When Nietzsche Wept

THE BOOK

When Nietzsche wept

Interesting book by Irvin Yalom, a psychotherapist who writes novels about philosophers going to therapy (now, there's the basis for an hyper-intellectual approach to human misery!). The story is that of a (fictional) encounter between the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (the guy who declared God dead) and Joseph Breuer, a Viennese physician mentor of Sigmund Freud (who also appears in Yalom's book as a secondary character).

Nietzsche and Breuer and up essentially psychoanalyzing each other, both afflicted by obsessions about women and death (like most middle age white males I know). The interesting twist here is the continuous juxtaposition of two different kinds of “talk therapy”: psychoanalysis and philosophical council. The first one attempts to speak to the emotional side of us, the second to the rational one. Neither can succeed on its own. Breuer gets frustrated by Nietzsche's “high-minded” philosophical council of taking the cosmic perspective, embracing the challenge and pain because they'll make him a better man. What Breuer really wants is to shag a former young patient (despite being married to a beautiful woman), and not die. Don't we all? (Incidentally, the book is an excellent “insider's look” at men's inner feelings, a must-read for women.)

But the emotional approach on its own also fails. In the book, Breuer has tried to help the very same patient he is sexually obsessed with, succeeds for a while, only to see her falling back into her original illness, jeopardize his marriage and career, and then do the same thing over again with another doctor.

As both Plato and particularly Aristotle clearly understood, the pain of the human condition is generated by the difficulty of balancing what they identified as the three parts of the soul (emotions, rational, and “spirited” -- in charge of will), curiously close – though not exactly parallel -- to Freud's own trinity of Id, Ego and Superego (respectively the emotional, rational, and moral “minds”). David Hume also famously chimed in that “reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions (in “A Treatise of Human Nature”), by which he meant that we don't do anything unless we care for it, regardless of how logical (or not) the thing in question is.

But of course, the real issue is: now that we know all of this, does it actually help us overcome our fear of death? (Or, for that matter, to shag the woman or man we want?) Well, yes and no. Knowledge by itself (Aristotle again) will not do. But knowing where some of our pain and powerful drives come from and how they act should help us controlling or channeling them. Aristotle's recipe was: practice makes better. Virtue and happiness are not something we are born with, they are things we work toward. Like all worthwhile exercise, it is painful and a bit unpleasant, but if we stick to it, it becomes easier, and perhaps even enjoyable in its own right. Of course, it may take us a few decades...


THE MOVIE

When Nietzsche Wept is an independent film released in 2007, starring Armand Assante, Ben Cross and Katheryn Winnick. The movie is based on a book of the same name by Irvin D. Yalom and was directed by Pinchas Perry.

The film follows the storyline of the book quite faithfully, although neither the book nor the movie is based entirely on reality. Although the main characters and some of the facts are true, the center piece of the novel (and of the movie), which was the therapeutic encounter of German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and Austrian physician Josef Breuer, never happened.

When Nietzsche Wept
 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When Nietzsche Wept is an independent Bulgarian film released in 2007 and produced in the USA, starring Armand Assante, Ben Cross and Katheryn Winnick. The movie is based on the novel When Nietzsche Wept by Irvin D. Yalom and was directed by Pinchas Perry.

Plot

 The film opens with the Russian-born novelist—who eventually became a member of Freud's 'Vienna Circle'-- Lou Andreas-Salome (Katheryn Winnick) who had an unconsummated (Platonic) 'love affair' with German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (Armand Assante), and to whom he allegedly proposed in 1882 (although whether her claims are true is very much up for debate) writing a letter to Dr Josef Breuer (Ben Cross), after hearing of his newly developed talking cure (Breuer was a friend of Sigmund Freud (Jamie Elman), who also appears in the story, and one of the influential fathers of psychoanalysis.). The two meet, and a reluctant and troubled Breuer agrees to Salome's plan; to cure the intense migraine attacks that plague Nietzsche, and at the same time, without his knowing, cure the despair that her refusal of marriage has inflicted upon him. Salome has persuaded Franz Overbeck (Nietzsche's friend) to send him to Breuer, however, Nietzsche offers no support to Breuer, so the course of treatment must end. In a chilling parallel, an encounter with a mistreated horse causes Nietzsche to redeem his appointment with Breuer (Nietzsche finally went mad after stopping a man from whipping a horse using his own body, before breaking down in tears and descending into insanity). Nietzsche later visits a whorehouse, where he has another attack of migraine, exacerbated by the overuse of a sleeping draught. Nietzsche decides that he will, instead of pursuing treatment, leave for Basel. Meanwhile, an up-and-coming psychologist Sigmund Freud, friend of Josef and Mathilde Breuer, suggests that if Breuer was to make some confession to Nietzsche, he may stop seeing any positive sentiment shown as being a bid for power, and indulge in confessions of his own. So, the next time they met, Breuer makes the suggestion that, while he treats Nietzsche's body, Nietzsche must "treat" Breuer of the despair that he feels after falling in love with one of his patients, Bertha Pappenheim (played by Michal Yannai), otherwise known as Anna O., a famous case which was discussed in a joint book by Breuer and Freud, later on. The confessions lead to the two becoming open with each other, learning each other's way of life and finally the two becoming friends, but not before the film has explored a great deal of Nietzsche's philosophy and Breuer's psychoanalysis. Breuer's anguish over his supposed unhappiness is explored by means of his highly symbol-laden dreams, thus showing the importance of interpretation as a stepping stone in what would constitute Freud's approach to psychoanalytic techniques. The film is host to a variety of famous faces of the day; Josef and Mathilde Breuer, Friedrich Nietzsche, Lou Salome, Sigmund Freud, Bertha Pappenheim, Paul Rée as well as references to Franz Overbeck, and the music of the composer, Richard Wagner.

Critics

In terms of Nietzsche's thought, the representation is most immature and pedestrian. The strongest parts of the film are few and far between in this regard. Nietzsche and Breuer on a swan-shaped pedalo, in a state of absurd and chaotic mania, contemplating the passage of time in an insane dream to the theme from Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake gives a marvelous insight into the peculiar nature of Nietzsche's concept of time, but this scene is all too brief; if it had been any longer, we would perhaps expect dilution to occur once more. The other strong scene is Nietzsche presenting the concept of the eternal return to Breuer, which competently grasps the existential implications of the notion. This is let down by the subsequent descent of Breuer into an existential rebellion, in which his behaviour becomes erratic,impulsive and foolish, in a great departure from the form and style we might expect of someone who has truly grasped Nietzsche's thought.

As a whole, the film is probably worth watching, since there really isn't anything else out there like it. The dream sequences are marvelous, and I suppose this is relevant to Nietzsche's thought, but it definitely remains unclear whether this relevance is intentional, or merely a device. Watch with low expectations, or you will be sorely disappointed, and perhaps even a little angered at the representation of Nietzsche and his thought. I am left hoping for a greater film to appear in the near future, which will cast this peculiar piece of cinema in a more objective light. 

Sophie's World by Jostein Gardner

Sophie's World by Jostein Gardner - Sofie is an ordinary Norwegian girl. One day she recieves a video tape on which a certain Alberto Knox talks directly to her from ancient Greece. They then start to meet at different occasions and throughout the film, Alberto takes Sofie on an odyssey of the history of philosophy, from ancient Greece, over the Roman empire, the Middle ages, the renaissance, the enlightenment, the big revolutions and up to today. Throughout this journey, they start to realise that they are only fictions of a story writer's imagination and start conceiving a plan for escaping into reality.

Philosophy of information and organization

Philosophy of information and organization -- Part 1 of a series about how we see things in nature and society (i.e., "epistemology.") -- Comments are invited to make it better and to clarify the issues.

Essentially it is a metaphysics of "information" and "organization" in the biological and social sciences. It developed as part of the standard grammar for an animated flow-chart energy language.

The last 1/3 will show some examples, touch upon how institutions in economics correspond to the pattern, compare the very different type of system in climate and ecology (i.e. flow-through webs,) and end with a very simple summary. It will be posted shortly.

The little black bar at the bottom is for the time-cursor and the symbol list, which I don't add until the animation is entirely finished. (To see how that works, please look at some of the other animations. Click on "leearnold," above.)

Noam Chomsky- Alternatives to Capitalism

Taken from a larger video titled: The Chomsky Sessions If you like Noam you may like the book "Days of War, Nights of Love found here for free - www.daysofwarnightsoflove.com/ also on youtube you may like this channel www.youtube.com/user/stimulator

XIX Century: Adam Smith & Karl Marx

Socrates pleads his case in his sentencing hearing

Socrates pleads his case in his sentencing hearing and talks about the true value of the individual agitator and rebel in society.

The Death of Socrates is a 1787 oil on canvas painting by the French painterJacques-Louis David.

The Death of Socrates is a 1787 oil on canvas painting by the French painterJacques-Louis David.

The Death of Socrates

Artist	Jacques-Louis David
Year	1787
Type	Oil on canvas
Dimensions	129.5 cm × 196.2 cm (51.0 in × 77.2 in)
Location	Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

Like many of his paintings from that decade, the Death ofSocrates focuses on a classical subject.^[1] In this case, it is the story of Socrates’s execution, as told by Plato in Phaedo.^[2] In this story, Socrates, as punishment for criticizing Critias, the tyrant ofAthens, is told he must either drink the poison hemlock or face exile. Socrates, rather than fleeing, uses his death as a final lesson for his pupils, and faces it calmly.^[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_Socrates

Ethics Workbook I: World History Chapter 7 Ancient Rome

Ethics Workbook I: 

World History Chapter 7 

Ancient Rome 

The most important ethical philosophy that came from ancient Rome was called Stoicism. It influenced all later ethical thinking and added some very big new ideas about where the law comes from. Let's review briefly. Remember how Socrates believed the law came from the people and refused to disobey the will of the people even when it resulted in his own execution? Now, the problem with this is that if you believe the law is whatever the people say it is, there is no such thing as an unjust law, as Socrates found out. This was an area where the Stoics added something significant called natural law. We'll study this in more detail later, but for now, let's find out more about what the Stoics believed in generally. In the first place, they were practical. They wanted to live effective happy lives in the real everyday world. One of the leading Stoics was a man named Epictetus who wrote a “handbook” for life. According to Epictetus, the first lesson to learn is to distinguish between things, which are within our control, and things which are not. Some things are in our power and some are not. What are in our power are our desires, thoughts and actions. Not in our power are the actions and opinions of others. Pay attention only to what's in your power. If it's not in your power, don't be concerned with it. Arrian, Handbook of Epictetus Stoics believed that a person should be indifferent to anything he or she can't influence. What kinds of things are, and are not, in our power? 

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. This will be, for many students, a new way of looking at things, and it introduces a greater level of abstraction in thinking. Stoicism can be oversimplified and its real value in ethics thereby diminished. Take the time to work students through the difficulties. Actions are not a problem for people but opinions about them are. For example, death is not bad, but the opinion that death is bad, that's what's bad. Arrian, Manual of Epictetus Is this true? Can you give any examples from your own experiences?

 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. In order to live a happy and fulfilling life, the Stoics say it is necessary to stop worrying about things that are beyond our control. “Don't cry over spilled milk.” This is typical, practical common sense stoic advice. If you can't change it, such as the past, forget it. But, Stoicism isn't about indifference; it's about involvement, because if you realize that only a few things are really in your power, you know, as the Stoics did, that you must be good at controlling those. What do you think Epictetus is meant by the following advice? Do you want to win the Olympics? Me too. It would be fantastic. But before you begin, consider this: you must be disciplined, eat carefully, and stay away from sweets and exercise regularly even when you don't want to, in heat and cold, without water or wine. You must follow strict training rules, and face serious injury and defeat. Having considered this, if you still want to, go for it; or you can turn your back like a child, and play at this and that. Arrian, Manual of Epictetus

 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. What is Epictetus trying to say here? What kind of a person do you think a Stoic is? Do you know anyone who acts like this? Give some specific examples. 

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Students should begin to realize that Stoicism puts a tremendous burden on its adherents to work hard in the limited areas where they can make a difference. Stoicism really is about seeing and accepting your responsibilities. The relevance for our students is clear. So you see, Stoics take things very seriously, and accept responsibility for their lives. They believe that they must act decisively wherever they can, since most of life is beyond their control. Even Roman emperors, such as Marcus Aurelius, were Stoics. Here are some of the things Marcus Aurelius said in his writings. Think about how fast things pass by and disappear. Reality is like a river, constantly flowing and constantly changing. Hardly anything stands still. Only fools stake their happiness on such things. Think about how you will soon be nobody and nowhere, and all the things, and all the people you know will no longer exist. All things perish to be replaced by new things. Think about where you are standing, between two huge voids, the past and the future, into which everything disappears. Marcus Aurelius, Meditations These are powerful words by Marcus Aurelius. Do you concentrate too much on what's passed, or dream too much about what's coming, to be happy now?

 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. This can be somewhat depressing for some students who may conclude that Stoicism is pessimistic. Try to work through this. The next quotation from Marcus Aurelius is particularly important because it introduces us to that very big idea that Stoics had, the idea that the law is not something handed down to us, but is a part of the nature of things. When you get up in the morning, and you don't want to, think about this. I am rising to do the work of a human being. Why wouldn't I want to do the things I was by nature intended to do? Or, maybe I was made to lie in bed and accomplish nothing? Can you look at the bees and ants, spiders and birds working diligently at their natural tasks and say you don't want to do the work for which you were created? Marcus Aurelius, Meditations There are laws, which are a natural part of life. The life of every living creature is an unfolding of that creature’s nature. Do you recognize some of Aristotle's ideas in this?

 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. This is an important philosophical concept in ethics. It leads to the natural law and social contract philosophy of the Enlightenment, which is the basis for the American Constitution. Humans too are governed by these natural laws which the Stoics began to consider being the basis for all human laws as well. In other words, human laws had to be in keeping with natural laws. Or, put a different way, people have a right to live a natural human life without anyone interfering with that. This idea is huge because it says that people have rights, which are bigger than all laws. Did Socrates have any rights? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Ancient Greeks lacked this concept. The most basic of these natural laws involved the right to live and to be free. It's really simple. People, because of the kind of beings they are, have a right to defend themselves against anyone who wants to kill or to enslave them. The Stoics said this was the basis of all law, and it answers the question that Socrates death raised: who says what the law is? The answer for the Stoics was, all human law comes from nature, and must be consistent with nature. We're going to see this idea again later, because it is the foundation for our own Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Students have no problem understanding the concept of their own rights. Try to refocus them on the idea of natural rights and if there is such a thing.

Ethics Workbook I: World History, Chapter 5 Ancient China

Ethics Workbook I:

World History Chapter 5

 Ancient China

 Now we are going to trace the idea of virtues from Greece across the world to China, and learn about a famous philosopher named Confucius. Confucius lived even longer ago than Socrates and Aristotle, and he was a teacher who had a lot to say about right and wrong. Remember that eastern civilizations like Egypt stressed balance between humans and the world around them. People were not expected to control nature, but to live in harmony with it. Keep this idea constantly in mind. When Confucius was growing up, China was a dangerous and unpredictable country. It was very violent and governments were corrupt. Confucius was worried about how people could live safe and happy lives, and like Socrates and Aristotle, Confucius believed that good government was the key. Confucius loved formality, and what he called propriety. He believed that people should be polite to each other, and should be treated with respect. This rule was the most important rule people could live by. All human relationships had rules of propriety or a formal code of behavior that dictated the roles people must play. How a father should act toward his son, for example, or how a younger friend should behave toward an older friend were all mapped out by Confucius. To upset this would be to upset the balance of nature. This idea is very typically Eastern in its way of looking at life. Confucius’s ideas became very influential in China and all over Asia. He wrote a set of rules for people to live by that was supposed to result in a well ordered, stable and happy society. Let’s see if we can figure out, from some of Confucius's words, more about what he believed in and then compare his ideas with the ideas of Socrates and Aristotle. This will be a good way to better understand the society Confucius was trying to create, and to decide what we think about it. The duke asked Confucius about government. Confucius replied, “there is government, when the Prince is Prince, and the minister is minister; when the father is father, and the son is the son.” 

Here’s that part about roles that we just mentioned. Think about this idea. Do people play roles in life? How important is it to play the part you’re supposed to play? See if you can give an example. Students should as much as possible relate concepts to their real lives and discuss issues among themselves. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Here is more of what Confucius has to say:

A man asked the master what was the first thing to consider when establishing a government and the master replied, “names.” If names are not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth. If language be not in accordance with the truth, affairs. cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties … do not flourish. When proprieties do not flourish, punishments will not be properly given. When punishments are not properly given, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. 

Now here’s that part about formality and politeness. How important do you think it is to be polite and respectful? What good does it do? What about names? Is it important what people call each other? Obviously many openings for discussion will emerge. Follow the discussion wherever students take it. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. But that’s not all there is in this quote. There are definitely clues about the kind of government Confucius was thinking about, and also about his opinion of average people. Write a short statement telling what you can learn about Confucius from these lines. Confucius has no confidence in the masses and expects a hierarchical elite to govern. Students will respond to this. Try to relate this to our  society today.

 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Confucius’s view of the role of the people in government is certainly different from that of the ancient Greeks. Let’s look more carefully at some more of what Confucius had to say. Draw some conclusions from each of the following statements. Confucius said, “those who are born with the possession of knowledge are the highest class of people. Those who learn, and so readily get possession of knowledge are the next. Those who are dull and stupid, and yet can learn, are another class next to these. Those who are dull and stupid and do not learn; they are the lowest of the people.” The master said, “people may be made to follow a path of action, but they may not be made to understand it.” The relation between superiors and inferiors is like that between the wind and the grass; the grass must bend, when the wind blows across it. Confucius, Analects ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. From all of this you might conclude that Confucius believed that government must rely on raw power to maintain order. But this is too simple. Remember, Confucius was a great philosopher who studied right and wrong, and he was seeking a lasting way for all people to be happy. If you believe, as Confucius did, that people are vastly unequal in all respects, what sort of system do you think would promote peace and harmony? See if you can predict Confucius’s answer. A man asked about government and the master said, “the requisites of government are that there be enough food, enough military equipment, and the confidence of the people in their ruler.” The man said: “if it cannot be helped and one of these must be lost, which of the three should be given up first?” “The military equipment,” said the master. The man asked again, “if it cannot be helped, and one of the remaining two must be lost, which of them should be given up?” The master said, “part with the food. People die; but if the people have no faith in their rulers, the state itself will die.” Ethics Workbook I ©Anthony Tiatorio 1999 32 Confucius, Analects ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Knowing what you do about Confucius’s view of average people, why do you think he believed that the ruler needed their approval? Think about the eastern way of looking at things. Everyone has a place in society and everyone should be happy in it. Discord will lead to conflict and a breakdown of harmony. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Confucius believed that certain superior people should lead society by example. They should serve in government, and provide the leadership society needs. To be successful these superior people must be virtuous, and act with propriety. The master said, “he who exercises government by means of his virtue may be compared to the North Pole Star, which keeps its place and all the stars turn towards it.” Confucius, Analects What virtue do you think Confucius saw in this kind of behavior? Steadfast adherence to one’s duty. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. There are three principles of conduct which the man of high rank should follow: that in his words and actions he keep from violence; and he be sincere; and that he avoid bad language. Confucius, Analects How important is it for government officials to set a good example? What about other role models like athletes and entertainers, do they have any influence? Do you agree with Confucius that people are generally molded by what they see and hear? This is obviously a rich invitation to discussion. Try to avoid following the same strategy. For example, reports on heros and role models might work here.

 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. The Master said, ‘if the people be led by laws, which rely on punishments, they will try to avoid the punishments, but have no sense of shame.” If they be led by virtue, and by the rules of propriety, they will have the sense of shame, and moreover will become good. 

The superior people display great virtues and lead by example. This sounds a lot like Aristotle doesn’t it? Read each of the following quotes from Confucius and explain why you think Socrates or Aristotle would agree or disagree. Treat this like a test. Be as specific as you can. Try to quote something directly from Socrates or Aristotle in your answer. The master said, “perfect virtue is according to the constant mean!” Confucius, Analects Who does this sound like? Remember, be specific. This coincides perfectly with Aristotle’s concept of the Golden Mean. Students should be expected to support generalizations with specific evidence and quotes from the readings. The master said, “by nature, men are nearly alike; by practice, they get to be wide apart.” Confucius, Analects What would Aristotle say? Again this is very much in keeping with Aristotle’s view that ethics is learned through practice and ingrained into habit. “What is called a great minister, is one who serves his prince according to what is right, and when he finds he cannot do so, retires.” Confucius, Analects Does this sound like Socrates? What do you think? This corresponds well to Socrates conclusion that he must obey the law or get out of the society. Chinese Tales Folk stories, tales and fables are a way to teach moral lessons. You already read some fables from ancient Greece by Aesop. See if you can figure out the message in the following tales from ancient China. That’s True Two men who had been arguing asked Confucius to settle the dispute. 

 “We disagree about whether the sun is closer to us at dawn or at noon. I say the sun is nearer to us at dawn,” one man said, “because when it comes up over the horizon it's much bigger than it is when it's overhead at noon. Everyone knows that a thing looks smaller when it’s further away.” “True” said Confucius. “Wait a minute,” the other man said, “I say its closer at noon because when it first comes up, at dawn, it's cool compared to how hot it is at noon. Everyone knows a hot object feels hotter when you get closer to it.” “That's true too” said Confucius. “I guess I can't help you with this.” Liezi, rewritten To get the right answer you must ask the right question. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. A Perfect Fit A man needed a new pair of shoes and wanted them to fit perfectly, so he measured his feet very carefully. Writing down the length, width, height and circumference. He even checked his arch and the distance between his ankle and his heel. Later that day when he stopped at the shoe store to buy the shoes he realized that he had forgotten the paper with the measurements on it. “I can't buy shoes today,” he told of the shoemaker. “How will I know if they will fit?” “Why don't you try them on?” the shoemaker said. “I wouldn't dare trust that!” the man answered. Hanfeizi, rewritten Don’t make things overly complicated. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Ethics Workbook I ©Anthony Tiatorio 1999

Ethics Workbook I: Chapter Four The Ancient Greeks

Ethics workbook I:

World History Chapter Four

The Ancient Greeks

 You have already learned that the ancient Greeks gave birth to the idea of democracy. They believed that a vote of the people was the best way to make and to enforce the laws. While we saw that earlier civilizations had kings like Hammurabi to hand down laws, and used judges to decide cases, the Greeks introduced juries who voted by majority rule. This was an important change, and an improvement for most people. The Greeks believed that right and wrong were basically what the majority of people thought were right and wrong. This idea is called a group ethic, and it is still a big part of ethical thinking today. We’re going to look carefully at both the up and the down side of this. One of the most famous Greeks was Socrates. Socrates was a teacher who lived in Athens during the height of Greek civilization. He had ideas and opinions with which the majority of Athenians disagreed, and he was accused of trying to overthrow the government by promoting his views with the young students of the city. Socrates was convicted by a jury and ordered to drink a cup of poison and die. One of Socrates students was Plato. Plato wrote a famous account of the death of Socrates. His account was written as a kind of skit in which he tells what people said to each other. In order to make this conversation easier to understand it has been shortened and simplified. There are two characters in the play: Socrates and his friend Crito. First we’ll read, or act out, the play and then we’ll discuss some of the important ideas in it. Scene: A prison cell While Socrates waits for the hour of his execution, his good friend Crito visits him. Socrates: Why have you come so early Crito? What time is it anyway? 

Crito: It’s after sunrise.

Socrates: It’s a wonder that they let you in. Why didn’t you wake me up? 

Crito: I was amazed at how peacefully you were sleeping, considering that you’ve been sentenced to death. 

Socrates: At my age dying doesn’t seem so bad. Why did you come Crito? 

Crito: I came to convince you to take my advice and escape from here while you can. If you won’t do it for yourself then do it for me. If you die I will lose my best friend, and people will blame me for not saving you. 

Socrates: Why should you care what people think or say? 

Crito: You should know why best of anyone Socrates since it was the opinion of the majority that condemned you to die. And if you’re worried that your friends will get into trouble by helping you, forget it. We’ll have no problem paying off the right people. Just say the word and we’ll smuggle you off to where you’ll be safe. Listen to me Socrates, you can’t betray your friends, and your children and yourself by letting yourself die when you could so easily get away. 

Socrates: You’re a good friend Crito, but I don’t see it the way you do. I don’t care about the opinion of the majority, even if they can kill me. 

Crito: But isn’t that the point Socrates? 

Socrates: Maybe so but that can’t be the reason why I escape. I must know I am right in escaping. Will you help me think it through Crito? 

Crito: I’ll try. Socrates: Would you agree with me when I say that we should do no wrong? 

Crito: Yes, of course. 

Socrates: If someone injures us should we try to injure him or her back? 

Crito: No. 

Socrates: Then we shouldn’t try to pay evil back with evil? 

Crito: No. 

Socrates: Well we agree on everything so far. But that’s not what most people would say is it? 

Crito: True. 

Socrates: Well then, it seems we shouldn’t do what people want but what we hold to be right. Would you agree with that my friend? 

Crito: Yes, we should do what we think is right. Socrates: Then is it right for me to run away against the command of the law of Athens? 

Crito: I don’t know, I suppose it depends on if the law were just and the sentence fair, which you know they’re not. 

Socrates: Well what would be the result if people decided for themselves which laws to obey and which to disregard? 

Crito: But the sentence is still unjust. 

Socrates: All right then what about our rule that it’s wrong to pay back evil with more evil? Would you want me to destroy my country to get revenge? Besides, when I agreed to live here in Athens and benefit from its laws I also agreed to abide by those laws. I have clearly made a pact with the laws of Athens and I can't go back on my pledge. I will obey the law and I will gladly accept my fate. 

Crito was speechless. 

As the fateful moment neared, other friends arrived to be with Socrates at the end. Suddenly the jailer appeared carrying a cup of deadly poison. He handed it to Socrates who calmly drank it. His friends began to cry, and Socrates asked them to be quiet and let him die in peace. Socrates walked about until his legs began to fail and then he lay on his back. The man who gave him the poison pressed his foot hard and asked him if he could feel; he said no and the man said that when the poison reached the heart he would be dead. 

Socrates: Crito, I owe a chicken to Ascelpius, will you remember to pay the debt? 

Crito: The debt will be paid. Is there anything else?

There was no answer to this question. 

Let’s think about and discuss some of the ideas in this play. First of all, do friends owe friends something? Is Crito right to worry that people expect him to help Socrates?

Socrates says it’s wrong to retaliate against someone who does you wrong. Compare this with Hammurabi’s Code or the Old Testament where “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” were the rule. Why is it natural to believe in the need to pay back equally for what you receive, good for good and bad for bad? 

What happens if you don’t fight back against someone who hurts you? What if you never repay your friends for being loyal? But why does Socrates disagree with this?

The ideas of equality and reciprocity are very basic in the history of ethical thinking, and show up in a myriad of ways. They form the basic theme of this study of ethics, and as such should be kept constantly in mind as a readily comprehendible start for sound ethical decision making. What is a feud or a vendetta? How does this kind of behavior lead to a never-ending cycle? What examples of feuds can you give? According to Socrates how do you break out of the feud-revenge cycle?

Is it ever right to disobey the law? Socrates says no. Can you state his reasons in your own words? Do you agree? 

There is of course considerable opportunity here to pursue the idea of resistance to wrong through civil disobedience. Socrates makes a big point of keeping his word and meeting his obligations. Why does he think this is so important? What do you think about keeping one’s word and meeting one’s obligations? 

It is important to constantly challenge students to give reasons for their conclusions. Remember also that students have little difficulty understanding their own rights, it’s recognizing their responsibilities to others that needs work. 

We have studied a little about how ideas about right and wrong have developed in history, and how the idea of law has become established as a way for societies to enforce rules. At first a god or a king handed down these laws. The people had little or nothing to say about them. The Greeks decided that these laws should be made by the citizens of the state through the process of majority rule. This was a big advancement. For the Greeks, these laws were always right and moral because their definition of moral was anything the people customarily believed in or did. In other words the Greeks believed that their laws were right, no matter what. This may seem hard to understand, but it’s important. In fact, this is one of the big points Socrates was making. He believes that the law has a right to execute him, even if he’s not guilty. See if you can state in your own words why you think Socrates believed that he had to obey the law, even when the law was unjust. 

Socrates believed that for the law to work people had to freely agree to obey it, even when not coerced. It was a fair and equal bargain a citizen struck with the law because the citizen received security and prosperity from it by being freed from lawless violence. Again there is a quid pro quo involving equality and reciprocity. If he chose to disobey it he would encourage others to do the same and thereby undermine the authority of the law. Socrates also opened the door to questioning the law, and to following one’s own conscience, if it could be done without breaking the law. Another great Greek philosopher named Aristotle will take this idea a bit further. But before we get to him, let’s look again at the traditional Greek idea about morality. Remember we said that for the Greeks right was whatever the majority said was right. We named this idea a group ethic. Think about this, and prepare for a discussion. How good an idea is this? What are its strengths? What are its drawbacks? 

Obviously the drawbacks come for the minority. The Greeks never recognized this problem. Socrates says a lot about telling the truth, keeping your word, and being loyal to your friends. Most of us would agree that these are good to do. But why? First let’s figure out how the Greeks would answer this, and then we’ll give our own view. Greeks loved to tell stories. Most Greek stories had a moral or ethical point to them that the Greeks thought was important to understand, and to discuss. The story was intended to get people, particularly students, thinking and talking. One famous Greek storyteller was a man named Aesop who made up stories about animals that acted like humans. This kind of a story is called a fable. Next we’re going to read, or listen to, some of these, and see what the moral lesson is. That part will be easy. Then we’ll try to figure out why the Greeks believed it. That will be harder. The Fox and the Rooster rewritten As a hungry Fox trotted into a clearing in the woods, he spotted a rooster perched on a high tree branch. Thinking of a tasty meal, the Fox called to the bird and said “Hello friend rooster have you heard the good news?” “No” said of the rooster “What is it?” “All the animals have made a peace treaty, and have promised never to hurt each other again.” “What” said the rooster, “That's great!” “Why don't you come down and celebrate with me?” asked the Fox. Just then the Fox noticed that the rooster seemed to be looking intently off into the distance and asked: “What are you looking at?” “Nothing much,” answered the sly rooster, “only a pack of hounds running this way very fast.” “Oh no!” said the fox suddenly, “I just remembered something important and I have to go!” Ethics Workbook I ©Anthony Tiatorio 1999 24 “Why in such a rush friend fox” said the rooster mockingly, “we'll tell them about the new peace treaty, and you'll be safe, you'll see. “ But the fox ran as fast as he could and never looked back. This story is obviously about lying, and what lying leads to. In what ways does this story show the same reasoning as Socrates used to explain why he wouldn’t break the laws of Athens? 

By obeying the laws people were freed from the endless violence of the revenge cycle. People will seek equality and will act reciprocally. Aesop is saying the same thing. If people expect to be lied to, everyone will lie. 

The Lion and the Mouse rewritten One day a lion was sleeping soundly in his lair when a little mouse came along and thought he would have some fun. The mouse climbed up the lion's mane and danced on the lion’s nose. As the big beast snored, his mouth opened and closed, and the mouse delighted in jumping back and forth across the dangerous gap. The happy little mouse didn’t noticed the lion’s eye slowly open until he suddenly felt the huge teeth tighten around his little body. “Please don't kill me.” pleaded the pitiful mouse. “If you let me go I'll never forget you and someday I will repay you.” The lion was amused by the thought of this tiny mouse helping him, the king of beasts, but he admired the little animal’s courage and gently put him down. “You may go friend mouse, but next time be more careful where you play.” Many years later when the lion was old and walking slowly in the forest, he was caught in a net some hunters had set up. The lion struggled all night with the thick ropes but couldn't get free, and as morning came he smelled the approaching hunters. Thinking he was doomed, the lion roared a mighty roar. Nearby, that very same mouse heard him roar and came running. “Here's my chance!” thought the mouse as his sharp teeth gnawed through the thick strands of rope. Soon the lion was free, and the smiling mouse watched him disappear into the forest. Write a short essay about this story. What was the lesson Aesop hoped people would take from it. There’s more to the story than you might at first think. Try to get everything possible out of it.

This story is of course about reciprocity, keeping your word and meeting your obligations. But also note that the lion did not free the mouse because he expected to be paid back later, but only because he felt compassion for the mouse. The mouse is happy just to see the lion free and expects nothing more. It’s important to begin to think about reasons why people do good for others that go beyond self interest. 

An important Greek philosopher named Aristotle added some new thoughts about how to know what is right and wrong. He actually wrote a book about it, and we’re going to read some of it later. But since it’s very long and difficult to understand, we’ll start with a simplified summary of his key ideas. 

Aristotle believed that every living thing wanted to be happy, and tried to do things which would lead to happiness. 

Aristotle thought it was good to do this, and, in the case of animals, it was basically all they did do. For example: a hungry lion tries to kill a gazelle and the gazelle tries to run away. This is good no matter how it turns out because it represents the natural way of these animals. Animals actually can’t do wrong because they are ruled by instincts and don’t really make choices about what they do. A good lion is good at killing gazelles, while a good gazelle is good at escaping lions. 

It’s different for people. People are ruled by reason, and they do make choices. What makes them human is this fact. Humans are above animals because they can control their emotions and instincts, and decide logically what to do. 

Aristotle believed that this was what made us human, and to be a good human you had to be good at it. Aristotle based his ethical ideas more on doing what was right rather than not doing what was wrong. 

He believed that to be good was the same as being excellent at what ever you are supposed to be excellent at, something like the lion and the gazelle.

 For example: if you are a good athlete you are skilled and successful in contests. If you are a good doctor you cure your patient’s illness. But this was only part of it for people. People also must be good human beings. This means that people must exercise the characteristic which sets them above animals. That means being governed by reason, and  not by instincts or emotions. 

When you do this, Aristotle said, you avoid the extremes of behavior and act in a moderate way. Aristotle believed that it was the extremes of behavior that were bad, and the middle choice was good. He called this kind of behavior a virtue. 

Everyone should learn to live by virtues. Only humans can achieve virtues because humans alone can choose what they do. In other words, being virtuous is being truly human. Neat argument isn’t it? Here’s an example of how it works: Aristotle says that courage is a human virtue because it is midway between the extremes of behavior that a human could choose when faced with danger. At one extreme a person could be fool hardy and daring at the other extreme a person could be cowardly. These two extremes are bad. The person should choose the middle and be courageous. Being courageous is a virtue. 

For Aristotle being good means living according to all of the human virtues. Generosity is another virtue Aristotle thought good people possess. 

Try to think of the bad behaviors at both ends of this scale. Think of some other virtues you think are good for humans to possess and what the extremes might be for them. 

One last point about virtues before we move on. Aristotle believed that these virtues were learned through doing them over and over until they became a habit. People learn as children to do the right thing, and they could just as easily learn to do the wrong things. Upbringing and education were critical for Aristotle. What do you think? Do children learn to do good or bad by making habits that are hard to break? Write down your thoughts in the space below and prepare for a general discussion of this. 

The more students personalize this study the more impact it will have on their thinking and ultimately on their behavior. 

Let’s review briefly: See if you can figure out what’s new and different about Aristotle’s idea of what makes something right and wrong. 

Hebrews: The God you believe in tells you what’s right. 

Hammurabi: The ruler of your country tells you what’s right. 

Socrates: The majority of citizen’s in your country tell you what’s right. 

Aristotle:There’s a natural human law that determines what’s right. This is the first basis for a universal system of ethical standards. 

One of Aristotle’s most important human virtues was friendship. His view of what real friendship is adds another big idea to our understanding of ethics. 

Read from his book on ethics how important friends are to Aristotle. Friendship is a virtue that is necessary for life itself. No one can live without friends, even money, power and fame cannot replace having friends. In fact, the rich and powerful need friends most of all. 

Nicomachean Ethics Book 8, Chapter 1 rewritten and simplified 

Do you agree? Why do you think Aristotle thought having friends was so important? Write a thoughtful essay in the space below about what friends mean to you? Tell what you think true friendship is. 

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 

Students should respond richly to this. Endless openings will emerge to direct discussion to key ethical concepts. 

Let’s see if you agree with Aristotle about friendship. Aristotle says there are three kinds of friendship. 

One is true and lasting and the other two are false and fleeting. One of the false friendships is based on utility, or the idea of usefulness. People become friends in order to get something useful from each other. They sort of provide each other with a service. For example, a person without a car might become a friend with a person who had a car but needed money for gas. This kind of friendship lasts only as long as it provides usefulness. Aristotle says old people often make this kind of friendship. The second false friendship is based on pleasure. Two people become friends because they have fun together. For example, two people both like to swim, so they become friends and go to the beach together. Again this friendship lasts only as long as the fun lasts. Aristotle said young people fall into this kind of false friendship. True friendship is lasting and is not based on what you personally get out of it but on what your friend gets. One friend is rewarded by seeing the other friend happy. Sounds great, but how can it happen? Well, Aristotle says it can’t unless the two people can really identify with each other and for this to happen certain conditions must be met. Let’s see if we can understand his reasoning, and if we agree with his conclusions, by reading some more of his book. We’ve condensed and reorganized it a little, and simplified some of the words to make it easier to understand. Perfect friendship happens between people who are good and alike in their virtue. People who wish their friends well for their sake, and not because they themselves will get something out of it, are the truest friends.