5/26/15
The exchange of letters begins between Antipas, a rich benefactor in Pergamum, and Calpurnius, a rich politician in Ephesus. Antipas invites Calpurnius to the upcoming gladiatorial games on his city, stressing the importance of his coming to demonstrate intercity harmony to the empire. Calpurnius has some hesitation about gladiatorial combats, considering it a profane practice that is degrading of humanity, a view I also shared. Antipas, however, makes a very convincing argument I had not otherwise heard: the victims of the games are the underbelly of society (by whose standard though?) and are therefore deserving of their end. In fact, they could come out of it as heroes because if they win they are rewarded with food, fame, and freedom. Also, it benefits spectators by giving them something to look forward to break up their monotonous schedule. The games themselves seem to exemplify Roman attributes, such as bravery, courage, might, and endurance. The games usually occurred on the edge of the city where civility meets barbarism. Back to Antipas, he is a recent inhabitant of Pergamum who was attracted to city because of how well gods are worshipped including emperors like Domitian and healing gods like Asklepios and because of their exceptional library. He also writes Calpurnius because he wants an Alexandrian copy of the Iliad and Odyssey by Homer, showing his intellectual curiosity in books. Because of his want to expand Pergamum's library, Capurnius introduces him to the disciple Luke, portrayed first as another lover of knowledge as a doctor and scholar, who is staying with him while he's in Ephesus. When Calpurnius leaves Ephesus to see his dying nephew, Luke takes care of his home and sends Antipas the first volume of his gospel about Jesus, proudly proclaiming himself a Christian. He is careful to watch out for the misreplication of the copy, such as Homer's many copies of his books. Antipas begins to question Luke's dedication to another god that is not the emperor or a roman deity, to another heavenly empire that is not Rome. Luke shoots back by pointing out the defeciencies of Dometion and his concerns for the water battles that occur in the amphitheater. As the water flooded over the spectators making them sick, he neglected the people's health to promote his own desires. Luke points out how this is to the Christian God who does not forsake the wholeness and health of all. In addition, he works to dissuade Antipas of the bad Christian reputation that they are antisocial miscreants who burned down Rome- when in fact, this was the doing of another corrupt Roman emperor, Nero, who murdered is mother and wife. Antipas cannot disagree on this point and is struck by Luke's account of Jesus' humble birth which sets him up against the unlikely power of emperors such as Tiberius, Pontius Pilate, and Caesar Augustus. He is also struck by the Jewish aversion to Roman kingship to instead lift the humble. Antipas, however, thinks that opposition to the eternal rule of Rome is futile, as seen by the Maccabean Revolt. Imagine: This is as disruptive as planning to take down the President of the United States. He is a part of a social elite, why would we want anything to change? There is an imperial peace, an everlasting empire, why try to break it down?
Social World (republic 4,5)
While we are walking with Socrates through the Republic in the search of justice, I'm compelled to ask what is justice in the Roman world versus our modern world? I see that getting every man his due, or even blood for blood action as we saw in Oresteia, is not out of the norm for that time. But now, death penalties are extremely controversial even for a man who could have killed hundreds of people. Today we are struck with words like Deserve. Fair. Rights. But we must be careful assigning subjective moral claims because we believe there is more of a constant to justice. Socrates, a man ahead of his time in this regards, wants both men and women to have the opportunity to be guardians. However, if you were in a society that obeyed traditional roles, ones that you never through twice about, would it be just to break those roles or to abide by them? Before reaching any conclusion there, Thrasymachus says that justice means that might makes right, as we can see in wars and shown by tyrants. In reality, however, laws are not to the ruling's advantage by to the ruled'a. The doctor benefits the patient and not himself, unless he gets into it for the wrong reasons: esteem, money, power. As long as they do their job properly, aren't these traits owed to them? This provides a two way benefit that fulfills justice for each party in their respective job. Socrates now suggests that each person doing their job is justice, but certainly there is more to it than that. Before the more is addressed, Glaucon comes in, providing another moral dilemma, and says that injustice is more profitable than justice. To show that this is not the case, Socratss takes a step back to look at injustice in the whole city in that it mirrors the soul of an individual. We all need a city to sustain us, no one is entirely self-sufficient if we are to live at our maximum capacities and live well. We need craftsmen, auxiliaries, and rulers. Some people are better at certain things than others. We will take these natural gifts, pigeon hole everyone in their jobs as a one trick pony. What if you get bored? How realistic is this model? Where is freedom? Or is this a modern democratic luxury we assume from our cultural perspective that everyone wants? To avoid keeping the individuals from leaving their niches, we must give them a certain kind of education differing from each class so that each can fulfill their duties wholly. For example, in order to train the guardians, they must practice gymnastics, poetry (not any that promote or reflect on violence or other appetites), and music.
No comments:
Post a Comment