The Myth of Er has been subject to numerous interpretations. In this essay, I argue for an interpretation
which I call the dialectic of givenness.
In this dialectic, the Myth of Er holds two concepts in tension. One the one hand, there exists a givenness to
each of our embodied lives. This is
represented by the soul’s journey after the River of Unheeding, where it inherits
the life circumstances that have already been chosen. I argue that we may interpret Socrates as
exhorting us to recognize how the given particulars of our lives impact who we
are, as a corrective to some interpretations of Plato’s body/soul dualism. On the other hand, the recognition of this givenness
leads to recognize that there are some things still under our control,
and choices regarding these things affect who we become.
Thus, inasmuch as we do have the power to choose our external
conditions, we must do so with the utmost care.
This is represented by the choice one makes at Lachesis for the kind of
life one will enter into next. Because of this second principle, I argue that
Socrates shows us how moral transformation cannot be achieved simply through
exposure to philosophy or attention to the forms. The practical choices that affect one’s
everyday life and circumstances will ultimately affect the moral formation of
the soul. I conclude by showing how this
understanding of the Myth can produce an ongoing dialectic in the life of one
who attends to its exhortation. This
dialectic may produce a cyclical structure of moral transformation in an agent,
utilizing the resources of philosophy while respecting its limits.
Matt,
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that the ideas you argue for are important components of the text. ThusI think that your paper could be a significant contribution. Yet, because I am not familiar with the literature on the Myth of Er, so I am not sure how original your idea is. If it is original/an extension of other ideas, this seems great. I am sorry I cannot say more. I just do not want to lead you in an inappropriate direction. By the way, nice abstract.
I like this approach very much, Matt. I'm particularly interested in hearing more about the cyclical structure of moral transformation. It might be good to bring in some of the discussion of the Phaedo and the exhortation to live philosophically as a preparation for death and dying.
ReplyDeleteI was confused about the way in which you will interact with the body/soul dualism of Plato. You mentioned offering a corrective of some interpretations of this view. You also say that the choice the soul makes before Lachesis represents the ways in which we control our circumstances. Then you say that you will argue that philosophy and attention to the forms is not enough. I might have misunderstood the Myth, but I took it that philosophy and attention to the forms would be enough to ensure a proper choice before Lachesis.
ReplyDeleteMatt, I think I understand what you're saying, but I'm very unclear on how it all fits together. Sorry, I don't mean that to say this is the abstract's fault, but I'm going to ask some questions here because I think it's all I can do right now.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I understand what you way about how there is givenness in our lives. I am confused as to how that is a corrective to certain views of Plato's body/soul dualism. Do these views include unconstrained freedom of the individual or something? I'm not sure what the body/soul distinction has to do with that though.
Next, it's not apparent to me how givenness can lead us to recognize that some things are under our control unless we always recognize what is given and by seeing that we only recognize some things as given, we can infer that some other things are under our control. Anyway, that connection to some things being under our control is not apparent to me.
I think from then on, I'm back on track with what you're saying, but I'm still unclear on the details. Do the practical choices we make need not to follow from our attention to the forms and exposure to philosophy? That is, might our attention to philosophy determine our practical actions? Perhaps you should address that view. (Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?)
Sorry for my confusion. I am interested in your thesis and how you draw from the Myth of Ur. Sounds like an excellent topic.
I enjoy your addition of practical life into Platonic philosophy, as I agree that it holds quite the importance. One critique I do have is that your use of "givenness" could be fleshed out and clarified. That might just be because this is an abstract, but firming up jargon words is helpful in readability.
ReplyDelete