Julia Annas

This book made me think, and it surprised me. I’d like to eventually read more of the Greek philosophy “big names”, you know—I’d actually like to eventually read all of Plato, even though it’s not a priority; finishing Shakespeare (ie the final third) will probably come first, and even that’s not a huge priority…. But anyway, it’s nice to learn; it’s nice to be surprised, but Julia lets you know that it’s not just an exercise in agreeing with big names, you know; there’s always another way of looking at things—and there always has been, even if the recent past tried to make it seem like a hallowed age, you know. There was always more than one way of looking at things, even after, for various technical and non-technical reasons, various groups (actually a majority) were kept from playing the game.

So I don’t know. I read one of the psychologists (who tend to bring in biology) say that reason and emotion are like co-emperors, and maybe that’s right. You study mythology, you think people need philosophy. You study philosophy, you’re not sure. Sometimes philosophers weren’t trying to solve the problem of the man on the street, the passionate man—let alone the woman—just avoid them, you know. But I don’t know. Plato had a skill with words probably second only to Shakespeare, perhaps, and it would be nice to read all of it eventually. (And, of course, even if much of the Hellenistic philosophy has been lost, ancient philosophy wasn’t /just/ the two biggest classical-era names, you know.)

…. I like philosophy to some extent, and I’ll probably continue to read some traditional Greek/German philosophy and other kinds of philosophy, (Castaneda, for example, is someone I’ve read), but I’ve cooled my passion for philosophy, that it would save me from codependence (without making me counter-dependent!), that finding a philosophy girl would be the best thing, etc. Of course, I am still glad I read Julia’s two VSI books; they’re good. But part of reading a chick philosophize is to be reminded, even in a polite way, how hard it can be to cajole and handle philosophy to make it accept a woman’s hand, you know. Of course, I’m not saying we go back to the days of “Emma”—Jane Austen seriously sacrificed Emma; Emma was the human sacrifice in some weird Regency ritual, you know. Hopefully the academy and book-land will be more open to women than it was in the past. But if a woman says that she thinks that playing with Plato and the Stoics is a bit much, I think we should respect that. Again, one day I’ll get through Plato, and I’d also like to read Thoreau’s famous book, maybe even take another Kierkegaard someday. But, you know: spaced over much, much more time than I originally imagined—given a rather lower priority, you know.

…. —(the little baby party for intelligent generalists and other widdle bay-bees, and the Real party, that you can’t come to.)
—Let me give you a hat.
—A hat?
—👹. This is your hat. Your new hat. Go on. Put it on.
—I am unhappy! 😾

…. I had a friend once who was a philosophy guy, you know; that was a trip; it really was. I was like, You’re my best friend! I have a best friend! 😺 And then it was like…. Well, I mean, what it was like was, I learned about what kind of friend I want, you know. Sometimes you just want to say—Let’s go down to the tennis court: talk it up like yeah (yeah!) talk it up like yeah (yeah!). Let’s go down to the tennis court….

Five doesn’t really work without Seven. I mean, Six doesn’t work well without Seven, either, but Five, oh my god….

🤖🙀😗… (mere)

Um livro simpático cobrindo a filosofia antiga grega e adjacente, colocando o problema do "porque filosofar" junto a outros (a escolha de medéia) para percorrer as opções éticas e os argumentos, de pré-socráticos a estóicos, passando assim também pela lógica Aristotélica mas não apenas, e não esquecendo dos cirenaicos (junto aos mais conhecidos epicuristas, a Demócrito etc). A autora também contextualiza historicamente, embora de modo sucinto, a recepção das obras desse período, mostrando tendências de interpretação e ênfase contextualizadas - do aristotelismo medieval, mas também passando por desenvolvimentos contemporâneos, procurando mostrar como a revisitação de temas e textos antigos pode ainda ser e foi fecunda.… (mere)

Didn't get much out of it. The basic thesis is that our apparently unquestioned developmental framework (the idea from Victorian times that the explanation for wide variation in Plato's ideas is that he grew over time and ploddingly developed and cemented them) should go unquestioned no longer, and the study of Platonic philosophy needs to consult the views of the ancients and Platonists to better understand Plato (with the idea that their view on his unitary vision or utter lack thereof is relevant).

Overall one comes away from this book feeling that Plato didn't believe anything resolutely and hence, at least for me, that he isn't all that important qua himself as much as he is important because of his influence through history (much like Keirkegaard, whose biography I recently finished and came away both (1) respecting the influence he has had on philosophers I see as more important and (2) wanting to punch the man himself in the face).

The scholarly "need" to make Plato say something coherent, when he really doesn't, is not driven by a quest for truth, as much as by a desire to make the millennia of lionization of Plato makes sense -- let us just conclude, less gracelessly, that it doesn't make sense.… (mere)