Talk:Banausos

From Wikinfo

Jump to: navigation, search

Talk:Vanavsos/Wikipedian votes for deletion

Template:Pov check

This will also be growing. For my reference and bibliography, I think I quote from Vlastos but a long time ago, I photocopied the page and didn't write the title down or which volume but it is page 214 and 215 in the chapter Aristotle's conception of the state. Need help in this regard because I work at a small library and don't have too many works to research from. WHEELER 16:48, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The last thing I want to do is be accused of being a plagirist but i am working from a public library and my current info is from mimeographed sheets from 10 years ago, so If someone out there is familiar with ancient greece please fill in the references. Thanks. WHEELER 18:39, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Is this term often used in modern Greek, or is it exclusive to the classical vocabulary? If it's the latter the transliteration ought to be classical, which would be something like banausos. And is υ ever transliterated as v? I've never seen that. �Charles P. (Mirv) 01:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Although the word does exist in moern Greek, it means "uncouth". Anyway, the author is citing classical sources (Aristotle et al.), and there already exists a perfectly good English word borrowed from the Greek with the usual conventions: "banausic" (see OED). I do not believe it applies to peasants and farmers, but only to craftsmen/artisans; indeed, the third quotation in the article explicitly contrasts farmers and artisans.--Macrakis 04:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have transliterated the word for some high school students or a college student can pronounce it correctly. This is the Classical meaning so that somebody can understand classical millelieu and language. Is that so hard for you people to understand. What is so hard about "transliteration" of the Greek? It is pronounced vanavsos.WHEELER 19:27, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

β is pronounced like the English 'v' only in modern Greek. In classical Greek, it represents the same sound as the English 'b'. Likewise υ, in classical Greek writing, is transliterated as 'u', never (as far as I know) 'v'. The current transliteration is simply incorrect. See the Perseus Greek lexicon for confirmation. �Charles P. (Mirv) 00:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As a clssical term, it should certainly start with a B in English, and have a dipthong in the middle. Modern Greek has lost a lot of the phoneme distinctions which existed in ancient Greek, but that should not mean that the English representations need to lose those distinctions. --Henrygb 10:36, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Contents

Cultural history: Hellenic disdain for the lower classes

Cultural history is hard to write, and beyond the competence of most of us� it appears. This concept is the brake that held back Hellenistic science, as a job fit only for an artisan. I'm not convinced its current title makes the ideas available to the Wikipedia reader, but the sight of a team getting together to ban it is very odd! What is the better phrase for "Cultural history: Hellenic disdain for the lower classes"? This concept is painfully missing from the stub Perioeci, for one. --Wetman 20:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Article flawed, but can be fixed.

This article has many problems, but seems to concern a subject that may be worth keeping. Here are four things that need to be done to improve it:

1) Fix the first sentence. It is totally unclear and grammatically incorrect. There are many problems with this sentence. It does not provide a definition of the keyword, but instead offers a badly stated reason for which this word was invented. The phrase: "the bias of the warrior class for the ethos of the commercial class" is particularly confusing. I guess you mean bias *against* the ethos of the commercial class--to opposite of what you've said. The sentence will still be pretty confusing, even with this fix.

2) Keyword should be: "Banausic," since that's the accepted term in English (4,630 hits via Google, w/0 for "vanavsos"). Transliterations are to be avoided, since they are a source of controversy and confusion. Stick with the standard term as it appears in indexes and existing scholarship. Don't worry about this being an adjective, since many terms in the humanities are adjectives. "Grotesque" is an adjective, but one might speak of "the grotesque" as a noun--same with "common" "the common," or whatever. So go ahead and use the adjective form. Furthermore, the (unclear) definition this article provides calls the term one that was "coined to describe . . .," so its pretty clear that what's being discussed here is basically an adjective anyway.

3)The author needs to shed his personal allegiance and bias towards this term, and stop thinking of an as expression of his own personal identity, at least for purposes of writing this article. Personal identification gets in the way in subtle ways here, by encouraging the author to view ancient Greek thinking as in essence the same as his own. A greater degree of objectivity would be helpful.

4)As an example of #3, above, this article (like the author's piece on Ancient Republics) needs to better situate itself with regard to scholarly discussions of politics in ancient Greece. This article relies very heavily on Paul Rahe's _Republics, Ancient and Modern_, which is an extension of Leo Strauss's 1968 _Liberalism, Ancient and Modern_. Strauss and Rahe are well-known but also controversial scholars, who place a revisionist emphasis on the elitism of classical liberal thought. Advocates of elitism themselves, they emphasize the difference between Democracy as we modern Post-Rousseauians know it and the warrior-elitist Republicanism of the Greeks (interestingly, Mr. Paul Wolfowitz is a famous disciple of this academic clan).

So, in keeping with their re-reading of Greek thought, Strauss, Rahe, Allan Bloom, etc. are keen to emphasize the importance of the Banausic, since it conveys the contempt of Republican warrior elites felt for their mechanical neighbors. Is "the Banausic" really a central but overlooked concept in Greek thought? Maybe. That a subject for scholarly discussion, and very far from any expertise of mine. Bud I'd suggest that this article needs to acknowledge that opinions differ as to how central this concept is to Greek political thought. This article does readers a disservice if it doesn't acknowledge the polemic significance of the term in contemporary discussions of Greek political thought. A sentence or two about why Strauss, Rahe, etc. have emphasized this term would probably be sufficient.

With these changes, this article would be salvagable, and a useful contribution for understanting Greek thought, as well as contemporary debates on this subject. (See also Wikipedia on "Leo Strauss").

[Added: On the other hand, if the author *cannot* show that this has been a key concept in interpreting and understanding Greek thought (I'm not sure that even Straussians make that big a deal of it), then the article will need to be radically shortened to just a short defintion of "Banausic," minus all the Straussian philosophizing about how this word reveals the glorious warrior-elitism of Greek philosophy and society. This kind of shortened defintion would be helpful, but not so confusing and contentious. In short: if this article is gonna include Straussian philosophy, then it needs to descibe this kind of philosophy as it relates to discipline as a whole.]

ThaddeusFrye 00:44, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I will work on beginning the change in the opening paragraph. I also want to point out that this is central to understanding Greek philosophy, or Doric philosophy, of Socrates and Plato. In the Republic of Plato, There is a discussion of money and how destructive money is to virtue:
§555—"There can be no doubt that the love of wealth and the spirit of moderation cannot exist togethe in citizens of the same State to any considerable extent..." pg308, Jowett's trans.
§562—"And the insatiable desire of wealth and the neglect of all other things for the sake of 'money-getting was also the ruin of oligarchy". ibid, pg 318.
What you fail to realize is that "money-getting" was what made the kyklos turn in the Greek republics.
And now for the piece-de-resistance: (Jowett's translation §550-551; pp 301-302)
Socrates, "And then one, seeing another grow rich, seeks to rival him, and thus the great mass of the citizens become lovers of money.
Adeimantus, "Likely enough.
Socrates, "And so they grow richer and richer, and the more they think of making a fortune the less they think of virtue; for when riches and virtue are placed together in the scales of the balance, the one always rises as the other falls.
Adeimantus, "True.
Socrates, "And in proportion as riches and rich men are honored in the State, virtue and virtuous are dishonored.
Adeimantus, "Clearly.
Socrates, "And what is honoured is cultivated, and that which has no honour is neglected.
Adeimantus, "That is obvious.
Socrates, "And so at last, instead of loving contention and glory, men become lovers of trade and money; they honour and look up to the rich man, and make a ruler of him, and dishonor the poor man.

It is quite prevalent in Greek philosophy and Socrates points to this change in character as bringing on stasis and ultimately Tyranny. That is exactly where America is heading, straight into Tyranny. America is sinking quite fast now. The Love of Money is prevalent, chaos reigns in the law courts and in the legislatures both national and state. Economic collapse, social unrest, Tyranny. Somebody will be needed to be the "messiah" of the poor starving masses.WHEELER 14:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My point on presenting my culture and my ethos is that I see what they see. The Spartans are a strange people, Rousseau commented on this, Paul Cartledge commented on this and many others. Why? Because they are namby-pambies. They are academics, soft and effeminate. How can soft and effeminate, lovers of themselves and lovers of money, understand a warrior culture. They can not. The Spartans are a "strange people". They don't understand and so they can not "correctly" speak of them. What they conjecture is misleading because they miss to catch salient points. Culture is very important. If cultural determinism is important to understanding people's actions And that culture impacts politics, Then Culture also impacts knowledge! What do the proverbs say, "It takes one to know one"; "Unless you have walked in a mile in the moccasins of the other, then you can't understand". Understanding is the key to knowledge. How can academics that have spent their whole life in a classroom have any understanding and/or sympathy (therefore "knowledge") for a warrior culture and ethos in which they despise. Its commonsense.WHEELER 15:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Problem of first paragraph
This was the first paragraph as written:

βαναυσος is transliterated into English as vanavsos. The βαναυσοι are the peasants and the laboring class. It includes artisans, such as potters, stone masons, carpenters, etc; professional singers; artists; musicians and all persons engaged in trade. It makes no distinction between slave or free. Aristotle writes, "Those who provide necessaries for an individual are slaves, and those who provide them for society are handicraftsmen and day-laborers."

I changed it because of the confusion it lead because User:Macrakis wants now to title it "Artisan class in Ancient Greece". Which is not the purpose of the article. And if you notice on Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Vanavsos the total confusion of the people on this term and what it means, So I changed it to this:

Βαναυσος (transliterated into English as vanavsos; plural βαναυσοι, vanavsi) was an ancient Greek term coined to describe the bias of the warrior class against the values of the commercial class and in the Greek republics, established a "psychological distance" between the citizens and the traders. 9 The word refers to the peasants, the laboring class and merchants; i.e. the artisans, such as potters, stone masons, carpenters, etc; professional singers; artists; farmers; musicians; and all persons engaged in trade or retail. It makes no distinction between slave or free. Aristotle writes, "Those who provide necessaries for an individual are slaves, and those who provide them for society are handicraftsmen and day-laborers." This ancient Greek term delineates the ethos of the warrior class from the ethos of the commercial class.

I can't win for losing can I. No matter what i do. I can't help it. Confusion reigns supreme. I changed the first article to answer the confusion of the meaning of the term for the people. Clearly the first paragraph did not do its job.WHEELER 15:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The whole essence of the Socratic dialogue above is encapsulated by Jowett on the side of the page which can be further encapsulated like thus:

"Where money is prized, Virtue is despised". This is the essence of the term "vanavsos".WHEELER 15:36, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For Wikinfo

Just a note: I would utilize the technical criticisms they offer on WP, to make your article better for Wikinfo. -proteus 15:05, 5 Mar 2005 (EST)



References

Retrieved from "http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Talk:Banausos"
Personal tools