The first real Greek class I took was on Plato’s Apology, with the eminent classicist Arthur Adkins. We translated the Apology, line by line. When we stumbled over a construction—many of were beginners—Adkins would gently correct us. That was the whole class, that was it. 1/4
Adkins was dying, in a wheelchair, there was a guy in the class to remind him to take certain pills every 20 mins. He died a month or so after the class ended, but he made it through. I wish I could convey the atmosphere of that class: the hushed silence, the fierce attention.
Somehow, without ever saying it, Adkins telegraphed: Socrates knows he is going to die, but he has to give this speech first. I know I'm going to die, but I have to teach this last class. We are all dying, all the time, but there are some things we have to do before that happens.
Today I am sitting here crying, remembering Arthur Adkins, wishing I could thank him.
Fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is a long personal thread about my own reading practices, and a revelation I recently had about the pluses and minuses of reading at different speeds.
It might not be of interest to you.
(Photo below depicts the inhabitants of my "book" shelf)
I was just reading an academic paper at my top reading speed, it was 40 pages and I got through it in about 5 minutes. (I can go even faster for non-academic writing, though my max speed is much slower for foreign languages). But I usually don’t read that fast...
The vast majority of my reading is at slower speeds—in effect, I am constantly choosing to read more slowly than I could. Why? You might think the answer is that I absorb information better if I read slow. In fact, I believe the opposite is true...
Why Difficult Old Books Make For Independent Minds:
A Long and Engaging Thread
I can teach philosophy w/o making use of any texts. So can @zenahitz, I bet. The students will love it, & walk away having learned. They'll also walk away being a little more like whichever of us taught them. That's bc--and now I'm going to let you in on a dirty little secret...
--part of what makes @zenahitz and I such good teachers is that we are charming. (I'm allowed to make this scathing accusation of her because we're old friends) This is also part of what makes @philosophybites good at exposing the public to philosophy.
Gelman claims that "negativity requires more care than positivity" bc offering a critique of a view is more difficult than lazily affirming that view. But I did not take Cowen to be contrasting criticizing s.o.'s views with affirming that person's views. 2/5
I took Cowen to be taking for granted disagreement w/work of some intellectuals & encouraging people to parlay disagreements into positive contributions of their own: be proactive, not reactive--not as making implausible claim that praising s.o. is harder than critiquing him 3/5
"Each party progresses rapidly in discovering the truth about the other, without ever discovering the truth about himself."
Rene Girard's brilliant analysis of Oedipus Rex: it is the *similarity* between Oedipus, Creon, & Tiresias that underlies the chain-reaction of violence.
@cblatts I can confirm Violence & the Sacred needs to go on your pile, esp. ch. 1 on vengeance as a chain-reaction
& how rule agst shedding blood and the rule to take revenge are the same rule ("it's because they hate violence that men must seek vengeance")
& how preservation of community gives rise to a need to distinguish good (violence-curing) violence from bad (violence-generating) violence
& how the institution of sacrifice has role of maintaining this distinction in the absence of a judicial system.