All Desire Good Unto Themselves (Part 1)

(This writing concerns a dialogue between Meno and Socrates. For reference click here.)

"So I say that virtue is to desire beautiful things and have the power to acquire them." 

(G.M.A. Grube, "Plato Five Dialogues," Hackett Publishing Company, INC. 1981. p. 66)  

This statement by Meno is where I will begin my examination on Socrates' claim that no one knowingly desires harm unto themselves through logical arguments of Socratic thinking.  My argument is rooted in the belief that, based in all actions, are a desire for benefit.  Where one perceives his benefits to be found is where you will find his true desire and ultimately what he believes his true source of benefit to be.  One always desires perceived benefits, no matter what the actual consequences may be, not harm.

The definition by Meno indicates the assumption that they who desire beautiful things also desire good things and there are some who then would desire bad things.  From this position, Socrates begins his inquiry.  Logically he starts with asking whether the man who desires beautiful things also desires good things (p. 66b).  If not all men are virtuous, and virtue is, according to Meno, the desire of beautiful things, and if a man desires beautiful things as well as good things (i.e. the beautiful things are good) then it would be reasonable to conclude that there are some who would desire bad things.  Bad things are equated with those that are harmful and so, along this line of reasoning, since not all are virtuous, there are some who desire what is harmful to them (p. 66b,c).  However, this still does not prove that there are those who desire harm unto themselves.  Is it possible that the person believes that by attaining the bad things that they will receive benefit from  them? (p. 66d,e).  If this were the case, then we would have to say that they did not desire harm unto themselves even if harm does come from bad things because they were seeking benefit for themselves, which is contrary to harm.  We are then left with this question: Do those who believe that they are receiving benefit from acquiring bad things not know that what they have obtained is bad, and so essentially harmful as well? (To be continued...)

Joseph - A Narrative Criticism Exercise

1) The story of Joseph begins in Genesis chapter 30. I chose this chapter because it tells us of the beginnings of Jacob's children. This is significant because Joseph's story revolves around his relations to his brothers. In this chapter, we see the beginnings of a family at risk for dysfunction. I also contend that his story, though in the background, continues through his big introduction in chapter 37. Evidence for this is that chapter 37 picks up when he is 17 years old. Because Joseph tends to act a lot like his father, I suggest that the previous chapters help us to see where Joseph got it. It also prepares us to see upcoming family tensions. The main story of Joseph ends with chapter 47.

2) The main context of the story is Joseph being sold, his work in Egypt, and the reunion with his family. Therefore, the main context would be found starting with chapter 37 and ending with chapter 46. Chapters 30-36 and 47-50 are bookends to the Joseph story.

3) MAIN CHARACTERS:

• Joseph - what the story centers around.
• The brothers - initiators, antagonists.
• Reuben and Judah - suggested to the other brothers not to kill Joseph. Judah suggested selling him into slavery.
• Jacob - the father.
• Potiphar and his wife - Joseph thrown into jail.
• The cup bearer - finally mentions Joseph to Pharaoh who releases him from prison.
• Pharaoh - Joseph interprets his dream and Pharaoh restores him greater than he was.
• Simeon and Benjamin - Simeon is held by Joseph in captive until Benjamin the youngest and the brother that Joseph loves best come to Egypt.

4) God is not as often mentioned as in other narratives. He is, however, consistently in the background here. Hindsight is "20/20" and we can see how, in the end, God has been involved in accomplishing His will. God shows up in one of two predominate ways. The one way is likened to a conductor of a symphony. You know He is there, but He is not the one making all the noise. However, without Him it would all fall apart. This seems to be the role of God in this narrative, one of orchestration. The other is by direct intervention where God makes Himself known and wants there to be no mistake that He has intervened.

5) The Interpretation of the Dreams (40-41) - NOTES

Gen. 40:8 They said to him, “We have had dreams, and there is no one to interpret them.” And Joseph said to them, “Do not interpretations belong to God? Please tell them to me.”

Gen. 41:16 Joseph answered Pharaoh, “It is not in me; God will give Pharaoh a favorable answer.”

41:1-7 is repeated in verses 17-24

41:25 ... "God has told Pharaoh what He is about to do." Repeated in verse 28.

The number seven is a significant number in chapter 41.

6) There can be no mistake that we are to know that God had His hand on this matter and that through Pharaoh, God was about to do something. We also see the occurrence of the number seven mentioned a significant amount of time. Seven represents the perfection and is seen in cases of redemption or when there is to be no mistake, that God is involved. This is an indication of God's sovereignty over the matters of men. We do not live and breath on our own. As earthly as everyday life seems to be, God has a purpose for humanity and a will, which He is orchestrating us all towards.

(Scripture taken from the English Standard Version. Contents authored by Lee R. Morest)

Romantic Sentimism

Romantic sentiments are good for two things.  They make good novels and movies.  They do not serve us well in the realm of reality serving only to skew what is.  

Romantic sentiments differ from vision or a dream.  

Romantic sentiments look backwards while dreams and visions look forward.  

Romantic sentiments glorify the past while dreams and vision looks towards a glorious future.  

Romantic sentiments have a tendency to keep us in a rut repeating mistakes and old habits.  People boldly proclaim romantic sentiments at times in a sort of arrogance and pride.  Don’t get me wrong.  

Romantic sentiments have their place and do serve their own valuable service.  But can, like other things, be abused and used for the wrong purposes for example in the case of supporting ideas and concepts that otherwise would have no founding or find very little support.  

Romantic sentiments should not be aloud to claim precedence over well founded best practices, research, biblical principles and in general just plain common wisdom and knowledge.  When we hold tenaciously to a sentiment as such we run a very real risk of hindering vital progress.  What is most disappointing is that all romantic sentiments are a heightened and often glorified picture of what was, now cast in a vision of what should be.  The problem is that the feelings that fuel such memory lack a real sense of practical wisdom being founded simply in the notion void of any real concrete support.  In fact it is often the case that this notion over rides the best wisdom and practices desiring to remain in the feeling of the memory invoked, rather than in the reality of the presence. (Authored by Lee R. Morest)