posted March 21, 2009 01:56 PM         

"The Sileni of Alcibiades" seems to have turned into a proverb among the learned; certainly it appears as a proverb in the Greek collections. It can be used about something which on the surface and at first sight (as the saying goes) seems worthless and ridicu­lous, but which on closer and inward consideration proves ad­mirable, or about someone whose clothes and physical appearance are much less promising than what they hide in their heart. It seems the Sileni were statuettes divided in half and put together so that they could be opened up and the interior displayed. When closed they portrayed some ridiculous and monstrous flute player, but when opened all of a sudden they displayed a god. The amusing de­ception was designed to show off the skill of the carver. The exte­rior subject of these figures was taken from that ridiculous character Silenus, the schoolteacher of Bacchus, and the jester of the gods as portrayed in poetry, or they have their buffoons like the princes of our own day. Thus, in Plato's Symposium, Alcibiades be­gins his speech in praise of Socrates by comparing him with these Sileni, on the grounds that like them he was quite different when you got to know him properly from what one would imagine from his outward appearance and manner.

~ Erasmus Desiderius

SILENUS
sîlçˈnəs, in Greek mythology, part bestial and part human creature of the forests and mountains. Part of Dionysus' entourage, the sileni are usually represented as aged satyrs—drunken, jolly, bald, fat, bearded, and possessing horse ears. According to some myths they were prophets; but according to others they were so perpetually stupefied with drink that they were unable to distinguish truth from falsehood. In some legends only one such creature appears, Silenus, described as the oldest of the satyrs, the son of Hermes or Pan. He was the companion, adviser, or tutor of Dionysus.
http://www.questia.com/library/encyclopedia/silenus.jsp

Alcibiades compares Socrates to a Silenus statue. Silenus, the teacher and companion of Dionysos, was generally protrayed as an older, uglier Satyr (half-man half-goat, dedicated to drink and pleasure), constantly drunk, and with an erection. Socrates is, once again, accused of being hubristes – just like Marsyas who challenged Apollo to a musical contest – and lost. But Socrates is more amazing than Marsyas, because he exercises his charms without the aid of a musical instrument – just with his words. Socrates shares the physical appearances of these characters – bulging eyes, snub nose, thick lips – and their “amazing power”.

But he is different from them, because under that exterior, his ‘inner statues’ are astoundingly beautiful. He doesn’t really care about physical beauty – and as we know, he never gets drunk. In fact, he “spends his whole life pretending” (eironeuomenos). Alcibiades tells the story of his own failed seduction of Socrates.. In traditional fashion, Alcibiades wishes to exchange his good looks, his sexual favours, for Socrates’ wisdom. He is driven to take up the position of lover, pursuer himself. But Socrates is impervious to his charms – he insults them – and makes fun (with irony) of the proposed bargain. Socrates is here very unlike the figure of Silenus or the Satyrs. Alcibiades explains his candour and frankness here as resulting from the intoxication of philosophy. He has been “struck and bitten by the words of philosophy” and has suffered from “the madness and Bacchic frenzy of philosophy”. Once again, a connection is being drawn between philosophy and eros, drunkeness, inspiration, divine madness (at least in its younger devotees – but not in Socrates, of course).

posted March 22, 2009 09:01 AM         

Is it subjective; is there no accounting for taste?

Are some people's gifts more rare than others',
and can this make them more valuable?

posted March 22, 2009 09:16 AM         

I wouldn't dare enter a workplace with little knowlegde and then begin telling people how to do their job.

To get to know people we begin by valuing them.

To value another person is to show respect.

We can determine 'Value' by instrisically synthesising all information around us, and establishing the benefit of what we are actively valuing.

posted March 22, 2009 10:15 AM         

What if society and popular culture were run mostly by ignoramouses like your new boss?

What if people were being taught to value cheap things, and devalue priceless treasures?

What if most of the people who rise to prominence do so, for the most part,
on account of qualities which are not valuable, except in acquiring prominence?

And then these people, on account of their influence, promote ignorant values.

What if some of the most valuable qualities lie hidden
inside people who lack the traits that would bring them success?

And what if these qualites never come to influence the public?

So then we live in a world where people are rewarded for being commonplace,
or for having a talent, charisma, or corruptability which makes them a candidate for celebrity;
but people with the rarest, most valuable gifts, can barely make a buck.

Because their gifts are not valued, they are marginalized.
Imagine how many people we think of as successful,
because they perform some ultimately meaningless or even harmful task,
and how many people we think of as losers, who may be speaking truths
which western civilization has not heard for a thousand years,
and may not be prepared to hear for another thousand years.

Despite it being a cliche,
so many people are still unaware of how often genius is praised and left in the cold.

Or deprecated and left in the cold.

quote:

---

To value another person is to show respect.

---

Certainly. Everyone is valuable and deserves a bare minimum of respect.

quote:

---

We can determine 'Value' by instrisically synthesising all information around us,
and establishing the benefit of what we are actively valuing.

---

I'm not sure what you mean by "intrinsically" synthesizing.

But how do we determine the value of the "benefit"?

Some things benefit us on account of what they do not produce.

"For a trees branches to reach to heaven, its roots must reach to hell."
~ Alchemical Dictum

The roots of the greatest good are hidden so far from the fruits,
that we are unable to perceive these connections without rare insight.

This must be why so many original thinkers are doomed to obscurity.
They work on the level of thought,-- but not just thought, -- deep thought,
and the processes they are catalyzing are so subtle and unconscious,
that the effects do not generally appear until much much later,
after certain questions have begun to take root in the unconscious,
and often no credit is given to the person who triggered the change.
Often, it is not even recognized that this person triggered the change.

So many of our thoughts and convictions are given to us by thinkers who lived in the past.
Most of us dont stop to realize it, but we make use of their words and thoughts constantly!
Worst of all, we don't imagine that these thoughts are part of an ongoing dialectic.
We say the first cliche that comes to mind, without confronting the compilcations,
and all the contradictory cliches that may also, or better, apply to the situation.
Instead of developing our reasoning, we just say the most convenient thing,
and when others contradict us or ask for the logic behind our convictions,
since we are not aware of the logic that led to our (hand-me-down) convictions,
we act like it is a personal insult, and walk away no wiser than before;
"we go out by the same door we came in," to quote Omar (ironically).

Well, most of us do.

posted March 23, 2009 06:04 AM         

All living creatures can evaluate the world around them, then make a decision/choice.

In my opinion, we can place a value on something/someone by evaluating what this object/person has to offer.

Valuations are subject to needs and demands. What I value this very moment would change, if my car suddenly broken down in the desert.

quote:

---

What if some of the most valuable qualities lie hidden
inside people who lack the traits that would bring them success?

---

This is when we need to value ourselves. There's no point in hiding qualities. There is a quality that someone else recognises, values and wants, eg. your ability to work hard so that you can work for them: your friendliness so you can answer their business phone: your reliability so you can get paid to walk their dog.

quote:

---

And what if these qualites never come to influence the public?

So then we live in a world where people are rewarded for being commonplace,
or for having a talent, charisma, or corruptability which makes them a candidate for celebrity;
but people with the rarest, most valuable gifts, can barely make a buck

---

Interesting statement, HSC. Most people have qualities that they can put to good use somewhere. Not all people are born to be celebrities, but still have many fine attributes.

You are right in saying that there are many talented people out there that can barely make a buck. In my opinion, this would be young adults. This group are often overlooked because of their age and percieved lack of experience. But this age group often have a tonne of energy that can drive projects to success.

Also, older people are overlooked, as our society discretely discriminates against many 'groups' of people.

quote:

---

This must be why so many original thinkers are doomed to obscurity.
They work on the level of thought,-- but not just thought, -- deep thought,
and the processes they are catalyzing are so subtle and unconscious,
that the effects do not generally appear until much much later,
after certain questions have begun to take root in the unconscious,
and often no credit is given to the person who triggered the change.
Often, it is not even recognized that this person triggered the change.

---

If we were to use the bell curve of intelligence for the sake of this discussion, we could say that most people are capable of average ideas and problem solving ability. Anyone beyond average with amazing, efficient, creative, productive ideas and problem-solving skills are lost in a sea of people.

Many people are unable to see the connections of thought/action consequence. If X happens, it's because it 'just happened'. They have not processed the fact that V triggered W and therefore X happened.

All in my opinion, which is at this moment struggling to stay awake!!

posted March 24, 2009 01:58 AM         

quote:

---

This is when we need to value ourselves. There's no point in hiding qualities. There is a quality that someone else recognises, values and wants, eg. your ability to work hard so that you can work for them: your friendliness so you can answer their business phone: your reliability so you can get paid to walk their dog.

---

I'm not talking about hiding them on purpose.
I mean, what if you have the talent to paint like Van Gogh,
but not the ability to market and sell yourself and your work?
Isn't he famous for not having sold a painting in his lifetime?
But his brother was an art dealer, and recognized the work;
maybe just because he was his brother; i dunno.
What if you are neither hard-working nor reliable,
at least, when in a subordinate position, and not self-directed?
What if your work is so revolutionary, there is no place for it in society?

This is what I am asking about.

Some things have value even if their value is never recognized.

Plenty of people can work hard in some job just to pay bills,
and be responsible and patient and on time and all that.
Plenty of people are valued for no other reason than this.
They work jobs that, while supporting them, and maybe a family.
may in fact be very harmful to society at large.
Nevertheless, they are not held responsible for that.
Rather, they are commended for going to "work" everyday.

Except, that is, by Nietzsche, who writes:
"You men of action, you put up with yourselves badly;
your diligence is flight, and the will to self-forgetfulness."

But there are uncommon talents that do not
tend to exist alongside these more common talents.
Men with rare intellectual and creative abilities
rarely seem to have an equal share in the common virtues.

I guess what I am saying is that,
the earthy qualities of diligence,
hard-work, and all the rest of it,
are virtues, too; given at birth.
In some cases, an upbringing in which
a work-ethic was promoted can act
to catalyze the inherent industriousness,
but, it takes a certain type of person.
The assumption seems to be that these traits,
are the fruit of "free will", and available to every man,
if he will but make the effort and apply himself, etc.
This is what is so unique about the element of earth,
and, yet, it is not as unique as we seem to think it is.

Let anyone with these earthy qualities try their hand
at thinking philosophically, originally, and insightfully,
and you will find that, no matter how much they will it,
the power is not within them to think in this way.
Perhaps it could be accomplished by the will, but,
such a person never has the will to will such a thing!

I think I am one of these people who has an ability which is very rare,
and I am lost in a sea of people, like you said, and drowning.

Society rewards and embraces mediocre beasts of burden,
while people with real gifts are overlooked and dismissed,
unless they have all that the "beast" has, too.

Its a crumby state of affairs.

I wrote this on another thread,
but it ties into all these ideas
and you might find it interesting:

An abundance of intellect, or insight, is naturally compensated for by a deficiency of will. The common man, or the "man of action", makes use of thoughts without concern for their reasonability, and is only concerned with their effectiveness in spurring him on to action. The man who thinks enters into intricate questions and problems which must be resolved before action can be taken. So, Nietzsche is saying that a man who thinks is not nearly prepared to act at the age of 30. Meanwhile others have been active all the while, and civilization is, as a consquence, in decline. The dull mind is always looking for something to do. Men of action are primarily active, not in order to be productive, but, in order to keep themselves busy. They fear nothing so much as being alone with their thoughts, or being asked to consider the reasons in support of the convictions that inform their actions. Doing nothing, for them, means being bored, or "thinking too much". They spend their free time seeking sensual pleasures and distractions, and this is what they think everyone does when they are not engaged in some traditional occupation. Schopenhauer writes that they deal cards, because they have no thoughts. The thinker, on the other hand, seeks repose because this is the condition needed for his work. He prefers solitude and quiet, because he can think under these conditions. The common man prefers the bustle of labor and society, as this is where he can best silence his thoughts.