Plato & Aristotle: Is Charles Darwin a Plagiarist?

The title for this entry is inflammatory on purpose, but I'll get to that later. "The Story of Philosophy" by Will Durant is a magnificent little outline of philosophy written primarily with the "lay person" in mind. It serves as a introduction to the major philosophers of the Western canon with both biographical sketches and studies and critiques of their major works and ideas. It is a satisfying re-read, really, considering the first time I tackled this book I was in the middle of my undergraduate years, and a lot of it went right over my head.

I am most impressed by Durant's treatment of Plato. It is easy to see--with the benefit of distance and time--how many of the laudatory praise Durant gives Plato could be misinterpreted here (the book was published originally in 1926). Certainly, philosophy has changed in recent years to a more inclusive account of Eastern philosophies (despite their metaphysical content), and other handful of more obscure cultural phenomena. Durant's account of Plato is succinct and informative. Problems arise, of course, with Plato's ideological utopia. The idea of the philosopher-king is introduced and sparks begin to fly (as it always does even in the most diplomatic of classrooms). Plato ignores or assumes that most people would understand the communistic elements of sacrifice and asceticism in opposition to riches and extravagance. To the question of why aren't there more Utopias, Plato answers that "... greed and luxury" poisons the pristine element needed for such a form of government to work. "Men are not content" Plato continues "with a simple life: they acquisitive, ambitious, competitive, and jealous; they are soon tire of what they have, and pine for what they have not; and they seldom desire anything unless it belongs to others." I am fascinated as to how all of these things seem to still apply to society today, and, specifically, to our present economic crisis. One of the main calls President Obama has made to the nation is restrain and sacrifice... will anyone listen? Other things Plato elaborates on here are also applicable. Regardless of political affiliation, consider of any of this makes sense: "[I]n politics, we presume that every one who knows how to get votes knows how to administer a city or a state. When we are ill we call for a trained physician, whose degree is a guarantee of specific preparation and technical competence--we do not ask for the handsomest physician, or the most eloquent one; well then, when the whole state is ill should we not look for the service and guidance of the wisest and the best?" Again, I am not citing this to promote any criticism against any of the political parties or their candidates, but one can see how reflective this is of what has become of the American democracy. The problem with Plato--again--is the fact that he calls for a philosopher-king to rule; that only those with the training in the specific rules of philosophy are equipped with the knowledge of how to rule: Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and wisdom and political leadership meet in the same man, cities will never cease from ill, nor the human race."

Plato's major contribution to philosophy is in the formation of an educational system that incorporates both the physical and the artistic intuitions (I am a product of such a system). From ages 1 through 10, healthy children will be trained in the gymnastics and other physical activities. From 10 years old on, the individual will be trained for intellectual matters, beginning, most surprisingly with music: "We do not want a nation of prize-fighters and weight-lifters. Perhaps music will solve our problem: through music the soul learns harmony and rhythm, and even a disposition to justice; for can he who is harmoniously constituted ever be unjust?.... Music moulds character, and therefore shares in determining social and political issues." Isn't it terrible that the arts are usually the first things to go when a school levy is not passed by our voters? But Plato recognized his issues early on and was ready to accept the problems his utopia was unable to overcome: "He admits that he has described an ideal difficult of attainment; he answers that there is nevertheless a value in painting these pictures of our desire; man's significance is that he can imagine a better world, and will some part of it at least into reality; man is an animal that makes Utopias." One can almost hear Lennon's lyrics from "Imagine" here.

With Aristotle Durant is a bit firmer, but willing to overlook some other issues that caught my eye and gave rise to the inflammatory title of this entry. In the section "The Organization of Science, i. Greek Science Before Aristotle," Durant list Aristotle's accomplishments, as well as a number of other innovators from whom Aristotle borrowed or was inspired from. A venerable list of "who's who" follows: Thales (640-550 B.C), Anaximander (610-540 B.C.), Anaximenes (fl. 450 B.C.), Anaxagoras (500-428 B.C.), and most importantly one Empedocles (fl. 445 B.C. in Sicily) who "developed to a further stage the idea of evolution. Organs arise not by design but by natural selection. Nature makes many trials and experiments with organisms, combining organs variously; where the combination meets environmental needs the organism survives and perpetuates its like; where the combination fails, the organism is weeded out..." The problem is that I have not read "The Origins of the Species" by Charles Darwin, so I am quite unaware as to whether or not Mr. Darwin gave some credit to the ancient Greeks (in particular our good Empedocles). Does anyone know? Could you drop us a line?

Presently, I am reading the section on Spinoza. The section on Francis Bacon was very good, but I think a little overdone in terms of Bacon's achievements; these were mainly interpreted by Durant, and a little slanting or bias might be present. I will be writing on Bacon and Spinoza next.

Umberto Eco's "Foucault's Pendulum," the last post

Work has been keeping me from posting the last part of my re-reading of "Foucault's Pendulum," by Umberto Eco. I finished reading it last month, but I have been crazy busy and unable to transpose my scribbling Moleskine notes to the blog. The main reason why I re-read this magnificent book was due to the fact that the first time I read it (1994), blogs were not the blogs we know today, and despite the fact that I reviewed my notes from that 1994 reading and considered posting those here, I thought it best to just have a fresh, clean read... top to bottom. And it was absolutely worth it.
The main issue I rediscovered is that after Chapter 80 or so, the Plan takes a life of its own. With this I mean that the narrator, Casaubon, begins to decipher the Plan as an "ever-evolving-taking-a-life-of-its-own" document. If Belbo had written the Plan to incite the Templars/Diabolicals/Rosicrucians to come out to play, he did a marvelous job. They came out to play "en masse." It is after Belbo's disappearance, or shortly before it, that Casaubon notices this "life of its own" phenomenon. The Plan goes from 1) a mysterious Templar map to 2) a Rosicrucian reformulation of the location of the "umbilical cord of the world" to 3) a Jesuit conspiracy to overthrow the King of France by discrediting and covert action. This last one in particular strikes me as fascinating. Supposedly, the Jesuits developed some thing called the "Artis Magnae Sciendi Epilogismus," and this little something was a combination of numbers and letters all tied together to develop a seemingly unbreakable code. The problem wasn't that this code, or the many others embedded within (they actually look like they are interminable) wasn't valuable, it just happen that the Jesuits developed it as a "bait" and made other groups seeking the same secret believe that this was the code they were using to look for the secret. It wasn't, and this "fake" code (because as numerically legitimate as it was it was fake) was only devised to send other groups on a wild goose chase. Brilliant!
But it doesn't end there... the great Mashall Ney, the man who single-handedly marched Napoleon's troops back from the Russian disaster makes an appearance. In 1808, Ney and his troops were in Tomar searching for the plan. Napoleon, about to conquer all the "centers" of Europe, now wanted the "center" of the world. Yes, yes... this is the same Marshall Ney that Hemingway mentions in "A Movable Feast." I wonder if that statue of Ney that Hemingway writes about is still in that park in Paris.
At any rate, the Plan goes from the Templars to the Paulicans, to the Rosicrucians to the Jesuits... who might be next? The Jews, of course, and the great conspiracy of the Protocols... the great Jewish plot, right? Wrong. That's the deadly mistake both Belbo and Casaubon make... the Protocols were not written by Jews. The Protocols could, in essence, be another "Plan" someone put in place in order to get the aforementioned groups to "come out and play."
Jacopo Belbo bit on more than he could possibly chew. What started out as an intellectual "game" ended up as a miscalculation of massive destructiveness. There was no "Plan," but the more they played the game, the more everyone believed there was one.
This is a brilliant, brilliant book. Umberto Eco is a master and genius of not only fiction, but a marvelous philosopher, etymologist and philologist (please read anything by him).

Note to Dan Brown's critique of "Foucault's Pendulum: You, sir, are a dreg. You are no writer, albeit a brilliant businessman. Your artistry is a sham, your books shallow and under-researched. You must consider, sir, reading "Foucault's Pendulum," if you haven't already... better yet, don't read it; it might inspire your next venture into the "plagiaristic/idea stealing" path that gave rise to your star status.