Thursday, September 30, 2010

How Not To Defend An Argument.

from PostPartisan.

A Michigan governent official went on CNN yesterday to defend the blog he wrote personally attacking a gay college student. Watch how he tries to defend his argument, he does such a poor job that it is a) amusing and b) slightly informative.

*Update. one of the wonderful things about the internet/blog world is that in addition to just reading about things, you can actually take action. I work with an organization called Advocates For Youth, who are running a small campaign to get this guy fired. Check it out, and consider clicking the button to sign on to a letter to remove this crazy person from office.

From post partisan (if you are interested in hearing more about this story...)

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.


Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Paper Topic

This paper is due on Tuesday, October 19th in class (in your folder).

Length: 4-6 pages

Topic: To be a good ruler does an individual have to learn to be bad? Does morality apply to politics the same way it applies to ordinary people?

You must cite any four of:
Plato, Machiavelli, Bodin, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant
(anything extra is just bonus)

Sunday, September 19, 2010

Fast Food Education vs. Zagat Education

Ken Robinson makes the statement that creativity in children should be on the same level as academics. Throughout my education i have been encouraged to use my creative insight to further my education, for example i invented and co-taught a class called Zombie Ethics in which we explored the ethical standpoints of notable philosophers in context to the world of Zombies. My education can be majorly contrasted to that of the "fast food education" because at Friends school not only is it a goal set by the school to nurture creativity, but as a 12th year student i feel like my creativity is being furthered and respected. Friends school, in a lot of ways, achieves the goal Ken Robinson is talking about. He makes a point that math should be as important as dance, and during my schedule this trimester i have an an hour and fifteen minutes of dance on one day and only forty five minutes of math. Friends school does not create a rigid path of linear education like Ken Robinson describes public education to do, it allows students to discover that which they wish to do and ends up creating a diverse community of graduates who are individual in their choices and professions. i too am grateful, as Emma T. said, that i go to a place where creativity is encouraged and not prohibited.

He makes another point that you can only discover something if you are prepared to be wrong. In Senior Seminar alone, we make arguments hoping to be right but preparing for Jamie and Elise to disagree in an attempt to develop the right opinion. the reason i joined Senior Seminar was so i could see the flaws in my own arguments in an attempt to make them better, and i believe that everyone else in this class is expectant to see flaws in their own insight as well.

Being able to develop your own creativity and take your learning into your own hands (like CFS allows its students to do) helps a person empower themselves in whatever way they want to be. as a senior in high school i don't view myself as an empowered member of society yet (as Katie originally stated) but i do believe that my education at friends school has helped develop my own sense of empowerment and creativity so i will be able to empower myself in society in the future. if i was forced to follow a strict path of learning and studying, i would not be the person who i am today and thus i would not be able to be an empowered member of society later. I am encouraged to find subjects in school that may differ from the norm yet that i am still passionate about. by finding my passion, i feel like i can empower myself through it and end up being an empowered and virtuous member of society.

promoting creativity and virtue--a tool belt for the future

CFS views creativity and virtue as two essential tools for solving the problems of the world. To solve a problem, we must have creative solutions and the virtue to carry them through. CFS promotes creativity and virtue by creating an environment in which it is acceptable to make mistakes. Discipline is a supportive, constructive process at CFS. Teacher/student relationships are friendly and collaborative. The staff encourages the students to take risks by trying new things and taking leadership roles. If students believe in themselves and trust that they are supported by their community, they are likely to allow their creativity to go uncensored and to try out embodying virtue, even through mistakes and failures. In this way, CFS promotes creativity and virtue, two essential tools for students to be empowered citizens of society.

Creativity is prized at Friends School. The importance of a healthy body to support a healthy mind is broadly accepted. At CFS, though, dance is celebrated for its own sake. In contrast to what Sir Ken Robinson reported about the tendency of public schools to teach only the head (and slightly to one side), Friends School tries to teach the whole body. We see this in the long lunch we are given to unwind between classes, the much disputed PE requirements, and our teachers' general willingness to let restless students leave class to stretch their legs. We at CFS also value the arts. There are certain limits because most of the students do want to earn admission to a college, which directs the curriculum to a somewhat mainstream selection of required subjects like math, science, social studies, literature and foreign language. Nevertheless, creativity is celebrated when a student finds a new way to answer a math problem, draws an impressive picture, or has a cool idea.

Friends School's mission includes the goal of teaching students that they can, and should, make a positive impact on the world. The teachers at CFS strive to teach students to appreciate the world and the people in it, and to embody virtue--bravery, fairness, generosity--as we engage in that world. From a young age, we Friends School students are taught to think not only of ourselves but also of our friends and classmates. We are told about the world, and paired with children in Afghanistan to write letters. As we grow older, we are shown a fuller picture of what goes on in the world. In the sophomore Global Citizenship Capstone class, my classmates and I were urged to consider whether our complex economic relationships with people in poverty around the world gave us a moral obligation to help them. Different students gave different responses to the question, and our discussion was dynamic. In addition to facilitating theoretical thinking about our world responsibilities, Friends School strives to inspire students to embody virtue by taking action. This is evident in service days, class raise-awareness projects like Susan's class's water bottle wall, and End of Year Trips.

Carolina Friends School provides students with an unusually supportive and engaged community. Students can reflect on the world, express themselves, and try out their virtue on trips and in clubs. Not to mention that if students are unsatisfied with the Upper School experience, we can talk to teachers or Clerks to try to change it. This is one of many ways in which CFS allows students to practice being virtuous, empowered citizens.

Saturday, September 18, 2010

My own education is very different from the education that Ken Robinson suggests needs to be revolutionized. We are not taught that the sole purpose of our education is so that we can go to college, graduate with twelve degrees, and become a wealthy college professor. We are taught to take our learning into our own hands. Ours is an organic education.

In watching these videos, I felt very lucky to have received the education I did. Although many people claim that ours is a “slacker school,” it only is if you make it. I—along with everyone else in this class, and many other students—choose to make my education meaningful. We take on the difficult courses. We don’t necessarily aim “high,” but we aim towards what we want. An example from the second video that stayed with me was the story that Robinson told about the young man who wanted to be a fireman. The boy was told by a teacher that he was “throwing his life away” and that he wasn’t living up to his potential if he achieved the one thing he had dreamed of doing since childhood. Again, I feel so lucky to have been raised in a school setting where my dreams are encouraged, not rejected. What if the boy had listened to his teacher? What if every child who wanted a perfectly practical job, one necessary to the survival of a community, was shot down? Socrates argues that each person must fulfill their “should,” and by doing so, make their community virtuous and balanced. Aristotle believes that the human telos, end, is happiness, and by doing their “should,” everyone should find that happiness. These philosophers also believed in the true importance of education. This boy’s “should” was firefighting, and in fulfilling this “should,” this dream of his, he saved the life of the very teacher who told him that he was going nowhere.

Like Katie said, I don’t feel that I am developed enough—or have learned enough, yet—to be an “empowered member of society.” I do believe, however, that my education at the school that I am so grateful to attend has shaped me in a way that any other schooling would not have done. By continuing to practice the values and the virtuousness that my education has provided for me, I will become both a virtuous and empowered member of my community.

From Industrialized to Agricultural

Ken Robinson agrees with Aristotle in that education through the state is possibly the most important means to creating children of virtue and justness, therefore ultimately leading to what Aristotle believes is the most important end for humanity--happiness. But there is a major difference between the education that Aristotle and Ken Robinson believe will help these children to the ultimate end. Ken Robinson believes that our education is corrupt. He calls it an industrialized idea, where the purpose of education is to "create university professors". He says that the only belief now, that has not changed in the slightest from when it started in the 19th century, is to create humans who have two goals in mind--to learn useful subjects for work, and to be accepted entrance into universities. Robinson does not believe that schools create creativity and individuality, even though all students learn in unique and distinct ways. He mentions a great story that highlights this exact point. It is about a dancer named Gillian Lynne who is told she might have learning disabilities, just because she can't learn in the way she is taught--she learns through movement. This is the whole point of his speeches. Robinson believes there needs to be an education revolution, where the learning doesn't "dislocate from your natural talents" and the "linear process" is changed to an organic method. He wants the "fast food" method that he mentions in the second clip, in which everything is standardized, to be completely reformed and customized to every child, to give each child the support and foundation needed to dig deep and discover their own true talents, instead of teaching them only what is believed to be good or things that will be helpful in an unknown future.

I believe that everything that Ken Robinson discusses is true. Our education should be there to support us, rather than tell us what we need to learn and force that knowledge onto us. No child learns the same way as another, and through this "standardized" method, most don't have passion for learning or the diversity needed for figuring out their true passion. There is a certain lesson that each person is told throughout their life, the things that are going to help you in the future, and the things you can be passionate for even if they will bring you to a cheap and meaningless existence. If you want to survive and flourish, you must do something intelligent or meaningful (which brings us back to university professors). However, I do believe that this education, even though forced upon you without much decision on your part, will help you become virtuous and an empowered member of society.

On a personal level, Carolina Friends School is definitely a place that has a different"agricultural" community that can help a student flourish and decide what he or she wants to achieve in their future. But for personal reasons, I believe that our school talks more than it acts. This means that while there is a lot given to a student to try, there are still certain restrictions and expectations that must come with this task. You can try all you want, but the topic of acceptance or tolerance is an issue that our school, even if we say we have under control, do not. There are still certain ideals one must face day-to-day, so I do not believe that we have free range to discover our own personal talents or creativity.

On the topic of virtuousness, I do believe that CFS has taught us as much as possible, and it just depends on the individual person to either accept or deny such advice or education. We question what is right or wrong daily, in discussion in class or through social interactions, and this has helped me question circumstances that I am thrown into during my outside life. On the subject of being an empowered member of society or not, I feel that this is not really something that can be determined yet. We are still young, and trying to figure out our purpose. In this aspect, I also believe that education is a huge factor in how we determine what an "empowered member of society" means, and I believe this also determines how we decide to go about this, whether we want to or are "told to". Education is a huge factor in how we act and take part in the community around us, as well as on an individual basis and how we prepare for the unknown future ahead. If we are constricted to the "proper method of education", I believe our huge range of options are limited to only a small number: what the education system believes will help us succeed.

Friday, September 17, 2010

Third Assignment

First, everyone should watch these two talks (in this order):

http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/sir_ken_robinson_bring_on_the_revolution.html

The writing assignment (one person per group, rest of group must comment and respond):

Define the nature of your own education. How has your education helped you to become a virtuous and empowered member of society?

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Two computer skills to help with Senior Sem work

First, to "annotate" (highlight, make comments, etc) to a PDF. If you have a mac, open the PDF on your computer using Preview.

Then, watch this simple video showing you how to annotate. Right at the beginning he covers highlighting and underlining, around the 2:50 mark he covers writing "notes," or comments.






Next, to get your computer to READ the readings back to you! If you have a mac and are in Safari, highlight the text you want to hear. Then right click (or press Control while you click) and go to Speech. Click Start Speaking, and walla! It will speak to you.

I find this very useful-I listen and read along and it seems to make more sense.
To adjust the pace of the reading or the voice, you can to go System Preferences.

If you are unlucky enough NOT to have a mac, you can get Microsoft Word to read to you. Open your document in word, click View, then Toolbars, the Speech, and select your speech and click Start Speaking.

I hope this helps!

PS my 86 year old grandpa will be visiting class tomorrow, and he is reading Nicomachean Ethics tonight. It is difficult for him to hear in noisy settings, FYI.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Aristotle's Ethics

Book 1 and Book 2 lays out the beginning of Aristotle's view of the relationship between ethics and politics.

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

The following article is Schumpeter: the will to power.
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?

The State maintained power over Socrates because of Socrates acceptance of that power. He felt that he had no right to question or rebel against the law, as he and the law were “not on equal terms” (8). Having grown up in Athenian society, Socrates found himself unwilling to turn his back on the government that had taken care of him all his life. Essentially, the state’s ability to control Socrates rested on its ability to persuade him that he was indebted to the state, and should therefore remain loyal. Socrates’ unshakable loyalty to his state and to the law served to legitimize the political power above him. He fully supported the law and the superior political authority. By accepting the authority of the state and complying, Socrates legitimized the political authority in both Crito’s mind and his own.
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

Plato’s guardian’s legitimacy lies in his power to conceive of and present Truth. Plato sees the philosopher as the best guardian, the one most likely to achieve Truth. He is educated throughout his life and is expected to use the calculating part of his soul the most. The guardian’s job, though, is not only to realize this truth, but to bring it back to the people. In The Cave, Plato likens this necessity to that of prisoners chained in a cave, able to see only shadows of the real world. When one of the prisoners is freed and sees the light of the sun, he realizes how much he has been missing, and it is his job to explain the truth to his people. When he tells them, they will laugh at him, disbelieving, but he has to try to convince them. Similarly, Plato’s guardian must return to his people and guide them. His legitimacy lies in his power to do so. He can try to use force against his people, but they will only really accept him as their leader, granting him power, if he convinces them that his ways and beliefs are correct.

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.
In The Republic Plato breaks his ideal society into three classes, the lower working class of artisans, and then the ruling classes of the guardians and auxiliaries. The guardians must be chosen from the people who are best suited to lead (412 c). There is another qualifying factor that the guardians would need to, “… besides being intelligent and capable, really care for the community...” (412 c). The guardians are given their legitimacy because the members of society who empower them know that they have the populace’s best interest at heart. They are the ones most suited to do the job of ruling and the lower class has no qualms about giving them absolute control.

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

Read: Plato The Crito (on the reading packet website)

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

Remember, within your groups each decide who will post in response to the assignment. Each other member must read the group post, comment on the post, and sustain the intellectual conversation. Each group should have one blog thread (post as a new entry, then use comment) per assignment. If you need help, see Elise.

Emma AC, Natalie, Dan, Sarah Y

Miles, Molly, Brynna

Sarah B, Kathryn, Emma T, Julia

Katie, Catherine, Eric

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

idea

random, related thought:
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.
This whole excerpt is concerned with describing a truly just city or state and, by extension, a truly just person. Plato’s summarization is that the just state is one in which the three classes of a state each do their own jobs, using reason and temperance to act with wisdom. He then states that an individual also contains these three virtues or classes within and therefore, is affected similarly. The just person is one who is ruled by reason but also balances the spirit and desire as subjects of his inner reason. The ideal ruler is one who is the master of these three elements, one who knows himself and is at peace with that knowledge. By extension, Plato is stating that the truly just ruler is one who has power over himself first, and because of this inner control, is then able to control a just nation, being simply an extension of the just person and their elements. Because a truly just ruler would provide no opportunities for ousting or offence by the rational observer, he is above contestation as to his power. A ruler who cannot be contested is never in danger of losing the power he holds, over himself or his people. A truly just ruler is also the most powerful form of ruler. Self-exploration and discipline are therefore essential processes on the road to obtaining true and unalienable power.

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

Towards the end of the fourth book of The Republic Plato examines the nature of personal power and control. He uses the analogy of thirst to help illustrate the ways in which our appetites function. Through analogy he states that desires in their most basic form are unqualified and are only desires for their object. Plato states, “And for a particular kind of drink there will be a particular kind of thirst. But thirst in itself is the desire not for a lot or a little to drink, or for good or bad drink, or, in a word, for any kind of drink at all, but for drink pure and simple.” (439a). He is using this as a counter example to a rebuttal that could be posed to him that, “And we must beware of letting ourselves be taken off our guard and upset by the objection that no one simply desires drink, but drink that is good for him,…”(438a). Plato is illustrating through his defense that basic desires are unqualified that they are neither innately good nor evil. A desire or appetite is merely an occurrence and is not something which can be prevented from surfacing. In Plato’s eyes the ability to take control of one’s self is not by learning to move beyond desire but rather to see that it is properly dealt with by the force of our spirit.

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

"Leontius, the son of Aglaion, was going up from the Piraeus along the outside of the North Wall when he saw some corpses lying at the executioner's feet. He had an appetite to look at them but at the same time he was disgusted and turned away. For a time he struggled with himself and covered his face, but, finally, overpowered by the appetite, he pushed his eyes wide open and rushed towards the corpses, saying, "Look for yourselves, you evil wretches, take your fill of the beautiful sight!" (440a)

The individual self is in direct comparison with the layout and or characteristics of the city--they both have multiple parts controlled by different aspects of the bigger picture. Plato mentions two, maybe three major parts of one's soul. There is the rational part which makes the calculated and educated decisions, the "spirit" which helps the rational part in multiple ways, and the "irrational appetitive part", which partially controls the lust, "hungers" and "thirsts". The appetitive part controls more of your being, and therefore makes you more spontaneous and harder to control. You have to spend most of your life learning to tame this part of yourself, and like the quote mentioned about, it is extremely difficult. Therefore I believe that "self mastery" is one of the hardest things to accomplish, and most people are overcome with certain needs that they are unable to tame. Certain parts of the soul, mainly the irrational part, can completely take over, and Plato discusses how life skills practiced daily can help eliminate this problem, and mesh the many parts of the individual together. He discusses how physical training, poetry and music are the key components to taming said soul, to make it "harmonious, stretching and nurturing the rational part with fine words and learning, relaxing the other part through soothing stories, and making it gentle by means of harmony and rhythm?" (441e) You are somewhat subject to what your soul desires, and the only way to stop these desires is by practicing these skills and so taming the soul.

Plato also mentions that by taming and melding these certain aspects of your individual soul into one, you become just. Being just, Plato says, is what every man should try and achieve in life. Even if injustice can bring you a better life style, "how can it be worth living when his soul--the very thing by which he lives--is ruined and in turmoil?" (445b) Plato believes that every man should be just, just like a city should be just and have a good, firm background made up of multiple parts that can go hand-in-hand. To be able to tame the irrational appetitive part of your soul, you are able to control yourself in a better manner, by making better life decisions and not being held back by anything that isn't necessary. Rational part shall rule, and everything else shall obey.

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 says that there are three parts of the soul: the desiring, the spirited, and the calculating. He says that “the one within whom each of the parts minds its own business will be just and mind his own business” (441e). Each part of the soul minds its own business by ruling when it is most likely to do justice, and being ruled obediently when it is most likely to do injustice. Since the desiring part of the soul is “surely most of the soul in each” (442a), and since when it is fulfilled it means the end of moderation, it is the most likely of the parts to do injustice. It must thus be ruled over by both the calculating and spirited parts of the soul. Since the calculating part is “wise and has forethought about all of the soul” (441e), its business is to also rule the spirited part, although the two should work together. The man in which each part of the soul does its business, ruling or being ruled correctly, will master himself and achieve justice.
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
Through a comprehensive discussion of society, justice, and the individual, Plato arrives at the conclusion that self mastery alone holds the key to justice, happiness, and ultimately a successful society. Only a civilization composed of individuals possessing complete self power will be able to achieve perfection. His argument very clearly draws a parallel between the state and the individual, each are composed of three like parts and each require these parts to work harmoniously towards a common goal. For, “the elements and traits that belong to a state must also exist in the individuals that compose it” (142). Similarly, the students of a school define its character, the members of a jury determine its verdict, and the species in an ecosystem distinguish it from others. Ultimately, any entity composed of multiple parts, must, as a whole; reflect the character of its individual factions. Therefore, a just state must be compiled of men who possess entirely just dispositions.
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.
Plato insists that each man must have control over the base parts of his soul. He argues that the three components of the soul are the calculating, the spirited (emotive) and the desiring. "To produce justice," he says, "[is] to establish the parts of the soul in a relation of mastering, and being mastered by, one another that is according to nature" (444e). The calculating and the spirited are the productive parts of the soul, and are therefore superior to the desiring part. The calculating is the most rational part, and should rule over the spirited.

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...

When completing our assignments, should we write individual posts (as I am now),or comment on the assignment post (as Emma did?)

Friday, September 3, 2010

First Assignment

Re-read the following section of Plato very carefully:
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.