Untitled

This class was interesting. The blogging assignments kept the class enjoyable and different. Even explaining to others about our assignments, not papers, but blogs; people were interested in the uniqueness of the requirements. Very fun class, fun assignments, keeps you thinking all the time. Thanks Dr. Kohen!

Is there truth behind a just society?  Is it possible or even realistic?  We have seen corruption throughout our semester in trying to find out exactly what justice is.  We have seen corruption in democracy in the charge and death of Socrates, a man who only insisted on finding truth and righteousness.  This signifies the death of a true philosopher-king, who could rule the world by mind, cut down by jealously and fear.  We have seen corruption in Rome, in the deaths of Coriolanus and Julius Caesar.  Two men who were thought highly of by the masses, but only a few stricken with jealously or greed were enabled to cut them down.  In Julius Casaer, many of the conspirators acted out of jealously of Caesar, in killing him on the Senate floor, while only one man, Brutus, acted out of what he thought was the protection of Rome. Even in doing so, Brutus added in the corrupt killing of Caesar, looking for what he thought were his best interests.  Antony and Cleopatra top off this section of corrupt society.  In Antony and Cleopatra, we see all individuals acting in their own self-interest.  We see Antony, Cleopatra, and Casaer (and earlier on Lepidus) acting to increase their own personal power.  We see examples of this in the marriage between Antony and Octavius, and even when Ventidius defeats a rival army (he does not push any farther or his image would be negatively reflected).  As we have seen Rome slip into turmoil throughout these three texts, it is hard to imagine how any society can be just.  We even see this pursuing of power in today’s American politics, as politicians will act solely for political or party support, voting on line or standing against a party-opposed bill.  The same pursuing of power is relevant today, it only deals with the development of law instead of ruling of land masses.  In Antony and Cleopatra, Casaer wrongs the triumvirate (by capturing Lepidus) and the triumvirate wrongs Casear (by Antony’s declaration of him and Cleopatra ruling Rome), all because they are looking for personal power growth.  We know that in ancient Rome, people are ultimately uneducated as they claim to change their support rather impulsively and at the discretion of those in power (Antony’s claim to criminalize the conspirators, change in support for Coriolanus, etc.).  Has our general population evolved to the point today where we are enabled to keep our leaders in check?  Today, though not all exchanges tend to be good, we would generally not support the overthrow of our nation’s president, and ultimately that politician would face a political death.  But in American politics today, a positive step in power for a politician is a step in which the general public supports.  We can see this even in our own state as our candidates “plan to strike down Obamacare” and plan to “cut taxes for the middle class”.  Any other action wouldn’t mesh with the general population of Nebraska, and ultimately cut down in the politician’s power.  Just as ancient Rome and ancient Greece faced corruption in government and therefore a lack of justice, we are seeing it today.  Though today’s leaders are pushed to more ethical decisions and better judgment, millions remain treated unjustly, suffering in poverty, lacking healthcare coverage, targeted violently by police, etc.  A just government is not just impossible in a corrupt government, but the nature of people to pursue power.  Justice can’t be achieved in every situation every day in a government run by people.  We are not qualified to act justly, just as the situations of ancient Rome and Greece, people are corrupt by nature.

We tortured them.  Though it didn't take more than a little common sense to know it was happening, here it is.  The CIA misdirected other government agencies into thinking they were taking none of these steps, but they were, and it was harsh.  Is this a bad thing?  Sure, our government tortured our enemies, but these enemies have done or plotted to do harm against us.  We've seen heroes act in matters or revenge or rage, but the CIA's actions were to merely bring out information on how to protect it's citizens.  Achilles wished death upon his own friends, yet he is still a hero.  Odysseus massacred a group of suitors only to retrieve what was his.  Coriolanus even slaughtered an army of warriors to get what he wanted.  Is coercively interrogating a group of our country's enemies truly that bad?  Is it that big of a violation of justice?  Something tells all of us, deep down, no matter how we feel about our attackers, that this just isn't right.  I think it goes back to the workings of true philosophers.  No just man does harm to another, no matter if that man acts justly or not.  Bringing in the aspect of torture enables us to appeal to our emotions and core-thinking that this just isn't right.  Not to mention, captives responded better when not being faced with torture.  What is it about cruelty and torture that drives our support away?  The meaning of justice, the meaning of what's right shows us that we shouldn't harm anybody for our own good.  If we want that information, we find some other way to retrieve it.

Freedom of speech. Whatever is natural or right for individual freedom, can hardly be applicant in today's society. Though in this case, natural and constitutional freedom may have the same outcome. Through our constitution, we have live by a set of given rights and freedoms, and these players were exercising their freedoms. Many people have displayed anger and threats to these players, and others who have been representing their thoughts on the death of Michael Brown. Until violence, vandalism, or other modes of law violation occurs, these individuals have the full right to protest. These individuals are not being injustice in exercising this right. No matter what the case may be, take it easy on these people for supporting something they feel strongly about.

Does a city or state have the right to ban dogs because they are thought to be dangerous? This is a ridiculous feature, and complete overreach. It is a personal choice to own a dog, and discrimination against this choice is absolute injustice. Any animal can be safe if trained properly, banning a certain breed of dog is ridiculous. I might even coin it "breedism", thoughts?

            While Socrates is not necessarily a comparable hero to Coriolanus.  Coriolanus shares in that of moral guidance in reasoning.  Socrates though, is of a different platform, a platform of mind and reason.  Coriolanus is truly a hero throughout the first two acts, resembling heroes of the Homeric epics, but proving to be more reasonable, and more morally guided. 

This story claims that super pacs and non profits were coordinating with campaigns to get an edge on congressional races throughout this latest campaign. Whether or not the claims are true, this spotlights the integrity of politics today. As we can see, it has less and less to do with winning the vote and minds of constituents, but doing whatever it takes to win. We have seen trough this years campaigning advertisements, it's hard to find a politician that knows what they believe in. What is becoming relevant is making sure you are voted into office, not the actions you take in office. Our nations leaders are becoming a swamp of shallow minded ness, a group of people who don't look at what they believe is right, but what will keep themselves positive in the eye of the public. Where are our philosopher kings?

When we discuss justice and heroism, we generally tend to weigh negative and depressing issues, but here’s a brighter story I think applies to heroism and justice. We are beating the hell out of our planet, there is no question about it. But two of the biggest culprits of today’s world finally agree to cut down up to 80% of emissions by 2050. I know it’s easy to say, harder to do, but we are finally committing to taking steps in finally cutting down our carbon emissions. How does this apply to justice and heroism? We share this world with hundreds of other nations, and billions of other people. The world is a collective good, and most nations don’t have near the functioning means to life we do. Though not every nation is in poor shape, many are, minding Paul Collier’s “the Bottom Billion”. Our economy is enabled to function and deliver our standard of living the way it can, partly due to our trashing of the environment through high carbon emissions etc. Is it justice to be enjoying these high standards of living while we trash our world, a collective good, ruining a good for others including those who are much less well to do? We are basically bettering ourselves at the expense of the world, taking from others what also belongs to them. We are moving in the path of justice by taking action on carbon emissions. We can also look at China and the United States as environmental heroes. Though I completely understand they aren’t heroes, they are both sacrificing the well being of their economies, efficiency, production, etc. for the bettering of the world. We are not only taking steps to cut our own emissions, but proving as role models to less developed countries as to means of environmentally responsible development. Through this agreement will come better developed technology, processes, and ideas that will continue to make environmentally responsible growth easier. The US and China are truly giving it up for the team to save the only thing that we are all required to share.

The future of our world depends on a solid education system. In this story, you see a side of our education system that is ultimately flawed. It raises the question of wether or not we are doing this right. Sure, an institute’a main goal is most likely educating their students, but how much of a role does profit play? Even here at UNL, we are forced to pay rising tuition for education that is no better than it was before. There are only a handful of professors that truly care and ache to show our country’s youth something new. And just as there is only a handful of professors that care, the same is for students. This flawed education puts people in spirals of lost hopes and dreams. Education is not only about getting a job. It’s about personally growing, understanding the world, and finding truth. Our education system almost provides an injustice to all of us, as our society revolves around the aspect of education. We are paying to get a piece of paper that increases our chances for a job, not enabled to grasp deeper understanding.

As Socrates is putting together this thought of a perfect city together, I am constantly finding myself comparing his ideal scenario to a book named “Brave New World”, by Aldous Huxley. Both of these situations easily call the question to mind, what is the purpose to our lives? This is not an easy thought to wrap your mind around, or maybe more-so uncomfortable As Socrates brings an empire of perfection to life through speech, he brings up the idea of a breeding system. “All these women are to belong to all these men in common, and no woman is to live privately with any man. And the children, in their turn, will be in common, and neither will a parent know his own offspring, nor a child his parent”. Aldous Huxley also covers a point of a breeding system, although only breeding babies artificially, there is also an effort to demolish the family culture by forbidding wives and relationships. Even if an individual doesn’t “engage” with more than two people in a week, they are criticized and taken in for extra “conditioning” to remove their feelings of attachment. As we can see the deterioration in the structure of family, this causes me to question the authenticity and meaning of the lifestyles belonging to the “perfect” society. We can identify that, in a perfect society, there is a removal of feeling. Though these individuals do technically “think”, technically they are very well educated and understand much about the workings of the world. But they have lost the ability to feel, to question, and to consider. In Socrates’ and Huxley’s societies, they are both run by a type of “philosopher”, somebody who actually sees and understands the true meaning of these lifestyles, but others are only trained to THINK they are happy. Others are truly living a life of obliviousness to succeed the point of a perfect society. These individuals are unable to question their lives, they live unexamined lives. But an unexamined life is a life not worth living. As Socrates covered the subject of education, covering the three different classes and the education that they would receive. One would not be better, but each class would have a role in the society, and each would have a sense of belonging as they would be performing a special duty that was essential to the function of the society. Huxley also covers education, he divides the classes into Alpha, Beta, Delta, Epsilon, etc. The Alphas were thoroughly “bred” and “conditioned” to be super human, very smart and physically attractive and skilled. Epsilons on the other hand, were bred to be inferior, stupid, ugly, and take care of some of the simplest tasks that the society requires. However, even the Epsilons are bred to be very happy performing their duties, and realizing their inferiority, they would still rather be bred as Epsilons instead of Alphas. The same is for Socrates society, everyone was very content in their lifestyles. But what is wrong with this? Just as we covered in class, nearly everybody can live a happy life, because we don’t understand what happiness is. We don’t understand what good is, the idea of good, and we can’t explain it. This again brings up the point of life, is it more important to life a happy life, living as we watch the shadows in the cave? Or is it more important to find the truth as the philosopher does, and experience the joy of ultimate wisdom and knowledge? Looking through the frame of a philosopher, we must try and understand the true meaning of our world. Through this mindset, we are much more enabled to determine what is right, what is just, and what is good. The perfect societies of Huxley and Socrates are nothing more than corrupt societies, limiting the minds and views of humankind. These societies are basically eliminating the human mind, the ability to think, and the reason to our life. In these “perfect societies”, we are making people believe they’re happy. In a true perfect society, everybody would be enabled to look through the frame of a philosopher, everybody would be enabled to find the truth, meaning, and the good. Though maybe not the most realistic idea, a true perfect society, is a society of understanding and truth. We should not prefer to watch the shadows on the wall of the cave and do it contently while there is an entire paradise of truth and goodness. A perfect society does not belong in a cave, but a perfect society will stem from the philosophers freeing of the individuals. Our lives are not meant for us to believe that we are happy, but ultimately to find the real meaning of happiness, truth, and understanding.