Personality in Greek Epic, Tragedy, and Philosophy THE SELF IN DIALOGUE Christopher Gill CLARENDON PRESS » OXFORD‘hutch pte ig od rate ma adn en “ania teng enna OXFORD sr ity Petcare te nt fxr, reer ther ebecvegceence rr sno. “econ yybting eben ineatn Del ong ong ola Eo elas ‘Soil Shngat Sgt Tape! Tage TOO nti eres ma i ety Ps ‘w one rs ne Yr ‘Theor i of trae aeed Dew ght Ox Uv rs ase} Repeat 202 co omer tas steep ea erie, "eprograpis rights npaianon Eaguie concen epensscion | ema eee “Seu A a astaACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This book was wet nts present form a he University of Eeter ln agg0~, Bat my work on this topic goes ack many yee, and this ook is based on feo caer hal-completed attempts to offer a general account of the fascinating but duive topic of Greek con= eptions of personality. My acknowledgements eft this longer perio of ork as well a heal preparation of the book, T would keto record ere my’ debt tothe Ine Erie Havelock, who a thess-superisr and colleague at Yale University, and as 2 fend then and subecquently, responded to my seas with the ‘istue of combativenes and enthusiasm that was characteristic fim, Only afer his death di see the fill force of some of his foents on an carter version of this book Although our Sscademic approaches are in some says very diferent his own ‘work has served as a med! ofthe way in which historical main fon and intelectual boldness can inform the stad of he histry of ‘eas Talo thank, and very warmly, lia Anoas and Tony Long, for help and encouragement over a long period: that Ihave per- ‘Seed in this project ves much fo hae continued conidence i Julia as also commented ticessly on successive versions ofthis book, including the present one, ard has done 0 with her dis: tinetiveincsiveness and perception. Richard Seaford and Betty Bello Kindly made detaed cornments on the whale book in ie final form. Helene Foley and Chvistopher Peling also commented hep on pasts of Extracts of the book Rave provided the imaeral for undergraduate and graduate classes at Bete, for papers given st the Universes of Aarhus, Bristol. Manchester NNeweastloupen-Tyre, and the University of Wales Conference Cente at Gregynog, and for national meetings of the Classical Astcistion and Hellnie Society, 1 have also gained from the responses made to sces of papers on tis topic published inthe ‘gos and eat 1990s. foundespeclly hlpel the conference on ‘Persons and Funan Beings that | organized at Aberystwyth io 1g, andthe callgeium on ‘Characterization and indivi 50 Geeks Lteratre™crgpnized at Oxtord in e587 by Chitopher Actooadgements vi Peling. 1am grateful tall those whose responses have conte, ln this way to the dete om Which this Book has been formed ‘Aspect db i owed tothe National Humantes Center, North Carolina, USA, which funded aul yer of esearch on this tpl ‘obi-2,In this congenial and stimilatng contest, {completed 3 tft ofthe contents af half te preset book. Also, mn awareness of the conceptual implieatons of he topic was deepened by seminars and discasions with scholars of various disciplines atthe Center land a Chapel Hill and Duke na way that has shaped desiely the ‘whole direction of my subsequent research, Vaz also grate for ‘himalus and suppor fom the two Classics Departments svhere 1 Ihave worked in this pesod, atthe University College of Wales, Aberystwyth and atthe University of Eetr, Like other Classical ‘bala at Exeter, [have benefited frm the ethos of sade co ‘operation hee, expecially as expressed in the vigorous and eective Interchange of ur research seminars I thank my colkagues for a terms eile inthe autre of 990 8 whi I strted waite the final version, and give particular thanks to Kerense Pearson, ‘whose elficent and carefal serail work has helped enormously in preparing this book fr pulication. At the Oxford Universi Pres, ary O'Shea has been consistently positive and patient, an the process of editing and production has been cae out in 3 caracteticlly helpful and meticulous wy. ‘As wellasacknowedging thove who have helped direct in these sways, Talo thank the scholars whose work I dscuss fey in the course of constructing my own argument, including those with ‘hom I disagree, Terence win and Teous Engherg-Pedersen, it Pilar, are felow-scholars of ancient philosophy from whose ‘work Thave lesen = pest del Where df on the question of the typeof concepual model that shoul inform our interpretative readings of Greek thinker; and I hope that ss clear to them and cthersthat my debte with them on tis question cori fully with ‘cademic and intlectal respect. "The prio of research for this book has coined or myself and amy wife Karen, withthe bth and eaty childhood of ou four son ‘Thi fact alone wl give some indication of the demands made on Kaen in enabling me to continae my torts in what has sometimes seme an interminable projet Her loving help my work ard in ‘Sur shared fe with our chidren have helped crocally to shape the ‘amework of tinking that have brought tthe book, Moze sadly,vi Aclneledgnents ‘is poi has lz coined withthe eth of my parents nd ed ine reflect om how mach of my understanding of character and ‘personality Is Based on thei own ves andthe eae forme an for thers. Always supportive and never intrunve, hey would have The to se my watk result na substantial outcome nd Tdi {his book to tele memory with ove ca Usitsty of Exter, anna 195, "hae taken advantage ofthis paprbackesition to make number of minor corrections and to bring bibliographical ferences up > fat; the book i otherwise unchanged from the 1996 hardback All Greok in this book is taslate rasitions ave mine unless tthervse stated, if nt otherwise ascbed, they are based on the Intest Oxford Classical Text Greek words of phrases expel hay ‘moral or psychological terms, are ansiteratd rather than give Grek crip thnk that his maybe Relpl to those wih ite or ro Greck. Abbreviations for Greck work are normally thse listed In Ldel-Soot-Jones, Grek-Englsh Leviton. Al secondary works ‘ted are given in fl fern in the Biography tena erences sre normaly given inthe form, “ee 5.6 below, text fom. 277-80 CONTENTS Invrodstion: Posing the Questions ‘The Topic “The Stctre ofthe Book [Making up Yous Mind 1 Snell and Adkins om the Deciding Self 1.2 Homere Models of Practical Reasoning 153 Homeric Models of Ehieal Motivation: Odysseus! Monalogue 1.4 The Other Three Monologues 2 Being Hero ‘21 The Problematic Hero 423 Plato and Aristotle 25 Late Romantic and Strctraist Approaches| 24 atc! Poston Adopted Here 25 Achilles in lind 9 Crit Frameworks 2 Achilles’ Speech and Sarpedon’s 27 Achilles’ Argument 28 Aches’ Great Speech and Heroism 239 Baripider’ det The Case fr Tnanide 5, The Divided Self in Greek Poetry 34 Preliminaries, 32 Odysseus Barking Heat 35 Aches’ Swelling Heat 3:4 Ajn’s Womanized Speech 355 Madea's Sei Mastering Anger 36 Grotk Poetic and Pilosopical Models of Slt Division 4 The Personality Unified by Reasons Rule in Plato's Repubie 444 Preliminaries {$2 Whats Reasons Rule? 2 29 6 8 o* i ct 28 us 354 ws ca 6 190 304 Be 20 asx Contin 445 The Eaton Programme: Irvin's Intrpetatlon 444 The Educational Programme: The First Stage {15 The Edseational Programme The Second Stage {$5 Why do the Phdosopher-Rules Re-enter the Cave? {£7 Philosopher Rulers and Problematic Heroes 5. Being Yourself and Meeting the Claim of thers 54 Proiminaris, 552 Alri and Slt Realization 15 Alternative Ethical and Philosophical Models 5.4 Aristotelian Friendship and Norms of Interpersonal thes 55 ‘What each of sin NE 9. 4,8 56 ‘What each of usin NE 10.7-8 37 Post Relectve Vite in Other Greck Theodes 6 Being a Person and Being Haman 63 Pretiminacie {63 Cater of Personhood (a Subjectivity 65 Cetera of Personhood (2: "Seeand Orde” Psychological Functions 6.4 Methodology of Theores of Personhood and man Nate 65 Artie on Being Human and Divine {68 Being Responsible for Becoming Fly Human’ 667 Conclsion: Models and Project, Biigrspy Indes of Arcot Passages (Geel Inder xo 266 ea = ja bs 3 us 5336 yo 3 oo 2 2 ‘be ” ss go * - INTRODUCTION Posing the Questions ‘The project of this book i o consider ancient reek thinking about personality and selfhcod, as presented in Greck epi, tragedy, and Philosophy. Sach a projet cold be approached in several dierent trays I begin by defining the frm i takes here, by contrast with father possible forms. At the same tine, I clniy what senses of ‘personaly’ and slo are at iss inthis book. “The terms ‘personality’ and sl in modern Englich, are broad, son-tachaal ferme with a range of arly overlapping) meanings. “Three meanings of personaly” are mos levant ere with which seca associate certain senses of slo selfhod’. One i that of Individual distinctiveness oF uriguenes, expressed ether (sinter ‘personal relationships or in psychological character or viewpoint ‘Knotherteaning hich may be atached eter to the tem ‘per sonality’ ose? that of pyeholoial structure this may be ater ‘hat which is common tote as human beings o dint tous 35 Individuals? Another meaning tat of our essence 3 persons {normative sense: in this Tespet,‘percoalty’ and ‘self’ are Symonyans of personal Meni’ o personhood” * See. Ond na Data 8 ~ OE) prety Tat ty FeranTinindktprener aise op whenclametdernole [Ep algae ch oer) Sf en Det s,s he mgd nga late yg slater td py hres oo SUMP ESI Raye pei eo Sen Opry SUES US ary Tha Salk pee ey nt iy hi conse 0 what advent wo tn nied with ale nd ‘SSefgen ee cha permanent er ec en yy Sc Senet 0 pm en oa2 Introduction: Posing the Questions In the course ofthis boo, rst features of Greek cltore which canbe seen as elevant tall thee senses of pecsonlty’ and For instance, in Chapter 2, 'ascuss the presentation of certain striking fguresin Greek epic and tragedy, wi could be described as faving dtinctve ‘personality (‘character and sense of sf ‘lso examine, expecially Chapters and , Greek peti sd plu Sophia! movi of prychlogial stricture an of internal cot) In Chapter 6 Feonsder how far we can find in Greek thought a cquivlent forthe modern Iden of ‘personal deni” an “person- tod! and in Chapter 5 I discuss Aristotle's thinking about our tue Sal (or what each of uss). However, tls book I nol, and not patie or developed, supeie ci feror" In Classical scholarship, the most well-developed apprcoch of hitype i that of cll anthropology of 2 structural type, ‘which concepts are tested as eeecting dep social stoctres. This {ppeoach fe sometimes combined wth semiotic one, sn which concepts and practices elke are soon 26 composing a network of sy introon esi oy an pelycaa l a teas aay aa of ote yt pring aah op a en as, 7 St tt et Cone ose, on a4 Intradcton: Posing the Questions significant ‘codes’ ut of which clare i formed Io nt think that these approaches have been apple ine systematic and large-scale ‘say tothe topic of Greck thinking about selfhood and personality: bute number of piecemeal studies loethe with the genera ail ity ofthese approaches) make tear what wou beinwabed,” [A thed approach would inva combining the exploration of Greek thinking about selftood and personality withthe re: examination ot our oe ideas on tis subject This approach has been adopted recently by important studies in the phllosophy of ‘mind and ethical plosophy. Te specific frm ofthis approach that Interests me mosis hatin which, is both areas, ena appraisal of sme ofthe leading ideas inthe modern Wester intellectual a fon scombined with a nrety postive reappraisal of cient Greek ideas. The point isnot so much tat modern ideas are being rected in favour of ancien ideas Is ater that, nour caren intl sation, Greck dens are ested with new respect andar seen 35 freshly relevant to cumentconcems. Although these studies are nt, recess couched in the form of eng into concepts of sl ‘hod and personaly, they cry portant implications for the orm that such an enguiy should take ® This sketch of posble approaches, while inno way comprehen ‘ves adequate for my present purpose, which sto dine my fv projet Its the hid approsc which forms the starting-point land prods the intelectual ramewor, for thi bok. purse the implatons of some existing Yrslons ofthis apprcach i the phil sophy of mind and ethics and draw out connections between these issues and further topic in which I have had a long-standing Interest that ofthe appropriate wayt interpret the characeration (of Greck epic and wage Figures" The recent shies which Thave in tind combine in varying depres, philosophical thought an the re ‘namination of Greek thinking nthe ight of eueent philosophic sete tt ca os rs a ees ee . Ty en ye yen oy BerSeeeeeoeatceearctnents eee Untralution Pasig the Questions 5 ‘hough isthe later projec which pursue er, Tis isa work of inal istry, or the iy of Hes, no stor pho Sophy isnt te fst dy tot on he lgnticance of hese {velpmente tn conterporaty pltsopby frou undestanding ot ‘erin features of Geek post ad sophia inking" Bt ti theft one tomy tnowledge, which trp to fer ll sae ‘toy ef Grek hnkng abut selod and personaly ram is Sandel. ‘iy adoptionof the thi ofthe approsehs deco cas with ita eject of the fst approach (the developmental view of Grek thing apant which etd aprosh npr rm fe on Lie some othe exponents fhe thi approach pot ot ithe developmental view depends on aking tr vormaie cain Conception of persona whith sem deeply problema some Contemprary thinkers” On the second approsch outined (he teeny socal approach of for insane, suc stool ich also eps a eactin of» iferent in guna the et Zpprach” Tike up ne deerinate potion here Although [0 adopt any ofthe ethodlges saited wih apo, share the ve tht oth the Crk andthe moder ens acoseed form part of ager ela compos of belts an practi, a forcines draw on teas developed in scholrahp ofthis fype"™ ‘nn proposing ote exiting caps othe rd apres ss tay sang am not ying that propose fo adap wholesale the phlosophial framework of any one exponent fi approach, tr tbe cate ade abot Crk ens any ene Neher a Ns {ppe Indeed sigicent fete ofthe Bok expel in Chapter eahat or questing sme of he cana made stot Grek ph Sophy by such oder thinkers None the less, gar he third et cnt pe tt Ve esta SS eee cat ae eins seaeerag eo eet wie meneame ersten ae tt Tipe TUES SENS orp earernn atm6 Intatuctoe: Posing the Questions Sppoach as the mest promising basis for an exploration of this sje pow ofr sme tastratons iis approach as apple aeady tothe relatonstip between Grck and contemporary thinking. I doing 50. Tunderne the veevance of tese Gocco tthe {lesion of conceptions personality ansehen. ‘the contemporary pisophy of mind, there has been a susan eat agaist the mel fe haan mid propor with enormous inten, by Descartes, according to which etal rome and ations derive roma single sours of consciousness Unitary The eres of hs ode hasbeen wily guration ra some of the ies ofthe Cares ptr have sen in Grek theo of practi revsoning and motivation (especialy Ate) an aerate famevork, an one which i fe ofthe prblenate Ganesan assumptions "Ae Kathlen, Wien 198) argues, the Cartesian ode! of mind underlies mach modert Western oss about what is tobe ‘person nthe fil sense and fo have Ferns] idently. The ‘perso’ fas been defined typi, as tne oes of seltconscousness, whe ‘persona entity’ has teen define in ems of continu of cnscousnes (or tance, contin of memory o rete, interme of on ecented, of “is personal, pit of view. Wes spies that doubts sont he ‘ality ofthe Cartesian mode! shoul fad uso question the ity Sf éfining persons an perso deny inthis way. She wes the option ef # pjeholgal lramework hich demarcate the Peythologeal coherence, and incoherence o hurr and othe ids Fein na way tat set vite by Cartes asounptons. I ings, she refers to Grek modes, epcal those of Hamer and ‘rst a6 psnting the wy to anon Cateson pct of han Sd non-hamanpayeholoilhectoning ‘Wilkes’ etiima, nt those thinkers of sina vews,can be sand up asthe nim thatthe Caresan and postCatesaa ‘ols of mind and personfod te over sto and sabe into elated ways. 2) Tey gv a peeged stats hee of the"ebje the Tas Sat of econsciwanes and they ie a ‘Sil piveged stats tothe subjective especialy ft persona) perspective inthe accounts of oor ates and knowlege aman psyehotgy Wilkes and ors argu (2) athe mn bes analy em ther than that of "he sabjct (orice, ha ‘of the iterpay Pewee pyehologil parts or functins) ar) Intaaton Posing the Questions 2 ‘that these functions can be studied and understood best in thi personal and, ideally sete) modes of enquiry, These las can be described a5 the demand for a more abet (es subject centred) move of analysis an for 2 more aijtinst acount of out Iowledgeof aman psychology “Alin of thought that analogous ins tretment of therelaton- ship between ancient and modern ideas has been developed in shia phlosophy. especly by Aladsit Macintyre and Berard ‘Willams. Both thirkers rectal on pasty sma grounds, ofthe accounts of moral life and motivation, and of the fureton of mora thoory, ffred by Kant and some pslosophers attr Kant. Ther cts bear, im diferent ways, onthe 10s ofthe indvidal mn ‘moral ie, and on the fnetion of general nations inclading that of "person, in moral theory” These thinkers re cal ofthe tat the moral life is propery understood as grounded in some specs Jind of stance adopted by thenaivdual agent ey example ths ‘dea is Kans thesis tha the moral response involves, rsp, an act of autonomy, or sel-iegation, by eich the indulgent ‘nds herself to universal principles. Macintyre argues that Kans thesis has analogues, or descendants, nother theories which give 2 special oe toanindvidval stance, sch as that of ‘existent choice ‘ot commitment. Both Macintyre and Willams argue tat moral (oF rather ethical fe? shold be understood primal in ens ofthe evelopment of dlspostions by fll-hearted engngement in the ‘alue-bearing practices, roles, and modes of relationship of specie Slety” These thinkers alo eicize the role allcated to ec ‘theory, and to the use within eta teary of general notions sich 28"person” and ‘ndvidal in much modem pilacophy ier Kast. see cp oh acter ao et ton 3-7 esd eset nt ‘See ann Sse epee nage sot pet meals eam supe ipa uu yor ote he ep tal Canny anee spo ele ten net "tg nd acing af ommony el ep scat” Sein 8 op oe ys on Witan oS. oe te EBs ch Wii meaty tom kato sy he an Poel nat smi ced rw hear tet Ne ices ce il arn ny nr brya Intoduton: Posing the Quests They deny that theory, inlading theory about what means to bea ‘pecson’ or tational gent can playa crac Arhimedeen’) role in founding ethical te Such general notions only exert a3 much leverage n ethical fe and argument they ae in he ife-forms and intelectual tation of» partlar community Inciting ideas ofthis type, Maclntyre at east in one version fis thought) and Willams pone to Grek thinking espetly that of Aristotle, as representing a vlld and sltemative med of under standing ethical lie In Asso, they find te recogiton of the ceil importance of ethical dispositions, conceived 9 developing thin the roles and practices ofa speci community, which they find missing in much philosophy since Kant, On the role of ethic theory, they acknowledge tht Aristotle, as well a other Greek thinkers, ses the dea of human nature asin some sense, oun thi fein away that in thes vew) we cannot now find credible But they point oat that Ansotle doesnot suppose tat sch ntelee™ tual grounding canbe ethlly effective without the foundation of ‘ethical dispositions and an etal community. ln this respect, his se ofthis le fers fam that of certain moveen uses of noions ‘such as individual o person, and does sna ay that seme fo thee moze philosophically defensible This line of thought can be summed up asthe claim thatthe Kantian and post-Kantian approaches are oveyindvidua-cntred rindi, both in the plctare offered ofthe ethical fe and of the role of ethical mecry. Maclatyre and Wiliams argue for an spproach which gives a move central leo engagement or paca on in interpersonal and communal eationships both in ethical fe ‘a inthe formation of etal ideals and theories ‘These two lines of ert (nthe philosophy of mind and in thks) are clearly distinct, and 29 are the theories being ero. But its possible to sce points of interconnection between the two aie gh ph 4 and 6; las hh. M gil ste ae br at Ane ate pep ib eS ‘te! rl tad ehh wero ay 2) es Ep devel cota win noua Pe Eehltir ies hp. gn ch sho WR SEs oe Oa oe me Intruction Pasig the Question ° eer aera eee seen ae Seer ee cee ae mae ee Cote gees aaa ees eto ee eee BOSS SPREE mei a age tee ate mutt aoes cereus Fee ners ca ear Serer rear Steet gg ihe tri matey te pera pr ve se Seminal ictal to aie ‘heprore as cuntng ant ets Ia her perl a SS Foe ft pres for eur anton ia 8 Ree (yp nthe snd yc cane se Naa) sane wthn ardeaetanes ‘Sospomsl eps mene dans See ee ne oe naa Se scan yEnbeg etn pay© Introduction Posing he Questions subjective, individuals, and. subjective-ndividuaist strands of thought which have played such 3 Jang tle in shaping enodern thinking aboot these notions, and to frame a more ‘bjectve ptcipant”sccount of them * ‘Accordingly, ch af the discussion of this book sconcemed to identity ways in which the slluence of Cartesian and post Cartesian, of Kantian end post-Kanta, thinking about the person has led scholars 10 offer (what face as) a miskadng acount of Greek psychology and etic. At the same time, I sok to bring aut the ative (non-subject-certred) character of Grek pavcho}gial model, and the objet character of thelr thinking about cur novrledge of man psychology sek alsa to ring othe wan ‘which Grek ethical thinking stresses the primary role of pertipa rn Interpersonal and communal relationships both atthe practical and the theoretical evel ates aso the way in which one fr both ofthese types of participation are sen a prerequisites for the acquisition ofebjecie eal knowledge. Sometnes. in this took the two main areas treated (hat of peychology and that of ties) ae taken separately. However, Val also fo show how, it ‘Greek poetic and plosophica thought, these two areas ate closely ‘nteconnected; and how both of them display the kindof thinking shout the person that Tam calling ajtie pati To give some more precise nation of wht I ean by this ater saggestion, Ioffe, in summary fe, some leading fenires ofthe objective participant conception of person together witha contrast ing set of modern ideas. The obective-partcpant themes have been framed with Greek thinking in mind, though some ofthe points incuded also corespond with relevant festures of modern paycho. log or ethical thinking. The cantasting set of purely modern themes is labeled ‘subjective-ndvidtiet for convenience, though itinctues ideas ofthe type have ben cling ‘subjective’ and ab zu arr tart tt {hp tab rk ly hg ey at cae ae ea SU cet ge SG Bee ceria at Sao name see gees apace coma wemes ndrductin: asng he Questions a jectivi’ and ‘individualist’, as well ax “subjective-indvidulis ‘Thus, it coresponds 10 n0 one thinker’ set of ideas, though all of them constitute familar modern themes Assembing these pots Serves to underline my overall alm of charting abroad patter of thinking about the person in Greek, a5 in modern, psychology and ttc, The untapoition ofthe fo sets of themes brings ou the pnt that we a discern analogous but contastng SuUctres of fhinking about the person in diferent cultures (tt our own age, swith the same culture) ™ ‘Th sjecti diiaomcpti tata pono ite become foe aan, anid Toes of tought nd wi 2. Tobe pase’ robe capable of grounding one's mca ty 2 apealy invide stance tance tat of “htonomny none of the pose sense otter. To ert (ahaa person eto tet oer a slonomossin he sae {Toe a person iso be capable of he hind of dineested > For tna that volver bettors nee frvonal and commutal ascents snd fom the emotions End esr assoc eh hee ‘Toten peror tne ult eee steers one'capacty * ferauonony nesting orp for nel ot relng on’ Own (ater atfoed Tove capaci, tam, pesppos pel Kind of sb or raceme foto. 5. Tobea perso’ eto uderstnd ones he poster os ioe personal dent tier ies the queso of the vlnsip betwee having personal Mentty and bang, aman. et ont tin a Tama sate ets a erected Grate ce seems eeie epee nna ti aie anon errerettaias [EEc'cropeng temewons es dn mecern ought bt wt fhe se ad ‘Sunset Gath tug se 7 Blow, tent mn 24-22 Intraduton Posing the Questions “Tote ahuman being partic in hae arms huan ie and ‘discourse’ about the nature an sian of tose shared fon of ie The iia he of © man ben Is ‘pressed in whoesearedenggement wih an nterpersoal tnd communal le ann dette aout he pope fon tat Such aol should tke The lite cutee of thee to ype of prciation ith () eject Knowe of what ona the est human fe and coresponding chara ferand wy of 2 Tobe human soe the Kind of animal whose psycho eth lite ypealy conc a “inogu’ between parse the perce) is capable m prinpe of being shaped sos 00 Keone iy ant ty) heaton ping doe inferpersonl and command! engagement an) reve “bate bout the proper gone oft Rafe 4 Tobefuman stb capabl pnp agi, of becom fay ‘enor Bt the extent toh any gen mae being able to develop in this way depends on te extent wich she sable o parte eft a these pes of interactive and reece dare 5. Tobe human sto understand nesta, a the deepest ee a tuman being, The fullest posible dovelopment af human rationality involves reflective understanding of What “being tuna’ means, and of ow hie elas param ohe nd of big uh ot ng sia an vin “Among the points which this contrasting set themes is designed to underline is the way in which Gresk poychological and ethic thought, whether taken separately or in combination, expresses an objective purteipan conception of the person. Thus, Greek paycho. Topi thinking charactevieescistnctvely human action ioe. lve” (eon-subject-cented terms), for itanc, av motivated by reesons (roughly, blll) and reasoning rather Unn by concious cts of wil™ Also, huran belngs are sometines presented a5 functionally adapted to partlpate in interpersonal an communel ‘elationships and nthe proces, fo shape and tanaorn the belts which inforo deste, emotons, and actions, This, proves a cc ay ei ce, ir Ine fates ap to ome 3893 Ry Introduction Posing the Questions 3 developments conceived yelling inaely ul human ran Sy egy season red este wich sien svamenble to Soler Heeminaon. Tis proces aometine peed ising tm objet el wide of kink tat Both ‘Sourtutes toe stoping of doer emotons, an aor, and fronds the nl seat Dee for desing what consutes al Kean etna “Ths lable of cotatng conceptions slo lates the extent andthe its fhe ene to whch Grek ought can aso iia o pond conf forthe sso pers’ nal Some tet of the connotation ofthese ess noted a he stat of {Ms tnoducion ze alo prominent in the table of subjective thviunt themes Espey moter thee athe ee ii cae ant sar ea Way a rorate) personhood” This spe wha could be argued ipo tt pry nn “hel repeal (ough rts act wi cactus stand in ote ing en tng asin he ojesve- partir ble (wh desig ‘ary ohh ees cf Ck though ea be costed ike ters ot pelo incon espe atonal and aman rare A pone econo tablet conan ees IMgh be that aught ok obvious dsciees heck nkng {Deut human poyetlogy and ethics of the st Ut we assoc Seah the ease peso and el ot cea ha tates Thee sees Grea post and phiesopby. Shou! nat tis ook tae ben preset st say f Creek pct and onop thinking about Ruma trea toalty? “Tus efarqueson but alkoone that canbeansveed Part then ofthis foktn ined sng st theese och many lth Kinds ef ener wich we tes, endo ssoce Wit the dees of personaly, "se and persona ery are ad Slog to ost asx n Greek Rowght wth ea uch 3 innate nasa andar im tb 2 seep thes igh Shond¥toen 3am a a scan tone te ea hen4 Introduction: Posing the Questions ‘the point tht the elaonsip between Greek and modeen think dngin hs cespct cannot be undersond lyito aking srt G0 the const. tetwen subjective india and bce fertcpant conceptions of persan. We ned fo appreciate tet hss 4 conta! that fonctions Both shin modern inking wel se Seen Greek and (Some) mode thinking sbout the petson Cerin mn thinkers inking howe i ite bout personal oti, personhood of 'prsonsy argue that caren hing should fe more “bjectie or “prtipunt in is conept and sethvogy thant usually is The objective peta bets as second function. I present not jst analogues In Cie thought to med ens abt persona and selhod bat as) Indicates what a more ‘bfetivepatspant conception of these ‘Hens might consis In By the sane token it suggest hat the ess personaly’ and “elthood an be sen as having a eon Phe of sr in Grek though, provide tat we understand ese tions in a “ebjectvepatcpunt way. Thee mensions of ny sebjct would not have emerged i the back had been presented, twthout more ao. as beng shout hat Greek taking 90 wha “ein human ino, ‘The pase which serves asthe subtitle fortis book, he elf in dialogs is used within ts agument s2nimage to eerie ‘oo ofthe lading fatrs ofthe objective partlpnt conepion ef person and toundertne thr nercomectins, tho my feral thesis comet this conception under, a cold Be iste, vl any fete of Grek care thea opel srprprateness i stating it by street some ofthe ary ‘ype flog that are eal 9 Grek socal apd ntti He Indeed, one a the points Iwan to unt ttn sty the sipieantconncon eee dom alta fs ath tte role of dlogue in Gres and eapecaly Atel He) athe conceptions of seltiood conveyed though those forms. Analos oul the dominance Rae and pat Roma sic eat tseetalymonologitormssithas the typ of novel rcpt ot song that expresses a tise peroal sent uy Be 5 israel sect eg es em a ha pt a a ntaction Posing the Questions 5 connected th the dominant patos of thinking about he slin this period” Th irage fhe sel natu theft instance desig to have some ofthe Maur os paradox nce the sl as een Characters concie nthe pont Carin ann sss d-snltary cent of conscusest, a unitary Favoured ages for this conception are thos of he inne ight of conssousnes or sei-conscoumest or the rst personal "iempn” (As ost noted. the singe voir of an lated figure, atclating this unguly personal viewpoint, conse nother characteristic moder ay {expresing ths cneepion) The contain nton othe sin alo’ presses in the Sa instance the Hea ta Ie ied consists acomplexafuctons which ted (nsf hy Sreunied by th ntacton, rater than a consti he ot Ct auitary A suggestive and lean fact though oe ogling Carel ierpetaton, i that in Ceeck Batre and pikcsophy, from Heme onwards thought and other pycolog process tre commonly presented in he orm of an nner loge = ‘second connotation of hs nage he de that he ta ie ‘of: human being atthe most frdamental lee, shared rather than peste and indo This ea has. scenes been expressed in rder philosophy in the age ofthe person (i ‘ormatv sree) ava itenoeor in he Hind of pu discourse that ges sigeance tothe tne of those partite aed Sortie nthe ide that tobe spon to engage m9 shared form of Me, characte by a news of reac attudes’® A protagonist ek veh at Kepler tage gues ken agonist o sophia daogve shout iues hat resent other undertone te cared human ite * "Aid de, read to de cond, that hua Beings reach, ther ethical foundations through shared debate Gntaing dete shot what means oe fly hams ater than y adopting ok {nada stance of astecomy or atepaton, ory bing on 2 rte ey sao aston testo sp Sb ty titan ging 1 tat tn 99:38 34.07, 1 Feedage fis ype ser eg 27-2 23-4 bow.6 Intrducton Posing the Questions programme of invidia s-cealration. A relevant acts that in Grek piosopby fom a st Pao onants eal econ ‘harsiersicly conned a aking the form of deta dete ‘athe than sltaryineospecton The debates about key ethical Sustions which pay ental le in Homeric ele and Alc apy abe seen as antpating thi way fencing el election “he second and thd contatons of ths inagesre rather fect from he rst since hey ate a conceptions o etal athe than yell ie. But His paul to eno a thee sis onnottins with each other and to se tem a5 expressing 2 ‘etal conception of human penalty a eta marth ey Feet the eri al foal dang in heck cle cant the chtater and shape tthe argument of this book stony by summarizing contents, Bat cea frter foetal Fins need fo be made Ft. Ths sa book aout Greek epic aed {raged as well as phlsophy although so far the dscssion has teen most abut Creekand modern sop, andthe statement of objectve-partgant theres fas been formulated with Grek iocophy especialy n mind. Hower, a key pat of my cans that Grek pet paychgal and ec ls (a sted tere by refrece to Homer and Ai ted) ar lo best ter reed as exprsing an abetve-pricpunt conception of person Sher than ss an ey or prime veo ofthe wbjeve or individualist conception, as hey have sot been sen = may stent sone defences need the csen Herter Site pilosophy, a material for sad of Grek nkng aout ferenaliy thik that my pede sere spins eet Gm somtimes made of some other sche nel tha hey igor the status fhe erry ata a itr, ating ridence fora conceptual eng Insoforast te interns om te antenna wre ee cm the works sa whole oon posage test ve par of ager ienry whol, nd ot inply on sae yep and age Fe seh ia tr ep. ep 93 (CE het ha be ly of cle sds yh an {Gee hgh on tar evel ec ee See 2 Bow pag 24 28 summa nt to 6b Intron Pasig the Questions S sont, taken in iolation asf they were theoretical asetons © Br {Sisco already Lam also interested in the formal features ofthese poetic works, expecily their wwe of dale end monologe, and Fogard these as lo sigan for his enquiry. Rough my rexd- ing of Grek teary test not designed to Be rary etiam of @ Conventional typ, Iti intended to contribute to critical udertand ing of these texts, “An analogous pint canbe made abot the satus ofthis book in reltion to pilosophy. Ihave taken 2s ay pracpal staring-polet the liso contemporary philsophers nthe theory of mind end this and Iam proposing to base hs stay, ge measure, on the arguments of Greek plosopers, But Ido not wish o present this study a, nisl, a work of philosophy, nor dest belong othe story of philosophy, 25 es usually understood. Ie belongs, in ‘essence, to itellectual history or the history of ideas and draws on ‘oth philoeophical and poet teats as evidence for Geek patterns of thinking about selfhood and persona However, an the ase of rature, I recognize that we must read philosophy as Philosphy ‘before using i 8 material for Some other kind of engi. Als, i trould be disingensons to pretend that I am wholly neue as ‘egards the phlosophical debates on which draw, Pat ofthe mo “ation forthe Boo is o explore the exert 1 which the objective participant way of thinking about the person as embodied in Grock Thought, constitutes 2 prycologcally and. ethically” promising vente for us, given our current itelectel and soil sustion. But this simply an impliation of he study the book snot shaped or argue a set of substantive philosophical lis. ‘My second general point tis. tw be cbvious from what has ‘ben sido fa that take seriously the cam that our interpretation ‘ofthe texts and other material rom another clare i inevitably ‘formed by the concepts and concerns of Ou on istario-cltutl ‘sation. On the ther hand, ar resistant tothe exter version of this claim: hat or interpretation of such material consists of thing fut the flection of ur concer. Although ¥ovuld regard the “ition ton ee ending of an ancent Grek (or any other) text a8 misconceived, 1 think I is wholly proper fers the on tea ee Dona 8 and 3k Nea SE ein himcpia gunn oy a8 Introduction Posing the Questions terminology of his shy —to try to engage ‘in dialogue” with Greek cultre, ra Yo sack to evalve metho and atitades whch enable the texts, as thus sti to have a wc’ nthe dialogue. accept that ou specific situation disposes to have adilogue of a eta ‘kind with the Greek mate But I also think~and this 9 ervsial sssumpion ofthis stdy—that the concerns of» specie sonic altura situation may be suchas to enable some of the ideas ana ‘oughtforms of anther culture to let themselves be heard ine steal. Thus, {ake my proposals about the inkage beeen con temporary and Geeck versions ofthe obective-palpatconcep- tion of the person to be more than simply reflections of the Interpretative framework adopted. {also take it tht pat of an inte: ‘rete's jb i to develop methods and atitades which allo the ‘oie ofthe text tobe herd ax ceary ass possi, given the nature ofthe interpretative approach an the material tude” ach ofthe chapters ofthis books onganized around a problem, ot set of problems seating tothe general nue dlacusned i the prev ‘ous scion. The Greek mater sed to lsrate my discussion of "hese problems i draw from Homer, Grek tragedy, an in pilo- spy, Pato, Aristo, and (a significantly lesser extent the early ‘Stoic and Epicurus.” The scope ofthe Greek material deployed I to an extent. arbitrary or, atleast, personal) t would Have been possible to discuss these issues in comnection with material deen from diferent periods and genres. However, the selection of material i designed to ustte certain kinds of continuity and leg ep re ee Serer es tio Saciicraieng career mies tree amet ; Seine tones Erwaltpreamganaa a cneeaerice here ‘Sumeent on in hough be 2 beau. et oes a2 fo ie eee Introduction: Posing the Questions » connection which ae not aeays recognized bets Gov pios- ia thinking ond these ypc he Greek poeta Tao {Ectne sort pnts f connection betwen the plenoper cn ered which av also trays cred” But mst emphasize fom the tart tha make no pretence st comprehen overage of any nen Creek ste, theory, or xt The sim eto examines st GF prodene whic taken together an iluminte the questions tas hee abot the inept of eae and peso Grek cure Simiarconsieraions apply othe ston of alent and scolr dncued hs oak along a ot there esi ‘Srv an sme igh noni they ave nt bee eee ally forthe eason bt rather bese hy state sore aspect of he Sat ven tp sie per CSncepion of pessnaly Macnfyre and Wiss appear t ‘a snes of my argent eres of ahr dierent pen of 8 porkipant” (ough not “objects ) approach to thes Conenpondingy, Terence Irwin, sometimes coupled wth Sone Engberg eden, liye 2 prominent ae, epeely in Chapters a8 epennalv oa bosly Kann or pot Kantian ‘thal approach (hat an spprosch which in a certain sense “individu or ‘Sj asd)" Tse the sco of there pponcesf theca ote schoas a y of ‘ning and ajoesting eter, edngs ofthe Grek mater Framed in ferns pete the two conception ofthe person {tal fave outine. Asin my Acksowldgement Tavs ht de frcement with tes and other scholars on the girston of the Shis oc pychcagl framework tat best appl to Grek Sought dc ot cou ccm othr wrk races Wat int ue he concept ude! (he inp pcre a epson) that shoul intr o's interpretative rndng of he mater and cn ae prt brs Sn Se ‘2a ila! Conecons cen Patric a Sik yoga hak ngtrano npn nye enn mess» Intadution: Posing the Questions this is matter on which thee i. propery, cope for disagreement 235 wll as for reasoned debt Inoverall structure the ist chapter (primary on Gree pte) it ‘design to explore the dea ofan objetive (nor =ubjectcentted) Peychologial model and a patcpant ethical model while sub Sequent chapters consider rome ofthe ways in whic these 0 ‘models re combined in Grech thought Chae 2 and 3 main 08 Grek poetry, and 4 an 5, nly on Greek: philosophy, ae exp Willy concemed withthe interplay between action ung infer active discourse and reflective debate, as this Bears on the determination of psychologic and ethical norms, The tle of Participation in these forms of discourse in providing the basis or ‘objective understanding (ard reakzatin in one’s fe and characte) ‘of poyehoethicl norms forms the subject of Chapters 4 and 5 ad stsofetures in the concluding Chapter §. The latter chapter aso fiscuses in general terms the opposition between subjective. Indviduaist ad objective participant conceptions of personality 25 pat ofa comparison between moder thinking sbout personhood nd Greek thinking about what it means to be human InChapters, Making up Your Mind use the question of how to Interpeet Homeric decision-making scenes a¢ a point of entry 10 same ofthe key ise ofthe book I show how th interpretation of| ‘ese scenes by Bruno Snell and A.W. Adkins, n which they ace taken os indicating atlatvely primitive understanding of human personaly, rests on a specific Set of poet Cartesan assumptions about the mind and post-Kantian assumptions about moray. discos some ofthe philosophical crscsms made ofthese assump tions, and outine an alternative framework or understanding det son-making. drawn. from some contempuary philosophical thinking about psychology and ethics. nce the sina between {ese contemporary modes and those found in Creek philbsophy, ‘pecially in Aisole and Sot theory. then ele etding ofthe four Tadic deliberative monologues inthe light of those Creek ‘models of practi reasoning and ethical motivation I once by ‘rang out the impleatons ofthis eaing for our understanding of the models of mind and ethical agency fmpled in Hosmer and in Greck philosophy. My claim isnot simply the (anstprising) one ‘that the psychological end ete! patterns deliberation in Homer se dose fo those of Greek plosophy than they are tothe modem ‘models presupposed by Snll and Adkins It israther that conte Introdcton: Posing the Questions a thee arte en Pirate mectdanpbanstare npr Feet ae catttsittaun taper tra) Spline anne el pe ne ney Sicha onc St vO wt ase a Set eda eames het api saticetigreursseny ee ae ous Coreutancce tients eta epee oo ee en eet toeee e Sant ite ai eine may eee nee (iain ey Wl iinet ae ema tap eet ings Scher aee tafigesicrracies oe So ee cere nara ae Sea est ag Soe goon se riiete Mc abese waa Saar tatene eereme naan Ee Sony era ee Ray ne ete Cr Be pl eps are ee SIS? Roe Sia i cebee Ya tn e bancon man “de pny i a i ae rt ent gtee re tl ey ope sk eI Tra Sly ey ly aa oe at Ener er veer Sa eeeereearetietinc Feet ana ase ses 1S" Se Sn ee ont etch mae Jon Sette 52 Introduction: Posing the Questions ersnalityvewpoint ofits ey ges ges hat he process faveln view seer understood terms of ee unfding Set oF te ep ota pom, ate nunc engage th the figs who ate wes of tat dace fe sabes twgatement sof «kd whch enable em take say he Stats f the Reo ats and stares exemplary gesture, it lsng Sh ofthe wan whch ch pss comet thi erm, ely rblenatic™ Ih Caper 3 the De Se in Chek oe expr ie contests between thease fost cred) ppl {alm andthe putpert eel uted in Caper Sota courte th earn ete print th dl ied in Chapter 21 do so by coiering ses of Gk pi Enlai psig whith pay pagel payee ‘entice vison These pnp have cts been ae by Sr fo instance, neigh of pos Caren md of a sta post Kantian rl mae! Accel. they have ben se i meres cual seppingstones tar oe io and "penal or subestne dls) conception et. foray and, i anata, ss eempiying the cot Benen ‘eon fr atonal wil nd pas of an sheave eng ‘ich i bjectve parte the srs ted. ea Paria, the point hat Grek ei nd toed fe Gre pio Sop, at tere) sens fo pesppoe« faybeapel el wich al human emotone and doses te ined by Bel {a easing: hence, the reson pason cons et a ll pls ts as to math thi ol T get atthe cons {ha Se ners in those eae ee concede tht between hemi fitch deste fo male, or fo sandy, at enplary gesture an the more coment etal las one eile opel ye tent coa how these poetic conic when cated y ek pln se sealant ne eat had arn onl cot igus as prt f Grek phos hing pit prc Sg a po Grek phosopiea ning pit pred er Inthe nest two chapters aint conding chats, take wpa seta of tsus in Grek Palosphy whi iste © See beow 36 ep. tent tan 20°3 472 54 ft 36-74. Intrauction Poing the Questions a conception of personaly embodied there and serve to undrine points of contrat wilt the thinking of Geek ep and tag pe retent sue e the quson of what Rear ob, nema thely, atonal (reasonable or esol’) and ow thi fase to beg han the all ene, A ey thee in tee “pts the feltonahip betwee frst-order (acta deliber- the) reasoning and "econo (flere) revsoning Areata theme the relationship beeen the acon -guding belt, and the typeof vitucs, promoted by conventional intracive done and the promoted by rele debate nd pte seta ing By seference to thee Dimes, we Can dtiguh two broad pater of hnkng in Grek pesopty Inthe at ptr, found InP’ Rep, Arle and ince ands of Ss king ful aman ea deveopmet le coneive 3 wo-age posers Bis there Is the development of itunes postions and ft ‘rer vesorng trough partipation I (proper forms 0 et feronal and communal extange Then, reflective debate {Eccomi-order reasoning) lading n principe, t objective Know Inge of pyehothel noe se the standard fo preeflctne ‘ir, and ies the understanding of whol vi, ts bet Cons in Inthe second pater, promient i Epcaran ough Sa found in certan stands of toric and Sc hog, pos feetve understanding i» reese for propel conducled fisondr enorng afore shaping of chars, nepesona ‘eatin, and he way of ein oth verona hat thi soy of thinking combines an objective (norabject-cente) rylogs move! wih ppl etal mode and objects ‘Stead poeto-thicl noms. {ao clam tha thi wy of andetanding hsman sation i prigared in Grek epic staged The pall Between Gres Plilsopica and poste thinking sbootfrtoder (prota ‘Rite reasoning ave ead bon examined Chapters Ghaptr 2. have arn at the ber stances Greta the ‘Sep gesture) ofthe problematic heroes of Grek ei and apedy inplya ype of second-order rensning namely recon ot nl tt diag a oo os "Sei eat oe m4 pw m2 8 54 ta se apis tote Spee oh tou tome ob ef ttm SS4 Intrauction Posing the Questions about the prope fom of human reltonships and human eta Chapters 41 pure the esionvased'in Chpler whether there any equlet in Grtepiowphy forthe Kd of ee conti (geen prychostaldson). considered Thee namely between the hers wish fo matin hes trey sane {ese om pil rete vsorng an er apo a the sven eh cine rma sap rere racning Tangs that a paral tension ometines ass in Greek pio- sopiin canton wth th atonshp between the pee te ‘ee happiness generated conversa nerve excane tht gente by postfire understanding is es ay ase even under Meal cantar) conser especial ins onnecin To's preseiton the (compen) tude ofthe Piosopherrles to reentry the ce te Reps an Astt’s sro ofthe ope cnt fo oe fractal wisdom in Noman Eh (NE) 209° Tsopes tat thepretrence fe cntepate aber hen hice paca em ‘expla or inp im then acs represents an cknowegrent of ‘eso between preseotve sh fost este cal ude Staring tat sm proses amined a Grek psy, fnctinsome ways moreso However Issoconider wa rch ths type of cnet may be at lel poly resale, nlaly throug he den tat recoing the rab of contemplative ‘ism ca eto he pact deco of nes om ie a at Communiting, is pefebilty cones the retest possible Bena om etre ao state ths orn of resto (here cus in he ger aren of Grek tl Ning hich the direction of shuren ie sen ss props shped by» come ‘ination ofthe types iteractve ad eee course Aid ara teats chaps andone whens esti of the cnet te person eos nthe Ce thet that ofthe reonhip een eta eng ‘Sew human ethic onsy i Cre pomp anne aha thinkig In Chaps (I dfn my wend othe Grek pater ting by contest wth ns Posy Kanan, proc which come toe to reuppe on buppropte gE a Sint ten 8065857 te ak Iroc Psing the Questions 5 “invidabst picture of ethical fe and els refletion. In both ‘Plat’s Republic and Aristotle's Nicamachean ts, argue that win deaates the role of (he right kind of) pasion In iter personal and commonal exchange In shaping (fs-order) ethico Practical reasoning and depostons [also argue thats account of Feective (econd order) reasoning in these theories, ab frm of individual reflection cece trealzation of ones 2s a rational gent undersaes both the particpont dimension of election a5 ‘fared debate o dali) andthe way that ths ‘participant cimen- Sion is clated to the ethical ‘bjectivsm’ of Pat's theocy® My bate with rin’ eadigs ofthese ets thus serves to ustete the contast tetveen (kantan or post Kent) “individualist ipproaches fo ethics and the ‘objective partiipant” approach that “matebating to the Groce theo. 1 define the character ofthe Grek theories farther by contrast with the antiKantian approaches of Madityre and Wiliams The theories help us to give proper weight in Greck philosophy tothe ‘ole of interactive pariciption in shaping thico-pracica reasoning find preaflective virtue: On the other han, they donot se ethic reflection as making an independent contribution to ethical fe and a yielding, ultimately, objective understanding of peycho-ethicl rods ofa Kind that can leptimstely reshape preefectveundet- Sanding of vite and happiness. In this spect. their approsch s Signin ferent ram that ofthe Greek eres. The distinctive (cbjctvist pactipant character of Greek ethical thinking derives from the weight attached o both thes aspects of tial Ke, which tls serves fo generat the conficts noted eave The contrast with both these types of moder theory serves ounderine the character 1 the Grek etic approach andthe conception of person tha this embodies, In Chapter, ‘The Personality Und by Reasons Rale in Dato’ Republic, | take the Republic at dopaying several of the features that I have presented as charatestic of Greek ethical ‘Philosophy. Plt’s psychotic norm. the esson-oled” psyche oimort ears meeps FESS wi ah ee eaten see26 ntratuction: Posing he Questions ‘pesoalty is pretend as the prot of & to Stuton prone, whch tose one ero fe fate of thing abou the rlmmnchip Sewcen ates Exchange aleve debt ootned err The fst stg he staring of cspstons hough prope fom of terre se comin! engage canes tan ype of pyr Sty or army and one whi ym some as esd by the second slog tee deat ying eu po, tflestive unersandng™ The Row dees» cmp bt ing cohen latrtp eteen thee types of ery (pre-and postr vtn) Par teas ss fog Agr of eson win potifecive ta feces ‘ins of knowledge ah inowlee sed Pace ao) Scksowleged in Pat's pronation of Thee ate Phlosphe-lersto een herve. Asis dle Xtand eben) purtipnt pater tog et he feran expt hereby par const nih ca sed Paria stan den rt og tn Chapler Fv, “eng Yous and eng the Clans of the eas the inpaton for my poe of Cie ply sopical waysol presenting and ely sete eon Sr ofitthat Between pring ur own happiest eng the tal dans of ter people pe thawed se Grek:hiskng on ths opin the ppp ye ci nes on Thnione ented onthe elo these li aye oper {rs erst ae than on hat of shen en ee tat gpl) ako mpg ths amen pote et contest i which o understand the siiance othe cme mae exit ty Ate a int Paton he Ra shat $e ate preety of ponte ce aes en ‘ethico-practical action. ae oe Ec oy Ait fh a a al oe wey wha exch fw i) ine th poche es a [aay th Bt Hn of ensip al the ht he cu cng gaia ah at ‘vo foyer’ (as ako) sn Po he musing of Sco it ‘Seen ta gan tr 9-9 aa fon Arie) 3-4 Intraaction Pong the Questions ” human happiness (NE 94 and 10.7-8) As inthe ace of Pato’ Repl, I sress the importance of stuating Aristotle's use of his yn the context of two-stage programme fr the ules cealiza tion of etal rationality. Artotle both (2) presupposes certain prvorditons Gncludng the development of vtuous dispositions through interpersonal elaonshis) for the recive understancing of what each of us and (2) elaims that propel grounded vele five debate can transform ovr understanding of what this idea Involves. The combination of these tro features distinguishes ‘Aristo’ theory ast oes Plato's) rom certain uses of he ideas ‘of personal identity or seithood in contemporary mera theory In portal, itistngulses the Greckprocedre from medern uses Of Theve notions ax Archimedean’ pont, designed to convince anyone that iis worthwtile for hws 4 ational agent to Become etaly good and alirustie I define my interpretative approach pain, By fatal contrast with Irwin's (aang others), which both assumes {he seevance of slruism as an interpersonal norm and seems om to understate the etal complex associated with Arist’ use of the iden of what each of us especially os deployed la NE {0.7-8 | consider comparable ways of conceving. ahd sacking to resolve thisisseinoter Grooktheores including the form of es0- Futon oted eater that comming the ultimate preferably of postreetive knwledge isthe ost profound way of beneing {thers eventhough i confit with the pretefiectve understand ing of what other benefiting action involves. 1 take this as an ‘hample ofthe way in rich in Greek thought, efecto, i based fon proper infective exchange, is seen as ented to extend and ee Shape the understanding of what a shared human life, at is best, nthe final chapter (6), "Being a Person and Bing Huraw’ 1 consider how fr the kindof Greek thinking about psycho-thical norms (ype, about what i means io be, normatvly, human’) tiseussad in Chapters 4-5 i comparable with moder thing bout personhon and personal det. compare both the errs for nottative states ad the tethodoigy fr ening sch eat ‘leploed in cent and moder theory. The ete for personhood Considered are subjectivity and the capacty for secand- ander3 ntact: Posing the Questions psychological functions, My an points that, athough Greek and ‘mode theories can, vl, be comipred in genesal ferme inthis respec the extent to which he two fypesaf heey a ly conpre ‘ble depends on the extent to which modern theo, like Greek Theories are objective nd abject) participant inthe wen which 26 | claim, Greek theoies are, This pint is deveoped "Specially in the comparison of Frank’ criterion of persone (the capacity for second-order devine) with Grek thinking, both Poetic and philosophical, about rat and second-order reaseing “This pont also bears onthe comparison between the methodlogy ‘of normative concepts in Greek and in modern thew. sess the ‘elevane 10 ths queston also of the two-stage, ce twolere, programme of psychoethial development oulined are, nwo ing the combination of interactive exchange and refectve debate langue tha this must be Borne in sind in interpreting whet Greck ‘hiosophers mean by saying that a een conception of what i ‘means fo be flly human or divine is rounded in nature In eter ‘wor, in pata qualia ofthe view of Maclnyre and Was ‘on this subject, argue tat we need to understand the obectivint (and, in a certain sense, ‘aturalisn’) of Greek thinking about ‘sycho-thil norms nthe ight of thee thinking about te ote of foteracive and reflective patpatin. {suggest tht this entre bears onthe question of the extent to which Greek ess om ts subject canbe seen a oncepual option fr also suggest hat is point carries inferences sbout the extent to which Gave thinking, each or any of us is held zesponible for achieving or ee 10 achieve fil normative hman’ satus conclude by teecting fon the conceptual satus of the contact between, subjectives Individuals and objective participant conceptions of person which is central to my study of Grek thinking abot personly and see Tod, and onthe pose implications ofthis entrant for ern cura comparison o ess i | | | 1 Making up Your Mind A point faces othe lees of ths book, use the question of iow "to lntrpet Homeric decson making This it a. wel {Sublahed tp of scholarly Sey Isao one i hich the ‘fade importance of the pejcoogeal sd eal sssimptins trough tthe top has xen undrned y some rent cot. flrs develop the er on away which ings ut sae of the ange of the contrat between sje ndualt tc cbjetveprtprt oneptos ce pron. ae the comments tn Homeric dberston fy Sram Sa an A. WHO Ad a crprsing certain lending fetes of port-arean and post an thinking abut thes ad psonod I note ome of te treo velan that way of inking by pooper: od end Stic, parclarlythne whch ave nk wi a favourable re sopra of Geek tug. Subsequendy, Ter analeraie ‘ust of Homer deteration, focused en rei ofthe fur dette renclopues i the Tis cunt sed on wo covelied Var tal Grck phowopitiking aout paca teeing and the motivation ca help ust tube sense of Homer deletion a tat Homer debereton ena ses, terve to iste Grek plop ilng on thee soja! ‘Tava lated im um, t fer ci tat contemporary pilo- tophicl debate eps 10 see the wakeence and vay of ‘Homer and Gee piso pte of hiking on tee ab " ‘My line of argument raises one general question, which should be made exc fom Be Hr hs te cron of he eet "SC toh Shan a pa at msi "Tet ky, Homes ptr lian pega php snipes pe con Megane tapc aera tebe Spo~ Making wp your Mind wiih we shoud se harman thinking on the nate of deberton & changing. o deloping, In the couse of hatey, Se oe ‘Akin ae conspicus exaples of thse wh blew tate should se development from Cetck to mesrnthnkng ete topic: St bles tat we should sr develope ss seopest in he course of Grek Rory Other sola, portly thou whose approach that of cata ateopogy ae Cec thinking on ths tp as prt ofthe menaiy” he nee hough and soc paces) present inthe ele at any fre ee The et guna ope hay a (a Fresh) gore the poibiy of aun change the Ts wey to. The en fondest hs pot cera changes in contemporary thought pt sin a bse poston toapprecinte Grek though ent tecogton tung ity smadem hough As regards the question 0f change of owen tent of thiking within Geek tre ees no pra er bez Animpation a ay agus ita tne ocd del Athi ah 988 7278 ; Jeanne Making p your Mind Pa volton of subseqant thinking on the sel nd personhood.” ‘esate conception of he sang ng ae cpl sath 2 futher intial astomgeon, that all poy rows hich healed "thought ze necessary onaious As Fepatit ina word ht coe eyhig at ena nich way at entra conte Ts operons ce Ipopation an te wesw ogi. eat henam Ang which is Wate hg we Tag chaoui onesie te Sos a ae ‘ager se Caresan sumone aout thowgh” and abot soa! are frre t's as mon wat ea 0 ‘Peon inthe ong seee, hat one wo lens of Nine ‘Freinga unladen of oncosrsr and wil Tox as he pote {ial psn. sa thing mtlignt Being that has reason and ‘election and in conser fae a fuel, hese hing ig, Inflree times on plces; wih dos ony by tat cones ‘es which ls nspatabe fom tiking ado sem to he ‘Soul tot na lated passage, Locks connec thisdimerson of personhood with the moral or forms” aspect The name of Fern’ tens only ineligible of In, nd apie, a ‘Sie Ta pearly bing pect ssa oe al ‘yun preset cate hs as yb omcumes ry {Slmes coc nd comb ond epus oe et toa foray tnctme pounded are seme ows hath athe pre Sel sometimes makes it plain that he presupposs, as te hock pound for his work, an intellectual tradition in which sel sciousness is conceived ar the cental human’ characteristic Responding to Wolf's rscsms, he explains thatthe larger context ffs work on Greek culture ie» question whose importance as Trought out by Hegel, Scheling, and Niewscbe, that of the © Des’ net Se nd ae) chan one tend ser tein Sapa my, are ( “Putin ica mS Se Ge vot 358 al 1 gH ee SA lag ce fm Fey 97) 38.306 Making wp your Mint atnship beeen selconsciusess (tus) and action niet) ™ Above lt Sel pressppre the Haglan view of he history acnaton es the dee elton theron (Gest overs veri eaves etl Fees sche for this dale eoiston (hens miss sys) ie hischarcereaton ofthe dint gees nat Creche 4, the wel nde on neji temo sce ‘hich mans sobre) mos aes of hs opty tee ‘net ofconsiusnens and src aon ott yee deveaped Te Ie wea the beings subjective concusbn e et enfin drama we awe he ihe fel end pe the ub Jive cna ifs th er and des Bh he cepa or decison en ston and the neces costs of ‘nn ifn sodoing ‘nan gp heunderstaringot hs as sorting hata nectar yours ncpeoe iyi nis most ams work the colecon sf aye Fans ted as The Dire ea t rginle,DSang es Gas sxms design to we Hoes Phnom ee, aed te an ilusraton ef the nflung, Nt of Sums ory Hn ns els larger framework of sssmpions exis the kn strc! deveopnont he esa nork Che cle 20 help to expin hi conception what counts geuine Feral secon This of on oe le hee {Ssasa peso inthe post Caren ses: thts one was Conscious hes aoc delbrton and wi The detson isthe person’ own’ ste se scons tht he ang ore precy, she i coacos at tee I an (a Carecan sue who fs making he decion and wh other pe ste for th deo so ated exer acre within thecforin the cote in whch th con dees de retoute BS ye wpa epee se ERpaag i maencanarane ot TE aa Stee aeempermatynn peat ree ee Siege eae oen eee Y iat emena tails tn ka een oe ees, Manin up your Mind ” Sue, Adkins does not explicate the background of hs thisking out the deciding agent as an or Subject. Bit Seems lear that fe shares Snel’ post Carteanassumpsons aout what coun a. "fenuine personal dean. This goes some way towards explaining 1 othervise undefended) preference or phraseology ofthe kind Gece rather thant seemed bee to me. The ashurpton seems Sgn to be tat thi type of pluaselogy shows tha there Is an liderstanding of enesel as an Tn the Cartesian sense, as 2 sl onsious, and self consisl choosing agent™ However, to make fll ese ofthe vews of Sell nd Adkins on Homeric desin-raking, we need alot take acount of a second, though tested, strand of modem European thought that deriving ftom Kans moral thinking, This bears especially the emphasis nhc ech of them, in somewhat diferent ways, places on the ea 1 wil Thi emphasis seams partly to rele the fat that they ‘sume a volition model of action; thats, model scoring 10 Ini each action prceded and caused, bya dsiet and eo Gis act of will But, ver and above thi thee comments pe Suppose Kan’s conception of moray and of what counts as @ fropely moral deco. Several ture are relevant hee, nling Kant’ Conviction tht the only thing that is good absoltely i @ (coral) good wil, and not, fr instance, happiness; and thatthe roth of good wll i nt acted by the suecess or fale ofthe ess ofthis wl. This iden deel forms a Key pat ofthe back- ‘ground for Adkins's characterization of Greece (by contrast woud Sem, with our culture) ata results clu’, which undervalued intentions” But also crucial Ken's Bele that a propesly mal ‘esponce involves a stance of ‘autonomy’ This ble ad held an Importance in moral theory comparable that held he theory of ‘mind and personal deni by Descartes Bel in he fundamental Character Of the frsspersnal view. The combination of the two ideas has played cra oem shaping Subsequent moder thik ing on the sland personhood ™ However, tis Kant’s theory int ipa for that be eleva fr Seal! and Adkins: Ths theory © See Aine pa aad sp te 9 se SSS Seiten gen tar meat he appt hsp mas perpen Cee til "3 ena 3g om Air ten. 35-4 > SEMPLE alban Seaton vo3 Making up our Bnd combines two seemingly opposed principles: One is that the ‘ropery moral esponse (hat ofthe food wil) expreses el ‘making las for eneseif (being “tutoomouy, in this sense) The ‘other thatthe laws so made must be those which one Sees 39 spplying universal, o others equally as to oeselt A Kant putsit {i one ofthe two frmulatians ofthe categorical imperative thas fundamental to morality: ‘Act only on that maxi through which you can at the same tine wil that should bwcome universal law. The ‘autonomy’ ofthe wil i that property which eras us to bind ourselves to universal laws inthis way. The exerci of this sutonomy involves special indo tonality, whereby we sbtact turselves from sensual and emtional inclinations and peudenal onscerations (atleast from those which we cannot ational regard a consistent with univral ls). But Kant also envi ‘ur commitment to these sele-made laws a Belg principle otal, ne infused by what he calls reverence forthe ew’ Sel isnot as exphit about the influence of Kant ase is about some othec aspects of his inlets! framework but chapter 8 of ‘The iscomery of the Mind (1960), clearly, sap by Kentien mora thinking The question pose i the cape is thin wha fon ct the moral imperative present itself tothe Greeks” (p353), The formulstion ofthe question is Kantian, as are the crite used #0 termine how far Greek thought ame cos othe understanding of genuinely “meal” principles, namely through the. distinction between moral and: pracentl considerations and the the Achievement ofthe concept of a geod wil" Kan's conception of the moral response as that of binding nel to enversal pepe {is apparent in Snes commentary on one ofthe Homeric deibera- tive monologues discus later, lt. 04-30 1 og gre meee net a yi is eu renee Becaemeeivals mcmsemtemeneas FEE romney ems la ate reer sia tee rte SEES ese c aes Ex Tomanscumyscen yes Making ip your Mind » Sree enemy eee ene: eS Prt err earners Setar oa Saegp heats Dore vara saute arear Soeeia mang isaicaneacionerensets Sess ‘What is sing fm Odysseus dean in Sls view i an Arrange moral Secon involves ining one {ellto univocal pnepes, adn fromthe elie of ns Sw vp ex commun. Sel neces this vew by an interpretation Wie tay eve terms of Oj” deteraton ts bing ‘serge bse other tan ethan rade sense" Bats Iman oot hevear skewer that we do not find a ecgnton of ‘beregulement. fore propery moral decor tat te age esc oe ofthe “pod will shoud inate an independent ct fun fevsaaton Kanan themes are les apparent in Sls eater Ulscusions of Homeric econ clang (28 130, n which he fey points the sence of saeconones of one's Tol 8 Aeding agent Ba ts probable ta eet Kann cose tne ter on is derstanding of what to make > gene ervona dain, hat deo which gency ‘one sown Trung out does which are used or song emotional reacons (uch as Achilles in Il 897-00), oon ‘exter face Gach te operate in Oayssur econ I. 10 44-20), be fier ct the Rd of decors whch woud nt on the Kann Siew, xpress the autonomy, or ello, ofthe vl, The Insert on decions whch are eof uh factor, rd whch re taken sel-coraiuly, the agents ov, tay tec sone of ants prcondon or moral essing even hough he require pent of unverszabon int epic here™ im Adkins case the crt of FAM as made pin nin famous—or noloroussnvounctoent inthe Peace © Met ad onthe inept fh meni fa rt 6 9 “APS woe. evo): U2. t9-98 2 the nt spect of Kanan sen fons dese pcan does wean) at Sipps an Ha Gaha Making your Mind more fa peta ene nt {ng an inner historico-cultural drive towards sell-consciousnees smtp inher eho ckee nen fasfring the Kanan moral conceptions that he takes as norma plato fea ashes Gk pe sso ond nanny asec yen oy emelec/dcap nage eae “Ei on miner dg coe iis iy er pate ae et se cae ey Sct et ty singed ea a ee Siren acne sone sae en een Ae mote etme na ae ee Sapam oc tt te roca es ce ae one atee ants erae e sp ea moran sae ese ca SEAS 19 Compute ane Se Aa Sh Bein ed ae Cl ee ee (98.23 ot pes in ag Woop ae ese rey at Se Making p sour Mind of the nature, and the elatvedefectiveness,of Homeric and Aristo tein models of practical and ethical reasoning,” tn tevpnding othe comment f Snel and Adkins on Horse Cubcltinthe cua pot sat we should no dnp arp tha pycalgtal and clea peenpysitos and question tee sua te Homer mater tata we should question hoe fremont enon tt icy penne Oe Fo Engel encepton oa an the pon Stan eneptin of orci) hee Ween questioned wien the phbsophy of ind ind as” Some o ese ams of dominant tern Hens fave ben linked wh rutessment of Cre mods o praca ‘Scoring and eal metvton ad tts of hough hat ‘edop have |i oe eapedly of cen recent plsophical ‘Sccndors wch can pu tomakettesense ee pater of {rece ensoningand teal metatin nner ance mee ‘ely the latonship between Homerc and Grek psec ator I dscon pects! soning inthe acon nd chal Ttvaon in the nos. in each aon. I focs on the four ‘ined te. Asoo of typeof reasoning wich Te rears as the sono ebberton) bing oat a inere ata ‘hare nd the inks wih roles or cs-caze easing The hal abject then pod a rt fhe towing no eo tes hahah te ue ay ns mat be premio aunforn afb) and fh ote present there mt ‘Cheat ade physica goes on hiking tan st he rig he mater toa ial sep wih Be il anh nip Son een yt tmiatyar et caremrrsuea restart cam tt rent bane a gy gh th os tur ren rd "SOR ap as Seong te sa an stove te "ahaa pory-& Arts came ations oud gle bt he SRE urcremnmasrgeecae4 ‘Making wp your Mind Having tthe en hoe deer! cans how an by whet mest 's to Be atane an wi seme to be peace by seer enh ey {Erseby whch ts mont cn ann pend wel acer yon cy hey casi il beehevi bys ary whet means ths will ahve they cometh a ace whch he ero coer is st” era masters eae sed al ats Ke te Rha hae rai’ pl oy dee ani serfs eee oa whe ds tena ee Het merce neath Sith si remractetateas ee Reef wey eee ee steep tetas pia soeemerts spend er sen” ETS wt ae ere ruse nap ‘Es Ri fp ten Sto ne a ‘Res ty naps elo ash ey Str srs ad San aed ts Eerie ing Zocor ta Gerben nena Sees ratty ean KBE a i | Making ap our Mind 88 ‘course af action considered, namely acting henourbly and, on this point 100, the Homeric monologues bear cut a pint often emphasized in discussions of Arstoi's alysis of means-end atiberation." in these respects especialy, the Homerle monologues can be sen a5 exemplifying oF preliguing—Arisotle’'s speciestions of the Iypes of rationality that are characteristic of developed human Tegs. For instance, the Homie monologues exhib he sense of time the abit o weigh the advantages of future courses of action, fan the sense of one's own pot that Aro regards as exlive to human ermal, and as ming 2 signficant diference othe way {hat they frm desies® Ths point ears ona fature of Aristotle's thinking stressed By come recent scholars the ide that (ad) human beings can deliterate ae creatures who sce themeelves 38 ving aie and oie of = certain kind and quay; an that hee smeans-end deliberation refs this fact" This ea mpled in at Teas two ofthe monologues: but to say this snot to say tat we also find deliberation here abou! the goals of one's life” Relat, we aso find exemplified the preferential reasoning that Astle takes to be characteristic of human beings" and which, i its higher form, constitutes the bast for prefrental choice or decsion (process). Although Avistoe takes the abity to make such choices es the mark of developed human etionaliy, the fora of ‘explanation for action provided I esentialy the same afr simpler human (and animal) responses. The ation is explained by 2 mire complex version of the blie-and-site (or thought-and-esie) * Scep1 gson tpt Ane s65 Wig on 27 sarge ate SE A DN hy Hs Ania 5-4 Py nat ‘hes tenes pts lope ey mei 2 7 mgt tesa Osh ap bo th ee EA estefan ee garesemadne Sh et fat a oars Seca gare ‘ont be a sogje standard to menore by for hati parsed wee Cr Een scendnen oyentteamateaey EL Se Re cnemamnncns Sei ea. ‘Making your Mind etter displayed in the praca yin of Chap 7 of De Mot Ann hein tinea ih svat toe eps te acton without any nea to poss furer eens of will by the agent,” oe ‘he prefereal srr of Homeric deliberation can ao be rough out by comparison with some peta the tne model of aman or atena)” motivation. The Stoke the Atte the motivation of atonal arinats a more comps verso of tat of so-ratonl annals. in bth ese, sn impression (eis) ends to impulse act (hne) nan appropri, oat way." ‘tional enna, owevey, in aon to sisson hte has eon which pes judgement on inpressionejeing so of these and accepting other, in onder hat the anal ay Be Bede accor (LS S94) As put leh te rato ial needso give sen foherimpresons oe they tite Actin. The ies is sometine expssed In guste’ em A nla impreson send be‘one in which he content. con be cited in angeage Farther, ‘propionate the abject of assent ut mpuises are dicta towards, ress ators, which re contained na sede the Popo {0S 53Can The process envisaged seca to Be of sind. The "esponseof tonal animal to he enisnent has ngusos aed specially proposonal, content or iunce thi od ek od! an ake fas to esent othe poposon ble se states an ‘impulse’ to eat, Sh ssn of assent fo the popton 2s & whole; but the impulse i ected spectre the cooks goat, and ts Wis whch gems acon" Home monolgae strongly ante some eres he pose Although the Sti mole! dest rg mca Ine ng sly cnc poche rl sf te mode an the very notion o‘acen presuppose heen sf thought nner diag wich the monde eae hn aa fre et i). ln NE seg tines > et wm fr cn oe in iy ‘m{nunen ea ss ae ee reese pat and eed m9, 30 tea ater gai ‘sion de i ogg NOMS IA ed | Manin p your Mind 7 convey Alka and most elvan, the monclogues are structured ina way that ciplays cetin types assent and sent) o accept tnce (and rejection). [n each ease, the speaker pus to himself a Course of action which he subsequent eects withthe formulaic fie: "But why does my spit dete this with me” bore accepting tnaltemaive cucu of ation, This striking nd fama ormulation imight wel serve as a stration of kind af respons which Stoic fiulosopher sometimes advocate hat of posing bere ponding {o one’s impressions, and appraising them before asenting” As 0 {he Stoke model, the Homer ‘asen” is made to the value-laden predicates soos and 0 on) which sr contained in the form [ons ofthe imagined courses faction This reflects the fat he, Inf he Hone an Sic mn he ase na ace shee of he vay of ath, ofthe statement involved and nok asa ft of re” wl by an autonomovs agen, ain the Kantian modal” ‘viously, in So theory, not all humax motivation sconceved 35 being as conscious, ee uly atilated, ais presented a being, jn the Homeric” monologues None the les, the Homes ‘onclogues may serve as an ustraton ofthe base structure of the proves eviaaged on the Stoic mode” and this fact reflects the them toon ei etree ma Siar ioe at eee ers ee pclae eae Sere ricl tag dams loce Bie acen trae see tienes eye eg bist feieuentie artic ait sia eee cerita SEPEPE nnGSnt on wah 9-4 ewe op tet ne "Cpa he gon mate abe 8 246-7 tt he Se cont srt i Be Calan pe aes ete nu en ‘Siig "Se aie gy aloes nthe chop ae oe Nn eames grt et Sc ot Hor ante ‘rn pecd vets ee Hames prc ns) mh ye Engi ep oe a8 Making your Mind sist nthe dls of hema pycolgy presupposed in cach Onequesion which th is coparsonanesis wheter th Hoinerc ‘monologues are, inde be kana epeseiatons of ccs = {Souah process! Ths isan ilies tat fr pat oven reader) bts rom hear Ut nd ae aya ara in Homes poy tel i ssh oacus om aor-cnsins press cle tn he ecrun of Home pychologiealproercsdeibraton os Beingamong the sore thought fous fay net ny ak mt ong he Ways of preening dle, nol ees Sumo fron orator yer son Bu think that we sod ves ping hs pt Caren ines. and eaggening, for stance, athe ne oe logue denotsa yet er digg wish tne psn conn is necessary conscious If one fed to ansher he peseen sets the Homeric monsogues represent const ne Sut hugh one woud veo ny nes Batt sc clear that wha the Homer figures ar presen as ing snes ks te der in which they Sint Remscves and te aens tha they tle to these, There nating me de soe ce eect el re me ipo tne ata gs at islet ea eteen see Eat aii one ate h Se teammates tr eae cea i aan ae oe ree el Seach taiwan Oa lone as of deter, seo. 58-41 above. ak on Home sie nar 339 tw ene LR har 0 36a O22, cad in 3.2 bw SOS Stn tao Cai amr act onan Boe eh es a an a Sites 08 Making ap sour Mind 2 ‘gure’ reesons for sting nthe way be dos, andthe sso by which he determines ths, that the monologe primary cnveys ‘er than heat hat hes conscious thst soning ‘in proposing the kena an ‘ebjeetve-particpant conception of sein the ntedton a soneepin smb bythe on othe Sel im dslpoe, T have cemented tha the Cees tendency 10 ‘preset thought san nel alogeiea supgestve oe thug ‘ne which nee cell interpretation What I have i wi fein, ithat thi mode of representation conveys the es of the mind ae a complex of fanctons engaging or mma wit rh ote) aes ui td le onacous Te paycholoicl mode! hat erst be preappoued, {in Greckasin some moder though is that of someone whe asen thebaci of ressone, and of rersoning, rather then of econ {Vo sa source consis) vltons™ However, he way of ‘epresenting thought eed 0 be terete wih caren onder {void the minding inference tha in Homer or the Cre theo, peycholopl processes ate conceived at lovoling an dering stata of consciousness (presented. here as fee Ginlog). in Homer, a jst emphasizes the sttion athe the reveme’ the deiteratiee monologues represent at (escepton) intraiation ofthe interperonal dase which scent the tae of living presented inthe poe se which crates the Standard conten of deteration. Kelty n Greek osmpica theo, lnm logue consti eter a way of spaying ychslogeal processes which are not neces concede ‘tues ofa the medium o eran spel pe of once ssltaddess™ The later type of ae ike he mere onaoges) Selamat ton ‘See ota i ets, nt ta 44 Tomy Bist sti unary Tass the wre Seed oy hoe Tee ‘pce ie ig aly pry Dene 7a Pre ir re agi mek het (rind) ee abs bead 895 spay, nad OS “'Eeteine ya meter: gpspe nag toa ae ea Rae ‘ges ao toto ee)| | | | ° Making up your Mind sts ein spec interpersonal or communal coins in which the figure fees, exceptional, te nad to adress noel tater han shes. Also, in the Homeric monologues the content the lner log reflects the figures" sense of emaches a soca partcpats, in waysthat under inthe next stan, Unda inthis way, the presentation of thought aa ener logue coy Jee, hep to cane some of the cometations ofthe bette Pi onion he en, is ree, in tum, othe more general pint which want ‘ring out in th section. My aim hat teen net np) foundering the degre of sinlity betwen the patter of praca ease emntodied in the Home monolgute and araljeed inthe Arse {san and So theoes tng gh tha) fs rae oso he pater of reasoning Inova Become ior nce {hey ae approaches froma mere appropiate illu famerk than tat presupposed by Soll and Adkins. The post Caren framework of assumptions abot the mind that Uy tok thle Staing-polst is diecty inked with the conclouen thet they seached: tht he Grek odes of mind show pinto dei understanding ofthe sel, more precy pimtve or dletive understanding ofthe Carts Conception ofthe sel, Hoses, when approached by way of contemporary thie of ie te ation, such as acto thary,the Grek pater seem oth ‘oe coherent and more pychologialy rete. have lo edo tank tes ama oe ae Ce poncynon-Cartean) model as ‘bec’ took tthe tha ‘Sbjct’ Ihave heen vew pricy thet that Jn these models motivation i analy intense cet pes reasons and of resonng rather than in tern ofthe wlio, ot A of wil fa aettconcious Tn the ment section an ee ‘aptes,tcoonet his type of non-subjecve understanding of tie tind withthe conception ef te personas sol pap than an slated nda een 4.3 HOMERIC MODELS OF ETitIcAL MOTIVATION: 1 now re-examine the Homeric monol ic monologues, in connection with ese sue aed by the discussions of Snell and Adin thet ot nature of thi! or meral) motivation. Asin the case practic Making up sour Mind & seasoning I sat by considering some conemporry cicans of the Kann moral Hees whose vay i asined by Snel an ‘kU conden eget ata eb teres of Macinyre and Witbon U eget ter hnkng on thse {abject proven ters fr undetandng theta mote fin deployed nthe Homer monologues than do the Kanan tsrunplorcf Srl an Aiea ce prs res it unorne crn connects Between the Homer pts tml ttian snd Sse tng on hese seb conectons Which these contemporary thors hep 10 sepia. Talo deine tein tcosecons between the Gs mods of “thd mote an homeo prac easing A old eae cent o Kans ary thee tat we have, sino ont ony othe wis that ins propery er rope, ti tulonony expected inthe agent's ding hel {univer ons ited besser of Kano sppone that is proces i omeived aes highly heorzed oe: the he fora pent ees ths of eso having aunomy of he {ian binding sel! ower! rs Kant es hime Be Gharecerizing te morality ofthe ortnary (nora person and tobe Speting out whats ned nse ody pros dang er ity {Gah a broperty norl atte, None te ey sem to be ral qo Kanfeteoy tat he onary moral ager, in doing he ty. Soo besl odong what ero srl do in sna ce Stance Seales ir aspect ef KANCS Ring in Ns ouent onthe orl ations of Ode repose I. {errse Tha! that Odyseocetateon he og the Tatas toe et sol order, and hat ies dy fl he "Sime throne’ taf eng his reponse by ers ing shows tha he (and Hore have ot erased he nate of 2 Propel oe reponse We aon In nopct of Kans thinking tht Matte especiaytects The aspect of jars” esponse which nthe Saal ace emergent ave deve a pe wht "Ser sto toons. 36 lage torent itl ar on ae ra atc 5 pa Sn sey on i cd wht Treen, hep srs sore wh 3s Sp Slap dona aoee Making pour Mind Machgre’s vw, cnc fil toes raps Mec tinier ene Hee nore evry. Ge cea Wk ee fees ‘it cert fetes tat tae ame eles ne al thang nin he ort cl net haa ci je secs ets et an a eget Of Sotamble sd chert pe fee aie thongs ving nce nes ‘conception f what equi by the saci le which ech nda Inhabit» coepion feces o tae at oe utes hh the haan niin rage an wae Ses an! at that o be vitaous no fo aid vm and enh at rater ‘ccd he ther de 985 19) Ie ty ene tic at te Cmte omgpt aes ante igs tne ae ee i dah tly pu Ne ean Sine coe fn eS se ee? i eg wh Rota pares ce See ine ccs ote pce cae i po a AS yh Selon pate Sp nat ert wes heey ite oe na ea cohesive society." ae 2 Tce ie ete te A ; ln. pst t sit rte ap eae ae seldom lett as iirne lamin dco eee acm sp ica itn a way that ie designed to achieve the gous iteel te reheat wi oe Wa shel ermewan sr) whch tha ede 6 mat edo hs a (ets toa et gta ac a eae aera ‘Raden hugh hns bo wien iu ve al C8 ow Ey so Ee Oh ae der mee arse ae el ‘em oh er 2 Fo quanto hig sot Making wp yur Mind 6 such goods varies in dfeent sail contexts. But inthe cas of + Howerc chitin, as Odysseus” monologue brings ost, failing those goods involves the thought that is worthwhile stand one's round in Battle even at the sk of one's death.” Thus, Moclnyre {hight himself offer Snes secount of Odysseus’ response (tht ‘Odysseus concentates ‘on the thought that he belongs fo a certain ‘scl odes and that ts is ty to afl the “vite” of tht order) {san exemplifiction of part of what vite, quite propel aves. ‘Thelliadie monologues alo beng out further aspects of Macintyre ‘oncepon of vite: ha the role or practice shouldbe onc by rte: tence to which the person concerned an pee at see as sigan the narative of his own fe, and through which he can form acon ‘eption of what ura exllence inves” These larger dimen Sons of what virtue involves might seem 10 be analogous tothe sutonemous (seeing) universaization of one's ease thats ental to Kent's theory But, among other diferences i isco ‘hat for Macintyre, the “universlztion” Is mediated bythe fl ‘ment ofthe role Indeed, the primary ethical response ies in such falient (more precisely, n the achievement ofthe goods ineral to i’) and, given thatthe zle i a specific one, witha place i a specie news of practices, urcerslaation Is not quite whats involved, Als, the agent, in Macintye's view, does net give his falent of the rte this larger signicance as ex addin the ay that Kans selling agent does. 16 as Someone who is ‘thkallyengnge in his community that the agent ses the achieve- ‘ment of his role asa valid form of human excllence, and sich engagement ia precondition fr proper ethical efecto." ‘Willams’ ethical approach i closet Maclnyr's, on this point, snd has simlar implications for the interpretation ofthe ethical ‘haracter of Howat deliberation. For instance, is cam that ethical ‘nowledge is achieved ina fe guided by thik (cultura loalized) sthial vars rather than by hi (universal) ones i compar Sle to Macinye’s claim about what constitats vad ethical fe nd reletion Willams as also developed 8 related bne of ea aye 98) 9-6 nig cont tHe ie (21-30) da fing eons prt st eet aaa om 86-7. 1 ee Me 9h ch ep fo Ba SP 9 Bee wats (985), 10-5 sa 4 Bo, tex m8% Making wp your Mind ch ma “ a ceiosgernge rem ars Nauta i re cee ena pe mhshdncnaantgeh sens eect geome es sie tate ge rein oe eet alana aceon so cee ase nettle egies eae ne rnb tn dre so aerate a mothe se han ene Seine aes evr Sahay gree ieparaan eater fo cerulhtamernemt ype races ee sett ree ‘Sete waa acreage cere rt peat meena. set th i rt Soca er mae radia Sa gers (19748), underlines the primary character, in our undetsncing ¢ ‘ures and aero eu partition in «network of mig eos TREE any RENE iors, oto as, ti Mahing ip our Mind 6 attitudes, such as gait and resentment. He also defines an ‘erative atte, which we exempt people from the partis for recive attaes which they would normally arouse” But he Stresses that thi second attitude fs desve fom the primary se of tttitudes, which constitute the immediate context of ethical and Inded:neletual Me, Stowers poitis not expt linked with the congast between Kentian and non-Kantan conceptions of proper inferpersonl eationsips. Bat tdoas serve to define the omcepiono ethical ife which Macintyre and Willams have in ewe In thet ernie of Kant. The same iste ofan essay of Charles “Taylor on the person (985. He begins with the Kea that a perso’ understanding of her actions depends on er status os 8 se interpreter that i, the sigueance of her actions depends onthe ature of her conception o eral (his iden has eer inks wih the post Cartesian conception ofthe peor. But he goes ont iim That the status ofthe persona etnterpreter cannot be understood ‘ropenly wilhout refering t0 another, and more primary, status [En is tat of be role a8 an “iterlocstr’ sn the publ space of iscourse from which she draws the signee by which she inte. prets herself Again, Taylor's essay, while not directed at the same AtSate in wach Macintyre and Willams are engage, reinorces thei understanding of eal fe in his most cecent work, Willams has himself drawn cut the implications of his theory fr understanding the ethical and psycho logical thinking in Homer and Greek tagody, incding. that caprested in Homeric deliberation. In ways that are paral to this ‘Gscunsion (end which have helped to shape he emphasizes that the developmental approach #9 Greek thinking of Snell and Adkins fests on Cartesian assumptions about the mind and Kantian ‘soumptions about ethics. I Greek thinking is approached without those assumptions and from a philosophial outlook closer to hs, the concepal divide Between Grek cltue and ourselves seems tmuch Tess marked than It does on this Kind of developmental ‘rcount Of the points that he makes I dwell here onlyon that © seams ample once, ‘ete seni a tat geo ea ‘ciate (eet era ober ring ton ke te Faye (a8) np 274 Se to C. Tee (98.2 38-40 om Scotch eusinsoy sete beg bey Tampouutlc“ Mang ap yor Mind {EE othe tinction teen hae and ul (mre psy, Setween smelt an pute) This soe of he mot et asd distinctions in desetopmentl cunt Grek alee ‘stig away tnd ery eval and hose who ele awe sates difrent Kinds of distnton in mind Willams’ p -onthe ke eel ipa ug Hae elit, SASS he i, Vit (95) 9s Fk (Se, 6s; an or she ES Fok Car cg 7 a7. nt. Con a goa le -pt o ew in p a sper ha Ap pt cen at= Mating up your Mind 2% Ate ptt eit ain es ie tn pt to oi risen hts int ir Tepe aa de i ‘Po incre sy a ht at Sette map iene so Sqotncousestcnlliae sen mete iS oy ha mst ten re Sint ut ah tare pi ‘Spr at eh a ay ee at Spe reraiacman enim ee eek a cathe mast aepeneneomn ‘Ths mitt wo eng he Meh Capa stun npc ince eee se iu cee on ey hn ne vey Sime Gn coer at ate ane ‘eal sane ne a i es [lee wma. tt Fost Say emt ‘Heme np ne te ees Ten Sh iets ober mene anon ps ge i canytosbchanpy npr Sk Ses Sei cemewton np ah reese oso ht pe ela of He ee iets ya ea rae Sk Se Cea! fnakog SS oa ‘Seman he yc "Rh quay of Oyu pne, wes ern; coms tte pay toni fas Agnes on SiS Tegal bate esac nt sno sclera tne sal ay sate srg eh iat Si cousin art oe a SS ee a a rns cee eee So Eat ate or mtn eet aims ur agtanss sae SEO N's tn fete ong oe nd i ou 13 Making ap sour Mind & tonourably (and without inating tne dagrace a saves?” ‘Ago’ nonaogiee unique atone for in contain cm theft ptt hit gol, siding death, expense othe Second, sctg honour. Aho Agar eds up by trig, tir ground, he eaches thi posto, peredowally, by reasoning, ht ected sy al svg is Me™ Heres te opin of ‘Ring sway (towacds Ty) ie theres a caying wit the Cerin o fate death tachi hands, Bt the ston etn, {hao unning ou ot he plas of Toy ough mig el an ental escape 10 Toy, might wel alo ead to his beng cught by ‘Ne. tis only the thong Hat both these ways song death will ht eds hs oy standing hi ound tat Sirs at lest seme chance, however fit ef iling Aches thtead™ On th face other ths monologue contains the lest {i what shoul! count as etheiy good motto. eer by the Sandardsof Homers orf ater Grek phbsophil es. “The interest of Agenr's monologue in hs ontection ies ly in the way that igs ont by conta, the more ethily Motivated deans ofthe ther meologus. The eons with Fcor's monologe, which comes not lng at (2.99130). {spell ponte In exer orm, Hess nnaagae exh the Sah strc of ressoring as Agen’ Like Agno, he conse fro oplions by which he might av confoming Aches, an hss Sve Hie ox his patents ave ust urged Rim fo do. Bu roectng {th opon he chose oan and ght apparent eng tome prospect of vor and conned fe Lie Agno, hes SRE AE dn and gaye ls re saving cores of acon though in ding 0 ‘benoit eps Ne coun Shown TERESI aera tate oats met exp tne 3s 56, je). The pate Earaube rune crass ‘iy ier we (LS Gh ema, ne fom ea oop Ni eet eee SE erty tm 7 ve sr ae rel Reese, eS aoe She plat macs manta aoe eeteta Seal Sate rere cf ston or aco nite Ager, Has hasan avaiable course Savile me mance es i hen an Gop hemline ems c ssh eb Se i A asset ee pea oer re Sent ier gach Sai a it a Wit tna petty moderate Sayer mr spe a ye ae Settee eda ata a mee ee atone 3.2 SR seGeapelto creefin end ynp Sih ciaasractan 2g ie time this i cy bf var wh pe palin r Making p our Mind cs tes that Sl ses acral in the agi amenors the el fonstins cers moral freedom andthe sage ast Teevlg ase forthe ment any ceteris we say bane boat te tal standpon pespped Dy Sel an Aas ™ ‘Rain ening in plies one ssa cone ‘nations sou Hector maton But now, since T have destroyed the peuple by_my recline [ateoehigw fa sham adem Ble he Trane ad te Tram won wher ling dese, and am fghtene at sone ‘nkols wore thane [tate] wlan “Hector elon Misowa tenth nd deseoyed hi people (a2 204-7), ‘What x clear rom these ines i that Hector’ shame isa vesponse not sa much Io personal dest and ons of honor a to heft hat the (on whom Troy’s defence pencpaly depends) has astoyed his people and dane so ‘by my own recklessness, in ignoring Poljdamas” advice and relying on his own strength at 3 crucial ‘moment of ftte™” Hector's shame doesnot jst deve fom the fact that he mast face the reproaches ofthe Trojan (including the ives and other relatives of those whose death he cased) he goes into Troy (05-7). He hinsel acces that he Was veang to rect Polydaras’ advice, and that was because of his rekessnes' that these ves have bean los (209-4) The thought that he smust face Polydamas andthe Trojans, and that he wal be ight) open toc ‘am from ‘someone who is worse than me’ makes his sense of Shame mare Intense, 29 mich m That the alterative of contontng [chiles seems preferable, event inelves his djing (bs it fon’, dekeds) in defence ofthe city (108-10) Bu the sense of Shame is oe that hearsay feels wll ot cease to exis i Hector ‘vos going ito the ly. The fact that Hector deiertes in this ‘way shows that he has internalized the ceactve ates that are ene to Homeric ethical fe. The Trojan men and women are the Inferior critic, whose reactions he imagines play the fle of the Spot remmersee emmy. "Since morn apc tte Ree 19> sys (i se% Maing ur Mind Ser te esp ea stressed by Williams." mt ee ite tical and psychological faework than tht respec iets Sarre Ste ‘elena fone taeectae rata set in aa a sles ast in the Cartesian mode) but ss» careers of sonal ge te aia tanita genes cy a mc ees eet Seen ieee mete we een) wane meee toe cope kta MLS ye wi SeeThru oan es siti mai rea ts nae tecnica we nee aie rates Se gts Cae wpa ie ate nas) 8 hae 3 se 0-3 Wes SRL ei acter Revue {pit clea her se Cae Goh es Sesh fae ee Semmes Sarciemmct meen ma Tee ee Sem rier ons he eee Making p you Mind = cule, the imagined rn spokesman repens the nt Sth who areas the eee Jodgemet tat 8 Hector hes they owl pop non ate e Sr percolate uggs by Denne. th fies serves tS tearttion of Hers consconses nara hos Tec converting lt nterel dsloge the do acon-giing jatgement that normaly Tore pa of inrpetsona logue Suan pom can be made abot the way nich Hector chat: feta be enter acon whch le the abject of there taped reetve judgments, Although this aon I presented as one fr ‘then Heri tesponsble and Baneworh, since f eaibied Wessnes (cg nt eres nthe ems that Ans te Snell wou equi for a tesponsible sco: nae, yen: iyinga cal meta desion by a sl-cnacots Torn Se of) whch ci eres the ba fora opr rd on father, ts catersed asthe toe of pres of interpersonal delete, which Pljdnas ld me oe the Tj ide the cy at] 16 rok ay nts of trove telly, aint obey Mn of as nt persuaded Dy Nn tye of mdi, tor) We may the I that aseewher oer, tis npr alga, he eles mona Ingues represents sway acing escola! notation Data | have sugeste in x2, ths moran sete nad te of co ding retons npc reasoning than Consists wil Alas rgd in the etal content of ‘Sihresming iter and by retrenceeegagemet with & ‘Eheminte erpesnal an cone te tan the aoe Somour commie fo avers! pines ego by Sel nd ating Thother words, Heco's monologue expres the ind of senso reaponbity and consovstes that apropste fo A ‘Dene Grom aubectcented).pychlgsalfamework and a ‘pcan eal eneos The nd ofl wich he Tin Is tt of 2p agent ho acts on the eso feu nen ant who bo fre cons SKapedoytheconseyenss ois ustsrsone Ths ives Sectottoms sp sane 1S Rodent iter a te86 Making up your Mind also at thi agent whose reasons ad seasoning ar informed by the acton-guiding belles of is community and by is engagement nth is social oe Its this Kind of sel of which Hector's meno logue shows ‘consciousness, and whose ‘esponsibility ackaow edged, This Kind of sel-consciusess ie aeplayed pat. 25 uggested by the sgifca® use of internalized alg. es aso played by otber distinctive ears of his exceptionally extended, ‘monaogv One is the use ofthe deliberative frm, that would be much bette’ fst ina varied form, to denote what would Mae ‘en much bts (dv zoh xepirer), namely, tat he should have taken note of Poydamas (103) and then to deseribe a course of ‘action tiling dying in battle) which would be mach eter’ (i ‘008 aipbinv ey only becuse of his shan at rol having done what was ter before (108-0). Secondly, the eelatiely complex grammatical strctare ofthe fines with thle significant mi of tenses and grammatical meods, articles Hector. shame scknowleigement ofthe present and ikely future consciences of his past actions"? One, a esto the implications ofthese formal Features is to underline characteristics of at hua fe which, snoed caer, aralso stressed by Aristotle, Adult aman prac reasoning typically involves a sense of tine (past present, and Satur) and of living ae single, an, in pinpeeabesve ie) ove tne. Adult human reasoning ako propery informed hy & Sense ofthe appropriate or ‘mean responce (the bel, emotion, and action) thi drives from theresa of interpetsonal and co ‘mural relationships in which one is engaged" When Hector imagines the rections that oters il make to hate hs dane he reenter the city, he draws the conclusion tht soul be etter ‘oul or di in bate although hiss nat what sd hae er eter absolutely) than to fall to repster the force of their (uti) response and the shame that ental. The grammar ofthe lines, a2 ‘wel a5 the internalized dialogue, thus expeses the kind of sl coracious responsibilty that is consistent ith thetlevant ype of ‘anerstandng of human Benge a8 prcho sical agents ecto'sefletion on his fst option, then, spy lends him back "On oma tons i Home ttn el noe, 2 enc tr el fnew ante and orighe ly, oth fra ema crys aos s "2 eer ett 3 Se SOS tena ft oy Tr -Matieg up you Mind ® tthe ar tmtsion ith Ate oo in 8-0 ‘Seti wtp he aed ag Say lara ecu po agp ™ SRL ga Ss werd rey mae one {root An ing stmt Heed hg Serva Tea a ge ad Spt yt peaproe Ss ea pel Sol oat rt il ae sh hie ps Pert ne ne ng Soca tu ant sno ert ne srlawangentl santos ned enc na weeny ee Ei geno tan yn ny te fer lesen! Hecke ESET ee oun sett tape te Seu capes ay fu ene fb Noting Ses open tt nn Shane imgie faye oops Sari trpente al an ny a SEES css et Spot tein tic ga either sr cto htop rg Sorte nt ced (ent esta a Her sn eg Sc er SI iene ne eng TRESS ite tie er ety cee te te yon 9 Sh oe mang dees rth ae cr pnt ee ma ea rope aye cil een pana ee Sony is ope ers mage ae in nh gr Sle a a imei Peis ein ha aoe hes wae LASSE sane nse teh ome Se cnt the» wma’ afm of interchange curate’ by Seen ecstasy =e8 Making ap yor Mind (eeu) ssn mate sae him stand his ground without fhe deter, nhs eps he tation ds th rd 3 fo amalsiin tec Arlan an Sse del of ie In Her ca he gh th dla ab on ing sean ste his, nd the des fo sand seu (de $5 dco rece ht ean toes ey ‘lie fat ond the compart here wed one ‘cleat sts and fleet eet the to monologues Forone hing segs care ayes atone et repeater ied ny ena in way hat woul propery nn te ence geet of Sonour om his flow cht wht tt they dy ns ces gene) Ht lian he Nes sue een (at in pita conan to Age's) ee deed at ‘Sina i en wy ht compat cting hor ates tvabon i ean Sn ‘As hough Hor adopts re reluctant way the course «schon which Ose aes be unequal he nah who 0b es he espe stn ators However, the idea that the presents ton of key figures inthe lad and Greek tragedy raises special problems (bearing especially onthe relationship between our ethical Feigementson the Figures and our emotional responses tothe) as ‘ong history, and one that goes back, arguably, 10 Greek culture ‘sean L note some versions ofthis dea shorty (22 belo) “is alsoan idea which follows naturally rom the diaeusion ofthe previous chapter, expecially that of Helo’ monologue (1.4 2bow) considering the eis mativation embodied in the Tale mono- Togues Ihave assumed that the lied Yepresents the kind of fictional context in which ts reasonabet look for eth or moral motive ton need, {think that the previous dicusion (3-4) helps to ‘substan this assumption; it suggests ways in which we on “understand the framework of hsking involved as being 2 propery thie] famework, and not a8 = peimitive or defective version of ‘nora thinking fon a post-Kantan understanding of morality) How (ver, the digesson of Hector, in particular, raises questions of Spel interest inthis connection, deriving both from the ethical hmplety of Hector’ response MS stuation, and fom the fl: rest with which this is expressed in the monelogue. Hector’ esponse athe ffi fo pace’ eh les easy to carac- tere his responce as courageous (or not than that of Odysseus, 5 Sali mo cree spring Sha tty ter fcr rs a ae npg [pms Sti Sots96 Being Hew he ey pt ers pose Sees fra he ft athe ames isha se hep tho fat © tp etd ty te deat Hoa) hich docs tot smh eed 5 Bann father Ive of empty se wench wey ssn ter Onto an he diets nse haan pend erie oon alton, On hese onng hs tiers ay nh ees pe frend and he nee ene yet at Re a no Inge ermine shoo pat whe ts on ca ha Sepia nape vant ane oy ei ‘Senay endo dey Soe lp en Sate ecm ite nr apn steed igh leet oyna enperes ih Haken ta cls curve akan etn These ater mong ae path present son oy fest ay nomen he adsl re tae thy ent sme a nt thefts tt lech furs folate ov othe ree sion | Hieciestateranes sreusaon noord tears ‘pial te cacti te sn tape es de fle sy sea ua apc a a bes | plumpoblona' he sete eeepc eet erate wisn pester I yc es csp eet oa eee) i Inve pnp epccs One tha fehl spree ge i presented ina way that makes i dificult to rach a definitive | ethical judgement on er action and attitudes. In vom case, though ot in the case of Hector, this lfc arses Irom 1 tension between the standards of fadgement used bythe other figures In | theie—ofto_negatie-chareterization of the figure andthe " sandards that the problematic ero proposes of presupposes eee ee SUR a ee tne oh sta temas Sth testes OO ae ag ea age CN Sie an nate oe ey Trias Being Hero 2 oe eee ee Sooners ease ne eects eee eas eee cee Sec nieed ieee coe Sete SE dis asiemtnmns eee See Ss Se ey aa a eth ren ede ree es aaron Ss eee eee rialeerethern eee ees epee enter ae sit magnet seg rs Salina yun pe ie ge bo Soe cee eee Serene Seer areca setenv etna meme oc es teat tt ‘inn 8 dcantng Cnt ery Bp raya at) A SS ees Hy Spee ce eeeayem as mae “Gi ie aa ooh* Being Hers sccounts by Moto and Aristotle of our ethical and emtional Fesponsest epic and tape representation, also consider to con tmstng types of modem postion on this sue. One postin (of which T eke HL Butcher and A.C: Bradley as eepresenting itierent version) i that the Special Kind of sytpathetie response that we give to problematic ragic heros is a esponst to the power of personality’ in some sens, of 3 Kind that iat or negates mote conventional fypes of eh jdgements on the figure: The cathe is represented here by James Redfld's sem-stucturalist reading ofthe Mid (2975 The core his view es in the dea that the problematic hero expresses cetsin fundamental conics in his ay Being Hers for understanding the ethical and peycholgial stances sical in those speeches” As noted eae, the presentation ofthe key Figures of epic an wagedy infor nstance) agonistic or spplcatory lalogue provides «potent image ofthe conception of person that | associ with the idea ofthe self in dslogue’™ and exploring this foncepton ofthe person as expressed in these gents, helps fo provides form o explanation forthe centzltyof the formal moe of laioguo in those orks 2.5 ACHICLES 16 ILIAD 9: CRITICAL FRAMEWORKS. now feared of Aches set speech a ad 98-29), anion othe apprach fhe gecson oe polo eroclnedin 24 tov Laima dar thes and hare tthe inte spec (at i ype tong ele {te pea dalgue dese ise anni my Scie te kind of eis expen te apc ake ote ‘opel wih ne partial stand inte soy dacs a Inept, Ts seardof pon wakes Ales nis Specht be rgeng tee vale of rst fo be Soke ns a lots wih ses cel our understanding of hs rn ugh Tan itl of ths ef eho at wih sugges att he os lending of the men ways ecing ts spech. Tat sts bbgs ahr th that by ecg Ags fis Aches put Hw aneqcaly, ihe sone and at Ere conequns of secon, xpeciy Passat coe stm of Finn for heron” he ate ee ‘upgoes # nnn ‘ane and punnent dl wy tke qt naperopeitefor the tal compl s ‘sented in the Iliad and Greek tragedy.” aan = ORM pon nes tae on est Seg Hows hip: aioe oe 0 2 a pi Ri eh reek Sci mat aha Sle Serine tvslun sic oto ned ee SE cng nd Te ae ‘ee ain tb it hap xb asp ap mag tices one “ Eiegupaiss ‘lpn and Crk py ca ic an eee Baga Hero 235 “The view that Achilles ito be understod a heroic ote has the merit of registering ths etal complet and the correspond. ing complexity in our response which the speech Inte. Some holers of thin view, a8 do, ase Achille” ejection ofthe gifs as depending on ethical retccton abou the proper goals of a human tte orhat fam calling second-order reasoning) My objection tots ‘ew tums on the interpretation ofthe content ofthis reflection, and Tested ofthe Kind of dalogue that Achilles sce o maintain wei his fllow-cieftains, {think that Achilles” conception of a werth- ile aman ie gives a tore central place to co-operative relaton- ‘hips than do the holders ofthis ew and that Aches tl speaks ts an engage member of his group (though one who is deepy tral of the way in which ts fetoning). alo think that this Understanding of Ail’ lance makes tte sense of his su quent actions and responses than does the interpretation of hi as fn thiol outelder, and that this understanding of what his ‘Reros involves is relevant tothe interpretation of many ofthe problematic heros of Greck tragedy.” “Ae well as contributing (as I hope) fo the better understanding of Ahi’ great speech, aking ese withthe Hen of Achilles 23 an ‘thi outsider eleo serves my larger objectives his book. Like the ‘ews of Snel and. Adlins discussed in Chapter +, the idea of [eke a8 ar outelder js informed by one espect of the type of ‘modern thinking that Iam cling ‘sbjectveindivduaist’® Asin the cae of Snell and Adkins, uncovering the inlet infunces st work can help one to formulate an interpretation ofthe Homeric ‘material inobjective-partilpant’ terms. The most abvious example ofthe scholarly tendency that Uhave in mind is Cede Whitman's ‘hapterom Achilles (958, ch); but his dscssion encpsltes an ‘ndersanding of Achiles' heroism which manifests lf in sub Suent Homeric sclaship ton. The cre ies is that the deepest ind of ethical reflection i he gues for se-reaization; the Kind of Se Sica come aa ae etree er Sat lS ts test i Seemann TREE es ea ae soppy ae abn nda ra we oo St236 Banga Here selfhood to be realized i at a fundamental evel a inva one, and the quest for sl-etization necessity sts the iad apa ‘om his society” The following quotations from Whitman convey the general characte af his approach ‘elon an ss ot the mn wha oes precc ayt e essence of Achill sutlering (28) ema i eat Beh nec Sopa tie maesae fapoagetScnar om tei tee (a a tres sl res The ng Withee oe i Roce ls Cy ha Wn sg inphemet Teel eset as tanya inn es SS mm cape ge een Se say ia tide wf the ste theme mel neg a cS he Sea cmon seal nanan Sherpa oll goa schoo tom anes ee cocrsntnie gaining at ener! tee nnn fee anes ese Se ie Sad Ain ake oe ay aie ey ont opened Sane aaa tpn fc eau eh rd bao Smee its re o ateipeany rangi ceca erie merearrnr retest Gpneeneen mae SSRIS myc tc corsa or ply nH Ka Akio a she Boing a Few “ Te presupposes, in particular, the proces by which Ken's ide of autonomy takes on amore fly "subjective individualist characte. For Kant himself, as we saw eater, autonomy (the subordination of tesla universal aw) i conceived ax bring pet of sy eopely ‘moral response It so! part of Kans theary tha atononty neces Sari involves selting ones in conflict wit conventional morality; father he presupposes thatthe lasso wile are consistent with nventiona moral principles. Nor dows he think that sl-iegisation recesarly involves some spell type of selldiacovery © sll fealiztion But the idea thatthe deepest kind of mal quest Involves thos farther dimensions becomes cena to the though of some post Kantian thinkers, of whom Nietzsche and Sarre are the ‘most obvious examples Wl the intelectual strands cotrbting, to this development ae comple, ane factor seems to have beer. the faniralty that the notion of ‘sel of “abject” acgived kn pos Cartesian thinking. What is relevant heres not so. mseh the Cartes ble that all mental proesses are accompa by se fomscousness but rather the assumption that the Bestpersonal ‘viewpoint isin some way authoritative and fundamental tall Knowledge, andthe associated primacy given this viewpoint in ‘uch subsequent theorizing abot elo and personal identity. i the evotion ofthese strongly individualistic coneptions of autonomy and authenticity in post-Enlghtenment taking that ‘hitman presupposes, and it the family of these ieas on ‘which he rele fo he ftelighbty of his pctre of heroism "The story oft emergence ofthese individualistic ethical thevies in an intlsctaltaditon running back to Kant oF Rousseau (a ina different way, Descartes) has been told several tes in eent {oan ways tht are elevant fo my larger topc as welas helping {5 ake sense of some scholaely assumptions about Homeric ‘ero. Macintyre arpucs that Nltsche's radical individualism, ‘expresed in his etic of “selreaion, Is the logical outcome of Kant’ attempt to ground morality on the (alleged) capacity ofthe inva moral agen fo act 2 Sell elton a Way that does ee hoe te ey ah 0 anon Kt ie alg ant Ker "Schecter tet ym the tag far Sars oh innate econ pace eer slim Gna monte se See bcetnd apr efi 8| | 28 Being er ‘ot depend on the ethical character of het community." More recently na complex and many-lyered say of the sae period, {Garles Taylor presents the sebjetvst and individualist stan ia post-Enfightenment thooght as art ofthe intellect framevrork that makes tfc forthe mer individual to oe at home a her community, and, mere bcedy, i her meal and metaphysical ‘word’ Robert Solomon has drawn atenton to the pervasive use ‘of the concept of ‘sel or “subject” asa foundainal ea pe Enlightenment metaphysics and etic.” Wis the subjecverindividualst stand that {have pray in view hee, which Reps to explain the conception of Heolsm pee ‘supposed by Whitman and other scholars. As Taylor unerines the ‘elevant lines of thought do nat as orm pat ofthe plosophicl teadition butane embeded in tecatere, and in the hoe cultural Ife of the period. aver, Tring. In a famvs study (0973) emphasized the power of thee, iterate a ell as theory, that ‘only aheric ‘ose can resize the deepest ethial goa of blag ‘ewe to oneself, an Mea which anvdelay Romantic Merry Rgures ‘nom Goethe's Young Werther cnwands acer still—and ata tne special elevance for understanding Whitman and other Homere Seholars—Cotin Wilson, in a book which ad an extraordinary impact (1956), described, and expressed, the power othe Hes ofthe ‘outsider. For many Americans in the midergss (when Whiten, fad Adam Parry were writing onthe hoi of Achille), the here outsider was symbolized by the brooding, allenated,hall-ariculate figure of James Dean, 28 he appeared is the fs Reb! Without hn vw sue geet cece een Kat's ert and ssa "st htneny snd iene nate ong Stirer hea ren pb) Nacthe centre eat ‘finer arc Katey ons eles fr ltt Le thn a's peugeot aye nal oad whch ur prey mabeue thc seas eee iin aa pcan Pomp th Sed een “SE Coil ch tt Dre) 63 onto a or pve tenet Bed Season athe rien pra Suing Sa nS 8h, fern wth ver) cn aces Sock soem anh aie aed cerca ost arac thing 94-20: one nasal ee oes Sie ce 9 en rag tn eget e abiin, eng Hers 239 Came and Ent of en, a figure who bas, perhaps, a speci evan fo Par’ contin Tnigse, Pay pblahed a short ate on the lngvgs of Aches which ha spark off 2 whle dete about the rl of Tanguge, as an expresve and communicative meu, in Under Sanding Achilles “heoan, 3 monte inhi get speech in Tind 9, Although Per’ thesis informed by some specally scl sues” thnk hat lost «predominant int {Eta concen tthe te he wrote that ofthe face of come truncation, between the indvidual~more parley, the Ilva whois lca by he search for hie andi ‘Sci. Thus, Pry anlycs the ‘condor ot Aches’ speech 3, tata someone who sees the awful dance between the ath ht Shuey poses on ten and what Achilles ae oe be a for Rimsel? (op6 5-3), Beause of he formuli charac of Homeric ‘lccourse that the ft tht tis made up of what Homeric acy frcopives at trate) “Aches ato ngage wth which ‘hpes is slasonnent Yet be expeses and na remarable sr He does by munuing the langue he disposes o He ass {uesion hat cant be answered and mks demands that anno inet 8). Frinstance he abs But hy should the Arges be fging gamete Tjans, ond demands that Agamerion pays ck alt iny hentsending ge (Ul 9. 337-8 387 Pay) ‘Whether Fry has deveibed ote the sgifcance of Ackley uestions and demands s something to be considers shor Bat ‘Report tobe noted here the way in wich Par formats the et ofthe heron outsider in tee of angage Ache rope, Ts final isoltion, ts that he can inno Seas, inlding tht of Tenguage an, say, Hal) eave ie scty which has Soom dlc ta his (7). Like the James Dean gues oF 19305 ema, he ese haartulte rete without cause’ Pary’s chiles Cart bear to pea the angngrof hss hed, nly aba mesium for exgessing Ns own aination "The iden tht Aches, He the problematic heroes of Gis names een gyrase shimmer terest acetates amma Pe ceeest tenia ES0 Beings Heo agey of which he the pay, sto be undrto a anout sie, th tnd far dest bas persed es oat ogc rl ™ Batis the oes ued by Pays sy tat vant pur: dept eng bet and ingress, has lng been cogized a eof the mont suggestive dcisins of he speech. One qussion which Rahard Marin (389) Pope emphases (534) that of what Pry mean y “ngusge she fering to the Horr silo othe thong of the spec (nd tora th tal aes of Haat ty en as that Ace's he ng ses (Pay (95 80 Gen Par espana as Heese a Homers eal values are hight detriate and ornul (and tha the to types of “angus” ae oly interconnected)” the