Michelangelo's Captives Essay

Michelangelo's statues could be said to personify ideas found in Philosophy. To what extent do the statues of the captives develop themes of the Renaissance, the artist, as well as reflect dualist ideas about human identity?

Michelangelo di Lodovico Buanarroti Simoni, or as we know him, Michelangelo was an artist whom embodied the Renaissance more than any other master of his time. Works of art such as the David, the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and the Creation of Adam are the pinnacle of this. Compared to his ethereal statue of David, Michelangelo’s Slaves seem less than exciting. But they reveal ideas that extend beyond the confines of their stone. The captive forms of Michelangelo’s “Slaves” embody what it means to be a human during the Renaissance on a historical, personal and moral level.

In the 21^st century, Michelangelo is a household name and a very well-known man. But perhaps there was another side to him, a side that can be seen in the crude stone of the captives. In the finished statue of the “Dying Slave”, the man has a free and almost erotic air. He is stripping himself of his clothes, his eyes closed, a hip tilting outward and his hands touching his chest and head. Michelangelo has created a human in the deep end of its desire, which is in itself another form of being prisoner, something that will be touched on later. Contrastingly, this man surrounded by crude stone weighing down on him expresses an energy of trying to shed his stone weights. It is this man that I would see as being identified with Michelangelo himself. He may have allowed this figure to remain bound to the stone for a very personal reason. Michelangelo was a rumoured homosexual, closeted, as would be expected at the peak of a heavily Christian society. Perhaps the bearded man in this statue, with no identifiable face, whom is not only trapped but weighed down by the stone, could be a very heavy (literally and figuratively) metaphor for the trapped state of Michelangelo’s sexuality in the years of the Renaissance. In this circumstance Michelangelo would be ashamed of his sexuality, which would not be surprising, for as was before mentioned, society was predominantly Christian and Michelangelo a very religious man. But if we are to dispel the snag of sexuality in the bible, which Michelangelo may very well have done to reconcile his homosexuality, then perhaps the captive in the stone is not being held back by this crude weight. Perhaps it is the fact that Michelangelo is willing to allow the raw stone to remain visible that should be recognized. Michelangelo has said: “I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free.” This captive is being carved from himself, into himself and the stone that is left is still a part of him. It may remain there, shrouding himself and perhaps he is struggling against it, but he cannot be captive by a part of himself. He must only allow himself to accept it.

The finished statue of the “Dying Slave” would be my model for the embodiment of dualist ideas about the human identity. This erotic man has a very internalized air. His eyes are closed, he seems to be lost, or captive, in another place. As seems the natural way of things, we will return to Plato for this comparison. For Plato, desire and sensation, which materializes as the body, must be controlled by reason, the mind. The body is the machine and the mind is the driver, the captain and the mechanic. As they were described before, the Slaves can both be seen as being captive of their desires. One, in his trance-like, almost erotic state, seems to be cut off by his sensations from the outside world. The other is perhaps more metaphorical, the raw stone being desire and the man being reason, suppressed by it, the only way to get out is if the mind of the sculptor is put to use and frees him from his hefty desires.  Drawing from Kantian morality we can also critique the nature of Michelangelo’s slaves. Kant says: “Unless reason takes the reins of government into its own hands, the feelings and inclinations play the master over the man.” This slave is most certainly mastered by his sensations. But the natures of the slaves could be praised by some philosophers as well. For Hume, the duality is flipped and these statues would be seen as very human indeed. As Michelangelo’s David is the ‘ideal man’ in a physical sense, the Slaves would represent the ideal of the human spirit. In the Dying Slave’s captivation in his sensation, he is simply realizing his human nature. His reason comes second to his base desires, inclinations and experiences and it is these things that motivate his behaviour.

The statues also embody wider social concerns of the Renaissance. Humanism was a system of thought fundamental to the nature of the Renaissance. “Man is the measure of all things” and other new philosophical ideas related back to this idea that highlighted man as the ultimate and perfect power. In the most obvious dissection of the statues, humanism is still present. As you look at them, you begin to forget, with the incredible anatomical detail that they behold, that they were once stone. It is clearly a remarkable human achievement that someone could sculpt his own image from a rock. The statues have expressive bodies, showing the physical extension of humanity. Taking from the idea that the unfinished rock in the statues seems to be what is imprisoning these captives, we can imagine another metaphor in their construction. The title “Dying Slave” is given to the finished model while the “Undying Slave” is grotesquely imprisoned in his rock. From a humanist perspective, the rock would be the suppressant confines of religion. The “Undying Slave” is confined in his rock, religion holding him back from the glory that he could be on his own. He is “undying” because of this belief in religion, of something further beyond, but it is something that makes him less of what he is, less human and it physically holds him back from his potential. On the other hand, the “Dying Slave”, the mortal man, lives freely in his human form, unrestricted by any external force.

Michelangelo may have had in mind some very deep and engaging philosophies, metaphors and ideas when creating the “Slaves”. On a personal level, the captives could be a way of either condemning or expressing his homosexuality. When relating the nature of the statues to dualist ideas on human identity, we judge them in a Platonic, Kantian and Humean sense. Finally, when looking at the grander scheme of things, the statues represent the humanist thoughts that prevailed throughout the Renaissance. Though the carved forms of the Slaves may be overshadowed by other great works of the time, their undeniable humanity makes them a work of art that extends beyond their material and their age, and gives us much to reflect on what it meant to be a human like Michelangelo during the years of the Renaissance. 

Part Three:
What does Siddhartha teach Govinda?

When Govinda and Siddhartha finally meet again, Siddhartha had much to tell and to teach. He teaches his friend that seeking and finding are two very seperate things. Seeking could lead you to the one goal in mind but along the way it will shade you from many other goals and truths. Finding, on the other hand, means being open in your search, not having one definite goal and therefore not fixating and shielding yourself from what may be "right under your nose". He also suggests, to Govinda's astonishment, that wisdom cannot be taught after all. Though Govinda's life seems to have revolved around following the wise and seeking to learn their  truths, Siddhartha maintains that wisdom cannot be learned from another person, only knowledge can be transferred in this way. He teaches Govinda also that truths are not one-sided, stating "The opposite of every truth is just as true!" (pg. 124). Finally, in my eyes his most perfect and quintessential truth that defines the life he has lived, Siddhartha says this: "The world, my friend Govinda, is not imperfect or developing slowly toward perfection. No, the world is perfect at every moment, all sin already contains grace, all youngsters already contain oldsters, all babies contain death, all the dying contain eternal life... it is possible to eliminate time, to see all past, all present, all developing life as coexisting, and everything is good, everything is perfect, everything is Brahma.

Part Two: Kamala
How is Plato's analogy criticized and explored on pg. 43 and 45 (and in the book in general)?

In the final chapter of Part 1 and the beginning of Part 2 Siddhartha's journey becomes very apparently similair to Plato's allegory of The Cave. When Siddhartha leaves the Buddha and Govinda behind him he is met with two very important epiphanies: that the holy truth he is looking for is not in a teaching but it is all around him, and that the presence of this fact in himself makes him the most alone man in the world. When he emerges from these realizations, especially the former, the world around him looks new. He looks at the trees, rivers, skies, as though he had never seen them before- or as though he had only seen their shadows. He was Plato's shackled men- their backs to the fire that casts the shadows of their reality. Now though, as Siddhartha leaves behind his only friend and loses himself in the singularity of his thoughts, he ascends from the cave and is opened to to this true and beautiful world. His second realization coincides with the reality that if he were to descend back into the "unenlightened" world (which he contemplates on pg. 38) he would be even more alone than he is in his one-man world of enlightenment. 

Part One: 

The Brahmin's Son

Siddhartha's character in the book is seen by his people as a gift from the gods. The first chapter describes him as a social marvel for his "perfect breeding" and his intelligence. Though to his people he is an adored and revered figure, Siddhartha sees no substance in it. In a way he detaches himself from these "human" musings because Siddhartha's ambitions are, in his mind, not relevant to human society; he seeks things that are much more than him. He seeks a matter that is much more than material and a sense of being that is much more than human. Even the way he addresses his father is in a sort of omniscient, removed way. When they speak of their relationship Siddhartha refers to himself in third person: "Siddhartha has always obeyed his father", "Siddhartha will do what his father says". He uses his name, the name his father and his mother gave him, the name of his body, rather than saying "I". For saying "I" relates to his whole being, his Atman included, rather than just his human being. Siddhartha respects and obeys the laws of his family and his society, but he does not live them as other Brahmins do. He is led by a larger force, a passion that goes beyond himself and beyond his world, which will lead him away from his family and the life of his people and towards his perceived enlightened destiny.

Comp Civ Test #2 Essay d:-)

                   When 21^st century people think of the great philosophers of ancient times the name Socrates will undoubtedly spring into their mind. In his time he was equally revered. Over the years of his life, his fame spread to all throughout Greece and young and old alike were said to come to meet with him to enjoy his intellect and friendly personality. So why, in the Athenian society that is birthing more democracy and freedom than any before them, would a celebrated seventy year old philosopher be put to death? The truth lies in the unstable political life of Athens at the time. The charges of impiety and corruption of youth that led Socrates to his death were false and unfair; Socrates was put to death simply because he was becoming a threat to maintaining the Athenian political ideal.

                   Socrates was tried in part on the crime of corrupting the youth. The blame that falls upon him for this is heavy, but is it due? How much blame can be set upon Socrates for the actions of his students? A comparison between modern day terror and the danger of Socrates’ beliefs made by one revisionist goes: “If 9/11 had killed a member of your family, would you put the teacher of Osama Bin Laden on trial?” We can assume that Socrates, after decades of instructing, would have spoken his mind to the fullest to the many peers and students that passed through his life. His influence was already so widely stretched that it seems if his silence is what the government had wanted; his death was very long overdue. Yet it came on his seventieth year, when he was an elderly man probably close to dying naturally anyway. The corruption of the youth had much to do with the idea of their enlightenment. From what we can pull from his friends’ writings, Socrates believed that knowledge was the ultimate force of good in the world. Knowledge humbled him rather than boosted his ego, in his own words: “To know, is to know that you know nothing. That is the meaning of true knowledge.” This is what Socrates did. He was a teacher, expelling the wisdom he believed to be a gift onto those who were willing. He did not force anyone into listening and when they did he did not force them into believing what he did; he only believed that the gift of his knowledge was one that must be shared.

                   The premise of Socrates’ impiety is more closely pinned down as his abandonment of the gods that the city acknowledges and his formation of new ones. Atheism and religious conversion, both of which Socrates was accused of, was looked down upon but was not a crime in ancient Greece. However, the teaching of atheist or conversion practices and beliefs was. And so again the problem falls with Socrates’ “disillusion” of the youth and the public in general. Socrates claimed and was claimed to be an extremely religious man. He talked of how the gods motivate him, how the gift of his intellect and his rhetoric would be wasted if he not profess it, that this would be a betrayal to the gods that gave him this gift. According to A. A. Long: “There should be no doubt that, despite his claim to know only that he knew nothing, Socrates had strong beliefs about the divine". The only possible isolation he made between himself and the gods was in his ideal of enlightenment. It could be argued that to be irrevocably loyal to the gods would mean to not dwell on questions of philosophy, sciences or anything of that sort and simply to trust in the absoluteness of the all-powerful ones. When Socrates begins to question his mortality, to shape himself into an individual being he distances himself from these now-archaic styles of worship. Socrates tried to elicit a change in who people considered themselves to be. He wished to steer them towards a richer life, with chests full of the priceless gold of knowledge. If Socrates were to have formed a new god in his mind, it would be knowledge. And although he preached his worship of the gods and goddesses, Athens may have seen this drift towards individual enlightenment as impiety of the order of worship Athens was built upon.

                   To answer the true question of why Socrates was put to death, we must look to Athens’ unstable politics at the time. Socrates’ threat to the Athenian government lay in his fundamental beliefs. Socrates, being brought up during the time of great democratic reform under Pericles’ guidance, had developed a set of values that would put him at odds with the Athenian government. Socrates considered the government to be an aristocracy and in his teachings and it is true that Socrates spoke this criticism clearly and in a way that would seem to provoke radical reform. And it did, students of Socrates were to be the primary source of anti-democratic movements. Socrates also pushed the law as much as he could. The factor which plays most heavily into the death of Socrates is the political results and consequences of the Peloponnesian War (431-404). During the war, Athens democracy was shaken and overthrown in 411, but was quickly restored. When Sparta’s land-based power triumphed over the Athenian’s sea empire, Athens saw a bitter defeat and so did its politics. After the war Sparta placed the “Thirty Tyrants” in control of the newly captured Athens and democracy was destroyed once again. The fact that one of the tyrants, Critias, was a student of Socrates was not seen as a coincidence to the public. The rule of the Thirty Tyrants did not last long and democracy was put in place again, but Athens had suffered deeply during this time of contemptuous politics. The glory it knew with Pericles would never be felt again. The people were in many cases divided politically and Athens was reaching desperately for political stability. Now was not the time for Socrates to become an eminent political philosopher, but that he did. With Socrates’ influence reaching all corners of the city and the students seemingly under his anti-democratic guise, Socrates was now in a dangerous place. His affiliation with the sophist movement did not help his cause either. The people and the government were simply scared of his capabilities and this fear is what forced the trial against him and towards the hemlock cup. With Socrates’ last words he addresses Crito about the god Asclepius, curer of illness: "Crito, we owe a rooster to Asclepius. Please, don't forget to pay the debt." He could mean that death was his last freedom and that he would be, if not glad, comfortable to meet it. But writer Robin Waterfield suggests another interpretation of Socrates' last words. In line with the beliefs of much of the public and the government at the time, he says that perhaps Socrates finally viewed himself as the “plague” of Athens that many thought he was. His death is said to have cleansed Athens, to have washed the slate. Perhaps, in his final moments, Socrates saw his death as a final gift to the world that he admired.

                   The trial and execution of Socrates is an event that intrigues and confounds historians to this day. Under the seemingly democratic guise of Athens, a great philosopher was murdered for preaching his beliefs. The charges of impiety and corrupting the youth were simply an excuse to stifle Socrates’ fuse. The truth is that after years of war and political unrest, Athens was trying it’s hardest to gain back the control it once had. In the eyes of the democratic government and the public, Socrates, with his devoted students and proud, impenetrable views, was a threat to this cause. Today, Socrates is seen as the great philosopher that he was. A person governed by his beliefs, whom would rather die than go against them. In Socrates’ own humbling words: “It is not living that matters, but living rightly.”