post-essay ramblings
Nov. 6th, 2002 04:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
godreamTurned in that essay on Plato's Republic -- on time, even, more or less, despite the Buffy episodes that were calling my name and the printer which decided it was bored of its current ip address and wanted a new one -- but you don't want to hear me go on about that. Random musings here, some in reiteration of that essay and some that even in my far-off wanderings away from the given topic I didn't touch on in the silly writing.
I would love to have Plato's straight-lines-and-right-angles view on humanity. I really would. Sure, it's narrow-minded and doesn't strike me as valid at all -- but I want convictions! I want to stop seeing both sides, eradicate this compulsion to play devil's advocate to any discussion, to be less easily influenced, to be certain. Possibly even at the cost of being totally fixed on one completely incorrect view. Or maybe I don't, maybe it's an asset to see at least more of the whole than that...
Question: Is it better to see a part clearly, or the whole as a blur?
One of the things that grated on me all through the Republic was how callous Plato seems to be on the subject of love. To him, it's just another appetitive need. [Background: to Plato, everyone is ruled by either the rational part of their soul (which loves/needs/seeks wisdom and knowledge), the spirited part (honor, victory and courage), or the appetitive part (food, drink, sex, money, all that jazz). Those ruled by the first part are happiest and most just, the second part less so, and the third part least.] I am, I guess, still a romantic somewhere hidden under the cynicism. Must be all those fantasy novels. Anyways, that part of me that maintains faith in love spent three hours last night/this morning while I was trying to write complaining about how love makes the world go round, love is integral to hope and happiness, and love is ultimately what makes us human. And... I have no recourse but to agree.
Don't get me wrong, I fully believe one can be in love and totally miserable, or not in love and happy as a clam. But I can't relegate emotional attachments down to the level of hungry/thirsty/horny/tired. I find it difficult to believe that a human being can be totally autonomous and still healthy -- to put it a bit more Socratically, I think that if "men must care for their souls" an integral part of that is love. Not just romantic love, but family love (mother, sister, grandparent, cousin, whatever) and love for friends as well. Sappy as it all sounds, and I realize I'm throwing around that four-letter word an awful lot, I think that love is vital to being human, to living happily.
Not that this necessarily makes me happy. I'd feel -- perhaps not overjoyed, but certainly freer -- if I woke up tomorrow morning and didn't need anyone, was totally independent. But a major part of what I need love for is to balance out the negativity of other interactions. When I fail to meet expectations, my own or others', when I hurt someone's feelings or am hurt myself, when my social ineptitude rears its ugly head -- I need people to counteract that. I don't want to. I want to be able to sit here and say "ha ha, you dissed me, but I still know I'm a good person", but it's... perhaps not impossible, but certainly not easy. It helps immensely to have love and reassurance, to have someone say "just let it go..." I hate needing this, but I do. And I do appreciate the wonderful loving people who do this for me (and who deal with me day after day). I just also dislike feeling that I need this comfort to get past events.
Question II: Without the negative side of social interaction (yeah, that one that seems to draw me like a magnet), would I still be as frustratingly dependent?
I would love to have Plato's straight-lines-and-right-angles view on humanity. I really would. Sure, it's narrow-minded and doesn't strike me as valid at all -- but I want convictions! I want to stop seeing both sides, eradicate this compulsion to play devil's advocate to any discussion, to be less easily influenced, to be certain. Possibly even at the cost of being totally fixed on one completely incorrect view. Or maybe I don't, maybe it's an asset to see at least more of the whole than that...
Question: Is it better to see a part clearly, or the whole as a blur?
One of the things that grated on me all through the Republic was how callous Plato seems to be on the subject of love. To him, it's just another appetitive need. [Background: to Plato, everyone is ruled by either the rational part of their soul (which loves/needs/seeks wisdom and knowledge), the spirited part (honor, victory and courage), or the appetitive part (food, drink, sex, money, all that jazz). Those ruled by the first part are happiest and most just, the second part less so, and the third part least.] I am, I guess, still a romantic somewhere hidden under the cynicism. Must be all those fantasy novels. Anyways, that part of me that maintains faith in love spent three hours last night/this morning while I was trying to write complaining about how love makes the world go round, love is integral to hope and happiness, and love is ultimately what makes us human. And... I have no recourse but to agree.
Don't get me wrong, I fully believe one can be in love and totally miserable, or not in love and happy as a clam. But I can't relegate emotional attachments down to the level of hungry/thirsty/horny/tired. I find it difficult to believe that a human being can be totally autonomous and still healthy -- to put it a bit more Socratically, I think that if "men must care for their souls" an integral part of that is love. Not just romantic love, but family love (mother, sister, grandparent, cousin, whatever) and love for friends as well. Sappy as it all sounds, and I realize I'm throwing around that four-letter word an awful lot, I think that love is vital to being human, to living happily.
Not that this necessarily makes me happy. I'd feel -- perhaps not overjoyed, but certainly freer -- if I woke up tomorrow morning and didn't need anyone, was totally independent. But a major part of what I need love for is to balance out the negativity of other interactions. When I fail to meet expectations, my own or others', when I hurt someone's feelings or am hurt myself, when my social ineptitude rears its ugly head -- I need people to counteract that. I don't want to. I want to be able to sit here and say "ha ha, you dissed me, but I still know I'm a good person", but it's... perhaps not impossible, but certainly not easy. It helps immensely to have love and reassurance, to have someone say "just let it go..." I hate needing this, but I do. And I do appreciate the wonderful loving people who do this for me (and who deal with me day after day). I just also dislike feeling that I need this comfort to get past events.
Question II: Without the negative side of social interaction (yeah, that one that seems to draw me like a magnet), would I still be as frustratingly dependent?
