The question is (in the first place) whether it may not be possible for a father to owe more to a son, in other respects, than the son owes to his father for his being? That many sons are both greater and better than their fathers, there is no question; as there are many other things that derive their beings from others, which yet are far greater than their original. Is not the tree larger than the seed? the river than the fountain? The foundation of all things lies hid, and the superstructure obscures it. If I owe all to my father, because he gives me life, I may owe as much to a physician that saved his life; for if my father had not been cured, I had never been begotten: or, if I stand indebted for all that I am to my beginning, my acknowledgment must run back to the very original of all human beings. My father gave me the benefit of life: which he had never done, if his father had not first given it to him. He gave me life, not knowing to whom; and when I was in a condition neither to feel death nor to fear it. That is the great benefit, to give life to one that knows how to use it, and that is capable of the apprehension of death. It is true, that without a father I could never have had a being; and so, without a nurse, that being had never been improved: but I do not therefore owe my virtue either to my nativity or to her that gave me suck. The generation of me was the last part of the benefit: for to live is common with brutes; but to live well is the main business; and that virtue is all my own, saving what I drew from my education. It does not follow that the first benefit must be the greatest, because without the first the greatest could never have been. The father gives life to the son but once; but if the son save the father’s life often, though he do but his duty, it is yet a greater benefit.
BLOCK 975311
A sovereign social network
powered by Bitcoin
Every post signed. Every block a heartbeat.
Posts here are signed with the author's own wallet and written permanently to the public ledger — no account, no algorithm you can't inspect.
peck.wisdom 23,094 posts
Clear
I mark Thee strike the skies With front, in wondrous wise Huge, rainbow-painted, glittering; and thy mouth Opened, and orbs which see All things, whatever be In all Thy worlds, east, west, and north and south.
[6][Reference is to Zeno of Cyprus (335-263 B.C.), the founder of the Stoic school.—Ed.]
Krishna. Hanta! So be it! Kuru Prince! I will to thee unfold Some portions of My Majesty, whose powers are manifold! I am the Spirit seated deep in every creature's heart; From Me they come; by Me they live; at My word they depart! Vishnu of the Adityas I am, those Lords of Light; Maritchi of the Maruts, the Kings of Storm and Blight; By day I gleam, the golden Sun of burning cloudless Noon; By Night, amid the asterisms I glide, the dappled Moon! Of Vedas I am Sama-Ved, of gods in Indra's Heaven Vasava; of the faculties to living beings given The mind which apprehends and thinks; of Rudras Sankara; Of Yakshas and of Rakshasas, Vittesh; and Pavaka Of Vasus, and of mountain-peaks Meru; Vrihaspati Know Me 'mid planetary Powers; 'mid Warriors heavenly Skanda; of all the water-floods the Sea which drinketh each, And Bhrigu of the holy Saints, and OM of sacred speech; Of prayers the prayer ye whisper;[FN#19] of hills Himala's snow, And Aswattha, the fig-tree, of all the trees that grow; Of the Devarshis, Narada; and Chitrarath of them That sing in Heaven, and Kapila of Munis, and the gem Of flying steeds, Uchchaisravas, from Amrit-wave which burst; Of elephants Airavata; of males the Best and First; Of weapons Heav'n's hot thunderbolt; of cows white Kamadhuk, From whose great milky udder-teats all hearts' desires are strook; Vasuki of the serpent-tribes, round Mandara entwined; And thousand-fanged Ananta, on whose broad coils reclined Leans Vishnu; and of water-things Varuna; Aryam Of Pitris, and, of those that judge, Yama the Judge I am; Of Daityas dread Prahlada; of what metes days and years, Time's self I am; of woodland-beasts-buffaloes, deers, and bears- The lordly-painted tiger; of birds the vast Garud, The whirlwind 'mid the winds; 'mid chiefs Rama with blood imbrued, Makar 'mid fishes of the sea, and Ganges 'mid the streams; Yea! First, and Last, and Centre of all which is or seems I am, Arjuna!
They that receive not this, failing in faith To grasp the greater wisdom, reach not Me, Destroyer of thy foes! They sink anew Into the realm of Flesh, where all things change!
[7][Chrysippus (c. 280-207 B.C.) was a Stoic philosopher who became head of the Stoa after Cleanthes. His works, which are lost, were most influential and were generally accepted as the authoritative interpretation of orthodox Stoic philosophy.—Ed.]
When things have attained their strong maturity they become old. This may be said to be not in accordance with the Tao: and what is not in accordance with it soon comes to an end.
Then in making their laws they may sometimes make them rightly, and sometimes not?
The Enchiridion — Chapter 45: Section L
Thrasymachus, I said, with a quiver, don’t be hard upon us. Polemarchus and I may have been guilty of a little mistake in the argument, but I can assure you that the error was not intentional. If we were seeking for a piece of gold, you would not imagine that we were ‘knocking under to one another,’ and so losing our chance of finding it. And why, when we are seeking for justice, a thing more precious than many pieces of gold, do you say that we are weakly yielding to one another and not doing our utmost to get at the truth? Nay, my good friend, we are most willing and anxious to do so, but the fact is that we cannot. And if so, you people who know all things should pity us and not be angry with us.
Conduct me, Zeus, and thou, O Destiny, Wherever your decrees have fixed my lot. I follow cheerfully; and, did I not, Wicked and wretched, I must follow still.[8]
The Peripatetic sage does not exempt himself totally from perturbations of mind, but he moderates them.
[Tu Mu takes exception to the saying; and at first sight, indeed, it appears to violate a fundamental principle of war. Ts’ao Kung, however, gives a clue to Sun Tzŭ’s meaning: "Being two to the enemy’s one, we may use one part of our army in the regular way, and the other for some special diversion." Chang Yu thus further elucidates the point: "If our force is twice as numerous as that of the enemy, it should be split up into two divisions, one to meet the enemy in front, and one to fall upon his rear; if he replies to the frontal attack, he may be crushed from behind; if to the rearward attack, he may be crushed in front." This is what is meant by saying that ‘one part may be used in the regular way, and the other for some special diversion.’ Tu Mu does not understand that dividing one’s army is simply an irregular, just as concentrating it is the regular, strategical method, and he is too hasty in calling this a mistake."]
But are the rulers of states absolutely infallible, or are they sometimes liable to err?
And the laws which they make must be obeyed by their subjects,—and that is what you call justice?
You appear rather, I replied, to have no care or thought about us, Thrasymachus—whether we live better or worse from not knowing what you say you know, is to you a matter of indifference. Prithee, friend, do not keep your knowledge to yourself; we are a large party; and any benefit which you confer upon us will be amply rewarded. For my own part I openly declare that I am not convinced, and that I do not believe injustice to be more gainful than justice, even if uncontrolled and allowed to have free play. For, granting that there may be an unjust man who is able to commit injustice either by fraud or force, still this does not convince me of the superior advantage of injustice, and there may be others who are in the same predicament with myself. Perhaps we may be wrong; if so, you in your wisdom should convince us that we are mistaken in preferring justice to injustice.
Earth comprises distances, great and small; danger and security; open ground and narrow passes; the chances of life and death.
Schrecker. (LLA 94) .90 *Lessing: Laocoön. Tr. E. A. McCormick. (LLA 78) .95 The Life of Lazarillo de Tormes. Tr. J. G. Markley. (LLA 37) .50 Locke: A Letter Concerning Toleration. (LLA 22) .40 ——: The Second Treatise of Government. (LLA 31) cl. $2.50 .80 Longinus: On Great Writing (On the Sublime). Tr. G. M. A. Grube. (LLA 79) .60 Machiavelli: Mandragola. Tr. A. & H. Paolucci. (LLA 58) .60 Mill, J.: An Essay on Government. (LLA 47) .50 Mill, J. S.: Autobiography. (LLA 91) .90 *——: Nature and Utility of Religion; Two Essays. (LLA 81) .60 ——: On Liberty. (LLA 61) .65 ——: Considerations on Representative Government. (LLA 71) .90 Mill, J. S. (cont’d): Theism. (LLA 64) .75 ——: Utilitarianism. (LLA 1) .50 *Moliere: Tartuffe. Tr. R. W. Hartle. (LLA 87) .50 Nietzsche: The Use and Abuse of History. (LLA 11) .50 Paine: The Age of Reason. (LLA 5) .50 Plato: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito. Tr. F. J. Church. (LLA 4) .50 ——: Gorgias. Tr. W. C. Helmbold. (LLA 20) .75 ——: Meno. Tr. B. Jowett. (LLA 12) .40 ——: Phaedo. Tr. F. J. Church. (LLA 30) .50 ——: Phaedrus. Tr. W. C. Helmbold & W. G. Rabinowitz. (LLA 40) .60 *——: Philebus. Tr. K. Herbert. (LLA 41) .75 ——: Protagoras. Tr. B. Jowett. (LLA 59) .75 ——: Statesman. Tr. J. B. Skemp. (LLA 57) .75 ——: Symposium. Tr. B. Jowett. (LLA 7) .40 *——: Theaetetus. Tr. F. M. Cornford. (LLA 105) .80 ——: Timaeus. Tr. F. M. Cornford. (LLA 106) .80 Plautus: The Haunted House (Mostellaria). Tr. F. O. Copley. (LLA 42) .45 ——: The Menaechmi. Tr. F. O. Copley. (LLA 17) .45 ——: The Rope (Rudens). Tr. F. O. Copley. (LLA 43) .45 *Pope: Essay on Man. (LLA 103) .50 Post: Significant Cases in British Constitutional Law. (LLA 66) cl. $3.50 1.25 *Rousseau: Two Discourses. Tr. V. Gourevitch. (LLA 109) .80 *Russell: Selected Essays. (LLA 74) .90 Schneider: Sources of Contemporary Philosophical Realism in America. (LLA 92) .60 *Schopenhauer: Essay on the Freedom of the Will. Tr. K. Kolenda.
The Master said, 'The reason why the ancients did not readily give utterance to their words, was that they feared lest their actions should not come up to them.'
How characteristic of Socrates! he replied, with a bitter laugh;—that’s your ironical style! Did I not foresee—have I not already told you, that whatever he was asked he would refuse to answer, and try irony or any other shuffle, in order that he might avoid answering?