Eternal Punishment

On page 130, Origen talks about God being a just God of the Law. He says that God punishes sin. I wonder how he can believe that God punishes sin and not believe in hell if he believes the Bible. This is where we see that he believes in temporary punishment and not eternal punishment. This goes against God's character as described in scripture. This is why I believe that Origen was a heretic. He believes parts of the Bible, but not others. It seems that he fashioned his own image of God in his mind. He fashioned a God who is not perfectly just. If the Lord is perfectly just, then he must send us to hell to receive eternal punishment. That is what we deserve according to Revelation 21:8. If Origen believed in a God that does not send people to eternal hell, then he did not believe in the One, True God.

I commented on Hannah and Ollie's posts.

In awe of a sovereign God

I love the imagery that Origen is using to describe the functioning of the universe as a whole and as one “immense animal, held together by the power and reason of God” (Book 2, Chapter 1). It puts into perspective the sovereign ruling of God over all mankind and universe. It also illustrates the wild and un-tame aspects of humanity, and the need for a God to hold it all together. Origen argues that those men who deny the fact that God is an uncreated being who created the universe are “absurd” and “utterly ignorant” (2, 1). How can we possibly comprehend the wonders of God’s capabilities and power?

 

I commented on Daniel’s and Travis’s!

Number vs. Measure

I think it is interesting that Origen expounds on the distinction between "number" and "measure" in Book II Chapter IX.  However, he overanalyzes the distinction. He notes that "number" is used to refer to rational creatures and "measure" is used to refer to bodily matter, but that verse is taken out of context. The full verse (in the Apocrypha) actually ends by saying, "but thou hast ordered all things in measure and number and weight." So really, the verse is speaking about "measure" as in height not "measure" as in number. Didn't he spend the majority of the first book pointing out that the Bible is not to be taken out of context? Contradictions, Origen, contradictions.

I commented on Daniel and Abigail's posts.

Heaven

In Chapter three on page 111, Origen brings up the existence of another world , Heaven. He says that..

" that the Savior alludes to something more glorious and splendid thant is present world, and invites and exhorts all who believe in him to direct their course towards it. But whether that world, which he wishes us to know of, is one that stands widely apart and seperate from this in space and quality and glory, or whether , as seems to me more likely, it excels in quality and glory , but is nevertheless contained within the limits of this world, is uncertain, and in my opinion an unsuitable subject for mind and thoughts of men."

Origen uses great diction explaining the Heaven that God hasnt fully shown this world for a reason. How he words that this world the Savior has saved for us excels is something to hope for and something to dream about as well. For the Christian,  Heaven is a world that we cannot imagine all the splendor and wonder that is inside of it and Origen explains that man cannot even think or compare to what it may be. Heaven is a seperate, divine, holy, and made to only glorify God.

I commented on Travis and Hannah's blog post.

Existence without Body...?

Can we exist without a body...? What a question. Origen covers this topic somewhat in depth in chapter 2 of book 2. But really, we as Christians so often assume, almost in a Socratic way, that this earthly body will be left behind and that our being, our "soul", will be put into a new glorified body in the new Creation. Yet, what of the transition? Can the soul exist without a body?... Origen says "No", excepting the Trinity... So what of the "second life?" I guess we do not know, but this at least is a fun question to ponder.


I commented on Ethan LaFont and Abigail Brock's posts.

Controversey

This reading of Origen has really been a ton of fun. I've been able to gain such an understanding of the earlier Christian writings, and also seeing the many odd and controversial viewpoints of the time. I found the fact that some people were attempting to put the Holy Spirit into two different Spirits very intriguing. It's like they are attempting to separate things. The Spirit is the same in both the Old and New Testament. Always has and always will be. I do like how Origen dispels this and describes the beautiful mystery of the Holy Spirit and its place throughout Scripture.

P.S. I commented on Darby's and Ollie's posts

The Just and the Good

Trying to reconcile a good and just God is the ultimate task when describing why bad things happen to people. Origen addresses the Epicurean riddle when he says, "if he whom they call good is good to all, undoubtedly he is good even to those who are destined to perish. Why then does he not save them? If he is willing but cannot, he will not be almighty" (127). The conclusion that I have come to is that God is good there is no doubt. Some things I see as unjust, but then I realize that God's justice is far greater than what we consider just. We deserve far worse, yet we still want to hold to traditional wisdom that if we do good things then good things will happen. It does not always work that way, and we feel we have been wronged. I feel Origen gives a solid argument for God being just and good, but not a bulletproof argument.

I commented on Darby's and Hannah's.

I Wanted A Halloween Pun For A Title, But I Didn't Have Time

As I was reading, I kept thinking about the all-knowing and ever-present natures of God. When Origen talks about the origin (which sounds narcissistic of him if you say it aloud) of the earth, I began to think about how God exists outside of time. We know this because in Genesis 1:4-5 God created night and day. Since we use night and day as a base measurement of time, we know that God created time. God also states in Jeremiah 23:24 "Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? ... Do I not fill heaven and earth?" So, based off of these two passages in scripture, it seems that God exists in every location, where location refers to both a place on earth, heaven, but also moments in time. We can deduce that God exists at multiple moments in time, because in Genesis 1:1 God creates the heavens before creating time. Therefore, when God states that He exists in heaven and earth, it seems that He is stating that He exists both in linear moments of time on earth, but also outside of time in heaven. This makes since as to why Jesus existed in the beginning, before His birth. He ascended into heaven after the resurrection, therefore ascending out of time. I imagine that heavenly bodies see time as a single object, and can point to different sections of it as if it were different areas of a map. If this is true, that would make since why Jesus was at the beginning, being wholly man and wholly God, before His birth. Thus, since He did exist in the beginning, He was not created at birth. This is nearly impossible to grasp, as it is a paradox, but Jesus also turned water into wine, which also is humanly impossible, so I wouldn't be surprised. I cannot claim to understand God and how He works, and I have likely made a mistake in my deduction, to which I would be grateful for someone to explain. Happy Halloween!

P.S. I commented on Daniel's and Abigail's posts.

A Previous World?

In Chapter 3 of Book 2, Origen questions whether there was another world before the one that exists now, and whether this previous world was inferior, or whether there was no world at all and if there were, how did it come about. I believe that there was nothing before out world now. That God created this earth from nothing. Genesis 1:2 says "The earth was without form and void. and darkness was over the face of the deep." God is outside of time and he spoke the earth into existence. I believe that if there had been a previous world then God would have included that in the creating of our "new" world that we are now living in.

I commented on Hannah's and Darby's.

Return of the question of virtue

 "... if virtue is something good, and justice is a virtue, undoubtedly justice is goodness" (129).

The question we always seem to return to is, "what is virtue?" Is it something good or something bad? In Chapter 5 of Book 2, there is a theme of justice and goodness. In the beginning, he gives us two definitions the people have come up with. For goodness Origen writes the people "...think that no good is done to him who is visited with any sorrow" and for justice it is "... to do evil to the evil and good to the good" (125). In the passage that contains this quote, Origen is debating and arguing whether God can be good and just. He seems to come to the conclusion that virtues are good. And so, if virtues are good and God has virtues, how can God not be both good and just? God cannot be one without the other. Because God is good, he has to be just. Because God is just, he has to be good. These two virtues go hand in hand with each other.

I commented on Abigail's and Daniel's!

The Repeating world

Chapter 3 of Book 2 Talks about if there would be another world after this one, and what it would be like. Now, as I understand what Origen is saying, he believes that if there was another world after this one, then all things that have happened in this world's history would play out exactly the same as in this one; Adam and Eve would fall once more, Cain would kill Able, and all other events would play out as they did before. This is a point I must fully disagree with. If what Origen is saying were true, then that would be God would be allowing the same mistakes to occur over again, and from what I know, and granted I do not have the knowledge of God, this is the definition of insanity. Now, I do not believe to be insane, in fact he is likely the sanest being in existence, so, continuing the theory that God has allowed for another world to follow this one, I do not believe that the same events that happened in this world would happen exactly the same way again.
Never is the same situation repeated the exact same way. The same outcome, perhaps, but never every minute detail is followed to perfection, because that implies a certain level of perfection to the human existence, to which the Fall of Adam and Eve proves humans are not perfect beings. Therefore, Origen claiming that a world following this one would be exactly the same is false.

I commented on Abigail's post.

Dumb Animals....?

 In the second paragraph on the first page (93), it reads:

"...the world is various and diverse; for it consists of rational beings, and others more divine, and of bodies of different kinds; and besides these, of dumb animals, that is, wild beasts, cattle, birds and all creatures that live in water..."

I am confused as to why he used the term "dumb animals".  Why couldnt he just use "animals" instead of adding dumb as a description?  Everyone knows that humans are smarter than animals but that dost make them dumb in general.  Not trying to sound like a nature freak or animal rights activist or anything, I'm just curious as to why he used that specific wording.

Clothing the Soul

“As therefore Christ is the clothing of the soul, so by an intelligible kind of reasoning the soul is said to be the clothing of the body; for it is an ornament of the body, covering and concealing its mortal nature.” (105)

               In reading this quote, the image of a jacket comes to mind. Christ is like a jacket, and the soul is like a shirt. Mortality is obviously the body. This analogy was really helpful in understanding Origen’s meaning in this section. Something is mortal if it partakes in life. Therefore, the soul covering the body’s mortality means the soul is eternal. Christ covering the soul points to where the soul will spend eternity. He covers the souls of the saints, and they will spend eternity in with him. Is there another way to interpret this? I was very intrigued by this section and would love to hear another perspective on it.

I commented on Abigail and Darby's posts!

Socrates Pride a Fault or Virtue

One of my favorite readings this semester was Plato's "Apology." One of my biggest questions in this work was what is Socrates' actual wrong in the trial? Is his arrogance in the wrong, even if his knowledge may be correct? I think it is so interesting because Socrates exhibits a contradiction of humble arrogance because "he know what he does not know." The first correlation that comes to my mind is from Jane Austen's classic "Pride and Prejudice" where the main character Elizabeth is found asking, "is pride a fault or virtue." I think in the case of Socrates, it might just could be interpreted that Socrates pride is indeed a virtue.

The Innocence of Oedipus

In Oedipus the King, we see the story of a man that is very tragic. On surface level it would appear that Oedipus killed his father and slept with his mother. If we look deeper into the text, there are many discrepancies with this claim. I would claim that Oedipus did not kill his father but, rather killed a farmer and the man who killed King Laius was not Oedipus. I am reading through multiple different translations at the moment to see, if these discrepancies are the same in all of them but, with the translation we are given it points to the fact that Oedipus did not kill his father.

Justice

After reading all that we have read this semester so far, I cannot help but to be irritated at the gods' form of justice. For example, in Orestes's case the furies say that Orestes is in the wrong for killing his mother, but Apollo says that it was a just act. The gods contradict each other and there is no steady form of justice throughout all of Ancient Greece. In The Odyssey, Poseidon wreaks havoc on Odysseus due to the fact that Odysseus gouged the eye out of his son. The gods make their own form of justice throughout ancient Greece. They determine what is right and wrong by how they feel or with their own vendetta in mind.

The Fire of Love

Fire is utilized greatly throughout The Aeneid to symbolize love and destruction. This is often associated most with the character of Dido. Because of Cupid’s trickery, she was “ablaze with love” for Aeneas (131, line 125). The fire of love and passion that was within her became realized as she created a funeral pyre of the things that were associated with the love she felt for Aeneas. Fire can save and destroy, and in a way, it did both for Dido. The fire within her brought her out of the mire of her suffering and grieving, but as the plot progressed, it consumed her. The fire turned from love to guilt and grief, and then it destroyed her. Virgil put love and destruction together and made them almost synonymous. Why did he display such a negative view of love in his writing?

The Gods Justice

Are the Roman gods more just than the Greek gods? In some ways, it would seem that they are. When the winds become too much, the god of the sea stops the winds from ravaging Aeneas’ entire fleet. The god of the sea does not allow his power and jurisdiction to be thwarted or taken advantage of. His decisions are firm. In the case of Juno, however, she seems to be about as just as the Greek gods and goddesses. She pours out wrath on Aeneas out of fear of what he may do to the city she favors. Only time will tell if the Roman gods and goddesses can create a new standard for real justice. 


I commented on Ethan and Hannah's Posts.

Neptune Fury

Neptune isn't a god to anger and he doesn't like it when you mess with his stuff. Neptune got angry quickly over Juno's interference with his waves (Chapter 1 lines 96-184).  He quickly demonstrated his power and put an emphasis on why he held the trident. That was a bold move King Aeolus made against Neptune and an even bigger one for Juno. Her rage was uncalled for and unruly. For a god to get so angry at a group of people who were an omen to a future city she loved so much. That seems unfair to Aeneas and his people they didn't deserve her wrath, but favoritism fueled her fury. If she had liked Aeneas and his people instead she wouldn't have tried to kill them. Even if she had no love or didn't think of them as nothing but lives created to worship her. They would've have not been targeted by her if she didn't have favorites to compare them to. But Neptune stepped in to defend his waters not to save those men. He was angry at Juno for playing with his waves. And even though he didn't stop it to defend anything but his pride. Aeneas and his men were still saved by a prideful god from a spiteful god.

The Aeneid

Troy is being destroyed by the Greeks. Aeneas and his fellow Trojans have fled their homeland to search for safety. They end up in Italy and are welcomed with hospitality. Aeneas had been informed by the gods that something glorious would await him there- but he has no idea what. Is it wise to go blindly into a completely different land from what they know? How could Aeneas know whether or not this is another one of the gods games in human life? They have proved fickle in the past. Can he trust them now?

PS- I commented on Olivia's and Travis's

Grasping and Comparing

As one who is new to the works of Greek and Roman mythology, this switch over from Greek literature to Roman literature unsurprisingly caught me off guard. However, it does interest me as I take in the gods of the Romans observing the many similarities to the gods of the Greeks.  You can imagine my further excitement as I made the connection of Ulysses as Odysseus and his encounter with the Cyclops and essentially recognized The Aeined as the Trojan side of the Greek story in The Odyssey, as well as the similarity between the Odysseus' story telling and Aeneas' storytelling. The many likenesses between Greek and Roman literature help me to better understand even the history that backs the polytheistic religion and dissonance between Greekness and Romeness.

I commented on Travis' and Francesca's.

Juno and Aeneas

I had no previous knowledge of what The Aeneid was about or who Aeneas even was, but when reading the opening lines, I quickly realized that the relationship between Juno and Aeneas is VERY similar to the relationship between Poseidon and Odysseus. There will always be conflict between gods and humans, but I find the similarities between these two relationships to be interesting. Juno treats Carthage as if it were her child and the prophecy tells that the new Trojan race (Aeneas) will one day destroy it, so she makes his trip home incredibly difficult just as Poseidon made Odysseus return home difficult because he hurt his son. This very small observation probably holds no greater importance in the work, but I thought it was interesting.

I commented on Hannah's and Wendy's.

Justice

I found it interesting, in book three, when Aeneas tries to make a roof for the alter. He plunges his knife into this tree and "dark crimson blood ran out of the ripped bark" (3.47). I was not expecting that. Polydorus speaks from the tree and tells Aeneas he is one of his own. This had happened several years before Aeneas sought to build a new city, yet the way Polydorus's spirit (I would say spirit?) is still in the very land of greed where he was murdered speaks volumes. In all the works we have read I sense a reoccurring theme of injustice. The people who have been wronged in life and through death have spirits that just cannot leave, and eventually the injustice done to them has to be revealed. In the Eumnides, Orestes's mother's spirit will not rest because she wants her son brought to justice.

I commented on Nate's and Dallas's.

Greek Battle Methods

I have always found the Trojan horse to be an interesting concept. Whether one agrees with its ethics or not, the idea of hiding imminent defeat inside a peace offering can definitely be seen as clever. Though it is a clever tactic, its ethics can be debated quite easily. One side may argue that there are no honor-worthy traits involved with the manipulative nature of the horse. It brings about an almost one sided fight by lowering the Trojan defenses. The way their defenses are lowered are also questionable, as the Trojans are told that the horse is a treaty, and that the Greeks have left Troy. "But war is war," said the other viewpoint. The Greeks and Trojans are in battle, so any method that ensures one's side comes closer to victory should be used. Look at World War II and the bombing of Japan. It needed to be done in retaliation of Pearl Harbor. Any method that brings victory closer should be used. Or should it? Though the horse was a genius idea, whether it is honorable or not seems to be up to each individual.

P.S. I commented on Noah's and Ethan's posts.

Parallel Tales with Strange Crossroads

As I was reading The Aeneid, I began to realize some similarities between it and The Odyssey. Call it crazy, but it almost seems like the authors of these two books were friends and took inspiration from one another, but Virgil seemed to have a better time telling his story. When in comparison to The Odyssey, many events are similar in that the crews must encounter the cyclopes in some way, deal with the situation of Calypso and Scylla, and fend off a hoard of mythical beasts (Aeneid > Harpies : Odyssey > Sirens). I find Virgil's story to be far more interesting however, mainly as it appeals to the Average Joe. Aeneas has no hope to survive any deadly situation he comes across, yet as he says it himself that it was divine will that got him to Italy in the end. Homer told the story of a hero who won the war for his homeland, seemingly single-handedly; Virgil writes of a war torn veteran who is clawing at the very edge of fate and survives by pure luck of the draw and will of the gods (that he is oblivious to). I just see similarities in the progression of the stories between one another.

I commented on Dallas' and Nate's post.

Appeal. And questions.

The tactics of the Greeks to get the horse in Troy was an ingenious one. Sinon's appeal to the Trojans through the story of Ulysses dishonoring Pallas Athena, to the horse being an offering to her, was extremely clever. I found myself looking at many times in history, we see this same scheme. People in the political scene perhaps, who need to stretch truths to appeal and influence are all too common and it is a shame. Especially when the outcome of said actions result in a metaphorical slaughter of values and ideas. And now some comments. I find it odd and almost funny that the humans look towards the gods with such respect and honor, when the gods are just as emotionally charged and vile in there own ways. Man, I'm so glad I didn't live in this time.

P.S. I commented on Hannah and Nate's posts

Here We Go Again

"But she heard of a race of men, sprung of Trojan blood, would one day topple down her Tyrian stronghold, breed an arrogant people ruling far and wide, proud in battle, destined to plunder Libya. So the Fates were spinning out the future... This was Juno's fear." (lines 13-28)

This is exactly like Oedipus trying to change his fate. This makes me think of so many things we've read thus far and raises so many questions about the flaws of these imperfect gods I don't even know where to start. I've gotta start somewhere though so here goes:

1) You are a GOD Juno, you are supposed to know everything right?! So why does she only have limited sight?
2) We all know how well trying to change our fate worked out for our dear friend Oepidus so why does Juno think it's going to work out any differently for her?
3) This makes me think of Paradise Lost when Lucifer learns about the fore coming of man and gets all jealous and rebels and throws creation's first hissy fit.
4) My all time favorite/nagging question: does free will exist? If this is destined, as I've highlighted above, can even a god change that? How did she even hear about this? Most importantly though, she is a god. This comes with omniscience and immortality right? Or is this not the case in Greek mythology? (Please forgive my lack of knowledge in this area I've never had a class on it. Very much learning as I go along here.) If so, then why does she care so much what happens to her precious city? You have eternity to fix it lady!!!!

OK, I think I'm done. . . for now.
I commented on Hannah Atkin's.

A Son's Love

Book 2, Line 880 and following is one of the most beautiful passages of literature we have read to date, because it speaks of the love of a son for his father. One, Aeneas seeks out his father (and family) amidst the chaos of the Greeks' invasion of Troy. Two, he argues with him about fleeing the city and battle, for his safety. Three, he carries his father upon his shoulders as he flees the city, for his father is unable to do so. In such times of trial, he carries his father upon his back. I know this is a shallow post, but I simply could not get past the beauty of these lines.

I commented on Daniel Stephens and Dallas Dodson's posts.

Listen to the Wise

Capys and the wise men in Troy did not want to bring the horse into the city. They said to burn it or throw it into the sea. They proclaimed that it was a trick from the Greeks and that if they did not burn it, they should cut it open. They thought they could be hiding in it. These men proved to be very wise and insightful. They precisely predicted what would happen but sadly for the Trojans, they did not listen. How different things could have been if everyone had listened to the counsel of wise men. I find it strange that they did not at least take the precaution of searching the belly of the horse before bringing it into the city. Was it really the god's sinister will as the writer tells us, or was it just the pride and foolishness of the Trojans that caused their city to be destroyed?

I commented on Natalie and Ethan's posts.

Why Gods Why?

In these three books of the Aenid on can see many similarites as he invokes the Muse, tells of the Trojan War, and there are gods who are given this sole authority over men yet make many mistakes causing pain and death in the world. The point of view of the Trojan War that is given is interesting as its told heroically but by the losing side. Venus says that it is the fault of the gods for this war and that Aeneas should not kill Helen because his fate is else where. It is just annoying because in my faith God is a perfect being that doesn't create evil and these people see the havok their gods make and still follow them. Yet I can't blame them even though usually man is the problem I must blame the gods! In almost every situation they cause more trouble than good knowingly. I think that the gods should not be seen as a perfect gods, the only one that could be seen as that would be Fate itself. Fate cannot be controlled and ultimatley brings out the best outcome. I will give credit to Athena as she is wise and does make a postive impact but the foolishness that is fueled by pride and vanity by the Roman Gods is ungodly like.

I posted on Natalie's and Hannah A.'s post.

Acts

     In book two of the Aeneid while Aeneas is recounting his story to Dido, he mentions the different omens he saw, but one in particular stands out: the tongues of fire over his son. Book two lines 849-853 say:

Now as we held our son between our hands 

and both our grieving faces, a tongue of fire,

watch, flares up from the crown of Iulus' head,

a subtle flame licking his downy hair, feeding

around the boy's brow, and though it never harmed him...

While reading this, I couldn't help but be reminded of the passage in Acts when the Holy Spirit descends on the people. In fact, the phrasing is identical. However, the Aeneid was written approximately 50 years before Acts was. I can't help but think that Luke was influenced by the Aeneid. I don't mean that in a "hey, I like this, let's steal the story", but more in a "this was phrased well and it describes what I'm trying to describe" kind of way. Plus, the audience Luke was writing to totally would have been familiar with the Aeneid.

 I commented on Daniel and Hannah's posts. 

The Roman Gods

From the first book alone, it was simple to pick out something very different about The Aeneid when compared to The Odyssey: At least in this first chapter, these Roman Gods are rather different in temperament to that of the Greek Gods. Now, when thinking back on the Odyssey, there is reason given for the Gods' hostility towards Odysseus and his men, as they dishonor the Gods such as Poseidon and Helios. However, the one thing the Greek Gods are divided amongst each other, with Athena on Odysseus' side, while Poseidon is against him. This is a common idea in many Greek myths. With what is shown in The Aeneid thus far, the Gods Juno, Jupiter, Amor, and so on all seem to be working together towards a similar goal: helping Aeneas. I cannot say for certain that is the case for all Roman myths or epics, but from this one alone, it already shows a greater unity among the Roman Gods than that of the Greeks, which, arguably, makes them greater.

I commented on Abigail's post.  

Leadership Lessons

“Call up your courage again. Dismiss your grief and fear. A joy it will be one day, perhaps, to remember even this.”

               In this passage, Aeneas works to rally and inspire his troops. This demonstrates much of his character and leadership abilities. Though he is full of anguish, he calls his men to have hope in very devastating circumstances. In word and deed, he promotes positivity. This quality in leadership is often overlooked and underrated. The ability to maintain a positive and uplifting outlook in the face of horrendous odds separates the mediocre leaders from the great ones. No one wants to follow a leader that believes he or she is defeated. I believe there is a lot we can learn from this situation, and the reaction of this effective leader.

I commented on Daniel and Abigail's posts

Leadership Lessons

“Call up your courage again. Dismiss your grief and fear. A joy it will be one day, perhaps, to remember even this.”

               In this passage, Aeneas works to rally and inspire his troops. This demonstrates much of his character and leadership abilities. Though he is full of anguish, he calls his men to have hope in very devastating circumstances. In word and deed, he promotes positivity. This quality in leadership is often overlooked and underrated. The ability to maintain a positive and uplifting outlook in the face of horrendous odds separates the mediocre leaders from the great ones. No one wants to follow a leader that believes he or she is defeated. I believe there is a lot we can learn from this situation, and the reaction of this effective leader.

I commented on Daniel and Abigail's posts

Fearless Leader

On page 53, Chapter 1 of The Aeneid, there is a paragraph where Acestes is addressing his men after escaping from the fury of the wild winds Aeolus had set on them at Juno's request.  In the paragraph, Acestes encourages his men to not give up yet, that they will reach their homeland if they keep faith.  Instead of succumbing to his grief over his lost shipmates, he behaves as a leader would and stays strong for his crew.  This specific passage stuck out to me because it reminded me so much of Odysseus when he was encouraging his men not to give in to the temptation to quit but encouraged them on.  Aceste in true to his duty as a commander and puts the needsof his men before his own.

I comented on Ollie and Travis

The Intermediate

Honestly, I find Aristotle to be very confusing. I don't always understand that overall picture of Book II or many of the points he makes throughout it. However, I did find it interesting how explains the "intermediate." We have our own definitions and ideas of what things like courage or boastfulness are, but when I look at courage as being the intermediate between and excess (rashness) and a deficiency (cowardliness) it definitely gave me a better understanding. We can look at anythings as an intermediate, but we also must remember how this intermediate is not universal. Just as Aristotle explained the intermediate between 10 and 2 is 6 in arithmetical proportion, but not in the amount of food a person can eat. I think that this idea is still used today. We look for a "middle ground" according to our situation, an intermediate.

I commented on Morgan's and Olivia's.

Nicomachean Ethics

"It is on account of the pleasure that we do bad things, and on account of the pain that we abstain from noble ones." Aristotle is on point with what he's saying here, and isn't this, as Christians, something that we have to fight against every day? It's funny to me that Aristotle wasn't a christian because so much of what he said sounded like what Christians believe. Including where he talks about humans receiving virtue but what actually makes us virtuous is the choice to act in those certain, specific ways. In the same way, I believe God gives us each spiritual gifts, but it's our choice to foster those gifts and practice those abilities so that they aren't just potential abilities of ours, but part of who we are. I agreed with Aristotle a lot more and enjoyed reading this a lot more than some of Plato's.


I commented on Charis' and Natalie's Posts!

The Balance of Virtue

I think this whole book of ethics boils down virtue(s). A good person is striving towards being virtuous. A virtuous person is someone who has a good balance of virtues. If someone is gluttonous in one virtue but, is starving another virtue he is not virtuous. I don’t think that Aristotle is saying that pleasure is a bad thing, I think he is saying that pleasure in excess is bad as well as not enough pleasure is bad. The same thing applies with money, fame, and generosity. The problem with this is that there is no standard for what is too much, it is different for everyone. What is gluttonous for one may not be enough for someone else. The real challenge comes when you are trying to find the balance that is virtuous for you.

P.S.: I commented on Dallas's and Hannah's Posts.