to understand any unchanging idea while in a state of Becoming. Being held in a state of constant Becoming means that our bodies and ideas are subject to change at random. However, this change would subject Piety, or any other Form for that matter, to the corruption of change. Because of this the person would have to reject a narrative life in exchange for a life of pure moments. In these moments that individual would be in a state of Being rather than in a state of Becoming. This state of being would mean that they are a whole, unchanging individual at that point in time. However, this view would mean that any individual would only have so much time in which to utilize a particular form because once they were able to move to the next point along their narrative they would in effect become a different self. While becoming this different self does not necessarily mean that they would no longer understand the form of X, they would, of necessity understand it in a different way and therefore incompletely. This different way of understanding would corrupt the original understanding of any particular form. For example, X understands the form of Piety at T¹. The duration of X understanding Piety is dependent on the duration of T¹ due to his state of being being connected to T¹ in the same fashion. X is only in a state of Being for the duration of T¹ and then becomes Y at T². Once T² is reached Y now understands Piety at a different moment in time as a different Being enclosed in a state of Being that will also only last until the end of T². When T² becomes T³ then Y, who was once X, is now Z. This is the crux of the problem. While the Forms themselves do not change the human understanding of them, by necessity, must change. There are only a few ways in which humans have the ability to understand a form in its entirety. We must either remain in a constant state of Being or our understanding of the forms is not impacted by the way we change. As one will see in the following there are problems with both of these hypotheses.

The first hypothesis to overcome is that we exist in a constant state of Being. There are some very fundamental problems with remaining in a state of constant Being. The first problem one could typically expect to face is that of change. If one is in a state of constant Being then how do they change, either physically or mentally? Any person would be stuck in this state without motion, thought [because it requires motion to think], or change of any kind. Living in this state would be equivalent to non-existence. One would not be able to feel, think, grow, age, die. One would not have a will either, because of the need to think in order to will. So while one would be a physical being they would stand as a statue in a vacuum, neither feeling nor knowing.

The other possibility is that our understanding of the forms does not change in relation to our state of Being. This however is wrong. It is through our change in Being that we learn, either from a state of Being to a new State of Being or remaining in a constant state of Becoming. Remaining in a constant state of becoming will make our understanding of any Form relative to our state of being and the time at which we are in these states of being. However, if one was to adopt a truly non-narrative view of their self identity then they would still be faced with the problem of the statue as mentioned above.

In essence the reason why Plato's epistemological view of humans and the Forms that they strive for is incompatible with the actualities that he presents about the Forms is that humans, by necessity must construct themselves as narrative beings. This places the human in question in a state of constant Becoming. While in this state of Becoming the individual would not be able to comprehend the full truth of the Forms. This is due to the fact that their perception of the Forms changes depending on their current state of Becoming in much the same way that a person cannot step into the same river twice with the Form being the river one originally steps into. Therefore the only way to understand forms would be to exist solely in a state of Being like the Forms themselves do. However, as stated above, this is not possible for the Human to do and still retain their 'humanity'. The solution here would be to view time as a human construct that can be changed via thought. By this it is meant that people are able to conceptualize time into units that are most useful to them.^˜ By being able to conceptualize the self as a narrative Becoming construct that also has episodic bouts of pure Being would make it possible to understand Plato's Forms in their fullness without the problem of becoming statue-like. It would allow the individual to engage in moments of Being while still reverting to a narrativity of becoming when necessary.

Bibliography

Published Work

Hutchins, Robert Maynard. "Plato." In Great books of the Western World. [Private library] ed. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 1987. Books 1-7.

Strawson, Galen. "Against Narrativity."Ratio XVII, no. 4 (2004): 428-452.

Unpublished Work

Eames, Jeremy. .”Biomedical Platonic Ethics”. Unpublished manuscript, University of South Florida (2012)

Eames, Jeremy. . “Heraclitian Time”. Unpublished manuscript, University of South Florida (2011)

ªHere piety is used as a stand in for every form. Whether Justice, Love, Tallness, etc.

*Fragment 41; Quoted by Plato in Cratylus . The further breakdown on time and becoming is attributed to Heraclitus and is understood that Plato agrees with Heraclitus and his world of becoming.

†It is labeled S so as to not confuse it with other designations for time in different scenarios presented in this paper.

˜The truthfulness of this is a matter best left for further debate.

The Wind (Poem)

2012-10-16T23:53:00.000-04:00

The Wind

Wind, always is the day Wind, always only stays

All else seems to fade with each passing of the day

wanderlust, you might be but do you collect

these paths you tread and these miles you see

blown from your mind ah the winds they are kind

these paths you've tread leave nothing in their stead

These winds caress but they do not obey

the faces you've seen it has blown them away

but if only the wind was so easy to hate

just a depriver of thoughts, the stealer of fate

but we must take such as we have

the good with the bad, the happy and sad

These winds to, they mend whats been broken

they wear down the hills into fields unbroken

Until the you wander on past the scene

then try to remember like a half-recalled dream

It is here the wind does you no favor

it should be forgotten but becomes something to savor

the woman she stood by the shop door

the wind in her hair but her feet on the floor

she turns to leave and catches your eye

then smiles and nods and walks right on by

The wind it is still, it bothers you not

you set her face in your mind, clearly besot

the days turn to years and you've lived out your lot

but you can still see her face, the wind serves you not

this is one hill it has not worn down

for it was still that day in that small little town

this is the problem of missed opportunity

and why the wind is a thing of beauty

things that could have or would have been

are the toys of of the treacherous wind

Time as Being (Paper)

2012-08-28T03:55:00.000-04:00

The idea that you can have no such thing as moments in time is not possible in a human world. In Heraclitus' work he presents an understanding of time in which you have four basic premises: 1) That ‘X equals X’ at T1, meaning that X exists at a moment in time, hence being. 2) That time is infinitely divisible. 3) That because time is infinitely divisible you can have no ‘moments in time’ because for everything that you label a moment you will be able to further divide that moment. 4) That because you cannot have any moments in time at no time can ‘X equal X’ which results in a world not of being but in a world of becoming. While this is logically correct in the sense that all the premises accurately reflect a logical conclusion we are concerned with presenting the accuracy of these premises in the first. Heraclitus uses the metaphor of a river to explain his ideas about the constant flux of the world and the constant change that takes place. Plato notes that according to Heraclitus, it is impossible to step into the same river twice. By this he means that the river is constantly changing and that the person entering the river would never be able to step into the same water twice, for this water would have been removed down river and replaced by new water. In order for this to be possible he stands in support of an ever changing world with no definable moments in time. This ever-changing phenomenon is not without faults, among them assumptions that time takes place regardless of humans and disregarding the fact that time and its divisibility is contingent upon the constructs usefulness to humans.

In order for this ever-changing world to be rational it must be exhibited by physical matter held in a vacuum otherwise this pretense does not hold up well in the physical world. We shall start with the first premise. ‘X equals X’. This premise may come across as straightforward but must be explained here for it has implications on the rest of the argument. The statement of ‘X equals X’ is a statement of Being while ‘X does not equal X’ stands to mean that the item is nonexistent. Unlike statements of Becoming, Being implies that at a specified time, T1, a physical item actually existed whether in a physical or metaphysical form. This is juxtaposed to a statement such as Heraclitus' that we live in an ever-changing world. His world view is a clear statement in favor of Becoming in which we take a relative existence dependent upon what is exerting power upon us and the setting that we find ourselves in. According to Heraclitus, at all times then we are simply Becoming with no moment of Being. Quite backward I think.

The second premise of the argument is that time is infinitely divisible. The idea of having time being infinitely divisible is not useful to humans. Because, as will be displayed below, time is relative and dependent upon humans for existence, time is simply a creation that we utilize because it is convenient and advantageous for us to do so. The idea that you can have no moments in time is not possible in a human world. If, as has been presented, time is infinitely divisible then it would be true that you can have no moments in time. However, in order for items and objects to interact with each other there must be a specified time, relative to the participants, at which two things come into contact. Therefore time must not be infinitely divisible, for time is relative to the object taking part in an action and is therefore a mere imposition of an abstract, unrealistic idea upon physical items. Therefore we must consider time as an abstract idea and decide if it is: Dependent or Independent, Relative or not. Let us first begin by examining the relativity of time.

It is my understanding that time is relative to the participants in a given situation and that time is imposed upon items through their relation to those who witness the event. In the cases of black holes we, who are not entering a black hole but observing from outside its range are of the opinion that anything that enters a black hole becomes stationary when it crosses the line into the black holes area of power. This line is termed the event horizon. While to observers on the outside of a black hole the object that enters merely becomes stationary to our eyes, the person that enters a black hole sees themselves clearly continuing to move toward the center of the black hole. In this example time is made relative in an event by those who participate in it. Another example of usefulness is that of a car crash. In this event a person in a car that participates in the crash can see a dramatic difference in their perception of time as it is slowed down. To an observer that stands on the roadway and witnesses this event, time continues to move along at their own regular pace. The time that both participants witness is relative to them.

In addition those who are viewing it, humans impose the idea of time and change on the event. By this I mean that in the absence of humans, time does not exist but is merely a system of thought that we impose upon the world around us, in a practical manner, in order to interpret events that we are a part of or events that we perceive to happen. In this example we may take a tree that is in a forest. There are no witnesses to the event when the tree falls. Later a person comes walking by and witnesses a tree lying on the ground. By witnessing the tree lying on the ground we have inadvertently imposed our idea of time on a scene in order to reconstruct what has happened. Through this imposition we have come to the conclusion that the tree has fallen in a time that is relative to us (i.e. last week, an hour ago, etc.). Because we have imposed time, as a system of thought, upon our surroundings we have imposed an abstract, relative idea on an event.

Heraclitus' argument against this could possibly come in the form of a rejection of events taking place outside of time. In order for events to take place in Heraclitus' world, time would not be relative nor a human creation. Time itself would take place outside of human interaction and would be what spurs the objects in the world to change. He would also argue that, because time is ever-changing at no ‘moment’ could the idea form in the minds of men that time were a creation of men. In addition to these objections he might also suppose that the senses we use to witness time are simply misleading being as they are of the body and not of the mind. He might also suggest that the idea of time taking place and being ever-changing is only possible to view from outside the body. He would argue that even though there are no humans to witness a river flowing it will continue to flow regardless.

Logically, none of the rejections is plausible. First let us take the idea that time would take place outside of human notice. This is refuted by the idea previously stated, that time is imposed upon events, upon their being noticed by a human. The human would back-date, so to speak, the time essentially placing the events into their creation of time. Time must be recognized to exist and as the only creature with the agency to recognize this theoretical concept we implement it in a way that works best for us.

On the second point raised we have already presented the idea of a time creation that is useful to us and therefore divisible to whatever such a point that the individual desires. Say at T2 a person decided to recognize time as a measurement that would be expedient for them and so decided to utilize it.

On the third point the idea that the only way to view time accurately is to be in a separate dimension so to speak is not a rational statement. The only way for a human to recognize what is is through their own senses. Their own interpretation of time is what creates time in the first place. Also would time be taking place even while we struggled to understand the concept of time while in the body?

In summation, the idea that time is an ever flowing river that continuously changes is not a suitable idea for several reasons. Because time is a human creation we are able to impose our own ideas of time in a fashion relative to our need for its usefulness.

Bibliography

Raven, J.E. , and G.S. Kirk. The Presocratic Philosophers. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1971. Print.

Also used: Assorted notes provided on draft #1 by Professor Ali Elamin, University of South Florida, Philosophy Dept. 10/25/2011

A Discussion of Papal Authority in the High Middle Ages (Paper)

2012-08-07T23:05:00.000-04:00

A Discussion of Papal Authority in the High Middle Ages

The following paper will discuss papal authority as viewed by Ivo of Chartres and will include a discussion on the Concordat of Worms as read in: Miller, Maureen C..Power and the holy in the age of the investiture conflict: a brief history with documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2005.

Power in Europe in the 11^th and 12^th Centuries was split between the nobility and the church in a murky power arrangement that neither side clearly understood. In the latter half of the 11^th century the Bishops of Rome began to accumulate more direct power over the various sees in Western Europe placing them in direct conflict with the presiding Emperors and Kings. The most notable of these transgressions was with the Holy Roman Emperors of the German States which erupted into a wider battle with both sides claiming the right to appoint bishops and other church officials. What has been termed ‘The Investiture Conflict’ would culminate in the Concordat of Worms in 1122 with the Emperor Henry V coming to terms with Pope Calixtus II.¹ In the agreement the Emperor gives up all claims to investing Bishops in his lands with symbols of spiritual power and returns all lands and goods taken from the church by himself and his father. In return he was granted the right to invest bishops with secular power.² Some years previous to this Ivo of Chartres raised a few fundamental points on the relationship between King and Church in his letter of rejection sent to one Hugh of Lyon, an apostolic legate appointed by the Pope. In his letter he states that papal authorities have been asserting the power of the Bishop of Rome in ways that hinders the church or does not improve the church at all. He further states that it would be much easier for the local councils to vote for new bishops themselves rather than have them appointed to their posts by the Pope. Ivo also argues against the entire investing conflict because he does not see the harm in a king instating a bishop as it does not involve preforming any sacraments.³ While all these claims were made in Ivo’s Correspondence the only one actually addressed in the Concordat is the issue of the actual investing of bishops therefore, the issues presented by Ivo of Chartres were, for the largest part, left unaddressed in the Concordat of Worms.

In Ivo’s letter to the papal legate he asserts many points. The first and most important of these is the request not to be bound so tightly by papal laws that, according to Ivo, are not necessarily within the canonical laws that are exercised by the bishop of Rome. One may view this as a sign that while the Church was united they did not yet view the Bishop of Rome as the supreme power of the church. This is in spite of the fact that The Dictatus papae was written almost 30 years prior claiming more widespread authority for the Pope.⁴ This neglecting of the Pope’s authority can provide the historian with a glimpse into how the church in the High Middle Ages worked. Judging by the fact that many German bishops during the 1070s and 1080s rejected the authority of Gregory VII and called actively for his abdication until his death in 1085, one might say that the church was not centrally controlled by Popes at the time.⁵ This is fundamental to understanding why this conflict came about in the first place. In Ivo’s opinion the Pope was overstepping his authority by trying to broadly increase his authority not only over Emperors like Henry but also over bishops like Ivo. Central to the Pope’s aims was his claiming succession from St. Peter. In the eyes of Gregory VII this gave him the power to bar kings from heaven, appoint bishops from afar, and create new canon law. According to Ivo and his view on earlier church fathers, this should not be the case but rather the see of Rome should act in reference to the writing of predecessors instead of making up laws which benefit itself instead of the entire church.⁶

The second point made by Ivo inquires whether or not investiture by kings is truly a problem. This almost argues for the king to appoint the bishops otherwise, in effect, the church was saying that the kings and emperors were not holy. This was a direct contradiction to the populist ideas of the time as promulgated by Guibert of Nogent shortly after the letter by Ivo. In this account kings were able to miraculously heal their subjects with the slightest touch.⁷ This is powerful evidence for the social acceptability of Kings investing bishops. If kings were holy how could you deny them that power? At the same time Ivo states that it shouldn’t matter whether or not kings took part because in the end the bishop was invested by God himself. In this objection the historian may see why so many bishops supported the German Emperor in the first place. If the King or Emperor were seen as a holy figure in and of themselves as suggested by the tomb of Edward II and subsequent description in which bones of dead rulers where dispersed amongst his kingdom, the Bishops of his territory would naturally support him as: A-he was the one to invest them originally and B- They saw him as a way to contact god, as with saints.⁸

Ivo also argues that it is the power of the local clergy to appoint a bishop by election and that the pope should not interfere with this right unless that power had been granted by ancient rights of church fathers, which it had not. ⁹ Later, this power will be usurped by the pope as shown in the account of a disputed election in Auxerre. In other words the power of the popes is almost insured by the vague wording in the Concordat. Any power not expressly denied to the pope is still open for Papal rulers to somehow take as their own.

In the Concordat of Worms, the king gives up his ability to invest members of the clergy with symbols of Divine power such as the Staff and Ring. By doing this he has now limited his power to strictly temporal possessions and is therefore reliant on the church to provide him with divine absolution. In return for his cessation of investing with divine symbols Henry receives the ability to invest church officials in a more secular way with a scepter representing the power he is giving them over his lands. In this sense the clergy have now separated themselves further from the nobility by retaining more power for themselves in the form of divine investment which is done at the cost of the Kings and Emperors. The clergy will now solely hold the power to allow people into heaven. This is seen when Gregory VII excommunicates Henry IV, in essence barring him from heaven as the Pope is the direct successor to St. Peter, the Gatekeeper of Heaven.

In addition to the Emperors not investing clergy with divine symbols, the Concordat also states that any property that was seized by Henry or his father was to be given back to the church.¹⁰ This is actually a major setback for the nobility because large tracts of land that were previously granted to the nobility have since fallen into the hands of the Church through bequeathments and wills. This only served to strengthen the demands that the church made on the nobility.

Adjudicating the dispute between the church and the nobility is not an easy task for the brightest of men at the time of The Investiture Conflict and Ivo of Chartres is no exception. While many of his points about the differences in opinion between the two parties is spot-on the only actual point that is resolved in the Concordat of Worms is in regards to investment of actual bishops and leaves unresolved the issues of Papal authority, clergy autonomy, and the holiness of kings.

1 Miller, Maureen C. “The Agreements of Worms” Power and the holy in the age of the investiture conflict: a brief history with documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2005. 120-121

2 ibid Miller, "Power and the holy..." pp.120-121

3 Miller, Maureen C.”A Letter to the Apostolic Legate Hugh of Lyon”Power and the holy in the age of the investiture conflict: a brief history with documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2005. pp. 115-119

4 Miller, Maureen C.. "Pope Gregory VII, The Dictatus papae." In Power and the holy in the age of the investiture conflict: a brief history with documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2005. 81.

5 Miller, Maureen C. Power and the holy in the age of the investiture conflict: a brief history with documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2005. p. 105

6 Miller, Maureen C.”A Letter to the Apostolic Legate Hugh of Lyon”Power and the holy in the age of the investiture conflict: a brief history with documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2005. pp. 115-119

7 Miller, Maureen C. “On Royal Powers” Power and the holy in the age of the investiture conflict: a brief history with documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2005. pp. 162-163

8 Miller, Maureen C. “The Tomb of Edward II, Foreword” Power and the holy in the age of the investiture conflict: a brief history with documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2005. pp. 168-170

9 Miller, Maureen C.”A Letter to the Apostolic Legate Hugh of Lyon”Power and the holy in the age of the investiture conflict: a brief history with documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2005. pp. 115-119

10 Miller, Maureen C. “The Agreements of Worms” Power and the holy in the age of the investiture conflict: a brief history with documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2005. pp. 120-121

Sartre on Bad Faith (Paper)

2012-07-28T08:57:00.000-04:00

In Being and Nothingness, Jean-Paul Sartre introduces a concept termed bad faith. In the following brief analysis of the term the reader will view the origins and definitions of the term bad faith, their relation to the existential, as well as the use of bad faith in Sartre's other works. In total, the reader will find a compelling reason why the term bad faith can be applied to humans.

To lie to one's self. To be a deceiver of the soul. To understand and recognize and then to ignore. These are the traits that are indicative of someone who is in bad faith. "We shall willingly grant that bad faith is a lie to oneself, on condition that we distinguish the lie to oneself from lying in general." (Sartre, Being and Nothingness p. 87) Sartre paints a literary picture in his work, Being and Nothingness, that portrays exactly what is at stake for a person who acts according to bad faith. According to Sartre the person who acts in bad faith is essentially performing an act of self-negation. While anyone is capable of telling a lie the person who tells a lie must also be in possession of the truth. (Sartre, Being and Nothingness p. 87). To be in bad faith that person knows the truth of their beliefs, actions, etc, but refuses to acknowledge these truths. The being that they have is therefore based on negating this very being. This self-lying is different from the lying that one might do to others. IN lying to others "The liar intends to deceive and he does not hide this intention from himself..." (Sartre, Being and Nothingness p. 88). In order for a man to truly be in bad faith he must be in possession of a truth and unwilling to recognize that truth. Once informed of the idea of bad faith the reader should see how bad faith is portrayed in other works by Sartre.

In the play No Exit, Sartre is able to display the way that bad faith would mold individuals into what they are. The one act play in which bad faith becomes evident, No Exit is about three people who have died and are now stuck in hell together. Hell in this instance is a drawing room decorated in Second Empire Style. The play was written in 1944 in France and could have been meant as a commentary on the German occupation of Paris. The three people that are kept in this drawing room are: a mother who cheated on her husband and then threw her illegitimate daughter, new-born, off a balcony, a man who joined the army but deserted before killing anyone, and a lady who seduced her cousin's wife while she was living with them. The room that they are stuck in has no mirrors, therefore the people trapped there could not see themselves as they want to see themselves but can only see themselves through the others in the room. The lack of a mirror can be representative of the lack of reflection on their actions that the people are capable of. The reflections are not corporeal with out a mirror. Instead they are forced to look inside themselves to understand who they are.

Estelle is the one looking for a mirror. With her dependency on mirrors the reader can clearly see the Narcissism inherent in her being. Because she refuses to see herself as she really is and relies instead upon her reflection in a mirror she is the character that is in bad faith the most. She is torturing herself by refusing to know herself as she is. With her torturing herself she inflicts torture on the other occupants, namely Garcin. (Sartre, No Exit )

Garcin is the cowardly soldier. He desperately wants reassurance that he is in fact not a coward. His desire is for peace and quiet more than the other characters. He had ambitions while alive to create a pacifist newspaper but never does. He runs from his actions and then seeks to rewrite them in his memory. (Sartre, No Exit )

Inez wants to be with Garcin, sexually. She works as the mirror for Estelle, to Estelle’s terror. When Inez describes what she sees in Estelle, she makes Estelle afraid/terrorized. She is the only one in the room who is able to see herself for what she is. She also attempts to make Garcin see himself as what he is. At one point she says, "So carry on, Mr. Garcin, and try to be honest with yourself-- for once." (Sartre, No Exit p. 38) This is at the point that she attempts to make Garcin realize that all the justifications that he has fabricated for running away from the army are just fabrications meant to enable him to live with his choices. Inez believes that Garcin understands that he is a coward but denies the truth to himself.

The play revolves around the idea of bad faith. Estelle is the one that is most clearly in bad faith. Garcin is much more ambiguous. He comes across as very indecisive. Inez is the only one who understands why she is placed int he drawing room. She is the only one who does not have bad faith. She understands that her person is defined by her actions. In her case she is defined by the terrible actions that she willingly did. She is the one who attempts to lead, unwittingly, the others to realize why there are in Hell. Hell is other people. There are problems with this way of thinking. In recognizing the negative forces that effect us one must also suppose that these negatives assure the existence of positives. While Garcin wants to focus solely on the negative he does so at the expense of the positive. The negation implies the possibility of the truth. (Sartre, No Exit )

The act of being requires an affirmation of the self by the individual. In addressing bad faith Sartre tries to identify why some people see themselves differently than they actually are. By being what you are and knowing what you are the individual is not living in bad faith. But if the individual acknowledges that they are being in one sense and deny that they are being in that one sense then they are, in essence, living by negation. They refuse to live positively and instead they live through denial. They deny who they are and, by doing so, they deny that they are, in fact, being. They are in a backwards fashion. (Sartre, No Exit )

It is my belief that Sartre portrays the human condition in a convincing fashion. In Being and Nothingness he portrays humanity as existing in a sort of equilibrium. Humans are capable of realizing who they are but shy away from doing so. Sartre uses the example of the waiter who is not a waiter. The waiter knows that he is not 'being' a waiter but is rather being a person who is playing at being a waiter. Sartre states that the waiter is merely a role in which the person playing at waiter is. (Sartre, Being and Nothingness p. 102). The man, acting as a waiter, knows that through such actions he is thereby given rights that pertain to such actions. (Sartre, Being and Nothingness p. 102). "I am a waiter in the mode of being what I am not" (Sartre, Being and Nothingness p.103). By saying this Sartre is affirming that in the first degree he is a man that has being and in the second degree is a man that chooses to act as a waiter, but he is never in the mode of being a waiter.

Through many different mediums Sartre assaults the way that most humans cope with their choices. In his work Being and Nothingness he describes in theoretical detail the way that many people suppress their true being in favor of something that they would rather think themselves being. In No Exit he supplies his reader with visceral evidence of people engaging in the act of self-denial. This evidence, coupled with his theory on being, drives the reader to be moved into accepting his bad faith as a legitimate explanation for understanding the self denial that humans visit upon themselves.

Bibliography

Sartre, Jean. No exit, and three other plays. Vintage International ed. New York: Vintage International, 1989. Print.

Sartre, Jean, and Hazel Estella Barnes. Being and nothingness. New York [etc.: Washington Square Press, 1992. Print.

The Eternal Recurrence and the Problem of the Overman (Paper)

2012-07-13T17:06:00.002-04:00

The Eternal Recurrence and the Problem of the Overman

Of the multiple ideas presented in Friedrich Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra, the two most intellectually stimulating and encompassing pieces contained therein are the philosophical idea of the Übermensch, hereafter referred to as the Overman, and the Eternal Recurrence. In the following essay the reader will find a thorough analysis of these two themes as well as a comparison of their faults, philosophically, in relation to each other.

The first central idea in Nietzsche's work is presented in the First Part of Thus Spoke Zarathustra. According to Zarathustra the Overman is the next evolution in mankind [Nietzsche, p. 13]. Nietzsche presents Zarathustra to the readers as the archetype of the Overman. In the First Part Nietzsche presents Zarathustra with all the accoutrements that would accompany an Overman: intellectual prowess, oratory skills, love of mankind, reclusiveness. The Overman, being characterized by such skills and behaviors, is a level of humanity that has superseded the ability of regular humans, but also desires to raise the rest of humanity up to the level of Overman. In order for the regular man to become an Overman there is the task of BECOMING. Zarathustra describes man as,”...a rope stretched between the animal and the Overman – a rope over an abyss [Nietzsche, p. 14].” Zarathustra says that what has made man untenable is,”...not your sin – it is your self-satisfaction... [Nietzsche, p. 14].” In the later part of this essay the reader will see the difficulty of reconciling the becoming required to achieve the status of Overman with the Eternal Recurrence.

The second major idea presented through the mouth of Zarathustra is the idea of the Eternal Recurrence. In the Third Part, Zarathustra presents an idea that all things that now live have lived already and are doomed to live again [Nietzsche, pp. 105-108]. In the theme of eternal recurrence, Zarathustra contemplates a gateway to which he has walked along a path. He stops at the gateway and asks questions of a dwarf there,” This long lane backwards: it continueth for an eternity. And that long lane forward – that is another eternity” [Nietzsche, p. 106]. To this the dwarf replies, “All truth is crooked; time itself is a circle” [Nietzsche, p. 107]. The idea here being that what has happened is destined to happen again and again an innumerable amount of times. For Zarathustra to stand at this gateway he must have already stood at the gateway and will always stand at the gateway in the future. Nietzsche's conception of the Eternal Recurrence is a romantic idea that is fraught with problems, not just in regard to the Overman but in regard to reason.

The problems that are presented with the Overman include: the ability to transform oneself into something that one does not know about, how to gain something that one does not have the capacity to understand, and to what extent the Overman represents a better humanity than humanity now.

In order for a human to transform, evolve, or otherwise change into something else, that person must understand either what it is they are changing into, how they are changing, or that they are changing. Changing, or becoming, does not necessarily imply an understanding of the end result of this change but would require some limited understanding of the change. If a person is expected to change then there must be a will to change for that change to take effect. Zarathustra acts as the catalyst for this change but does not offer a full explanation of the benefits that this change would provide for humanity with.

The Eternal Recurrence is even more problematic than the Overman. The primary problem that arises from the Eternal Recurrence is the idea of free will. Free will is necessary for humanity to decide what decisions to make and these decisions enable the individual to construct a sense of self, a sense of individuality, a sense of purpose. This is taken away by Eternal Recurrence. If a person has already done something before and is always destined to repeat it then it absolves humans of the responsibility of their actions because, in essence, these are already predetermined actions. Some may counter that if one does not know of Eternal Recurrence then their actions and decisions would retain their value to that individual. While that individual might still see their actions as having purpose that would be a misconception on the part of the individual. The decisions that the person would make would have already been made the same way with the same deliberations an infinite number of times and would continue to be made in the same fashion for eternity.

Once free will has been excerpted from the equation and humans are no longer the motivator of themselves, what remains to be answered is: Who or what is that motivator? In his debasing of christian morality, it is the belief of the essayist that Nietzsche would object vehemently to the view of an omnipotent unmoving mover. If it is not some demagogic entity that controls the actions of the world then it would be some wispy metaphysical term that would, at the same time, allow control of the universe and yet be 'non-living'. This is untenable.

To compound the problem one must also inspect the individuality of humans. In a cyclical time scheme the same people would recur doing the same actions, at the same places, with the same thoughts. If this were the case then one must pose the question; In each new cycle is the individual a new individual doing the same things or is it the same self doing the same things? In both cases there are inconsistencies. If one becomes another, different, identical self then you would have created the same person at a different time, in a different cycle, thereby creating a person that looks, thinks, and acts the same but is separated by time from his former selfs. This would make him a 'different' self which would nullify the Eternal Recurrence by putting a different person at different points in time instead of the same person. If one were to retain their individuality and were to remain the same self throughout the different cycles of time then one must account for the loss of memory between different cycles. If in each new cycle the individual is the exact same individual then that same individual should retain the memories from each previous cycle. If those memories are not retained then it is a new person in each new cycle. They would be connected to each other only because each new biological entity is doomed to repeat the same actions as the last. There would not be any metaphysical link that would tie these individuals together into one self.

The final problem with the Eternal Recurrence lies in its beginning. For something to recur it must first occur. Much in the same way that in order to draw a circle with a pencil one must first set the pencil to paper. Once completed, this written circle will recur indefinitely in a cyclical fashion. The same logic can apply to the Eternal Recurrence. There must be a linear starting point to a cyclical view of time. Once that linear starting point is established the recurrence will continue indefinitely. But for everything to occur in an eternity backwards and an eternity forwards there can be no starting point. Everything must be as it has been and will be.

These fallacies with the Overman and the Eternal Recurrence come together in the form of free will. If free will is negated by the Eternal Recurrence, how should the regular man will himself to become the Overman? The choice to become an Overman is based on a time-line that is purely linear. Attempting to reconcile this to the cyclical time-line of the Eternal Recurrence is almost impossible. If becoming an Overman requires free will and the Eternal Recurrence suppresses free will to the point of non-existence, then one, the other, or both, must be false

The two theories of the Overman and the Eternal recurrence are not compatible. The Overman, the next logical evolutionary step for humans, and the Eternal Recurrence are logical entities in their own right but when added together they turn what were two logical arguments into two mutually exclusive arguments.

Bibliography

Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm, and Thomas Common. Thus spoke Zarathustra. 3 ed. New York: Modern Library, 1917. Electronic Copy.

Platonic Biomedical Ethics (Paper)

2012-05-14T13:05:00.002-04:00

The following paper was written for a Bio-medical ethics class at the University of South Florida under the guidance of Mr. Nathan Draluck. May it be informative to you. Enjoy.

Platonic philosophy provides a way for doctors and patients to operate on the same intellectual plane by providing a stable and apparent ethical system based on the 'form' of good and the derivatives of good actions. The doctor and patient will be shown to rationally be of the same biological entity. The differences between doctor and patient are merely physical and the ability is real for all patients to be doctors. Because of an overpoweringly strong current in the biomedical community, dualism^# has become smothered and doctors have become intensely concerned with biological treatment, even when it is harmful to intellectual activity. Due to this lack of understanding on the part of doctors they have effectively relegated the patient to a subjugated role in lieu of affording them any large autonomy.

This paper will focus predominately on the relationship between doctors and their patients through the prism of Platonic Ethics. Furthermore, the paper will show that when considered in a rational way, Platonic Ethics provides an approach that is both safe for the doctor and engaging for the patient.

The reader will find three imitative case studies in which will be found a clear argument for the use of platonic ideals in treating a patient. Case one will expound on The Theory of the Forms and attempt to explain the actual differences between the patient and the doctor. While this may seem clear on the surface, the true difference, I believe, is actually nonexistent. In the second case we will examine the dualistic nature of Platonism and how this is translated, or not, into biomedical ethics. In the final case we will examine the autonomy of both parties involved in medical decision making, the patient and the doctor, and attempt to discover how autonomous each party actually is by defining autonomy in a platonic sense.^{^*}

The Platonic theory of the forms is a rationally sound argument for the understanding of things around us. In order to give the reader a basic understanding of the arguments that follow it is necessary to provision the reader with the basics of Platonism. The chief metaphysical quality for Plato is The Theory of the Forms.^¤ The following will explain in detail the fundamentals of Platonic philosophy which will then be expounded upon later.

The basic principle upon which The Theory of the Forms is based is participation, particularly participation in the the Forms themselves. The Forms are metaphysical traits that exist separately from humans but are present in the world through different objects participation in them. For instance, a person is tall because they participate in the form of Tallness. In a more basic understanding, anything that can be denoted as a adjective, whether it is a color, size, or description of any kind, is a reflection of that things participation in said forms. In addition to these forms is an overarching Form of The Good, under which all forms fall. A trait of all forms are that they are forms of good. The way in which humans understand the various objects around them and, in some sense, their own being itself, is through their understanding of forms. These forms are discoverable through dialectic discussions with other intelligent beings.

This brief overview has the ability to directly improve the doctor-patient relationship through several means. If we understand that doctors have a larger degree of understanding than their patients then we must also concede that because of this the doctors have a larger responsibility to impart this knowledge to their patients. The doctor must be willing to impart information, through dialectics, to the patient to increase the patients understanding of any medical conditions, preconditions, possible and probable outcomes from procedures, etc. A failure to do this on the doctors part would result in actions that would not be in accordance with Platonic Metaphysics and therefore would not fall under the form of The Good but would rather be a privation of good.^* While the doctor would have the ethical obligation to inform the patient of knowledge in which the patient was lacking, it is also the responsibility of the patient, in pursuit of knowledge, to attempt to discover, through dialectics, as much knowledge as possible. In doing so, medical knowledge would naturally be incorporated into this knowledge. From these interactions one may gather that through the form of the Good anything that transpires between a patient and doctor will be for the benefit of both parties as long as both parties willingly engage in Good, Selfless acts in accordance with Platonic Metaphysics.

Following this, one must make the argument that in these situations the parties involved have an overt obligation to do certain things. In order to arrive at this point the reader must first realize the following: that both the doctor and the patient are human beings who are capable of knowledge. If this supposition holds true then we can infer that there are obligation that each party must meet. The doctor has an obligation to search for knowledge in the same manner as the patient has an obligation to search for knowledge. With this primary obligation the reader can draw, among others, two distinct conclusions: That the patient should take into account the doctors suggestions for treatment only if they are unwilling to complete their own studies on the subject matter and, if this is the case, paternalism is to be considered opted into at this point in time. In cases in which the patient is unwilling, while possessing the ability to, attain the same knowledge as the doctor they have themselves mandated that their relation with their doctors will be a paternalistic one. While paternalism carries a heavily weighted connotation of loss of power, or immediate and unwarranted deference, it carries the heavier connotation of the inability to use dialectics. Therefore, paternalism should not be viewed as inherently negative but rather negative due to its association with non-dialectics.

Drawing upon The Theory of the Forms as outlined above, the reader shall find a discussion of Platonic Dualism, and how this is translated, or not, into biomedical ethics, in the anteceding argument. The first necessity in order to do this is a more thorough understanding of Platonic Dualism itself. Like most dualistic philosophies Platonic Dualism is a dualism of the mind an the body in which the mind is always superior to the body. In Platonic Dualism the terms for mind are many and varied but this paper will use only two interchangeably: mind and soul. Upon the death of the body the soul/mind are loosed to live among the forms and the forms are the highest ecstasy the mind can have both while contained in a body and upon the souls release from said body. Of paramount importance in this dualism is the idea that one should not deliberately kill ones body in order to release ones souls. To do so is an act of both desperation and an act demonstrating the pinnacle of a privation of good. While suicide is not acceptable in Platonic Dualism the body should always be treated in an inferior manner while the mind should be treated in a superior fashion. The reasoning behind this is that it is through our minds that we control our bodies therefore making our bodies a tool for our minds.

The dualism presented above has a very real connection with contemporary medicine. While this type of dualism is still extremely relative in contemporary society, many doctors focus their attention solely on the bodily ailments of their patients even when it can be detrimental to the patients mental health. The focal point of modern medicine is to prevent the death of the body through natural causes and this death is viewed as the ultimate item to beat. However when viewed realistically through a Platonic prism the death of the body can actually be a good act because it frees the mind from the constraints of the body. This is not to say that it is not worthwhile to treat the body, for it is worthwhile but only to the extent that it helps the mind. Put another way, the mind should be the focal point of medical procedures, while the body should only be treated in a fashion that neither hinders the mind nor makes the mind powerless. The example we can use to illustrate this is hypothetical in nature but revealing none the less.

A patient who has experienced some worldly calamity is in a coma and there is evidence that the brain has retained its capacity to function. The body of the patient is kept alive through a life support system. The doctors have the ability to bring the patient out of the coma but doing so will have repercussions on the mental state of the patient. Modern medicine will tell us that the patient is alive but comatose and therefore removing the comatose state is of the utmost importance even if this will result in a diminishing of the patients intellectual capabilities. From a Platonic viewpoint this is unacceptable. While the removal of the comatose state would certainly benefit the patient, it would only be of benefit if said removal was non-damaging to the intellectual abilities of the person in question. Therefore the 'Good' act in this case would be to let the patient either: remain in a coma or die of natural causes and thus have their soul separated from their body thereby preserving the intellectual capacity of that being.

The final sense in which Platonic Metaphysics has a role in Biomedical Ethics is in the sense of autonomy. The Platonic Sense of autonomy can be summed up in 4 points:

Autonomy is based upon the mind and its power over the body. ^*
Autonomy is for the mind to be free from coercive outside influence.
To be autonomous one must understand that actions that are willed through the body from the mind affect other individuals, who also have autonomy.
To be autonomous one must be cognizant of the fact that their mind has the capacity to learn any number of forms and their derivatives that are present in material objects.^*

Through these four points the reader can draw several conclusions about the roles of patients and doctors in autonomous relationships.

In order for a patient to be autonomous the mind must have power over the body and therefore the patient must have an active mind.^* A patient must understand their medical conditions and should only assent to things that they understand. If they do not understand things then they are willing themselves into a paternal relationship. This is acceptable but must be actively recognized by the patient. This lack of understanding is a lack of participation in dialectics on the part of the patient as the patient has the same mental ability as anyone else to learn. This understanding is predicated on the patient having an active mind.

Several of the obligations that are required of patients are also required of doctors, namely that they possess an active mind, among others. In addition every doctor should understand their patient's medical conditions and only recommend things that they understand. If they do not understand things then they are responsible for informing their patients of such. This is acceptable but must be actively recognized by both the doctor and the patient. One of the most damaging things that a doctor can do to impede upon the patients sense of autonomy is coercing a patient into a therapy that is not agreed to by the patient unless that patient has willingly approved of a paternalistic method of treatment with said doctor. If the patient has knowingly entered into a paternalistic relationship with the doctor then any treatment that the doctor orders that is beneficial to the patient is acceptable.

To display the way autonomy would work in a Platonic sense we turn again to our coma patient. In this thought experiment the coma patient is alive in the body but dead in the mind. In this situation the patient would not be able to control their body as they have no mind of which to speak. Without the use of their mind the patient would lack any type of autonomy and if autonomy is central to person-hood then this coma patient could not be considered to be a person. While they are still a human being genetically and they have a living body, the lack of a fit mind robs them of all right to person-hood. The doctor would not be able to treat the patient due to the fact that without a mind they are not human and therefore cannot understand their condition nor their treatment and could not consent to any given medical approach.

In conclusion the doctor-patient relationship can be effectively governed by a thorough understanding of Platonic metaphysics as they apply to Biomedical Ethics. The doctor and patient are both capable of the same knowledge and patients who willfully lack the knowledge of a doctor are knowingly committing themselves to a paternalist relationship with their physician. In addition, the modern medical approach places an inordinately large emphasis on the bodily health of their patients and not nearly enough of doctors resources are dedicated to ensuring the intellectual activity of a patient is preserved. Finally, the autonomy of a patient must be preserved at all times in order to serve the best interests of the patient.

#Body-mind dualism.

*In this sense autonomy would involve the definition of 'self/soul' as opposed to the definition of biological entity, further expanding upon the dualistic nature of Platonic philosophy.

¤A much broader understanding of The Theory of the Forms can be found in other works by Plato: The Republic, Phaedrus, Parmenides, and Sophist among others.

*Borrowed from Aquinas, Summa Theologica .

*Refer to Platonic Dualism

*Refer to Platonic Theory of the Forms

*Here active is used to mean fully functional

Abelardian Ethics (Paper)

2012-04-27T12:13:00.003-04:00

For Abelard the key to ethics is not in the acts that are perpetrated but in the consent, will, and desire to perpetrate them. In order to illustrate these claims and explain why it is sinful to consent to acts, Abelard uses four examples: a monk among women, a man with a homicidal master, a man marrying his sister, and two hangmen.

The monk in Abelard's example is forced into sexual relations with women against his will. Here will is used to mean consent, as opposed to will meaning desire. For the monk to be engaged in sexual relations of any kind is prohibited by his solemn vows. The question here is whether the monk has committed any sin. According to Abelard there is no sinning on the part of the monk because he did not consent to the acts performed upon him by others.

In the case of the servant with the homicidal master who kills his master in self defense, there is sin involved. Because the man desired life and so killed his master to prevent him (the master) from killing the servant, he had the will to murder. Even though he did so in self-defense he had a desire to kill his master to save his own life. However, this desire alone was not sufficient to make him a sinner. That final turn comes when he consents to killing his master. Desire alone cannot commit sin in the same way that a person who has a disposition to being mad is mad only when they consent to be mad, not all the time. Our servant in this case is a sinner for consenting to murder but not for murder itself. In Abelard's words he is a sinner without a bad will for as Abelard points out he is not to be blamed for not wanting to die.

In the third example Abelard gives a man marrying his sister as the purported sin. In this example we are told that knowledge about the purported act that is going to be committed is necessary for the consent to the act to be considered sinful. If a person knowingly decided to marry his sister he has given consent to eh act therefore, even before the actual marriage, he has committed sin. However if he does not know that the person he is marrying is his sister then he had no intent to commit sin and therefore is free from blame.
In the fourth and final example given by Abelard we are shown that intent, as mentioned above, is based on what God considers to be sinful or not. When hanging a man to comply with Justice, i. e. God's Law, it is not sinful to kill someone as it is not the intention of the executioner to sin but rather to uphold an ideal. This is opposed to the hanging of a man because the killer holds a personal grievence with the executed and therefore is only seeking vengeance. His intent here is to purposefully commit a sin rather than uphold Justice. Because of this he has committed the act of consenting to kill while the righteous executioner has only consented to upholding Justice.
In addition to these example Abelard says that a life without sin or the temptation to sin is none existent. We must struggle against our desire to sin in order for us to lead a moral life. The disposition of our mind at a point in time might make sinning more likely but in the end the individual must always willfully, knowledgeably consent to the perpetration of said act, even if that act is not carried out, in order to sin.

Oh What a Dream (poem)

2012-04-27T12:10:00.001-04:00

A mast raised on high

ready to snap up the wind

preparing to carry me

to what I may find

Across the horizon it

carries my dreams

anywhere I want

no destination unseen

I'm able to give

the most of myself

untie all the fetters

releasing thyself

The waves they greet me

and swallow me whole

into their current

more toward my goal

The salt swirls about

my feet leave the ground

I close my eyes

yet see all around

I'd given up hope

left for some other

yet here I realize

the sea is a mother

It takes from me

what I crave most

but gives me more

than I originally lost

I find inside

the strength and swam

to head for shore

and emerge a new man

I feel the sun

baking me dry

no more tears shall run

no more sorrow to cry

This adventure I've had

allows me to go

back to the world

that I used to know

And so I awake

from this wonderful dream

and pull on a shirt

and my old faded jeans

I step through my door

and out into the world

no worries are heavy

no anguish unfurled

My thoughts are at peace

my heart is not grim

no longer the world

seems at all very dim

Black Swan (paper)

2012-04-10T01:14:00.000-04:00

A psychotic thriller, Black Swan leaves the viewer attempting to guess what is real and what is not throughout the entire film. Natalie Portman's portrayal of a deranged ballerina struggling to understand herself leads the viewer through a wild ride of sex, music, jealousy, and rage to conclude in a climactic performance. Some elements of the film worthy of critical analysis include characterization, back-story, climax, the orchestral accompaniments and realism and anti-realism.

The characterization in this film is absolutely outstanding not just because of the character development but also because viewers are allowed to view each character through two different prisms, that of Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman) and through a traditional cinematic lens. When viewer character through the eyes of Nina the viewer will find that each character is tinged in darkness reflective of the way in which Nina's jealousy effects her understanding of the people around her. This is evident in the scene where Nina is late for a rehearsal and when she finally arrives in the studio she finds her 'friend' Lily dancing her parts. This is actually normal for any ballet as the viewer comes to understand that Lily is the understudy of Nina. To Nina however she sees it as a significant threat to her chances of success. Throughout the film the director of the ballet is also used to shape Nina as a character. He is adamant about her inability to correctly express the emotions of the black swan. This incessant pushing by the director leads to Nina's growth as a character but also leads to he psychotic breakdowns. These breakdowns are immensely important to the films overall message.

To add to the mystic surrounding Nina the director attempts to provide the viewer with a glimpse of what her life was like prior to attaining a role in the ballet. She turns out to be a relatively sheltered child that still lives with her mother under very strict guide lines. The interesting part about Nina however is that she has a compulsion to scratch absentmindedly at the back of her shoulder. This is known to have gone on for quite awhile as her mother comments that she is at it again. This foreshadows the mental instability that Nina has and allows the viewer to begin to attempt to decipher whether scenes are actually real or have Nina's mental interpretation woven into them. The addition of this little bit of information allows the viewer to construct a significant, if small, back-story for Nina. The viewer begins to grasp the mental inconsistencies of Nina in a way that wouldn't have been accessible without the added light of her back-story.

This back-story helps to lead to the climax of the film when Nina thinks she has stabbed her self-anointed 'arch-rival' but in reality she has stabbed herself. The climax proceeds to Nina dancing her soul away until, in the final scene of the film, she jumps from a ledge onto a mattress and as people crowd around her to congratulate her on her outstanding performance they see that she is bleeding to death from her self-inflicted wound and she whispers, “I felt it. Perfect. It was perfect.” This statement is the epitome of the movie itself and allows the viewer to grasp the drive that was required of Nina to perform with such talent. The downside is that in order to reach her true potential she had to demonize everyone who wished her well and injure herself to the point of death.

The injury to Nina also allows the viewer to examine the realism or direct anti-realism that is present in the film. Perhaps the starkest example of realism is not Nina herself but the people around her. The people that she is surrounded with are, seemingly, perfectly sane individuals who have no problem in coping with the world around them. Lily seems to be a person this is exemplified in. Lily, while driven to perform, is not nearly as polarizing a character as Nina is. This is due to the fact that while she is a somewhat wild individual she conforms to what people might expect from a younger female. She is a reasonable, sound-minded individual that the audience can relate to. She is the character that reflect the mental faculties that Nina lacks and is a grounding point for the viewer through her depiction as a realistic person.

The orchestral accompaniments for the film are also a standout. In keeping with the drama and psychotic thrill of the film the music is arranged in a manner that allows the viewer to be pulled in and held in place while remaining seemingly unawares. The action in the film matches up perfectly with the soundtrack at the most important moments allowing insight into the emotion of the characters. The roaring crescendos and the screech of strings allows the viewer to remain on the edge of their seats while the softer melodies remind the audience that the characters are but human after all though they may embody things that most people leave hidden. The music truly allows the audience to peer into the souls of the performs and understand on a more basic level what drives them to do what they do and the emotions that they feel at the time of action.

The realism that Lily displays is in direct opposition to the anti-realism that is portrayed in Nina. Nina, while at first seeming to be a regular woman, is depicted as a slightly insane individual. Her hallucinations add the element of anti-realism that makes the film become a masterpiece. The way that she reflects her inner trouble is done in a fashion that both excites the audience yet still seems unrealistic. The audience would not expect for her to stab her understudy and yet the film portrays it as so, at least at first. The climax of the film also serves as a point of anti-realism with Nina sprouting feathers directly from her flesh. While this is entirely anatomically unrealistic it does serve an ulterior motive, allowing the audience a window into her psyche. Therefore the anti-realism which is found in the movie is used to facilitate a bonding on an emotional level between Nina and the audience and enhances the empathy with which one might view her character.

In all Black Swan is a masterpiece that draws in the viewer and holds the hostage for the duration of the film. The adeptness with which the director creates his characters is especially important as the way that we understand Nina and the way that we understand Lily enable the viewer to understand the meaning behind the film, that perfection is paid for dearly but is also worthy of reverence. The way in which the direct contrasts the realism depicted by Lily with the psychotic elements of Nina keep the viewer guessing what actions are real and which are imagined while at the same time showing the audience what is happening in Nina's transformation from a girl into a woman. The back-story provides even more evidence of the mental unsoundness in which Nina operates. But the shining moment of the entire film is in the climax with Nina giving her soul away to transform into the Black Swan and her breathless exclamation of her perfection allows the denouement to nearly outshine the rest of the film. Tying everything together though is the amazing sound track of orchestral music which sets the tone throughout the entire film and allows the viewer to feel as dark and depressed as the transforming Nina feels.

'Run, Lola Run' An Analysis (paper)

2012-03-27T09:55:00.002-04:00

A classic look at German existentialism, Run Lola Run clearly portrays the type of philosophy Germany is famous for. The live in the moment style and the way that the three different scenes are portrayed clearly illustrates the philosophical concept known as "all possible worlds" in which individual actions can drastically change the way that a world turns out to be. What some people have termed to be moral tendencies in the film are little more than various outcomes of different events. In no way does the story take a moral stance. That really is the genius of the movie. It simply states what life could be and makes no assumptions about what life actually is. Within this framework we will observe the ways in which the film uses realism and anti-realism, verisimilitude, characterization, and flashbacks to present its subject matter in a curiously fun way.

The film itself, as mentioned above, exudes philosophical musings. The director has broken the film into three different but equally important pieces. That of acceptance, that of anger, and that of acceptance. In the first run Lola takes the path of accepting that her father is leaving her and her mother and proceeds to find many already robing the convenience store. She plays a mostly passive character throughout the first run not making thing happen but rather allowing things to happen to her. In the second run she becomes angry with her father and proceeds to rob the bank that he works for in order to save her boyfriend. In this role she is working in an active capacity to save her boyfriend instead of allowing things to happen to her. The third and final run plays into the theme of 'amor fati'^*. In this run Lola surrenders her ability to either be worked upon or to work upon the world. In accordance with the philosophy of 'amor fati' she allows fate to decide her future, as is evident in the way that she trusts the roll of the roulette wheel in the casino. The common theme throughout each of these encounters is not whether or not her actions or lack of actions are moral or not but whether she achieves her desired outcome or not. Next we will inspect how realism and anti-realism factor into this film.

The idea of having a film that is split into three different scenes about the same story may seem strange, and it is. The way the movie makes up for this is through its use of, for the most part, a realistic setting and actions that the ordinary viewer might find plausible for the situation that Lola is in. For instance, the entire film is actually filmed in Berlin, the actual setting for the movie. For the main core of German viewers they would be presented with a location that they would have had at least passing familiarity with. This might reinforce the way in which they view the film as recounting a possible day in the life of Lola and Manni. On the flip side of this however are the strange nuances that are added to the film, such as the ability for Lola to break glass with her voice when she is in a rage. While this is not a characteristic most people would have the director chose to include it in the film. The pressing question is: why? Even thought he director had gone through the effort to present most other facets of the movie as being realistic he added in this particular attribute to Lola. This was possibly the directors way of saying that the film, as much as it reflects reality does not, in fact, hold to be the absolute reality. In other words the film is meant to not show a realistic setting. The genius of the film however is to reconcile both of these realities into something comprehensible to the viewer. Here verisimilitude proves particularly adept.

Reconciling the outlandish qualities of the film to everyday viewers expectations of real life is a somewhat tall order. The way in which I will argue for verisimilitude in this particular film might seem to be out of the ordinary to some, and they would be correct. The easiest way to convince an audience that something is like their actual life to to provide them with a way to relate to the film. Normally this might be construed as making a film as realistic as possible and to siphon out any unrealistic elements. While this is perfectly acceptable the director of this film seems to arrive at the same believability through a completely opposite route. By this it is meant that the inclusion of certain unrealistic elements actually improves its verisimilitude. The particular example that fits here is that of the animated sequences. When a person views these sequences they are fully aware that the images they are viewing are not of live actors but of animated figures. Despite this fact I believe it is entirely plausible for a viewer to understand more about the character, and therefore characterization, of these more two dimensional characters simply because the viewer interprets that there is less information to know about an animated character than about a full-fledged person. Because of this idea they feel as though they can connect more with a character that they can more easily understand. Therefore the idea of verisimilitude is effective through a non-real medium.

The final idea that is presented in the movie is that of flashbacks. The reader, however, should take caution here as the flashbacks in this film are not your typical flashbacks. Instead of the traditional flashback the viewer is presented with a 'rerun'. Essentially the viewer watches the same film three times. In the case of 'Run, Lola Run' the flashback turns out to be a completely different reality for the characters. The greatest part about this is the fact that in parts of the film inklings of these other realities are still manifest in the minds of the participants. A prime example is when Lola has the gun while she is robbing the bank. She seems to remember, as if from some other life that the safety on a gun must be turned off in order to uses. In her current reality though she seems to actively remember this and turns the safety of the gun off. In this way the different runs in the film are flashbacks in that they are remembering another scene in the film.

In all the film 'Run, Lola Run' uses several great film tools to set it apart from other movies of its kind. The philosophical undertones of the film encourage the viewer to actively think about the film and the meaning behind it, if there is one, while actively watching the film. The way the director uses realism and anti-realism at the same time engraves a strange image in the viewers mind when used in conjunction with the flashbacks. However all of these are made to seem more familiar to the viewer when combined with verisimilitude and the interesting 2D characterization. The importance of the movie in world-wide cinema is even more important however than the actual film itself. The way in which this film allows a person to view film opens up a large Pandora-like box for other directors to explore and therefore the legacy of the film, while great in and of itself, it eventually outshone by the brilliance of the directors use of his professions paradigms.

*“Love of Fate” (from the Latin)

Greed (Paper)

2012-03-22T10:13:00.000-04:00

Inherent greed is, much like inherent value, an abstract, insupportable idea. In order for greed to be inherent it must be able to remain the same object in everyday life as well as in a complete vacuum. This is not a viable position for the following reasons: it is ever affected by human ideas and ideals, it is a contextual concept, and it is a creation of emotion put into words by human minds. For these reasons greed has, for the vast majority always been a word with a dark connotation, describing someone or some action that seems to be divergent from their beliefs. In this sense environmentalists have a long history of decrying the business world, among others, for their selfish and self serving ends in essentially raping the environment. While this may be true is some sense and from some perspectives it is not, by far, a universal Truth. Greed as defined by Miriam-Webster Dictionary: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed. This need has indeed led into a serious conflict between humans and the environment. Surprisingly enough however is that it might also be the beginning of a recovery leading to a better situation both for the inhabitants of the Earth and the Earth itself. Greed, therefore is contextual in its meaning and, among the more compelling human actions, has the capability of being one of mans lowest driving forces, that of self betterment.

One of the most ideal situations for a relationship between The Earth and Humanity is the principle of Stewardship in which humans see themselves as custodians of the earth instead of the earth being subjected to the wanton Wants of our desire. This stewardship is easily justifiable as a good business model. The past trend of simply taking from the earth what we need and not caring about its long term survival was less than solid in an economic sense. We were living for immediate gratification that in the end would have left both us and the earth worse off. While the businessmen of that time, as they always are and probably always will be, were motivated by turning a quite buck, perhaps in addition to slightly more altruistic motives, it soon became apparent that continuing the path of earthly destruction would no longer be accepted by the vast majority of people. This idea is particularly supported by 'Deep Ecologists'. This greed that drove business then however is still prevalent now. Businesses still strive to earn the most money while spending the least. To this end however stewardship is the best investment that can be made. Instead of creating machines and technology to deplete the earth to its breaking point business are now seeing the immense profit that can be made by investing in the welfare of the earth. Investment in renewable resources has been on the rise for the last decade. This trend shows not only a move towards helping the earth but also a move into an economically stable mind set for businesses. When an investment into solar energy is completed the investment would pay for itself over time and after the initial cost has been recouped become a fiscal money maker. In this way stewardship ethics is not only become morally responsible but also fiscally responsible by preserving the resource that is used to create profit and this urge to create profits is driven not by the selfless cause of conscience but by greed for that extra dollar, by greed.

This simplest way for the environmental crisis we find ourselves currently mired in is entirely mental in its formulation. With only a slight change of thinking on the part of many, the terrible costs that the earth has been made to bare on account of overzealous businesses and unconcerned humans could be entirely reversed with dramatic benefits not just for the earth but also for those attempting to gain a better social position in life through money. With the implementation of this change the world itself would, at the risk of sounding naive, become a better place. If people began to think of their actions in relation not just to themselves but to other people and other things around them then the human race would find themselves quietly sliding into roles of stewardship instead of remaining greed-driven. The immediate rewards in the short term would in fact perfectly coincide with the current attitude of 'me first' thinking. With realizing that people can be made happier by helping the planet by feeling proud of their accomplishments, the move from selfishness to stewardship is not a long road.

Along these sames lines, Emmanuel Kant, seen by some as an ardent advocate for animals to not have the same rights as humans, in essence creates a list of traits that reserve human rights for those that have rational thought, mobility, and inherent value. As with many other philosophers, the very idea of something having inherent value is plagued with a myriad of problems. In order for something to be valuable in and of itself it must be able to maintain this characteristic in a vacuum uninfluenced by any other object. In Kant's essay Rational Beings Alone Have Moral Worth, he advocates a system in which Humans, and Humans alone have wroth because they are intrinsically valuable. He says that we are “an end in itself” not merely a means for others to use or exploit to their own ends. He supports this idea by labeling everything that does not think rationally as things and everything that does think rationally as persons. Here he begins to exhibit the very anthropocentric view he has of the world. He goes further to use this view as a reason for humans to use anything not capable of rational thought for their own ends and he supposes that anything not able to rationally think for itself has value only as a conditional property that is contingent on a humans need for it. With this view he has given the world a view in which human needs, human greed, has become the central tenant by which we assign value to non-human entities.

Pushing the boundaries even further than Kant, Utilitarianism is a prime example of human greed especially as it interacts with nature. Many utilitarians, such as Peter Singer, contest that the best way in which to serve the environment is to simply act rationally without the interference of emotion. While on the surface this would appear to be an acceptable way of thinking it is, in fact, not. By creating a “weight-watchers” theory for human interaction Singer simply creates a system in which the person committing the action is able to step back easily and justify their actions with a simplified mathematical equation. For instance, one could easily justify cheating on ones spouse through utilitarian thinking. After the act of cheating the person justifying it might say that they became more relaxed afterward resulting in a (+1) effect for them. The same can be said of the person with which they had relations with resulting in an additional (+1). However the significant other of the cheater is devastated when they find out resulting in (-1). However, according to utilitarianism the overall outcome of the episode is a net effect of (+1) therefore making it a “good” practice. One can easily see how the same reasoning can be used in an environmental sense with Humans and nature interacting with business as the cheater. In this scenario, anyone sufficiently fluent in both utilitarianism and business could endlessly justify their actions on paper through a mathematical equation similar to the one above.

Among one of the more contentious ideas submitted by environmental philosophers is the idea of an Experiencing Subject of a Life (ESL) and their place in the world. Tom Regan is a major advocate of this idea. The problem with Regan's proposal is the fact that as a rational Human he has the ability to guarantee animals rights as ESLs but can reject other forms of life. This difficulty still retains that humans are at the top of the spectrum of life that can give or take away rights as easily as one might blink. This in turns leads to the thought that if humans are still at the head of the table of life, why do we remain there. The most obvious reason is because we, as humans, still retain rights for ourselves that create a better living. In other terminology we are basically greedy. We subject the other life forms of this earth to our own “rational” interpretation of what constitutes an ESL. In this way we are able to continue taking advantage of other life forms, plants for instance, that sustain us. The problem with this theory is that it has exactly the same problems as Contractarianism. Regan says that Contractarianism is arbitrary as it requires the metaphorical ability to sign a contract in order to be elevated to having rights. If an animal can't “sign the contract” then they are just out of luck and will continue to be viewed as resources for human consumption. This resource oriented view by humans in regard to nature is the central problem with humanity in respect to the environment. However, while he puts this problem forward as being backward in thought he actually advocates a system in which he is willing to accord rights to animals but not to any other life form. In this aspect he is both contradicting himself in theory as well as practice. While this may be so one must ask the paramount Socratic question: Why? Why would Regan want to include only some living things and not others while at the same time subjecting humans to the same rights as animals but still allowing humans to delegate who or what receives those rights. Once again we must welcome or trusty old friend greed to the stage. It is for greed and self image for which these mistakes are committed.

While advocating rights for all animals Regan still reserves the ability to award rights just for humans. In this way humans are still seated in that Zeus like chair at the pinnacle of the Pantheon. This image of humans as originators of rights still propels Regan to entitle us to more lucrative rights in order to maintain his ingrained ideas about life with humans centrally located. In addition to these problems the Idea of an ESL having inherent value poses a problem for many of the societal institutions of the world. For instance, when would it be appropriate to deprive a human of their rights? If it is whenever they harm another ESL then the animal world run into a huge problem for the same rules would have to apply to them as well. Any carnivorous animal would be deprived of right simply for engaging in actions that it considers required. A lion would be right-less for hunting, an instinct that has evolved over hundreds of thousands of years. Also part of this dilemma is figuring out who is responsible for taking these rights away. Would it be humans? It seems like Regan would attempt to make it so simply by the fact that we are the ones dispensing rights in the first place.

Perhaps one of the best explanations about humans and their desire to amass as much of anything they can is the late German born Philosopher, Erich Fromm. His headline work in relation to human greed is To Have Or To Be? In which he describes his two modes of humanity, having, a materialistic oriented thought process, and being, the emotional, productive mode of life. He states the the overwhelming majority of humanity is stuck in a having mode of life. This leads in turn to greed in which one try to achieve happiness through material wealth instead of intellectual thought. The being mode is something that he advocates as the ideal form of thought in which one does not have possession of things in a permanent manner but instead attempts to share with the world with others in our pursuit of happiness. This idea though is, in my opinion just as greed-driven as the having mode of being. That is not to say it would not better humanity to embrace his idea of being instead of having for it would drastically cut the amount of material possessions which we have. Instead it would substitute our desire for material possessions for those of ideological possessions. Instead of coveting the most up to date technology we would strive to acquire the latest thoughts and ideas. We would begin to envy people of higher intellect instead of people with more wealth. While this would certainly improve the lost of the earth in a very practical manner, i.e. trash, it would not help remove the idea of greed from the human psyche. It simply replaces it with something else.

Al Gore's treatise on environmental concerns proposes the idea that humans are simply addicted to abusing the environment. He explains that in order to leave our bad habit behind we must enter into a therapy course to change our mindset away from destroying the earth and instead preserving it. While his thesis is intriguing it is simplistic of its view of human nature and proposes and at its heart lies greed. In order for the world to continue and for our lives to continue we must take drastic action in the way that we think about the earth. Changing our philosophical outlook is indeed a requirement. However changing our view of the world is of immense benefit to ourselves. Our self-preservation is the driving force behind this required change. That is not to say that severing our addiction to abusing the earth by this means is a terrible thing. On the contrary it is a requirement. However when doing so it is necessary to be honest with ourselves. We must admit that the reason we are doing so and embrace greed as a power that will do “good”.

The core tenant of greed as exhibited by humans is closely tied to an overwhelming feeling of anthropocentrism. These two concepts correlate directly with each other with greed becoming the central offshoot of an anthropocentric mind. When a person sees the world as revolving around themselves and think that they have a a larger impact on the earth than anything else, that person comes to see the world in a largely anthropocentric way. As they continue to view the world in this way they are better suited to view the earth as merely a resource waiting to be plundered for their own personal benefit. This leads to serious problems when this person comes into a position to reap what the earth has, as in a business position or government position where they would have the direct ability to affect the earth over a large area. When found in this type of position these individuals would be more prepared to use the earth as a way to better themselves without considering the impact of their actions over a wider area. This greed driven decision stemmed from the way that they view the world, through anthropocentric eyes.

In all the majority of philosophers currently speculating on the idea of an environmentally sound relationship between humans and nature have largely failed to deal with the anthropocentric, selfish, greedy motives of humans. Instead they have focused on other more narrowly defined traits rather than deal with the ultimate issue at hand. If they had instead dealt with the problem at its base, greed, they would have come to much the same conclusion, that greed and nature are not inherently opposed but rather opposed because of the human use of greed for things that damage nature. This realization should come as no surprise to those who study human interactions. The simple step to stewardship is not far and would have a resounding impact on the world. Business would continue to make money, people would remain happy, if not become happier, and nature would become revitalized all through a simple attitude adjustment. And this is, I think, exactly what is needed.

Existentialism (Quick Word)

2012-03-11T01:17:00.000-05:00

A short excerpt from my paper on the movie Run, Lola Run! about the existential aspects of the film. Enjoy.

A classic look at German existentialism, Run Lola Run clearly portrays the type of philosophy Germany is famous for. The live in the moment style and the way that the three different scenes are portrayed clearly illustrates the philosophical concept known as "all possible worlds" in which individual actions can drastically change the way that a world turns out to be. What some people have termed to be moral tendencies in the film are little more than various outcomes of different events. In no way does the story take a moral stance. That really is the genius of the movie. It simply states what life could be and makes no assumptions about what life actually is.

The Ontological Argument (Paper)

2012-03-10T13:35:00.003-05:00

This is a short essay written for the class of Dr. Thomas Williams, University of South Florida, Medieval Philosophy and involves the response of Anselm to his critic Gaunilo in his work The Proslogion. From this argument stems the current ontological view. Enjoy.

Anselm's reply to Gaunilo, as illustrated in the Prosologion is, in effect, a restating of his earlier remarks in a slightly clearer manner. By this it is meant that the interpretation of Gaunilo's objections that Anselm uses portrays Gaunilo as saying, “... That something than which a greater cannot be thought is in the understanding no differently than from that which cannot be be thought according to the true nature of anything at all...{and} that it does not follow (as I say it does)that that than which nothing greater can be thought exists in reality as well simply because it exists in the understanding...”¹In response to this thesis on the part of Gaunilo, Anselm replies that, “Furthermore, if it can be thought at all, it necessarily exists.”² Therefore the reader can assume that according to Anselm, any thing can be thought of of which nothing greater can be thought, that it must exist.

The philosophical principle behind this lays in many different sources but Anselm argues that, in accordance with divine simplicity, if you can think of God (i.e. that than which nothing greater can be thought) he must exist have always existed because otherwise you would have brought the idea of God into existence thereby giving God a beginning. However God is the essence of Beginninglessness because he is a perfect being. Therefore if God does not have a beginning then God would have existed before you thought of Him, thereby making Him a Necessarily Existent being.

Anselm goes further in saying that it is absurd to think that than which nothing greater can be thought could exist only in the understanding. In order for that than which nothing greater can be thought to exist in the understanding it exists there because it is understood, comprehensible. He supports this by saying that if the idea exists in the understanding then it must have been thought. For a person to have something that they do not understand in their understanding is a negation. From there he lays out the idea that if it were to exist solely in the understanding then it is not that than which nothing greater can be thought but rather that than which something greater can be thought.

At this juncture he refers to the lost island idea. He says that it is impossible for someone to think of a lost island, the most perfect island in existence, as not existing because when it is described to a person they understand what it is. If they were thinking of something that than which nothing greater can be thought, they would be thinking something that cannot be thought. Therefore he says they would in essence not be thinking at all.³ Because of this that than which nothing greater can be thought cannot be thought not to exist.⁴

Anselm's final argument in support of his idea for the existence of that than which nothing greater can be thought to exist in reality, he says that the argument that that than which nothing greater can be thought is impossible to think due to our lack of understanding is not correct. He points out that when we think of good we compare goodness based on things that are familiar to us and that we understand. We use these understandings to formulate the highest good. He says that the same thing applies when we think of anything in relation to God.

1Hyman, Arthur, James J. Walsh, and Thomas Williams. "Proslogion." Philosophy in the Middle Ages: the Christian, Islamic, and Jewish traditions. 3rd ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub., 2010. 161-181. Print. p. 176a

2ibid

3Ibid pp 177b

4ibid

The Third Man (Poem)

2012-02-06T12:59:00.001-05:00

The third man argument...poetisized...your welcome.
This poem contains a poetic account of god's encounter with the third man argument.

Of Parmenides and God

And Parmenides said,

“Oh dear god where are you parents?
Have they deserted you so?
But where to see and where to hear
their words delivered below?”

And to this God said,

“Well you can see and here them now,
for they are their own true lords
and neither mother nor the father need
to be a patrons to their wards”

“But let us see the truly made
who rule and dance and sing
their merrier of true-born men
the gods that are the kings.”

“But my child I have no kings
that are higher thoust than I
for I create all things
and through me I have made I”

“But oh dear Lord you should know them so,
those three men who disprove your life
the finest three there ever were
who played the flute, the pan and pipes.”

The flutist said “Presenteth me to your matron gold,
so that I might see someone else that is truer to behold.
For your might might seem unbreakable to those who reckon so
but I do know there is a larger stone that you would sooner for-go”

At these rash words the Lord stood up and bellowed for all to hear,
“Give me such stone as you please and see if I am not fit,
for if I’m not able to lift that stone then on your head my crown shall sit
and away I'll go and let you be the puppeteer”

To this the pan-man stood and laughed for all to see
and beckoned over the Lord to eat the fruit of the poisonous tree
and when he gathered close the pan-man whispered so
“Create a stone which you can't lift and then hurry off like poor Euthyphro.”

To this the Lord stood dumbfounded, even in his might,
for such a thing disproved him, without even a fight.
He sat and thought and pondered
and created stones large and small
yet whenever he would wish it
he could pick up them all.

Seeing himself thus defeated
he wondered on out-loud,
“Now where is this Damned Third Man,
who would see me completely bowed?”

And then strode forth the piper
to play him to his grave
“Why didn’t you just have parents,
and rise above our wave?”

“But oh the tide did rise
albeit a mark to fast
and thus you have now sunk me
and God himself is past.”

Waiting on You (Poem)

2011-12-14T01:07:00.000-05:00

Well since I've been writing quite a few philosophy and history papers lately I've decided to put up another poem. I hope you find it inspirational. I have found the music of Dave King of Flogging Molly to be a true inspiration to my poetry. For the most part it should be read in almost a sing-song fashion. Enjoy.

You'll keep me waiting, waiting on you
So what should I do?
I'll sit in this prison and wait for you

I wander around the whole world through
Seeking some answers, looking for you
You glide on past and tickle the air
leaving it smelling faint yet fair

I walk through the world losing the smell
Locked in my prison, locked in my hell
Speaking you whisper, surrenders within
You left my side, left it for him

You'd keep me waiting, waiting on you
So what should I do?
I'd sit in this prison and wait here for you

So now we've grown further years apart
I've missed you so, ask my poor little heart
Abandon the life, and the pain that you feel
Leave it behind, forward I go
No more stumble in life, your doin alright
Head held high we trudge on ahead

You'll keep me waiting, waiting on you
So what should I do?
I'll sit in this prison and wait here for you

You see a reflection lost in uncertainty
You long to chase it but know its just me
Turning away, away in futility
I'm sorry my love its not meant to be

So now you're forgotten except in my dreams
to me it don't matter nor you it seems
That's fine with me I'll move on along
leaving you and this prison, to some other song

You'd have kept me waiting, waiting on you
So what should I do?
Leave this prison, and forget about you
Forget about you, Forget about you.

Italian Inquisition (Paper)

2011-12-10T02:09:00.001-05:00

Here is a rather longer paper that I just finished for my seminar in Medieval Marginalization. It is a scholarly look at primary and secondary sources regard heresy and accusations of such in 16th century Italy. Enjoy.

“Injure me, for you I nurture.”¹

Jeremy Eames

History Seminar

Dr. Gregory Milton

11/18/2011

For Large Wood: 55sols 6 deniers

For vine-branches: 21 sols 3 deniers

For straw: 2 sols 6 deniers

For four stakes: 10 sols 9 deniers

For ropes to tie the convicts: 45 sols 7 deniers

For the executioners, each 20 sols: 80 sols

-Inquisition accounts for an execution²

There are many things that qualify Italy as the birth place of the Renaissance, among them printing, universities, art, architecture, literature, philosophy, and trade. However when one thinks of Italy as a place of learning and commerce they inevitably miss the other factors that made such richness possible. There were three lives that perished to pave the way for the modern era and each will be examined. The reader will note that they are not the lives of explorers, inventors, or rulers, but of heretics. Included is also a brief account of political usage of heresy in the papal elections. This is included to show that accusations of heresy could be solely political in nature. The following essay will examine the lives of Girolamo Savonarola, Reginald Pole, Domenico Scandella, better known as Mennochio, and Giordano Bruno in an attempt to understand heresy and its political uses. As a precursor to these micro histories the reader will find a brief summary of the political turmoil in Italy and will then progress on to the circumstances surrounding each accusation or trial of heresy.

Like all history one cannot simply step into a specific event without first placing it into context. Because of this the reader will begin their journey at the beginning of the 1480s and continue through 1600. This will enable the reader to place each trial in a framework of ideology and time that, as the reader will see, lends itself to both persecution and marginalization.

In response to relapsed Jewish converts, the Spanish inquisition was established in 1479. While this was not directly tied to events in Italy it can be used to illustrate the wider tone of inquisition in Western Europe. The Borgia were in power in Italy along with the Medici's and Sforza. Witchcraft was on the rise in Italy along with the rise of printing, particularly in the city of Venice. This rise in literature, especially literature that was available to the masses is important to note. Knowledge was no longer held exclusively in the hands of the powerful. This rise in printing will lead to an increase, not just in accusations of heresy but also to the burning of convicted heretics. During the time period of 1550-1560, Italy also launched what has afterward been termed the Counter Reformation. This was a direct response to actions beginning in 1517 with Martin Luther's nailing of his 95 Theses to the door of a German church. Political turmoil is rampant in Italy with the French and Spanish making repeated invasions into both southern and northern Italy. They replace many governments, such as the government of Milan, which the French King claimed as his own and took the title of the Duke of Milan³, and Naples, which was seated with a Spanish Viceroy, with puppet rulers of their own.⁴ By any accounts this time in Italy's history is a violent and turbulent time. The task at hand is to discover how these political situations had an influence in creating an atmosphere of persecution and marginalization. To discover this the reader should turn to one of Italy’s power-broker families and their interactions with Savonarola and how this Dominican Friar affected, and was affected by, a politicized Italy.

Delving directly into the political arena the reader will begin our series of micro histories with Girolamo Savonarola, a Dominican friar born in Ferrara Italy in September 1452.⁵ In his tumultuous career he was mentored by his grandfather and attained larger instruction in the world at large before committing to the life of a mendicant.⁶ His recall to Florence in 1490 would begin his fall into the flames, though the friar did not know it.⁷ Recalled to a city that was full of vice, this itinerant preacher found a stable home in which to preach against human wrong and evildoing. According to O'Brien the people flocked to his sermons and when the French began their invasions in 1494 the local lord, a Medici , fled the city and the government turned into a primal theocracy based on eradicating human temptation to the physical world.⁸ In order to understand the fall of this preacher however the reader must also understand the man that in all but words sentenced him to his fate, Pope Alexander VI. This Pope was, according to O'Brien the exact incarnation of all that Savonarola found wrong with Italy.⁹ He was a man that had fathered several children while in ecclesiastical positions and was able to purchase the Papal Miter from the richest of Roman families. ¹⁰ While acting as a cardinal he received a letter from Pope Pius II rebuking him for taking part in an orgy in the city of Siena. A small excerpt reads, “All Siena is talking about this orgy.... Our displeasure is beyond words.... A Cardinal should be beyond reproach.”¹¹

This was an entirely worldly man, who was known to have used his office to reap immense payments for letters of indulgence and even goes so far as to list what kind of indulgences are available each day of the year.¹² Savonarola enters into the Italian city of Florence as a preacher against many things that had come to be associated with the current Pope. Let us take an in depth look at the content of these sermons and why they received such a brutal reprisal.

Upon Savonarola's entrance into Florence in 1490 he began fiery sermons against the vice that had gripped the city for decades. His appeal spread throughout the city until he was, in essence, the moral leader of the city.¹³ His attacks on the physicality of the rulers of the city, of the secular clergy, and eventually the ecclesiastical community eventually led to recognition by Pope Alexander VI. His actual beliefs here become more important as Savonarola saw a single ruler, such as the pope, as a simple unifier of corruption who was responsible for the moral failure in society instead of for its morality.¹⁴ In an attempt to silence the friar who, in the interim between French invasions, had managed to effectively become the autocratic leader of the city of Florence, Pope Alexander VI sent a brief to the friar in which he congratulated him on his efficacy and summoned him before the pope to further explain his doctrines.¹⁵ According to O'Brien this was simply a ploy to get the priest within his grasp and thence to silence him and Savonarola saw it as such. With his first request spurned by Savonarola the pope went to further lengths to silence the preacher by refusing him the ability to preach openly upon pain of excommunication.¹⁶ This ban was revoked a few months later with a college of theologians declaring that nothing Savonarola had said was anathema.¹⁷ Over the course of the next few years Savonarola never left Florence nor, with the exception of a brief entrance of the plague into the city in 1497, did he cease preaching to the community.¹⁸ His sermons however once again incited the wrath of Alexander VI and he was excommunicated in 1497.¹⁹ Despite this turn of events he continued to publicly preach in the square of the town, the Duomo, and even went so far as to preach that his excommunication was a heretic.²⁰

The reader should note that here a man eventually burned as a heretic himself is making accusations of heresy against the populace in general. He then took the fatal step of writing letters to secular leaders calling for a change in papal power to be effected by their hands.²¹ These letters eventually fell into the hands of the Pope himself. Savonarola was subsequently arrested. Under pain of torture he confessed to many things, all of which were later recanted, that enabled the Pope to brand him as a Heresiarch. On May 24^th 1498 Girolamo Savonarola was led to the gallows, hanged, and then burned until nothing remained.²² The primary cause here, judging by the decision reached by the college of theologians about the content of his sermons, can easily be seen in a political light. It was not the actual occurrence of heresy about which the Pope was concerned but rather the way in which Savonarola was able to influence people against the vice and corruption inside the church that worried him. The influence that Savonarola had inside Italy was a danger to the Pope, both politically and morally. The moral outlook of Savonarola was ultimately positive and seeking redemption while the Pope was simply after vengeance.²³ This wide moral chasm between these two men precipitated the eventual death of Savonarola not due to theological differences but due to power dynamics. In this case the accusation of heresy was enough to sentence a man to death even though, according to the documents available, there was never any evidence for the heresy that he was accused of and then admitted to under torture, only to later recant it. This is a clear cut case of hard ball Papal Politics.

Moving forward from the power struggles of the powerful with a mendicant friar, let us examine the role of one Reginald Pole briefly. Upon his death bed Reginald Pole was to Rome a Lutheran and to Germany a Papist.²⁴ A man that seems to have been stuck between two worlds in a highly polarized environment in the middle of the 16^th century. Pole was well known for being a supporter of the Spirituali, a group pushing for reform from inside the Roman Curia. The intriguing part of Pole was that even though he was accused of heresy several times in his life by both Lutherans and Catholics he came within one vote of obtaining the Papal Miter, that is until the arrive of the French Cardinals and his re-branding as a heretic. ²⁵ While these accusations were unfounded, they did reference the ideas of reform that Pole had at the time. In the nearly 7 months between the death of Pope Paul III and the ascension of Julius III papal politics are seen within a context that used heresy, and specifically the accusation of heresy, to eliminate a contender for the Papacy. Fenlon here disagrees and speaks of other causes that might have excluded Pole from the Papacy. Among his list are the facts that he is English, and hence a foreigner, the fact that after the election of Julius III Pole held many other offices for the Curia including the position of Papal Legate to England.²⁶ While these are accurate, these reasons still do not rule out the use of heretical accusations in denying the papacy to Pole. More instrumental in doing so was the questioning of his orthodoxy by the cardinals assembled.²⁷ It should also be noted that in 1550 Pole was appointed as one of seven members a council to protect the faith against heresy.²⁸ This can be used to illustrate that the heresy he was accused of did not have long-lasting effects and was hence a politically expedient way of denying him the papacy.

With the increase in papal inquisitions beginning with the establishment of the Congregation of the Holy Office of the Inquisition in 1542 one can find a very clear image of the type of heresy that it was targeted to root out by examining the case of Domenico Scandella, better known as Mennochio. The work of quintessential importance here is that of Carlo Ginzburg, The Cheese and the Worms: The Cosmos of a Sixteenth Century Miller. In this work Ginzburg examines the mind of a sixteenth century, surprisingly well read, miller. Mennochio is well known for espousing his beliefs from a mixture of misunderstood works and his own pontifications on the world at large.²⁹ Why then did the Roman Inquisition take such an interest in a man that had been elected to several offices in his small town outside Venice. And why, upon reaching a conviction at a second trial did the the Papal legates hesitate in his sentencing and require the interest of the Pope before they would act? Lets first examine the actual functioning of the inquisition at this time.

The usual course of action would involve having a period of leniency in which people could openly repent of the sins and be accorded a reduced penance.³⁰ Following this the inquisitors would begin a general inquest into the population extolling all people to come forward and give names of heretical persons in the area.³¹ The first time around, this second step seems to be what ensnared Mennochio. Following this general inquest with a list of heretics to prosecute, the inquisitors then collected evidence against the accused. While this evidence and witness collection is taking place the accused is normally held in the local jail to deter fleeing. Once the evidence is collected the trial begins.³²

According to O'Brien, the strongest part of the inquisition was their relentless insistence on maintaining records from each trial.³³ This was sure to have an impact on Mennochio and will lead to his eventual death. In Mennochio's case historians are allowed a glimpse into popular culture and can attempt to extrapolate several things from his responses to the inquisitors questions. As Ginzburg himself argues, the way that Mennochio thought is actually more accurate a depiction of everyday people rather than seeing them as all selfless drones that believed exactly what they were told. The point that Ginzburg does not tease out of the documents is, why did the Inquisitio decide to prosecute Mennochio in the first place?

I would argue that, because he is in a position of power in the town both as a 'politician' of sorts and as a miller, the political ramifications of him remaining in power would have been, in the eyes of the church, been detrimental to the populace's souls. Also because of the proximity to the Calvinist and Lutheran populations in Switzerland and Germany, the impetus for the Roman Curia to take special interest in the case of Mennochio should not be surprising. The Pope himself, after the second trial in which Mennochio is found to be a relapsed heretic, urges the Inquisitors to carry out their sentence swiftly and execute Mennochio.³⁴ This execution and desire for a swift punishment can further illustrate the way in which Mennochio's trial had political implications. By providing this public spectacle, the Pope effectively showed that the price for deviation, not just heretical but also political deviation, is deserving of death. The way that Mennochio could have influenced his neighbors was a risk that the church could ill afford to take.

Finally the reader will turn to the trial and execution of one of Europe's liberal thinkers of the 16^th century, a scientific man known throughout Europe, Giordano Bruno. Bruno's case with first the Venetian Inquisition and then the Holy Office itself serves as a capstone to the previously discussed instances of accusations of heresy. In order to understand the nature of the trial of Bruno the reader must first understand several political factors that led to his arrest, trial, and death. The arrest of Bruno plays out much like a spy thriller with the accused fleeing from Italy to Switzerland to Paris to England and then back to Venice. His education was completed at the Monastery of San Domenico Maggiore in Naples. He spent much of his life preaching about the ideas of science and how the churches ideas of a Heliocentric world were scientifically incorrect.³⁵ He was an avid reader and the start of his chase through Europe is due to his possession of Erasmus' work, an illegal book in Italy because of its heretical thought. Above all it was his desire to be able to speak with the Pope himself and attempt to convince him of the churches wrong.

On his return to Italy in 1592 he is arrested by the Venetian Inquisition.³⁶ Here one must draw further distinctions, for the politics of the era become transparent here. The Venetian Inquisition was a separate and distinct body from the Holy Office. While the Venetian Inquisition was tasked with the area in and around Venice itself, the Holy Office was tasked with the world at large. The Venetian Inquisitor was able to begin the trial of Bruno without much delay however due to the political wranglings with the Holy Office his eventual execution would not happen until 1600, a full eight years later. The main reason for this was his long imprisonment in the Vatican Prisons.³⁷

Of the many reasons that are given by the Doge of Venice not to turn over this accused heretic to the Vatican the most pertinent of these to our case is that of nationalist pride.³⁸ After turning to a well known lawyer the Doge is finally able to acquiesce to the papal demands for Bruno.³⁹ The Papal trial is begun anew in Rome and reaches a guilty verdict. Unlike in Venice, where many heretics were taken quietly out to sea to drown, the papal burning of Bruno was a public spectacle, with a full parade.⁴⁰ It should also be noted that during this parade the erstwhile Bruno had many philosophical exchanges with the crowd for which he was rewards with 2 stakes, 1 placed through his cheeks to pin his tongue and 1 to pass through his lips allowing him the ability of speech no more.⁴¹ Previous to this it should also be noted that this philosopher/heretic also repeated his desire to be rejoined with the holy mother church. Upon reaching the site of execution he was tied to the post and burned. It was the year 1600.

Once again the reader may find themselves asking the question why. One must attempt to decode this trial while at the same time refraining from investing it with modern notions. One can see Bruno as a highly intelligent writer and philosopher with the power of written word. The rise of Venetian printing led not only to his ability to procure Erasmus' work, which led to his eventual arrest but also the way in which he published in excess of 15 works to an audience that bridged 12 different nationalities. His outspoken nature in contradicting orthodoxy in the academic world and assaulting, though inadvertently as a result of his writing, normal church views. By doing this he assaulted the churches power, particularly political power. His transfer from Venice to Rome also served to reinforce the political reality in Italy, that Rome held enormous sway throughout the peninsula. Enough in this case to demand an extradition. This extradition also served to show the way that the Italian states were politically involved with Rome. The reader will remember that the Venetian Doge had to find a politically correct time to allow the prisoners transfer.

In conclusion, this paper has surveyed, albeit briefly, three lives that were terminated by accusations of heresy and one account of a cardinal being accused of heresy to deny him the papal office. In two of the cases the men burned were intelligent, well taught, and capable of directly challenging the authority of the Pope. In a third it was a simple man who, while being literate, did not pose any direct threat to the Pope but rather an indirect capability of foster individuals of more intelligence than himself to actively challenge the church. The part played by Reginald Pole was illustrative of how accusations of heresy could reach into even the highest parts of the church when there was a political advantage to hold. It is reasonable to consider many of the trials and executions in 16^th century Italy to be politically motivated rather than economically, morally, or reactionary.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Anon. Imprint: London : Wynkyn de Worde, ca. 1505

Venitian Wood Cut, c. 1530, courtesy of Early English Books Online. The translation of this piece was done by Jeremy Eames with help from Dr. Gregory Milton, USF, and Oraleze Byars, USF.

Secondary Sources

Anglo, Sydney. Machiavelli: a dissection. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1970

Bahar, Sonya . "Giordano Bruno, Philosopher/Heretic." Journal of Biological Physics 36, no. 4 (2010): 329-338.

Thomas James Dandelet, John A. Marino, and Antonio Alvarino. "The State of Milan and the Spanish Monarchy." In Spain in Italy: politics, society, and religion 1500-1700. Leiden: Brill, 2007. 99-134.

Dandelet, Thomas James, and John A. Marino. Spain in Italy: politics, society, and religion 1500-1700. Leiden: Brill, 2007.

Fenlon, Dermot. Heresy and obedience in Tridentine Italy: Cardinal Pole and the counter reformation. Cambridge: University Press, 1972.

Finlay, Robert. Venice besieged: politics and diplomacy in the Italian wars, 1494-1534. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008.

Gatti, Hilary. "Why Bruno's "A Tranquil Universal Philosophy' Finished In A Fire." In Essays on Giordano Bruno. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2011. 310-323.

Ginzburg, Carlo. The cheese and the worms: the cosmos of a sixteenth-century miller. 1980. Reprint, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992.

Malley, John W.. Praise and blame in Renaissance Rome: rhetoric, doctrine, and reform in the sacred orators of the papal court, c. 1450-1521. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1979.

Martin, John Jeffries. Venice's hidden enemies Italian heretics in a Renaissance city. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.

Peters, Edward. Inquisition. New York: Free Press ;, 1988.

Milton, Gregory. "Popular Culture and Witchcraft." Class lecture, History Seminar from University of South Florida, Tampa, October 31, 2011.

Pugliese, Olga. "A Last Testimony by Savonarola and His Companions." Renaissance Quarterly 34 , no. 1 (1989): pp. 1-10. www.jstor.org/stable/2861159 (accessed November 3, 2011).

White, Michael. The pope and the heretic: a true story of Giordano Bruno, the man who dared to defy the Roman Inquisition. New York: William Morrow, 2002.

Endnotes

1Venitian Wood Cut, c. 1530, courtesy of Early English Books Online. The translation of this piece was done by Jeremy Eames with help from Dr. Gregory Milton, USF, and Oraleze Byars, USF.

2White, Michael. The pope and the heretic: a true story of Giordano Bruno, the man who dared to defy the Roman Inquisition. New York: William Morrow, 2002. p. 1

3Thomas James Dandelet, John A. Marino, and Antonio Alvarino. "The State of Milan and the Spanish Monarchy." In Spain in Italy: politics, society, and religion 1500-1700. Leiden: Brill, 2007. 99-134. pp. 99-108

4 Thomas James Dandelet, John A. Marino, and Carlos Sanchez. "Naples and Florence In Charles V's Italy:

Family, Court, and Government in the Toledo-Medici Alliance." In Spain in Italy: politics, society, and religion

1500-1700. Leiden: Brill, 2007. 135-180. pp. 135-140

5John A. O'Brien, "Savonarola: A Heretic?." The Inquisition. New York: Macmillan, 1973. 159-182. Print. p. 159

6O'Brien "Savonarola: A Heretic?." p. 160

7O'Brien "Savonarola: A Heretic?." p. 160

8O'Brien "Savonarola: A Heretic?." p 162

9O'Brien "Savonarola: A Heretic?." p. 172

10O'Brien "Savonarola: A Heretic?." p. 166

11O'Brien "Savonarola: A Heretic?." p. 165

12Anon. Imprint: London : Wynkyn de Worde, ca. 1505

13O'Brien "Savonarola: A Heretic?." p. 160

14Sydney Anglo. Machiavelli: a dissection. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1970 pp.198-199

15O'Brien "Savonarola: A Heretic?." pp. 161-162

16O'Brien "Savonarola: A Heretic?." p. 162

17O'Brien "Savonarola: A Heretic?." p. 162

18O'Brien "Savonarola: A Heretic?." p. 163

19O'Brien "Savonarola: A Heretic?." p. 163

20O'Brien "Savonarola: A Heretic?." p. 163

21O'Brien "Savonarola: A Heretic?." p. 163

22O'Brien "Savonarola: A Heretic?." pg 181 ,For a more in depth account of the last days of Savonarola please see Olga Pugliese, "A Last Testimony by Savonarola and His Companions." Renaissance Quarterly 34 , no. 1 (1989): pp. 1-10.

23John W. Malley, Praise and blame in Renaissance Rome: rhetoric, doctrine, and reform in the sacred orators of the papal court, c. 1450-1521. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1979. p. 111

24 Dermot Fenlon, Heresy and obedience in Tridentine Italy: Cardinal Pole and the counter reformation. Cambridge: University Press, 1972. pg 280

25Fenlon Heresy and obedience in Tridentine Italy p. 228

26Fenlon Heresy and obedience in Tridentine Italy p. 232

27Ibid., p. 232

28Fenlon Heresy and obedience in Tridentine Italy p. 233

29Carlo Ginzburg. The cheese and the worms: the cosmos of a sixteenth-century miller. 1980. Reprint, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992.

30O'Brien, “The Inquisition” pp. 13-15

31ibid., pp. 13-15

32 John A.O'Brien, The Inquisition pp. 27-35

33John A. O'Brien, “The Inquisition” p. 43

34Ginzburg pp. 127-128

35Hilary Gatti. "Why Bruno's "A Tranquil Universal Philosophy' Finished In A Fire." In Essays on Giordano Bruno. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2011. pp. 310-323.

36Hilary Gatti. "Why Bruno's” pp. 310-323

37White The pope and the heretic p. 141

38White The pope and the heretic pp. 140-146

39White The pope and the heretic pp. 140-146

40White The pope and the heretic p. 181

41White The pope and the heretic p. 181

Dabbling in Plato (Paper)

2011-12-01T13:52:00.001-05:00

My latest philosophy paper, based on Book VII of Plato's Republic. Enjoy.

Statement: Socrates argues that we should force the guardians who have seen the realm of the forms (outside the cave) to go back and rule even if they do not want to do so.

Thesis: It is morally corrupting to both a person and the state to force a participant to engage in an activity against their freewill when the cost to benefit ratio of that activity has not been clearly established.

In Plato's Republic Socrates examines what it means for a philosopher, long trapped in the world of the physical, to attain passage into the realm of the forms. Socrates paints a picture of civilization taking place in a cave where all one can see are the shadows on the wall until they are elevated above the mundane and are allowed to glimpse this spiritual realm of the forms. Yet upon this attainment of true knowledge they are to be forced back into the cave, back into the darkness to enlighten and to rule those they had previously left behind. According to Socrates they would force both themselves and each other back into the darkness because they would be spending the majority of their time in the world of the forms anyway. Their journey back into the darkness would be for the mutual good of everyone but most of all for the state. They would facilitate the state and through the state the increase in general 'good'.

There are problems that arise however when Plato speaks of forcing people into the cave after being able to behold the world of the forms. This could lead to emotional and physical violence amongst those privy to the actual forms. There is also a problem with facilitating 'good'. If you are bring good to the people who have not seen the world of the forms then what were they experiencing prior to a philosophers return to govern them? It seems that the de facto answer would be a form of 'bad'. However, if all the forms are under the 'umbrella form', so to speak, of good, then bad would not exist negating the need for the philosophers who new of the realm of the forms to return to the physical world to rule others. In addition to this there is a problem with any person witnessing a physical ascent into a metaphysical realm. Where would this person 'be'? If he were speaking of the realm of the forms as a purely mental state then the philosopher who is aware of the forms would live in a dichotomy. On the one hand they would see themselves as the souls they truly were but on the other hand they would still need to partake of the physical realm to attend to the physical necessities of living. Otherwise they would waste away until they died. In addition to these rather large problems there is also the problem of who would decide that someone had actually visited the realm of the forms. In the event of someone claiming to have attained the knowledge of the forms but not, and them being made the ruler of the city would have drastic consequences both for the state as a whole but also for the individual citizens of the city be they economic, physically injurious, of mentally harmful consequences.

While these are serious problems the issue that is really at stake is that of personal liberty and to what extent the greater good should take precedent over personal freedom. If philosophers were to force each other to return to the darkness are they not acting in a manner that is inconsistent with the 'good' by forcing their collective will upon someone who resists them.

In terms of ruling the city, Plato also assumes that the rulers would all come to the correct and best way to rule the city. If one philosopher was to rule the city after being forced back into the physical world, it is not a stretch to think that they might themselves fall back into an emotional way of thinking by way of being forced into something they do not wish to do. While in this emotional state the ruler could make laws that punish those that are responsible, at least in some way, for him being forced back into the physical world, namely the non-philosophers. In a worst case scenario the ruler could essentially create a state that benefits him alone and morph the state into a dictatorial style of government that reduces the population to slavery at best and death at worst.

Many of the points raised previously might have a suitable answer, at least from Socrates' perspective. In response to the enlightened philosophers becoming harmful to each other one might say that because of their learning they would not see any benefit to society or each other in partaking in it and therefore would abstain from it.

The idea that by not having good in the physical world and therefore being left with bad is a more difficult point to answer. If all the forms are part of the form of good, then the form of bad must be so also. But if the form of bad is also good then it would not be bad, it would be good thereby making the idea of bad good. This in essence negates anything 'bad' in the world and would further negate the need for the philosophers to return to the physical world. It also presents the problem of having an idea that does not have an opposite and therefore becomes the normal. Without the bad, the good just wouldn't be good in the same sense that most people think of it. The best way to resolve this conundrum is to place the bad outside of the conventional idea of the theories of the forms. Socrates might possibly say that bad is created by the gods as a way for mortals to distinguish between things, or something to that effect. There really is not a good answer to this question.

The question of a person actual ascending into a metaphysical world is not so much of a problem. The allegory that Socrates provides is exactly that, an allegory. The actual ascent would be induced in the mental state of the participant. Hence his being forced back into darkness would be more of a forcing him to partake in everyday affairs.

The problem of deciding who had actually attained the knowledge of the forms and therefore is fit to be forced back to rule can be explained by the forms themselves. If a person is fit to rule then the form of governance, or something similar to it, would be evident in their character, and evident to those who recognized the forms, i.e. the philosophers. If the person were attempting to fake this knowledge that would also be apparent.

This same reasoning can be used to explain the way that philosophers would react to being forced back into the physical realm. Because philosophers are taught to reject the emotions in favor of the rational they would see themselves returning to the physical world as beneficial and therefore for 'good' and would not reject the expectation of having to do so. Their personal liberty would not be at issue as they would want to do the most good they could for the state and would not be emotionally attached to liberty. They would most likely view their bodies as simply instruments for their minds to operate through and would see the sensibility of subjecting themselves to physically governing.

The way that each philosopher would rule would also be nearly identical. If the forms were dictating what the good thing to do is then the philosopher ruling the current city would view that as the best possible choice. Any other philosopher would see the same choice as the best because each rule and law would be taken directly from the form of the good.

The real problem with forcing people back into the physical world is deciding exactly how they have to improve it/rule it. The form of the good would already be prevalent in the world because of the lack of a form of bad. Until a satisfactory answer is found to this question the idea of sending enlightened philosophers back into the physical world to rule is unacceptable. The good that they are capable of is not what is in question but rather whether or not the amount of good they could do in an already good world would be significant enough to force them into something that they might be unwilling to partake in. Unless a cost to benefit ratio is established, the violation of person liberties/freedoms, whether a grievance of the participant or not, sets a bad example for the remainder of the population. This idea could possibly lead to the enslavement of the free citizens to work exclusively for the state to better the lives of everyone in the state, but you are still compromising the welfare of the few for the many, which is morally negligent on the part of the state.

The Black Death (Paper)

2011-11-20T10:13:00.001-05:00

A think that another academic post is in order and have decided to display one of my papers on the Black Death. I hope you enjoy it.

The Black Death that swept across the Mediterranean in the middle of the 14^th century resulted in different responses among various portions of the population. The responses to the Plague range greatly throughout the Mediterranean Basin. In The Italian States we have evidence of a limited response by certain parts of the populace which saw an increase in moral laxity. In Germany and the Low Countries, however this was counteracted by an increase in penitential flagellants who became known for a strong, yet misguided, piety bordering on hysteria. Therefore moral laxity was not a contributing factor in the development or spread of the disease but was, along with other more religious acts, a response to the Plague.

In order to gauge the differences in morality before and after the Plague one must first provide a description of morality before the plague. In medieval society in the high to late middle ages, morality was normally something that was closely monitored in society. Women were expected to be modest and clothed in a manner as to reveal as little skin as possible. The family unit was the basic economic factor which led to an expectation of family supporting each other. Fathers were the head of household and were responsible for the care of the wife, children, and, at times, extended family. Priest played a major part in the morality of society by providing direction to lost souls and preaching sermons on the correct way in which to worship and please an angry God.[1] They were also responsible for the burying of the dead and last rites at funerals.[2] People also respected their neighbors property and assets in accordance with the Ten Commandments. After the coming of the Plague c. 1348 many of these moralities would fall by the wayside as people struggled to cope with the Black Death.

Woman’s modesty according to some sources became notably lessened in the wake of the Plague. Women after the Death had no qualms with showing more skin in public as illustrated in the account of Boccaccio. In addition to this lack of visual modesty it is also noted that women in some parts of Europe, instead of being 'barren', were instead marrying in great numbers and procreating in large numbers.[3] This might be seen as a natural reaction to the Death that was sweeping Europe. Women abandoned their previously 'moral' existences and instead joined together in what De Venette called 'wanton abandon'.[4]

The family unit of Europe was a central figure in the lives of peasants and aristocrats throughout medieval Europe. Men were expected to provide for the family to the best of their ability. This included providing care to the sick. However, with the coming of the Plague this family unit began to disintegrate. Husbands left wives, brothers left sisters, mothers left children.[5] The basic unit of life in their world would disappear as each person sought to deal with the plague as they saw best. This change in social normalcy was brought on by the idea that death, being so rampant, it was only a matter of time, in the minds of people, before they each succumbed to it. This undoubtedly led to an increase in the wanton behavior many people displayed, moving from house to house or tavern to tavern drinking repeatedly to excess and treating their bodies as carelessly as their livers. Further evidence of moral laxity is present in several accounts in which there are descriptions of people liberally taking possession of the dead or dying's property. Even though no relation is held by those taking the 'movable items' it still occurred quite often.

In order to atone for both original sin and the sin incurred by a single person there arose a sect of Christians who deemed it prudent to enact penance for their sins. This penance however, was extreme in nature and religiously unsanctioned. The participants of this sect, called 'Flagellants', would, as their name implied proceed to both whip themselves and be whipped by another with long leather straps to which were affixed thorns of wood or iron which tore at flesh as they were applied. These reactionaries believed that they were atoning for their sin as well as atoning for the sin of the community.[6] The penitents would travel through towns and cities enacting a procession which drew large crowds of spectators who all, “..felt pity for the said penitents.”[7] This form of self sacrifice however was not condoned by the church and the pope even went so far as to provide bishops license to excommunicate members of the sect, partially due to the fact that husbands were simply deserting their families in order to repent with the group.[8] The act of self-flagellation was simply another example of people acting against long-standing moralities.

Priests in 14^th and 15^th century Europe during the Plague were seen by a wide swath of the population as lazy or greedy. It is noted that many priests were actually ordered back to their dioceses by their Archbishops in addition to being censured for extorting peasants.[9] The local populations were more apt to charge that the priests were not fulfilling their duties in regard to burying the dead with their last rights.[10] However being as the priests died at roughly the same ratio as the rest of the population the fact that there were simply just not enough of them to bury the massive amount of dead is a better explanation than that they were simply lazy. The priesthood also speaks out against the hysteria of the flagellants possibly even lowering their worth to the common people as the common people more than likely viewed the flagellants as at least attempting to do something to assuage the anger of God.

Art also played a large role in depicting the lack of morality with regard to the Plague. Worms begin to have an increasing presence in tombs particularly when illustrated as partaking of the flesh of the dead, yet even when not they could also be found in poems that where placed alongside the crypts.[11] This shows a marked departure from earlier forms of decoration, highlighting the perception of what life living with the Plague was like. The other common sight seen in art is a sense of impending doom involving the figure of Death playing chess with participants in which the participants follow death into the afterlife after losing at his 'game'.[12] This sense of dread was used as a justification in abandoning normal ideas of morality.

In all, the effect of the plague produced an era of relative licentiousness in which inhabitants freely abandoned previously established moralities. This was an effect of the Plague rather and not a cause of it. The laxity that is seen, such as lack of modesty, drunkenness, and lack of following proper religious protocol can all be seen in the accounts of post-Plague Europe.

[1] Aberth, John. The Black Death: the great mortality of 1348-1350 : a brief history with documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005. Petrarch pg72

[2] Aberth, John. The Black Death: the great mortality of 1348-1350 : a brief history with documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005.Boccaccio pg 79

[3] Aberth, John. The Black Death: the great mortality of 1348-1350 : a brief history with documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005.Jean De Venette pg 83

[4] ibid

[5] Boccaccio pg 77

[6] Aberth, John. The Black Death: the great mortality of 1348-1350 : a brief history with documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005.Fritsche Closener pg 133

[7] Aberth, John. The Black Death: the great mortality of 1348-1350 : a brief history with documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005.Gilles Li Muisis pg 132

[8] Aberth, John. The Black Death: the great mortality of 1348-1350 : a brief history with documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005.King Philip VI of France. Pg 138, Muisis pg137 Heinrich of Herford pg 122

[9] Aberth, John. The Black Death: the great mortality of 1348-1350 : a brief history with documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005.Hamo Hethe, Bishop of Rochester pg 106

[10] Aberth, John. The Black Death: the great mortality of 1348-1350 : a brief history with documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005.Simon Islip, Archbishop of Canterbury pg 105, Hamo Hethe, Bishop of Rochester pg 106

[11] Aberth, John. The Black Death: the great mortality of 1348-1350 : a brief history with documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005. A Disputacioun betwyx the Body and Wormes pg176

[12] Aberth, John. The Black Death: the great mortality of 1348-1350 : a brief history with documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005. Death as Chess Player pg 168