A Modern Version of Raphael's School of Athens

My single favorite painting in the history of art is The School of Athens by Raphael. It is a masterful amalgamation of philosophy and art, and it is a staple of western art. While I was contemplating this painting, the idea popped into my head; what if this painting was created with modern figures? I took this idea a step further, and I have found that some of the figures of modernism and postmodernism fit in well with the old painting. Note that I am not an art critic, and while this may be considered blasphemous by some, I’m sorry, but it is more of a philosophical exercise, than an art one. It is possible that I have no idea what I am talking (writing) about, but it was an interesting idea, and I’m going for it.

The two most important people are at the center of the painting; Plato and Aristotle. Unfortunately, there are three titans of modernism- Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. I have no way of determining who are the two most important of the three, I went with Freud, for he is the “father” of psychoanalysis and Nietzsche, because I love Nietzsche and am far from Marx’s biggest fan. In the painting, Aristotle is holding his Nichomachean Ethics, and Plato is clutching a copy of his Timaeus. The latter is a somewhat based on cosmology, and the former a work on ethics. Aristotle is pointing outward, and Plato is pointing upwards. In the modern work, Freud would be Plato, and holding a copy of his Interpretation of Dreams and pointing up, and Nietzsche would be pointing out, holding his Beyond Good and Evil. Marx would be in the center, where the character who I have been told is Socrates or Diogenes. Lastly, I would like to state that Plato looks like Michelangelo and Aristotle looks like Leonardo da Vinci.

Plotinus is also in this painting, and, as a neo-Platonist, it was difficult to find a person to take his place, but if Plato is Freud, then it would be fitting for Carl Jung to be in the place of Plotinus. Plato the character will not necessarily be considered Freud for the duration of this exercise, but for this selection it is the best fit. Some have even described Jung as a neo-Platonist, but I have not studied him enough to make a decision.

Zoroaster (Zarathustra) is also in this painting. He was a Persian prophet, and spurned a centuries old religion, that still is in practice today. The two people I considered for this spot were Báb, the prophet of the Bahá'í Faith and Joseph Smith, the prophet of Mormonism. I decided that the former was a better fit, due to geography and creativity, but Mormonism is the “bigger” religion.

Raphael put himself in this painting, so I would select the foremost artist to take his place. Granted, Michelangelo and Leonardo are, in a way, in the painting, but as the artist of this piece, I deem Pablo Picasso the proper choice. Ptolemy is also in this painting, and he is holding an orb. This was an exceedingly difficult choice, because obviously Albert Einstein must be in this painting, but is it better to put him as Ptolemy, Euclid or Pythagoras? In answering this, I decided to assign Euclid and Pythagoras parts, as well as Ptolemy. Because Ptolemy is holding an orb of the world, is decided that Einstein is best in that role, but what to do with Euclid and Pythagoras? For the former, I have chosen Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss, and for the latter I have chosen Leonhard Euler. If Euler is said to be too early a figure for modernism, Gauss would take the place of Pythagoras, and Bernhard Riemann would be Euclid.

The last two western figures are Parimenides and Heraclitus. Both were influential philosophers, the latter slightly more than the former. For that reason, I have chosen Edmund Husserl as Parimenides and Jean-Paul Sartre as Heraclitus. Husserl is credited with being the founder of phenomenology, an important part of 20th century philosophy. Sartre was a major French existentialist. The last major figure in the painting was Ibn Rushd, sometimes known as Averroes. He was an Arab philosopher of the middle ages, and I figured I should use his spot as an important, figure who wasn’t European or American. I have deemed Gandhi (giving a first name is a lost cause) worthy of that spot. Note that I do not love Gandhi, but I believe he is the appropriate person to take the place of Ibn Rushd.

So that is my modern version of The School of Athens. I feel this was an interesting and productive recreational exercise, and I am pleased with the results. Any errors or omissions I made I hope are pointed out by readers, and as always I request it be done respectfully. Thanks, and I would love to go to see the painting in person some day.

Would Nietzsche Have Gone to Harvard?

All my life I have deemed it a formative step in becoming a worthy human and intellectual in attending an elite school, such as Harvard, Yale, and the like. However, my idol and hero Friedrich Nietzsche would tell me that that conclusion was fallacious, and it would be a faux pas to go to an elite school. I believe that Nietzsche would argue that society tells you that the best people go to Harvard, and you better attend. Society, College Board, Princeton and US News and World tell you that you need an exceedingly high SAT score (which by the way doesn’t necessarily measure your aptitude as a student, it measures your test taking, mathematics, reading and writing skills, and how good you are at taking the SAT), high G.P.A., and to be involved in numerous school organizations. Nietzsche would say that yes, all that is fine and good, and if you have achieved those that is an accomplishment, but doing all that for the sake of trying to get into an elite school is not being the Übermensch (Overman, and Superman are English translations). Granted, Nietzsche attended The University of Bonn, and was a professor at the University of Bassel, which were and may still be top schools in Germany, but the academic culture and application process were immensely different.

Nietzsche, in his quest to become the Übermensch, were he born today, would not have gone to the Harvards of the world. He would have said that society tells one that only the best go there, and Nietzsche would not have had any of it. I believe that Nietzsche would have spent an immense amount of time searching for the proper college, and would have, most likely, settled for a small, liberal arts school in a place where academics were a serious part of the culture. Nietzsche at 18 was resentful of religion, and enthralled by music and philology. I believe that Nietzsche would have looked the middle to top tier liberal arts colleges, not the elite ones, for that would be going with the herd mentality. He would have proven that just because you don’t go to a Harvard, you are not an idiot, and there are other factors that may prevent one from being Harvard material. Note that he had some serious family issues, and began to drink (on Sundays!) at about age sixteen, so his grades would not have been the best. Actually, Nietzsche may not have taken any AP courses, unless he absolutely had to.

In an analysis of Nietzsche Übermensch, I claim that had he been alive today, and applying to colleges (as I shall be doing in a few months, a process I have been dreading my entire life; it has been an obsession, and the bain of my existence for some time now) he would have applied to a mildly prestigious liberal arts college. He would have gone on to graduate school, probably not at an elite institution either, and would silently mock others who did, as the went along with the herd, as he sat back, and became the Übermensch.

Athletes as Role Models

For better or worse, the youth of contemporary America consider athletes and other figures in popular culture as their “role models” as opposed to intellectuals. As one who is much more of an intellectual than an athlete (although when I get lucky I’m good at baseball and basketball, but not really), I would prefer the latter because I’m elitist and biased. Regardless, I would like to discuss which athletes are my role models.

Before entering this discussion I would like to state that intellectuals are not “better” than athletes. I can think of many a politician and professor who I can barely admit that I am the same species as them. Athletes tend to get a “bad rap” because they are paid much more than the average person, and there is a minority of them that partake in self-destructive and illegal behavior. We are also a jealous species, envious of the physical prowess of the athlete, and we want to be paid to play a game we take time off from work to play, and at a level far below the professional athlete. I am not going to touch this one, but there is an element of racism involved, especially in the National Basketball Association and National Football League, where a considerable percentage of the players are African-American, especially in the former.

An athlete using his “God-given” physical talent to earn a living for himself is just like the brilliant mathematician going to MIT and earning a living as a professor. Jim Brown using his phenomenal physical skill to great heights playing American Football is (somewhat) analogous to Andrew Wiles using his unprecedented mathematical brilliance to (with the help of topology) solve Fermat’s Last Theorem.

While I write and rant about my favorite intellectuals, Nietzsche, Russell, Sartre, Eco and Bloom for example, it is unfair to the other great individuals who I admire not to discuss them, or give them credit just because they aren’t brilliant thinkers or writers. The first of my athletic heroes is a man by the name of Joe Girardi. Girardi was a catcher for the New York Yankees for a number of years, and also played for the Chicago Cubs, Saint Louis Cardinals and Colorado Rockies. He was a coach for the Yankees (my favorite team in all of sports; well, tied with Maccabi Haifa, מועדון כדורגל מכבי חיפה) and is currently the manager of the Florida Marlins. He is one of the youngest managers in baseball, and it is very rare for a player to become a manager so quickly after retiring from playing, and he is doing a wonderful job on a highly inexperienced team. Girardi’s toughest moment as a player was not as part of multiple Yankees World Series Championship Teams, nor being the Catcher of Yankee’s Pitcher David Cone’s perfect game- it came in June 2002. A teary eyed Girardi had to announce to the fans at Wrigley Field that the game had been canceled due to a “tragedy in the Cardinal (their opponent was the Saint Louis Cardinals) family.” What happened was All-Star pitcher Darryl Kile had passed away peacefully, years before his fortieth birthday in his hotel bed the night before. Kile was one of my favorite pitchers, with a devastating curve ball, and was a friend of Girardi’s. Note that the Cubs didn’t have a super star such as Sammy Sosa make the announcement, or a more popular player; no. They chose Joe Girardi, the light hitting catcher. A man among men, Girardi is my favorite baseball player of all time, and a true role model. Oh, and I can say with much certainty that he never used steroids, having hit a measly 36 career home runs! I would love to meet Mr. Girardi and I have the utmost respect for him as a person and athlete.

Another athlete that I admire is David Robinson. He was the center for the San Antonio Spurs for many years, and was an All-Star, MVP, and helped the Spurs to two Championships. He was a superb high school basketball player, and probably could have gone to an elite basketball school such as Duke University, The University of California at Los Angeles or Quinnipiac University in Hamden, Connecticut; but no. Robinson decided to enroll into the Naval Academy, and study mathematics. He was honorably discharged after he became too big (7’1” tall!) for the Navy. David was the first pick in the 1987 draft by the San Antonio Spurs, and was a staple in the paint ever since. Robinson has been a hero to many basketball fans, and he is regarded as one of the nicest, and most respectable human beings ever to survive the National Basketball Association.

Ironically, Robinson’s teammate Tim Duncan is the archetypal “character” player in the NBA. He always has won two Most Valuable Player (MVP) awards, and is one of the greatest power forwards in history. He could have skipped college, and gone straight to the NBA, but he spent four years at Wake Forest.

Before discussing a last athlete that I admire, I would like to briefly discuss some clear role models, who I admire but do not wish to profile at this time. Derek Jeter (Yankees’ Short Stop) is so good at life it is painful. I have not yet met a man who doesn’t, deep down, want to be Derek Jeter. This does not include die-hard Red Sox fans, who I refuse to acknowledge as people (I’m just kidding). Other admirable athletes include A.C. Green, Emeka Okafor, Ken Griffey Junior, Chris Capuano, Bernie Williams, Todd Helton, and Joe Jurevicius. Those are all that I can think of at the current moment, and I am positive I’ve missed some, and I am just unaware of great character players. However, those are some of my favorites and I am sticking to it.

Lastly, I would like to discuss one of my favorite NBA players, Charles Barkley. Barkley said, when he was a player, “I am not a role model.” Barkley took much heat for that comment. He has been characterized as a “jerk” and an “asshole”, and had some problems with teammates. However, Barkely’s play was superb, and is one of the greatest players, and one of the five greatest Power Forwards (along with Duncan) of all time. He was mildly overweight for parts of his career, but he could still play “above the rim.” Barkley later became an analyst for Turner Network Television (TNT), and was known for brutal honesty and keen insight into the nuances of basketball. Barley has authored multiple books, and recently stated his ambitions to enter the unforgiving world of politics. Barkley is not a squeaky-clean individual, but he never got into any legal trouble (it was always problems with the NBA and teammates). Barkley is remarkably intelligent and very socially and politically aware, and even though he is kind of a smartass, I admire that, and Barkley is a role model as an intellectual and a basketball player, but not for his behavior.

While I admire Nietzsche and Gauss and Einstein to no end, I still like sports a very good amount, and athletes are to be admired as well. Any comment and omissions and if I missed anything or am mistaken on a fact please tell me. I am working on an essay on Globalization that I hope will take me somewhere, but I have no time table for publication. Thank you.