Posts Tagged ‘Nigel Warburton’

Equal time for Isocrates?

August 9, 2012

Speaking of  cosmopolitanism:

The impulse to break free of narrow, confining, ultimately arbitrary partisan affiliations of nation, party, sect, ethnicity, etc. etc. etc., and link one’s personal fortunes to the much larger “tribes” of humanity, life, and existence itself is at bottom the fundamental engine of philosophy. That’s my view, that’s what I’ll again be trying to “profess” in various ways, with various texts and talks, when the bell rings for the new semester in a couple of weeks.

This time I’ll be doing it in the Intro course with new texts, finally setting Robert Solomon’s Passion for Wisdom aside and featuring first, in this Olympian season, a distinctively Anglo angle from Nigel Warburton (A Little History, Philosophy Bites). Then, we’ll swim back across the pond for John Lachs’s Stoic Pragmatism.

Philosophy begins in wonder, and traditionally Socrates is one of the standard-bearers of that state of mind. But I’m wondering what to do with Carlin Romano‘s startling plea for equal time for Socrates’ overlooked and underappreciated countryman Isocratesdismissed by many as a mere sophist and rhetorician much more than a single letter away from socratic status.

Cosmopolitan in outlook, Isocrates, much as he revered Athens, viewed the Greek-speaking (and, one might say, Greek—thinking) world as far larger than one’s own city… Isocrates’s cultural Panhellenism [was] a “brotherhood of culture, transcending the bounds of race,” so that the description of “Greek,” in Isocrates’s words, “is applied rather to those who share our culture than to those who share a common blood.

That’s not the full measure of transcendence we need, unless “our culture” means something a lot more pan- than Hellenic. Or American. On my view we’re all going to have to stop counting medals and waving flags and tearing up at anthems and chanting “U-S-A” just because some of our nearer neighbors have mastered the breaststroke or can spike a volleyball.

But, it’s a step. More to wonder at.

PW 1.1

January 25, 2010

I’ve been using this little bookPassion for Wisdom, which attempts to render the history of philosophy at a break-neck pace (128 pages… and it flies even faster in the Kindle edition), as a centerpiece (or “spine”)  in my Intro courses for many years. Last semester’s different approach was ok, but I think we’ll have better luck with Passion restored to pre-eminence. So, today we kick off our weekly Monday readings from it with a particular focus on the classic “problem of evil.”  PW 1

The monotheistic version of the question’s been around for at least 2,600 years, since the time of Zoroaster in Persia (who inspired Nietzsche’s Zarathustra): “How can God allow so much suffering and wrongdoing [from human malfeasance, natural disasters, etc.] in the world?” More non-theists attribute their inability to believe in a benevolent deity to this problem than to any other cause. As the philosopher David Hume (echoing Epicurus) put it in the 18th century: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?”

The most common reply: free will. But what’s that got to do with earthquakes in Lisbon and San Francisco and Haiti? What’s it got to do with innocent children who get swept away in floods and tsunamis and tornadoes and hurricanes? Suppose you’re a kindergarten teacher, and you sit idly by while little Johnny pokes his classmates’ eyes out?  “I gave him the stick but it was his free choice to use it that way.” Not so impressive a defense, especially if you possess omniscience.

And omnipotence and moral perfection and a little common sense. Good people aren’t robots, so why couldn’t God have created only people like them, people who quite freely live good lives? As the Archbishop of York said recently of Haiti, “I have nothing to say to make sense of this horror.” That’s one bishop with more sense than Pat Robertson. (But my dog has more sense than Pat Robertson.) He knows (as does Dan Dennett) there’s no verbal solution to this problem.

This semester I’m also using another book by Solomon for the first time, in A&S: Spirituality for the Skeptic.

Coincidentally: my iPod clock radio woke me yesterday to a Philosophy Bites podcast featuring a philosopher from UNC, Marilyn Adams. She contends that optimists can only sustain their optimism by believing in some “Super-human” power capable of “making good” on all the suffering and evil that can befall humans in this life. That view didn’t look so promising to Voltaire, at least not through Leibniz‘s “best possible world” spectacles.

And there are other problems with the picture of a controlling divine over-seer whose all-seeing, all-knowing micro-management might seem less than nice to those whose personal destiny is less than the best.

Robert Solomon was an optimist, and a skeptic about super-human powers. He didn’t agree with Professor Adams at all, as we’ll discuss.

When I think of Solomon, my first thought is of his cameo appearance in a strange and wondrous film called Waking Life. And then I think of what Thoreau said about wakefulness– “to be awake is to be alive”– and that brings my mental train inevitably to the now-slumbering Warren Zevon, who said “I’ll Sleep When I’m Dead”…

I need to get that on my iPod!