Temporary Hiatus

There will be a slight lack of posts for the next few weeks as I concentrate on graduating and moving. Until then, ponder this: why have we based our civilization around non-renewable resources?

Ahh, Heraclitus

For those unaware, Heraclitus was a notable Greek philosopher who was quoted fairly regularly by other Greek philosophers, such as Aristotle and Plato. While no known complete works survive, scholars have gathered fragments of his work from these quotations. Below are a two of these fragments, 110 and 48 respectively, taken from the Dennis Sweet translation (copyright 1995, University Press of America), and my response to them.

“It is not better for people to obtain all that they want.”

There are those in this Western materialistic culture for whom the first reaction to the above fragment would be disbelief. After all, isn't that why so many Americans are deep in credit card debt – obtaining all that they want? Isn't that very desire part of what keeps capitalism alive?

A strong appetite, of whatever type, be it physical hunger, intellectual, etc. is a large factor in what makes us human. However, with this fragment Heraclitus suggests two ideas very important to survival and happiness: that of moderation in desire and the danger inherent in achieving all that they want.

Without moderation there is loss of value. The value of so many things, material and not, is relative – happiness is known to be good by also experiencing sadness. To obtain all that one wants is to say that one would never want again. One who never wanted would soon be a miserable person, if that one could be called a person at all at that point. There would be no sense of drive for anything and, worse, no identity for the person. While the former is certainly a frightening idea for some, it is the latter that is the real danger.

Identity is found in loss and striving. It is important to note that this does not apply solely to material goods – even a Taoist, shun worldly desire as he/she will, is still striving for something spiritually; this striving is where he/she finds identity. What spark of life would there be for one who had everything they desired? What reason would there be to continue? Eventually, it is very possible that the person who had everything they wanted to want death – and then they would get that too.

“The bow's name is life, its deed is death.”

We are all a bow; within each of us is life and death. We live, yes, but throughout each of us, at all times, parts of us are dying and being replaced. Further, we all gain life through death in the absolutely necessary act of eating. Even if one is a vegetarian – plants, too, are live things we kill, put into our bodies, and convert, through their death, into life. Realizing this, the fragment gains poignancy in that the bow was used for bringing food into the home.

Going deeper, the idea of us as the bow holds even more true. We call ourselves alive, just as “the bow's name is life”, yet in actuality we are all dying, heading towards telos, ending, from the moment of birth; in this all of our deeds – all the things we do, consequential or not – are death.

It is important, too, not to overlook another function of the bow besides bringing in food – that of defending the self, family, or community, that of killing other people. Through the bringing of death, one can further life – the slaughter of the Suitors in The Odyssey comes to mind immediately. The Suitors were causing a slow death to the household, killing it and therefore killing the House of Odysseus both materially and in reputation. Only with their deaths, with the cessation of their actions, could life begin again for the household.

Life and death must be intertwined; one cannot and should not have one without the other. Death is vital – it brings an end to suffering, it keeps us alive, it continues the cycle we are all part of. Is there a distinction between name and deed? Is not one named by one's deeds? If so, then Heraclitus is expressing more than just life and death as separate in one object – he is expressing that they are essentially the same.

The Shunning of Eris

More thoughts from the Greek Literature class...

One of the more interesting occurrences, to me, in the story of Troy actually occupies little space in Edith Hamilton's Mythology – that which started it all, the treatment of Eris, goddess of Discord. Hamilton describes Eris as “evil” and “naturally not popular”, a characterization which, I feel, is unfair. Eris' realm of control is discord and chaos and, while these things might not always be pleasant, they are very necessary. In our human lives, both chaos and structure are needed. Without structure all would devolve into an uncontrollable mess and yet without chaos all would become a rigid, unchangeable, stagnation. Having only one or the other would quickly result in death for the human species – life would either become a barbaric struggle to look out for oneself or an Orwellian 1984 world of control and smothering of all things creative and progressive.

However, part of the human condition is fearing change and discord, no matter that change can be a very good thing. This, I think, is the cause of the shunning of Eris. Eris epitomized that which so many fear most – a lack of control. Humans expend a great deal of energy in their lives to control their little universes. People farm to control the food supply, build communities to control their safety, and create laws to control the actions of those around them. Having these created structures – created because we weren't always farmers, builders, and lawmakers – has allowed what we call civilization to prosper. Yet the big jumps have always been the result of the unexpected, the unplanned, the accidents, on both a macro and micro level such as with the Renaissance, Industrial Revolution, the discovery of penicillin, and the dreams that led to some of the great works of literature like Frankenstein. Introduce chaos to structure and great things can happen. Still, despite her value, Eris was demonized. As a result she sought revenge and brought more discord through her revenge than she might have caused had she been invited to the banquet and embraced for what she was. Readers can take a lesson from this: do not attempt to thwart chaos, for the results will often be more disastrous than if chaos and the change it (she) brings had been taken into account and 'invited'.

For the Greeks, and for us, the actions of the gods reflected what the actions of mortals would be, thus the rejection of Eris is telling of the human mindset. The fear of change drives society as a whole. Stability is what is reached for – regularity and systematic structure. However, Eris was/is not evil. It is an important point to remember that it was not Eris' action – the throwing of the golden apple – that created the chaos; it was the reaction to her action. The reactions of the other gods, and the weakness of Paris, were the ultimate causes of discord. The apple was merely a pretty object, one that could have been ignored or shared. Chaos is what it is; it is not inherently good or evil. A farmer relies on the seasons and the weather to do the expected in order to harvest; a bit of chaos, such as a late frost or a freak storm, can impoverish him. What is easy to forget is that a drought, too, is stable and unchanging, causing the need for a bit of chaos to intervene with welcome rain.

Cosmic Justice

In my Greek Literature class we are studying ways in which the Greek myths are metaphors or lessons for the human condition. I'll be posting here some thoughts that come up in discussion throughout the semester.

A theme that occurs again and again in the Greek stories is the fickleness of fate and the idea that bad, even horrible, things can happen to those considered heroes or worthy beings. While there are cases in which the punishments are considered only what the person deserved, such as with King Laius and Jocasta (for trying to kill their son), there are, as often as not, instances in which the victims were blameless – such as the cases of Actaeon, Procris, or Creusa. Edith Hamilton in Mythology phrases it as “Their fate indeed was a proof that suffering was not a punishment for wrongdoing; the innocent suffered as often as the guilty” (375).

These stories of senseless sufferings and death have, I think, an even stronger impact on us than the ones in which the sufferer brought their fate upon themselves. As humans, we like to think that there is justice in the world or that, at the least, things happen for a reason. This notion comes out especially strong in religious beliefs – in the idea of karma, in the new testament stories of Jesus, in reincarnation as something deserving of your past life's doings. Rarely do people admit that sometimes bad things just happen – such as in the case of a loved one being killed in a car accident; always there is someone with the sentiment that “God has a reason for everything” or some other platitude. It is the rare and often chastised individual that states that “These things happen.” Because of the fragility of life and the fear inspired by our own mortality, such an idea – that misfortune can fall upon anyone – is terrifying and avoided.

The Greeks understood this avoidance and fought it. Over and over, their heroes endure trials and tribulations completely out of proportion to their actions. Sometimes they overcome, as Odysseus did, and sometimes they die, like Antigone, Procris, or Actaeon. Sometimes the gods are blamed, sometimes misfortune or fate, but the prevalence of the theme itself speaks of a knowledge that humans' lives are very much at the whim of the universe – and that it is, perhaps, necessary to acknowledge this if we are to go on living without going crazy.

In the film The Princess Bride there is a line that echoes this knowledge of the Greeks. The grandfather, in response to his grandson's protests that things are not happening as they should, states “Who says life is fair? Where is that written?” Deep within us, I think, we all realize that life isn't fair, that the good guys do not always win, that the underdog really doesn't stand a chance. It is more than possible that denying this actually harms us more than helps us. Yes, hope is important, however an unrealistic view of the nature of 'Life, the Universe, and Everything' more often leads to extra grief as we try to justify the events around us rather than accepting them for what they are and working through them. By constantly telling stories of harm without reason, the Greeks pointed out to themselves and to us the nature of the human condition – that ultimately there are things that will not make sense and that, while it is a tragedy, we have to live with it.