Greece

by M. Rostovtzeff
this book is an account of Greek history, culture, philosophy, and politics from the time of the Minoans on Crete through the 1st century B.C. when the Latins or Romans became the dominant power in the Mediterannean. There is so much information in this book that i do not know where to go in starting a discussion.
In the Minoan civilization which surfaced on Crete around 3000 BC, it was a society based on egalitariansim. There is no evidence of slavery, women and men were granted similar if not equal political and property rights and ability to fight and participate in sports. There was no army, and the purpose of the navy was soley for trade (as Crete being an island had limited resources). Sanitation facilities were up to par with some in European palaces into the 1800's. There appears to be little differentiation in social class and the society was focussed on arts, rather than war. Since they had no military, the Minoans were easily conquered by the Achaeans and most of these egailarian and progressive aspects were suppressed. It is remarkable to think that a society such as this existed so long ago and has been unmatched for nearly 5000 years.
It is impossible to speculate how our world would have progressed if the values of the Minoans spread, rather than violent and military agendas of aristocrats throughout human history, but it is fun to attempt to do so. is it even possible to spread values to foreign cultures nonviolently? would christianity have been so successful if it had not been enforced by the Romans, or communism by the russian police, or Naziism by the SS? it seems we are a species that is dependent on violence, so i suppose it is more practical to be feared than loved.

Under a Cruel Star

written by Heda Kovaly, a Czech Jew living in Prague at the start of WWII. being in German territory as a Czech or a Jew was bad news bear, but being a combo was really bad news. Heda was taking to concentration camps and her entire family was murdered. while being transferred between camps she managed to escape and make it back to Prague. there she was met with rejection from all of her old friends who feared being caught harboring an enemy of the state. she ended up hiding out and after the war was over she got married and her husband got sucked unwillingly into the Soviet communist party as a high ranking official. as the wife of an elite she was treated poorly by locals and she was especially treated poorly after her husband was accused and convicted guilty of conspiracy. she dealt with rejection based on her race, and social status and was a victim of prejudice for a large portion of her life.

prejudices work their way into our daily lives in many ways whether we mean for them to or not. when prejudice really becomes a problem is when it is propogated by the media. This was a huge issue (and still is) in the palestinian crisis and in the "terrorism" in afghanistan. Muslim don't hate America's Freedom! granted they don't believe in all the liberal aspects of American life, but the claim that they attacked us because of our freedom is a myth created by the Bush Party and popularized by TIME magazine. People who do any kind of research on the topic will realize that America was not the innocent victim of terrorism but mindless boobtubers don't check the facts and buy into what they are fed. Its impossible not to be prejudice, just make sure to know why you stereotyping before you make decisions based on racial propoganda.

Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans

written by Charles H. Kahn.
This book draws on all of the influences that Pythagoras and the Pythagorean doctrines have had over the millenia. Pythagoras didn't do a whole lot of his own inventing of theories or ideas, but put many together to create his all encompassing theory of the cosmos. He got the idea of transmigration of souls from the egyptians, reincarnation from india, and he even got the "Pythagorean Theorem" from the Babylonians! However, he did come up with the idea that numbers are behind everything and are the fundamental building blocks of life and the universe. MOST of Plato's philosphy can be traced back to its Pythagorean roots, through Philolaus, Archytas or others and after Aristotle, Pythagorean and Platonic philosphy merged together and were fully incorporated in Plato's Academy.
since he believed in reincarnation and transmigration of souls he was a vegetarian and popularized vegetariansim among many famous people including Ovid, Xenocrates, Plutarch, Apollonia, and later Voltaire was a Pythagorean influenced vegetarian. during Roman times vegetarianism was linked directly with Pythagoras but when Christianity won over Europe, the trend died out and pagan thought was suppressed.
The idea that numbers and rationale can be used to explain everything in the universe is almost the same concept as the scientific theory and modern scientific reason. Newton gave Pythagoras credit for universal gravitation and the Third Law of Johannes Kepler is a direct reference to Pythagoreanism.
Pythagoras has made a very long lasting impression on the western world, even though most of his ideas were not his own. He seems to have been in the right place at the right time to promote his foreign education and be praised through history. Aristotle on philosophy and politics was the staple of european social life for millenia and Plato was his teacher, and Plato was influenced by Pythagoreans who were influenced Pythagoras. Is following the trail of teachers a fair way of attributing glory? i would say not, unless most developments in science want to trace their long trail back to Pythagoras; unless modern preachers want to trace their glory back to Moses; unless modern legislators want to trace their position back to Hammurabi. Especially because most of these founding figures are intertwined with myth or lack documented proof (pythagoras, Solon, Homer, Theseus etc).

wow, that was a ramble.

4 Texts on Socrates

this book contains 3 of Plato's works: Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito, as well as the play by Aristophanes: Clouds. This book contains some of the easier to understand and less dense portions of Socrates logic (as opposed to Plato's Republic). in euthyphro, socrates sets out to prove to Euthyphro, a man specializing in law and justice, that he knows nothing about justice, which Socrates succeeds in doing, using his jackass approach of asking questions until the the answerer is caught up in their own inconsistencies. then in Apology, Socrates had been called to court for corrupting the youth, by teaching them to challenge authority. rather than defend himself Socrates calls all of his accusers idiots and insults the jury as well. in Crito, he is having his last discussion before this death and he refuses to escape when given the opportunity. Clouds, by Aristphanes is a satire on the ridiluous nature and logic of Socrates. He argues that Socrates will disagree with whatever anyone says and argue it with rigorous logic until he has proved the other side impossible.
socrates does have a way of arguing whatever he wants and winning no matter what. he gets more enjoyment out of making others feel stupid than out of actually acquiring knowledge. this may seem irrational in itself, but in reality how can soemone possibly "know" anything? (setting all religious and fideistic beliefs aside. is anything actually certain?

The Prince

written by Niccolo Machiavelli and published in 1532, this book gives tons of suggestions on how to be a successful prince, and at first glance seems irrelevent for the non-prince reader. but looking a little deeper than that, this book is full of irony, satire and its actual purpose is ambiguous.
machiavelli had ben imprisoned by the Medici family for supporting an alternate regime, but the Medici family still took the throne. This book is addressed to the Medici prince, which is suspicious in itself as he is giving tips on how to be successful to his imprisoner. the book also gives all sorts of contradictory advice and all in all promotes the appearance of justice, but the actual act of injustice. the dedicatory letter to the Medici prince at the beginning of the book was written after the actual bulk of the book, so its intended audience is still debated today. throughout the book, he never explicitly lists and intended author but instead says "you."
this book lists the successes and failures of tons of princes and rulers throughout history and is still applied today to many rulers (most, i'd say).

setting all post-life utopian arguments aside, is it better to just or injust, in general or when would each of these ideologies have their advantages and rationale?

Heart of Darkness

this book was written by John Conrad in 1902. it is written in a story-tellers perspective by sea pilot named Marlow. Marlow sets out on an anticlimactic journey into the "heart of darkness", the jungles of Congo. there he meets an ivory "collector" named Kurtz, who exploits slaves to gain ivory and steals it from them as well.
This book is significant in its affect on the European people of the time. This book is ambiguous in almost all of its meanings, which could not have been on accident. Conrad exposes the reality of colonization (its similarities slavery which had already been abolished), but at the same time he gives no life to any of the Africans except the cannibals. He gives the impression that Kurtz is a man of honor and prestige, but also shows that he is an ethnocentric, selfish maniac. There is also ostensible references to the psyche of Freud at the different stages of super ego, go and id along the journey into the jungle.
The purpose of Conrad's book is to demonstrate the corruption & exploitation of imperialism and its relationship to the heart of human existence. Europe had colonized essentially all of Africa by 1900 and the united states and europe colonized much of the east asian islands soon there after. concepts such as "the white man's burden", or the spreading of western values are still used as justification for the exploitation of any territory that has valuable resources for the imperializing state. Its been a technique used for centuries and it is still being used today in the Middle East. Many americans are still buying into the concept that the media feeds us that they need democracy and capitalism. Do they? Really?

The German Worker

This is a collection of documents written in the latter half of the 19th century and the early 20th century. It is composed by several authors and is an account of each of their own autobiographies. One of the recurring themes is the Social Democratic Movement. Most of the workers realize that their working conditions are very poor and in order for them to rise they need to join trade or labor unions to protect their rights and working conditions.
The Catholic Church at this time, realized that the Trade Unions were gaining a lot of power and often along with the socialist beliefs came an anti religious sentiment. Pope Leo XIII issued his Rerum Novarum encyclical which encouraged christians and catholics to join Christian Trade Unions in stead of the regular trade unions. In this encyclical Pope Leo did stick up for the workers against exploitation, but also downplayed human rights and the power of the individual. It seems to me like the Catholic Church got involved in Trade Unions, not out of sympathy for the working class, but because they wanted to maintain their stronghold on the population, who were drifting toward anti-christian values.