22 November, 1963

On 22 November in 1963, the world lost three famous people in this same single day; needless to say, the most famous and important figure among these three was John F. Kennedy, the President of the United State; and other two were both famous writers; Aldous Huxley, of Brave New World, and C. S. Lewis, of The Chronicles of Narnia.
The assassination of the President J. F. Kennedy has been discussed and analysed for years and years, however, the deaths of other two writers has caught far fewer attention except for their specific researchers or devoted fans. This blog entry simply attempts to work out how each of them died individually and, hopefully, would like to align the deaths in chronological order.

As everybody knows, John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas, on this day, while his ‘presidential motorcade was travelling through the main business area of the city’ (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/22/newsid_2451000/2451143.stm). According to the article, the President was ‘hit in the head and throat when three shots were fired at his open-topped car’ (ibid) while the car was slowly passing through Dealey Plaza at about 13:25 local time. Soon after the shooting, ‘Mr Kennedy’s limousine was driven at speed to Parklands Hospital’ (ibid), and even ‘The president was alive when he was admitted’ (ibid), unfortunately, the article concludes that the President Kennedy ‘died at 1400 local time (1900 GMT)’ (ibid).

John F. Kennedy

Approximately an hour before J. F. K was hit, at about 18:25 in Greenwich Mean Time, C. S. Lewis died at his home called The Kiln, where he had been living since 1929,  in Oxford, England. It is said that ‘He had resigned his position at ( the Chair of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at) Cambridge (that he had accepted in 1954) during the summer’ due to his health issues and he ‘died at 5:30 p.m… on Friday, November 22, after a variety of illnesses, including a heart attack and kidney problems’ (http://cslewis.drzeus.net/bio/).

Finally, as for the time and circumstance of Aldous Huxley’s death, it can be confirmed that he ‘died of cancer at home in Hollywood on 22 November 1963, unaware that President J. F. Kennedy had been assassinated earlier that afternoon in Dallas’ (Bradshaw, 2005, p xiv)*. Although sources like Wikipedia give the concrete time of his death; at 5:20 pm in local time, since sources like this are usually regarded as untrustworthy in academic fields, this blog decides to satisfy with providing the chronological order of the deaths as; (1) C. S. Lewis at 17:30 GMT, (2) John F. Kennedy at 19:00 GMT and (3) Aldous Huxley at later than both of them.

*Bradshaw, David (2005), Biographical Introduction for The Devils of Loudun by Aldous Huxley

Plato's hypothetical refutation against Aristotle

As Socrates’s example clearly shows, wisdom at its wisest only achieves to wisdom as not knowing due to ‘the limited nature of human knowing—as he says, all human wisdom is worthless, nothing, in other words, fallible. Even in their best operation, even regarding those beliefs for which we have the best reasons, and spent the most time considering, human knowing is still fallible, and error is still possible’ (http://www.carroll.edu/msmillie/perspectives/wisdomasexcellence.htm). A clear cut difference between Aristotle and Plato here is, while Aristotle sticks to conduct his causal investigation, following the tradition of his predecessors, basically by counting on his own human might, Plato rather recommends Socratic dialectic to minimise the effect of human fallibility, since it helps to ‘overcome our own defensiveness, prejudice, haste, lack of confidence’ (ibid).

However Aristotle’s causal investigation could be more realistic or scientific, in Plato’s view it would be ended up to be described as it follows: ‘We learn about physical objects empirically, by means of the senses: we look at them, taste them, listen to them, and so on. But none of the information we gain in this way is reliable or trustworthy: we don’t have real knowledge of the visible world, just mere “opinion.”… Empirical evidence is at best irrelevant, at worst misleading’ (http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/intro/plato_two_worlds.html). Having rejected to learn by means of the sense, Plato tries to replace it with means of Reason. Upon this differentiation, once again, Plato inevitably goes back to his two world theory. In his view, ‘Our physical bodies are a part of the visible world. Our bodies are responsible for our appetites. Our sense organs, by means of which we learn about the visible world… But there’s also another part of us which links us with the eternal realm of the Forms, namely our soul (which for Plato is more or less identical with our reason). So one result of coming to learn about the Forms is that we will become less concerned with physical matters; we will be less governed by our appetites, and less reliant on our unreliable senses for knowledge’ (ibid).

Plato

For reading the text in full: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/plato-and-aristotle-in-their-ontological-and-teleological-views/

Aristotle's teleological final cause and Socrates's wisdom in Plato's 'Apology'

Among Aristotle's four causes, the final cause only regards to explain why it is and by providing this, it is argued that ‘Aristotle offers a teleological explanation… that is to say, an explanation that makes a reference to the telos or end of the process’ (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/#FouCau). In general, it is said that ‘for Aristotle, an end (telos) is always something good’ (http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/39290-teleology-first-principles-and-scientific-method-in-aristotle-s-biology/). Strictly speaking, ‘final causation requires invoking the good as a per se cause. This is why Aristotle thinks no one before him grasped the final cause. For they may have employed the good in their accounts but only as an incidental cause’ (ibid). In this quest for the good as per se (good in itself), Aristotle’s tune resonates with his old mentor, Plato, whose teaching could be summarised in a following way: ‘A life focused on the question of its greatest good is a life lived to its fullest—an excellent or virtuous life’ (http://www.carroll.edu/msmillie/perspectives/wisdomasexcellence.htm).

Seeking for the good as per se, or the greatest good, whilst Aristotle takes a direction for the Ethics, Plato sees the best example in his old mentor, Socrates, and whose wisdom. In Plato’s Apology, Socrates ‘identifies his activity with “wisdom”’ (ibid) as the wisest who ‘understands that his wisdom is worthless’ (ibid). This wisdom, and its ultimate state called wisdom as not knowing, provide the very basis of Plato’s thoughts. From his first-hand experience, Plato impersonates his late mentor and retells, ‘…the greatest good for a man [is] to discuss virtue [excellence] every day… for the unexamined life is not worth living for men’ (ibid).

Socrates

For reading the text in full: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/plato-and-aristotle-in-their-ontological-and-teleological-views/

Aristotle's Four Causes

It has been criticised that what Aristotle counts as the form or ‘primary substance is one that is not in any way universal’ (http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/zeta17.htm). Nevertheless, Aristotle insists that ‘Substances are supposed to be objects of knowledge, and objects of knowledge are universals… (and are supposed to be) definable’ (ibid). As for knowledge, in its proper meaning, he also gives a following condition: ‘we think we have knowledge of a thing only when we have grasped its cause’ (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/#FouCau). As for causes, through examining traditional causal investigations conducted by his predecessors, he reaches to a conclusion that ‘all his predecessors were engaged in an investigation that eventuated in knowledge of one or more of the following causes: material, formal, efficient and final cause’ (ibid). In summary, Aristotle supposedly means ‘proper knowledge is knowledge of the cause’ (ibid). Here, it would be useful to mention that what Aristotle actually had in mind was something that could be only described by using the Greek word aitia, which ‘is translated as “causes,” is probably better rendered as “that which explains”’ (http://www.philosophicalinvestigations.co.uk/index.php/philosophy/artistotle/1032-essay). In other words, ‘knowledge of the form or essence is in effect knowledge of the thing’s causes, of what explains why it is what it is’ (ibid). As a result of these arguments, Aristotle gives one of his flagship accounts known as the Four Causes, which can be summarised as following:

• ‘The material cause: “that out of which”, e.g., the bronze of a statue.
• The formal cause: “the form”, “the account of what-it-is-to-be”, e.g., the shape of a statue.
• The efficient cause: “the primary source of the change or rest”, e.g., the artisan, the art of      bronze-casting the statue, the man who gives advice, the father of the child.
• The final cause: “the end, that for the sake of which a thing is done”, e.g., health is the end of walking, losing weight, purging, drugs, and surgical tools’ (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/#FouCau).

Source: http://iraknol.wordpress.com/article/aristotle-s-physics-the-four-causes-3ncxde0rz8dtk-8/

For reading the text in full: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/plato-and-aristotle-in-their-ontological-and-teleological-views/

Aristotle's Form as Substance

In the Metaphysics, Aristotle 'suggests that a compound (of form and matter) cannot be a substance (Z3, 1029a30)’ (http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/zeta17.htm). Instead, he defines requirements to be a substance as being ‘separable and a this something’ (ibid) .

Subsequently, Aristotle ‘considers the claim of matter to be substance, and rejects it’ (ibid) because ‘Substance must be separable and a this something (individual)’ (ibid). To cut a long story short, it could be summarised that ‘perhaps Aristotle’s point is not that matter is neither separable nor individual; all he is committed to saying is that matter fails to be both separable and individual’ (ibid), therefore, ‘The only remaining candidate for primary substance seems to be form’ (ibid). Whilst the form Plato argued was separable from their shadows in the visible world, it is said that the form Aristotle argues is not ‘separable from all matter (except, perhaps, in thought). And it cannot exist if it is not the form of something’ (ibid). In his logic, individual substances are ‘compounds of matter and form’ (ibid), and ‘they’re not just unstructured collections of elements, but have a structure that is essential to their being what they are’ (ibid). In this relation, the form provides matter ‘a structure that is essential to their being what they are’ (ibid), therefore, ‘the form of a compound substance is essential to it (whilst) its matter is accidental’ (ibid). Due to its own nature, the form in Aristotle ‘is not a “thing,” (but)… the way something is’ (ibid) and this is where his form differs from Plato’s and where the following criticism arises from; what Aristotle counts as the form or ‘primary substance is one that is not in any way universal’ (ibid).

Aristotle

For reading the text in full: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/plato-and-aristotle-in-their-ontological-and-teleological-views/

Aristotle's rejection of the Two World Theory and on Primary Substance

In the meantime, Aristotle famously rejects Plato’s two world theory. He argues that ‘one cannot know the type of interaction which is occurring between the two Forms. If the “real or ideal forms” are eternal, pure and unchanging then how do they relate to the material objections or Forms on earth with all their physical imperfections? This participation or imitation link between the real and the imaginary… is erroneous thinking as no one can/has established such a link’ (http://www.philosophicalinvestigations.co.uk/index.php/philosophy/artistotle/1032-essay).

Having objected his former mentor, Aristotle determined to stick to his belief that ‘our natural world itself was real and physical’ (ibid) and to ‘place himself in direct continuity with’ (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/#FouCau) the tradition done by his predecessors: a causal investigation of the natural world around us. In doing so, he had to face to the same fact as Plato and other predecessors that physical objects – or matters, in his words – are constantly changing, in other words, ‘Matter underlies and persists through substantial changes. A substance is generated (destroyed) by having matter take on (lose) form’ (http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/zeta17.htm). This may suggest that ontological substances – or primary substances – could be ‘compounds of form and matter’ (ibid). However, ‘in the Metaphysics, Aristotle suggests that a compound cannot be a substance (Z3, 1029a30)’ (ibid). Instead, he defines requirements to be a substance as being ‘separable and a this something’ (ibid) As for the latter, the web site above adds a description that this locution is ‘usually translated, perhaps misleadingly, as “an individual”’ (ibid).

Aristotle

For reading the text in full: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/plato-and-aristotle-in-their-ontological-and-teleological-views/

Plato's Two World Theory

In his theory, Plato sees the physical earthly world as being ‘full of unevenness, imperfections, and impurities’ (http://www.philosophicalinvestigations.co.uk/index.php/philosophy/artistotle/1032-essay). He observes ‘Physical objects are constantly changing (in flux, to use the Heraclitean term)’ (http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/intro/plato_two_worlds.html) and therefore ‘They are transient and ephemeral’ (ibid). He goes further, with his famous Cave Allegory, to explain that ‘what we see on earth are mimics of the real thing, only with a lot of imperfections’ (http://www.philosophicalinvestigations.co.uk/index.php/philosophy/artistotle/1032-essay), in other words, ‘In real life all that is seen is an illusion (smoke) of the real thing’ (ibid). From this view point, Plato presents his two world theory, in which, ’there are two separate worlds or realms’ (http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/intro/plato_two_worlds.html), namely the visible world of ordinary physical objects and the intelligible world of the Forms. Needless to say, in his Cave Allegory, the former is described as prisoners’ world in the cave whilst the latter as the real world out of the cave. In this theory, there are Forms in the intelligible world that ‘are unchanging and eternal’ (ibid), unlike physical objects we see in our visible world. Furthermore, Plato argues that the visible world ‘is a kind of shadow or reflection of the world of the Forms’ (ibid), ‘Physical objects (in the visible world) are less real than the Forms (in the intelligible world). Physical objects get what reality they have by their participation in the Forms’ (ibid), in other words, what he calls Forms ‘are what really exists’ (ibid).

Now, there arises a question whether the so-called intelligible world is accessible from our visible world or not. On this point, Plato gives the metaphor of the Divided line, another metaphor – along with the Cave Allegory – in his work The Republic and explains as it follows: ‘The intelligible world consists of the things above the (main) line’ (ibid), namely images and Forms, whilst ‘The visible world consists of the things below the (main) line’ (ibid), namely physical objects that are shadows or reflections of the Forms. Nonetheless, in practice, it is yet unclear what does it mean above/below the divided line and though Plato postulates in case where ‘once the humans rose above (the divided line from) their physical environment, they would understand the Forms which were present in the invisible world’ (http://www.philosophicalinvestigations.co.uk/index.php/philosophy/artistotle/1032-essay), nevertheless, this still holds a room to be answered, as it is argued ‘Whether he meant this would occur after death or during life remains a mystery’ (ibid).

Cave Allegory

For reading the text in full: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/plato-and-aristotle-in-their-ontological-and-teleological-views/

Plato and Aristotle, in general

Plato and Aristotle are both well-known philosophers throughout the Western history. While the former is known for his Cave Allegory and the Two World Theory, the latter is famous for his Four Causes, as far as their ontological accounts concern. Plato (427/428 B. C. – 347/348 B. C.) was born in Athens and was a disciple of Socrates, who was executed in 399 B. C., whilst Aristotle (384 B. C. – 322 B. C.) was born in Stagirus, Macedonia and studied under Plato at the Academy, an educational institution established by the latter, in Athens. Both were born in wealthy family background, lost their father in their young age, and received education designed by their guardians: as for Plato, ‘his family had a history in politics’ (http://www.egs.edu/library/plato/biography/) of Athens, his father ‘died while Plato was young’ (ibid), and he ‘studied at a gymnasium owned by Dionysios, and at the palaistra of Ariston of Argos’ (ibid). Similarly, Aristotle’s father ‘was court physician to King Amyntas of Macedonia’ (http://www.egs.edu/library/aristotle/biography/) called Nichomachus, who ‘died while he was a child’ (ibid), and his guardian ‘sent him to Athens at age 17’ (ibid).

However, in terms of relationship between the philosopher himself and his mentor, Plato and Aristotle do not look alike: (1) whilst Plato followed Socrates voluntarily, Aristotle was sent to Plato’s Academy by his guardian’s will. (2) Similarly, whilst Plato established his own thoughts based on Socrates’s teachings and though his mentor’s influence gradually diminished towards his later works, in general, it could be said that largely Plato remained loyal to his mentor all through his life. On the contrary, after the death of Plato, Aristotle began to reject his mentor’s teachings – most famously Plato’s so-called two world theory.

Plato (left) and Aristotle from 'School of Athens' by Raphael

For reading the text in full: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/plato-and-aristotle-in-their-ontological-and-teleological-views/

The Tibetan Book of the Dead, a. k. a. Bardo Thodol

It would be useful to briefly examine the contents of the established Tibetan work, which was to be translated into English under the title of The Tibetan Book of the Dead. First of all, the original Tibetan title of this work is Bardo Thodol, and it means ‘liberation by hearing on the after death plane’ (http://www.summum.us/mummification/tbotd/). As this original title implies, the book is written to be ‘a guide for those who have died as they transition from their former life to a new destination’ (ibid). The book contains the unique notion of Entering into the Womb that allegedly takes place during the period of so-called After Death, and it is argued that this notion can be connected to ‘one of the most significant canonical sources for Tibetan medical literature devoted to the science of human reproduction and growth’ (http://www2.lib.virginia.edu/exhibits/dead/sutras.html).

For closing this short entry, it would be appropriate to quote from the web site above to provide further information for those who are interested in Tibetan literature in general.

‘In Tibetan medicine, human physical development is frequently explained as being analogous to the development of the universe. In this way, the ordinary dying and rebirth process is understood directly in terms of the ebb and flow of the cosmos. The Sutra on Entering into the Womb details the progression of a transmigrating consciousness from the final moment of death, to conception in the future mother’s womb’ (ibid).

For reading the text in full:  http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/the-tibetan-book-of-the-dead-the-establishment-of-the-work/

Thonmi Sambhota and translation from Sanskrit to Tibetan alphabet

Meanwhile, it is also interesting to have a look at the development of the writing system in Tibetan language in relation to the establishment of The Tibetan Book of the Dead. Regardless to the legend of Padma-Sambhava, it is not difficult to make sure that there were strong interests for Buddhism in Tibet in those days and it is said that ‘During the 7th Century AD Songstem Gampo… (569-649AD), the 33rd king of the Yarlung Dynasty of southern Tibet and the first Emperor of Tibet, sent Thonmi Sambhota, one of his ministers, to India to gather information on Buddhism. The minister then reputedly devised a script for Tibetan…and also wrote a grammar of Tibetan based on Sanskrit grammars. The new Tibetan alphabet was used to write Tibetan translations of Buddhists texts. The first Sanskrit-Tibetan dictionary… appeared in the 9th century’ (http://www.omniglot.com/writing/tibetan.htm).
Thus, it could be roughly said that during the 7th to 9th centuries, Tibetan people saw the rise in their interests on Buddhism in general and developed their own writing systems through learning and translating from works of Buddhism originally written in Sanskrit. In addition, in order to consider the historical background of the authorship of the Book of the Dead, which belongs to the legend, it must be important to acknowledge that such early Tibetan literature contained a specific genre called ‘gter-ma’ that was categorised as rediscovered texts such as ‘reputedly the work of ancient masters which have been hidden in remote caves for many centuries’ (ibid).

Thonmi Sambhota

For reading the text in full: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/the-tibetan-book-of-the-dead-the-establishment-of-the-work/

Discovery of hidden Sanskrit works by Karma Lingpa (c. 1365)

The hidden 8th Century works written by an Indian mystic Padma-Sambhava, which were supposed to be all written in Sanskrit, were discovered in the fourteenth century, most notably by a local youth in Tibet called Karma Lingpa. According to a web site (http://www.summum.us/mummification/tbotd/), he was born around 1350 and his discovery took place when he was fifteen years old, therefore, it could be said that he found these hidden Sanskrit works roughly in circa 1365. It seems that he was not the only person who discovered such hidden documents and what he discovered included other works than what later became to be known as The Tibetan Book of the Dead, however, at least it can be said that within the hidden works, ‘he found a collection of teachings entitled The Self-Emergence of the Peaceful and Wrathful Deities from Enlightened Awareness. These teachings contained the texts of the now famous Great Liberation upon Hearing in the Bardo’ (ibid).

 

Though the discovery of the hidden works enabled what had been written in Sanskrit to be known to the future generations in Tibet, it should be recognised that nothing is certain about neither the physical existence of the hidden Sanskrit works nor the reliability of the legend that holds Padma-Sambhava’s authorship of the works. Believe it or not, in a case where it presumes that there had been such hidden works, inevitably it should conclude that these works were totally lost physically in the later years after the discovery because it is said that ‘The original Sanskrit texts of the Sutra (scripture)… on Death and the Transmigration of Souls are no longer extant and are known only through their Tibetan versions’ (http://www2.lib.virginia.edu/exhibits/dead/sutras.html).

 

For reading the text in full: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/the-tibetan-book-of-the-dead-the-establishment-of-the-work/

Padma-Sambhava and his hidden Sanskrit works

History of the establishment of The Tibetan Book of the Dead can be traced back to a legend of an Indian mystic called Padma-Sambhava. It is said that he travelled to Tibet in the 8th century and introduced Buddhism for the first time to the region. However, while he was visiting there, he ‘found it necessary to conceal Sanskrit works he had arranged to be written’ (http://www.summum.us/mummification/tbotd/) because he found that the ‘Tibetans of that time were not ready for the spiritual teachings contained therein’ (ibid). Therefore, Padma-Sambhava ‘hid his texts in strange and remote locations, leaving them to be discovered at a later time when their spiritual message could be received by those with an open mind’ (ibid).

 

According to this legend, it would be natural to assume that the original works were written not in Tibetan but in Sanskrit. This particular language contributes to connect the alleged author of the works to India, the region he originally came from, and mystic, the occupation he was categorised, because ‘Sanskrit is the classical language of Indian and the liturgical language of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism… The name Sanskrit means “refined”, “consecrated” and “sanctified”. It has always been regarded as the ‘high’ language and used mainly for religious and scientific discourse’ (http://www.omniglot.com/writing/sanskrit.htm). It is also argued that the classical form of Sanskrit is ‘the liturgical language of the Vedic religion’ (ibid) and it is ‘one of the earliest attested members of the Indo-European language family’ (ibid).

Padma-Sambhava

 

 

For reading the text in full: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/the-tibetan-book-of-the-dead-the-establishment-of-the-work/

English translation of The Tibetan Book of the Dead; who contributed for what?

The English translation of The Tibetan Book of the Dead was first published in 1927 b y the Oxford University Press. Since then, the name of Dr. Walter Yeeling Evans-Wentz has been associated to this mysterious book of Buddhism as its editor, compiler, alleged translator and the best contributor for introducing and promoting this work by giving a new title to the book that could remind prospective readers of the famous ancient Egyptians’ counterpart. Meanwhile, the E-Book version of the book, based on the same 1927 edition, credits Karma-glin-pa as the author, Lâma Dawa-Samdu, as the translator, and W. Y. Evans-Wentz as the compiler and the editor of the book respectively (http://www.summum.us/mummification/tbotd/). Regardless to the arguments on who actually contributed to what extent, looking at how the book has been established from a realm of legend to the form known today could give some intriguing perspectives of this fascinating work of Buddhism.



Walter Yeeling Evans-Wentz

For reading the text in full: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/the-tibetan-book-of-the-dead-the-establishment-of-the-work/