1 & 2 Corinthians

1 and 2 Corinthians are two letters written by the apostle Paul to the church in the busy city of Corinth. Since its planting though, something had gone wrong and members of the church were falling back into their sinful ways. As its founder and spiritual father, Paul writes to them to show them their errors and how to remedy them. Also, he gives them useful instruction on how to pursue God and live righteously.

In the course of his first letter, Paul talks about the roles of men and women in relation to one another. He says that just the man is the head of the woman as Chris is of the head of the man. Then he proceeds to discuss the appropriate ways that men and women ought to pray. Interestingly, the apostle says that men must have their heads uncovered while women must have their covered. The reason he gives is because women were originally made for men and “[for] this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels,” (1 Corinthians 11:10).

So, most of this verse makes sense to me, but the last half seems unrelated. What do the angels have to do with man’s authority over women? I think it might be because angels are guardians and thus may be representative of those they guard. Like how members of a family can be recognized by their family’s crest or colors, perhaps the angels have a similar distinction for those they guard. I don’t know if this makes much sense, but I’d like to know why it would say that women ought to have a symbol of authority on their heads during prayer because of the angels.

Phaedrus - Part 2

In apology for enjoying and giving a speech that disparaged love, Socrates gives his speech praising love and its positive effects on mankind. He begins by saying that though love is madness, it is a divine madness that only benefits those who suffer from it. Then, Socrates explains how it is from sights of real things that the soul saw while following the gods that cause madness to fall upon him. When he sees the brightness of reality shining through a person, he is inevitably drawn to it and can only find comfort by being close to it, thus causing people to think he’s mad because he does anything to be close to the reflection of that reality.

Once the speech is over, Socrates says a prayer to love. “[Convert Lysias] to philosophy like his brother Polemarchus so that his lover [Phaedrus] here may no longer play both sides as he does now, but simply devote his life to Love through philosophical discussions,” (257b). It is interesting that Socrates would word his prayer this way. Rather than praying for Phaedrus directly, he prays for Lysias so as to free Phaedrus. When they first meet, Phaedrus is wonderfully enthralled with Lysias’ speech even going so far as to try to memorize it. However, after a short discussion with Socrates, he realizes how wrong the speech was and agrees that amends must be made. Because of his love for Lysias and for true Love, Phaedrus in caught in a pickle between the two. In his prayer, Socrates acknowledges this and asks that the gods change Lysias’ power over Phaedrus so that he may pursue what is higher and better, Love.

Phaedrus - Part 1

The Phaedrus begins with Phaedrus, one of the speech-givers in the Symposium, presenting to Socrates a speech that argues that a boy give favors to a non-lover rather than to a lover because of the unwanted retributions that would occur by yielding to a lover. While enjoying the speech, Socrates gives a speech of his own on the same subject, presenting everything in a more organized and reasonable manner. However, Socrates realizes how impious these speeches have been and thus seeks to remedy the situation by giving a speech in praise of the lover.

Resting upon the fact that lovers are in a state of divine madness in response to seeing true Beauty, Socrates explains that the immortal soul of a man has seen all true things on a high plain while following the gods in procession but, being unable to control and curb its baser desires, falls to earth where it becomes incarnate in flesh. Depending on how much of the heavenly plain it saw determines what kind of person will result from that soul. Also, there are laws as to when the soul may return to the gods’ procession.

[Any] who have led their lives with justice will change to a better fate, and any who have led theirs with injustice, to a worse one. In fact, no soul returns to the place from which it came for ten thousand years, since its wings will not grow before them, except for the soul of a man who practices philosophy without guile or who loves boys philosophically. (248e-249a)

These are the fates of the souls while bound to a human form. It must wait ten thousand years while acting justly in all ways before it may once again return home.

I wonder though why a philosopher’s or lover’s soul is given a reprieve from the ten thousand year wait. It would seem fairer that if any kind of soul had lived its life justly for several consecutive lifetimes, it would be honored with the same privilege. However, it may be because the philosopher and lover reach something beyond what any other soul can. Both the philosopher and the lover pursue what is divine rather than what is human or earthly. While the philosopher pours all that he is into finding Wisdom and Truth, the lover gives up everything for Beauty. Neither can be found purely on earth so they look past the earthly and temporary to the divine and eternal. Only there do they find what satisfies their soul and, consequently, they are prepared sooner for their return ascent.

Symposium - Part 2

In Disney’s Beauty and the Beast, the Beast asks two of his main advisors, Lumiere and Cogsworth, how he can impress Belle. Cogsworth replies, “There the usual: flowers, chocolates, promises you don’t intend to keep.” Though this comment is given in comic contrast to Lumiere’s much more romantic, and accurate, suggestion, it brings up an interesting point about lovers that the speakers of Plato’s Symposium also address. It is the notion that a man may be forgiven for breaking a vow, or acting in a manner completely unlike himself, if he is in love. Pausanias, in his speech, endorses such behavior as acceptable and even expected of lovers in order that their beloved understand the depth of their love.

To be more specific, Pausanias says:

Imagine . . . [a man] went to his knees in public view and begged in the most humiliating way, . . . swore all sorts of vows, . . . spent the night at the other man’s doorstep, . . . [was] anxious to provide services even a slave would have refused . . . [Let] a lover act in any of these ways, and everyone will immediately say what a charming man he is! No blame attaches to his behavior: custom treats it as noble through and through. And . . . the gods will forgive a lover even for breaking his vows – a lover’s vow, our people say, is no vow at all. The freedom given to the love by both gods and men according to our custom is immense. (183 a-c)

A man in love is given much leniency in society. Where in any other circumstance, enemies would jeer and friends are ashamed, a man may be encouraged in his actions. Rather, custom upholds the often strange actions of a lover as a right and honorable thing to do. But what they say in vows in taken with a grain of salt since it is an overflow of emotion rather than a sincere vow.

Now to me, this seems wrong. Why should a man no longer be accountable for his actions because he’s in love? Shouldn’t a lover’s vow be taken more seriously and be considered more binding because it is made in love and to the beloved, who Phaedrus has said must not see the lover as dishonorable? And in any other circumstance, breaking one’s vow would be deemed not only dishonorable but also impious. This double standard between lovers and non-lovers seems an easy way to brush aside responsibility for actions that one would normally be condemned for.

Syposium - Part 1

As the premise for of Plato’s Symposium, each of the guests gives speeches dedicated to the god Love. Phaedrus begins as the whole idea was his original idea. Opening his declaration of Love’s greatness, the orator states the reason why Love is the oldest, and thus best, god. He then spends most of his speech giving reasons why men in love would form the best society. First, they would shun doing shameful things so as to always be honorable before their lover. Second, they would be willing to die for their lovers, making them good soldiers. Third, they would be more blessed by the gods because their virtues are motivated by Love.

While discussing his first point, that lovers shun shameful behavior, Phaedrus made an interesting statement. “Theirs [lovers’] would be the best possible system of society, for they would hold back from all that is shameful, and seek honor in each others’ eyes,” (179 a). His point is that a person can be kept from doing something because they fear to appear guilty before the one they love. The horror of shame would prevent people from doing things that, otherwise, they might commit if they did not care who knew.

However, this seems very naïve to me. Rather than preventative, love can be a powerful motivator to do what would normally be abstained. Lying, theft, and murder have all been committed in the name of love and its pursuit. For some, love can prevent shameful behavior, those with a high sense of honor. But, as seems more often seems the case, one is more liable to do something regrettable when in love than when one is not.

Oedipus the King

Known the world over as the man who murdered his father and married his mother, Oedipus leads a terribly tragic life. The first of Sophocles’ three Theban plays, Oedipus the King opens the tragedy with a plague tormenting Thebes. The people ask their king, Oedipus, to save them as he did from the Sphinx, and he tells them that he has already asked for words from the oracle at Delphi for the answer, the answer being justice done to the man who murdered Laius, Oedipus’ predecessor. From that moment on though, everything turns against the king of Thebes as he slowly learns the truth of his own existence, that he is the man that must be punished. In the end when all is revealed, he gouges out his own eyes and demands that he be sent into exile.

When the people of Thebes learn of the horrible truth of Oedipus’ life, they mourn with him. They ask, “[D]oes there exist, is there a man on earth, / who seizes more joy than just a dream, a vision? / And the vision no sooner dawns than dies / blazing into oblivion,” (lines 1314-1317). After the defeat of the Sphinx, Oedipus and the city of Thebes had been wondrously happy and prosperous. Everything seemed so perfect. Yet, in the life of the man who had saved them, the people of Thebes watched it all come tumbling apart. Was what Oedipus had no more than a fleeting dream that is so easily broken? If he was not able to attain such happiness and he a great among men, what hope would there be for those lesser of mankind? Not only did Oedipus’ fall hurt himself and his family but also demoralized the hopes of the Thebans as well.

Song of Songs

Song of Songs details a kind of conversation between a Bride and Bridegroom and interjections from the Bride’s companions. Both Bride and Bridegroom speak of the intense love that they bear one another and how their love is the best of the best. With dramatic imagery, they paint a picture of a beautiful couple enthralled with one another. When asked why they have chosen each other, Bride and Bridegroom respond with overflowing words of praise.

Unlike most books of the books for this class, I read many of the footnotes giving commentators ideas about various parts of the book, and I found them incredibly interesting. Through the entire work, they showed how the Bride and Bridegroom are the Church and Christ respectively. I loved it. From the roles that the Bride and Bridegroom possess to how they are described, every detail highlights the role that Christ plays in the life of the Church. I had known that this book foreshadowed how Christ would love the Church; however, the footnotes helped me to see just how much the imagery of the book could be applied to Christ and the Church.