Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘City-State democracy

Mon char Ado/Walid. Part 41.

Mon cher Ado, No more?

On raconte , mon cher Walid, que Socrate avait une femme acariâtre (nekdi?), des plus mégère que la terre ait pu produire au cours de l’histoire . (lel rattal baddak ratel wa noss?)

Ayant vécu au siècle d’or de la démocratie athénienne, il eut comme disciples Xenophon et Platon , lequel rapporta ce que le maître leur enseignait .

(City-State democracy, as in most cities in Lebanon and Syria, thousand of year prior to the creation of Athens)

Un jour,que Platon lui eut demandé ce qu’il pensait du mariage, il lui aurait répondu que c’était une bonne chose de se marier car , de deux choses l’une , ou il tomberait sur une bonne épouse et dans ce cas il vivrait heureux, où il épouserait une mauvaise , et dans ce cas il deviendrait philosophe… Ce qui serait excellent pour l’humanité . 

(Je n ‘avais pas the gout de la philosophie dans ma jeunesse, je pensais de l’ autre alternative serait le suicide)

Il faut dire que Xanthippe , son épouse, était pingre , et comme certaines femmes contemporaines , elle regardait son mari , non comme un être souffrant et pensant , mais comme une machine à produire du blé afin de combler ses désirs . (Mais il n’etait pas agriculteur et elle devrait le savoir?)

Que faire ? Au cours des siècles , les philosophes qui ne se sont pas mariés , pour conserver leur liberté de penser , sont nombreux pour ne citer que Nitshe, … (ils etaient plus acariâtre que Xanthippe?)

Les points de vue sur la question sont nombreux et très variés . Personnellement je pense que le maître n’avait pas tort en conseillant à Platon de se marier .

Cependant je crois que ça serait bien de tomber sur une bonne épouse qui saura te rendre heureux…(Un bon plat, une couche chaude, les sabots cire’, le deshdashi well ironed…)

Car vivre heureux , c’est ce à quoi tendent tous les philosophes , tous ceux qui cogitent sur la question …
Enfin je rajoute que c’est réciproque pour la femme , celle qui cultive en son sein l’avenir de l’humanité ..

(As long as the husband share in the maintenance of the house? Faire la vaisseelle, laver le linge, baigner les petits…)

Cases of “Historical Dialectics” of human and knowledge development; (Dec. 23, 2009)

            Dialectics is not only used to comprehend historical development of human or knowledge development but is basic in discussions and effective dialogues. Hegel was first to introduce “dynamic logic” and used the term of historical dialectics as the interaction of an extreme opinion (thesis) that generates an opposite extreme counter opinion (antithesis) which results in a consensus (synthesis).  Historical dialectics is a macro method for long range study and it does not explain the individual existential conditions (survival situations).  Hegel offered dialectics as a method for explaining how human knowledge developed by constant struggle between contradictory concepts among philosophical groups. The purpose of his method was to demonstrate how the “universe of the spirit” or ideas managed to be raised in human consciousness.

            Before I offer my version of knowledge development it might be useful to giving a few examples of historical dialectics. In Antiquity, the pre-Socratic philosophers were divided between the Eleatics or philosophers who claimed that change of primeval substances was impossible: we cannot rely on our senses.  Heraclites reacted with his position that we can rely on our senses and that everything in the universe is in a state of flow and that no substance remains in its place.  The synthesis came Empedocles who claimed that we can rely on our senses but that what flow are the combination of substances but the elementary particles do not change. 

            The Sophists during Socrates were the paid teachers of the elite classes and tore down the mythological teaching of the period and focused on improving individual level of learning.  They were in effect in demand by a nascent City-State democracy of Athens that relied on a better educated society to participate in the political system. Socrates reacted by proposing that there are fundamental truths and knowledge is not an exercise in rhetorical discourse. The same dialectics worked between the world of ideas of Plato and the empirical method counterpoint of Aristotle.

            In the Medieval period the Catholic Church set up a barrier or distance between God and man and forced people to believe that all knowledge emanates from God.  The Renaissance man (wanting to be knowledgeable in many disciplines) reacted by promoting the concepts that God is in every element, that man is a complete microcosm of the universe, and that knowledge starts by observing nature and man.

            Another example is the position of Descartes who established that rationalism was the main source for knowledge.  David Hume responded by extending that empirical facts generated from our senses are the basis for knowledge. Kant offered the synthesis that the senses are the primary sources for our impressions but it is our perceptual faculties that describe and view the world: there is a distinction between “matter” of knowledge or the “thing in itself” and “form” of knowledge or the “thing for me”. Kant became the point of departure for another chain of dialectical reflections.

            Many philosophers used the dialectic methods to explaining other forms of development.  Karl Marx wrote that Hegel used his method standing on its head instead of considering human material conditions. Marx claimed that “philosophers have only interpreted the world; the point is to change it”; thus, he defined three levels as basis of society: condition of production (mainly the geographic, natural resources, and climatic conditions), means of production (such as machineries and tools), and production relations (such as political institutions, division of labor, distribution of work and ownership). Marx claimed that the main interactions are among the working class (the new slaving method of production) and the owners of the means of productions or the ruling class: it is this struggle that develop the spiritual progress.  Another dialectical process is the extreme feminist political claims of equality between genders which brought about a consensus synthesis for a period.

            My view of progress is based on the analogy of combination of two schemas:

            The first schema is the coexistence of two strings of evolution (picture a DNA shape): the knowledge development (mainly technological) and the moral string (dominated mainly by religious ideologies).  The second schema is represented by historical dialectic evolutions in the shape of helical cones. The time lengths of cycles for the two strings are not constant: the technological progress phase has shorter and shorter cycles while the moral string has longer cycles.

            The two strings are intertwined and clashes frequently.  When one string overshadow the other string in evolution then there are a slow counter-reaction culminating in stagnate status-quo phases between the two forces. Technological or level of sustenance period has time length cycles that is shrinking at the top of the cone before the cone is inverted on its head so that the moral time length cycles start to increase and appears almost invariant (that what happened in the long Medieval period that stretched for over 11 centuries in Europe); then the cone is reverted on its base for the next “rebirth” cycles (for example the Renaissance period that accelerated the knowledge string ascent).




September 2020

Blog Stats

  • 1,418,799 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 771 other followers

%d bloggers like this: