Biblical Heritage (finish Pergamum)
Antipas takes Simon his former worker as a travel companion, despite their different social backgrounds. Perhaps Antipas' authoring of his history of peasants helped enlighten him towards Simon's hardships he faced and empathize. Perhaps it was the common bond in their affections for the eastern Mediterranean and as fathers who miss their children. Perhaps it was Simon's noble zeal for life despite all odds. He even goes so far as to call him brother. When the question of honor and shame within the benefaction system came up while at Antonius' house, Antipas was reluctant to look Simon in the eye. He finally held guilt for his treatment towards him. He still, however, believes that without public benefactors the city the would go into chaos. But he is objected by Demetrius, who claims that the problem would be that not enough people would grasp Jesus' vision for it to work and that the prestige and power that promotes benefaction causes a "predatory advantage of the vulnerable". It is important to note that this benefaction is different, however, from charity. This debate of honor and shame is bypassed in Kalandion's house aaa they worship Jesus like an emperor or a pagan deity in a temple. This will successfully not draw suspicion of their dedication to the Roman Empire by their adoption of many gods. They are further different because the people in Kalandion's house are more concerned with what Jesus can do for them. Interested only with his miracles, they only take the convenient messages. Antonius' house is an entirely different story, where they believe wholly that Christ is God alone. They instead focus on his character and humility, no matter how inconvenient or uncomfortable the message, and they view it would be a betrayal to pray to another God. Being a follow of Christ is causing people to lose their standing in society, their income, a type of persecution that Jesus foretold. Jesus' persecution is of most interest to Antipas, however, in mentioning that Luke's Gospel does not go into the gory details of his crucifixion. He focussed rather on the reactions of many classes of people to his death, such as a Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, who deemed him innocent of social unrest; a Roman centurion, who proclaimed the same thing; and a member of the elite, who found Jesus honorable enough to have a proper tomb burial. He also notes the political implications that surround Pilate's ruling, that by shaming Jesus through crucifixion, he preserved the honor of many others. He understands that his death had universal significance. But Antipas is still struck by God's method of using the ordinary as the vehicle for the divine, in a place other than inner sanctuaries and imperial cults but rather in the lives of the common laborers. As Simon dies, Antipas notes his humble nobility, much like Jesus, with a giving heart and an enthusiastic zeal. He even asks for everyone's prayers to be to Jesus, who sacrificed himself for others, just as Simon sacrificed his health for Galatia and her child on the ship. Seeing their destitute humility and contrasting it with the wealth of feasts he was welcomed home with, Antipas begins to question the significance of these banquets beyond their own self-interest. "Could it be that the code of honor I have attempted to preserve my entire life is only a self-perpetuating form of societal machinations that has the potential to inflict harm? Might the honor code have shameful side-effects?" This realization leads him to withdraw from his job in renovating the temple in Pergamum. His interesting sign off in his letter does not name God explicitly but he gets closer to Christian conversion by calling him the "high God of goodness." Now as Antipas returns to Pergamum, it has become clear that he has gotten too close with the Christians and will soon suffer his own kind of persecution, perhaps getting kicked out of his benefactors house because of increased tensions with Antonius' House Church. For example, Demetrius faces execution for atheism (ironic use today I suppose) and being an antisocial miscreant at the next gladiatorial games. Everyone is feeling this stress, even dear little Nouna, and Antipas' once loved gladiatorial games have taken on a whole new meaning. Antipas flees the city, confused by Demetrius impending martyrdom, but he returns soon, and decides to face the same fate. By mirroring Jesus' words earlier in Luke's gospel (Do not worry) in Nouna's ear before his death, "Have no fear. All will be well," he says his final goodbyes before he sacrifices himself for his friend- the ultimate act of the Christian faith.
Social world (Republic 8,9)
It is hard to read these books of the Republic and not notice Socrates' progressive stance on female equality in society, even harder not to notice how scary his reconstruction of the family is. First, what is Socrates' best argument for female equality? By giving women equal opportunity for roles beyond raising children and taking care of the household, they don't have limited utility in this ideal city. It can double the capacity of the workforce, putting the best options out there to rule without ruling out just because of gender. But is his argument really one of equality as the women are still being owned by the public? What do women get to own? They are still held as property, although it's lost in a weird polygamous love web where no one belongs to another in order to promote communal ownership. Well, what are also Socrates' arguments against equality? He claims that women are weaker than men, physically and in other nondescript ways. Although he acknowledges that individiual women can be stronger or better in comparison to weaker men, generally this is not the case. If he is truly advocating for a definition of justice that necessitates everyone minding their own business and fulfilling their duties, women would have a mixed duty of childbearing and crafting or guarding. This would blur the lines of Socrates' otherwise very distinct tripartite. What is Socrates best argument for holding women and children in common? Women and children become public property which could help protect the city and its citizens from conflicts that arise from jealousy through independent ownership, such as the causes of the entire Trojan War. It provides harmony, advocating for an ours not mine, one not many mindset.
Obviously, I am very off put by this unorthodox understanding of relationships: So what is our best argument against holding women and children in common? If I look at it through Socrates lens, putting the best couples together to rear the best children to create the best future leaders rather than sharing everyone would involve a certain level of ownership of women between classes. Also, it is important to note of Socrates really thought this possible or if it acted as hyperbole in treatment of Athenian women. By taking one extreme of living to another extreme, we are perhaps able to see the middle ground that could be a mix of freedom to be with whoever you want and marriage. In the realm of a family, what is the ideal relationship that would rear the best children? Socrates surely never picked up a child development manual otherwise he would recognize that both a mother and father need to nurture their children to be successful rather than them being parentless. Lastly, we will always want better than we've got, always becoming better than what we are. But we must recognize our failures (in Christianty this is seen as grace). The philosopher king provides that better. Who is the philosopher? He is not necessarily a professional but more importantly a lover of wisdom, who is always seeking the truth because he is in love with the forms. He is driven by determining what is versus what seems, hating falsehood and relying on reason to control other appetites. His concern for the development of human flourishing will create a city that is also always aiming for better. But better in what way? Here we need to watch out for this subjective trap, our philosopher king will be better in all ways. The downfall of this is that these people are not the people who are power hungry and therefore do not want to rule. There will be some degree of danger of corruption. This reminds of the recent presidential nominations that are occurring within each party. I've been a follower of Ben Carson throughout his past 5 published books. With no political background but a resume as varied as possible, from businessman, to scholar, to surgeon, he caught the eye of the Americans as a fresh face amidst the corruption of D. C. The people signed a petition to get him to run, otherwise, he wouldn't have done it unless people WANTED him to. Do I think he wants the presidency as bad as let's say Hilary Clinton does? No, but as a result of many recent ratings go, the people might want him to be president more.
No comments:
Post a Comment