Summer Reading

Gentle reader, you may have noticed that blog entries have heretofore lapsed into cyberspace. That is because the previous use for this blog vanished when college classes began. Yet another opportunity has arisen, and I hereby rededicate this blog to a new expression of it's same purpose.

The original purpose is stated above: "Listening in on the Great Conversation." Simply put, throughout the vast reaches of time, mankind has reasonably mused about the nature of the world, of mankind, of God, and the nature of truth, goodness, and beauty. Written across history there exists a kind of a "conversation" between thinkers of all kinds: philosophers, poets, theologians, statesmen, and common men, discussing and developing ideas and answers to persistent questions. These have stored up for us their great conversation, and we have the opportunity to answer to learn from their accumulated wisdom, and have a sort of "conversation" of our own about their ideas.

As I believe will be demonstrated in time, this is not an impractical activity. Within the company of the great conversationalists we are given much wisdom regarding who we are, why we do the things we do, and how we can be better human beings. Participation in the great conversation is not the highest good in human life, but can show us how to live poorly or live well; how to get along with your neighbors and get them to get along with you; and what sort of beings we are. If you think you know all of this already, then good for you. I challenge you to stick around--and I wager some dead philosopher or another will prove you wrong.

The particular opportunity I alluded to above manifests itself in a series of online lectures by learned men from my beloved alma mater: Hillsdale College. I learned a great deal from them, and learned most of all that I have much more to learn, and big shoes to fill if there are to be good men and women for the next generations. My brother and I decided that we should listen to these short orations and discuss the ideas contained therein. The courses were designed for those unable to attend a college where these ideas are taught. This is no substitute for actually cracking open a book. Yet, if we do our task well, this will only cultivate further reading, discussion, and prudent application of their ideas into our lives.

There are a goodly number of courses offered at this point. I proposed that we begin with the course "History 101," as the foundational ideas therein help greatly in understanding the rest. Even if you, gentle reader, have had a course in history already, I hope the clarity of their insight may provoke new thoughts and foster constructive discussion among us. I also hope to provide some original source material to support the lectures given here, so our discussion can be had as intimately as possible with the ideas.

The plan so far:

1. Sign up for the course "History 101" here: https://online.hillsdale.edu/  and following the instructions.
2. Watch one video per week. Take notes. (The timing is subject to change--we might speed things up if we are able)
3. Read any posted source documents relating to the topics of the lecture.
4. Write an informal blog entry articulating your understanding of the ideas from that video. In can be as long or short as you want. Our intent is to learn, and very often the need to articulate an idea can nurture our understanding.
5. Comment and discuss the ideas as heard and read and written.
6. Repeat.

At first I planned this for only a few people whom I already know. Yet I understand that my brother wants to invite more to join in with us. That's great! So to you, unknown reader, be it known: If you comment regularly and charitably, I may give you authority to post your own entries on this blog. Until then, I'm counting on the discipline and willingness expressed by the spoken-with few to carry on a good conversation among us.

We will begin doing this by next week. I will watch the first video this weekend (likely June 1st, a Saturday). I will write my entry when able, probably the next couple days, so that conversation can sprout from a blog post about it. I'd like to see everyone else doing something similar. I understand that schedules are crazy, but if we're going to make this work, we've got to be disciplined, lest we fall into the abyss of internet amusements.

Peace be with you,
+VDMA
-Keaton

decepticon

This is from the 2002 APA ethical principles regarding human research, found in this psychology textbook that Emily is lending me:

"The use of deception. Psychologists can use deceptive techniques as part of the study only when two conditions have been met: (1) It is not feasible to use alternatives that do not involve deception, and (2) the potential findings justify the use of deception because of their scientific, educational, or applied value."

WHAT. This seems really weird to me. Perhaps 'deception' just has a negative connotation, but this still sounds vaguely unethical. Can you think of situations where this happens? What do you think about it?

Paper Assignment #1

Write a formal paper of no less than five (5) and no more than ten (10) pages. Do not pad it with extra fluff writing at the end to get it to the right length: have at least five pages of actual thoughts/proof. I will be able to tell. It must be double spaced, 1 inch margins on every side, and 12 pt. Times New Roman font. Use book/line numbers as you have been for in-line citations. Include pertinent bibliographic data as an extra page at the end (and no, it doesn't count as its own page. it's EXTRA). I'm not picky about the format for a bibliography. 

  In the first half of this paper you will articulate the ancient greek idea of virtue ("what does it mean to be a good human being"), citing examples from the text of the Odyssey generously to demonstrate their understanding of virtue and human nature. Use clues from what you've learned of their world (anthropology, gods, host/guest, bloody battles, to name a few...) to argue for why their understanding of virtue might be true. This part could be five pages all by itself.

 In the second half of your paper, you will interact with the elements you've outlined above, evaluating what you think of that idea. Use whatever sources you want to argue for or against various elements of their philosophy. Come to a conclusion about what good can be gained from reading this book, and why it's worth reading today.

Your rough draft is due before Christmas Day. Send me drafts anytime if you want my thoughts/edits/comments/etc. The final draft is due before the end of the year. I highly suggest outlining the paper first, as it will prevent you from rambling. 

-Keaton
        <><

Peace

Open in the underworld. Everyone is boasting about how they died, and then the suitors arrive and bemoan their whole suitor story. Everyone else just laughs. "Happy Odysseus!" they cry (130-225). Sorry, Antinous. You're still a jerk. This is hilarious.

"He wore a goatskin skullcap to cultivate his misery that much more" (250-256). Poor Laertes--that would make me miserable, too. Once again (although I'm sure you'll explain it), I don't understand why he tests Laertes--everyone else knows it's him, and it wouldn't stay a secret for very long. Anyway, Odysseus makes him feel like crap by telling him he looks like a slave, and he starts to cry, and then all three generations are reunited and it's wonderful (277-284).

Good language: "rumor the herald" (457). I suppose rumors are rather like that.

457-520: Everyone wants to kill Odysseus. 520-602: They change their minds. Then Athena grants them peace and it's over! It's pretty brilliant.

In answer to your previous questions, you probably wanted me to read this book because it's full of human nature, and the consistency of it, and really epic stuff and good and bad things. You're all about good and bad and justice and whatnot, and you wanted me to figure out what was good and what was bad and what was justice. A poem becomes epic when it is focused on a hero, is majestic, heroic, and of unusually great size (so says dictionary.com). I suppose a connotation would be that it has all of that stuff I've mentioned previously, and people really like it. I haven't heard of epics, really, other than Homer and like two other Greek things.

You also asked what I thought of Telemachus and his situation--I don't understand what you mean anymore. I don't remember what was even happening. SORRS.

The Great Rooted Bed

(I almost wrote 'The Great Rooted Bread." Mycelium.)

Excepting the certain circumstances, tricking someone who says they're your husband would have been a good idea. BUT PENELOPE. REALLY. WHAT IS THIS. I suppose the secret signs is a good verification system, though. An immovable bed (197-230). Cute. Anyway, then they do it, but they also talk for a really long time, which I also think is cute. At least they really like each other, and Odysseus doesn't go off and cry, like he did when he was with Circe. or Calypso. or both. Yeah being married.

Slaughter in the Hall

Although despite Odysseus revealing himself, at the dawn of book twenty-two, the suitors are suddenly very calm and collected. Then they are dead. Well, some of them--the others ask Odysseus for mercy, and they offer tribute and sacrifices. He kills them anyway--I don't know exactly how righteous anger works, but I don't know if I agree with this situation. I can't entirely figure it out. They were jerks. Now he's killing them. They don't exactly apologize, but they want to keep living... so they try to appease him. WHAT is the right thing to do here?

Then Athena tells Odysseus to man up (234-243).

"The attackers struck like eagles" (316). The fulfillment of the eagling. FINALLY.

Leodes, the nice one, dies anyway (324-341). He's not a boor, so I didn't quite understand it--until I remembered that he's a suitor, courting Penelope. Who is Odysseus' wife. Sooo he's not the happiest guy right now. It's too bad, though, that Nice Leodes dies. (I remember Knox mentioning it in the introduction.) But the steward and the bard live--they're only servants, forced into doing the suitors' bidding (345-401). I guess that makes sense, but it's sort of obnoxious, because Leodes was nice.

Then Odysseus says he needs his nurse (416-417), which is funny. Once all the suitors are dead, Odysseus rounds up the wenches, makes them clean up his bloody mess, and hangs them in the yard. It's brutal. I suppose it's Greek. Then he destroys Melanthius, and that is savage (471-504). "Manic fury" =/= righteous anger. Just because you're going to kill someone doesn't mean you have to merciless rip them apart.

Odysseus Strings His Bow

Oh, it never fails. Antinous pretends he doesn't want the bow--he doesn't want to shoot it, or win it, or anything (103-111). He does. It sounds like something that would happen today. I GUESS PEOPLE DON'T CHANGE. Wow. Homer is really making a statement right now. Well, I am. But Homer wrote this like a kajillion years ago, and a kajillion years later, people still do the same things. Jerks are jerks. Wives cry when their husbands go to war. Servants are loyal or disloyal ("No you're not. You're disloyal."). People are the same. THIS IS RIDICULOUS. I wonder why that is.

130-150: Poor Telemachus needs to work out more. Odysseus is just a beast, I guess.

163-167: To be noted later--Leodes loathes the suitors' ways.

Odysseus tells the swineherd and the cowherd that he's, you know, him, and they believe him and are super excited and still loyal. Why, then, did he not tell them earlier? It's the same with Penelope. Telemachus believed him. Why does he still tell stories to everyone?

Here's what's rather unnerving: the swineherd tells Eurycleia to stay away, especially if she or the other maids hear men moaning and groaning and screaming (425-431). UM.

Then, in lines 451-484, Odysseus reveals his amazing strength and identity and anger and whatnot, and it seems to build in anticipation of his wrath. IT IS EXCITING.