An assistant attorney general for the State of Michigan is waging an ugly one-man crusade against the first openly-gay student body president at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. He may be doing this on his own time, but it raises issues of fairness and security. How can the gay men and lesbians of Michigan trust a lawyer for the state when he spends every waking hour out of the office denigrating who they are?
Since Chris Armstrong was elected in April, he has been hounded by Andrew Shirvell. "Chris Armstrong Watch" is the primary vehicle for the public servant's seemingly unhinged rants against Armstrong and his "radical homosexual agenda." Shirvell also called Armstrong "Satan's representative on the student assembly," a "privileged pervert" and accused him of recruiting incoming freshmen "to join the homosexual 'lifestyle.'" You'd swear the two were running against each other for office. Or that Shirvell's constant and vitriolic blog postings would constitute cyber bullying. But there's no anti-cyber bullying law on the books in Michigan.
In an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper last night, Shirvell said that he was practicing his First Amendment rights of free speech. That's fine. What's stunning is his total lack of judgment and his seeming inability to understand how, well, strange his actions are.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
To Flee Or Not To Flee
In the Republic, Socrates describes Plato’s idea of a just state in which everyone does the job to which they are best suited and are overseen by a group of elite leaders referred to as guardians or “philosopher kings.” The guardians are prepared for this responsibility by the state itself, taught to see the world of ethos, the world of ultimate truths and forms. The job of these guardians then becomes to guide the rest of the city by these truths and to attempt to raise them to this higher state. Socrates sees himself as one of these philosophers who has seen the world of ethos and has returned to literally show others the light.
In Crito, Socrates’ argument against escaping stems from that idea of duty. A government, he says, only has power when people respect and obey that government. To escape his sentence he would delegitimize the Athens and its power over the people, intentionally wronging and doing evil to that city. Even if the city’s judgment were unjust, he would still be wrong to flee because, “neither injury nor retaliation nor warding off evil by evil is ever right.”(Crito) Therefore he cannot delegitimize the city’s decision because it would harm the city itself. Harming the city is something that he fundamentally cannot do because his duty is that of the guardians, to lead others by the truths he has seen and to attempt to show others the world of ethos and transcendent truths. By delegitimizing the power of the Athenian government he would be wronging the people that he himself said it was his duty to protect. To go against everything that he had taught would be dishonorable and unjust, and as he said in Crito, “a good life is equivalent to a just and honorable one,” and “not life, but a good life, is to be chiefly valued.”
Interesting relevant article
I picked up The Economist, hoping to read about something other than power for a change. Guess what?
Nonetheless, it is food for thought. and it's certainly legit.
http://www.economist.com/node/16990691?story_id=16990691&CFID=142889805&CFTOKEN=97169657
Is this legit?
Socrates repeatedly compared the state’s power to parental power. It was his gratitude and loyalty that kept him in his cell, unwilling to act against the state. (This brings up the point of self-mastery: Socrates was clearly loyal to the ideal that self-mastery is to be admired: as outlined in The Republic. I was reassured to read in The Crito that Socrates is no hypocrite.) What power do parents truly have over their children, once their children have legally come of age? Only a moral power. Children often recognize that although their parents are no longer legally responsible, parents still have a level of authority over children. It is this power that keeps children compliant to their parents’ wishes. Similarly, Socrates did not stay in prison because he was legally obligated (although he was), but because he felt morally obligated to the state, as one would to one’s parents. While many people would be unwilling to go against their father or mother, Socrates felt that way to the state as a whole. He decided to think not of life and children first” (10) but to comply with the state’s authority. He lamented the state “in which the decisions of law have no power, but are set aside and overthrown by individuals” (7). Socrates’ acceptance of the state’s authority made the authority a real force, something that he could not conscientiously undermine. As the authority became real in his mind, it gained powerful over his mind and his actions, and it was legitimized.
The example of Socrates suggests that all political power is legitimized by the civilians. The guardians in Plato’s utopia may be well educated and fit to rule, but if none of their subjects recognize these traits in them, the guardian’s power is worthless. When a guardian or other political authority is accepted by the community, only then is the power legitimized.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Conversely, it is the job of the people to follow and listen to one who knows Truth. Socrates says,“we must not regard what the many say of us: but what he, the one man who has understanding of just and unjust, will say, and what the truth will say” (5). Without the cooperation of the people, a city could not function, because a guardian could not lead. Socrates, realizing this, knows that if he escapes, he will be delegitimizing laws of Athens, taking away their power by breaking them. The laws only have power as long as he follows them, accepting them as necessity and truth. While he says that, “some opinions, and the opinions of some men only, are to be valued, and other opinions, and the opinions of other men, are not to be valued” (4), he recognizes that the laws of Athens are to be valued. They allowed his parents to marry and give birth to him, they raised him, and the lead him through his life. Further, they gave him an opportunity to reject them. Socrates says that the laws tell him, “if [a man] does not like us when he has come of age… he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him” (8). In other words, by staying in Athens all his life, Socrates has admitted to liking the laws, making a pact to follow them. This is the reason why Socrates refuses Crito’s offer. He believes that he has been done a great injustice, but to break his pact and not follow the laws of Athens would be to “when injured injure in return” (6), which he regards as unacceptable.
-Kathryn D.
The society as whole is what legitimizes the power of a government. When a person consciously chooses to participate within a society they are (wether deliberately or not) subjecting themselves to the ruler. In order for the society to continue to function as a cohesive unit this implicated agreement is necessary.
This is the reason which Socrates gives for not wanting to escape from prison. He has lived his entire life in Athens. He seems to truly believe in an wish to uphold the Athenian society. Even while he realizes he is being unjustly punished, if he were to delegitimize the society’s power over him he would most likely damage it. Socrates sees that even while the charges that were brought against him were unfounded, he has to comply with the consequences laid upon him. Because of his true love for Athens he gives his own life so that the cities society might be able to remain that much stronger.
Socrates in his own way was helping Athens to move to a more perfect state by allowing himself to die. The perfect society requires that all people obey the wishes of the rulers for if the rulers truly have their society’s best interest at heart then their commands are just and fair. Socrates through his compliance is choosing the most just course of action for the society, even though it is unjust on his individual level.
-Eric
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Second Assignment
Writing assignment:
(250-500 words)
Explain the legitimacy of the guardians and how that relates to Socrates' decision to refuse Crito's offer.
Small Groups
Emma AC, Natalie, Dan, Sarah Y
Miles, Molly, Brynna
Sarah B, Kathryn, Emma T, Julia
Katie, Catherine, Eric
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
idea
In Genesis, God says to Cain: “If you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it”
I guess it takes a lot of self mastery to not kill your own brother... but really I thought this was an interesting example of self-mastery in the Bible/Torah.
Monday, September 6, 2010
The Republic is all about justice versus injustice, and Plato argues here that self-mastery is similar to the just mastering of a city. He suggests that arranging the three parts of the soul (the calculating, spirit, and desire) as a musician would “three notes in a harmonic scale” (443d) will create a harmonious soul, and thus a harmonious life in which a man will be able to achieve justice and, in my opinion, dear Glaucon, personal power. This draws a parallel to what Plato believes to be the way to a just city: the three parts that make up a city (the deliberate, money-making, and auxiliaries) also existing in harmony with one another.
What Plato’s argument in this section comes down to is that harmony in the soul (thus, the ability to have self-mastery or personal power) comes to be when each of the three parts of the soul “minds its own business” (441d). I disagree: while the calculating part makes well-reasoned choices and the spirited part is responsible for the health and (as Sarah mentioned) emotions of the body, the desire is kept subdued by the two, and thus the soul is able to rule the body justly. If calculation and spirit did not work together to rule desire, would not desire, like a powerful thirst, overcome that part in the soul “forbidding them to [drink]” (439b)? In the three factions of a city, to which Plato repeatedly compares the three parts of the soul, the parts must also work together to create justice. For what good is the auxiliary (by which Plato means the guardians) without the deliberative, just ruler to command it? While Plato makes a reasonable point in that, in some cases, each faction of the soul must mind its own business, it is imperative that the three components of the soul work together to create a harmonious and just being.
-Emma T.
The Subjugation of Desire
Spirit is the intermediate part of our soul which which allows our reason to manifest itself and to combat our desires. While many would argue that the desires are the root of all emotion, Plato would state that spirit is what allows reason to manifest itself emotionally. This is not to say that spirit is purely a derivative of reason, rather that spirit is something which empowers the reason to rule.
Perhaps the most important part of Plato’s argument is the way in which he emphasizes that the natural state is an unjust one. He argues that, “And this concord between them is effected, as we said by a combination of intellectual and physical training….”(441e). Without the training Plato implies that desire would be able to take control and we would lose our rational self control. He even directly states that appetite is the largest and most unruly part of the soul, and that only through the cooperation of reason and spirit can it be dominated.
Plato wants to move us away from a state of nature into a kingdom of the intellect. His motives are clearly demonstrated throughout The Republic. It is very clear throughout that Plato is attempting to guide us towards a world in which our animalistic natures are almost completely dominated by the strength or our will and the power of our spirit. This complete subjugation of desire is the ideal state which allows us to be in complete control of ourselves.
-Eric
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Self Mastery- The Individual and the State
As Plato struggles to define a just and orderly society he makes a solid correlation between the individual, and the State as a whole. Plato asserts a just State has all three classes working together in harmony, and a just person has harmony between the three parts of their soul.
Plato explains that a person’s soul is divided, just as a society is divided, and both must be well ordered to run smoothly. The rational; which reasons, the irrational; which feels desire, and the passionate which is spirit, and more prominently anger. These are the components Plato claims must be mastered, and separated in such a way that they do not interfere with one another, to be in control of one’s self.
“For the just man does not permit the several elements within him to interfere with one another, or any of them to do the work of others,” (443d). Just as in a logical society, the different levels of power should not interfere with one another.
Plato furthers his observations on the correlations between the State and the individual by extrapolating the fact that all virtues and tendencies that arise in a society come about by work of the individuals, (just as a ruling of a court comes about by the people therein).
“Must we not acknowledge, I said, that in each of us there are the same principles and habits which there are in the State; and that from the individual they pass into the State- how else can they come there?” (435e).
With these lines firmly drawn between the relationship of the State, and that of the individual, Plato logically states that the ideas that govern and control the State govern and control the individual as well.
Mastery over one’s self comes about when all the components of the soul work together, logically with rationality at the forefront (441e). Because Plato links the individual so closely to the State at large, his argument continues that both must have a logical order to be successful. A mastered State has all its components working together, with a hierarchy in place. A mastered individual has all the components of the soul working together with a similar hierarchy in place.
-Julia
Plato suggests that the justice in ones soul does not only reflect the justice in a city, it is essential to it. When one is just inside, he contributes to a just city. The calculating part of the soul reflects the philosophical people in a city, but that calculating soul itself is also crucial in the city’s justice; Plato dubs those with it rulers and guardians. Each part of the soul shows itself in the city; the people with dominantly spirited souls are warriors, the people with dominantly desiring souls are the normal people who need to be lead. Plato argues that a just city has the correct balance of all three parts, and so does the man who has mastered himself and achieved justice. In order for the just city to have the three types of people, however, it needs men who have the three parts to their souls. A city cannot achieve justice, then, without people who have organized these three parts correctly: people who have mastered themselves.
-Kathryn D
In an individual, justice will be found analogous to justice found in the state. Instead of guardians, auxiliaries, and a producing class; one finds reason, indignation, and desires. As in a just state, the individual must relinquish control to a higher power, that of wisdom. Knowledge, supported by passion, must completely reign over and enslave all desires. Each of the three factions must remain entirely separated from one another and in their proper place for an individual to be considered just. One finds injustice when these three parts are in dispute. Similarly, should the working or military classes rebel against the state one will find a nation in ruin.
By Plato’s definition, justice is the greatest good, most beneficial entity, and closest object to the truth. It relies entirely upon “keeping what is properly one’s own and doing one’s own job” (138). Therefore, when reason reigns supreme over indignation and desire, man is considered just. Moreover, without men who possess such characteristics, a perfect state could not exist. It is citizens who determine the nature of the state. Although in a just society, the needs of the individual are inconsequential in comparison to the needs of the state as a whole, the individual is absolutely vital to the creation of the nation. Plato’s ultimate goal, of imagining a truly just society that puts the well being of the state before the individual creating a greater and more equal happiness for all members, relies entirely upon the character of his citizens. For this reason he spends numerous sections of The Republic discussing their education, upbringing, and daily life.
The question remains, however, in what way does an individual maintain a complete separation of the three factions, while also allowing reason to rule over the wiles of desire. Self power is the possession of such and extreme conviction that one is able to abstain from desire and allow knowledge to govern the self. The just man, through separation of his sects “will attain self-mastery and order, and live on good terms with himself (152-153).” Self power occurs only when man has, through meticulous self control, amalgamated his dueling factions into a whole harmonious being. A being who, is not deluded by desires or passions that dispel all reason, is able to control emotions, act justly, and achieve contentment. This is a compelling argument, for one generally finds that happiness is acquired through tranquility rather than through discord. Therefore, the just man is a being who has attained complete self mastery through his ability to govern the factions of his soul with reason. Consequently, without citizens who are capable of complete self control, a truly just society can not exist. The power of the individual, though stifled by the supremacy of state, utterly creates the nation as a whole. The Republic leads us to believe that it is in our best interest to practice self mastery because it will ultimately lead to a just society, greater contentment, and a more truthful world.
The noblest man is the man who has the best self-control. In other words, it is the man whose calculating part best controls his emotions and desires. Plato says, "The nobler [a man] is, won't he be less capable of anger" (440b). Furthermore, a noble man should strive for moderation, which is achieved when his soul is in harmony with itself. The soul is in harmony "when the ruling part and the two ruled parts are of the single opinion that the calculating part ought to rule and don't raise faction against it" (442c). For a man to achieve true mastery over his emotions and desires, his emotions and desires must not challenge the authority of his rationality.
Logically, mastery of internal desires results in mastery of external actions. Plato argues that a noble, moderate man does not filch money, rob temples, or commit betrayal (442e). The same man minds his own business, much as his internal parts mind their own business, and does not meddle in other people's affairs (443d). For these reasons, Plato asserts that self-mastery is a crucial part of any respectable man.
-Sarah Y
Mastery over oneself comes from acts of justice
A person is just and virtuous only when each internal part is performing its proper function, and that function alone. Reason should be in charge, as it has “wisdom and foresight” (441-e), and spirit should be subordinate to reason: the role of spirit is to carry out the directives that reason assigns. In a virtuous and just person, reason and spirit team up to tackle appetite, which is often the strongest of the parts and always insatiable. Bravery, justice, and virtue all arise from a harmonious relationship between the three parts of the mind: reason, appetite, and spirit.
But Plato’s passage about mastery over oneself is ultimately about whether justice is preferable to injustice. Plato states that in the same as healthy activities produce health, just acts produce justice. Doing just actions, especially when it is hard, are like an exercise routine for the mind that brings the three parts into harmony. Just people arise out of just actions, not the other way around. Choosing to act justly brings about justice, and that justice brings about an internal harmony.
Internal friction, on the other hand, is where different parts of the mind or the soul give the individual opposing directives. Basically, it’s the idea that when we decide to do something, there are sometimes parts of us that do not want to be doing that thing. This is exemplified when “one element in their minds bids them drink, and a second prevents them and masters the first.” (439-c). This struggle is so intense that Plato compares it to “a struggle between political factions,” in short, civil war.
Internal harmony is desirable and good, and internal friction is frustrating and painful. Harmony and proper balance between the reasoning, spiritual, and appetite parts of the mind constitute a just and virtuous person. Since just acts cause internal harmony, unjust acts cause internal friction, in the long run justice is preferable to injustice.
Harmony between the three parts of the mind is also a strong form of personal power. Having self-control, and being able to delay gratification and work towards something bigger, leads to a highly effective person capable of getting what he wants in the world. He can think clearly about what he wants to get (be it a better job, a stronger relationship with a friend, etc), has the courage to go and get it, and is not distracted by superfluous desires. This is one of the strongest types of power, and the most useful. So, in the end, acts of justice lead to a strong form of personal power that leads to fulfillment and happiness for the individual.
-Dan J
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Question...
Friday, September 3, 2010
First Assignment
Book IV: 434 - 445 (from 434 to the end of Book IV)
What is Plato saying about self mastery, or our power over ourselves?
Post your 250-500 word response to this question to the blog.
Comment thoughtfully on the posts of at least two of your classmates.
Do all of this before class on Tuesday 9/7.