Showing posts with label romans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label romans. Show all posts

Saturday, December 8, 2012

Ancient History Today

"We have taken an oath to God before we took one before you..."  Maurice, Theban Legion officer

What's a bit of ancient history, anyway? Who cares? Well there was the time of the Roman Legions; going backward in time to about 280 CE--that's the end of the second century, the Roman empire extended for thousands of miles beyond the city-state of Rome. The Romans inhabited large swaths of Europe, including Germany, France and England. They didn't make the time to invade Ireland. Perhaps they thought the Irish unworth their efforts.
They've left many, many remnants of their culture and ideas to the West today. This legacy includes our modern languages and religion. So there. We've now easily returned to 2012, or about 1,800 centuries after the Theban Legion.

Here the story has interest: The Roman legion recruited from Thebes in Upper Egypt consisted entirely of early (Coptic) Christians. In 287CE they were mobilized to assist with putting down the rebellious Gauls (parts of present day France). They arrived at the place of present day Martigny,  near Lake Geneva, Switzerland. Ordered into battle at that place, they joined with the other soldiers who were making offerings and sacrifices to their gods of the eve of battle. The Thebans refused to take part in this event.

Declared insubordinate by the Roman commanders, they suffered under them. When they persisted in their refusal, the commanders took action against the Theban soldiers who would not participate in a religious ritual they held against their conscience. Therefore one of every of their ten were taken by lottery and put to death. Still the Thebans exercised their free conscience and free will. Soldiers they may be, Christians as well-- they continued to refuse. The Roman commanders were baffled. Was not their absolute power and authority--even unto death sufficient to motivate these men?
Was their issue simply a religious cause, or did they have a greater sense of justice? Historic tradition records the words, in part of at least one of the men, their commanding officer, Legionnaire Maurice who made statements on the Copts behalf: We are soldiers, true, but we are also servants of the Christ. We cannot oppose God our Creator; we will oppose all our enemies... we rather die innocently, as martyrs for our cause. 
According to historic tradition, all 6,000 of the Coptic Thebans were slayed that day for insubordination. Today no one easily recalls the names of those in power that day at Martigny yet the name of Maurice and the Christ live on.
History's a funny thing, isn't it?

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Aristotle and the Akratic

"Weakness of the will is something we all think we know; many feel that we experience it ourselves."  --Weakness of Will by William Charlton

The good that I would feel to do; the good that I would not feel and do... is the subject of a talk by Saint Paul in one of his biblical letters to the Romans (Romans 7:15), is often attributed by modern commentators to a 'weak will.' Modern philosophers such as William Charlton take up this notion in his book, The Weak Will. So called 'weakness' he explains, is often an attempt to explain either behavior or the effects of behaviors. The behavior he describes and explores is that of 'going against one's better judgment,' and the result of that action.

In an effort to be concise, Charlton takes up the discussion of the greatly influential Aristotle's ideas on the the Will, and uses the Greek term, the Akratic. Translators of Aristotle have sometimes used the English term "incontinent" to indicate slips or mistakes in the will of persons. Delving into his topic, Charlton writes that there are several views on Akrasia. Some, like John Calvin, argue that there is no Akrasia, no free will; others argue that it wholly exists, such as the philosopher Emmanuel Kant.

The questions which Charlton seeks to expound are those of strength. Are there various strengths of will? Does that person in Akrasia consciously choose, and how so? What about the modern ideas of psychologists, like Sigmund Freud? Charlton notes, in counter-face to the established Roman hierarchy of the ancient times, that the first person thought to bring "the idea of the Will into philosophy (of the West) does indeed appear to have been the Christian Bishop, Saint Augustine of Hippo.
Augustine writes of the Will sometimes as 'a faculty of the mind,' sometimes as the mind itself in its role as a thing which issues commands... Augustine asks, how can the mind give orders which are not obeyed?"
Later thinkers of the Medieval age were confronted with the texts of both Aristotle and Plato; comparison of these with these texts by writers such as Saint Paul of the Bible caused them to ponder, "when I act against my own will, it means that I have self knowledge..."

Today the inquiry into the Will, volition and motivation is taken over largely by science and the theories of psychology. The spiritual component has been thus voided.  Moving far away from the ancient Greek conception of the will as having two parts,  modern philosophers like Descartes often see it as strength or force. Such strengths, weak or strong, are therefore practical problems to be solved.
Leaping forward, and the 'human potential' movement emerges. Desires, as weakness, now are at the forefront for thinkers such as Russell; men are then just at the whim and mercy of their desires.

Finally, Charlton weighs in after examining the thoughts of others. He says, "weakness of the Will is puzzling, insofar as we think our behavior is determined by our view of what is best; it's not so puzzling if we think our behavior is determined mechanistically by our physical environment."