This is NOT Over
Here is a life in desperate need of a rimshotJune 25, 2012
Monday June 25, 1990
Possessions for All Time
Ktema es aei – Mr. Frisch wrote those words on the board, handed
back the Blue Book Exams and sat down.
He said that the Platonic dialogues were artistic works of enduring
value, possessions for all time. As such
they belong to us and are part of the reason we are all in this class.
He added, “That includes
me. I continue to read these books with
young people not just because I know something about them, but that I gain much
by exploring these things with you, with the students who came before you and
those who follow. That is how this
works. It can’t go just one way when a
group such as ours considers serious, enduring ideas. I must work, you must work. Now it goes too far to think this is simply
historical and intellectual progress.
The professor teaches and each generation of students understands these
dialogues and ideas better and better because by definition they are
smarter. In fact, sometimes the opposite
seems to be the case. The further removed
we are from these ideas put forth by Plato in these dialogues the less sense
they make to some.”
All this is transcribed from
my little tape recorder and is not like other speeches found in this diary
where I am clearly making up the things I can’t remember word for word. But I loved this part of the talk because he
clearly wasn’t interested in flattering any of us. He observed a gulf between our answers and
what we should’ve known from the lectures so far or from reading the
stuff. He didn’t waste time paying lip
service to the validity of all ranges of interpretation. He wasn’t mean about any of this, but he got
the message across and I was very interested…even though I got an A with decent
comments throughout my responses.
He went on to describe the
character of many of the Blue Book essays.
Many in our class, even after Frisch’s introduction, still asserted that
Socrates' primary defense ought to be that wisdom has a right to speak its mind
in public. Socrates, to many of my
classmates, is preserved because speeches and tolerance of such speeches will
allow the city to survive and maybe even be good.
Frisch asked those who wrote
such answers to consider the possibility that the city and its teachings
provide good things to the citizenry and that the city ought to be able to
defend itself against many different kinds of danger. He made a few more remarks, handed out the
exams and said he would keep office hours the rest of the day to talk to each
of us about our exams.
I hung out in front of Zulauff
for a half hour. I smoked cigarettes and
wrote in this little diary. I went up to
Frisch’s office and heard him talking to a student. When she left he stuck is head out to see who
was next. No one else from our class was
there so I was next, and I was last.
That sounds about right for me.
Once I was next to last and that’s about the best result possible for
me.
This conversation is more
made up because I didn’t have the tape running, but trust me, I have no reason
to lie about anything that was said.
MF: “I believe you are my
last appointment for now.”
Me: “Thanks for seeing us
individually after our first test.”
MF: “And why are you here?”
Me: “I’d like to talk about
our class today, more than the test.”
MF: “Sure. There’s not much to say about the test. You did a fine job.”
Me: “Yes. We really want to consider the possibility
that the city can and ought to defend itself?”
MF: “Yes.”
Me: “And that Socratic speech
or what is called Socratic skepticism might be bad for the city.”
MF: “Yes.”
Me: “Even a good city?”
MF: “Why not?”
Me: “If the good city must
defend itself from Socratic speech I’m tempted to conclude that Socratic speech
or Socratic skepticism is bad.”
MF: “You don’t have to
conclude that.”
Me: “Can you help me see some
of the other possibilities?”
MF: “What is both good and
dangerous about Socratic skepticism are the questions themselves.”
Me: “How are they both good
and dangerous?”
MF: “Well they are dangerous
to the city in that they question all notions of justice. Cities need justice that is not
questioned. Justice is necessary for the
city’s survival and to the extent that justice is questioned, then it is bad
for the city.”
Me: “Then how or when are
Socrates’ questions regarding justice good?”
MF: “When individuals or
small groups with the proper character consider them.”
Me: “Like our class?”
MF: “Possibly. A better way, a more useful way of thinking
of Socratic skepticism is how do those questions help individuals understand
human nature and civil society?”
Me: “And this is not the same
thing as saying that Socratic skepticism is an individual philosophy?”
MF: “No. It helps you and I understand the nature of
men and cities. It is good but it goes
to far to say, ‘it is good therefore it ought to be trumpeted by the city’ a
work like the Apology shows us something beautiful, Socratic political
philosophy, but along with that gift it illuminates the problem of philosophy
and the city.”
Me: “There’s a lot going on
that I am barely aware of…”
MF: “Yes.”
And we spent the rest of the
afternoon talking and listening to the Cubs get beat by the Expos. Frisch talked about WWII and his time over
there, mostly the friends he made and how good it was to come home. We also talked about baseball. Poor guy is still reeling from the fact that
the Giants ended the Cubs bid to go to the World Series for the first time
since Frisch was fighting the damned Nazis.
MF: “How does a modern
baseball fan deal with a disappointing Cubs loss like we had last fall?”
Me: “I’m a WhiteSOX fan.”
MF: “We’ll also have to work
on that.”
posted by edP # 10:44 AM 
Archives
January 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]