Well, Let's Try This Proof

  • Thread starter Thread starter James_S_Saint
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I admire your ability to quote Plato, Spockrates, but his characterization of Socrates and I seem to have different experience with words. It isn’t an matter of comparative valuation, it seems to me, but rather that we know that words are, very much in English, subject to various interpretations that make a sentence more like a musical phrase than a mathematical equation. Not knowing Greek, perhaps in that ancient language it was more of a math consideration than a musical one, I don’t know.

The question reminds me of a poem of Naruda’s that I once researched. In their best sincerity, scholastic aptitude, and aesthetic sensibilities, a number of translators had tried their hand at “getting” the essence of his poem. Each translator’s version was somewhat different, and carried or lacked certain nuances or even entire ideas. This is even more pronounced in the translation of, say Adi from the original Hungarian into English, the difference in going from a romance language to English being somewhat less of a stretch than to English from a language with Alt-Uralic roots not even related to the Indo European family of our own tongue. Other considerations, such as culture and world view of the author and his milieu also have bearing on the meaning of words as used as distinct from their dictionary meaning. Even a contemporary speaker of corporate English educated, say, in India, China, or Japan, may be totally mystified upon hearing something like “Wazzup, Blood? Word! Waz hap-pen-in’?”

So, you see, I can’t agree with Socrates on the invariability of words, unless he was being made to refer to the spelling of words, or some such. You might also perceive why, when someone gets pious about the correct meaning of passages in the Bible, I list about fifteen factors that actually make the over 100 versions of that book more like a focus of a bimillenial game of telephone rather than something that yet carries in our understanding much of its original intent, other than that which we project on to it which co-incidentally, but unproved, might match. In fact, what may be far better translations of especially the Identity statements in the Bible may be had from other languages and philosophical viewpoints.
Detales:

There’s a story of the American writer Mark Twain and his wife. His wife was often calm and lady-like, but one day she got so angry with him, she started cursing like a sailor. Mark Twain looked amused, which made her more angry, so she cursed more. Twain started chuckling, which made her angrier still, and she cursed louder. He then broke out into a roaring laughter.

“What do you think you’re laughing at?” she asked.

“Lady,” he said with a smile, “you’ve got the words right, but you just don’t know the tune!”

The story illustrates the picture Socrates was trying to paint for his friend–that there is a kind of an art, and even a science, to understanding the written word. If one is trying to learn something new, the way to do it is to just do it–to discuss it with those who know and apply it to one’s life. It’s not always enough to merely read, for if one does not understand what one reads, reading it over and over won’t help. Like the painting, it does not explain itself and cannot help you understand if you don’t. The melody of truth requires a lover of music who can appreciate it. As Jesus Christ often repeated:

“He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

(Mark 4:9)

And speaking of art–specifically the art of music–you’re playing my song! I believe your thoughts are actually harmonious with those of Socrates, at least as far as I understand them. And I suppose you would not disagree with Socrates when he said:

Would a sensible farmer, who cared about his seeds and wanted them to yield fruit, plant them in all seriousness in the Adonis in the middle of the summer and enjoy watching them bear fruit in seven days? … Wouldn’t he use his knowledge of farming to plant the seeds he cared for when it was appropriate and be content if they bore fruit seven months later? Now what about the man who knows what is just, noble, and good? Shall we say that he is less sensible with the seeds than the farmer is with his? Certainly not! … But it is much nobler to be serious about these matters, and use the art of dialect. The dialectician chooses a proper soul and plants and sows within it discourse accompanied by knowledge–discourse capable of helping itself as well as the man who planted it, which is not barren but produces a seed from which more discourse grows in the character of others. Such discourse makes the seed forever immortal and renders the man who has it as happy as any human being can be.

(Phaedrus 276-277)

And what Socrates says sheds new light to me on Jesus’ parable of the sower and the seeds, where He (a few hundred years after Socrates) says this:

“Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path. The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away. The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful. But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.”

(Matthew 13:18-23)
 
The seeds of truth can only take root and produce delicious and nourishing fruit if the one who hears it has the ability to, or is helped to, comprehend it. An author cannot help the reader who does not understand, understand. Only the dialectician can do that. That’s why discussing ideas in forums like this, or elsewhere, are superior to reading a book by oneself, I suppose.
 
What is “good” or not is a question answered only by what your actual need really is. Good in itself is meaningless without a need to answer to. What leads to the need, is what is good (by definition). That doesn’t mean there isn’t a better that better answers the need or perhaps answers many needs at once. There are degrees of good.

God causes there to be a need, without which there could be no such thing as life. But also, God is the answer to that need (Reality). But even more, God’s consistency provides the means to be aware of both the need and the answer to the need.

In a sense, God creates in the mouse a hunger for cheese. In so doing, he causes life in the mouse to seek cheese. But then God also provides the cheese. But in addition, God ensures that the cheese always smells the same and is instinctively associated with the hunger.

All that we call “good” is directly from God by such means.
  1. God created the need so as to have life
  2. God created the resolve of need to as to continue life
  3. God IS consistent so that the resolve can be found.
  4. Creating the need was good because it causes life.
  5. Creating the resolve of the need is good because continues life
  6. Consistency is good because it allows the resolve to be known.
All Joy comes from the instinctive perception that the cheese is getting closer. God causes ALL joy.
What I think you are saying, James, is that

what one needs = what is good

And my though is that

what one needs = what one desires

So, I suppose it follows that

what one desires = what is good

I certainly desire to have a good understanding of what you are saying. Have I met that need?

🙂
 
I love Mark Twain, I have his books and reveled in front row seats at Hal Holbrook’s hilarious presentations of Mark Twain Tonight. I often quote him on these fora, especially his statements about religion, which are mostly spot on.

As for reading, another literary hero of mine is Mortimer J Adler, who wrote a volume called How to Read a Book. That is a presentation that ought to be required reading in this age of emotionalism passing as reportage and critical thinking.

I also spent nearly thirty years as a student of a Maestro whose original choral work was ranked in Europe as equal to Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart. When he lectured, it was encouraged to read the transcripts of those words as if they were in musical form. That effort was quite rewarding.

Like any good piano teacher, “Doctor” read from, spoke about, and required us to read from many other teachers, including the Bible. We had thorough dialogues around these lectures in private at his home and in groups of three to eighty at least once a week, and often attended intensives of one day to eight weeks in length. These included guest lecturers and media presentations centered on the philosophy of Wisdom through the ages, including their influence on Christianity and the viability of the idea that christianism actually is a descendant, though obscured, of these Teachings. I continue those readings and yet keep in contact with people with whom I communed in those circles. Sadly, despite my expectations, these fora are but a poor shadow of those scintillating and fruitful events.

Your quote of Phaedrus 276-772 reminds me of other such fascinating teaching tales, such as one told by the character Don Juan Matus regarding his benefactor’s forcing him to learn forbearance.

And given what I was when I was a devout, very well catechized and proselytizing RC, I feel that I have experienced now the high end yield of the parable you kindly quote from Matthew.

Thank you very much for your post. It afforded me a rather pleasant and productive walk through the memory lanes of the riches beyond counting of my storehouse, and occasioned for me an exceptional feeling of gratitude.
 
What I think you are saying, James, is that

what one needs = what is good

And my though is that

what one needs = what one desires

So, I suppose it follows that

what one desires = what is good

I certainly desire to have a good understanding of what you are saying. Have I met that need?

🙂
Emmm… not exactly. You’re getting the cart before the horse.

If God made you such that you had to eat sand to survive, then you would believe that eating sand was good.

The need dictates what is good. But to your mind, it must go through your perception and that causes an opening for a little trouble. You can perceive that your need is different than it really is and end up lusting after iron filings instead of good wholesome sand.
 
Emmm… not exactly. You’re getting the cart before the horse.

If God made you such that you had to eat sand to survive, then you would believe that eating sand was good.

The need dictates what is good. But to your mind, it must go through your perception and that causes an opening for a little trouble. You can perceive that your need is different than it really is and end up lusting after iron filings instead of good wholesome sand.


Not sure I understand. Which is the cart and which is the horse?

🤷
 
I love Mark Twain, I have his books and reveled in front row seats at Hal Holbrook’s hilarious presentations of Mark Twain Tonight. I often quote him on these fora, especially his statements about religion, which are mostly spot on.

As for reading, another literary hero of mine is Mortimer J Adler, who wrote a volume called How to Read a Book. That is a presentation that ought to be required reading in this age of emotionalism passing as reportage and critical thinking.

I also spent nearly thirty years as a student of a Maestro whose original choral work was ranked in Europe as equal to Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart. When he lectured, it was encouraged to read the transcripts of those words as if they were in musical form. That effort was quite rewarding.

Like any good piano teacher, “Doctor” read from, spoke about, and required us to read from many other teachers, including the Bible. We had thorough dialogues around these lectures in private at his home and in groups of three to eighty at least once a week, and often attended intensives of one day to eight weeks in length. These included guest lecturers and media presentations centered on the philosophy of Wisdom through the ages, including their influence on Christianity and the viability of the idea that christianism actually is a descendant, though obscured, of these Teachings. I continue those readings and yet keep in contact with people with whom I communed in those circles. Sadly, despite my expectations, these fora are but a poor shadow of those scintillating and fruitful events.

Your quote of Phaedrus 276-772 reminds me of other such fascinating teaching tales, such as one told by the character Don Juan Matus regarding his benefactor’s forcing him to learn forbearance.

And given what I was when I was a devout, very well catechized and proselytizing RC, I feel that I have experienced now the high end yield of the parable you kindly quote from Matthew.

Thank you very much for your post. It afforded me a rather pleasant and productive walk through the memory lanes of the riches beyond counting of my storehouse, and occasioned for me an exceptional feeling of gratitude.
You are very welcome! I suppose my days of higher education were not as sophisticated–they were more like Animal House than the Dead Poets Society, really.

😃

But I did enjoy the discussions in my philosophy classes, and my recent rediscovery of Plato’s dialogs is something like returning to a lost love, and Socrates has been a tremendous help during my current spiritual trek.
 
Glad that you are trekking, Spockrates. Few even quest-ion, let alone go where no one has gone before.

BTW, I instantly recognized our pictured friend, and thought that he is both/and.
 
Glad that you are trekking, Spockrates. Few even quest-ion, let alone go where no one has gone before.

BTW, I instantly recognized our pictured friend, and thought that he is both/and.
Thank you for the encouragement.

🙂

And, btw, of which friend are you speaking?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top