Thinking on Love, Comedy, and Half-Oranges

Tags

Aristophanes, comedy, Half-Oranges, Human Nature, humanity, Life, love, nature, philosophy, Plato, the clouds, the symposium, zeus

Ah, love. A complicated thing indeed. In Spain, we have a saying, “your loved one is your half-orange.” In English, we tend to say similar things like “your love is your other half.” An interesting expression, whether a simple half is meant or an orange does not matter much, but does say something awesome about our natures. ‘Why?’ You ask. Well, in Spanish, the expression takes on a more vivid connotation. Let me show you. Have you ever wondered where the expression came from? Well, Aristophanes, king of comedy in Ancient Greece, supposedly once told a story prevalent in his time about Zeus, humans, and love. The pun at the end of the story is written thus:

ὁ ἔρως… ἰὰσασθαι τὴν φύσιν τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην.
Love… [is] what cures humanity’s nature.
El amor… es la cura de la naturaleza humana.

The famous playwright who puts down Socrates in his comedic play Clouds, adds this at the end of his narrative to illustrate how love can cure our worst traits. It is a rare dramatic ending to an otherwise happy-go-lucky writer (I like to compare Aristophanes to Robin Williams), but that should not be overlooked. Aristophanes tells this story, as mentioned above, during his participation in the Symposium of Plato; something we should definitely consider with a grain of salt since Plato, arguably Socrates’ favorite follower, is the one reporting on what the artist had said; although there is very little evidence that Plato and Aristophanes had any personal problems, so we don’t need to be too careful. An analysis of the story may give us some insight into the overall feeling of the tale.

Let us place Clouds aside (written seven years before the Symposium). Aristophanes makes a well presented speech, albeit comedic in nature, and which speaks to the power of a united humanity. Our comedian stipulates that love is the product of the cutting-in-half of three tribes of powerful humans who dared to challenge the gods. The Immortals, seeking to avoid an upcoming human rebellion but unable to kill them because they needed their praises, are at a loss about what to do. Zeus finally decides that he will cut this powerful human beings (who at this time have four arms, four legs and two heads) in half. The three tribes are the man/man, woman/woman and man/woman (androgynous) tribes.

The man/man tribe. They were reputed for being amazing fighters. Interestingly, the Theban Sacred Band, officially formed only thirty years after the Symposium, is composed of a 150 male homosexual couples, actually married, because they were thought to fight at their best if their lover was with them. The Theban Sacred band defeated the Spartans, ending the city’s control over Greece, in 371 BCE.

The tribes’ power stemmed from their ability to roll over anything and everything, because they are round by nature. This rolling motion (like rolling with the punches) makes humanity practically invincible, even to the gods! Zeus realizes that by separating the three tribes from their halves, they will soon stop cooperating and become weaker, unable to roll (over things or punches) while still being subservient to him, killing two birds with one stone or, in this case, separating two birds with a kitchen knife. Well, the cuts are made and everyone is told to go about their lives divided; however, the halves want each other back badly. The longer they are separated, the more they long for each other. Halves, wandering the world, seek their actual halves desperately, something which is still going on today, according to the comedian. Aristophanes points out that the more numerous tribe is the androgynous one, hence the attraction between men and women as the most common in humanity. The less common tribes, man/man, women/women, also seek each other and are the origin, according to our dear playwright, of homosexual relationships.

Having explained the origins of sexuality and attraction thus, the playwright goes on to state the natural man (‘man’ meaning humanity) was like an animal, it just had relations with anything and everything, it did not matter what it was. The natural man was also uncivilized and unharnessed, subject to changes in mood and the powers of Nature (the goddess, who made humans uncivilized), hence the title Natural Man we see all over the place in religion and philosophy. The maxim we read above, written as a report of Aristophanes’ speech during his turn in the Symposium, was that only true love (the love of the spirit) could heal humanity’s natural wants and create relationships of standing and value which would never be corrupted. Real love keeps people honest and guides them towards the right companion, another half; it is a cure for everything we do wrong, it helps us strive for the good, seek those better than us, work harder, suffer more, complain less, be more patient, caring, understanding, seek knowledge, turn it into wisdom, and become a shining beacon for others. Love, argues Aristophanes, is the cure for everything that is wrong with humanity. I find this conclusion fascinating.

So, reader, when you think of your other half, think of oranges as well. Remember the power we used to have before Zeus divided us. Whoever you are, and whoever you love, that union should make you a better person. Rolling with the punches will be easier when you have someone to roll with, and life will be less powerful on a team than by yourself. But hey, you may be just half an orange and still be happy. Aristophanes did not say that we should first love ourselves; we definitely should. Unless you learn to love your own half, how can you love another half after all? Be a great half-orange, reader; and another half-orange will find you, eventually. If not, love and respect yourself; that is also quite alright!

Χαίρετε, Half-Oranges!

Advertisements

Thinking on Charity, Corinthians 13, and Bible Meanings

Tags

ancient greek, bible, caring, Charity, classical greek, Corinthians 13, love, philology, philosophy, religion, St. Paul

It is Greek Quote Wednesday, and I have found an oldie that serves as a newbie.

Once, someone asked me what I thought on Charity and the modern understanding of the word in our culture. This paper is my answer, in a few pages.

Charity is the Whole

Χαίρετε!

Thinking on Friendship, Wrong Roads, and Frogs

Tags

Aesop, ancient greek, fable, friendship, frogs, love, Roads, wrong roads

Good Monday to all of you, my friends. It is fable day, and Aesop takes us to a pond where two frogs are friends.

One frog is on the road, on a pretty big pothole filled with water. The other is away from the road, in a small marsh with little space. The frog on the marsh beckons the one on the road to come to it, for the road is filled with danger. The frog on the road said it was too lazy to move, for it had found a good place to be plus, it was small, what could possibly happen? Suddenly, a carriage passed by and run over the small frog sitting in its waterhole on the road. Aesop writers the moral:

Μὴ μέλλετε, ὦ ἄνθρωποι, ἐπει ἔχετε τρέπειν τὰ κακὰ εἰς καλὰ.
Do not pretend, ō men, while able to move, [that] the bad [is] good.
No pretendais, ō humanos, mientras que podáis moveros, que lo malo es bueno.

I think this fable, as most by Aesop, is absolutely hilarious. Clearly, the frog on the marsh can tell its buddy on the road is on a bad position, thus wants it to come over. However, the frog on the road is too lazy and too comfortable to even make the attempt. “μέλλετε” here is quite telling as it is an imperative (as is usual with Aesop’s morals) and a plural. “Do not you all,” says the writer “plan, pretend, intend;” the choice of the frog is a conscious one, that is why the verb for wishing while planning is used here. We are our own worst enemies, that much is clear, and we may find that we are in a precarious position but, unable to see the full picture, we remain unaware of danger. We must depend on our friends to help us see, as they stand outside of our circumstances, what possible danger we may encounter while in our current positions.

That is the beauty of friends, as Aesop would say; for they have the capability of seeing what we cannot. Sometimes, even as the frog saw the danger but thought itself too small to be squished, we think ourselves immune to the problems others have faced. It is at this moment that we must listen to those beyond our circumstances the most. In the end, despite our not being able to see beyond our nose, we will discover that those who are admonishing us are only trying to protect us from what they know is a danger to our physical of spiritual well-being.

As Aesop puts it, sometimes we have the capability to move and we still choose not to because we turn the bad into good. Let us remember the little frog and the road. We may one day realize that the voice inside our head is not that of a god far of or the nagging of a stranger up close, but the loving warning of a friend who, caring for us, is trying to lead us away from a dangerous road and into friendly marshes.

Thinking on The Symposium, Plato, and Socrates.

Tags

Agathon, love, philosophy, Plato, Socrates, the symposium, Truth

The Symposium, by Plato, is a road. A road that takes us down a country of thoughts, initiating us on a journey of ideas and concepts of love. When we arrive at the end of that road we arrive to a destination at which we have many pieces of a puzzle, but not a definite answer on that which we are seeking. What is love? Which of the speakers is right? We know one thing: The Symposium was written well after Socrates’ death. Plato, the agreed-upon writer, was bitter at the rubble of Athens for killing his master, and he thought of old Socrates as he wrote his mind into the pages of his work. I think this is the very solution to the problem; anyone who understood absolute love would never have commanded Socrates to kill himself. Indeed, the very steps towards self-discovery would have taken Athens on a journey that would have enlightened it against the the very folly that called for the philosopher’s death. Plato was, quite literally, writing Socrates into his works for the very purpose of remembrance.

I believe Plato argues that if we can look to Socrates and see past what he seemed to be in order to see him for what he was, we would be willing to spend a lifetime attempting to reach his great state of understanding. Moreover, if after our entire lives we were only able touch but the bottom of Socrates’ feet, we would be much better off than most other human beings would. Therefore, we arrive to the conclusion that true love is understanding, found by those who have an absolute goal, and that a true philosopher is the only one able to reach that goal. Our visions of love are limited by our experiences in life (hence our examples of speakers in The Symposium) and we cannot extend beyond that, in order to reach a goal, unless we are willing to suffer to attain it, to look outside our own experiences.

Plato is, simply put, making the point that no mere follower, lawmaker, doctor, comedian, dramatist, or drunkard, could best Socrates at anything. Socrates was a true philosopher, always seeking wisdom in all places, unbiased towards man or woman, seeking everlasting beauty, truth and understanding wherever he went. Therefore, from each character, we gather bits of Plato’s mind, puzzle pieces through which we can know and understand one of the great philosophers of all time. Let us picture Socrates that very morning, at the door of Agathon’s house; he looks back smiling at us, for we had begun the journey, followed the path, arrived at our destination, and gathered the pieces with which we could complete the puzzle of love.

Thinking on Prometheus, Heroes, and Paying the Penalty

Tags

fire, heroes, heroism, humanity, knowledge, love, Prometheus, punishment, zeus

Prometheus, the god who brought fire (knowledge) to men was punished by being tied to a rock in order to have Zeus’ eagle eat away his liver daily, after it grew back. Once this eternal punishment is handed out by Zeus, king of the gods, the hero is visited by many people who pity him. In writing “Prometheus Bound”, Aeschylus wants us to understand the feelings these people (and some gods) have for Prometheus, and therefore the playwright records him, in the very last speech on the play, as saying:

“An end to words. Deeds now. The world is shaken. The deep and secret way of thunder is rent apart. Fiery wreaths of lightning flash. Whirlwinds toss the swirling dust. The blasts of all the winds are battling in the air, and sky and sea are one. On me the tempest falls. It does not make me tremble. O holy Mother Earth, O air and sun, behold me. I am wronged.”

Sacrifice makes the hero; that is clear enough. However, let us consider this: heroism does not come only when one attempts a heroic deed and succeeds, but also in accepting the punishment handed out by those in power; for heroism is often most found when injustice abounds. The hero knows that a punishment, no matter how unjust, must be bore for the great deed accomplished.  Thus, says the immortal Hamlet in the famous Shakespearean play: “Conscience does make cowards of us all.” The true hero, knowing full well the sacrifice due both prior and post heroics, will indeed walk the path that will lead him to suffering; this is the price to be paid for the benefit of mankind. Prometheus knew his suffering prior to his deed and also his chastisement once accomplished. Thus, Aeschylus has him say: “All that has come I knew full well… Nothing do I deny.”

You may consider Mythology to be fiction; but this is what heroes are, and what Prometheus represents. If we take this lesson and apply it to our lives we will find a hero in all of us so long as we understand that it is not all capes and superpowers or fame and glory in the end, but suffering and consequences. Therefore, Prometheus, Bringer of Knowledge, All Suffering, All Enduring, became our first example of heroics. Prometheus was our first hero.

Thinking on Love, Plato, and Blindness

Tags

Aristotle, blindness, friendship, love, Plato, The Laws, the symposium, true love

‘Love is blind’ is an anonymous proverb which, according to The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, stems from the 14th century. Easy enough, right? Well, not quite. Let us consider Plato; he wrote: “The lover is blinded about the beloved, and prefers his own interests to truth and right.” (Laws 731e); that’s the Benjamin Jowett translation. However, the Greek is ambivalent. Trevor Saunders, whose translation is in the Hackett Complete Works, has Plato’s comment on blind love referring explicitly to the dangers of self-love. So perhaps the 14th century anonymous proverb is a generalization of Plato, if not a mere footnote. Let us see the original. I defer to Sounders’ translation for the sake of time.

[731e] It is the evil indicated in the saying that every man is by nature a lover of self, and that it is right that he should be such. But the truth is that the cause of all sins in every case lies in the person’s excessive love of self. For the lover is blind in his view of the object loved, so that he is a bad judge of things just and good and noble, in that he deems himself [732a] bound always to value what is his own more than what is true; for the man who is to attain the title of “Great” must be devoted neither to himself nor to his own belongings, but to things just, whether they happen to be actions of his own or rather those of another man. And it is from this same sin that every man has derived the further notion that his own folly is wisdom; whence it comes about that though we know practically nothing, we fancy that we know everything; and since we will not entrust to others the doing of things we do not understand, [732b] we necessarily go wrong in doing them ourselves. Wherefore every man must shun excessive self-love, and ever follow after him that is better than himself, allowing no shame to prevent him from so doing. Plato, Laws (731e-732b)

Plato condemns φιλια (bonding love – more like friendship) because it blinds; especially narcissistic love. Why? A friend is another self, according to Aristotle, and if we love our friend it is only out of love for our own narcissistic constructions. Narcissism drowns us all in the end. However, on the other hand, true love teaches us to grow by looking upon another person who is greater than ourselves, allowing us to become greater still. True love (‘agape’ in ancient Greece) is the putting aside of one’s own conscience and needs to favor that of another. We make our universe about the other person, and that person makes their universe about us. We create synergy, and we have love. True Love, thus, is not blind to the faults of someone else, but rather accepts them as part of that someone, making even their flaws strengths which we learn to come to appreciate, making our lives together all the more beneficial.

Love then, friends, and open your eyes to the faults of your lover; for in making yourselves blind to them, you only exacerbate them. Love of self may be blind, but true love is all-seeing.

Thinking on Cicero, Friendship, and Love.

Tags

Cicero, friendship, latin, love, self, self-love

Posting issues prevented us from getting you some Latin yesterday; let us make amends for our lack of ‘studium’ (zeal).

Vērus amīcus est alter īdem (Cicero)
A true friend is another self.
Un verdadero amigo es otro ‘yo.’

Of course; it is our Cicero that returns with a quote on friendship. What does he mean by ‘self?’ He, quite literally, says that a true friend is īdem, that is, ‘a third person outside of one self but equal in all things to one self.’ Have you ever had a buddy so close to you that you felt you could read each other minds? That is what Cicero equates to true friendship.

Also, if you ever watched “Ghost,” with Patrick Swayze and Demi Moore, and wondered what they meant when one said “I love you” and the other replied “idem,” now you know the answer. They meant to say “the same thing,” quite the neuter way to say ‘I love you back’ while practicing some Latin.

Salvete!