POLS383

I will try to make the argument that Cassius is as much of a hero as you consider Caesar or Brutus. Cassius isn’t the archetypical villain in Julius Caesar but since antagonists are considered the antithesis of heroes, Cassius should then be considered villainous.

Firstly, I’d like to point out that Cassius could have killed Caesar when they were swimming together but he didn’t. Cassius was the first the pose the notion that Caesar is being deified and that this should be stopped one way or another. Had he chosen to remain nonchalant while Caesar begged to be saved, Cassius would have reached his objectives in far less tragic way.

But here we could arrive the point proposed. Caesar cried ‘Help me, Cassius, or I sink!’ I, as Aeneas, our great ancestor did from the flames of Troy upon his shoulder. The old Anchises bear, so from the waves of Tiber, did I the tired Caesar. And this man is now become a God, and Cassius a wretched creature and must bend his body if Caesar carelessly but nod on him (I,ii,110-118)

Cassius acted selfishly in his conquest to prevent an absolute monarchy from dictating Rome. He was not the only one that has acted selfishly though. Caesar may have decided to generously reward the citizens with money but how far could he go before he became selfless? Would he share more than his palace gardens with them? Would he carry out the duties of the average Roman citizen? If he wouldn’t, then Caesar possesses the human selfishness just as any other. It is Caesar’s pride and persistence of being Rome’s ‘northern star’.

Brutus’ embodiment of the Roman soul means nothing to me at all. He is merely a poor judge of character and someone that did not right his wrongs when he had the chance to. He seems to be internally torn apart on what the right thing to do is. His indecisions and passive morality serves no justification to be perceived as the tragic hero in my opinion.

“Cassius be content. Speak your griefs softly, I do know you well. Before the eyes of both our armies here, which should perceive nothing but love from us. Let us not wrangle: bid them move away; Then in my tent, Cassius, enlarge your griefs and I will give you audience” (IV,ii,1960)

Cassius’ revolt had two parts to it; one he was jealous of the position that Caesar was in and secondly he did not ever want to be someone ruled by a god-king figure because as he told Brutus he was born free as Caesar" (I,ii,97). His direct claim to ‘dethroning’ Caesar was his patrimony from the republic. He had all the right to call it as he wishes. There is no denying that his jealousy eventually led to his undoing. So is the case with Brutus and Caesar.

Pretty soon Ferguson will be forgotten just as George Zimmerman's name rings no more bells today. Part of the reason is because America is in gridlock and people would rather go on about their lives than talk about something in gridlock. The other part is because its a real sticky problem and not just a debate on the impeachment of a President because of a sex scandal. 

Ferguson was going to unleash its wrath unless Officer Wilson was indicted and everyone knew that. Even in the last month or so when Mike Brown's name was fading into the lower echelons of the newspaper, everyone was merely enjoying the calm before the storm. 

There is need to discern what Aristotle means when he classifies man as a “political animal” and that women, slaves and children have their places and duties in society just as the political animal has his. Firstly, Aristotle should be absolved of his blatant chauvinism and militant elitism because he speaks of the conditions necessary for a government to sustain itself in circa 300BC. But, the reasons for why he proposes this societal structure should be contextually analyzed to understand ancient Greek politics better.

One of the most resounding sentences in the book talks about relationship between man and state.

“But he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a God: he is no part of a state” (1:3)

This again goes to show the sociological dependencies of the Greek society back in circa 350BC: Man was still very much in debt to trade, the functionality of a family, the coalition of several families to protect their estate from harm. The structure of the society was still very much feudal and predicated on the need to survive. It isn’t a complete enigma that ancient civilizations are very dependent on their animal-like survival instincts. Geneticists and biologists have theorized that humans have stuck to their colonial instincts right up to the enlightenment era. The ‘bestial’ or ‘divine’ quality refers to the inability for humans to survive without adopting societal norms, patterns and culture.

Seeing the need for several families to unite to form villages, the family unit has to quickly organize itself in order to remain relevant as a component of the village. This is where Aristotle compartmentalizes the dynamics of a family. The husband is seen as the head of the household and therefore is effectively the decision maker in the family. Several decision makers in the family only results in chaos and that becomes a liability to the village.

One type of relationship is that was widely spoken about is between the master and slave. A slave is a slave by nature and not one who is enslaved. A master is a master by nature and not one that rises from slavery. Therefore just as a King is born into the throne and leads his subjects, so does the master instruct the slave to behave accordingly.

“We will therefore restrict ourselves to the living creature, which in the first place, consists of soul and body: and of these two, the one is by nature the ruler, and the other, the subject.” (1:5)

Aristotle understands that class chasm exists between those who have intellect and capital and those who are laborers or “slaves”. For a village to function, it needs the people that have political insight and an intellect to deliberate the survival of the village. It also needs those that are not intellectually gifted but rather physically gifted to execute these plans. Aristotle compares these people to tame animals. Therefore, the ‘obedience’ of a slave isn’t an irrational subjugation to any of a master’s whims or fancies, but rather the execution of a series of tasks that benefit both parties as well as the village.

“Nature would like to distinguish between the bodies of freemen and slaves, making the one strong for servile labor, the other upright, and although useless for such service, useful for political life in the arts of both war and peace.” (1:5)

As a preamble to the Presidential address (which is at 7pm Central Time btw), I would like to write about the exclusion of healthcare coverage to what now seems like potential legal immigrants. 

The article predicts that the immigration reforms would exclude certain benefits such as Healthcare. Immigrants now would not be eligible for insurance subsidies and therefore have to bear the full cost of healthcare. The dichotomy of these two hotly contested issues is that granting one without the other is paradoxical. 

Most of these illegal immigrants that are currently working are on minimum wages and having to bear the full costs of the ACA would be a gargantuas start to their 'new' life in America.

If Obama announces these measures, it is understandable that he is doing so in the face of an overwhelming Republican legislative. The right wing sharks are ready to sink their teeth's into anything ACA related, especially ones that are dealing with immigration, an issue that to them has not ripened enough to be reformed. 

This is perhaps an example of a Captain that was stargazing while he allowed his subordinates  scramble to handle the lives of 400 over passengers. The South Korean ferry that capsized had made headlines in April of this year and led to the eventual resignation of the Prime Minister of South Korea. 

It wasn't only the Prime Minister that was at fault and should be scorned at though. Some facts that have come to light through investigation are utterly baffling. Some of the crew members have been found consuming alcohol while the ferry was capsizing. The Captain had retreated to his private cabin and had let a rookie third-officer take his place. There were also instances during the capsizing that involved the third officer crying and the crew members scrambling to keep the ship upright. 

It took a schoolboy to call an emergency service which subsequently was noted as the first reported signal of 'distress'. The most shocking and devastating piece in the story comes when the Captain had asked the passengers to stay put in their seats, only to be the first to evacuate the ship and be rescued. The Chief Engineer and other members of the crew followed his lead and were the first few to be rescued by nearby boats. 

I can relate to the grief of the families and friends of the passengers after understanding that their loved-ones could have survived if there was more competent leadership on the bridge. Although Captain Lee will almost surely be ending his life in prison after being handed a 36 year jail term, the significance of a finite jail term as a means of justice for the 304 who were killed is unacceptable. 

Throughout chapter VI, Socrates uses the words “philosopher”, “soul”, “goodness” and “justness” very interchangeably. It suggests to the reader that they’re all parts of a larger thing that is practically unexplainable. A lot of the ideas of what a philosopher is correlates with the Buddhist idea of achieving enlightenment. “… I suppose they would forsake those pleasures that come through the body – if he isn’t a counterfeit but a true philosopher. Such a man is, further, moderate and in no way a lover of money. (VI.485d;e.)

It is at this point that Adeimantus interrupts and tells Socrates that there is a lot of so-called philosophers out there that are up to no good. Those who are counterfeit are the ones who have wrestled themselves to steer the ship while the true philosophers are pondering and questioning life’s mysteries, unperturbed by the allure of leadership or money. Therefore it suggested that those who have the true qualities of a philosopher are the ones that ideally should be made the leader.

Putting someone who’s regarded in high esteem in power is not the solution to a state’s problem though. It is the equivalent of Gandhi assuming the role of Prime Ministership when India got its independence (which didn't happen). The truth is most of those who seem qualified to lead are not ones that prove the most successful. “…that a man could never adequately pursue if he were not by nature a rememberer, a good leader, magnificent, charming and a friend and kinsman of truth, justice, courage and moderation?”(VI 487a) We learn that philosophers in all their esteem can be as useless to a city as a beggar. Leadership, just like everything else, is an art that few possess and fewer still hone to expertness. This is where a philosopher departs from his prowess of the intellect as he is questionable when it comes to his civic duties.

We have established that a philosopher is someone who forgoes the pleasures that do not benefit the intellect. We also know that leaders need to have in them philosopher-like qualities, soul, goodness, justness etc. The quandary to this is when it comes a time when the leader desires what his body wants – in any amount. Is he then banished altogether from the echelons of leadership or is he allowed to pleasure his bodily desire as he has reached the status required of him? Pleasure seeking is not entirely a bad thing. Even the Buddha who spent years as an ascetic finally decreed that extreme asceticism only got him nearly killed him. There is a point of realization that staying away from evil doesn't make you good and enjoying your earthly patrimony doesn’t make you bad.

This article highlights an issue that has been making rounds around the world (among other Malaysian debacles) and doesn't seem to be seeing the light of day any time soon.

Malaysia is a country consisting of a majority Malay Muslim population, followed by minority Chinese, Indians and other indigenous people. Recently, the court has ruled that the word "Allah" which means God in Arabic is prohibited from use by any non-Muslim. Allah is known to be used by Christians in the Middle East, Indonesia and even Malaysia for millenniums and the recent ban highlights the trend of liberalism and modernization in a country that allows freedom of religion. Ethnic Malays are born Muslim and are legally not allowed to apostatize their faith. 

This poses the biggest problem to the indigenous Christian population in the states of Sabah and Sarawak that have been using "Allah" in everyday worship. Bibles containing the word have been confiscated by religious authorities and raids have taken place in Churches to ensure no Muslim participation. 

The Allah issue is not the only one that have been restricting Muslims and Malaysians in general from living a liberal life. A recent event that promoted the interaction of dogs and Muslims (dogs are thought of as unclean and therefore not to be touched in Islam) has brought ridicule to the Muslim organizer who had been chastised into issuing a public apology for allegedly "confusing" the local Muslims.

The charges brought against Socrates by the accusers were that he did not believe in the Gods of the city and secondly he corrupted the youth of Athens. Socrates did himself no favors on the first charge by confirming that he does not in fact believe in any of the Gods of Athens but rather supernatural envisions of his own. Socrates’ didn’t seem to have too much to complain about the Gods though besides his reiterations that he did in fact believe in supernatural beings. He elaborated on this further by saying that he was only inquiring into things below the earth and in the sky (19b) so as to suggest that he tries to make sense of what others typically find “otherworldly” or “godlike”. This is perhaps also in reference to Aristophones’ play that portrayed Socrates as a godlike being espousing divine messages to those that gather around him. Nevertheless, Socrates is in clear violation of Athenian law, be it fair or otherwise. It is not up to alter the judicial codes of ancient Greece and replace it with our own, heavily inspired, hindsight 20/20 version.

            It is the second charge that brought against Socrates that had a case. Socrates maintains throughout the trial that if he had done something that was perceived wrong by the jury, then he did so wholly inadvertently. He justifies himself by saying that those who intend to do no wrong, does no wrong. Throughout the oeuvre of justifications that he provides, he does seem to slip in something that does not seem applicable or true even for ancient Greece. Socrates says that nobody willingly does wrong onto others. This is not true and is evident in Socrates’ accusers.

            Another thing Socrates iterates about time and again is that he is wise because he does not know and therefore the deserved consequence of the wise is a banquet in the Prytaneum. It seems paradoxical in my mind to know that you don’t know. However, it is ubiquitous throughout the book that Socrates has a far superior intellect to those he chooses to converse with. He compares himself to a gadfly that hovers around the state… arousing, persuading and reproaching. Socrates feels that the Athenians should appreciate and celebrate having someone wise like himself constantly buzzing around and stimulating mental thought. It still seems ironic to me that someone who has reached the conclusion that he does not know anything demands the accolades of being the wisest.

The charges brought against Socrates by the accusers were that he did not believe in the Gods of the city and secondly he corrupted the youth of Athens. Socrates did himself no favors on the first charge by confirming that he does not in fact believe in any of the Gods of Athens but rather supernatural envisions of his own. Socrates’ didn’t seem to have too much to complain about the Gods though besides his reiterations that he did in fact believe in supernatural beings. He elaborated on this further by saying that he was only inquiring into things below the earth and in the sky (19b) so as to suggest that he tries to make sense of what others typically find “otherworldly” or “godlike”. This is perhaps also in reference to Aristophones’ play that portrayed Socrates as a godlike being espousing divine messages to those that gather around him. Nevertheless, Socrates is in clear violation of Athenian law, be it fair or otherwise. It is not up to alter the judicial codes of ancient Greece and replace it with our own, heavily inspired, hindsight 20/20 version.

            It is the second charge that brought against Socrates that had a case. Socrates maintains throughout the trial that if he had done something that was perceived wrong by the jury, then he did so wholly inadvertently. He justifies himself by saying that those who intend to do no wrong, does no wrong. Throughout the oeuvre of justifications that he provides, he does seem to slip in something that does not seem applicable or true even for ancient Greece. Socrates says that nobody willingly does wrong onto others. This is not true and is evident in Socrates’ accusers.

            Another thing Socrates iterates about time and again is that he is wise because he does not know and therefore the deserved consequence of the wise is a banquet in the Prytaneum. It seems paradoxical in my mind to know that you don’t know. However, it is ubiquitous throughout the book that Socrates has a far superior intellect to those he chooses to converse with. He compares himself to a gadfly that hovers around the state… arousing, persuading and reproaching. Socrates feels that the Athenians should appreciate and celebrate having someone wise like himself constantly buzzing around and stimulating mental thought. It still seems ironic to me that someone who has reached the conclusion that he does not know anything demands the accolades of being the wisest.

This article follows Sheng, one of the many Chinese individuals who have tried to whistleblow in Communist China. Sheng was a member of the Communist Party but once he caught his boss stealing government money, defected. 

Sheng was then framed by his boss and other corrupt colleagues and was sent to prison for 2 years while his boss got away with a small fine. Despite President Xi Jinping's public call for the clamping down on corruption en masse, corruption still exists in the much of the lower level public officials, who are much connected to each other and not hesitant to have each others backs. 

The concept of heroism takes a different direction in The Odyssey. Over the course of The Iliad, we have tuned into the archtypical hero that is Achilles, someone capable of not doing any wrong and who death finds in the most glorified, honorable way. With Odysseus, we see instances of a brave warrior capable of shooting an arrow through twelve axes but in hindsight, we recall many instances of a bumbling, almost comic protagonist that you can’t help but feel bad for throughout the book. He’s the type of character that you want to see through until he reaches home and whose death would pain you more than Achilles’.

We’ve gone through the notion that heroism is subjective and it can be depicted and admired in more ways than one. In their own way Telemarchus, Penelope, Eumaeus, Alcinous are all heroes in their own decree. The essence of Odysseus character can be magnified when juxtaposed next to Achilles. Unlike Achilles’, Odysseus’ grand adventure in all its twists, suspense and existentialism doesn’t result in his death. It’s not halted by a stray arrow that lands on your heel. In many ways, Odysseus possess many traits of justice itself.

Justice isn’t about being romantic nor does it take into account pathetic cries of mortality. It’s most often just consequences for your action or inaction. In many ways its best summarized by Newton’s 3rd law. Often times though, a life hard lived on earth does not correspond to a joyous afterlife. In fact, it isn’t the color and action of life that reciprocates once we die, it merely is the halt to all which was animated while we lived. This perhaps is the bitterest justice as it discounts any hero, villain, priest or thief in the theater of life and reduces it to mere dust.

In The Odyssey, Achilles was left to bask in his glory of being the Prince of the dead to which he testifies as having no more meaning.

I’d rather be a slave on earth for another man – some dirt poor tenant farmer who scrapes to keep alive – than rule down here over all the breathless dead. (11-547)

Here, Achilles acknowledges that all his “glory” amounted to nothing. In fact there was no glory in all his armory, brutality, strength and the panache on his helmet. The very acceptance of the trade of being worthless and insignificant for life suggests that glory itself lies in the quality of being animated.

Odysseus, who was prophesied to die, realized that he would rather walk into his own eventual death than die at that very moment. The fact that Achilles’ used the word “breathless”, suggest that with each breath you take, you imbibe life and all its animation all over again and that drug is better than a painless, noiseless ‘existence’.

I'm tying in this article with the theme of the 'good life'. Texas has recently tightened its restrictions on abortion clinics and this has resulted in a significantly smaller number of legal clinics strewn around the second biggest state in the U.S by area. 

On one hand, I strongly agree that the practices of clinics regardless of its service should be implemented with standards that provide safety and responsibility to the public and the city. All the more in this case as childbirth is a delicate situation facing mother and child. 

In Book I of The Republic, Plato documents Socrates’ encounter with three men who questions his logic on justice. Socrates does not provide a conclusive answer to the issue of justice because as he says “how could a man answer who, in the first place, does not know and does not profess to know”(15,337e). Throughout his dialogues with Cephalus, Polemarchus and finally Thrasymachus, Socrates refutes the existing notions of justice, dismantling each argument without replacing them with anything sound that comes from his own theories.

Socrates first encounters Cephalus who’s a respected elder and one whom Socrates hopes to learn from. Cephalus starts off by making the assertion that men at old age can be at peace with themselves had they done what was seen to be ‘just’ throughout their lives. According to Cephalus, part of being just is to honorably pay back what is owed. Socrates goes on to pose a dilemma in which he asks if it is also ‘just’ to give back a borrowed weapon to an angry friend. The handing back of the weapon means that the angry friend could use it to strike the loanee or to cause destruction in one form or another.

It is obvious at this point in the book that Socrates sees justice as having beneficial traits to society. He implies that the act of an angry man’s destruction should be factored into account when deliberating what is just. Socrates’ view makes sense when it comes to self-defense or if factoring in moral implications. Does justice need to be cloaked in both those things though? I don’t think so. I share Cephalus’ point of view when he says that it is of just doing to repay what is owed. The implications of the aforementioned repayment is secondary in this argument. They stem out of biological need to survive; or an emotional judgment that takes into account the wellbeing of others. In saying this, I do understand that, for example, if an angry man reclaims his weapon and in that fit of rage takes the life of an innocent, then, injustice has been done on the innocent. However, that type of injustice bears no attribution to the original loanee of the weapon. He simply enters an unspoken agreement of returning the weapon without seeing the need to consider extraneous outcomes.

Let me briefly move on to dialogue with Thrasymachus. The exchange they have is slightly more complex than that of Cephalus’ or Polemarchus’. Thrasymachus begins his rebuttal of Socrates’ thoughts with an Ad Hominem stance. Thrasymachus first attacks Socrates by saying “What is this nonsense that has possessed you for so long, Socrates?” (13,336b) He goes on to say “Here is the wisdom of Socrates; unwilling to teach, he goes around learning from others, and does not even give thanks to them.”(15,338b)

It is plain to see that Thrasymachus sees injustice in Socrates’ refusal to come up with the “truth” about justice. In this sense, he adopts a sort of Cephalian stance by anticipating an answer for an answer. Socrates’ denies him this privilege by reasserting that he does not have the monopoly on truth and that he is in a quest to find it himself. Thrasymachus goes to explain that ‘just is the advantage of the stronger’. Socrates firstly rebuts his claim by seeking his approval that even leaders are fallible. He goes on to point out that the ‘artist’ does not seek to do just to his ‘art’ but merely does so because of monetary compensations. In saying that, those who are not just are more likely to succeed because selfishness pays. Those who are just will be weak and ambitionless.

This exchange reminds me of an early interpretation of what capitalist and socialist ideals represent. As Socrates iterates, capitalist rulers are non-just and seek to trade their skills for monetary benefits. The socialist minded people turn out to be the general public, losing at the behest of those who actively seek injustice. Again, ‘justice’ seems to send out connotations of goodwill, empathy, equity and moral obligations. Again, I say it does not need to be so.