Plato's views on tragedy depend in large part on his views about the ethical consequences of emotional arousal. In the Republic, Plato treats the desires we feel in everyday life to weep and feel pity as appetites exactly like those for food or sex, whose satisfactions are ‘replenishments’. Physical desire is not reprehensible in itself, but is simply non-rational, not identical with reason but capable of being brought into agreement with it. Some desires, like that for simple and wholesome food, (...) are in fact ‘necessary’ and approved by reason. Other appetites, like lust and gluttony, are ‘unnecessary’ and anti-rational in that they are actively opposed to reason. According to the Republic, the satisfaction of these ‘unnecessary’ desires inevitably strengthens the elements in the soul that oppose reason. The desire to weep at the theatre is treated in this dialogue as just such an anti-rational desire. Even a temporary indulgence in tragic pity and fear has a permanent deleterious effect on the soul, although it does not lead directly to any action. This paper argues that a radically different psychological theory, with important aesthetic implications, appears in the discussion of wine-drinking in Books 1 and 2 of Plato's Laws. Though this long passage has been much scorned and neglected, it is of considerable philosophical importance. While in the Republic Plato condemns drunkenness and other anti-rational states, in the Laws he extols the benefits of a hypothetical ‘fear drug’ that could induce a temporary state of anti-rational terror and of wine to produce other anti-rational emotions and desires. (shrink)

According to the working definition of the International Big History Association, ‘Big History seeks to understand the integrated history of the Cosmos, Earth, Life and Humanity, using the best available empirical evidence and scholarly methods’. In recent years Big History has been developing very fast indeed. Big History courses are taught in the schools and universities of several dozen countries. Hundreds of researchers are involved in studying and teaching Big History. The unique approach of Big History, the interdisciplinary genre of (...) history that deals with the grand narrative of 13.8 billion years, has opened up a vast amount of research agendas. Big History brings together constantly updated information from the scientific disciplines and merges it with the contemplative realms of philosophy and the humanities. It also provides a connection between the past, present, and future. Big History is a colossal and extremely heterogeneous field of research encompassing all the forms of existence and all timescales. Unsurprisingly, Big History may be presented in very different aspects and facets. In this volume the Big History is presented and discussed in three different ways. In its first part, Big History is explored in terms of methodology, theories of knowledge, as well as showcasing the personal approach of scholars to Big History. The second section comprises such articles that could clarify Big History's main trends and laws. The third part of this book explores the nature of teaching Big History as well as profiling a number of educational methods. This volume will be useful both for those who study interdisciplinary macroproblems and for specialists working in focused directions, as well as for those who are interested in evolutionary issues of Astrophysics, Geology, Biology, History, Anthropology, Linguistics and other areas of study. (shrink)

This thesis examines the Platonic brand in utopian fiction. It looks at Plato's dialogues, H. G Wells' A Modern Utopia and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. The modern texts provide opportunities to observe the effects of ideas found in the dialogues, helping illustrate their implications for the Platonic utopia. Understanding the implications of Plato's textual criticism found in his dialogues is indispensable in understanding how his dialogues are to be understood and what may be understood to be his utopia. This (...) thesis is divided into four chapters; the first two chapters are further divided into sub-headings to assist with navigation of the argument. The first chapter isolates meaning from vocabulary and sets out Socrates' understanding of the relationship between the two entities. The second chapter proceeds to set out Socrates understanding of the hermeneutic effect on the interplay of his dialectic and interlocutors. The third chapter sets out how Socrates seeks to mitigate the distortion of articulated ideas. The fourth chapter concludes the argument stating that Plato's dialogues can only be understood as a unity, that his utopia cannot have a finality, instead it is fluid, free, continuing, Socratic, dialectic. (shrink)

The ArgumentLike many controversies in science, the one between Freud and Jung is overloaded with ad hominem arguments despite the incompatibility of such arguments with the pretensions of both sides to attain scientific ad rem validity. Unlike natural scientists, Freud and Jung regarded their own ad hominem arguments as relevant to general and impersonal truths. They practically legitimized such a use claiming to have a clinical basis for the rejection of the opponent's objections by a de-validating analysis of the opponent's (...) personality as a whole. The argument of this paper is that the de-validating strategy was neither an inevitable psychological outcome of the intricate interpersonal relationships in analytic situations nor the logical consequence of any clinical or scientific psycho-analytical discovery. It followed from the epistemological invalid pretension to have a general theory of mind which could explain by mental analysis the existence of “unreasonable opinions,” and the application of the same principles to the opinion that the theory itself is unreasonable. Such a pretension, apparently specific to mystical traditions in theology and metaphysics, was deeply rooted in the modern epistemological tradition. The paper examines the impact of the different branches of that tradition on Freud and Jung's respective ideologies, theories, and practice, including the ad hominem malpractice. (shrink)

Diotima’s speech claims that philosophy ranks among the erōtica. The standard reading of this holds that erōs manifests in philosophical activity. This is puzzling. Eros has a reputation for overpowering the psyche, making reasoning impossible. The major interpretive discussion of this puzzle suggests that Diotima must therefore accept either non-rationalist philosophizing or rationalist erōs. This paper argues for an alternative. The “ancillary activities view” posits that the erōtica do not manifest erōs but are activities undertaken to achieve its telos. On (...) this view, love’s relationship to philosophy is as un-mysterious as wanting something and doing what it takes to get it. (shrink)

Mettre le noos en relation avec les idées de « panaristos » et de « méga nèpios » permet d’étudier les spécificités du concept noétique chez Hésiode lequel est le plus souvent amalgamé, dans les recherches sur l’évolution historique du noos/noein, à Homère. La présente étude propose d’articuler davantage le noos/noein dans les objectifs poétiques propres aux Travaux et Jours d’où émerge une vision particulière de l’activité psychique de l’individu grec archaïque, depuis le sot ignorant (Persès et les mauvais rois) (...) jusqu’au poète sachant (Hésiode lui-même). Il convient également de montrer comment Hésiode établit une nouvelle hiérarchie des créatures sur la base du noos qui devient consubstantiel à la dikè. Ensemble, ces deux paramètres sont insérés dans un discours à la fois poétique et politique où s’illustre entre autre le mythe des races. Le noos sert tout particulièrement l’autorité poétique d’Hésiode contre celle des rois et révèle une vision à part de l’intelligence. (shrink)