Rel 342: Origins of Western Morality?
I'm in a class called Origins of Western Morality and it's way more fascinating than I thought it would be.
We spent the 1st quarter deepening our knowledge of Hellenistic* Philosophy (particularly Epicureanism, Platonism, and Stoicism). It's the first time I've really gotten into the texts and secondary sources beyond exceperpts or basic summaries. I'm actually finding the themes and philosophies we talk about to be very useful animals to think with (That was a Lèvi-Strauss reference). We began moving chronologically through the Roman merger with Hellenistic philosophy (that blend had some really interesting effects.
I've read Seneca before, but his Romanized Stoicism is so different than the early Hellenistic Stoics) and now we've reached Paul and his New Testament letters. The amazing thing is that I think I can see how the ideas formed and growing in the early Hellenistic philosophy made their way through different generations' interpretations and the Roman empire, infiltrating the general ideas in society what it meant to be a person, what was natural and what the best life was.
And, as it gets more complicated with greater implications on what it means to live, it's interesting that it all goes back to when somebody tried to explain how people were different than rocks and other inanimate things.
I used to actually think that philosophy was boring because there's so much argument over just defining terms (in the math world, we just define things so we know what they are, and then work with them until we get something more useful), and thinking about other possible worlds, and whether or not people can really 'try' something that they know is impossible. I don't really see how these things are relevant or important to the way I choose to live. Maybe you like them, but I get impatient.
So I thought that studying Hellenistic philosophy would be kind of boring and tedious but really,
These guys knew what it was about.
They were trying to figure out what was the best way to live and why. They were trying to figure out what it meant to live in a society and whether that was good. What decisions are important? Should you live in society or not? Why are so many people unhappy? How did that happen, and what can that be changed?
You can feel the pulse in these kinds of questions.
And, they didn't just talk about it - they really tried to figure it out. They tried their ideas, they lived in communities - or alone - or with a few others, depending on what they thought would help them find/understand what mattered in the world.
I wrote in the margin of my notebook (during Linguistics) (10.12):
Oh sad the day
when philosophy became confined to schools & books.
Indoors, it forgets the sun and shrivels onto itself,
falling upon itself for sustenance
This class is really blurring the line between "religion" and philosophy for me, which is great because I've been trying to figure out what I think religion is for a couple of years now.
Last year during Ancient Christianity class, we read something from the... late 300s? 400s? about a Christian ... when I remember her name, I will add it back here ... describing to her brother the merits of the "Philosophy of the things not of this earth."
I love that she thought of it that way. "Christianity" was not always just "Christianity." To me, it sort of represents the days back when Christianity was young, energetic, inspired, with new ideas - and ready to get out there and change the world. You know, before it grew up the rest of the way and got a suit and a desk job with regular hours in a giant office.
Oh, Christianity.
You've come so far,
but what profitith a philosophy that gains the whole world, but loses it's soul?
Anyway,
I will post some summaries of articles we've read
and eventually, my 20-some page final paper will make it's way on here.
Don't complain - you don't have to read it.
And this isn't your blog anyway.
also, in case your high school didn't teach anything about Greece either,:
*(Hellenistic ~ Greek)
No comments:
Post a Comment