A wonderful resource and guide to Pre-Socratic philosophies. All the major thinkers are here - the Melisians, the Eleatics, the Pluralists, the AtomisA wonderful resource and guide to Pre-Socratic philosophies. All the major thinkers are here - the Melisians, the Eleatics, the Pluralists, the Atomists, and a healthy dose of the Sophists. I learned a lot from working through these texts and I am sure I will be referring back to this book as I continue my way through the classics. ...more
My journey through ancient texts of Stoic philosophy continues with Epictetus. I found his writing more accessible than Marcus Aurelius’s Meditations.My journey through ancient texts of Stoic philosophy continues with Epictetus. I found his writing more accessible than Marcus Aurelius’s Meditations. I suppose it is because I prefer a coherent dialogue over fortune-cookie vignettes. Like the works of Aristotle, these writings are not by Epictetus himself but are notes by one (or more) of his students. Fortunately, this work is much easier to read than Aristotle.
What I really like about Epictetus is his emphasis on the practical. In fact, he goes so far as to say that the only real philosophy is the one that is lived out. He draws a distinction between the philosopher and the literary scholar. The aim of the first is to live a good life. The aim of the second is merely to interpret the writings of another.
This is a text I am sure I will return to in the future. ...more
This will be my last Plato reading for awhile. I have binging myself on these dialogues - this is number 13 and 14 for me. It is also my first readingThis will be my last Plato reading for awhile. I have binging myself on these dialogues - this is number 13 and 14 for me. It is also my first reading of what scholars call his late period (among Laws, Statesman, Sophist, and Philebus).
Timaeus and Critias have been ones I have looking forward to the most once I learned that (1) until the 19th Century when it was displaced by the Republic, Timaeus was widely regarded as Plato’s greatest work. In fact, in Raphael’s famous work, XXX, where Plato is walking beside Aristotle, it is Timaeus that he is holding in his hand.
was the most read Platonic work in the Medieval Age and (2) it is the source material of the myth of Atlantis.
I did not know that the teleological argument for the existence of God, commonly employed by Christian apologists, originated with the Timaeus. The concept of causation - a critical concept for both science and Judeo-Christian belief - is also is prominent in this work.
It is remarkable to find how close he hit the mark in many ways. It states that planetary motion exists so that we could define time. It is the planetary motions that establish our days, months (to some extent), and years. It is only the fact that it is the Earth that turns rather than the heavens he missed. Also his syllogism of since motion is time and time is regular then motion must be regular has proven out to be true. This is despite the observable evidence of his day that the planetary orbit appeared to “bewilderingly complex”. It took centuries before natural philosophers (scientists) were are to figure these patterns out.
Timaeus explores the idea that there are fundamental particles that make up our material universe. This idea, atomism, was explored by some pre-Socratic philosophers (x and x). Xx
The concept of Platonic solids I found fascinating. I was shocked to learn that Plato’s conception of the atomic realm used the same geometric shapes as the dice used in Dungeons & Dragons and other tabletop role playing games. These geometric shapes are build from two different triangles. The first is an isosceles triangle (45-45-90 degrees). It is used to construct a cube. The other triangle is essentially a 30-60-90 degree triangle. This blew my mind as well since these are the primary triangles used in drafting (before computer assisted design) blueprints and schematics. I used them a lot in my high school drafting class!
So the 30-60-90 triangle is used to create a d4, d8, and d20. I’m using D&D dice naming convention since more people know that than the official Greek names. Plato then assigns each of the four elements to these shapes - fire (d4) because it is the most angular and thus cuts us when we touch it, earth (d6) because it is the most inert and the only shape built from the isosceles triangle, water (d20) as the least angular and thus more stable than all elements other than earth, and lastly air (d8) as being the middle point between air and water.
Plato also mentions a fifth element that encloses all the other shapes. He doesn’t get into the mathematics of it, but apparently this is a d12. What is interesting about a d12 is that a d20 fits perfecting inside of it, with the points of a d20 landing precisely in the center of each face of the d12. Clearly Plato knew his geometry.
So while it is true that there are many errors with his concept, from what we have learned over two millennia, it is remarkable how close his basic concept brought him. His geometrical approach to what we call physics/chemistry is fascinating.
It seems to me the science and mathematics have been overly dominated by equations. I should know as I took Calc I, II, III, and Differential Equations as an undergrad. I wonder how much further we could progress if we thought more geometrically. I think of Mandelbrot and his work on fractals. I also think of vaccine development where scientists use the molecular topography of a virus to design molecules that bond a targeted site to stop the virus from replicating. All these ideas can be traced back to this work - written 2300 years ago!
Critias is Plato’s only unfinished work. It was part two of a planned trilogy including Timaeus and Hermocrates. Most of what we have describes Atlantis in surprising detail. Plato describes the origins of the civilization, structure of the capital city and its surroundings, and a brief sketch of the political organization.
I am struck by some similarities with Tolkien’s work and I wonder if he was not inspired in part by this work. Plato mentions that lost lore is preserved in the names of things. For example, the parents of the girl who would become the founder of Atlantis were named Man of Courage (Greek Evanor) and White Horse (Leucippe). Their daughter was named Bright Fame (Cleito).
The only Atlantean word we are given is Gadeirus, which means Rich in Sheep. I can’t help but imagine a young Tolkien daydreaming about Atlantis and the meaning of words. I’m sure the ancient site of the Uffington white horse in the English countryside came to mind as well.
I confess I am have a guilty pleasure of thinking about ancient aliens, lost civilizations and the like. I know they are all highly unlikely to exist, but we should not be so arrogant to have perfect knowledge of our world either.
There are two elements that do make me pause before denying Atlantis. Plato is known in many of his works to use myths (fables/parables) to help articulate his ideas. However, in Timaeus, he takes great pains to say that this story of Atlantis was true. He even traces how the story came to Timaeus. Of the twelve other Platonic works I have read, none of them went to such extremes.
Some Atlantis critics say that the lack of similar disclosures of other ancient authors indicates this is a mere fable. I would respond that just because it is unique does not make it a hoax. Additionally the works of most of Plato’s contemporaries have been lost to time, aside from isolated fragments.
Overall Timaeus and Critias were very enjoyable to read and a fitting send off for me as I take a little break from Plato for awhile. ...more
I decided upon reading this collection of plays by Aeschylus when I was reading Plato’s Phaedo. In that work, Apcrates refers to the swan song, which I decided upon reading this collection of plays by Aeschylus when I was reading Plato’s Phaedo. In that work, Apcrates refers to the swan song, which is a mythological belief that a swan sings its most beautiful song when it is dying.
This is my first time reading (and watching) a Greek play - not counting Homer’s Odyssey. I’ve heard about aspects of these Ancient Greek performances - the masks, the chorus, the amphitheater. It’s been very rewarding seeing how these pieces fit together.
The works of Aeschylus is unique for us in that, even though only seven of his more than eighty works survive today, the Oresteia is the only trilogy we have.
The following are assorted notes from my reading:
The series of beacon lightings that communicate the victory over Troy will be very familiar to any Tolkien fan!
The word episode comes from Greek plays.
The word hypothesis as used in Greek plays means ‘introduction’. It is a prelude or synopsis to the story about to be presented. I find this quite poetic considering our modern use of it in science.
I sensed elements of Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Macbeth plays here I wonder how much this work affected their creation.
It seems this play sets the mythological foundations of the Athenian state’s judicial priority over murder and kin-slaying. It also bulwarks the status of the Furies’ cult-site in Athens. Having read Plato’s Republic, I wonder how much of this work would fall to the censor’s knife in Socrates’ ideal society. Were it not for the mariticide and matricide, I imagine significant portions of this would be retained. ...more
This will be my last early period Plato reading for awhile. It one of my favorites and one I would recommend as a great place to start for someone whoThis will be my last early period Plato reading for awhile. It one of my favorites and one I would recommend as a great place to start for someone who has never read Plato before. I wish I had read this before tackling the Republic. It would have been a great introductory text. Unlike most other early Platonic dialogues, this one has a satisfying conclusion. The argumentation is also fairly easy to follow and has direct application our world today.
The dialogue begins around the question of rhetoric. What is it? Gorgias, as a teacher of rhetoric, holds that it is the ability to persuade others to your point of view. It is not interested in truth, such as philosophy is, but in convincing others to think they way the rhetorician wants them too.
In the first conversation Socrates a gages with Gorgias. Gorgias claims that rhetoricians, who have the ability to put rhetoric to immoral use, are somehow experts on morality at the same time. Which is a contradiction since a moral person would not commit immoral acts.
In his second conversation, this time with a student of Gorgias - Polus, Socrates develops the notion that the worst thing to do is not to have wrong being done to you but to perpetrate a wrong and not be punished for it. There are religious reasons for this idea, better to suffer in the temporal body for the redemption of the eternal soul, but Plato runs through a purely reasoned argument for it.
In the third conversation, Socrates interlocutor shifts to Callicles, who argues that over-education is a corruption. It wastes the time of a practitioner of philosopher that could be better employed in the political or commercial arenas. In fact, Callicles says that might makes right and that the powerful should have most of a community’s resources and influence. This is a very Nietzchean perspective.
The last part of the dialogue is Socrates conversing with himself. As is typical of these early dialogues, his elenchus method of debate results in ad hominem attack on himself. So while Callicles pouts Socrates continues the study. He tears into the fickleness of the Athenians and underscores this hallmark of direct democracy. These echos are still sounding in our political situation today. This yet another reason why classics are classics. They are truly timeless!...more
This is my second reading of a Robin Waterfield’s translation. While I cannot fully critique the accuracy of his translation, I find some his bias thaThis is my second reading of a Robin Waterfield’s translation. While I cannot fully critique the accuracy of his translation, I find some his bias that manifest in his additional comments to be tiresome. His continual dig at conservatism, as if it is inherently anti-intellectual borders on a pathology. I agave to chuckle at is selective application of the term “snobbery” in his comments. Clearly an opinion in the eye of the beholder.
What follows are my comments for each of these four dialogues.
Charmides
I found this work to be unfulfilling. I know that is partly the point of this and all of Plato’s early dialogues. The objective of Socrates is to show people that they don’t really know what they think they know. Still I was hoping this work on the virtue of self-control (temperance) should have provided a foundation for my interesting in studying the virtues. Sadly the dialogue was diverted into a discussion of knowledge of knowledge. From what I understand, I believe Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics is a better place to start.
For me the most significant aspect is that Socrates’ two interlocutors, Critias and Charmides became two of the hated Thirty Tyrants who briefly ruled over Athens following the Peloponesian War. To see Socrates take them down a notch, despite the familiarity and friendly relationships they had at the time is interesting considering Plato is writing this work at least a few years after the overthrow of the Thirty Tyrants.
Laches
I found Laches a much easier dialogue to follow than Charmides. It begins with the question of educating sons - specifically if they should train to be the heavy infantry of Greek military - the hoplites. It follows with interesting perspectives around training - all the more so as this book was written during the era of hoplite warfare. I was struck that such training was NOT a given considering Laches was a military general.
Knowing these dialogues always end I aporía - stuck without a conclusion - what I am finding the most interesting is how the characters react to this process. Laches is taken down by Socrates and openly admits defeat. He then proceeds to side with Socrates to ensure Nicias is also taken down, even if it means the conversation fails to define courage. Socrates of course succeeds in this effort.
Yet the argumentation is not as strong here. I believe the definition could have easily be come by if they considered not simply knowledge of threatening things, but how one acts with such knowledge. However, that is not the aim of Socrates. He is focused on the transcendent source of that which we call courage. The source cannot be contained by a definition of courage and thus a final definition remains elusive. These early works seem to be a prelude to Plato’s Theory of Forms that manifests in the middle and late dialogues.
Lysis
Lysis seems to be the opening of a trilogy of dialogues on love (Symposium and Phaedra’s being the other two). This work is focused on friendship (philia) or more accurately “attraction”. I found this work to be the most convincing evidence of Socrates corrupting the young.
The premise here is Socrates engaging in a debate around the nature of friendship to prepare Lysis, who is 12, to receive the affections of Hippothales. Now I know this was part of the ancient Athenian culture, but even considering this, it cheapens the whole dialogue. This is exacerbated by weak argumentation and word play resulting in a forced aporia.
One notion I salvaged out of this work is that the presence of the bad drives that which is neither good nor bad to the good. The opposite of this (something Socrates always likes to examine) is that without the bad there is no drive to the good. It is an interesting premise. If there was nothing bad in the world, would we need or even want friends?
Meno
Of the nine works of Plato I have read this far, Meno is my favorite. I admit this may be due in part that most of my previous readings have been Plato’s early dialogues which are notorious for ending in a state called aporia or ‘stuckness’. The dialogue ends in a dead end whereby no one knows what the right definition but do know at least a few wrong definitions.
What follows are some thoughts that came to me as I was reading:
Seeing Socrates give a geometry lesson to an uneducated slave was fascinating to read. It really drove the value of the Socratic Method - the elenchus. I think I need to put this into practice myself when tutoring my kids or leading a Bible study group. I clearly see the merits.
Is virtue (or excellence as described in Meno) teachable? In his comments the translator, Waterfield, implies that they are when considering the students aptitude and exposure to an “inherited conglomerate”. This comment made me smile as it is made firmly through the lens of a progressive college professor. In my own experience, I do believe moral virtue cannot truly be taught and that his arguments about fathers and sons ring true. The failure of sons to achieve the same moral standing as their fathers is so common as to practically be a law of nature. Plato describes Pericles and Thucydides. I would add King David from the Torah as another obvious example. In fact this is a proverb that I live by - do not heed the children of great men or women. Just as Socrates implies at 93e, virtue is not genetic.
The conclusion of Meno was a mind blowing moment for me. Whereas Waterfield was resistant to this argument - to the point of suggesting it almost destroys the entire work. For me, as a Christian, it articulated a passage of Scripture (Rom 13:1-5) that I have always struggled with. How do the authorities know how to govern? They clearly do it in a flawed manner. It is not a “science” of formulas with expected results. Rather it is an activity conducted in the conditions of the inspired working of God. ...more
I read this short work to support my reading of Plato’s dialogues. In one of the online lectures I’ve been watching on YouTube, I heard the professor I read this short work to support my reading of Plato’s dialogues. In one of the online lectures I’ve been watching on YouTube, I heard the professor recommend this work as supplemental reading. It is a very short work that is easy to get through. There is a massive genealogy involved which I honestly glossed over. I have the Internet to help me with that should I need it!
As someone who grew up with Edith Hamilton’s Mythology, I took for granted the challenging textual history of these myths we know so well. Hesiod is the earliest complete manuscript describing this mythology. There are several important stories but no where near the full contents of the corpus of such stories.
A key motivator for me in reading these ancient texts is discovering the origin of ideas that have permeated our histories, languages, politics, and cultures. It was Hesiod who coined the term “golden age” as an idyllic time of flourishing. The human race deteriorates from this ideal state through the subsequent ages of silver, bronze, demigodic, and iron. It is interesting that we regard the Iron Age as superior to the Bronze Age. For Hesiod, he was living in the Iron Age so he must have been aware of the material benefits. Yet perhaps this is a commentary on our priority of technology over beauty. Our so-called progressivism focuses on utility not morality.
Another idiom we use is “the dog days of summer”. We find our earliest written evidence of this concept in Hesiod. The phrase refers to the rising of the brightest star in the sky, Sirius, which is in the constellation of Canis Major - hence the name Dog Star. The Ancient Greeks believe the heat of the summer came in late July because the time coincided with the morning rise of Sirius into the sky. Hence the phrase “the dog says of summer”.
One last note is an observation related to Plato’s Euthyphro. One of the arguments revolves around the idea of piety and that what was pious was whatever all the gods agreed was good and impious was whatever all the gods agreed was bad. Hesiod describes two of these ethical points - not swearing false oaths and not making crooked judgements....more
Rating review reflects my personal taste and not quality of the work - it is a classic ancient work!
This work is my first direct introduction to PlatoRating review reflects my personal taste and not quality of the work - it is a classic ancient work!
This work is my first direct introduction to Plato’s doctrine of recollection - the idea that our soul pre-exists our birth and that the things we learn are really just our remembering from the time. It is a fascinating idea that I look forward to reading more about as I continue my journey through Plato’s works.
Phaedo also goes more deeply into the doctrine of Forms than the works I had read previously (Symposium, Euthyphro, Apology, Crito) which is also something that has fascinated me. The primary use here is Socrates’ effort to prove the immortality of the soul. If we talk about “skin in the game” there is nothing more important to Socrates than this - since at the end of this dialogue he fulfills his condemnation of execution by drinking the poisonous hemlock!
I won’t go into the philosophical arguments since I’ve only read this work once and don’t feel qualified to adequately comment. The following are a medley of my observations:
* Cebes, one of then interlocutors in this dialogue, refers to the soul as a smoke that dissipates at death. I couldn’t help but think of Saruman’s death in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings!
* There is a creepy reference of wraiths haunting graveyards! It makes for a great Halloween reading. Again, this made me think of the barrow-downs in Lord of the Rings. I’m a one trick pony with these references.
* My one translation complaint - in 83d it reads, “Because each pleasure and pain fastens it to the body with *a sort of rivet* pins it there and makes it corporeal….” Rivet is a Middle English word for fixing or clinching, but for the modern reader connotes a metal plug for fastening steel beams together. It is too anachronistic for this 4th Century BC work.
* Socrates refers to virtues as disciplines necessary for improving the soul. In his myth of the afterlife at the close of this dialogue he describes why such effort is needed.
* The origin of the idiom “Swan Song” is mentioned here which surprised me. I discovered that this term originated (so far as we know) from Aeschylus’ work Agamemnon. I just order the trilogy, Orestia, and added it to my reading list....more
I thoroughly enjoyed this work. I wish my Intro to Philosophy class as an undergrad had started with Plato rather than Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics.I thoroughly enjoyed this work. I wish my Intro to Philosophy class as an undergrad had started with Plato rather than Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. I believed I would have gotten much more out of the class.
My one gripe is the translator’s refusal to entitle the first work, “The Apology of Socrates”. Yes, yes, I know the term is misconstrued in modern English as someone who is asking forgiveness for committing a wrong. However, the original Greek use of the word still survives in the theological field of apologetics. Needless to say Apology is as close as one can get philologically to the original Greek term, “apologia”!...more
I didn’t really care for this translation. Ερωμενον is better translated as ‘beloved’. Waterfield’s choice of ‘boyfriend’ loses the dichotomy of loverI didn’t really care for this translation. Ερωμενον is better translated as ‘beloved’. Waterfield’s choice of ‘boyfriend’ loses the dichotomy of lover/beloved and obscures the Ancient Greek cultural practice of such a relationship.
Additionally he chooses to translate ψυχών as ‘mind’ where ‘soul’ would be a much more appropriate choice.
Lastly, his use or ‘Celestial’ for Ουρανον I find to be anachronistic. ‘Heavenly’ or ‘sky’ would be better choices.
All that said, the footnotes and glossary are very good and informative. The layout of the book is also excellent for note making in the margins. ...more
An excellent commentary for those who want to dive deeply into the word of God. Note that you need to be comfortable reading Greek words, but you don’An excellent commentary for those who want to dive deeply into the word of God. Note that you need to be comfortable reading Greek words, but you don’t need to be fluent in Koine. If you have worked through Mounce’s Greek for the Rest of Us, you are adequately equipped to understand this commentary. ...more
Tree & Leaf is a collection of Tolkien's writings - principally the excellent essay, On Fairy Stories and a fictional and partly allegorical tale, LeaTree & Leaf is a collection of Tolkien's writings - principally the excellent essay, On Fairy Stories and a fictional and partly allegorical tale, Leaf by Niggle. If you enjoy Tolkien's works, if you are a creative writer, or if you are just a fan of the fantasy genre, I highly recommend you read On Fairy Stories!
I had already read these two entries in another book I have in my Tolkien library, Tales from the Perilous Realm. However, Tree & Leaf is the only book where you can find Tolkien's poem Mythopoeia and his fictional tale The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth. I am trying to read all of Tolkien's published works, so this book was on my "must read" list!
Mythopoeia is a poem that Tolkien wrote to challenge C. S. Lewis' contention that myth was nothing more than worthless lies even if they are 'breathed through silver.' There are so many wonderful lines in this poem. Here is a great few verses to illustrate:
"Blessed are the legend-makers with their rhyme of things not found within recorded time. It is not they that have forgot the Night, or bid us flee to organized delight, in lotus-isles of economic bliss forswearing souls to gain a Circe-kiss..."
I also simply love this passage:
"I will not walk with your progressive apes, erect and sapient. Before them gapes the dark abyss to which their progress tends - if by God's mercy progress ever ends and does not ceaselessly revolve the same unfruitful course with changing of a name."
In The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth Tolkien continues the tale of the Battle of Maldon that occurred in the year 991. It was a battle between Essex and invading Vikings. Only a fragment of the tale, in Old English, still survives. It is worth reading this fragment, which is available online or in The Battle of Maldon, before reading Tolkien's short play.
I have two favorite lines from The Battle of Maldon poem. The first appears near the end of the fragment and likely is a saying that pre-dates the composition of this ancient poem:
"Will shall be the sterner, hear the bolder, spirit the greater as our strength lessens."
The other line is one that Tolkien highlighted as a key verse to the whole poem:
"...then the earl in his overmastering pride actually yielded ground to the enemy, as he should not have done."
The Old English term that is translated above as "overmastering pride" is ofermod. What the poem tells us is that the earl of Essex gave ground to the invading Vikings so he could in effect beat them fair-and-square. However, the result was a rout and his own soldiers were effectively wiped out. Tolkien provides more commentary on this after his short play.
The play itself tells the story of two men who search the gory battlefield in the aftermath to find their lord, Beorhtnoth (pronounced bee-YORT-noth). It is an interesting little tale.
I am sure I will come back to this book several times in the future. It is a small book and I can see it being handier to re-read On Fairy Stories in this format than pulling on the thick hardcover Tales from the Perilous Realm!...more
I first learned about this book while reading R C Sproul’s commentary of the gospel of Mark. In it, Anselm provides a rational explanation for the necI first learned about this book while reading R C Sproul’s commentary of the gospel of Mark. In it, Anselm provides a rational explanation for the necessity of the Incarnation - God in the flesh dying to atone for the sins of humanity. The tenets herein, written in the late 11th Century, are part of the foundation of orthodox Christianity to this day.
There are two broad categories of theology. The first being topics relating to general philosophy, such as the existence and nature of God. The second being topics relating to history, such as the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. In Cur Deus Homo, Anselm uses philosophical arguments to support an historical doctrine.
Several Goodreads reviews critique this work in saying they are unconvinced of his argument. I believe they are missing the intent of this writing. As Boso says at the end of Book I, “I have not come for you to remove from me doubts about my faith but for you to show me the rational basis of my certainty.” Indeed one of Anselm’s maxims, borrowed from the earlier writings of St. Augustine, is “credo et intelligam”, which means, “I believe so that I may understand.” Thus Anselm’s principle intent is to provide a rational explanation of a core doctrine of the faith that the recipient already possesses. Providing a rational argument in the hope of convincing non-believers was a secondary intent, but I believe he would agree that having reason without faith does not make you a believer.
The book is divided into two parts. The first part articulates the necessity of making satisfaction to God for sins committed and the insufficiency for sinful mankind to be able to do so. Some may wonder why Anselm spent so much time writing about angels. I imagine partly it was a theological emphasis of the time.
However, I believe his attention to angels was part of his refutation of the predominate ransom theory of atonement. This theory states that when Adam and Eve sinned, they turned all of humanity over to the Devil. Thus a ransom must be paid to redeem fallen humanity from the clutches of the Devil. Anselm’s satisfaction theory of atonement departs from the ransom theory by stating that satisfaction (restitution) must be paid to be one who was wronged - God Himself. This book walks through the reasoning to support this claim.
The second part of this book looks at the argument for why the God-man is necessary, based on the arguments made in the first part. A beautiful aspect of his argumentation is the statement that humanity is essentially one people because we all share a common ancestor. Thus it is possible for restitution to be made to God for our disobedience (selfishness) by another human so long as that person has the ability to do so. He continues by saying that this ability far exceeds human capabilities and thus someone who is both fully human and fully divine is needed.
I was surprised how easy it was to read and follow this work that was written almost a millennium ago. I strongly recommend this to anyone wanting to read a primary source in support of core doctrines of the Christian faith.
It is difficult to come up with a rating for this book. The statements herein, while not perfect, require greater reflection than I have had time to do yet. I had initially given it 5 stars but, now that I am reading his Proslogion, I backed this rating off slightly so I can give that other work the higher rating!
A very interesting book. This is a work never intended to have been published by the author. It is essentially the notebook of an emperor of Ancient RA very interesting book. This is a work never intended to have been published by the author. It is essentially the notebook of an emperor of Ancient Rome. Although Marcus Aurelius esas considered a Stoic, this work touches on other schools of philosophy such as Epicureanism and Cynicism. It is very readable, if a bit repetitive, for a philosophy text. Certainly worth your time. ...more
It was very interesting reading a work that was highly regarded by the early 4th Century church. Although some believers clamored to include it among It was very interesting reading a work that was highly regarded by the early 4th Century church. Although some believers clamored to include it among the canonical books due to its popularity, it is clearly not an eyewitness account nor of an associate of an eyewitness and thus appropriately excluded from the canon. I confess the penultimate parable was too long for my own taste and took awhile to get through. However, I am glad to have this work on my Read shelf. ...more
An interesting treatise on Stoic philosophy written around 150 AD. I don't adhere to this belief system, but there are some wise observations, such asAn interesting treatise on Stoic philosophy written around 150 AD. I don't adhere to this belief system, but there are some wise observations, such as this one:
"28. If a person gave your body to any stranger he met on his way, you would certainly be angry. And do you feel no shame in handing over your own mind to be confused and mystified by anyone who happens to verbally attack you?"...more
Loading...
