theofficialacoetes - Tumblr blog

[theofficialacoetes]

Poetics by Aristotle

Similarly to Aristotle’s rhetoric, where he brilliantly explains how speaking works, Aristotle also wrote Poetics, where he explains the concepts and forms behind how he believes writing and theater should operate. To open, Aristotle identifies the forms of poetry; Drama (Tragedy, Comedy, the Satyr play), Lyric poetry, and epic poetry, which differ on rhythm, goodness of character, and how the story is ultimately told. Throughout the writing, Aristotle attempts to create an outline and a guide on how stories should be told, making sets of rules and establishing the key elements that create a good story, much in the same way he does in Rhetoric, where he defines and outlines the key elements to making a persuasive and convincing speech. Aristotle largely uses Poetics to explain the Greek Tragedy, identifying the key elements and most important portions. To begin, Aristotle cites the mythos, or plot, as perhaps the most important part of the tragedy. According to Aristotle, a tragic plot gives a good character an undeserved misfortune, but some misfortunes are more tragic than others. For example, violence is most tragic when between friends or family. The key to a good plot, however, is that the actions taken by each character must make logical and reasonable sense in context with the character as they are written. Following with this, the second most vital part of a tragedy is ethos, the character themselves, but also the morality of each character. This is shown throughout the story through their choices and decisions, and how the plot drives these individuals. Aristotle explains creating a good main character relies on the character being good, as audiences dislike bad people. Characters must also be fitting, Aristotle explains that one may have a brave man, but having a brave woman would seem strange, and the character must be consistent in their actions and attitudes as to not confuse the audience. Aristotle also explains the design of the story and the thought behind the characters and scenes, as the author must be able to understand what is appropriate and how this is meant to be understood in the situation presented. Aristotle explains that the author should be able to physically see what he is creating as to understand it’s opposite, to ensure that everything, from diction to design is appropriate.

[theofficialacoetes]

The Story of Oedipus

The story of Oedipus is one that nearly everyone has heard about, be it through passing reference or through study. It is a hallmark of ancient Greek theater, and a hallmark of psychology written by a madman (That’s you, Freud). The story of Oedipus is quite simple, but ties in ideas all throughout Greek life; especially that of the will of the Gods, the power of the Oracles, and the unavoidable nature of the three fates. The basis of the story follows Oedipus’s birth to the King and Queen of Thebes, who seek guidance from the Oracle at Delphi and receive the prophecy that their son would kill his father and marry his mother. In order to avoid this, they order a servant to go and kill the child, however this servant chooses to hand the child off to a herdsman, and eventually the child is handed off to the childless king and queen of Corinth, who raise him as their own. Eventually Oedipus discovers the prophecy and chooses to leave Corinth as to avoid the possible completion of the prophecy, but runs into the King of Thebes (which he does not know) at a crossroads and kills him (His own biological father). He then goes to Thebes, answers the Sphinx’s riddle, and is crowned king, and handed his mother’s hand in marriage. The story continues and the prophecy fulfilled, however this is not as important as some of the themes. For instance, the theme of the will of the Gods is quite prevalent, as the various Oracles and prophets who are approached in the play only see what the gods want them to, and ultimately their obscuring of vital information leads to many of the ironic situations throughout the story, and keeps Oedipus in the dark about the truth. Further, the play goes to show the unavoidable nature of this will, and to some degree shows how the fates cannot be manipulated, even when the future is known. The fates have decided the story of Oedipus long before his birth, and despite knowing the prophecy and doing everything in their power to avoid it, the King and Queen inadvertently damn themselves into the fate they tried so hard to avoid. This creates the dilemma of preset fate, but also of knowledge of the future, as had the King and Queen not visited the Oracle of Apollo, they would not have sent their son away and the events of the story would likely never have happened, which begs the question; was their fate predetermined by the Gods or did they simply play into their own misfortune? Interesting to consider, at least.

[theofficialacoetes]

Plato’s Republic

Republic by Plato outlines the various system of politics, discusses morality, and is Plato’s best known work, still cited for the outline of modern government and in discussion of both philosophy and political theory. In book VIII, Plato discusses the merits of the four unjust constitutions of government; timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny, citing tyranny as the most unjust system of government. Socrates starts at what he believes to be ideal government: an aristocracy controlled by a philosopher-king, rule by one who values wisdom over all things. When aristocracy fails and descent into civil war occurs, a timocracy is born, where rule by the military and the honorable takes over. This form of government sees warriors and generals, large property owners with the means to protect their property taking over. As peacetime returns, the rule by honor slowly descends into a battle of wealth, eventually leading to an oligarchy, where the rich and affluent rule. This rule by the rich and affluent leads to unrest amongst the poor, which results in an uprising and overthrowing of the government, eventually establishing a democracy. According to Socrates, however, democracy fails because of the mob mentality and fear of oligarchy, along with the failure of the public to be educated on complex political issues. This failure of government will allow for the rise of a tyrant, cleverly manipulating himself into the seat of power and removing all competition. With a tyrant in power, government becomes overwhelming and removes the most important aspects of a society in order to remain in power. Book IX continues to discuss the formation of government, specifically the life of the unjust man versus the life of the just man. Socrates defines the unjust as the Tyrant, and the just as the Philosopher-king. The unjust man, according to Socrates, is born into a democratic household, which is torn between the desire of the oligarch and the passions of the tyrant. Due to this, there is a lack of discipline and a giving into desire, which results in the child becoming a slave to his desires. 

[theofficialacoetes]

On the Nature of the Universe

On the Nature of the Universe is a controversial text on the philosophies of Lucretius, seen as a basis text for much of modern atheism. The text itself is not atheistic, nor does Lucretius ever claim that the common deities of the time do not exist, but the text challenges the commonly accepting nature of the divine at that time, and therefore was seen as a threat to the state of religion, and seen as atheism-adjacent. The philosophical ideas presented in On the Nature of the Universe are vast, as everything from creationism to divine intervention being challenged throughout the text, along with a refutation of the immortality of the soul as presented by Socrates, the principle of atomism, and the guiding force of the universe identified as chance, or fortune. Arguably the most important point made is the discussion of atomism, the concept by which all things are made of atoms, as this quickly becomes the basis for multiple other points made throughout the text. The most interesting of these is the rebuttal of Socrates’ theory of the immortal soul, in which Lucretius cites that the soul does in fact exist, but like all things is made of atoms, which will eventually drift apart. Lucretius follows this with a secondary but honestly stronger argument, citing that the body is the material container of the mind and soul, and when the body dies the mind and soul dissipate, as they cannot exist without the material container of the body. He also uses the analogy of a vessel, citing that when a vessel breaks, its contents disperse. Lucretius also claims there is no afterlife, but this is not a punishment, as the soul simply ceases to exist and therefore there is no sensation, only non-existence. The discussion on fortune is long (and honestly quite confusing), but ultimately boils down to the idea that the Gods do not intervene in our world, but that what we see as divine intervention is simply the product of various terrestrial phenomena occurring and existing as either good or bad fortune. Either way, Lucretius’s On the Nature of the Universe is a defining text in antiquity, but more importantly is the basis for many modern day arguments of atheism, and can largely be crediting as the most significant rebuttal against the ideas of the soul and of nature set forth by Socrates and other Greek philosophers.

[theofficialacoetes]

Aristotle’s Rhetoric is the basis for so much of modern life, but also established the format for ancient speeches and for validity of sources. Ethos, Pathos, Logos. Three words anyone who has taken ninth grade English has heard countless times, but the history behind these words is storied and vast. The Logos, as proposed by Aristotle, is the facts, the examination of the proof of the word being spoken. To appeal to Logos is to structure one’s speech clearly, to provide the sources and material information that supports your claim, and to be able to manipulate the information you prove to prove mastery of that information. Proving mastery of information lends itself to Ethos, the credibility of the speaker. One who is appealing to Ethos must connect themselves to their speech, lending their authority and credibility as an individual to their words. One who is acclaimed; a great leader, a senator, or a war hero has much credibility behind their word due to their personal brand. Those who do not have this support must rely on the confidence of their word and voice and must lean on the credibility to their sources to reinforce their word. One who is nobody, but is strong in their word and cites those who are renowned is himself credible. Appealing to Pathos comes from the telling of personal stories, the evocation of emotion, and the use of illustrative language to create feelings of empathy and emotion. Without the emotion associated with a speech, one cannot be rallied to a task or to a fight. The perfect speech is one which perfectly balances all three of these pillars of Rhetoric, but a strong speech is one which can simply touch all three pillars. Further, Aristotle’s rhetoric comes from a debate with sophistical rhetoric, which Aristotle and Plato blame for the death of their compatriot Socrates. Sophistical rhetoric practices the obstruction of fact and the draw of emotion to create “fact,” where one is believed regardless of the information being presented, essentially applying only to Pathos and Ethos, utilizing one’s credibility to spread misinformation (not to get political, but sound like anyone?). These two schools of Rhetoric challenge one another, as the development of speech and the ability to convince those unrelated are massively important to the growth of the individual. A dear friend once told me “one who can convince a blind man he can see can rule the world.” I believe Aristotle would have agreed with the sentiment.

[theofficialacoetes]

Apology of Socrates

The Apology of Socrates is the account written by Plato of the trial and damnation of Socrates, where due to his own hubris, the flaws of the Athenian judicial system, and the aggression of the prosecutor, Socrates was sentenced to death. Socrates stands accused of corrupting the minds of young Athenian men with his philosophy and atheism, along with impiety against the Greek Gods by believing in novel deities. The apology, in my opinion, is actually much less about the trial than it seems, but is actually largely a groundbreaking insight into various philosophies and thoughts put forth by Socrates. Famous for his thought that all his wisdom comes from the knowledge that he knows nothing, Socrates tells the story of the contradiction set forth by the Oracle at Delphi, who names Socrates the wisest man, posing the question how can ignorance make one wise? Socrates, as always, elaborates, explaining that his wisdom comes from his admittance of ignorance, as that is the only true knowledge. More to the trial, Socrates’ line of questioning is in large part meant to deface and discredit his accusers, and to ensure the jury is not corrupted by the Orators, however in this process Socrates fails to actually apology, the entire point of what he is doing. A true master of the apology, Socrates also leans into making a heavy mockery of the jury, exclaiming that they too know nothing, and that his punishment should be free meals at the Athenian dining hall. Quite a bold move, which does not pay off in the long run, as Socrates, despite all his philosophizing, is sentenced to death. Socrates also elects to discuss his daimonion, a lesser spirit who Socrates claims speaks to him, and sometimes blurs his judgement, also laying groundwork for later philosphers (read: Decartes) to claim that all actions are influenced by a malevolent demon and that nobody can truly know anything, except that they exist. Philosophers are weird dudes.

[theofficialacoetes]

Plato’s Phaedo

Throughout history, there has been much discussion on the nature of the human soul. Almost every great mind from ancient times to the modern day has written about the nature of the unnatural. Plato’s Phaedo is the account of Socrates, one of the greatest Greek philosophers, giving his philosophy of the soul as he lays awaiting death after his trial. Here, Socrates discusses the afterlife, the soul, and the nature of existence with his students. Throughout the Phaedo, multiple forms and concepts are introduced, most importantly the cyclical argument, the theory of recollection, the affinity argument, and the argument of the Forms. The most reasonable of these (in my opinion) is the cyclical argument, which states that life comes from death, and the soul must be immortal in order to be born again, and states the souls must exist in another realm for them to be able to be born again. As strange as it sounds (and while I disagree), this one is reasonable if you accept the premise. The second argument is the most intriguing, examining the existence of priori knowledge, or knowledge that can be drawn out of one who knows nothing on the subject. This coincides the theory posed by Socrates in earlier works that all learning is simply recollection, which he elaborates on by stating that one has learned in a previous life, and learning in this life is simply recalling old knowledge. The third argument, and in my opinion most confusing, is the affinity argument, essentially claiming that opposites attract, and that the human soul is the definition of the immortal and intangible while the human body is the mortal and tangible, therefore the two attract one another. His final argument is the argument of forms, hinging on the forms of odd and even. What partakes in the form of odd, the number three, can never partake in its opposite, the form of even. Because something can never partake in its opposite form, the form of Life, the soul, can never partake in the form of death, and therefore cannot die.

[theofficialacoetes]

The Desire for Competition

As much as modern athletics have advanced, the root of all athletics remains the same; Honor, pride, respect, and victory. Dating all the way back to ancient Greece, athletics were used as a peace-time competition between various city-states in order to establish a form of regional dominance, similar to modern day sports teams playing to establish which city is better. Personally, I find these sorts of athletic competitions to be at the very heart of human society; the challenge of who is better. Spanning back millennia, people have competed with one another to determine the best. Originally as natural selection, the fastest and strongest were the only humans to survive. As society further developed natural selection died out, but the desire to prove physical superiority continued to burn strong within people, which gave rise to the peaceful competitions we know today, and the competitions the ancient greeks knew as well. For example, the competitions of speed have and always will be a staple of peak athleticism for all people. The absolute natural drive for competition can be seen in children challenging each other to races, to the ancient depictions of footraces sponsored by the Greek gods. Those who achieve the highest levels of competition, be it the ancient Greek Olympics or (ironically) the modern Olympic games (or the NFL, NBA, etc), are looked upon in a different light than the average man. When one sees the 6′5 frame of Usain Bolt, or gazes upon Michael Phelps, there is a strange feeling of awe, an understanding that this individual is one of the most advanced individuals on the planet in terms of physical ability. This concept applies in all civilizations, as explained by Xenophanes, who claims those who win athletic competitions, be it a foot race or a wrestling match, are “more glorious for [their] townspeople to gaze upon”. Athletics, and competition, has and always will be a driving force of evolution and the betterment of the physical ability of the human race, hopefully preventing humans from becoming complacent in a way by which we cease to continue to evolve.

[theofficialacoetes]

God(dess), won’t you fix my problems?

All through time, in nearly every civilization, there is both the concept of a higher deity and the concept of praying to this deity (or deities). Greek civilization is no different, seen through many of our in-class readings (Sappho’s prayer to Aphrodite, Rage, many instances of prayer in the Odyssey and Iliad, etc). Not to be overly negative, but it does seem a bit silly to run into a problem and then immediately ask the relevant god to fix your situation for you. Take Sappho’s prayer for instance: Sappho falls in love, which is unfortunately unrequited. I feel you honey, we’ve all been there, it’s tough, but is that really the place to ask a supreme deity for help? “Oh Aphrodite, he doesn’t love me back, can you use your God powers to make him love me against his own free will? Thanks.” See, when it’s not written so elegantly and doesn’t have artistic flow, that prayer seems pretty silly. Now, I’m not criticizing religion, or faith, or prayer, I’m only criticizing the type of prayer in which one is simply asking for their problem to be fixed. Praying for guidance, or for a sign, or praying for a loved one’s health makes perfect sense to me (especially the last one, as many of those situations are beyond control), but praying for your problem to be magically fixed not only seems silly, but also annoying to the deity, should they exist. For instance; take the movie Bruce Almighty, where Bruce (Jim Carrey) is given God’s powers and responsibility. The most annoying thing he experiences, is everyone constantly asking for his help. We get it, everyone could use a little luck, or a little good fortune, or the wind to blow their way, but that’s not God’s responsibility, or in the Grecian case, it’s not the responsibility of Aphrodite to force someone to love you against their will, it’s not the responsibility of Ares to make sure you win your battle, or the responsibility of Dionysus to fill your cup of wine. Make those things happen yourself. Make someone love you for you, train harder and win your own battle, and after you win your battle, hey, you’ve earned it, pour yourself that drink. Not everything needs to involve a deity, sometimes its up to the human on the ground to make things happen.

[theofficialacoetes]

The Olympic Games: The greatest athletic contest in world history, resurrected from ancient Greece for the modern era. The Games were the truest contest of athleticism between the city-states; remarkable for being the first of the Panhellenic games. Personally, what I find most interesting about the Games is the mythical roots that the Greeks established the games with. The true origin of the Games is unknown, but the mythical origin is vast.

The first, and oldest, myth of the Olympic’s origin is attributed to Pausanias, a Greek historian.  According to this myth, Heracles and his four brothers raced to be the first to greet Zeus when he was first born, and Zeus crowned the winner with an Olive leaf crown. However, this is not the only origin story. 

Another origin story attributes Pelops, a man from Pisa, with the origin of the Olympic games. According to this myth, the King of Pisa, Oenomaus, had received a prophecy that he would be killed by the husband of his daughter, and thus decreed that anyone who wished to marry his daughter would be set against Oenomaus in a chariot race, and if they lost he would spear them. Seemingly fair, except that Oenomaus’s horses were gifts from Poseidon, and thus were the fastest horses alive. The myth continues on to explain that his daughter, Hippodamia, falls in love with Pelops, and asks Oenomaus’s charioteer to replace the spokes in the King’s chariot with wax, allowing Pelops to win the race and her hand in marriage. During the race, the wax melts and the King falls from his chariot, hitting the ground and dying. Pelops, as the new king, creates a funeral race in which the best charioteers from the area would compete in honor of Oenomaus and to homage to the Gods, thus beginning the first event of the first Olympic games.

The final myth I’m going to talk about is attributed to Pindar, and attributes the creation of the Olympic games to Heracles, Zeus’s son, as an event to honor both Zeus and Heracles after he completed his labors. 

Whatever the case may be; it really isn’t important. What is important is that we get more of that sweet convoluted Greek mythology, with names that are about as hard to spell as they are to pronounce. What I do know for certain about the Olympics is that I’ll be tuning in every year to watch.