MrCoolguy's Cool Political Theory Blog

By the end of Antony and Cleopatra, it has become apparent that heroism has left Rome, in favor of self-fulfillment at taking the deal. This could also be seen as the decision made by Coriolanus, who started a hero but made questionable decisions ending in his exile and ultimately death. "Sir, praise me not; My work hath yet not warm'd me: fare you well: The blood I drop is rather physical Than dangerous to me: to Aufidius thus I will appear, and fight." He is a hero for the soldiers under him, and nearly dies when he fights eventually by himself at Corili, but wins the day for Rome. However, when he aspires to politics, he fails miserably, whereas arguably if he wouldn't have taken the advice, and had simply remained as the general, things for him would have likely continued to be prosperous, but in deciding to be consul, he takes the deal in exchange for political power. The same is nearly for Antony, as when Caesar is killed, and Antony replies, "No place will please me so, no mean of death, As here by Caesar, and by you cut off, The choice and master spirits of this age." At this point is where Antony could have fought Caesar's murderers, but instead he puts aside their differences ultimately in exchange for political power, only to find that his life without Caesar has no meaning. This becomes apparent ultimately in Antony and Cleopatra, where Antony has become a co-ruler of Rome, but does nothing with his posistion other than booze and sex, with the occasional military campaign, the only thing he appears to be good at. What both of them gave up, ultimately, was meaning to their life. There are some who will take the deal, like Odysseus for example, in being the type of hero that he is. However, Antony's meaning in life comes from being Caesar's General, and without Caesar, his life is relatively meaningless. Coriolanus's meaning in life came from serving in the army, and when he left the army to become Consul, he quickly ruined his own life by antagonizing the people. There is at least one example of a Roman who didn't take the deal, and I think should recieve some mention, is Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, who became the dictator when Rome needed him most, and stepped down after the crisis was put to and end. Neither of the other two made that decision, and their decisions ultimately made the rest of their lives relatively meaningless. In short, Antony and Coriolanus could have lived the rest of their lives much more heroically, much shorter for Antony and likely much longer for Caius Marcius, if they would have instead followed what they likely knew to be the right decisions, and they would not have faced the problems they were presented with. They could have both made the decisions that Achilles made, but instead they left their own respective characters for political power, only to face their own hard, eventual downward spiral.

Hopefully as time passes he will be pardoned by the state for his actions and will be able to return peacefully like the hero that he is. That might not be realistic currently, but hopefully enough people, especially in other parts of the government, will see him less as a thorn in their side and more as an alarm that they have gone too far.

In the politics, Aristotle refers to political science as being the most important science, "In all sciences and arts the end is a good, and the greatest good and in the highest degree a good in the most authoritative of all- this is the political science of which the good is justice, in other words, the common interest." Aristotle's key interest throughout the politics, is finding the best way to run a polis, which should be essentially the same as running a state today. In it, he writes about the imporance of a healthy, politically engaged middle class. Having a healthy, politically engaged middle class is; as he says, "Wherefore the city which is composed of middle-class citizens is necessarily best constituted in respect of the elements of which we say the fabric of the state naturally consists." Currently, here in the US, political participation is very low, and as a result policies implemented aren't representing a majority of the people here, or even a decent portion of the population. This means that the democracy we have in this country isn't functioning very well. The main cause of this likely is the lack of civic friendship that played an important part of Greek society, and of Aristotle's functioning polis. Some would argue, such as some Princeton political scientists (http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPPS %2FPPS12_03%2FS1537592714001595a.pdf&code=349ca6ba6ecf02c83e3ad43a422129 d3), that we live in an oligarchy today. Being that the United States is still a representative democracy on paper, if there was a more politically engaged civic friendship with the middle class, the current trends could be reversed. Unfortunately though, pursuading a large portion of society to become more politically active is very difficult. The answer to this, though, would be to get people of the middle class more involved with politics themselves is by making them legislators. Aristotle believed that the middle class should always be included in a majority of the legislative body, as to avoid revolution. "There only can the government ever be stable where the middle class exceeds one or both of the others, and in that case there will be no fear that the rich will unite with the poor against the rulers." In order for the representative democracy to be representative, it must include more members of the middle class, and less representatives of global supercorporations. A good way to get more members of the middle class into politics is by having more of a sense of community via persuading more members of the middle class into becoming politically active, finding out what motivates them and gathering people with the same concerns. With a politically active middle class, we can avoid potential revolutions, as Aristotle makes the claim for when revolutions can occur, "when the oligarchs oppress the people, for then anybody is good enough to be their champion, especially if he be himself a member of the oligarchy, as Lygdamis at Naxos, who afterwards came to be tyrant." With modern technology, a revolution can occur in many, various ways, but it would be better to avoid the chance of it altogether if possible, because it could end up a lot worse in the end.

NFL suspend Peterson without pay Another event of a professional athlete with domestic abuse charges, only this time it is for his son, and not spouse. However, this time action it’s being taken quicker. Recently, as in the past half year or so, the NFL has had less of a tolerance for domestic abuse, and hopefully if these events of players accused of domestic abuse continues, so will the penalties. Hopefully the outcome will be that domestic abuse from NFL players is stopped altogether, albeit that is somewhat unrealistic. I can’t remember how many games are left in the season, but hopefully it is enough to make a point. Hopefully Adrian Petersen has learned his lesson, and people have learned that this is not an okay method of disciplining a child. The injustice of domestic abuse has no place in society.

US and China in extended visa deal This is great for relations between the US and China. China is one of the fastest growing countries in the world economically, and so being on good terms with China is integral for the US to maintain its position as the global economic power it is. Also this is good for leading a good life, in that understanding other cultures is important to the good life, and not having to renew a visa yearly lets one stay longer without more worry. I don't know if this would have an affect on how many people go to China, but the fact that it is an effort to maintain good relations is a good enough reason.

Nearing the end of the Republic, when Socrates tells of the story of Er, he tells of how Er sees the choices of those great Greeks whom are spoken of in the great epics as being reincarnated in the form of their choosing. This was a criticism of the Homeric epics themselves, and how most of these characters were not just, as much as the epics make these characters out to be. Most of them choose fates that were counter to their previous lives, as they were not just they did not know the truly good, just life and as such they would not want to live the lives they had again: "Orpheus choosing the life of a swan, out of hatred for womankind," "The soul that got the twentieth lot chose the life of a lion; it was the soul of Ajax, son of Telamon, who shunned becoming a human being, remembering the judgement of arms," Even Odysseus, who waited until the last lot; "from memory of its former labors it had recovered from the love of honor; it went around for a long time looking for the life of a private man who minds his own business; and found one lying somewhere, neglected by the others." This part neglects to mention Achilles, though it would likely be an unnessary mention. After all of the talk of the choices of those who reside in the Homeric epics, this asks many questions; such as, does Socrates believe any of what he is saying even in this part? Most of the book is creating theoretical situations, such as the noble lie and the allegory of the cave. Is he only creating these situations to make it easier for Glaucon and Adamantius to understand? Assuming this is a continuation of that, than this is yet another fabricated situation to provoke thought, something Socrates does consistently. I feel this last point especially shows the importance of the just life, for if one is truly just in life, they would choose the just life to live again above all else. But even moreso, is the point of this situation to show that these heroes in the Homeric epics in fact not even less of heroes than he made them out to be? They seem to have been more or less forced into these roles, and when given a chance to be heroic in the next life, they instead mostly choose lives of animals save Odysseus, who choses the life of essentially a just hermit. The Republic ends with Socrates saying that the just life is the only life worth living, and all other life is lesser, and if given the choice given to these characters of the Homeric epics, the correct choice would be the life of the just, educated member of society, rather than Odysseus's just hermit. This shows that the characters in the epics were, in fact, wrong about their perceptions of justice, for if they actually knew what justice was, they would choose the life of the just man. However, the particulars of this life are not given, thus this is Socrates's way of wanting people to live their lives how they wish, provided they are just, examined lives. For living a just, thoughtful life is living a good life.

A developed society as this is, I’m glad somebody with a terminal illness has the opportunity to end their life on their own terms before potentially having to spend a ridiculous amount of more money on hospital bills. It shows a good life, or good death when someone can make their own decision about choosing to end their own life when diagnosed with a terminal illness. Most of the issues come from when people don’t have terminal illnesses. That is another entire ethical dilemma, a permanent solution to what is likely a temporary problem. Regardless, somebody with a terminal illness without much time left should have the opportunity to choose the time and method of their death, its not like they’re going to escape it.

This is an interesting article, there are both sides of the issue given. Should individuals who have potentially contracted ebola be quarantined, or simply observed and supported. The just thing to do likely is observe and support. Many of these people who have potentially contacted the virus were voluntarily in the region trying to administer care to those who are already suffering from it. They shouldn’t be quarantined for helping others in need. These nurses and doctors should be treated as heroes, as they are putting their lives at risk for being where they were, but instead people like Chris Christy want them isolated and quarantined. Instead, they should simply be regularly screened for the virus, and should know to be careful.

Boko Haram is another brutal Islamist group whose deplorable actions are an affront to the idea of justice and the good life. This group has a strategy of abducting large groups of women, as they abducted hundreds of girls in their school earlier this year, I believe. They then ransom the people for money for weapons. These injustices serve no purpose, other than to kill or abduct yet more people, and thus they present a grave threat to the region. In their language, Boko Haram means essentially, reject western education, and thusly don’t want education for women or even a somewhat well-rounded education at all. As long as this group exists, nearly all the people in the region are being in danger.

The Apology and Crito, each potentially standalones in their own right, both make up important parts of the Platonic Dialogue. They make Socrates out to be a hero in his own right, leading the Greeks out of their cave and into the light of that which is Philosophy. For Philosophy, he sacrificed himself in hopes that others will understand why. This brings me to the question; was Socrates the first martyr? In the Apology, It seems that at the point in which he was first sentenced, he was certain of his own death. Perhaps even before this. "I will not say of myself that I deserve any evil, or propose any penalty. Why should I? Because I am afraid of the penalty of death which Meletus proposes? When I do not know whether death is a good or an evil, why should I propose a penalty which would certainly be an evil?" And so in response to being sentenced to death, he proposes being treated as a hero, and living in the Prytaneum, the place where the Kings or Cheifs held residence, the place of the highest honor in the city. He knew at this point that the jury wouldn't vote for his proposal. He knew at this point that he was going to die soon, but he wasn't afraid of this. A prominent part of Greek culture was the fear of death, and this was emphasized in book 11 of the Odessy with Achilles; "I would rather be the serf of a poor man than king of the dead". This, coming from one of the greatest of all Greek heroes, proves that being dead is pretty much the worst. Socrates, though, is not convinced, and more or less welcomes death. Embracing death was unheard of for just about anyone in Greek society, and so likely people were astonished at this and wondered what made Socrates believe this, which likely drew many people to the teachings of Socrates; and in turn not even two generations later the most powerful man in the world at the time, Alexander the Great, was being tutored by Aristotle, a former student of Plato, who recorded the teachings of Socrates. If Socrates would have proposed exile, the jury would have likely voted for exile instead of death, and Socrates would have likely lived and taught elsewhere, but instead he went with first dining at the Prytaneum, and then a hefty fine, of which his friends would pay. He is then sentenced to death. Later, in Crito, he is given a chance to escape his fate, something that Crito and many of his friends expect Socrates to escape. However, Socrates does not run from his judgement, claiming that running from his death would be a disservice to the city of Athens. In the end, he is put to death, and does not fear it. This lack of fear of death likely left many Greeks curious, that of a man not afraid of death and willing to die for his ideals, something that was unheard of previously. From this, many joined to learn from the philosophers, and the Socrates's teachings that lead him to his death were now openly accepted and the Academy was founded by Plato himself not long after. It is likely that if Socrates didn't die, his Philosophy would not have been as widely accepted, and the world might have been a much different place today.