A Very Brief History of Dream Interpretation

 This is part six from a forthcoming book called Collected Essays: Volume Two.

************************

A Very Brief History of Dream Interpretation

Dreams are not such a central part of our culture anymore, but they were a lot more central to previous cultures and to aboriginal cultures. Although they are not as central, dreams do not fail to baffle us with their bizarre, non-linear and jarring imagery. This essay will offer a very brief history of dream interpretation by looking at ancient Greece, medieval Europe, Sigmund Freud and contemporary neuroscience. It is a predominantly Eurocentric history and does not look at aboriginal cultures or the orient.

This essay will start by looking at ancient Greece. The Greeks made a distinction between significant and insignificant dreams, the former being caused by hopes, fears and digestion. On the other hand, significant dreams were symbolic interpretations and visitations by gods, ghosts and friends. Indeed, people often thought that dreams were divine interventions. The Greeks were often visited by Asclepius, a divinity with healing powers. People talked to mystical gurus who interpreted dreams and gave medical advice, diagnoses and cures. Religious devotees would have a significant dream and then practice incubation or ritual sleep in a sanctuary. Certain objects might encourage the communication, such as ritual bathing, animal sacrifice or sleeping on animal skin. The Greek religious culture allowed people to believe in the apparent truth of these dreams (Kamil 2014).

            The main book that dealt with dream interpretation was The Interpretation of Dreams by Artemidorus, otherwise known as Oneirocrtitica, and it is the only book on dream interpretation that has survived antiquity. Dreams from antiquity contain numerous references to horrible punishments such as crucifixion, castration, having sex with Artemis and turning into a river god. Indeed, the book by Artemidorus contains numerous references to these things. Artemidorus’ book also contains references to having sex with mothers, which influenced Sigmund Freud centuries later (Hall 2020). Artemidorus was a resident of Ephesus and set out to write a theoretical guide to dreams, which were important in antiquity, as people thought that they prophesised the future. Artemidorous classified dreams as ‘enhypnia’ and ‘oneiroi,’ the former being non-predictive dreams which recycle what has happened during the day and the latter being predictive dreams which require interpretation. Dealing with predictive dreams required skill, experience and a well-developed set of interpretive tools. Artemidorus made wide historical research, extensive travel and classified and arranged his material. However, he emphasised the importance of direct experience rather than text-book learning. Dreams that occurred after incubation in a temple were classed as God-sent. Otherwise, if they occurred elsewhere, they were products of the mind and did not come from the external source. Artemidorus used numerology, puns, wordplay and analogies, but he thought that it was important to recollect dreams as much as possible. He thought that it was important for the dream-interpreter to have as much information about the dreamer’s background, status, present circumstances and his medical and psychological condition. Dreams can have different significances and different outcomes depending on whether the dreamer is a man or a woman, slave or free, rich or poor or healthy or sick. Artemidorus discusses about 1,400 dreams in his book (Hammond 2020).

            Artemidorus was an example of ancient dream theory, but this essay will now look at representations of dreams in ancient fiction. One of the most striking representations of dreams in antiquity occurs in The Odyssey by Homer. It would be classed as a ‘significant’ dream, as it is predictive of the future. Penelope waits for Odysseus to turn up and she is attended by fifty suitors. She dreams that an eagle kills fifty geese. Later on, Odysseus kills the fifty suitors, so the dream turns out to be prophetic and a wish-fulfilment. The bird tells the following to Penelope in the dream: ‘This is not a dream but a happy reality which you shall see fulfilled. Then geese were your suitors and I was the eagle. I am your husband, home again and ready to inflict a gruesome fate on every man among them’ (Homer 1991, p. 304). Odysseus later says: ‘Odysseus himself […] will make it come true […] there is not one will escape his destined death’ (p. 305). It is a prophetic dream and it is representative and metaphorical. However, the eagle spells out what will happen in a very direct way.

            This essay will now briefly look at what some of the ancient philosophers said about dreams. A philosopher who occasionally mentioned dreams was Heraclitus. He likened our normal waking life to sleep and urged ‘to wake up to a higher understanding’ (Waterfield, p. 33). It is only a select elite that manage to apprehend the underlying nature of things, which he calls ‘the logos.’ Although Heraclitus might seem to be disparaging of dreams in that sentence, there are some fragments where he says that dreams have great insight. These are some of his fragments: ‘Even a soul submerged in sleep is hard at work and helps make something of the world’ (Heraclitus 2003, p. 57). He also says: ‘The waking have one world in common. Sleepers, meanwhile, turn aside, each into a darkness of his own’ (p. 63). Waking life is something that we all share, but the dream world is something that only makes sense to a particular individual.

            This brief history will now look at the medieval ages. Similarly, the medieval era also has its own classic dream interpretation book, which was Somniale Daniels. This was a dream manual that circulated during the medieval period and the Renaissance and it was the most popular manual during this period. It was structured through dream symbols and their concise explanations (Cappozzo 2020, p. 1). It consisted of a list of symbols arranged in alphabetical order and interpreted as portending something good or evil for the dreamer (p. 1). Key terms in the text corresponded to the subject of a dream (p. 1). It transcended all classes in society, as everyone consulted the manual. Indeed, Latin and vernacular versions existed (p. 3), but the vernacular version was more secular and the Latin version was more ecclesiastical (p. 12). These were some of the prophesies that the manual made: ‘To see a storm means profit’ (p. 28), ‘To see snakes means damaging the enemy’ (p. 28), ‘To see snakes means damaging the enemy (p. 28), ‘To see blood means envy’ (p. 27), ‘To laugh in a dream means sadness’ (p. 27), ‘To hear an organ playing means being aware of a friend’ (p. 26), ‘To own a garden means happiness’ (p. 24). The medieval ages, like antiquity, saw dreams as messages that portended the future. Also, like the ancients, dreams were a lot more central to their culture than they are in ours.

             The medieval ages were dominated by Christianity. As such, this essay will now explore religious interpretations of dreams during this period. Indeed, dreams were seen as divine interventions (Kunzel 2002, p. 215). Dreams were seen as an active communication between the dreamer and another world. This is what Gregory the Great said about dreams: ‘The voice of God is indeed heard in dreams, when with a tranquil mind there is quiet from the action of this world and in this silence of mind divine precepts are perceived’ (Wellesley 2018). However, a small group of clergymen, mainly monks, had a monopoly on recording dreams in writing (Kunzel, p. 216). For medieval religious writers, dreams exhibit traces of Judeo-Christian traditions (216). In addition to this, the medieval clergy believed that supernatural powers could intervene through dreams (p. 216). They did this because according to the clergy God would send angels to people through dreams, but the devil also sent demons (p. 216). There was little notion that dreams came from people themselves, but the ancients did entertain this notion (p. 216). However, like the ancients, the medieval period did think that dreams contained predictions (p. 216). Additionally, the medieval clergy stressed that dreams had to be interpreted through Christian doctrine (Keskiaho 2015). For instance, Pope Hadrian I interpreted Charlamagne’s dream, who was king of the Franks. However, since his dream did not correspond to biblical imagery, it was interpreted as being illusionary. Gregory the Great thought that dreams had to be interpreted through spiritual judgement. Although dreams were not an integral part of theology, it was used heavily in the imagery of the period (Keskiaho 2015).

            This essay will explore how dreams were classified by the medieval clergy. According to Macobius, there are five types of dreams – the enigmatic dream, the prophetic dream, the oracular dream, the nightmare and the apparition. The enigmatic dream is difficult to interpret, the oracular dream is when the priest or pious person clearly reveals what will transpire and what action to take or to avoid. The prophetic dream shows event that will come true. Finally, nightmares are unimportant apparitions that arise due to stress (Wellesley 2018). Additionally, dreams were also classed as a temporary state between earthly life and judgement in heaven: ‘[A] temporary state of the disembodied soul as it awaits resurrection of the body at the last judgement’. Writers in the Old Testament spoke about death being a kind of sleep (Collins 2019). Dreams were classified into these five categories, but they were also classed as a transitory state between earthly and divine worlds.

            Dreams were largely seen as divine interventions in antiquity and the medieval period, although this was especially the case in the medieval period. However, Sigmund Freud constructed an atheistic belief system with psychoanalysis in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries. Dreams were a crucial part of his system and he devoted an entire book to the subject with The Interpretation of Dreams (1900). For Freud, dreaming is the unconscious at work, as it transforms the latent content into the manifest content. The dream circumvents repression and censorship and reveals what we really think and wish. Dreams also involve ‘condensation’; that is, they take a number of elements and combine them into one whole. They also involve ‘displacement,’ as they represent seemingly insignificant things. Dreams might be about something, but the dream shows that it is about something else. Emotions are associated with one idea and it detached from that idea and attached to another one. Dreams also perform a ‘secondary revision,’ which are more logical (Freud Museum London year).

            This essay will now look at segments from The Interpretation of Dreams. Freud says in the book that, although dreams might seem incomprehensible, they lend themselves to interpretation (1999, p. 79). For Freud, dreams do possess meaning and that ‘a scientific method of dream interpretation is possible’ (p. 80). He interpreted thousands of dreams in an allegedly scientific manner (p. 80). Freud, echoing antiquity, thinks that dreams represent wish fulfilments (p. 98). Everything said and spoken in dreams are reproductions of words and allusions to events retained in the dream thoughts (p. 238). Crucially, for Freud, he thinks that dreams come from the unconscious (p. 361), but that these unconscious thoughts are repressed and manifest themselves in our dreams (p. 404). For Freud, the unconscious is ‘the question of psychology’ (p. 404), as it is ‘the basis for the life of the psyche (p. 405). We are conscious during our waking life, but the unconscious comes into being whilst we are asleep (p. 405). Dreams are the way they are because they are ‘unconscious thinking.’ However, the unconscious is also active during the day, but it is mediated by the conscious mind (p. 405). Dreams seem to enact unconscious fantasies and probably arise due to repressed sexual impulses (p. 405). Freud says the following about this: ‘[Dreams are an] expression for impulses which are hampered by resistance by day, but are able to draw reinforcement from deep sources of excitation by night’ (p. 406). Dreams reproduce the ‘dream wish’ and help us to ‘rediscover’ the unconscious (p. 406). These theories claim that dreams occur due to psychological activity and, unlike earlier periods, Freud attributes none of this to supernatural intervention. Whilst all this is very interesting, it is not backed up by empirical investigation. Karl Popper claimed that Freud’s theories were pseudo-science (Okasha 2002, p. 12), as he made claims that could not be falsified, and his ideas are no longer influential in psychology (Yeung 2021).

            Indeed, there is no proof of Freud’s claims in neuroscience. According to neuroscience, dreams occur due to brain plasticity and REM sleep. Brain plasticity occurs when neurons interconnect and find new partners. They constantly change and neurons pass on different information to each other. Like plastic, the brain assumes new shapes and changes. The brain includes eighty-six billion neurons and 0.2 quadrillion connections, which rewire every moment of our lives. Neuroscience used to think that different parts of the brain were predetermined to perform certain functions. However, recent discoveries now show that the brain is assigned a task, which is passed on to the back of the brain, the visual cortex. The visual cortex is active at night, when neurons in the visual cortex overpower the senses. During sleep, we experience REM sleep for ninety minutes, which stands for Rapid Eye Movement, and this is when dreams usually occur. Some dreams can occur during non-REM sleep, but these dreams are usually abstract and are less vivid. REM sleep is triggered by a set of neurons that pump activity into the visual cortex.  Circuitry in the brain paralyses the muscles in the body during REM sleep, so that the brain can stimulate visual experience without moving the body. Neuroscientists think that dreams occur so as to prevent the other senses from taking over the visual cortex when it is unused (Eagleton and Vaughn 2020).

             This essay will now examine how REM and brain plasticity cause dreams. Dreaming is caused when a small group of cells are switched on and they execrate a chemical called ‘acetylcholine.’ This chemical activates the higher parts of the brain and they generate meaningless images. These meaningless images are made from ‘noisy’ signals that are sent up from the brain. This is later counteracted by another group of cells which execrate two chemicals called noradrenaline and serotine, which switch off the cholinergic activation. The frontal lobe of the brain, which is above the eyes, contain a large fibre-pathway which transmit a chemical called ‘dopamine.’ This is passed on from the middle part of the brain to the higher parts. Damage to this pathway makes dreaming impossible, but it leaves the REM cycle unaffected. Chemical stimulation of the dopamine pathway leads to a massive increase in the frequency and vividness of dreams without having an effect on the frequency and intensity of REM sleep (Solms 1999). Dreams that occur during REM sleep are often bizarre and have something to do with personal concerns. The dreams are often similar to psychotic experiences, since they involve false beliefs and distorted sensory perceptions. Indeed, dream reports are often similar to reports of people experiencing psychosis (Munt 2017). All these discoveries debunked Freud’s speculations. Although Freud saw dreams as profoundly meaningful, they are now seen as meaningless. For Freud, dreams could explain all of our underlying problems and motivations. Now they are largely seen as meaningless images that arise due to psychological processes. Indeed, they are seen as no different from the beliefs of psychotics.

            Dreams were a central part of Greek culture. They distinguished between significant and insignificant dreams and they claimed that the former were prophetic. People often consulted gurus who interpreted significant dreams. Artemidorus wrote an entire book that interpreted dreams and it was very popular during antiquity. Dreams feature in ancient fiction, notably in The Odyssey by Homer. The story features a prophetic wish-fulfilment, which was a common feature of ancient dream interpretation. Heraclitus was an ancient Greek philosopher who included dreams in his writings. For him, people were constantly asleep and that a few enlightened individuals could access reason, ‘the logos.’ He also mentioned in one of his fragments that individuals enter their own private world whilst we all share the same world in our waking life. The most important book of dream interpretation in the medieval period was Somniale Daniels, which was a manual that contained symbols. Although dreams were not a central part of medieval theology, they were a central part of Medieval culture. Dreams were seen as divine interventions, as people thought that either God or the devil sent messengers that appeared in our dreams. Freud constructed an atheistic doctrine with psychoanalysis and dreams were a crucial part of it. For Freud, dreams reveal the unconscious mind that permeates all our thoughts and actions. Freud thought that dreams could be scientifically analysed and understood. Although he was an atheist, Freud echoed the ancients and the medieval period, as he did think that dreams were wish fulfilments. Freud was a major 20^th century figure, but none of his speculations have been confirmed by empirical investigations in neuroscience. According the neuroscience, dreams are caused by brain plasticity and Rapid Eye Movement. Neurons overpower the visual cortex and this activity causes dreams. Transmission of the chemical ‘dopamine’ is also crucial to dreaming. Reports of dreams are highly similar to the behaviour of psychotics, as they are deluded, their senses are disorganised and they experience hallucinations. Although dreams were very meaningful to antiquity, the medieval period and to Freud, they are now seen as meaningless images which are caused by cerebral activity. Even so, they still never fail to bemuse us with their bizarre images. Although they are not as prevalent in our culture, they do often appear in cinema and literature and the arts continue to use them as a source of inspiration.

Words Cited

            Cappozzo, Valerio. (2020) ‘The Transmission of the Somniale Daniels, from Latin to Vernacular Italian.’ In Translat Library. Vol. 2: No. 1.

Collins, Christopher. (2019) ‘Poetics of the Medieval Dream.’ In Creative Commons. Available from: https://hcommons.org/deposits/item/hc:23871/

Eagleman, David and Vaughn, Don. (2020) ‘Why do we Dream? A New Theory on How it Protects Our Brains.’ In Time. Available from: https://time.com/5925206/why-do-we-dream/

Freud, Sigmund. (1999) The Interpretation of Dreams. Originally published in 1900. Translated by Joyce Crick. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

            Hall, Edith. (2020) ‘Sex on the Brain.’ In Times Literary Supplement. Available from: https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/artemidorus-interpretation-of-dreams-review/

            Hammond, Martin. (2020) ‘Artemidorus on Dreams.’ In Classics for All. Available from: https://classicsforall.org.uk/reading-room/ad-familiares/artemidorus-dreams

            Heraclitus. (2003) Fragments. Translated by Brooks Haxton. London: Penguin.

Homer. (1991) The Odyssey. Translated by E. V. Rieu. London: Penguin.

            Kamil, Miriam. (2014) ‘Dreams and Prophecy in Ancient Greece.’ In Ancient Origins. Available from: https://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends-europe/dreams-and-prophecy-ancient-greece-002107

Keskiaho, Jess. (2015) ‘Images and the Images of Dreams in the Early Middle Ages.’ In Cambridge Blog. Available from: http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2015/07/images-and-the-images-of-dreams-in-the-early-middle-ages/

Kunzel, Rudi. (2002) ‘Medieval Dreams: A Sample of Historical and Psychoanalytical Criticism.’ In Psychoanlyticsche Perspectieven. 20:2, p. 215-233.

Mutz, Julian. (2017) ‘Exploring the Neural Correlates of Dream Phenomenology and Altered States of Consciousness During Sleep.’ In Neuroscience of Consciousness. Volume 2017, Issue 1.

Okasha, Samir. (2002) Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Solms, Mark. (1999) ‘The Interpretation of Dreams and the Neurosciences.’ In Freud’s Traumdeutung.

Unknown author. (2018) ‘The Dream Work.’ In Freud Museum London. Available from: https://www.freud.org.uk/education/resources/the-interpretation-of-dreams/the-dreamwork/#:~:text=The%20dream%2Dwork%20is%20the,wishes%20to%20get%20past%20censorship.

Water, Robin. (2000) The First Philosophers: The Presocratics and the Sophists. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wellesley, Mary. (2018) ‘Dream Visions.’ In British Library. Available from: https://www.bl.uk/medieval-literature/articles/dream-visions

             Yeung, Andy Wai Kan. (2021) ‘Is the Influence of Freud Declining in Psychology and Psychiatry? A Bibliometric Analysis.’ In Frontiers in Psychology. Vol. 18.

Nascent Liberalism in Antiquity and the Medieval Ages

This is part five from a forthcoming book called Collected Essays: Volume Two.

*****************************

 Nascent Liberalism in Antiquity and the Medieval Ages

Liberalism emerged in the 18^th century during the Enlightenment. Its first exponent was John Locke whose ideas gained traction in Great Britain after the Glorious Revolution. Although these ideas have been highly influential since then, earlier societies placed a lot more emphasis on community than the individual. Earlier societies espoused these views, but one of the main principles of liberalism was anti-authoritarianism and that tyrannical majorities should not enforce their dogmas on others. The purpose of this essay is to look at ancient Greece and Rome and the medieval ages. It will establish the what these societies believed in and, following this, will introduce thinkers from these eras. Although these thinkers might not be outright liberals, they do evince traces of ‘nascent liberalism.’ It will look at Cicero, Pericles, Diogenes and Marcus Aurelius for the section on antiquity and it will look at St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas for the section on the medieval ages.

Like all ideologies, ‘liberalism’ is a diffuse term. Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises called themselves liberals, but so did William Beveridge and John Maynard Keynes. Some liberals support a welfare state whilst others call themselves ‘anarcho-capitalists’ and want no state involvement in the economy whatsoever. However, there are principles which all liberals espouse and this essay will start by identifying these principles. According to John Gray, liberalism is individualistic, egalitarian, melioristic and universal (1998). It is individualistic because it sees the individual as the prime unit of society and not as part of a collective. It is egalitarian because it believes in the equal worth of each individual, everyone should be treated equally and not be discriminated against. It is melioristic because it believes in progress and that things develop and change. It is universal because it believes that these principles are universal to everyone, regardless of their nationality or tribe. Additionally, liberals are neutral about the good life as long as no-one is harmed and do not prescribe a worldview to others. A liberal would go out of his way to defend a lifestyle that he disapproves of. Liberalism defends tolerance, human rights, civil liberties, democracy, a market economy, property rights, equality before the law, a free press and personal freedom. All in all, Hayek, Mises, Beveridge and Keynes, whilst they might be opposites in other ways, would all agree with these principles. However, classical liberals want to restrict the role of the state as much as possible. Meanwhile, ‘modern’ or ‘social’ liberalism grants a role for a role for the welfare state and believes that protecting individual liberty means promoting social justice. The poor, the disabled, the mentally ill and other disenfranchised groups do not have the opportunities to enjoy freedom. The market does not assist them adequately, so the state should step in to assist them.

            As the introduction recognised, earlier societies placed more emphasis on the community than the individual. However, Rene Descartes signalled a change with his book Meditations on First Philosophy, which was published in 1641. It includes the famous phrase ‘I think therefore I am’: ‘The proposition that “I am, I exist” is necessarily true whenever it is, stated by me or my own mind’ (1998, p. 24). Descartes continuously uses the first person singular ‘I’ throughout his treatise. He tries to be sceptical about everything about him and even doubts the existence of the world around him. He is only certain that his own mind exists and that God exists. This is because humans acquire everything through the senses, which are highly unreliable (p. 19). This kind of pure metaphysical speculation is radically sceptical of the material world and Descartes doubts if it exists. It is almost solipsistic, let alone idealistic, as it seems to be sceptical of the existence of other minds that are not his own. This kind of introspection is radically different from the rigid communitarianism of earlier centuries.

            However, Descartes’ Meditations was hardly an attempt to construct a liberal philosophy. Liberalism emerged in the late 17^th century with John Locke. Prior to the advent of liberalism, Europe had been engulfed in religious wars. The Thirty Years war was a conflict between Protestants and Catholics and it included Bohemia, Sweden, Denmark, Protestant German princes and Catholic France against the Habsurg Empire. (France joined the Protestants because they were worried about a Habsurg hegemony in Europe.) (Bonney 2011, p. 7). The war ravaged the economies of Europe and left a large death toll. Liberalism emerged at the end of this century and it celebrated tolerance of different religious creeds and beliefs. It emerged during the Glorious Revolution, when English peers were opposed to the Catholic policies of King James II. They wrote to Prince William of Orange to intervene (Vallance 2006, p. 2). Once he settled, he created a document called ‘Declaration of Rights,’ which established parliamentary government (p. 3) and affirmed the illegality of the independent exercise of royal power (p. 176). The High Commission could not levy money without parliamentary consent and could not order the army without the consent of parliament (p. 176). It asserted the right of petitioning, the need for the free election of MPs, privileged freedom of speech and debate in parliament and the need for frequent parliaments (p. 176-77). Additionally, the government created the Toleration Act in the 1690s, which tolerated a plurality of religious beliefs and moved closer to the radical ideas of John Locke (p. 316).   

            John Locke laid the foundations for liberalism. Indeed, the European Enlightenment effectively starts with John Locke (Dunne 1984, p. 21). Locke wrote that religious freedom meant being religious in one’s own way – not, as the atheist James Toland would have it, to be completely indifferent to religion (Dunne, p. 17). The individual was free to worship God as he individually saw fit (p. 20). For Locke, each individual is responsible for his own actions and should not submit to an authoritarian sovereign. He thought that rulers should be restrained as much as possible (p. 20). Another early exponent of early Enlightenment values was Benedict de Spinoza who stated the following: ‘Each individual has the sovereign right to do all that he can’ (1951, p. 200). Spinoza emphasised the use of reason rather than emotion. He prescribed equality before the rule of law, but he also wanted to protect minorities and to stop the state from becoming tyrannical (p. 207). Crucially, he prioritised the needs of the individual over the needs of the community and this once more signals a shift away from the communitarian past: ‘Wrong is conceivable only in an organised community, nor can it ever accrue to subjects from any act of the sovereign who has the right to do what he likes’ (p. 208). For centuries, communities had oppressed the individual and forced him to submit to customs and traditions. Spinoza is saying here that the individual does not have to submit to the customs of the majority. He is entitled to lead his life as he individually sees fit and can use his reason to pursue his life projects. This is one of the reasons why the Enlightenment was so revolutionary, as it rejected the values which had been prevalent for centuries.

            Having examined the origins of liberalism, this essay will examine ‘nascent’ liberalism in ancient antiquity and the medieval ages. It will start by outlining what societies were like in these times and, following this, will introduce thinkers who exhibit signs of ‘nascent liberalism.’ It will start by outlining the structure of society in Ancient Greece. Society in Ancient Greece was governed by strict norms. Society was not conceived as an association of individuals, it was conceived as an association of families (Siedentop 2014, p. 7). The father was a God in preparation, the wife was subordinated to the husband and the authority of the father meant that he could kill his wife or children if he wanted to (Siedentop, p. 15). He exercised his authority ‘on the basis of beliefs shared by the family’ (Siedentop, p. 15). All the members of the family were descended from a common ancestor and bound together by blood (Bury 1920, p. 53). The family owned a plot of land where their ancestors were buried and the family worshiped their ancestors on a continual basis. This was done so as to prevent the ancestors from ‘being cast into oblivion’ (Siedentop, p. 15). Each family buried the dead in their own domain and one of the highest duties was to protect the tombs of the fathers (Bury, p. 54). Property belonged to the family, not to any particular individual (Siedentop, p. 16). The Greeks and the Romans, unlike us, made no distinction between private and public spheres, they made a distinction between public and domestic spheres. The domestic sphere was the sphere of the family, not of individuals endowed with rights. It was also very unequal in terms of roles, as women and slaves had no rights (Siedentop, p. 18). Several families would group themselves together into a society called ‘phatra,’ a brotherhood. Indeed, Homer said that he who has no brothers has no hearth (Bury, p. 54). Prior to the advent of the city, and a more sophisticated political and legal structure, the families were led by a king. He was the chief priest and war-lord of the tribe (Bury, p. 54). The king pronounced judgements, dealt with justice and led the hosts to war (p. 55). He was a protecting deity and he was revered as a God (p. 58). This confederation of families gradually became a city, however ancient citizenship left no space for individual choice (Siedentop, p. 21). Strict rules permeated dress, deportment, marriage, sport, education and conversation. If an individual deviated from them, he would be deported (Siedentop, p. 22). The welfare of the city was considered more important than the rights of the individual. Patriotism was the highest virtue for the Greeks and someone who retreated from patriotism and the ideal of the city was an ‘idiot’ (Siedentop, p. 25). Indeed, Aristotle went as far as saying that the life of the citizen was the only life worth living (Siedentop, p. 25). Each city had its own God, but Greeks from different cities did not mingle with each other. There was no notion of individual rights and there was no liberty of thought or action. Participation in the assembly and the magistrate was obligatory and enforced for citizens (Siedentop, p. 28). People were born into casts and this inequality was considered natural (Siedentop, p. 51). The citizens were a small minority, but women, slaves and plebs were barred from participating in the political process. Indeed, these strict social roles were stifling and any slight deviation from them was punished. One of the most famous examples of this was Socrates, who was chastised for ‘corrupting the youth of Athens.’

            Having established what society was like in Ancient Greece, this essay will look at four figures from Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome and will attempt to detect traces of ‘nascent liberalism.’ It will start by looking at Cicero whose ideas on property closely resemble classical liberalism. In Ancient Greece and Rome, property belonged to the family so that they could worship their ancestors (Siedentop, p. 16). Plato says the following in Laws: ‘Thou who art only a pilgrim here below does it belong to thee to decide such affairs? Thou art the master neither of thy property nor of thyself, thou and thy estate, all these things belong to thy family; that is to say, to thy ancestors and to thy posterity (Siedentop, p. 17). Interfering with property meant interfering with the family and domestic religion (p. 17). However, Cicero argued in favour of property rights and argued that property should belong to individuals. Justice for Cicero meant respecting property and taking property away from someone is the gravest violation. He also opposed state-mandated redistribution, since he argued that if you had the right to something, you should not take it away from them (Nussbaum 2019, p. 55). The taking of private property, for Cicero, was a grave injustice, as it violated ‘the law of fellowship’ (Nussbaum, p. 25). Alternatively, the Stoics at the time argued that property should be commonly owned (p. 56). In other words, they were prototypical socialists. Cicero argued that taking property rights away from someone means using someone as a tool for someone’s convenience (p. 27). This is very similar to Immanuel Kant’s views on ethics, as he argued that individuals are ends in themselves and should be able to determine their own actions. Individuals are ends in themselves and should not be used as means by others to satisfy a pattern. Indeed, Cicero was a big influence on Kant (Nussbaum, p. 28). The first liberal thinker, John Locke, stressed the importance of property rights and it was one of the most important liberal tenets. Classical liberalism opposes the redistribution of wealth, but later ‘modern’ liberals do support a modest redistribution of wealth. Cicero’s arguments also mirror the ideas of 20^th century libertarian Robert Nozick. Nozick opposed the redistribution of wealth, as he argued that it uses individuals as means to specific ends. Nozick even sees personal taxation as an infringement on liberty. Despite this similarity to later liberal thinkers, Cicero held communitarian views. He championed the public life and he argued that true potential can only be realised in the community: ‘The primary reason for its coming together is not so much weakness as a sort of innate desire on the part of human beings to form communities. For our species is not made up of solitary individuals or lonely wanderers’ (year, p. 19). The emphasis is very much on the public sphere and on community, something that the Enlightenment and thinkers like Spinoza later questioned.

            This essay will now look at Pericles, Greece’s democratic leader. Initially, liberalism was sceptical of democracy, as thinkers like John Stuart Mill thought that it might lead to the ‘tyranny of the majority’ and to ‘mob rule.’ Pericles also spoke about ‘the people,’ which might also seem illiberal as it speaks about an abstract entity that does not exist. Indeed, the founders of the United States were sceptical of Pericles as they thought that democracy meant ‘mob rule.’ However, liberalism and democracy have since been fused together and they are seen as complementary. Still, the alternative to democracy at the time was aristocracy, oligarchy, Plato’s ‘philosopher kings’ and despotism, which were more illiberal and concentrated power into small groups. Most Athenians lacked Pericles’ education, as they had a poor standard of living. Many members of the small elite that Pericles belonged to opposed democracy, as it meant sharing power with a mass of citizens who were less affluent. It also meant that they had to contribute financial resources so as to provide benefits for the masses (Martin 2016, p. 7). Pericles wanted to strengthen political and financial measures so as to support the majority of his citizens (p. 7). Pericles’ opponents blamed him for the decisions that male citizens made in the democratic assembly and for spending money on expensive public buildings (p. 7). After the Peloponnesian War, when Pericles himself was killed, there was a short period of dictatorship, which Socrates supported. Following the restoration of democracy, Socrates was trialled and killed. Indeed, Pericles and his democratic ideals were anathema to Socrates and Plato who were in favour of ‘philosopher kings.’ Their view of society, however, was more authoritarian. Plato wanted to destroy the family and subject all Athenians to a strict education system. Meanwhile, Pericles wanted to distribute power more widely, which makes him less authoritarian and, hence, more liberal. Pericles was completely committed to freedom (p. 143), the primary liberal value. He was also committed to equality, as he increased democracy. He tried to reduce the political and judicial powers of the Areopagus Council. The members were chosen randomly and juries were made up of hundreds of thousands of people who were chosen by lottery (p. 143). The Areopagus was made up of mandatory annual examinations of financial accounts of officials who held government posts. Former officials would not be determining the guilt or innocence of their colleagues in public office. This reform diminished corruption and made Athenian more egalitarian (p. 143). Of course, transparency and public accountability are liberal ideals, as liberals do not want public officials to abuse power. Laws were made by juries and they were chosen at random. Accountability was in control of the majority, not the social elite. It is disputable whether this was truly liberal, as fifth century Athens was ruled by the will of the majority and liberalism aims to protect minorities against the majority. Indeed, J.B. Bury argues that Pericles ‘ruled as a tyrant’ and that ‘subjects must obey his nod’ (p. 382). However, Pericles was primarily interested in extending freedom to everyone and he was committed to the liberal values of freedom, equality and universalism.

            This essay will now look at Diogenes, whose strange behaviour disconcerted the Greeks. The Polis in Ancient Greece has strict social rules, but Diogenes deviated from that. He did not write tracts, instead he was a philosopher-as-performance-artist. Unlike Socrates, who engaged in dialogue but did not write, Diogenes enacted eccentric theatrics which drew attention to himself. A lot of his act was about authenticity in an age when deviation from norms would brand you an ‘idiot.’ For Diogenes, to become a true individual and a proper human being, one had to reject conventional society and its values. Otherwise, one would simply be a member of a crowd (Hard 2002, p. ix). Whilst this is something that a moody teenager might espouse these days, it was a radical statement in Ancient Greece. In an age of strict social rules, he masturbated in public, wandered around the streets with a lantern in broad daylight asking ‘for an honest man,’ slept in a wooden jar, he was always surrounded by dogs and he went up to one of Plato’s lectures and threw a plucked chicken at him. This was all part of his philosophy, which aimed to disrupt the stultifying staidness of Athenian culture. He did everything in public in a society with strict public norms. He often walked against the flow of the crowd, as he said that people should be ashamed for their wrong direction in life (p. ix). The mass of people, for Diogenes, are anonymous. Members of a crowd are slave and scum (p. ix). He rejected conventionality because he wanted individuals to discover their true nature (p. ix). In a highly permissive age, this might seem like a cliché, but in a society in which only the public realm existed, when there was no private realm, with strict rules on dress, behaviour and comportment, this was radical behaviour.

            Finally, this essay will briefly consider Marcus Aurelius, a Roman emperor. Like Cicero, Aurelius was a Roman stateman and he was deeply involved in its politics. For the most part, like Cicero, Aurelius mainly speaks about community and the common good. He says the following in Meditations: ‘We are born for community’ (2016, p. 41). Indeed, he also says:

Just as you yourself are a complementary part of a social system, so too your every action should complement a life of social principle. If an action of yours, then, does not have direct or indirect relation to the social end, it pulls your life apart and destroys its unity. It is a kind of sedition, like an individual in a democracy unilaterally resigning from common harmony (p. 88).

It is considered ‘sedition’ to do things that have no social end and every action should ‘complement a social principle.’ What would have he have made of Diogenes’ behaviour? However, Aurelius expresses a more liberal philosophy with the following statement: ‘The idea of a polity administered with regard to equal rights, and equal freedom of speech, and the idea of a kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the governed’ (p. 5). Indeed, this leans closer to the kind of philosophy espoused by Spinoza and Locke who thought that the primary aim of governments is to protect the freedom of its citizens. He also wants to protect freedom of speech and he says that all citizens are endowed with equal rights. It is a lot less communitarian and authoritarian than his other statements and it evinces a prototypical liberalism.

            This essay will now look at the medieval period. In the early medieval period, all members of society were part of a clan. They were monogamous and adultery was rare (Thompson and Johnson 1937, p. 69). All members of the clan were liable for an offence committed by just one of its members, including murder (p. 73). Woods, pasture and the waste land were owned by the community, but farm land was owned by individuals (p. 74). Agriculture was a co-operative enterprise (p. 74). Kings were chosen on account of their ancestry and their valour (p. 74). Society in the medieval ages was made up of rigid social classes and each had its own function (p. 74). The first estate was the clergy, the second estate was the nobility and the third was labour. Feudalism was the system which regulated relationships among members of the third estate (p. 309). Freedom of the individual was confined only to aristocracy and there was little individualism in feudal times (p. 311). Like ancient times, community rather the individual was the primary value. Property was commonly owned, but society was strictly stratified and several sections of society lacked rights.

            Indeed, this system was known as ‘feudalism’ and the section in society with fewest rights were called ‘serfs.’ Serfdom was revoked in the 15^th century, which was a big change (Wickham 2006, p. 15), but prior to this serfs could scarcely be differentiated from slaves (p. 329). A serf could not own property (p. 329) and was often sold like a slave, often for less than the price of a horse (p. 329). A serf could appear in court against another serf, but not against a freeman or a lord (p. 329). Serfs always stayed on the same land, even if it was sold, but they were at least protected from unemployment (p. 330). Societies in the medieval ages were more tribal, there was little freedom of the individual and society was stratified. There were no universal human rights, a common value of the liberal Enlightenment, and large sections of society did not have the same rights as others. In ancient times, only citizens had rights and could participate in public affairs, but even there was still no much lee-way for independent thought. They still had to respect customs and gods. At least some of the aristocracy had more freedom in medieval times.

            However, several of the ‘fathers’ in the medieval ages spoke a lot more about free will and autonomy than the ancients did. Indeed, Larry Siedentop argues in Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Modern Liberalism (2014) that Christianity was an individualistic religion. St. Paul conceived of a religion in which the individual finds salvation through Christ. St. Augustine (354-430) developed St. Paul’s philosophy further. He spoke about ‘the will’ and pride of the intellect meant that the human being can determine his own choices (Siedentop 2014, p. 102). St. Augustine, unlike the ancients, did not believe that some people in society were inherently better than others. He believed that all souls were equal (p. 102), which conforms to the egalitarian principle of liberalism, as liberalism argues that all individuals are of equal worth. Souls, according to Augustine, are not inherently superior to one another (p. 102), which rejects the natural inequality of Ancient Greece and Rome. Ancient philosophy emphasised reason – the logos – but Augustine emphasised grace, intellect and feeling, which involves choice (p. 102). Reason has to make sense of a world outside our control and this is made through choice (p. 104). Inwardness of the individual is not a sphere of silence, it is a sphere of dialogue, of conversation with God (p. 105). Augustine puts a lot more emphasis on the inner life of the individual and his individual agency. Whilst there are brief flashes of this in antiquity, the arguments of The Fathers are much closer to the Enlightenment.

            This essay will now look at Thomas Aquinas, who lived during 1225-74, almost a century after Augustine. Once more, Augustine emphasises autonomy: ‘Willing is an internal choice’ (2016, p. 172). However, Aquinas emphasises that, although we have free will, that it is guided by God: ‘God moves us to choose by sort of internal stimulus, infallibly but without comprising our freedom’ (p. 172). The individual is free to choose and this freedom is granted by God. Later liberals such as John Stuart Mill were atheists, although John Locke was not. For Mill, the individual is an autonomous agent. Aquinas also sees the individual as a rational agent, but this freedom is only possible because it is granted by God. For Aquinas, the will is motivated by a goal and the individual usually acts because he is driven towards something: ‘The mover compels what it moves to move’ (p. 174). The individual wills everything himself, he is not driven by something external: ‘I think because I want to, I use all my other abilities and dispositions because I want to’ (p. 177). The will is moved by deliberation, as the individual deliberates about what is best for him and takes facts into consideration (p. 178). This is similar to liberal rationality, as liberals urge others to make informed choices about subjects using facts and logic. Aquinas still clings to God, as he thinks that willing and free choice are stimulated by God. Later Enlightenment thinkers like Spinoza rejected this, as he tried to see the natural world as something fee from divine intervention. However, like the humanists from the Enlightenment, Aquinas sees humans as uniquely different from other animals, as they are equipped with reason (p. 359). Whilst there are some differences between Aquinas and thinkers of the Enlightenment, he places special stress on autonomy, rational choice and the individual much more than the thinkers from Antiquity, who view humans as a social animal. 

            Liberalism places greater emphasis on the individual than the social collective. It is also egalitarian and believes in progress, tolerance and universalism. Rene Descartes showed nascent signs of this when he stated ‘I think therefore I am.’ In the seventeenth century, there had been religious wars between protestants and Catholics. In the end of this century, John Locke argued that governments should promote tolerance of different religious beliefs. However, ancient Greece and the medieval era did not have a liberal ethos. There were strict social norms in ancient Greece, as families lived together and worshipped their ancestors. The patriarch of the family wielded authority and could kill his wife or his children if he wanted to. Following the advent of the city, there were strict roles for citizens and anyone who was not a patriot would be ostracised. These societies also actively promoted inequality, as the aristocracy would rule, but slaves, plebs and women were not citizens. However, Cicero expressed classical liberal ideas on property, as he argued that it should belong to individuals and that states should not take it away from him. In antiquity, property usually belonged to the family. Pericles was a statesman who expanded democracy, freedom and equality. He also tried to make government more transparent, more accountable and less corrupt. Diogenes was an extremely eccentric figure who tried to challenge the strict social norms which were prevalent in Athens. He thought that the masses blindly followed arbitrary norms and he tried to disrupt this with his strange behaviour. Finally, Marcus Aurelius, like Cicero, was a communitarian, but he expressed a liberal opinion when he argued that a society should primarily protect equal rights, freedom of speech and the freedom of its citizens. This also essay also looked at the medieval era, when people lived in oppressive tribes. Medieval societies were also feudal, as serfs lived on a plot of land and were not entitled the same rights as other citizens. However, St. Augustine, early on in the medieval period, argued that all souls are equal. This egalitarian ethos influenced Gregory VI legal reforms, which attempted to make all individuals equal before the law and paved the road to the end of serfdom. Augustine also emphasised individual inwardness and choice. Finally, Thomas Aquinas emphasised that the individual is free to make rational choices, but that this freedom is enabled by God. This is different from Enlightenment thinkers, as they tried to see the natural world as something free from divine intervention. Earlier societies were not liberal, but the thinkers and statemen that this essay look at do show nascent signs of liberalism.

 Works Cited

Aurelius, Marcus. (2006) Translated by Martin Hammond. Meditations. London: Penguin.

Aquinas, Thomas. (2008) Translated by Timothy McDermott. Selected Philosophical Writings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bonney, Richard. (2002) The Thirty Years’ War: 1618-1648. Oxford: Osprey Publishing.

Bury, J. B. (1920) A History of Greece to the Date of Alexander the Great. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Cicero. (2008) Translated by Niall Rudd. The Republic and the Laws. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Descartes, Rene. (1998) Translated by Desmond M. Clarke. Originally published in 1641. Meditations and Other Metaphysical Writings. London: Penguin.

Diogenes the Cynic. (2012) Introduction by Robin Hard. Sayings and Anecdotes with Other Popular Moralists. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dunn, John (1984) Locke: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford Publishing Press.

Gray, John. (1986) Liberalism. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Martin, Thomas R. (2016) Pericles: A Biography in Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nussbaum. (2021) The Cosmopolitan Tradition: A Noble but Flawed Ideal. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Spinoza, Benedict. (2007) Originally published in 1670. Translated by Jonathan Israel. Theological-Political-Treatise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Siedentop, Larry. (2004). Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism. London: Penguin Books.

Thompson, James Westfall. Johnson, Edgar Nathaniel. (1937) An Introduction to Medieval Europe: 300-1,500. New York Norton & Co.

Wickham, Chris. (2016) Medieval Europe. Yale: Yale University Press.

Vallance, Edward. (2006) The Glorious Revolution: 1688 – Britain’s Fight for Liberty. London: Abacus.

 

My flat

Ahoy Facebook #17

 

New acquisitions.

Seven books: The Republic and the Laws by Cicero, Meditations by Marcus Aurelius, Selected Philosophical Writings by Thomas Aquinas, Medieval Europe by Chris Wickham, Pericles: A Biography in Context, How to be a Conservative by Roger Scruton and Edward Heath: A Biography by John Campbell.

I want to write an essay about 'nascent liberalism in ancient antiquity and the medieval ages.' Liberalism is associated with the start of the enlightenment, and earlier societies placed a lot more emphasis on the community than the individual, but I wanted to find examples of liberalism in these times. I bought books by Cicero, Marcus Aurelius and Thomas Aquinas so as to detect traces of 'nascent liberalism.' I also bought a book about Pericles, an early democrat. I also bought a book about medieval Europe so to include a bit an essay about Medieval culture/society.

I bought this intriguing book by Roger Scruton. Scruton examines liberalism, socialism, conservatism, capitalism, environmentalism and internationalism. This book looks interesting because it seems to unbiased and even-handed, as it examines the strengths and weaknesses of each ideology.

I bought this biography about Edward Heath. I find him interesting as a person, as he was a very shy and awkward man, but he became prime minister. He was also the first prime minister to probably be a virgin, although this was after the start of the age of permissiveness. I also find his period as prime minister very interesting, as he took the UK into Europe and he struggled with industrial unrest, rising unemployment and the end of consensus.

New acquisitions.

Eleven CDs: Third by Soft Machine, Soundtrack of Le Mepris by George Delerue, The Essence of Woody Herman by Woody Herman, The Complete Early Recordings of Skip James by Skip James, Greatest Hits by Abba, An Elpee and two Epees by Ivor Cutler, Jazz in a Silhouette by Sun Ra, The Magic City by Sun Ra, My Favourite Things by John Coltrane, Les Espaces Acoustiques by Gerard Grisey and The Inner Mounting Flame by The Mahavishnu Orchestra.

Jazz fusion, film soundtracks, swing, blues, pop, novelty music, modern jazz, modern classical music.... I like having an eclectic musical taste.

I'm moving into my own - rented - apartment soon.

The Fall - My New House - YouTube

New acquisitions.

Ten DVDs: The Wild Bunch by Sam Peckinpah, Cross of Iron by Sam Peckinpah, Straw Dogs by Sam Peckinpah, Pat Garett and Billy the Kid by Sam Peckinpah, Blind Chance by Krzysztof Kieslowski, The Bridge on the River Kwai by David Lean, The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp/A Matter of Life and Death by Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger, The Devils by Ken Russell, The Third Man by Carol Reed and The Silence of the Sea by Jean-Pierre Melville.

Sam Peckinpah is an astonishing filmmaker and the images in his films linger in my mind. His films are about violence, honour and revenge. These are four of his films.

This film by Kieslowski was made in communist Poland. It imagines three different scenarios each time the protagonist either misses or catches a train. In one scenario, he becomes a communist activist, in another one he is an anti-communist activist and in another one he is not involved in politics. Kieslowski is one of my favourite filmmakers.

This film by David Lean is an epic about British held soldiers held captive as prisoners of war by the Japanese during WWII. They are subjected to gruelling labour and forced to build a bridge. For my money, it has one of the best endings in the history of cinema.

I bought this classic film by Powell/Pressburger, which offended Churchill so much that he tried to have it banned. It also comes with A Matter of Life and Death and I already own another copy of that.

This film by Ken Russell is surrealistic and has some awesome images. It is about some nuns who claimed to have been possessed by the devil.

This film by Carol Reed is set in Austria after WWII and it has a memorable cameo appearance from Orson Welles.

This film, 'The Silence of the Sea,' is about a Nazi officer who tries to convince this French couple that Germans are good people and that Germany is a good culture. It has a surrealist slant to it.

New acquisition.

A punching bag.

I've been struggling with anger/negative thoughts the past few years. I can start shouting and I can get quite nasty. This isn't who I am, however, as I am sure that I am a decent/nice person. Someone at work suggested that I buy a punching bag, which seemed like a good idea. So, the next time I get irrational/angry thoughts for some unfathomable reason, I'm going to punch the living shit out of this punching bag.

New acquisitions.

Three CDs: Stoner Witch by Melvins, Houdini by Melvins and The Bootlicker by Melvins.

One book: Ritual in the Dark by Colin Wilson.

Melvins are a group that I've enjoyed for a while. They're kind of grungey but quirkier. They were a big influence on Nirvana.

Colin Wilson wrote this novel alongside his non-fiction book The Outsider, which catapulted him to fame age twenty-four. It is a crime thriller about a serial killer.

Meandering Pontification 1/2 *

I am interested in a lot of things… Literature, music, film, philosophy, history, politics… And I’m starting to get interested in science, too. The thing is, though, is that I am not an expert in anything… I admire people who can focus and hyper-specialise… I can’t do that.

I find philosophy very interesting. My interest in it is completely amateurish, though. As I said earlier, I am not an expert in anything – I am an amateurish dilettante.

However, I find a lot of philosophy very infuriating. The philosophers that I find most interesting at the moment are John Rawls, Martha Nussbaum and Karl Popper. They write in crystal clear English/German (they don’t use wanky phrases like ‘the negation of the negation’) and I can comprehend what they are going on about. I find a lot of what Kant and Hegel said very interesting, but the primary texts are a fucking nightmare to read. I’d probably have to wade through dozens of secondary sources before they start to make sense. When I read primary sources, I don’t digest all of it, which probably goes to show what an amateur I am.

I get that there is a need for precision in all this and that you need to use terms, but a lot of the ‘continental’ stuff seems to be deliberately obscured. (I can be extremely imprecise, obscure and vague myself, which is something that I need to work and improve on.) All of the ‘postmodernist’ stuff seems to be a like a waste of time for me. I lost motivation with my MA… I did a module in Comparative Literature and I had to do a presentation on Roland Barthes. I could not find the primary source in the library – all the books had been taken. I cobbled together a presentation from secondary sources that I found in the library… The lecturer said that it was great (or maybe she said that it was shite, she spoke really obscurely) … When it came to writing the 5,000 word essay for that module, I started it three days before it was due and received 58% for it… (Something similar happened with my MA dissertation.) There might be a lot of substance behind all the obscurity, but all the postmodernist philosophy seems to be a whole load of pseudery to me… This might not be true, but I’m glad that I don’t have to deal with it anymore.

Maybe I should have done a degree in philosophy, history, politics or maybe even economics. My BA was really soft… I was reading through one of my essays that received 85% and it made me wonder how such a fluffy little essay could receive such a high mark… (I also threw in loads of Foucault/Deleuze into my undergrad dissertation without really understanding it and received 75% for it… I’d never use that stuff in one of my essays now!!!) It seemed to confirm that grade inflation IS a thing and that my degree was really soft.

* I try to avoid writing about this kind of thing on Facebook because these topics are divisive by their very nature and will piss off a large section of your friends… This is the kind of thing that will make people delete you, but… fuck it.

Meandering Pontification 2/2 *

The world is not fair and just (and it never will be)… so there is every good reason to make it more fair and just. There are good reasons for being a leftist – to make the world a fairer, more just, equal etc. place.

However, I would not want to get involved in left-wing politics… Every time I’d express an original thought that deviates from the party line or ideological orthodoxy, people would shout at me for being a ‘bourgeois individualist.’ I joined the Labour Party, but I let my membership expire for precisely this reason. Anyway, I would not want to spend my free time attending political meetings… I’d rather spend my free time reading books, writing books, watching films and listening to music instead. (Each to their own, though…) Denis Healey said that the Labour Party membership are not representative of Labour Party voters… Labour Party members are more ideological, more left-wing and more inclined to spend their free time attending political meetings. Labour Party voters are less ideological and more moderate, but they are less inclined to spend their free time attending political meetings. Denis Healey was correct.

The more extreme currents of leftist thought are just palpably silly – people like Paul Mason, Aaron Bastani, Grace Blakeley and Ash Sarkar… I can get why you might be an anti-capitalist or some sort of utopian anarchist in your early 20s, but I don’t understand how you can keep adhering to that stuff in your late 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s etc. (Again, each to their own!) I used to find that stuff appealing in my early 20s, but I grew out of it. Bastani’s idea of ‘fully automated luxury communism’ sounds like some sort of Monty Python sketch. Paul Mason goes on about ‘globalised neo-liberalism’ as if we should know what that means. This is his definition of neo-liberalism: ‘By neoliberalism I mean the global capitalist system shaped by a core of neoliberal practices and institutions, themselves guided by a widespread and spontaneously reproduced ideology, and ruled by an elite which acts in a neoliberal way, whatever conflicting and moderating ideas it holds in its head.’ Ok then!

Anyway, there is a good case for social justice, but never when it crushes individual freedom. (People can get a bit silly with social justice and go over the top with it – all those ‘Social Justice Warriors’ etc., but there’s always a good case for it.) It reminds me of the film ‘Dr. Zhivago’ by David Lean… A Russian poet is involved in the Russian revolution because he wants to do something about the injustices in Tsarist Russia… Come the revolution, one of the Soviet commissars addresses him… He says that he admired his poetry very much, but that in the new communist society there is no need for that ‘bourgeois’ nonsense. That’s the problem with leftist politics at its worst – its authoritarianism, its dogmatism and its contempt towards individualism, pluralism, tolerance, diversity, autonomy and personal goals. (In other words, leftist politics is bad when it is illiberal… And a lot of leftists are actively hostile to liberal values…)

As I said earlier, there are good reasons for making the world a fairer and more just place and there are good reasons for being a leftist, but so much of left-wing politics is such a load of crap.

* I try to avoid writing about this kind of thing on Facebook because these topics are divisive by their very nature and will piss off a large section of your friends… This is the kind of thing that will make people delete you, but… fuck it.

Meandering Pontification 3

In literature, music and film I tend to like stuff that is more ‘out there’ and experimental. I do like things that everyone else knows about… I do like Charles Dickens and William Shakespeare, I do like groups like Abba, The Beatles and The Rolling Stones, I do like composers like Bach and Beethoven and I do like films like The Godfather and series like Breaking Bad… But there’s something about the stuff that is experimental, pushes boundaries etc. etc. (insert endless cliches here) that appeals to me… It’s hard to explain, as taste is often so emotional and arbitrary.

A composer like Harry Partch certainly belongs to the latter category. An archetypal outsider, he did everything on his own terms. He actively enjoyed being a hobo, he railed against European modes of tuning, he incorporated music from Antiquity and the orient into his music and since he could not have his ‘microtonal’ music performed on conventional instruments, he built his own.

Anyway, I’m trying to buy stuff that I really like on CD/record and to stop streaming stuff. I bought Partch’s ‘Delusion of the Fury’ on vinyl and I tried buying his album ‘Eleven Intrusions’ on CD… It’s been out of print for years, so I ordered a second-hand copy several months ago… And they never delivered it.

So, last night I dreamed that I was at this book/record shop… And I dreamed that I found new editions of Delusion of the Fury (well, I already have that), Eleven Intrusions and The Bewitched on vinyl… And I was overjoyed… And the people who worked there had no idea who Harry Partch was… So, very few people in the world dream about finding new editions of Harry Partch, but… who knows, there might be?

New acquisitions

Two records: Raw Delta Blues by Son House and Easy Rider by Leadbelly

One DVD: Ghost World by Terry Zwigoff.

I really like delta blues from the 1920s... This is also the decade in which jazz first emerged. These musicians really had it rough... Economic hardship, racial injustice... And they made great music out of it.

I really like this film by Terry Zwigoff, mainly because I relate to the character played by Steve Buscemi... Ultimately, a lot of novels/films are about human relationships, not the organisation of society/the nature of reality etc. etc.

New acquisitions.

Four CDs: The Artistry of Christopher Parkening by Christopher Parkening, A Bach Celebration by Christopher Parkening, Strathclyde Concertos Nos. 3 and 4 by Peter Maxwell Davies/Scottish Chamber Orchestra and String Quartets 6 and 15 by Franz Schubert/Kodaly Quartet.

Two books: Solaris by Stanislaw Lem and An Introduction to Medieval Europe: 500-1500 by James Westfall Thompson and Edgar Nathaniel Johnson.

I really like the sound of classical guitar and I really like Bach. Christopher Parkening was one of the most accomplished classical guitarists of all time and he played a lot of Bach, so I bought two discs by him.

I've bought a lot of records by Schubert at charity shops. My second favourite piece by him (after his 'death and the maiden' quartet) is String Quartet No. 15. I thought that I owned a vinyl copy of it, but I don't, so I purchased a copy of it online.

I've always known of the name 'Peter Maxwell Davies' and I always knew that he was the most famous British composer of modern classical music. However, I don't think I'd heard a piece by him before, which is why I bought this disc by him (and I'm hearing it right now).

I wrote a philosophical science fiction novel which was heavily influenced by Tarkovsky's film 'Solaris.' That film was based on a novel, which I've bought so that I can finally read it.

I'm about to start an essay which uses source on medieval history. I saw this at a charity shop and I thought that another book on the topic would be helpful. This is a 1.000 page book and I might read it from cover to cover one day, too.