The Master Spreadsheet!

Greetings!  Haven't been active enough on here.  But I have been working in the background.  And I'm happy to say that I've finished one of the first steps to make the Great Books as accessible as possible to as many people as possible.  Here's the culmination of my background work over the past few months:  The Great Books Reading Schedule spreadsheet!!

This sheet automatically calculates your reading times and lays out the dates for when you should start and finish each work in order to complete the reading plan within the ten year time frame.

The defaults are set to reading at 200 Words Per Minutes (WPM) for 20 minutes a day.  Adjust them as you need.  To get your own copy click "File" then "Make a copy."  Then input your personal WPM and how much time you wish to dedicate daily to reading (calculated in minutes).

You can get a rough estimate for your reading speed here.  I highly recommend reducing your reading speed on the sheet by at least 50 WPM since you will be slowed down by the different writing styles and new ideas.

If 20 minutes a day seems like a large investment (as a single block of reading it can be a bit overwhelming), reduce it to 5 minutes 4 times per day.  If you have a bit more free time than most, try for 5 minutes of reading per hour.  Those minutes add up more than you think.  Play around with a little bit of time spend reading per hour to see what works best for you.

REMEMBER:  you may not always enjoy the reading.  I felt mostly as if I suffered through Rabelais.  But approach the reading with the idea that you will be able to look back on your day before you go to bed and feel a little pride at having dipped your toe into the vast history of Western though and culture.

I've included all the sources I've been able to find so far that are free and available online.  I'm missing about six at the moment.  But I hope to transcribe those and upload them myself within a year or so.  The first missing source is four years into the reading plan; so I have time.

Feel free to leave comments on the spreadsheet.  I know many improvements will need to be made once I get a bit better with the Google Sheets format.  Example:  right now the checkboxes are more-or-less just for aesthetics.  Eventually I want a bit more functionality for "checking off" a work that you've completed.

That's about it.  I hope you enjoy this and that it makes it a bit easier for more individuals to take that leap into checking out the Great Books for themselves.

"Of Custom, and not easily changing an accepted law" from the "Essays" of Michel de Montaigne

First off, I highly recommend that you read Montaigne for yourself.  Or you can listen to him.  There's a lot to be gained from even a cursory reading of his personal musings of the subjects at hand.

Of Custom, and not easily changing an accepted law is an interesting chapter for me after having previously been familiar with the works of Nassim Nicholas Taleb.  Taleb first introduced me to the concept of having skin in the game (at least in a more formal, philosophical sense) and not being able to change things that will effect others without proportional consequence to yourself.  And Montaigne covered much the same ground almost five centuries earlier.  From the chapter:

"The legislator of the Thurians ordained, that whosoever would go about either to abolish an old law, or to establish a new, should present himself with a halter about his neck to the people, to the end, that if the innovation he would introduce should not be approved by every one, he might immediately be hanged[.]"

Think government and bureaucracy passing laws and amendments that will effect others whilst simultaneously evading the consequences when those decisions have negative effects; especially those who think they know what's better for others:

"There is a vast difference betwixt the case of one who follows the forms and laws of his country, and of another who will undertake to regulate and change them; of whom the first pleads simplicity, obedience, and example for his excuse, who, whatever he shall do, it cannot be imputed to malice; 'tis at the worst but misfortune:  '[For who is there that antiquity, attested and confirmed by the fairest monuments, cannot move]?'  Besides what Isocrates says, that defect is nearer allied to moderation than excess:  the other is a much more ruffling gamester; for whosoever shall take upon him to choose and alter, usurps the authority of judging, and should look well about him, and make it his business to discern clearly the defect of what he would abolish, and the virtue of what he is about to introduce."

"It argues a strange self-love and great presumption to be so fond of one's own opinions, that a public peace must be overthrown to establish them, and to introduce so many inevitable mischiefs, and so dreadful a corruption of manners, as a civil war and the mutation of state consequence to it, always bring in their train, and to introduce them, in a thing of so high concern, into the bowels of one's own country." 

Does this mean that things should never change?  Of course not.  But there is a strong case to be made for being far more cautious than we seem to be when it comes to passing what are, at best, only theoretically beneficial ideas that will inevitably have unexpected, if not flat-out unquantifiable, consequences.

After all that, how can society change?  To add my own two cents, from what I've gathered reading others such as Jordan Peterson and Nassim Taleb change is best had at the level of the individual.  Things seem to always go awry when beneficial change is enacted at any other level than that of the individual.  People need to change for the better of their own volition at the level of the individual.  Society can't help but benefit from the betterment of an individual by his own will.

What do you think?

"The best pretence for innovation is of very dangerous consequence: '[We are ever wrong in changing ancient ways.]'"

"The Prince" by Machiavelli

Quite enjoyed this book; very short and to the point.  It was written by Machiavelli in order to aid and garner favor with Lorenzo de' Medici, whom Machiavelli saw as the best person to bring prosperity and order to Italy.

TL;DR - a prince must have an outer appearance of virtuousness (mostly for the purpose of endearing himself to the common people) while maintaining both a capacity for force and craftiness in order to effectively carry out his agenda with the end of safeguarding his state from outside forces.  He must not rely on outside assistance unless there's no other option since even in victory he would be beholden to another.  Fear is better than love since love wilts in the face of danger while fear of punishment keeps others loyal while facing danger.  Frugality is better than charity.  Power is better than virtue.

There's much more, but you can check out my summary of each chapter below if you wish.

I've heard mostly negative things about this book over the years, but now that I've finally read it I can see the pragmatic commonsense nature of the work.  Though I would be remiss to say that this is a faultless guide for how to rule.  It's focus on "pragmatism" over virtuousness is troublesome and reeks of a desperate man who saw no alternative.  Also, the book makes it clear at the beginning that this is purely for the edification of princes ruling over principalities.  He avoids the subject of the rule of republics since it is expounded upon in another of Machiavelli's work.  Even if it was the best guide ever, some might find it difficult to adapt everything to modern governments which are much larger and more complex than the principalities of the day that are spoken of in the book.

After reading it, I am on the side that sees this as the work of a patriot who was desperate to have his country unified and strengthened by the rule of one whom he saw as a savior figure, that being Lorenzo de' Medici.  I highly recommend giving it a read.  You will certainly find yourself thinking a lot about modern politics with reference to Machiavelli's insights.

Thanks for your time and attention.

For those who are interested, below are my summaries/notes on each chapter.  Apologies in advance for their unrefined nature.

1. There are principalities and republics.  Of principalities there are inherited and created (this includes those that a prince acquires by force from another)
2. Inherited principalities are easier to maintain since the people are used to the family in power ruling.  Don’t change the laws to much and don’t give great harm to the people and they’ll be content with how things are.
3. Because of the preceding it’s much more difficult to maintain a new principality.  The people are likely to throw you over for another in the hopes that things can be better.  And you can’t trust those who helped you to overthrow the previous authority.  It’s easiest when laws and language are the same.
4. A prince should ideally take up residence in the principality so that he can more closely observe dissidence and nip it in the bud.  He should make examples of dissidents to quelch future rebellions as much as possible.  An easier method is to set up colonies with those loyal to him so that the previous population is scattered and weakened against rising up against the prince.
5. When having conquered a place that once lived by its own laws it can be advantageous to allow them to continue under the old laws while taxing them and establishing a loyal oligarchy.  The oligarchy will secure loyalty for the prince if only for the sake of keeping the power that the prince has bestowed upon them.  The most effective is to decimate the place. Older traditions and laws will remain in memory otherwise which will always threaten to have the people rise up against a conqueror.  Though places that have been ruled by princes before will tend to submit to a new ruler once the old family has been taken out since the people don’t know how to exist without a ruler.
6. Princes will tend to demand more respect and loyalty by taking a principality by force.  Prowess in battle doesn’t rely on lukewarm support from those who think they may be able to benefit from his eventual take over.  Prowess commands respect and admiration even of the conquered.
7. Princes will tend to demand more respect and loyalty by taking a principality by force.  Prowess in battle doesn’t rely on lukewarm support from those who think they may be able to benefit from his eventual take over.  Prowess commands respect and admiration even of the conquered.
8. If a prince is to gain a principality through cruelty and backstabbing he should get it all done at once so that the memory and resentments can die in the people lest they prove troublesome and unwilling to bear any future atrocities if he must continue in cruelty to maintain rule.
9. Nobles and common people are naturally opposed to each other.  Either will seek to bring a prince to power to represent their interests.  In both cases the prince is to seek the friendship of the common since the nobles are greedy and always ready to oppose the prince if he doesn’t do as they desire.  The nobles consider themselves the prince’s equal.  The people will not.  The prince stands alone at the top to the common.  Having the people on his side will protect him against the nobles lest the common people rise against the nobles for taking the prince they appreciated.
10. A prince should fortify defenses as much as his means of aggression.  If the city is besieged by an aggressor then the prince can take the opportunity to unite and impassion the people to take up the defense.  If they win, then the prince has ennobled himself to the people all the more.
11. Ecclesiastical principalities unique.  There are sustained  by powers that cannot be fathomed by humans.  And a prince never truly rules one of these.  They are ruled by religious principles rather than human authority.  But the Church has in the past expanded its power through arms.
12. A good state has a good army and good laws.  A prince may rely on his own men, mercenaries, or auxiliary armies.  It’s best to rely on his own men.  Mercenaries have bad morale and are disloyal except to money and the leader’s own ambition.
13. Auxiliary units are borrowed from a more powerful ally.  These are just a terrible as mercenaries.  Either they lose leaving the prince defenseless or they win leaving the prince indebted to whom the troops were borrowed. A prince must command his own troops to secure his principality.
14. A prince’s main concern should be the art of war.  The armed (his troops) won’t have respect for the unarmed prince.
15. A prince should not concern himself with the virtuous life since it is impossible to live as such, but rather should dedicate himself to the practical attainment of safeguarding his state even through what would be considered non-virtuous means.
16. Liberality (i.e. free spending and generosity) endears people to a prince at first, until the money runs out and the prince must resort to taxation to keep up his liberality, which will only breed contempt.  Parsimony (i.e. frugality and unwillingness to spend money) may breed contempt at first, but will bear the fruit of generosity in the future.  Parsimony allows the prince to store up for such times as he will need those resources.
17. A prince should be prudent when dealing out compassion.  Too much and even disloyal traitors will not be adequately made an example of and will sow discord amongst the prince’s subjects.  And it is more practical to be feared than loved.  Humans are fickle and ungrateful.  When hard times occur love can dissipate far more efficiently than fear will.  Fear of punishment for the desertion of loyalty is a more effective motivator. But the prince must take care to not sow hatred amongst the fear.
18. A prince must emulate the fox and lion.  The fox is crafty and deceitful whilst the lion is strong and has force.  A prince must be able to be crafty and hide his true motives to manipulate others to his advantage while also retaining the necessary force to do what needs be done.  Have a surface level impression of virtuousness to the people will aid the prince. As long as the prince appears virtuous and delivers the results that the people want, his state is secured.
19. A prince should never be held in contempt and hated.  He can avoid this mostly by not taking his people’s property and women and not injuring their honor.  Having neither the hate nor scorn of his people is a strong defense against internal conspiracies to overthrow him.  The conspirators will now have to consider the consequences of overthrowing the prince that is loved by his people.  It’s impossible to avoid all hatred so a prince should seek to appease the most important groups of the people; the troops being the most important.  But the troops should never be appeased to the detriment of the common people.
20. In essence, a prince should have the love of the people in order to stave off the possibility of rebellion by conspirators since the people are more powerful than the armies on average.  But there have been occasions in which it was prudent for a prince to be more amenable to the rapacity and violent nature of the soldiers.
21. It’s good for a prince to arm those who have none who can help me take over a principality for this creates trust.  Disarming breeds distrust. He should be wary of those who are discontented with their government and help him to take over for they can just as easily become discontented with him.  He should prefer those who are his enemies when he takes over.
22. A good prince is never neutral; he will be irresolute and a coward in the eyes of people and allies.  And must never, unless absolutely necessary, appeal to a stronger ally for aid for then he will be more inexorably beholden to the stronger ally if victory is achieved.
23. When choosing a servant a prince should never choose one that has personal concerns outside the prince.  The servant should be fully focused on matter pertaining to the prince.  And the prince will retain the servant’s loyalty by showing appreciation and honouring him enough to let him know what he gets by the prince’s kindness.
24. A prince should let it be known that others should only ever speak the truth to him and only ever when the prince asks.  Good counsel comes of a wise prince who has prudence.  Otherwise the prince is split on counsel with each counselor attempting to benefit his own position.
25. In times of peace a slothful prince will neglect prudence thinking that there can’t be change that will upend his rule.  A conquering prince that establishes a new principles with new laws and arms the populace is doubly good.  A prince is doubly shamed who inherited and lost it through lack of prudence and slothfulness.
26. A prince should always be read to change to meet fortune while not bowing to caution.  Fortune is a woman, and thus is only properly subdued by a violent and young man who can better command her.
27. Final chapter in which Machiavelli appeals to Lorenzo de Medici to take the preceding advice, with the addition of some battle strategy against enemies, in order to bring Italy to the glory it deserves under a ruler that can get the job done.

The Gospel of Matthew

The Book of Matthew is concerned with the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy and the legitimization of Jesus to the Jewish people. 

It’s been quite some time since I’ve made a serious foray in the Scriptures.  And I must say that after having neglected them for so long that I look upon them with very different eyes than I once did.  There is a sense of awe from reading them that comes mostly from an intuition of their sheer profundity, but it’s hidden from me. 

Matthew 13:11 - “Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given.”

I suppose for now I’m in the latter category.  But I shan’t despair.  Many far better men have spent their whole lives contemplating upon the scriptures.  Jesus spoke of “things hidden from the foundation of the world.”  Deep mysteries have existed from the beginning.  After all this time we still have not unpacked it all. 

The Schedule (In Progress)

DISCLAIMER:  this post is currently incomplete.

Greetings!  Thought it prudent to make a post that lays out plainly the schedule for all these readings.  Written posts for each of the readings will not adhere to this outline.  Written posts will be posted whenever I get to them since the readings need to be allowed some time to process in the mind before being written.  Also, this post will be updated after each reading with the most recently completed reading being moved to the bottom of the post in order to keep the next reading at the forefront.

The format is:

• #) Author:  What to Read (Date to have it finished)
• Number of pages/ Time to read (rounded up)/ Number of days to read (rounded up)

Reminder:  Reading times are estimates based on a rough word count of 800 words per physical book page read at a rate of 300 words per minute for at least 10 minutes of reading per day.

Note:  The Great Books set does not include the Bible due to its ubiquitous nature in the Western World.  I've chosen the Douay-Rheims Bible.

The reading plan started with The Great Conversation by Robert M. Hutchins on May 7th, 2018. I set aside six days to read this for the group I was working with. The official reading plan started on May 13th, 2018.

The Schedule:

YEAR ONE:  

NOVEMBER:

12)  Shakespeare:  Hamlet (November 9th, 2018)

• 44 pages/ 119 minutes/ 12 days

13)  Locke:  Concerning Civil Government [Second Essay] (November 25th, 2018)

• 57 pages/ 154 minutes/ 16 days

14)  Rousseau:  The Social Contract [Book I-II] (November 30th, 2018)

• 19 pages/ 52 minutes/ 5 days

DECEMBER:

15)  Gibbon:  The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire [Ch. 15-16] (December 15th, 2018)

• 55 pages/ 149 minutes/ 15 days

16)  American State Papers:  (December 19th, 2018)

• The Declaration of Independence
• The Constitution of the United States

• 15 pages/ 41 minutes/ 4 days

JANUARY:

17)  Hamilton, Jay, Madison:  The Federalist Papers (January 1st, 2018)

• 1-10
• 15
• 31
• 47
• 51
• 68-71

• 47 pages/ 127 minutes/ 13 days

17)  Smith:  The Wealth of Nations [Introduction-Book I, Ch. 9] (January 14th, 2018)

• 48 pages/ 130 minutes/ 13 days

18)  Tocqueville:  Democracy in America [Vol. I, Part II, Ch. 6-8] (January 21st, 2018)

• 25 pages/ 68 minutes/ 7 days

19)  Marx-Engels:  Manifesto of the Communist Party (January 26th, 2018)

• 19 pages/ 52 minutes/ 5 days

FEBRUARY:

20)  Ibsen:  The Master Builder (February 6th, 2018)

• 35 pages/ 95 minutes/ 10 days

21)  Schrödinger:  What is Life? (February 19th, 2018)

• 48 pages/ 130 minutes/ 13 days

MAY:

1)  Plato:  Apology, Crito (May 19th, 2018)

• 20 pages/ 54 minutes/ 6 days

2)  Aristophanes:  The Clouds, Lysistrata (June 2nd, 2018)

• 51 pages/ 138 minutes/ 14 days

JUNE:

3)  Plato:  The Republic [Book I-II] (June 8th, 2018)

• 29 pages/ 54 minutes/ 6 days

4)  Aristotle:  Nicomachean Ethics [Book I] (June 14th, 2018)

• 10 pages/ 27 minutes/ 6 days

5)  Aristotle:  Politics [Book I] (June 17th, 2018)

• 11 pages/ 30 minutes/ 3 days

JULY:

6)  Plutarch:  The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans (July 13th, 2018 )

• Lycurgus, 
• Numa Pompilius, 
• Lycurgus and Numa Compared, 
• Alexander, 
• Caesar
• 96 pages/ 260 minutes/ 26 days

7)  New Testament (August 2nd, 2018)

• The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 
• The Acts of the Apostles

• 74 pages/ 200 minutes/ 20 days

AUGUST:

8)  St. Augustine:  The Confessions [Book I-VIII] (August 23rd, 2018)

• 77 pages/ 208 minutes/ 21 days

SEPTEMBER:

9)  Machiavelli:  The Prince (September 3rd, 2018)

• 39 pages/ 106 minutes/ 11 days

OCTOBER:

10)  Rabelais:  Gargantua and Pantagruel [Book I-II] (October 7th, 2018)

• 127 pages/ 343 minutes/ 34 days

11)  Montaigne:  The Essays (Audio)(October 28th, 2018)

• Book I - Chapter 22:  Of Custom, and not easily changing an accepted law; 
• Book I - Chapter 24:  Of pedantry; 
• Book I - Chapter 25:  Of the education of children; 
• Book I - Chapter 26:  It is folly to measure the true and false by our own capacity; 
• Book I - Chapter 30:  Of cannibals; 
• Book I - Chapter 40:  That the taste of good and evil depends in large part of on the opinion we have of them; 
• Book III - Chapter 5:  On some verses of Virgil
• 76 pages/ 205 minutes/ 21 days

"Lycurgus" from "Lives of Noble Grecians and Romans" by Plutarch

TL;DR - Lycurgus made Sparta into the legendary city and people that we remember.  He made it strong and austere, if only for a time.

Lycurgus is the legendary law maker of Sparta.  He succeeded his brother as king until his sister-in-law gave birth to a son.  He continued in place of the boy until the boy came of age to rule.  Though Lycurgus fled after becoming aware of some people thinking him planning to murder the young boy to take the throne for himself.  

While abroad he visited many places where acquainted himself with different systems of law and cultures.  He then returned to Sparta to install what he thought to be a far superior system than what was already in place.  He started with bringing friends to support his cause.  Then while armed they approached the current king, his nephew, who fled for his life. Afterward Lycurgus convinced him that they were not after his life.  Lycurgus told the king about his new system and won the king to his cause.

Lycurgus established the Senate consisting of 30 men, 28 of whom were chose form among men above the age of 60 and of the two Spartan kings.  This group of 30 was established to balance the tyranny of both the populace (i.e. anarchy) and the monarchy.  This group was known as the Gerousia.  

Lycurgus exchanged all the gold and silver currency for poorly wrought and heavy iron.  This was to discourage the accumulation of wealth.  And a consequence of this practice was the decline of outside labor and craftsmen since payment was inefficient.  So Spartans learned to do for themselves, but Lycurgus forbid elaborate and ornate craftsmanship.  

In order to create a sense of equality people were to take dinner in public with groups of fifteen rather eating dinner at home.  Those who ate before coming and didn't partake of the public dinner were shamed.  And each man had to take turns giving food to be consumed at the public dinner.  This food came from the equal tract of land that Lycurgus allotted to each Spartan man to keep and grow food for himself.

After birth, Spartan children were washed with wine and examined.  If deemed weak they were discarded.  But if after seven days they survived the exposure they were allowed to live.

At the age of seven each male boy was taken by the military to begin training.  The boys even learned such things as stealing whilst in the military.  They would have to steal in order to provide food for themselves.  And the penalties for being caught stealing were so harsh that it is said that a boy allowed himself to be disemboweled by a fox he'd stolen which was hidden under his clothes rather allow his superiors to catch him having stolen something.

The boys around twelve years of age sometimes had an older Spartan man who took an interest in them and developed an intimate relationship and sponsorship.  

Marriage involved a woman getting her head shaved and put on clothing similar to male clothing.  She would wait in a dark room for the man to come and perform.  This would go on for sometime until a  pregnancy occurred.  Monogamy was not something that was aspired to seeing as husbands and wives had the option to have the wife sleep with another man for the prospect of having strong children.

Lycurgus' story ends with leaning Sparta to consult the Oracle.  He has the city promise to never change the laws he established until he returns.  Upon hearing the positive message that the Oracle has for him, he resolves to allow himself a respectable death; perhaps by starvation.  And some say that his bones/corpse was never returned to Sparta for fear that the city would take that to mean they could change the laws.  In the end the laws seem to have either failed to uphold the city, or the city did go against the wishes of Lycurgus.  Sparta is no more.

I doubt I got even a third as much from this chapter as I should've.  Lycurgus is an interesting character.  He has conviction, and commands great respect in others.  One man who, being opposed to Lycurgus' Rhetra (i.e. laws), knocked out one of Lycurgus' eyes with a stick became one of Lycurgus' greatest supporters afterwards do to Lycurgus' treatment of him after the offense. He certainly inspired to the best in people.

Though it seems as if for all his goodness and justice that he turned the Spartans more into cogs in a machine rather than properly developed individuals, but in fairness to him he was more interested in creating citizens to form a stable and strong commonwealth that could defend itself.  I always try to keep in mind that I keep perspective when comparing modern society to ancient society.  It's not to condone the past, but to remember that things were different.   

Something that I find particularly odd about Lycurgus is his strictness with allowing in foreigners and letting citizens go abroad.  It was his going abroad that allowed him the opportunity to observe other cultures and their practices which became synthesized into his Rhetra.  So it seems odd that he became so worried about bad influences destroying what he had built.  

Sources:

The Book Chapter

Video #1:  this is short summary by another who followed the Great Books reading plan.

Video #2:  this goes into pretty good detail of the Spartan Constitution.

Video #3:  another following the Great Books reading plan.  This individual is currently in progress.

Video #4:  talks a little about the doubt that some historians have about Lycurgus' existence.

UPDATE: Study Materials

Okay.  I've been lazy with the study notes.  The General Grammar section of Sister Miriam Joseph's The Trivium felt particularly taxing at times.  But I'm happy to say that I have reassessed how I'll be approaching the matter.  It can be a bit difficult to track down quality guides and study materials, but I think I've found some solid sources to at least give a bit of guidance.  Here's Source #1, Source #2, and Source #3.

I'm currently only working with Source #1, but Source #2 has some really cool texts I'm eager to read. I'm on my final review of Chapter 3: General Grammar of The Trivium.  I can attest that rereading has certainly helped to embed the material much better in my mind than I would've previously thought considering the struggles I had attempting to comprehend it the first time through.

After I finish the final read of Chapter 3 I'll probably attempt a post more-or-less from memory about the basics of General Grammar: Categorematic words, Syncategorematic words, Substantives, Attributives, Copulas, etc.

As for Lycurgus, hope to have that out tomorrow.  I decided to take some extra time to re-read it since I'm finding it difficult to wrap my head around Plutarch's text.  I think I've gotten a bit more the second time around.

Well, that's all for now.  Bye!

Peace Out GIF from Peaceout GIFs

Politics [Book I] by Aristotle

Well,  this has certainly been the most interesting read so far.  For some reason it felt much easier to follow the line of thought with this.

TL;DR - all human activity is aimed towards some Ultimate End; even human associations. The 3 basic associations amongst people: 1) the household, 2) the village, and 3) the City.

4 Relationships of the Household:

1) Master/Slave,
2) Husband/Wife, and
3) Parents/Children; an additional element is
4) the Art of Acquisition.

Remember that Aristotle REALLY likes the idea that everything has a purpose in nature, and that translates to there being some people who are meant to rule and those that are meant to be ruled (e.g. master and slave).

The Art of Acquisition has two aspects:

1) Natural which is the proper use of acquiring things for their uses (i.e. things that keep us alive and have practical functions such as houses, food, and shoes) and
2) Unnatural (i.e. the accumulation for wealth/currency for its own sake).

Man, not being self-sufficient in himself, finds his ultimate goal/happiness in the City where he can exercise his nature as a "political animal."

TL;DR over.

This is certainly a thought provoking one to be sure.  Aristotle seems to explain his views towards women and slaves with the idea that everything in nature has a purpose.  And some things appear to be subservient to others.  So some things by their nature are likely meant to be subservient to other things in order to fulfill their Goal in life.  Even Men are subservient to the City in so far as a man can only properly fulfill himself as part of a City.

The way that Aristotle explains it is very matter of fact.  And it's difficult for me feel any anger towards him when he doesn't appear to display ill-will towards those that he says must be subservient.  But I can still consider him wrong to be sure while even more so wishing to fully understand why he thought as he did and understanding how different the modern world in which I live is from his world.

How might he have been right?  It doesn't seem unreasonable that things in nature may have a purpose.  And that purpose could have its roots in evolution (i.e. function developed through adaptation which then presents as something akin to purpose) as opposed to Divine Design.  But that still leaves us with the overall question of whether or not Aristotle's Master/Slave association is an inevitable end of having that apparent purpose.  I tend to think not.  Aristotle may have had the idea that such things are inevitable, but I have the perspective that even if such things are inevitable we aim to treat every individual as equal regardless.

From another perspective (i.e. thought experiment) perhaps the Master/Slave association was inevitable but has been corrected through the growth and affluence of modern economies.  To explain, in Aristotle's day Slave labor seems to have been a necessity for the functioning and building of the Cities.  But after the Industrial Revolution the necessities of life are cheaper and more abundantly available than ever for the average citizen (at least in the Western World).  What may have been a Master/Slave association in Aristotle's day can in modern times be conducted with the voluntary exchange of currency for labor.

Despite modern inequalities, more people than ever are able to support themselves of their own volition; even if not wholly satisfactory for all it is a tremendous difference with how things have been in most of the world for most of history.  This advantage of the modern day keeps many people from making themselves a slave to someone else in order to assure they have shelter and food.  To emphasize, it's not perfect, but it is so much better than it has ever been before.

Overall, I had a lot of fun reading this even if I don't agree with much of it. But what did you think? Did I misinterpret anything? Let me know!

Almost forgot. Up next is Plutarch, which will be the biggest slice to date at 98 pages worth. This should take around 30 days with the normal ten minutes of reading per day.

Here's the eBook w/ the chapters to be read in "[ ]":

PLUTARCH: The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans [Lycurgus, Numa Pompilius, Lycurgus and Numa Compared, Alexander, Caesar]

Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans by Plutarch

See you Sunday, July 22nd!

Nicomachean Ethics [Book I] by Aristotle

TL;DR - all activity has sight of an Ultimate Goal/Good, and Man with our unique place amongst nature by the possession of a Rational Soul should seek to live his life with the Goal of developing our rational faculties in pursuit of happiness.

With the aid of SparkNotes, here's something worth mentioning: happiness is often mentioned.  And it should be noted that happiness in this context for Aristotle means not just the overall feelings that would accompany the common idea of the feeling of happiness.  Happiness is the sum total of having done something in a well-done and satisfactory manner that includes but is not limited to approval from our fellow Man and what we might consider the feeling of happiness.  It can be summed up as a life that is well-lived.  We don't just aim at things to have a feeling of happiness in any given moment, but rather we aim to do things in the best way possible to have the satisfaction of knowing that we have lived a life worth living and worthy of praise by our fellow Man.

Aristotle believed that everything in Nature has a purpose.  And since Man is the only part of Nature with a Rational Soul that this development of the Rational Soul was very likely a necessary part to our Ultimate Goal in life.

Well, that's about it for this entry.

Up next is Politics [Book I] by Aristotle.

"The Clouds" by Aristophanes

This is going to be quite underwhelming.  On my own I wasn't able to get to much out of it beyond some obvious satire of Socrates.  This is perhaps due to my choice to read it in daily sessions instead of all at once or watching or listening to it being performed.  Plays are designed to be consumed in a single session after all.  Either way, my deficiencies have been somewhat remedied by the SparkNotes, at least as far as the plot goes.

In short it's a comic satire that follows Strepsiades as he attempts to get his son Pheidippides to learn from Socrates' "Thinkery" how to talk his way our of the debts that Strepsiades has incurred as a result of his son's affinity to fine racehorses.  Strepsiades is an anti-hero in his quest to weasel his way out of his responsibility as a result of being unable to deny his son his very costly desires.

And in the end he succeeds getting Pheidippides "educated," but in comic form the education comes back to bite him as Pheidippides is able to justify beating and insulting his father.  After this Strepsiades burns down the "Thinkery" while driving out Socrates and the Students after renouncing everything he had also learned from Socrates' "new education" and thought style.

Overall I liked it.  Wasn't great, but I don't have the benefit of being in the atmosphere of the day.  It's strength for me was the comedy whenever Strepsiades was learning from Socrates.  Example:  thunder is the cause of the Clouds swollen with rain much the same as Strepsiades after gorging himself on stew.  In the words of Strepsiades:

"Yes, yes, by Apollo I suffer, I get colic, then the stew sets to rumbling like thunder and finally bursts forth with a terrific noise. At first, it's but a little gurgling pappax, pappax! then it increases, papapappax! and when I take my crap, why, it's thunder indeed, papapappax! pappax!! papapappax!!! just like the clouds."

I still snicker at that bit.  It has that wonderful quality of having a just the tiniest of a hint at truth in the analogy despite its literal absurdity.

Well, that's about it.  Bye.

Study Notes (Logic) - (6/5/18-6/10/18)

Here's my first set of Logic notes.  In case anyone is interested, I'm constantly fine-tuning how I go about my studies in order to maximize understanding and retention.  My current process is:

1. Read for five minutes
2. Handwritten notes for what I can actively recall from memory.
3. Repeat 1 & 2 for a thirty-minute study session (I'll normally only have two five minute segments for a full ten minutes of  newly read material before going back and re-reading/reviewing from where I started reading on a given day for the remainder of the full thirty minute session; the handwritten notes can take a good chunk of time).
4.  Review notes at the end of the day.
5. The following morning review notes again and type them into a document 
6. Review of the pages covered in the source material in order to add anything I missed that seems important.

I might have a different study system in the next week. All depends on what I think is working best for me.  This is an extremely taxing subject, but I believe that suffering is worth it in the end to stretch my mind well beyond where it currently is.

Do take my notes with a grain of salt.  I very much doubt that I'll get it all the first time around.  So, don't take it to be the Truth.  And feel free to comment suggestions and/or corrections. 😊

I -- Socratic Logic - concepts, judgements, and arguments are represented in a logical argument as 1) terms(concepts), 2) propositions (judgements), 3) argument, which is commonly given in the form of a syllogism (e.g. “All men are mortal. I am a man.  Therefore I am mortal).

Logic unlike language isn’t artificial.  It’s discovered. It’s a natural property of the universe such as mathematics.

Terms are simple: Man is a concept based off of abstraction.  Propositions such as “All men are mortal” are judgements made concerning abstracted aspects of “man.” Propositions will contain a subject (man) and a predicate (are mortal) that is then subjected to the argument which draws a  conclusion from the terms and propositions: If men are mortal, and I am a man; then I must be mortal.

An argument is theoretically composed of two premises (both containing a subject and predicate) and a conclusion (containing a subject, predicate, and the truth statement that is extracted from the comparison of the two.

Terms are either clear/unclear.  Propositions are either True/False.  And Conclusions are either valid/invalid.  

Terms are concerning with what a thing is.  Propositions with the existence of a thing as it is.  And Arguments with cause/why a thing is as it is.  An arguments takes the propositions built off of terms in order to conclude whether a valid conclusion about why something is as it is can be made.

A true, valid conclusion can only be reached with clear, unambiguous terms, True premises, and valid logical conclusions/arguments.  If any of these three parts is compromised the logic is ambiguous and inconclusive.

II -- Logic (32-37) - How to define Truth:  to paraphrase Aristotle, what one says exists and it does exists is Truth.  What one says exists and doesn’t exist is not Truth. Truth can be a tricky concept since the definition can be concrete, but the methods by which we observe and gather facts for Truth can be faulty and led people into existential crises about the subjective, rather than objective, nature of reality.

Three questions to continually ask when hearing someone else’s argument:  1) What do you mean? (define terms properly), 2) What’s the point? (what is being proved/what’s your conclusion?), 3) Why? (defend why you’re correct).

To make your own case you must 1) have clear and unambiguous terms, 2) true premises, and 3) valid logic in order to come to a true conclusion.

Funny story: Aristotle had described in a lecture the three levels of intelligence: 1) gods, 2) men, 3) brutes.  He said that the gods know too much to ask questions while the brutes knew too little to ask questions. So, when his students had no questions afterwards he asked if he should be proud they’d risen to the level of gods through his lecture or if he should lament that they’d fallen to the level of brute through his lecture.

The ability to question is part of what truly separates us from animals and computers.  Computers never question. They only do with the data we give them what we have already programmed them to do.  There’s nothing intelligent and conscious about them.

Animals can show some degree of problem-solving (e.g. gorillas stacking crates to escape an enclosure or animals learning certain behaviors hoping it will lead to treats), but they still don’t have a quantifiable ability to abstract.  Though there is some interesting research into animal “intelligence.” But the differences in degree and quality between humans and animals is an unbridgeable gap currently.

Concepts (the essence and nature of things) defies the laws of nature.  They are not reliant on space and time. A man can think of two cities that are thousands of miles apart at the same time to compare them.  His concept of the cities bridges the gap created by time and space. I know; not the strongest argument. But I hope to revisit the thought.

Question: for concepts being able to defy/transcend time and space, did the concept of a house exist before the first house was built?  

Concepts are dependent on our minds.  But the objects that our minds understand (simple apprehension) are independent of our minds.

III -- Logic - Concepts are 1) Spiritual/immaterial, 2) Abstract, 3) Universal, 4) Necessary, and 5) Unchanging/Immutable

1. Spiritual means that concepts are without physical properties.  They have no weight, color, size, energy, etc. A thought (as is different from a “concept”) can potentially be considered to have a physical element through its processing in the brain and the resulting phantasm that results in the symbolic communication of the immaterial concept that started the process.
2. Abstract means that the concept has been mentally separated from the perceived object.  Consider a red rose, you can abstract the color red from it and perceive that the color is able to exist in objects other than the singular red rose.  You even go so far as to imagine potential/unreal objects with the abstracted quality of red imposed upon it (e.g. a rose red cat. At least to my knowledge they do not naturally exist, but it can exist in the mind after I’ve abstracted the color rose red and imposed it onto the phantasm of cat in my mind).  You cannot physically separate the color from a flower, but you’re able to separate color from flower through your intellect.

3. Universal means that the concept applies to all things with that essence at all time.  The different kinds of trees, despite how technically different they may appear, still have the same “essence” of tree that we’ve abstracted to label them all trees. Fun excerpt from Orthodoxy by Gilbert K. Chesterton :  

“Then there is the opposite attack on thought: that urged by Mr. H.G.Wells when he insists that every separate thing is ‘unique,’ and there are no categories at all. This also is merely destructive. Thinking means connecting things, and stops if they cannot be connected. It need hardly be said that this scepticism forbidding thought necessarily forbids speech; a man cannot open his mouth without contradicting it. Thus when Mr. Wells says (as he did somewhere), ‘All chairs are quite different,’ he utters not merely a misstatement, but a contradiction in terms. If all chairs were quite different, you could not call them ‘all chairs.’”

IV -- Logic - continuing the Five elements of a concept:

1. Spiritual/immaterial (i.e. a concept has some weight, height, depth, taste, etc.)
2. Abstract (i.e. formed by the intellect from observation)
3. Universal (i.e. the concept applies to all things, at all places [e.g. the concept tree applies to all trees everywhere at once; not just the current tree being perceived])
4. Necessary (i.e. the concept must contain within it the abstractions that are intrinsic to the entity's existence [e.g. a triangle only exists with three sides and a sum of 180 degrees]) Concepts such as trees are a harder to pin down due to so many variables, but without being able to write down a concrete, defined list I can still understand what the concept tree applies to and infers.
5. Unchanging (i.e. what a concept applies to can change materially [e.g. two bunnies + two bunnies might = more than four bunnies eventually], but the concept will always remain the same [e.g. 2 + 2 = 4])

Metaphysics is the study of being.  Being is intrinsic to everything else.  Without being there can be nothing else.  

The nature of being is intrinsic to Logic.  By creating the conception of a house you have implied that house has being in addition to the form, substance, etc.  “The House is blue” has the implicit understanding that the House is.

Concepts are private and wholly within the mind of the individual’s intellect.  Terms are an extrinsic extension of concepts for social utilization that are communicated via words (the material means of communicating [e.g. speaking, written symbols])  Terms can be expressed by differents words in different words in different languages.

Propositions are made of terms:  An apple is a fruit. The terms “apple” and “fruit” are used.  Terms can only be clear/unclear (aka ambiguous/unambiguous) while propositions are either True or False.  

1. Concepts to 2) judgments to 3) arguments

1. Terms to b) propositions to 3) syllogisms.
2. 
   

V -- Logic (42-44) - Does beauty literally exist or just beautiful things (i.e. the immaterial concept itself or just a physical manifestation)?  Plato believed in what is coined “Extreme Realism” (i.e. there is a physical world and an equally real spiritual world populated by immaterial things).  

William Ockham was a founder of Nominalism in opposition to such ideas as “Extreme Realism” by stating that concepts do not exist but that humans create names that are imperfect shorthand to classify individuals that are imprecisely lumped together by the subjective human intellect (i.e. “All chairs are quite different.”)  

Personal Note:  it seems to me that Nominalism has a fundamental error in giving the individual matter of a given object far more importance compared to the abstracted essence that can be apprehended by the human intellect.

Aristotle took a middle ground by proclaiming that concepts do exist in and because of the intellect (they don’t have an existence outside the intellect).  Some theorize that if concepts did exist outside the intellect that this would lead to the valuing of concepts above the existing individuals identified by the concepts.  

Personal note:  I imagine that believing concepts exist outside the intellect does have a danger in belittling the importance of the individual.  But to have intellect (which exists independently in all individuals) be the origin and home of concepts gives equal importance to each individual instead of allowing the individuals who defy certain concepts to be devalued for not conforming to the ideal that exists outside the person.

Concepts must have a universality to them that extends to a class that encompasses more than merely the current and presently perceived being to avoid the danger of having everything be of subjective importance to the whims of each individual’s apprehension.  

Having concepts that extend to a group of like individuals that includes more than the single being that is perceived at any given moment is the only way to adequately categorize and understand the world.  

Terms have extension (e.g. “Man” extends to either all 7+ billion people or to a single individual man depending on context) and comprehension (e.g. “Man” is comprehended as a “rational animal”).  

Extension is a quantitative with how it can measure the connection/reference a term has with the physical/real world (e.g. you measure how many people “Man” extends to).  Comprehension is qualitative since it cannot be measured (e.g. the nature/aspect “rational animal” as a comprehension of “Man” cannot be measured; only abstracted and understood).  

Divisions and outlines measure a term’s extension.  The definition of a term analyzes its comprehension.  

Study Notes (Trivium) - (6/5/18-6/10/18)

Greetings.  Felt I should try to add some content; even if it is quite sub-par quality.  The following is my personal notes taken while studying the The Trivium this past week.  To explain a little, it's not prettied up and organized in this post.  These are the notes as they appear in my personal notes.  I've attempted active recall (writing from memory after reading) with these notes as well as I can, but I'm certainly far from perfect.  Everything in red is stuff that corrected or added after going back to the back after getting down what I could.

My intent is four fold:

1. I'm hoping to give myself a mental push by publishing these notes.  It should force me to think more about the concepts and issues to make them better articulated and succinct if I know others will be reading.
2. I hope to encourage anyone interested in studying this stuff but that may be discouraged by the difficulty of the subject matter.  I have a LOT of red on some days. But I persevere.
3. I hope to quite simply communicate information that I find important and interesting.  If someone can happen upon this blog and find what's contained interesting enough to take it up himself, that's a pretty cool positive for me.
4. Two+ heads are better than one.  Having others weigh in on these notes will hopefully lead to some fruitful discussions and even deeper thinking and understanding of the material. 
5. If others of more sufficient understanding of these things happen to find this blog, then I'm always happy to accept input in the hopes that I can gain a better understanding of it all.

Quick note:  these notes start on page 20 of the book.  Perhaps one day I'll go back and digitize my handwritten notes from the earlier pages.

Here are the notes (the Roman Numerals separate the different days):

I -- Trivium - words without meaning aren’t symbols.  Words must correspond with some reality or a concept/abstraction of reality to be a symbol.

The senses work with the brain in order to perceive and abstract from the world.  The senses initially work to achieve percept through the stimulation of the senses.  Then the imagination works to achieve a phantasm so that the mind can recall a sense of the object/idea without the object needing be present.  

Concept is the abstraction of the essence of phantasms.  You see multiple chairs and the phantasms that arise in your mind provide the material from which the intellect can abstract the concept of chair from the individual examples.

The imagination is the meeting point between the intellect and the senses; think dreams being how the intellect might attempt to bridge a gap with reality and new information through strange, imaginative exercises.

Review:  four ways to symbolize - A) two ways to symbol aggregate and individual: 1) proper name, 2) empirical description; B) two ways to symbolize essense: 1) general/empirical description, 2) common name.

Man is the only creature with true power of abstraction; some animals may contain some low-level ability to abstract, but it is of limited use and related wholly to survival/instinct.  It does not appear to be of intellectual use to them.

II -- Trivium - Generalized concepts are abstractions of the essence of particular class.  The concepts exist regardless of time, location, etc as opposed to the percept and phantasms of objects.  Percepts exist within the external senses and depend upon external stimulus to manifest. Phantasms are dependent upon an individual’s imagination and intellect to manifest at a particular time and place.

General concepts have their basis in normative reality.  To put it another way, concepts have a basis in what is real; not in the subjective interpretation one might have for reality.

Everything within the intellect (with the exception of the intellect itself) depends upon outside data produced by the external senses.

Man is the only animal with the rational capacity of abstraction.  Other animals can have the capacity to respond to external stimulus (shapes, colors, etc), but Man is the only creature that can abstract and create concepts (essense of a square, formula for the circumference of a circle.

Sister Miriam gives the analogy of a bee making honey.  Many different insects may rest upon and interact with a flower, but only the bee has the capacity to interact with the flower so as to produce honey.  In a similar fashion, Man has a unique relationship with the world by having the capacity to abstract concepts from raw sense data that both Man and animal can perceive.

If animals could abstract, you would expect to have change and perhaps some form of culture evolve in them.  But they remain static in their instincts and capabilities in so far as we can theorize.

St. Thomas More made a defense of the Church’s use of statues and images by saying in essence statues/images and written text are fundamentally the same.  They’re all symbols (imitation and written) that communicate the phantasmical thoughts of the author to the viewer at a later point. At a technical level it is quite true.  We see the words same as we might a painting. The only difference I can think of is that the words have a more concrete an objective interpretation set upon them than the potential ideas any individual may receive from looking at a painting.

Interesting thought:  a painting that depicts an event from a book that is constructed by repeating the text from the particular book scene over and over and changing the coloring of the letter to create the image.  

According to More images and statues are of great benefit to the unlearned and ignorant who may not have the capacity or learning to benefit from the written word

III -- Trivium - Thomas More defends the use of statues and icons by explaining how they are symbols the same as words in that they help to communicate the phantasms and concepts in the author’s mind to the recipient.  

10 categories of being:

1. Substance- that of something which is in itself (man)
2. Quantity- determination of matter of a substance (tall man)
3. Quality- determination of the nature of something (friendly, handsome man)
4. Relation- something in relation to others (man is near)
5. Action- matter doing something either for itself or to something else (smile, type on a keyboard)
6. Passion - matter acted upon by something else (being drafted)
7. When- quality of something in relation to extrinsic events with relation to time (man on a Sunday morning)
8. Where- quality of something in relation to extrinsic objects/places (near a lake)
9. Posture- the matter of something in relation to itself (sitting down changes how the parts of matter relate to itself)
10. Habiliment- clothing and decoration of a person.

Substance seems to be distinct from essence.  Essence is a concept taken from multiple phantasms/percepts of a thing while substance is that which is the sum total that makes something what it is in itself.  And the categories relate to substance how a thing relates to itself and others.  

IV -- Trivium - The Ten Categories of Being:

1. Substance - that which exists in and of itself in the subject. (e.g. the person)
2. Quantity - that which exists in relation to determination of the matter of the subject (e.g. height, weight)
3. Quality - quality  determination of the nature of something (e.g. intelligence)
4. Relation - the reference a substance (individual) or accident bears to another (e.g. friend)
5. Action - the exercise of the faculties or power of a substance either upon something else or itself to produce a result (e.g. typing notes, smiling)
6. Passion - something extrinsic to the subject that has its terminus in the subject reception by a substance (i.e. the subject) of an effect by an external agent (e.g. getting slapped)
7. When - something extrinsic in relation to duration position in relation to extrinsic events which measure duration. (e.g. Sunday afternoon)
8. Where - something extrinsic in relation to position of a substance in relation to other (i.e. extrinsic) bodies in order to measure and determine the substance’s place (e.g. by the lake, next to the clock tower, on the bench)
9. Posture - matter in relation to itself the relative positions of the matter of a substance to itself (e.g. sitting down)
10. Habiliment - what the subject wears. (e.g. clothing, jewelry, helmet)

Predicates can organize the Ten Categories of Being in to three blocks according to what the say about the subject:

1. If the predicate is the subject itself and

V -- Trivium- Predicates can subcategorize the Ten Categories of Being in three ways:

1. The predicate is the subject.
2. The predicate exists within the subject
3. The predicate exists outside the subject

Seven important definitions with consideration to language and reality:

1. Essence is that which makes a being what it is and without which it would be what it is. (e.g. I am Man.  Man is my essence differentiates me from other beings made of similar matter)
2. Nature is essence viewed as a source of activity.
3. The individual is constituted of of essence in quantified matter.  While I’m part of the greater class of man by my essence, I’m still differentiated by having my own individual material existence and accidents to set me apart.  Even matches, while manufactured to meet exacting standards, are still individual matches due to their quantifiable difference in having individual material existence apart from the other matches.  
4. Percept is the simple apprehension sense-apprehension of an object that is present.
5. A Phantasm is the image from memory in the mind in the absence of the object; mental image of an individual reality
6. General Concept is the basic understanding intellectual apprehension of essence.

An Empirical Concept is the intellectual apprehension of an individual.  The intellect can only indirectly know individual objects, the objects being material.  But the intellect can directly know itself.

I love how day IV just ends so abruptly.  That was a particularly taxing day.

I'll try to get out my Logic notes from the same time period later today.