Dappled Things | Home

Dappled Things | Home

"The Athenian Bowling League"

On page twelve, there is a paragraph about the "Athenian Bowling League." I understand what you are saying, that no matter who one is, the only thing that matters to the bowling league it that fact that you are a bowler. I would have to disagree. The society may have been created for bowlers to get together and play the game, but the league is affected by its members, who are people with other things in their lives that affect them other than bowling. When someone joins the league, they are probably not going to completely erase their personality and simply become a bowler while they are with the group. They remain the same person, which does affect the other members, and essentially, the league.

Also, on page six, what was the "disturbing abuse" of the Spartans to the natives? Weren't the Spartans the natives?

Teachers

In the second paragraph on page 16, you state that the teachers should be the ones teaching, not the law, but since the law controls the teachers they actually are the ones teaching. However, you leave out a few key points. For example, you are solely discussing schools. Yet there are many different ways and places to teach.
One of the left out ideas is homeschooling, the grounds of this being the parent teaching their children. Therefore, the parent can guide the child to grow up in the way the parent believes is best. This method leaves the law behind, and allows the parent (teacher) the reigns in the development in the children.
The second idea is in a different definition of teacher. A teacher can be one who shows a child new things and, in the case you are trying to make, gives the child room to think and ask questions. A person like this could be anyone. Not only a teacher of school or a parent, but a sibling or friend, or a parent’s friend. I have learned much not only through my mother and teachers, but through my friend’s parents, my sisters, my coaches, and my friends themselves. None of these people are controlled much by the law.
Overall, the point you make is true in the light you show it in. When you branch out, there are many different options for the role of a teacher in accordance with the law.

Grief or Pleasure

In chapter 13, at the beginning of the fifth paragraph, it says, "Againe, men have no pleasure, (but on the contrary and great deale of griefe) in keeping company, where there is no power able to over-awe the all. For every man looketh that his companion should value him at the same rate he sets upon himself..."

I do not see how man may have no pleasure being with each other if there is not a person ruling over them, for that is what I gather from the first part of this paragraph. I how ever can not agree with this, as will most people. Humans are very social and enjoy others company. Some people ( teenagers for example) do not like it when there is a power over them while they are with friends. They enjoy the freedom of not being restricted and doing things with their peers.

However, I do agree with the point that he makes in the end. Everyone whats to be valued by who they really are. Or at least how they think they are. But this can go to ways. One can thing they are more important than they really are, or less important. These both can be bad for you, but people seem to enjoy that, which is the point Hobbes is trying to make.

Liberty and Dominion

In chapter 17, in the first paragraph, it says, "The finall Cause , End, or Designe of men, (who naturally love Liberty, and Dominion over others,) in the introduction of that restraint upon themselves, (in which we see them live in Common-wealth's,) is the foresight of their own preservation, and and a more contented life thereby; that is to say, of getting themselves out of that miserable condition of Warre..."

Is Hobbes saying that men, "(who naturally love Liberty and Dominion over others)" always live in Common-wealth's (cities)? I'm pretty sure that village people also prefer liberty over slavery, and I'm also pretty sure that there were mastrers and slaves who lived in villages in Hobbes' time. I know that Aristotle says one can not be fully human without living in a city, but I think Hobbes has taken this to the next level. Only men (or women) in cities can love liberty and dominion over others? Those are two very human qualities which I don't think are restricted to the more philosophical society.

What comes with age?

In chapter 13, near the little 61 mark, Hobbes says, referring to intelligence and prudence, "I find yet a greater equality amongst men, than that of strength. For prudence, is but Experience; which equal time, equally bestows on all men, in those things they equally apply themselves to." I disagree with this. I have met many adults that have less prudence then some of my friends have. I have also met some teenagers who have less prudence than some of my 11-12 year old friends. So Hobbes can not say the prudence comes with years, because that is not always the case. Therefore, why would he say that?

No friends? How sad...

On page 129, chapter 17, Hobbes says, "And as small Families did then; so now do Cities and Kingdoms which are but greater Families (for their own security) enlarge their Dominions, upon all pretences of danger, and fear of Invasion, endeavor as much as they can, to subdue, or weaken their neighbors, by open force, and secret arts, for want of other Caution, justly; and are remembered for it in after ages with honour."

Whoa - is Hobbes saying that neighbors (being nearby cities of course) can only be enemies? Did he ever hear of a wonderful word called 'allies'?

Granted, many countries have hostile relationships. That's what war is all about. But, it's not always every country for themselves. Absolutely countless times, countries have teamed up to defeat their common enemy. Hey, sometimes countries even help other countries simply because they feel morally obligated. And countries have worked together tons of times, even if it wasn't for benefit of war. Trading between countries has been going on for thousands of years, way before Hobbes was born.

What is Hobbes talking about when he says, "...endeavor as much as they can, to subdue, or weaken their neighbors, by open force, and secret arts..."? He makes it sound like if you're not with the certain city or kingdom, then you have to be against them.

Hobbes wasn't a very trusting or optimistic guy, was he?

"Aristotle human"

Aristotle says, "For the whole must be of necessity be prior to the part; for if the whole [body] is destroyed there will not be a foot or a foot or a hand, unless in the sense that the term is similar (as when one speaks of a hand made of stone), but the thing itself will be defective. Everything is defined by itself and its power, and if it is no longer the same in these respects it should not be spoken of in the same way, but only as something similarly termed."

Aristotle is saying that without the body, the hand is not a hand. He continues on to say that humans without cities are not humans. If they can survive without cities, Aristotle says, then they are either beast or god.

I agree with Aristotle that a hand is not a hand without a body attached, but I think that a human can be human without a city. Monks aside, plenty of people prefer to be away from too many people. Some people like to live in the country, miles away from any city with only their close family, farm animals, and spaced out neighbors. Aristotle would count this establishment as a village, but plenty of people are perfectly happy with not living in a city and being an "Aristotle human."

~Hannah

Comments

By the way, I fixed it so only members of the blog can post comments. :D

Prior to Man Himself

Aristotle claims that, "The city is prior by nature to the household and to each of us. For the whole must of necessity be prior to the part: for if the whole [body] is destroyed there will not be a foot or a hand..." This statement is very confusing, therefore, I tried to understand it by breaking it down.

"The city is prior by nature to the household and to each of us." This mean the city naturally came before the household or even us. We must remember that we are not talking about a real city filled with houses, but a city by definition. One that is self-sufficient and with people who are living well and performing what they were made to do.

"For the whole must of necessity be prior to the part: for if the whole [body] is destroyed there will not be a foot or a hand." In other word, the city is the body and the households and villages are the hands and feet. No body, no feet. Therefore, all households and villages have sprung off of cities, slowly growing and become a city themselves.

What about the first city? That was the garden of Edan. God had provided Adam and Eve with everything they needed, making them self-sufficient, had given Adam Eve, making them living well, and they had time to do what man was supposed to do, love God and, according to Aristotle, think. After they were thrown out, they were still growing on their experiences, making them a hand to the body.

Overall, Aristotle was right when he said the City was prior to the household, and even humans, because of God and the Garden of Edan.

Slight Confusion

While reading the essay, I agreed with most of the topics and suggestions. Since these were the things we had previously discussed in class, I already had a thorough understanding of them. However, I was confused by the ninth paragraph. Although the main point, the love between a subject and his/her ruler, was clear in the beginning, I became lost in the middle with the strange transition. Instead of keeping to the story, it ran off into another field. Normally, this is fine for me, but the way it transitioned was startling. Starting with the rapid fire questions, then moving on to the long list of strange names, the paragraph befuddled me.

Nevertheless, I agree with the purpose of that paragraph. The difference between loyalty and love between a subject and his/her ruler was confused, not only in that time, but also in the story. It seemed to me that the daughters of Lear, excluding Cordelia for clarity, should have loved Lear more than his earls and dukes. However, it was the other way around. This subtle change of devotion caused a bigger rend that made the confusion in the play more severe.

Define: Lowest Point

In the essay, it states that Lear's lowest point is when Cordelia sees her father after he banishes her. He wakes up, after recovering from his madness and and the two talk. Lear is sad and apologetic, fully realizing that he has done Cordelia a great wrong and not expecting her forgiveness. He is a broken man with no home, no hope, and a past wrought with mistakes. But his daughter forgives him, renews their father/daughter bond and the Lear finally learns the true meaning of love.

Some people might argue that this is not Lear's lowest point. Lear's fit of madness and rage against the storm is arguably pretty low. He bellows at nature, curses his daughters, and slowly begins to slip into his crazed state of mind. Others might say that Lear is at his lowest in the beginning. Lear was the haughty, vain, self-absorbed king who only wanted to hear how much his daughters loved him. He saw love as a measurement of words, and not really as a feeling or emotion. This haughty ignorance is pretty low.

So it all depends on how one defines "lowest point." The essay suggested that his lowest point was his lowest emotional point. He was broken and miserable, and very sorry. Another low point was his physical low point. He was homeless and crazy. The third low point was his when he was so misguided. Although he may have felt fatherly affection for his daughters, he did not know the true meaning of love, and was still very wound up in his own image.


~Hannah

P.S. It was a really great essay, and I loved reading it! :)

Albany: The Good Guy?

Through out the beginning of the play, the Duke of Albany, Gonriel's wife, went along with everything she did. He had no complaint when she claimed her father was the only one who made her happy. He didn't even notice when Gonreil threw out her father, until, of course, it was too late.

Then, he suddenly protests about her mistreatment of her father. He refuses to help or even talk to her. When everyone comes together in the end scene, he tells Edgar, 'Let sorrow split my heart, if ever I did hate thee or thy father." Edgar then says, "Worthy Prince, I know 't"

Why was it so easy for Albany to gain back trust as a good guy?

Edgar = Hamlet? Mew?

While reading, I found striking similarities between Hamlet and Edgar. Both acted insane for a good portion of their respective plays, both were high ranking, and both had their demise plotted by a family member. Although there is the difference that Hamlet died and Edgar got control of England.

Also, the endings of the plays were similar in that most of the characters died in the end. Same with Romeo and Juliet. Were these tragedies more popular than uplifting comedies in Shakespeare's time?

And, althoug this isn't a question, I just though it very strange and humorous when, on page 134, "Marry, your manhood, mew!" Really? Mew? I have to say, that that line is now my favorite. :)

~Hannah

I'll call you...maybe...

On page 89, Kent tells the gentelman, "That way, I'll this--he that first lights on him, holla the other." In other words, "You go this way, I'll go that way. Whoever finds him (the king) first, call the other."

Now, as we can tell, Kent finds Lear first. So...when does he call the gentelman? He doesn't. He never bothers to call out for him. Did Sheaksphear just forget to write that part? Or did he purposfuly leave the gentelman out in the storm, for some other purpose?

S.S (Shakespeare's Stereotypes)

On page 118, Regan says to Gloucester, "So white, and such a traitor?" This is Shakespeare's way of questioning the fact that a person may be old (and with a white beard) but be traitorous.

This line is strikingly similar in meaning and structure to King Lear's lament on page 8, "So young, and so untender?" This, we decided, was Shakespeare questioning how a person could be young and cruel.

This is the first time I've noticed that Shakespeare has stereotypes. Does he have any other in other plays which I simply haven't noticed? Or perhaps prejudices like these only appear in King Lear?

~Hannah

He has the magic...umm...clothes?

In the play King Lear, the king appears to be a old man, with very poor priorities. He insists his daughters make glowing statements about how much they love him, demands to have 100 armed knights, and scorns anyone who does not give him exactly what he wants. This does not portray a good king, whom everyone loves.

However, even after he throws his daughter out and refuses to give her a dowry, yet she still loves him. And Kent, after receiving close to the same treatment, comes back to the king to serve him as a servant, instead of a Earl. How does such a awful man command such loyalty?

Um...what happened to Plan A?

In the beginning of the play King Lear says, "Which of you shall we say doth love us most that we our largest bounty extend," which would mean that whoever loves the king the most, he shall give the largest plot of land to. But then, after the King's first daughter speaks, Lear gives away the first plot of land immediately. Wait - shouldn't he listen to all of the sisters before deciding which one spoke most lovingly? After all, the other's didn't even get a chance to speak. Instead he simply gives away a plot of land when the daughter pleases him, which is not what he said originally...when did he switch to plan B?

Also, in the quote above, King Lear says, "Which of you shall we say doth love us the most.." We? Us? Is there more than one King Lear, or perhaps is he speaking about his court and kingdom?

~Hannah

Help, I've been killed!

I have seen Hamlet performed twice, but have not noticed this particular line and how it worked for the actors. Bizarrely, in Act 3 scene 4 page 111, after Hamlet discovers a man, Polonius, is hiding behind the tapestry and listening in to his conversation with his mother, he draws his sword and says, "How now! A rat? Dead, for a ducat, dead!" Stage directions say, "he kills Polonius with a pass through the arras." Then, surprisingly, Polonius exclaims, "O, I am slain!"

Not only am I confused on the possibility of someone exclaiming, "O, I'm dead," I also know that would be a tricky scene to accomplish on stage. After all, it real life when we are fatally struck through with a sword ... those would not be the words that would come to mind. 

Hamlet and the Gravedigger

When Hamlet and Horatio first see the gravedigger, Hamlet talks about how the skulls the gravedigger is throwing up could have been wordy politicians or suck-up nobles, and how now, they are being tossed around with a shovel. The message that he sends is that death makes all equal.

But when the two speak with the gravedigger, who plays with their words, Hamlet quips, "...By the Lord, Horatio, this three years I have took note of it: the age has grown so picked that the toe of the peasant comes so near the heel of the courtier, he galls his kibe."

I was rather confused by what Hamlet meant, so I went to No Fear, which says, "...Lord Horatio, I've been noticing this for a few year now. The peasants have become so clever and witty they are nipping at the heels of the noblemen."

Hamlet is looking down at the gravedigger, and marking the difference in their ranks, and his lines sound like he is amused that the gravedigger should speak so boldly. This air of supremacy is not what I received from Hamlet a few lines ago, when he was pondering about death and how all men are equal in it.

Why the sudden change between philosophical Hamlet who is poking fun at the self-assumed airs of royalty of nobles, to a Hamlet, amused that a peasant should talk back to him? Could he be threatened by the fact that there is less and less difference between the classes?