Gary Busey

Yesterday in class Dr. Kohen gave us his final lecture for POLS 383. He didn’t tell us the answer to justice, or heroism; however, I think his comments about living our own authentic lives were really important. After making it through the entire semester, and not taking the deal, we were given our student evaluations. While these might not truly be “important” in the sense that they affect professors’ careers, I started to think about this “student evaluation” in a different light. Perhaps the real “student eval” asks us to do something different; perhaps the goal should be to evaluate and reflect, not upon Dr. Kohen’s teaching, but on ourselves. Some of the questions, which usually seem very “run of the mill,” for example: “how, if at all, did this course differ from what you expected?” struck me a little differently this time. And I thought: I can stay for a fact that I have never had a college course that so actively forced me to think about my life, my actions, and myself. 

The characters we have learned about, Achilles, Odysseus, Socrates, Coriolanus, Antony, Cleopatra, Thrasymachus, and others, have all taught me something valuable. I didn’t believe that Plato or Aristotle would be relevant to my life when the course began, but they are. It is very odd to look back and see how differently I looked at justice and heroism in August compared to how I look at it now. I didn’t have any heroes in August, and now I do. Now I look at current events and question the justice, democracy, and solutions presented.

However, the idea of living my own authentic life is a new one to me, and I’d like to spend some more time thinking about that. Living a philosophic or heroic life can seem intimidating, but living my authentic life does not. When you say it, it seems simple, just be true to yourself. However, after taking this class, I realize how potentially difficult it just might be. I have caught myself before doing things that were not true to my authentic self, and I remember thinking, “why am I doing this?” When I look at our characters, I also see how difficult this task could really be. All of the main characters we focused on throughout the semester were presented with opportunities to stray away from the path of their authentic lives, and some of them did take that deal. Additionally, when I think about the characters that didn’t take the deal I appreciate how hard living your authentic life can be. Achilles, Odysseus, Socrates, and Coriolanus, did not take the deal. When I look back at all of their decisions, they all resulted in death (later in time for Odysseus but still death.) However, I think the most important distinction is when you look at Mark Antony’s story, because it also ended in death. Antony took the deal and paid for it for the rest of his life. I am glad we ended with Antony and Cleopatra, because I think it really highlighted how important these decisions are. Perhaps, in that room in the senate, Antony was afraid. Maybe he was afraid to end his life as so many of us are, and simply could not act. For me, as the outside reader, it is easy for me to say I would have died by Caesar in the senate, because I can also see how miserable Antony’s life was after that day. Ending your life is not an easy decision, and it is scary.

“I could be well moved if I were as you.

If I could pray to move, prayers would move me.

But I am constant as the Northern Star,

Of whose true fixed and resting quality

There is no fellow in the firmament.

The skies are painted with unnumbered sparks;

They are all fire, and every one doth shine;

But there’s but one in all doth hold his place.” (Julius Caesar)

This is one of my favorite quotes in Caesar. Right before his death, he boasts of his superiority. Caesar is not afraid to die, because he cannot see that he is mortal. Caesar has not confronted his mortality, and then his life is ended shortly after this speech. I do not want to be like Caesar, and make it all the way to the end only to realize I never thought about my death. However, I especially do not want to be like Antony. I think it would be better to die blindsided like Caesar, than to be confronted with a choice, so obvious, and turn away from my authentic self as Antony did. The Caesar we get is not a deep character like Antony is. Caesar’s death is as meaningless as his character, just there to help the plot move forward. But Antony could have been much more than the sad, disgraced general, who had difficulty even taking his own life in the end.

What I took from this, and things said in class, is that a good way to think about these decisions is to ask yourself, “could I live with myself if I did…?” Could I live with myself if I didn’t die defending Caesar? Could I live with myself if I refused to shelter Jews in Nazi Germany? Could I live with myself for lying, or stealing?

One of my friends, who is a very nice guy (but perhaps a little insensitive when it comes to human rights) showed me this video of protesters in Ferguson who were ran-over by a car, presumably for protesting in the street. For some reason I still can't imagine, my friend thought this was funny. I immediately began arguing with him about why this was a terrible video and not funny at all. This friend happens to be in the military, and he takes being in the military very seriously. Not in a stuck-up pretentious way, rather he is very passionate about civic duty and public service. He doesn't like individuals who join the military for free school or selfish reasons. I consider him to be one of the most honest, trustworthy, and loyal friend that I have. 

So I began to think about friendship. I have valued this friendship since I was a young kid, and I don't think this individual is a bad friend. It was troubling me that someone I believe to be such a good person would act so ignorantly. 

I watched the video again, and I saw how the protesters ran towards the car, immediately became violent, and began trying to smash in the windows. This seems a reasonable response, seeing as a member of their community had just been run-over for no reason. But the more I thought about it, the more I thought that the individual who was ran-over didn't stop being run-over, by the other protesters trying to break the car windows. The person driving the car didn't learn anything about how horrible running over an innocent protester is, by having their car attacked by protesters. Michael Brown didn't learn anything by getting shot, and Darren Wilson didn't become a better cop or person by not being indicted. A beaten horse is just a beat horse, and yelling at a friend doesn't make them a better friend. 

Reciprocal justice is not an unfamiliar concept to us in POLS 383, when Aristotle brings up the theory in Ethics. We have already seen this in The Republic, with Cephalus’ idea of justice introduced by Plato. However, after having read The Republic, I couldn’t help but wonder if Aristotle was moving backwards from Socrates. Wasn’t Cephalus’ idea lesser than the perfect society Socrates had described? After reading the sections of both Ethics and Politics, I came to a different conclusion.

I did a little research on Aristotle before reading Ethics and Politics, and some websites suggested that Aristotle and Plato did not see eye to eye. After reading The Republic I can see why some people might think that. Their views on citizenship and justice do seem to be significantly different. While I agree with Aristotle and Cephalus that paying your dues is important, I don’t think that’s where justice ends. Cephalus says justice is,

 “speaking the truth and paying whatever debts one has incurred.” (The Republic, Book I)

In Ethics, Aristotle focuses on telos, or an “end goal” of every object, including humans. I can’t help but initially compare this to Cephalus’ definition of justice, an “end goal,” seems relatable to a debt which needs to be paid. However, after reading Aristotle on friendship, in Book VIII of Ethics, I think Aristotle is hitting on something much deeper than Cephalus.

Particularly when Aristotle discusses the 3 areas of friendship, I think he demonstrates that justice is much more than paying your debts. Now, I could be totally wrong and maybe Aristotle meant exactly what he said all the time, but this is something I took from it. Aristotle says,

“There are therefore three kinds of friendship, equal in number to the things that are lovable; for with respect to each there is a mutual and recognized love, and those who love each other wish well to each other in that respect in which they love one another. Now those who love each other for their utility do not love each other for themselves but in virtue of some good which they get from each other. So too with those who love for the sake of pleasure; it is not for their character that men love ready-witted people, but because they find them pleasant. Therefore those who love for the sake of utility love for the sake of what is good for themselves, and those who love for the sake of pleasure do so for the sake of what is pleasant to themselves, and not in so far as the other is the person loved but in so far as he is useful or pleasant. And thus these friendships are only incidental; for it is not as being the man he is that the loved person is loved, but as providing some good or pleasure. Such friendships, then, are easily dissolved, if the parties do not remain like themselves; for if the one party is no longer pleasant or useful the other ceases to love him.” (Ethics, Book VII, Chapter 3)

Here Aristotle is not referring to “true” friendship, or the best possible kind of friendship. He covers three types, the first being friendship that only exists because both parties benefit from it. The second is based on pleasure, such as romantic lust. These two are the types of “friendship” described in the quote above, and as Aristotle states, these are easily dissolved.

Finally, Aristotle describes what he would call true and necessary friendship, or Philia. This is what makes a city possible. People coming together and forming a city is the highest goal, and the most natural and successful way to get there is friendship.

 “Perfect friendship is the friendship of men who are good, and alike in virtue; for these wish well alike to each other qua good, and they are good themselves. Now those who wish well to their friends for their sake are most truly friends; for they do this by reason of own nature and not incidentally; therefore their friendship lasts as long as they are good -- and goodness is an enduring thing. And each is good without qualification and to his friend, for the good are both good without qualification and useful to each other. So too they are pleasant; for the good are pleasant both without qualification and to each other, since to each his own activities and others like them are pleasurable, and the actions of the good are the same or like. And such a friendship is as might be expected permanent, since there meet in it all the qualities that friends should have. For all friendship is for the sake of good or of pleasure -- good or pleasure either in the abstract or such as will be enjoyed by him who has the friendly feeling -- and is based on a certain resemblance; and to a friendship of good men all the qualities we have named belong in virtue of the nature of the friends themselves; for in the case of this kind of friendship the other qualities also are alike in both friends, and that which is good without qualification is also without qualification pleasant, and these are the most lovable qualities. Love and friendship therefore are found most and in their best form between such men.” (Ethics, Book VIII, Chapter 3)

Now lets go back to Cephalus for a moment. The reason I believe Aristotle’s meaning of justice runs much deeper than Cephalus’, is due to his explanation of this specific type of friendship. Are you truly only paying your dues with this type of mutual friendship? A type of friendship not based on a motive for benefit or gain, but a union of mutual love and respect. Is that type of commitment and loyalty truly “due” to the other party?

Personally, I do not think most people today view friendship that way. I think most of us think about friendship the way Cephalus thinks about justice. We do favors for those “friends” of ours who will in turn be guilted into giving us back favors because they feel obligated to; because of course, they are going to want another favor down the road. If politicians started treating friendship the way Aristotle sees Philia, would we begin to see less of the “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine?” If man is a political animal as Aristotle claims in Politics, how can we control the beast?

 “And why man is a political animal in a greater measure than any bee or any gregarious animal is clear. For nature, as we declare, does nothing without purpose; and man alone of the animals possesses speech.” (Politics, Book I)

For Aristotle, speech is essential to humanity and friendship. Aristotle says there is no humanity without politics, but doesn’t that mean that there is no humanity without Philia, or true friendship? If Philia is friendship, and friendship creates the city, and the city/politics creates humanity, couldn’t human interaction—speech, caring, friendship, and love—actually be the essential pieces of fostering humanity, and thus the city? Maybe Aristotle would disagree, but I can’t imagine our telos could be anything less than creating a prefect society or polis. And doesn’t Aristotle’s definition of justice and friendship create such a thing? Friendship, true “friendship,” in Aristotle’s definition of the word, is the key element between a perfect polis, and our telos of finding happiness. 

I'm not sure what bothers me most about this story. The fact that a government thinks they can punish/arrest a woman who's privacy was violated without her permission. Or the fact that the BBC reporter asks her, 

"Why would you put yourself in this position?"

Hmm let's think. I'd assume that Desire didn't think that her pictures would ever be publicly viewed...oh, but wait, that's not the point! She didn't do anything wrong! Her (I'm assuming) ex-boyfriend obviously is to blame here, and I find it infuriating that the BBC reporter accuses the Ugandan Prime Minster of "victim blaming," but yet still asks "why would you put yourself in this position?" as if that isn't victim blaming at it's finest.