Whereas Aristophanes takes a humorous look at philosophy by lampooning Socrates, Plato evidences the classic Socratic approach to philosophy as he considers the true nature of piety. Does Aristophanes's humor still ring true today? Who is he most poking fun at? On the other hand, why might it be important to consider the nature of piety? Are we, as a culture, as unreflective as Euthyphro in this regard? Tell us what you think.
5 comments:
I think Aristophanes’s humor still rings true today. It is so typical for people to be like Strepsiades. The only reason Strepsiades wants to be taught by Socrates is because he wants an easy way out of his debt. He was even so lazy he eventually forced his son, Pheidippides, to be taught by Socrates (which eventually backfired). In America there are so many Strepsiades’. People want to get ahead by obtaining the least amount of knowledge possible. I can’t neglect to mention Dr. Kramer’s lecture last year on Tocqueville and the American culture. I guess there were always people like that. I would also put Euthyphro in this category. He considered what he heard on the streets about the gods and piety to be true. Aristophanes and Plato both have a similar point about people and their laziness. People actually strive to be ignorant. They believe the less they have to work the better. They are in such a rush to feel temporary pleasures that they don’t take time to ponder more important things. I believe this is a great introduction to this class.
I think Aristophanes' humor definitely still rings true today. People are constantly striving, like Strepsiades, to find a quick fix for their problems. They are no longer concerned with gaining wisdom for the sake of wisdom or knowledge, but to solve problems as they arise. As long as they obtain the knowledge for what they need at that time, they are not concerned with building up knowledge. While Aristophanes could very well be poking fun at the general public for their laziness, it is resonable to suggest that he could be poking fun at intellectuals like Socrates. For instance, when we are first introduced to Socrates, he is concerned with how many feet a flea could jump, and whether a gnat generates noise via its mouth or its anus. This seems a bit trivial for someone is supposedly teaches the art of arguing. Aren't there other more important issues to be discussed? Why waste time with these?
The laws of society tend to mirror the moral code defined by religion. If perception of whats pious is where our laws come from, by understanding the nature of piety, we are better able to understand where our laws and customs come from. While we are aware of what piety means in our society, we are just as unreflective as Euthyphro.
It is important to consider whether an understanding of piety is derived solely from the traditions or accepted practices of a particular group or if the traditions of that group are derived from the true nature of piety that supersedes them. Aristophanes shows us that the most educated men of his time were only concerned with winning intellectual debates, and not with discovering truths. He may have misunderstood Socrates’ positions on many issues, but he does none-the-less expose an ugly side in people, which is that people fear most what they cannot understand, and will drive out the purveyors of enlightenment at all costs to maintain an ignorant state of comfortable mass conformism. Examples: 1.) Strepsiades burning the house of Socrates, and 2.) Euthypro, once dumbfounded by Socrates’ insights, leaving the scene of the dialogue.
Socrates is most noted for challenging the status quo, not by making particular claims of any kind, but by forcing others to engage their reason in searching for the truth. The Athenians believed (although they themselves did not realize it) that the only truth was that which was most accepted. In other words, that “truth” is actually based on the approval of a group of “enlightened” or “educated” people, as if it were some how not true before they decided to agree upon its terms. Is it possible that the Athenian interpretation of knowledge has a direct correlation to the concept of democracy that they were so fond of? Few people doubt that democracy, as a concept is not beneficial to a society in that it provides that which is most beneficial to the largest number of people. But what happens when the people themselves seek that which is harmful? Is it not true that democracy serves the very opposite purpose of its intention? The Athenians call the replacing of values with that which is pleasant, accepted, or intellectually well argued, “making the weaker speech the stronger.” Alexis De Tocqueville refers to this phenomenon in the 19th century as “tyranny of the majority.” In relation to Ben Healey’s statement about seeking temporary pleasures without thinking about that which is important or everlasting, I offer the following from Jean Jacque Rousseau’s Second Discourse on the Origins of Inequality Among Men.
“Sociable man, always outside himself, is capable of living only in the opinion of others and, so to speak, derives the sentiment of his own existence solely from their judgment.”
Rousseau is examining the tendency of man to blindly seek the acceptance of his peers, even if it requires him (and most often does) to abandon his morals in favor of convention, or money. He continues in the following paragraph by pointing out the danger in accepting appearances as truths.
“How everything being reduced to appearances, everything becomes factitious and play-acting: honor, friendship, virtue, and often even vices which one at length discovers the secret of glorying; how, in a word, forever asking of others what we are without ever daring ask it of ourselves, in the midst of so much Philosophy, humanity, politeness, and Sublime maxims, we have nothing more than a deceiving and frivolous exterior, honor without virtue, reason without wisdom, and pleasure without happiness.” (Second Discourse, Part II, 193)
Strepsiades failed to see that by learning to speak well in court about his debt problems could never solve him of the habits that put him in debt in the first place. He seeks only to change his appearance in relation to the opinions of others, not to become truly wise.
I definitely think that the humor in Clouds is still recognized today. One thing I found especially interesting about the play though is how he made a point to say how his humor wasn't all raunchy or dirty, but instead intellectual. Reading the play though, it was clear that a signifigant portion of the humor came from sexual innuendos and slapstick, which made me wonder, was he being sarcastic in his earlier comments?
The thing that hung me up about Euthyphro was part of Euthyphro's different comments on what pious behavior. He first says that it is behavior that pleases the Gods, which I think matches our idea of piety today. We probably don't think that prosecuting someone has anything to do with piety at all though, and instead is something that involves prayer and going to church. The fact that Euthyphro says that all behaviors are either pious or impious makes me wonder a bit if that really should be the word we are using for the translation. Perhaps years ago it worked, but I think in this secular era we are now in, perhaps justice, fairness, or perhaps even correct.
I found Aristophanes’ “Clouds” and Plato’s “Euthyphro” to be complex enough to want to read them each a second time. A common theme I found is that in each book, there is a character who wants to gain knowledge, wisdom, etc. when they are on the verge of being indicted. Socrates wants to gain knowledge about piety from Euthyphro right before Socrates is about to enter court and be charged with corrupting the minds of his young students. In “Clouds” Strepsiades wants to gain wisdom in order to evade creditors in court after his son has brought numerous debts through horse-racing. Socrates turns to Euthyphro to help him understand piety in order to escape indictment. Strepsiades turns to Socrates and his school to teach him and his son ways to win an argument against creditors. I found it interesting that even back in the time of Socrates, people were still avoiding education until it serves some immediate purpose. In Strepsiades’ case, he waits until he has legal trouble before attending Socrates’ school which was right next door to him. My point is that even today, people have lost their interest in gaining knowledge and wisdom simply for the joy of learning. Instead most will manipulate education into winning arguments for their personal gains.
Post a Comment