Stoic Ontology 3

And so we arrive at the end of Stoic ontology. The third and fourth genera - disposed and relatively disposed. Perhaps I have a flawed understanding, which itself is understandable considering the dearth of extant texts, but to me these seem to indicate qualities of a substance. Not necessarily an identity, as that is what qualified is, but rather characteristics. Disposed substance has intrinsic characteristics, like weight and density. Relatively disposed substance has characteristics which can change as a result of changes external to that substance. The oft-cited Greek example is that of two men standing together, the 'man on the right' loses that characteristic if his neighbor moves, despite the fact that the first man did nothing.

Stoics seemed to have put most characteristics, however, in the second and third genera. They acknowledged that properties like sweetness and bitterness were experienced differently among people, yet still maintained they were dispositions and not relative. I disagree, and it is comforting to know Carneades did as well. In the Greek skepticism vein (NOT the modern skepticism), I would say there are very few qualities that can be said to be 'intrinsic', beyond of course mass and density. And any quality that is not intrinsic, cannot be said to identify someone - therefore, the vast majority of transitive characteristics can only be placed in the fourth genus. Chrysippus and Aristo once argued about where virtue and knowledge were to be placed. That is a question to ponder, to be sure.

Finally, we arrive at universals. The Stoics had a much more sensible view than Plato did on the subject. Thinking of a universal idea such as 'man' produces a conception in our mind of what 'man' is - the concept that results is the universal 'man'. Hence, such a concept is transitory, non-existent, and perhaps most importantly, subjective. A universal does not predate any specific example of it, as Platonic universals do, and for that matter is not really bound to a specific example at all. The trouble with this argument is when individuals confuse their universals - what if when one person thought of 'man', another thought of 'horse'. When discourse is subjective in this manner, philosophy is no easy task.

Book 7 of The Republic, Nietzsche begins

Listened to Book 7 while doing some work in the yard today. It begins with Plato's famous example of men in a cave. How if a man is locked in a cave since birth, unable to look towards the beginning of the cave, then he will regard the shadows on the wall and echoes within the cave as truths. He who leaves the cave will be blinded at first, but after perseverance will certainly see actual truth. If he reenters the cave to preach to his former cave-mates, he will be blinded by the lack of light and will be though to be stupid. This is a good allegory, it seems, to the study of philosophy or indeed many other worthwhile subjects of study. Plato, or rather Socrates, decrees that guardians of his future state must descent back into the 'cave', in order to be a light unto their citizens. The state is not designed for the happiness of any one class, but for the happiness of everyone. This seems to be in contradiction of the right to 'the pursuit of happiness', for some people's happiness may justly be taken away in order that many others are more happy.

Book 7 then goes on to declare that arithmetic is a vital course of study. This brings the foundation subjects of a warrior's education to gymnastics, music, and arithmetic. I'm not sure that I agree with that sentiment. Perhaps in those days, but things are different now. The justification for music is that 'its harmony will make the listener's life more harmonious'. Gymnastic, or physical ability, is certainly important and basic arithmetic is also essential for understanding of basic military strategy. If I had to add a third course of study for the basic guardian of the state, or for the warrior, I would add international affairs. It is important to 'know thine enemy'.

Finally, a criticism of forced education. "A freeman ought not to be a slave in the acquisition of knowledge of any kind. Bodily exercise, when compulsory, does no harm to the body; but knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind." How apt. You could save a lot of money, time, and broken dreams by educating children in accordance with the desired end-state. It would be nice to have 300 million geologists. But that's unsupportable. So why do we teach every kid about volcanoes and tectonic plates and minerals? Does a janitor need to use algebra? Do mechanics need language classes? Plato saw over two millenia ago what can no longer be said. Not every child grew up to be a guardian, just as not every child grows up to be a marine biologist. Tailor the means to the end.

On another note, began reading Nietzsche. Very anti-philosophy. Or rather, anti-dogma. Disestablishmentariansm, you could say. Included below are some quotes I highlighted.

Of the error of following Plato for 2000 years, "we, whose duty is wakefulness itself, are the heirs of all the strength which the struggle against this error has fostered."

On truth, "granted that we want the truth, why not rather untruth?"

On philosophizing, "the greater part of the conscious thinking of a philosopher is secretly influenced by his instincts."

On philosophers, "They are all advocates who do not wish to be regarded as such, generally astute defenders also, of their prejudices, which they dub 'truths'."

On living according to nature, "Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavoring to be different? And granted thatyour imperative, 'living according to Nature', means actually the same as 'living according to life' - how could you do differently?"

On philosophy, "It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to 'creation of the world', the will to the casua prima."

He also opines the self-preservation is not the first law of nature, that natural philosophy arranges the world but does not explain it, and that there is no 'I', but only expected obedience of one part to another. Weighty stuff.