Happiness in accordance with pleasure.

I liked how after everything was said and done, Aristotle thought it wise to wrap up the argument on justice brought up in the beginning of Book I. In line 1177a30, Aristotle says "...we believe the pleasure must be mixed in with happiness." This is a little hard for me to believe. Although I do agree with this statement, it is hard for me to believe because I believe that most people in this world are not physically able to do certain things that are good with pleasure. In other words, I am saying that it is almost impossible for anyone to be fully virtuous in one's life. No matter what area it may be, someone will always have to be at the level of self-restraint for one's entire life. Being bound by the flesh, that is subject to our bodies that decipher both pleasure and pain, we are always going to have to do things that the flesh does not usually find pleasureful. For instance, one might want to go and eat some food, when there is a homeless person on the side of the street begging for something to eat. It will not be pleasureful to the body to not eat. Likewise, it might be pleasing to the body to look at pornography, but to abstain from it, requires a level of self-restraint. Me, being a man, am tempted with lust and pornography daily, and though my flesh would love to divulge in the lie, I restrain myself for a reason bigger than myself. I do not believe I will ever be free from these temptations, because I live in the flesh, however, I am able to restrain myself from them, and though it may not be pleasureful, it is what is right.

The correlation between pleasure and excellence

Around 1175a, line 30, an interesting claim is made by aristotle. "...since the appropriate pleasure contributes to the growth of the activity. For those who are at-work with pleasure discern each sort of thing better and are more precise about it..." Aristotle is claiming that people who take pleasure in a certain activity, are automatically better at it then those who do not.

In my opinion, this statement is wrong in many cases. The most notably would be athletic achievement, an area that would very much be in effect in Aristotle's time. There are people on this planet that are more skilled at certain activities, naturally, then others. Most people are trained to find something that they are good at and do it for the rest of their life. This is even a very general way of wording Aristotle's philosophy. The issue that Aristotle is not addressing is that fact that these individuals might not find pleasure in the action that they excel at. It is true that people who pursue something with passion and pleasure work harder to attain excellence. The issue is that hard work is sometimes not enough to surpass someone of greater talent.

A Disagreement On Contemplation

1177b -- "And contemplation seems to be the only activity loved for its own sake, for nothing comes from it beyond the contemplating, while from things involving action we gain something for ourselves, to a greater or lesser extent, beyond the action."

I disagree with Aristotle here. When looking at contemplation in class, we discussed how contemplation was a constant, deep thinking of the divine and things that cannot be controlled by our own will. These are things that are not in our control, yet can be thought about. They are intangible with our hands, but not with our brains. And with this, I agree. But, I do not agree with the above excerpt because I believe that there is something to gain from contemplation. The act of contemplation is not an act that one would perform in hopes to gain something, but something is most definitely gained. If one is contemplating the divine, the mystic, or the unknown, there is no way of knowing the absolute truth. But, the more one thinks about and contemplates such things, a personal opinion/conclusion can be drawn from one's discoveries through contemplation. Things can be learned about one's own self by looking at the divine, and questions can sometimes be answered personally. Therefore, what is to be gained from contemplation is a more mature understanding of what others have not thought about. If one man does not contemplate, the man who does contemplate has matured further than the other and is more at work than the other. Contemplation can lead to the truth revealed in part or full, depending on the beliefs of the individual. A religious person who believes in God can contemplate things he does not know and through God can be revealed truths that he can handle in his own capacity. Someone who does not contemplate may have a smaller capacity for an understanding of the truth than someone who contemplates. A non religious person can make sense of somethings through logic or feelings or other realizations that come about through contemplation. If contemplating the universe (stars, etc.), one can come to a conclusion that a higher power, a designer, must have created such a thing as the universe, or come to the conclusion that science has made sense of it, or that their incapability to understand its complexity is as far as it goes. But, someone who does not contemplate will never have an understanding of any of this and will have never given any of it any thought at all. Therefore, one who contemplates has gained much more in the pursuit of virtue and in their own understanding of life than the one who does not contemplate. Moreover, contemplating the divine and the unknowable can affect one's way of life and daily choices. If one holds the belief that God exists, he will act on it in such a way that it will appeal to God. If one does not believe in an after life, one will determine life's choices through a lens that does not concern anything but the here and now and what is virtuous or not. And one can also begin to know the unknowable through faith. This is not the same way of knowing something definitely, but actually knowing something through confidence and conviction after contemplation.

There is much to gain from contemplation. But I would revise my previous statement that I disagree with Aristotle and say that I disagree in part. I agree that contemplation is loved for its own sake by the individual, because when contemplating, it does not seem that one's intentions would be to gain something but because one is seeking answers, as most are. But, I do believe there is much to gain from contemplating, which is where I disagree with Aristotle.

Friendship and Love

From the onset of Book IX, Aristotle is saying that friendship and love are synonymous. When we discussed this in class, I found myself in disagreement. Love seems to be such a personal emotion, reserved only for special people that you have grown together with for an extended period of a time, a person that you can share deep, dark secrets with without fear of them judging you. Some inadvertent responsibility comes with the condition of being loved. When you tell someone that, you are now saddling them with the duties that you would never think to put onto someone you DON'T love.

Now, having said all that, I find it very hard to feel this way towards every person that I call a friend. Forget Facebook's definition of a friend, but even my own is different. I meet someone and within minutes we can become friends. Our relationship continues to blossom and grow as we get to know each other, but love is a long way down the road. Yet we have been friends for a long time. Perhaps Aristotle's definition of friendship was more personal than my own. It says, "any association of people who spend time and do things together, share in pains and pleasures, and wish for each other's good." I can see the discrepancy. There are many people with whom I share pleasures -- we have a common interest and we celebrate it together. But we are nowhere near close enough to share in the pains, that is more personal.

Even then I have a hard time saying that I love every person I am friends with. And by the same token, I don't want to deny the title of "friend" to all the people I care about but do not love. In this instance, I feel that the term love is being used out of place.

Book 9: Friends and Fortune

In Book 9, Chapter 11, Aristotle makes the claim that we need different sorts of friends in different circumstances. When one has stumbled upon misfortune, one needs useful friends who help them to escape from their current situation. Upon experiencing good fortune, one needs good men to be their friends because it is more beneficial. I can’t help but consider how my friendships have been dictated in the past according to my own circumstances. Sometimes it can be difficult for us to know whether we are experiencing good or bad fortune because the transition between the two are so gradual. During a gradual shift between good and bad fortune, is it possible to see a friendship gradually failing? If we experience good fortune for an extended period but drastically and suddenly fall into misfortune, our “good” friends that complimented us so well in good fortune may not be useful to us anymore, no matter how close we were. It is easier to visualize one shedding friends who were present during misfortune, because these friends are not required to be good. Is there a sudden moment, a point of realization that alerts us to our friends shortcomings? It seems to me that we try to cling to those old friendships, no matter how useless they are to us know, because they still offer an illusion of security

Thoughts on Friendship 2

As we have learned from Book XIII, there are three types of friendship: friendship based on utility, friendship based on pleasure, and friendship based on the goodness of character.

Originally, when Aristotle made the argument that one must love the self more than one's friend, I had an uneasy feeling inside. If one had friend, who was not virtuous, and who had friendships based on pleasure, self-love would be bad indeed. However, in a friendship based on the goodness of character and an active action for the sake of the good, self-love does not turn out to be so bad.

Mr. Miller made an interesting observation in his blog, and was also something I was going to talk about in mine. Are friendships healthy when two people are at different levels of virtue? (i.e. one person is at the level of virtue, while someone else is at the level of self-restraint). I believe these relationship are not necessary, but definitely help one who is not as mature and virtuous become better faster. A lot of times, when one sees and example laid before them, it gives the lesser person the desire to be better and persevere when obstacles come in the way.

As far as the best friendships go however, I believe the two people must be on the same level of virtue. If the two are on different levels, one will not grow and continue to be pressed to be better, and the other will be dragged from behind. In a perfectly healthy friendship, the two people of equal virtue will be able to encourage one another and thus strengthen each others relationship for the sake of the beautiful.

Friendship and Absence

"Distance does not dissolve the friendship without qualification, but only its activity. But if the absence is long, it also seems to cause the friendship to be forgotten." - Book VIII, Chapter IV

After reading this quote I began to think about how true and unfortunate this statement really is. I'm sure almost everyone can think back to their childhood or even high school friends and realize just how distant many of those relationships have grown. However, with the connections our generation has grown accustomed to, could it be possible that we have the ability to nurture our long-distant friendships more successfully than those of the past? As long as the individual is willing to put forth the effort, cell phones and facebook seem to make that task relatively simple. Now I do not mean to say that either of these alternative means of communication could ever replace the value of real quality time, but they can work as a useful tool in keeping the relationship active. Is this a good change? Maybe the purpose of separation is to keep our friendships limited to a small, more intimate number as oppose to everyone desperately trying to grasp a hold of their past. Regardless, separation seems to be an inevitable part of life and I think the relationships that pass us by are falling more into our own hands and less in the hands of time and distance.

Thoughts on friendship

I think that it is interesting the things that aristotle says about friendship in Book 8, Chapter 3.

He starts by describing the different types of friendships. He speaks of mutually beneficial friendships or friendships where people are only friends because they believe that they can gain something from the friendship. I personally believe that this is not friendship at all.

But then he speaks of the best type of friendship, a type where two people of similar or the same level of virtue come together and are good for the sake of themselves but are naturally beneficial toward others. This is the part of the argument that i would like to delve into. Is aristotle assuming that the only people who are capable of this perfect friendship or even on some level successful friendship people who are on the same level of virtue? Can this argument be reversed and say that the perfect friendships that people have indicate that they are of the same level of virtue?

I happen to disagree with both of these questions in the fact that i believe from both personal experience and first person accounts of other's relationship that good, successful friendships can occur in people who are very different in the level of virtue. I think that this does affect the compatibility of set of people but i think that it can be overcome.

Aristotle's Ethics.

What is the good life? Some say this, some say that, some say something completely different. The point is, they're all a bit right and they're all a bit wrong. It's hard to be more precise than this because ethics isn't precise and wise people know this, so never, ever, ask me to be less vague or ambiguous.

A good life is lived accordingly to one's nature. Vegetables grow, so a good vegetable life is one in which it moves in an anomaly way. Fox News lobotomises, so a good Fox News program is one which lobotomises in a foxy way. Humans think, so a good human life is one in which it thinks in a humanly way. We also kill, act with prejudice, lust, look after number one and so on, but that doesn't define our nature, because I don't want it too.

What is virtue? It is finding the mean. For example, generosity isn't the opposite of greed, it's the in between virtue between the opposite vices of greed and profligacy. Courage is the mean between rashness and cowardliness. Writing well is the mean between writing badly and writing in a way that is so good, it's bad. Having good judgement is the mean between being a bad judge and what might be called over judging, if you were foolish enough to take this mean idea to its logical conclusion. You may think this golden mean doesn't work all the time, but it's not precise and only stupid people expect too much precision.

Who is more praise worthy?

Who is more praiseworthy? The man who stubs his toe and uses all of the will power he has to refrain from cursing, or the man who stubs his toe and doesn't even consider cursing?

When I think of being worthy of praise, I think about somebody who does something; not somebody who does nothing. In this case, I am tempted to say that the man who has to refrain from cursing and succeeds is more worthy of praise.

I say this because after stubbing his toe, he instinctively wants to curse. However, he makes the decision that it is not appropriate and then uses his will power to hold himself back. This man has just done something; refrained from cursing.

The virtuous man stubs his toe and then thinks about the pain. The thought of cursing never enters his mind. Both men have to deal with the pain, but the virtuous man never has to deal with forcing himself to not curse. It seems to me that since the virtuous man did less, he is less worthy of praise.

Now, if we were asking ourselves who is more worthy of praise as an individual, I would say the virtuous man. I think this is pretty obvious. However, that wasn't the question.

I'm sure this is going to cause some people to want to prove me wrong. So go ahead, I would like to be enlightened.

Pleasure

Pleasure is a tricky, subjective subject. It's motivating power is undeniable, and humanity naturally gravitates towards that which is pleasurable. It's benefit, however, is hotly debated. We find that for some, it drives their compassion and motivates them to do virtuous things, for they take pleasure in such things. For others, it drives them to do wrong, because they have become habituated to do such a thing. However, unlike other philosophers, Aristotle claims that pleasure itself is not inherently bad. .

Pleasure's goodness is subjective, of course. Taking pleasure not just in the correct things, but also the correct amount, is crucial. Excessive pleasure can lead to ruin, as we conjectured while reading The Republic. For example, taking pleasure in bettering oneself in sport is good, yet going to far will lead to injury and the lessening of your skill. Once again, we return to the central concept of the theme found in this book, and the mean in relation to pleasure (as well as the object or act which is giving the pleasure) is certainly a cornerstone in our search for virtue.

Finally, the medium of pleasure must be taken into consideration. Bodily and mental pleasure certainly need to be distinguished. Bodily pleasure is superficial; it is not necessarily bad, so long as it is not distracting, but it is not productive in terms of individual growth; intellectual pleasures, such as the pleasure of reading, however, must be considered in the highest form of pleasure, because it further allows one to judge what is virtuous and just.

Self-restraint

"Is a self-restrained person someone who stands firm in any and every sort of rational understanding and choice, or in one that is right, and is an unrestrained person anyone who fails to stand firm in any and every sort of choice and rational understanding, or in an understanding that is not false and a choice that is right?"(Book VII, Chapter 9)

Aristotle is trying to describe what it means to be restrained. I believe that a self-restrained person is someone who will stand firm in their decision. A person cannot control themselves if they are willing to give up at any situation. A person must be very strong to be completely self-restrained. I believe that there are very few people who are actually self-restrained. It is in human nature to simply give up if something is hard or unfair, but some people will persevere and will stand up to anything they face. They will not take no for an answer and will always stand up for what they believe in and will not fail. However, Aristotle says that people that stand firm in a decision can be called stubborn. This could be detrimental to the person because other humans will not like being around them. I believe that to have the best life, you must be somewhere in the middle of self-restrained and unrestrained.

Book 7: Who is more praiseworthy?

After reading Book 7 I couldn’t help but wonder whether it was more worthy of praise to possess great virtue or to possess great self-restraint. It seems initially that the most natural answer would be virtue, but I want to know exactly why before I jump to this conclusion. I’m aware that the relevance of this question is debatable and is not very significant in our overall discussion of ethics since it has been firmly established that virtue is superior to self-restraint, however I’m still curious.
If two men are running a marathon and one is a gifted athlete while the other has a prosthetic leg, and the gifted runner finishes much sooner than the handicapped runner, why is that we would perhaps give the handicapped runner more praise or at least as much praise as the gifted runner for completing the marathon? The gifted runner is obviously more virtuous in the physical category of running since he is naturally inclined to excel, while the handicapped runner has a huge obstacle to overcome just to achieve such a feat. We give them both praise, but it is two different kinds of praise. The gifted runner is praised for being virtuous and talented, while the handicapped runner is praised for possessing a grand determination and self-discipline. Also, completing the marathon is a much different accomplishment for each of the runners. I believe this can be paralleled to a contrast between someone who was given the proper upbringing and naturally develops virtuous qualities while young versus someone who experienced a poor upbringing and naturally developed vices while young. The “finish line” in this circumstance would be that both subjects attain an impressive level of goodness, one through virtue and the other through self-restraint. It seems that the naturally virtuous character has an easier time of things because he only has to follow his natural tendencies which guide towards whatever he takes pleasure in, which is goodness. The character with vices has to develop restraint through reasoning and genuine realization that good will serve him better. Also, he does not necessarily take pleasure in his restrained actions. The vice-stricken subject is certainly handicapped in this sort of race.
I must conclude that both subjects are worthy of accolades and one cannot hoist one above the other. This is due to the fact that I tend to discredit people who are naturally virtuous because it seems like they don’t have to put forth any effort for their virtue. However, if I observe the case of the stereotypical “preacher’s kid”, which I would define as someone who is brought up in a good home with virtuous role models as parents, these kids who on paper should grow up to be virtuous people are very often stricken with vices. I know several literal “preacher’s kids” and some of them are virtuous and some of them are incredible opposites of their parents. It is because of this example that I must give naturally virtuous people praise for retaining their virtues, because this is indeed a challenge, especially with all of the temptations our society has to offer.

Attack of the Bad

In Book VII of Ethics, Aristotle refers to the proverb, “when water chokes someone, what should he drink?” (114a, line 36). So of course I thought about what I do because this has happened several times, and I always just drink more water. But how does this connect to the unrestrained person that the proverb is being related to?
In this section Aristotle says that people who act from conviction and choice are better off than those who act through unrestraint. He backs this up by saying, “since he [the person who acts from conviction and choice] could be more easily cured by being persuaded otherwise, while the unrestrained person is subject to the proverb” (lines 34-35). What I take from this is that the unrestrained person either cannot be changed by persuasion or that it would take a lot of it to do the trick.
The unrestrained person “chokes” when they do something bad or have a vice, which is the water. Then someone tries to persuade them that what they are doing is bad, so they do something else instead that is also bad. I got this from section 114b, line1 which says, “as it is, even when he is persuaded, he nevertheless does something else.”
So what should the man choking drink? From this section of Ethics it sounds like no matter what the unrestrained person drinks, it will continue to choke him because he chooses the bad.

-Rachel Tidwell

Self-Restraint and Virtue

At the beginning of class, we started talking about the differences in between self-restraint and virtue. My first inclination was that self-restraint was a virtue. But after much deliberation, it was apparent that virtue is doing something while self-restraint is not doing something. Likewise, my high school football coach always had a saying that I still remember to this day. "We don't play not to lose, we play to win." Though both would lead to a victory, one is not doing something and the other is actively striving toward a goal. Likewise, virtue is above self-restraint.

I also thought it was interesting that no one is born virtuous. We all go through different processes in achieving virtue in certain aspects of our lives. For instance, in one area, one might start at un-restraint (or even vice) and have to work their way up to restraint and then to virtue. Also, I never realized how difficult it is to be virtuous or just. In chapter 9 of book 5 Aristotle says,

(1137a) "[People] believe that it is easy to be just, but it is not...to do these things while being in a certain condition is neither easy nor up to them."

I personally believe that it is impossible for one to achieve total virtue in one's life. Theoretically, I could see how it can be possible, but I take the stance that man is born inherently bad. Therefore, I believe there will always be areas in one's life when one can only go as far as self-restraint, because one will always have the desires of the flesh to do things that are not for the Good. In other words, I do not think that anyone can be virtuous in every single area.

Thoughts On Currency

In chapter five when Aristotle used currency to discuss reciprocity in the larger conversation of what justice was, it struck as very ironic, that he would use currency, a thing which has caused so much injustice in the world, to show how justice operates. Interestingly enough his descripition of currency made very good sense, and seemed in all regards to be just. So how is it that an idea such as currency, which should facilitate justice, often does just the opposite.

Of course the obvious answer is that even though the idea of currency is a great idea and works theoretically we humans, who have proven ourselves to be something other than just, screw it up more than we get it right. The idea of currency is lacking an important component that humans are supposed to supply, but most often fail to: decency. So my question is this, can anything be done to implement decency into the model for currency that we currently use? If indeed currency is just an institution we have created to facilitate justice, could we make it better?

I wonder if governing systems such as communism try to address this issue, but I think history has proven that communism doesn't work. And rather than amending our current model for currency communism gets rid of it. So a new political system is probably not the answer.

Anything else that I come back to revolves around people having virtue when using currency. But maybe there is some way to handle currency that would make it more decent. Any thoughts?

decency, a lack of justice?

As per our in-class discussion, decency as I am told to understand it is a step above justice. It encompasses the knowledge of true equal justice and chooses to ignore it, so to speak, for some greater good, presumably some person(s) benefit(s). I get it, and I see how it appears this way, but I still have trouble wrapping my head around the idea that decency is above justice, and therefore something more than but still part of justice in the equal sense, while it does not permit any sort of injustice. Simply put, does it not seem that if one chooses to ignore the equal justice for the sake of another, then one is doing himself an injustice? For example, take 1, 2, and 3. 1 is the excess of justice (some benefit in this case), 3 is the lack of justice (some amount of injustice), and 2 is the mean (equal justice for both parties). If person A and person B receive equal justice, they are both 2. But if person A decides to be decent and regard himself as a 3 so that B may receive 3, is not A receiving some sort of injustice, even if self-inflicted?

1137b "For the decent thing, though it is better than a certain kind of just thing, is just, and is not better than what is just by being of some other kind. Therefore the same thing is just and decent, and while both are things of serious worth, what is decent is superior."

This quote summarizes Aristotle's view of decency, as well as what I stated at the beginning of my argument. If we read on though, Aristotle admits the impasse.

1137b "...what is decent is just, [but] it is not so according to the law, but is a setting straight of what is legally just. The reason is that every law is universal, and there are some things about which it is not possible to speak rightly when speaking universally."

Aristotle continues to argue that one must approach every determination of justice on a case by case basis, with which I agree. And I agree that the universal laws of justice, those set about for laws, are imperfect in that one cannot apply them in the same way to every case. In this way, decency is required and seemingly some sort of lens through which one must look upon the universal laws. Regardless, I still believe that person A is being done some injustice, however small. Maybe money is a bad example, but I think about when I was driving and was rear-ended by an elderly woman (she could barely see over the steering wheel). I got out, and there was little to no damage. Considering her condition and the detriment (to her) that reporting this accident might have caused her, I shrugged it off, told her it was fine, and went on my way. I believe in this situation I did the decent thing. However, my car's rear bumper was scratched and slightly dinged and I felt as though I had been dealt some injustice, even though I think I did the right thing. (Although, the thought of who she might hit next and how far worse her next accident could be has not since then escaped my mind).

Am I making sense?

Courage and Virtue

I found Aristotle’s discussion of courage and virtue to be very fascinating. At the beginning of Chapter 7 he says, “but the courageous person is as undaunted as a human being can be, and while such a person will be frightened even of such things as vary in magnitude, he will endure them in the way one ought and keeping them in proportion for the sake of the beautiful, since this is the end that belongs to virtue.” (1115b, 11 – pg. 49) This is what he describes as being virtuous, and I take it to mean that a courageous person faces fear even when he/she is frightened and endures them for the sake of the beautiful. That seems to be an appropriate definition, even in today’s world. We consider people courageous who face their fears – if they weren’t afraid in the first place then I do not consider it courageous because they didn’t have to overcome anything.
However, there seems to be a bit of a catch because Aristotle appears to be saying that irrational fears do not count. He says, “so one who endures or fears what one ought, for the reason one ought, as one ought, w hen one ought, and is confident in similar ways, is courageous, since the courageous person undergoes things and acts in accordance with what is worthy and in a way that is proportionate.” (1115b, 20 – pg. 49) I find this interesting because it’s delving deeper into psychological issues. For example, I am deathly afraid of spiders and to me, that is a very serious fear. However when I take a step back and look at it, I can see that most spiders cannot do any harm to me and I am a million times their size. So for me to overcome and face this fear would not be courageous in Aristotle’s opinion. Only the things that one is naturally inclined to be afraid of count towards courage.
Then again, Aristotle says you are insane if you are not afraid of anything. The rash person is a braggart if they do not show enough fear, and one who shows too much fear is a coward. (1115b, 25-30 – pg. 50) I suppose you could say these are the virtues and the vices of the courageous person. All in all, it makes sense, but there would appear to be many contingencies on which acquiring the title of courageous lie. We discussed in class that there is a mean in which a person must fall and that you do not have to be perfect, but I would still argue that according to Aristotle, it is harder than it sounds.
Aristotle concludes the chapter by saying that suicidal person can never be considered courageous. He talks about death being beautiful but it is not to be used an escape. I find this interesting as well. I think there are two groups of people who would argue on either side for suicide. Some would say it is a coward’s way out because that person didn’t have the guts (i.e. courage) to face whatever situation(s) caused him/her to feel suicidal. Others would argue that they were brave enough to take the plunge. It’s a delicate issue but I think Aristotle has said it well.

Civilization?

Near the beginning of the The Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle's treatise on human character, he makes a sharp break from his teacher Plato's view of what constitutes "the good." Plato sees "the good" as being defined in strictly metaphysical terms: it is the ideal that can only be percieved through the use of abstract reasoning. Aristotle doesn't entirely reject this, but he certainly disputes that it is the one and "true" good. In his view, it would be "difficult to say what is meant by the 'absolute' in anything" (I:IV). There is no "good": the "absolute," Platonic good, and the "secondary," practicable good (I:IV).

Aristotle emphasizes practical reasoning over abstraction, and the questions driving the Ethics are eminently practical, namely, what is the "good" life, and how does one live it? He interrogates his subjects in a manner that's somewhat milder than Plato's Socratic dialectic; he isn't looking for a contradiction that undermines the entire premise of what's being put forth, and he isn't attempting to tease out basic assumptions with repeated questions. Instead, he sets forth a proposition or a question, and he then outlines related answers or responses that he identifies as being wrong in some way. Ultimately, he arrives at an appropriate answer to the issue he's posing. The subjects if the first three books of The Nicomachean Ethics-- the nature of the "good" and happiness, the definition of virtue and vice, and the questions of relative virtue and morality--are all examined in this way.

Character is defined by virtue, and virtue enable one to discriminate between the poles of vice and find the golden mean, whether it is finding courage in between foolhardiness or timidity, or temperance in between licentiousness and asceticism. A major aspect of happiness is finding the balance in one's life.

Nicomachean Ethics--Book III, Part Two

"Those who are ignorant also appear to be courageous, and are not far from those who are full of hope, but they are worse to the extent that they have nothing they consider worth facing, while others do. This is why the hopeful hold their ground for a certain time, but those who are decieved run away if they recognize that something is different, or suspect it." 1117a, 24-29

Aristotle beautifully articulates a common occurance among men in these few lines. While most can appear courageous, very few actually are when it comes down to it. There can be no such thing as courage in a man when he finds nothing "worth facing." Because it is only when a man is "facing" that courage is needed. There is no need for courage in a complacent, passionless life.

The fuel of courage is passion. In order to be courageous, there has to be some kind of emotion, rooted and worthy, that activates courage itself. Furthermore, courage is the result of something--it is not in place for the sake of itself. What are those things worthy to be faced with courage? And the test of courage is time. Time does not test courage so much as it sifts of cowardice.

Regardless, the courageous will be known in the end. I have found, like Aristotle, that those who are "decieved" only stick around for a short while. They usually flee before a situation presents itself that demands any sort of courage--they never let it get that far before running away.

States of Mind

During class, we discussed how the use of coffee to be studious is a temporary state of the soul, therefor it did not count as willingly being virtuous. Neither this example nor the example of the "virtuous" drunkard has totally convinced me that one who is aided by an outside source is incapable of being virtuous.

Modern medicine has provided us with a myriad of psychological treatments; many of them now come in the form of a pill, rather than the form of counseling. Counseling could be considered akin to surrounding yourself with a better person and through them aiming more accurately at virtue and in turn happiness, so we have accounted for that. However, psychological drugs pose an interesting problem. Can one truly be considered a virtuous person if they are unable to maintain stability without the consistent use of this medicine? If their condition is truly a chemical imbalance, as many psychological conditions are said to be, then they are certainly caused by an outside source (assuming they did not willingly subject themselves to severe psychological trauma). Therefor, their condition causes them to act unwillingly when they do bad actions on behalf of it. Through the use of these drugs, they combat this condition, rebalance themselves mentally, and are capable of knowing and pursuing the true good. Could we still say that these individuals are not virtuous based upon this dependency?

Friendship

Some of Aristotle's ideas in his Books on Friendship seem so much like common sense that I have to strain to consider whether or not there was ever a time when these ideas about friendship were not common sense, eg: the idea that true friends sincerely wish the best for each other, while lesser friends use others with the improper intent-solely utility or pleasure. And pharses like the following:

"Most people want to be loved rather than to love... But friendship seems to consist more in giving that in recieving affection."

But I like, unlike Plato, who could theoretically be a happy man in the world even on a desert island, Aristotle reminds me that while man might be happy by himself, his happiness is far enriched, made even more complete, with deep friendships.

"... man can be content and self-sufficient alone, but it would surely be paradoxical to represent the man of perfect happiness as solitary; for nobody would choose to have all the good things in the world by himself, because man IS a social creature and naturally constituted to live in company... the happy man needs friendships."

"[Friendship] is... most necessary for living. Nobody would choose to live without friendship even if he had all the good things."

And I like the reminder that friendship is a limited resource, and a rare thing. One can be on good terms with many, but one cannot be very close friends with all, because factors like time and shared activity and the effort of intimacy and common dispositions/levels of character are involved. Goodwill is not friendship, though a part of it.

Responsibility Involving Free Will?

"In that way too it was in the power of an unjust or dissipated person at the beginning not to have come to be that way, which is why they are that way willingly, but once they have become so it is no longer possible not to be so" (1114a 21).

I find this quote very interesting for Aristotle to write. I agree it is the fault of an unjust and dissipated person to become that way. Do I feel like once they have become that way they can't go back? That's something I've always questioned. Once someone is a certain way, I don't believe they can change without the help of God. I also feel these people are more susceptible to fall back into the way they were, which makes me feel like they are still that way at heart. I understand God can change people, and I truly believe He can, but it's easy to be weary of one who has proved themself to be an unjust person.

Aristotle, however, doesn't address free will in book 3. Free will is the power to make a decision without the constraints of external circumstances. Aristotle overlooks this entirely and only focuses on those actions that we are responsible for. He believes that we are not held responsible for actions we do out of ignorance or impulse. Where is the definition that states what we are responsible for? And also, ignorance or not, an action is an action and you're responsible for what you do. I understand the argument of being under the influence, but one chooses to drink. If it was a forced act of someone making one under the influence then I see how it wouldn't be their fault. However, in this case you can also find choice in the groups you hang out with or situations you put yourself in. I will admit that there are situations that are totally out of your control and in that case there would be an unwilling action.

I feel Aristotle leaves an empty case here for fear of defining what responsibility itself is. This leaves us confused to what we are held resonsible for in relation to our actions we are fully aware of and those we are ignorant of or have acted out of impulse on. Not sure i agree with this vague claim, nor do I feel free will can be completely left out of these arguments.

Screw Your Courage to the Sticking Place

Why be courageous? Because, as Aristotle repeatedly points out, "it is a beautiful thing and not to do so would be a shameful thing" (1117a 17-18). Our ideas of courage, however, can often be clouded and mistaken. Whether it be taking the one who is shameless to be courageous because he seems to fear nothing, thinking the man a coward who fears "insolence from his children and wife" (1115a 22), mistaking someone who is moved by spiritedness/passion without the complete intention of courage, or believing the professional soldier to be courageous simply because he has experienced war before, we often misjudge another's intention and true disposition.

One point Aristotle makes a strong case as to the reliablity of "professional" or hired military. While the professional soldiers do have the equipment and the experience of war, they often lose their nerve and courage when the danger and threat pushes them too far and are often the first to cut ties and save themselves. The citizens, however, fight until they can no more because, to them, it is a shameful and painful thing to run. While this leans further away from courage and into spiritedness, spiritedness (passion and bravery) and courage are close.

On a side note, however, I would like to address the inquiry about coffee allowing one to be studious and, in turn, virtuous. In many ways this is exactly like the example of someone who is drunk doing nice things like helping out at an orphanage. The use of a substance to alter, especially knowingly, one's state is not virtuous because it alters what one truly is. The state is not entirely stable and it detracts from issues at hand.

Book 3: Part 1

Book 3: Part 1

Much of Book 3 concerns with how we can measure and define virtue. Aristotle states that virtue is concerned with feelings and actions, and we must distinguish between what is a willing act and an unwilling act in order to define these acts as virtuous. Obviously, a shameful willing act is not virtuous, but at the beginning of Book 3, Aristotle states that for “unwilling actions there is forgiveness and sometimes even pity”. Unwilling acts are those that happen through ignorance or from the result of some external force. However, if we are responsible for our own ignorance than the act is deemed willful. Aristotle also states that bad people are merely ignorant people who wish and choose for what is apparently good but is actually bad. However, in Book II Aristotle says that moral virtue is acquired through habit and constant practice. If there is no one to instruct someone to what good moral virtue is, than it is impossible for these people to develop virtuous habits because they do not know how to practice them. I might disagree with Aristotle’s definition of ignorant people as being “bad” people because it’s not necessarily they’re fault that they’re bad; if in their mind they’re doing what is good, how can we speak of them as being bad? Without an established code of morals within a society, “good” and “bad” people is incredibly open for interpretation. An example in our present society is abortion. Some view people who get abortions as bad people, and others don’t find it significant.

Why we can't be good at everything!

In Book II, Chapter 1 Aristotle states that not everyone is born with the ability to be good at everything. Aristotle wants us to realize that we can't always be good at the things that we wish we were. We sometimes must let the people that are skilled in that certain area take over. There is a reason that we aren't all great teachers because there would be no one to teach. We are not all great homebuilders because there would not be anyone that was good at designing the interior. If we were all the same the world would be a very boring place because each individual would not feel special. They would not be different from anyone else and would no longer feel a need for themselves. I personally feel that we were given our talents for a reason and the talents were God given. You do have the ability to improve at a certain task, but you will never be as good as someone who has the talent originally.

Nicomachean Ethics--Book I

“But then ought one to call no other human being happy either who is still alive, and is it necessary, as Solon said, to look at the end?” 1100a

Socrates is proposing the question of whether any human being can be completely happy while alive, and if, there is worth in looking at the end of happiness. Happiness is a universal pursuit. We are made to chase after happiness and, therefore, are always chasing… always chasing, but never fully satisfied. I believe that we can call a human being happy, and it may be so, but it is only true for a moment. I do not believe that we can call a human being happy in the sense that his or her life is happy. We can only say, “You are happy in this moment.” Happiness must spring from the Good, something we cannot fully know until our spirits are free from our flesh. It would make sense that the Good would let us taste a bi-product (happiness), momentarily, throughout our lives. Because, by this, we come to know that what we are chasing is worth chasing. Now, if happiness is incomplete now, but we, by nature, chase its entirety our whole lives, we, by nature, do not crave something that doesn’t come into existence eventually. This being true, it is eternally important to set our gaze at “the end.”

Nic. Ethics Book I

"...since the young are apt to follow their impulses, they would hear such discourses without purpose or benefit, since their end is not knowing but action. And it makes no difference whether one is young in age or immature in character, for the deficiency doesn't come from the time, but from living in accord with feeling and following every impulse" (1095a lines 5-9). I found this especially interesting because it's something I've never took time to think about in the way Aristotle puts it. Those that are given everything in life without ever having to work for what they get are much more inept to act on impulse because they don't know how hard it is to get there in the event that it's not just given. People of this sort are of any age and don't make decisions in a way that Aristotle finds to be an honorable and highest form of decision-making. Aristotle feels that "the human good comes to be disclosed as a being-at-work of the soul in accordance with virtue" (1098a 16-17). One that lives their life in impulse is not capable of living a "good" life unless they change their discourse at some point to follow virtue.

Nic. Ethics I

"Every art and every inquiry, and likewise every action and choice, seems to aim at some good..." (1094a); however, there is no such thing as the common or universal good. As rational beings, we all aim at what we consider good for ourselves and find ourselves basing the "good" on one of three things: enjoyment, honor, or knowledge. But at what does is this good? Why do we so avidly seek what is good? Good is our rationality that makes us distinct from animals or plants...but it's more than that. It's acting out that rationality in "accordance with virtue" (1098a16-17). For many of this, this equates to happiness: our end-all-be-all. That is for which the good aims.

Happiness. Virtuous. For many, these words are synonymous and the way we judge a person and their life. The ones who, in the face of misfortune, persevere without loosing their original virtuous disposition are considered, after their death, to have lead a "happy life." The entire picture of their life is taken into consideration when we judge them; however, while the image of the deceased may be altered by their descendants, there isn't, in the end, any affect on the soul that has gone on. The descendants may neglect pieces of the soul's life and focus solely on a year or a specific period of time during life. The two are completely separate and, I feel, have no effect on one another.

Book X

I know we're onto Nic Ethics now, but I wrote this last week and am only now uploading, so here it is...

Is it possible for the painter to paint the idea? Or do we presume his knowledge of the couch consists solely of that which the carpenter has crafted? If the carpenter is building a couch based on the idea, could not the painter do the same? Could not the painter build a picture of the "nature-begetter?"

598 c "Therefore, imitation is surely far from the truth; and, as it seems, it is due to this that it produces everything - because it lays hold of a certain small part of each thing, and that part is itself only a phantom. For example, the painter, we say, will paint for us a shoe-maker, a carpenter, and the other craftsmen, although he doesn't understand the arts of any one of them. But, nevertheless, if he is a good painter, by painting a carpenter and displaying him from far off, he would deceive children and foolish human beings into thinking that it is truly a carpenter."

How is the painter different from the carpenter? Could not the carpenter build a farm based on a picture painted of the original idea of a farm? Does painting, poetry, and indeed all art not have perhaps a better grasp on the intangible things that are than those things which we physically touch (couches)? Words and art and songs, I would argue, reach further for the idea of the couch than the physical one crafted by the carpenter. What the carpenter builds is a certain couch, but what a melody and rhythm and even lyrics evoke seem far closer to me to the idea of the couch than a certain one. The certain couch build by the carpenter is confined to it's weight, mass, and other physical qualities, but art, much like form or idea, is not. With painting, and even poetry to some extent, it is easy to argue that the picture on the wall is of certain angle of a certain couch, though I would suggest that was not necessarily the artist's intent, but with music especially it is difficult to assume that a melody and rhythm and orchestration (all those qualities that make a song) come together as an imitation of a certain thing. Rather, this musical art in particular, even without words, searches for truth, and in its own way is almost philosophical in that search.

That said, I understand that Socrates' accusation is focused on the specifically imitative side of art, and that he admits not all art is imitative. I think his couch analogy is a bad one, as I have just argued, but I do not think his argument is necessarily. The just city filters everything through the Noble Lie (except for the philosopher kings), so why not art too? I don't think Socrates is suggesting anything new to us here, but rather reiterating his previous point. In the city, his argument works, especially if we are focusing on the city as an analogy for the soul. In pursuit of justice, we filter everything through calculation before it has a chance to overwhelm our spirit or desire. So art too should be approached with caution.

Who is more Knowledgeable?

As I was reading Book X, the part about the three arts caught my attention. The text says that there are three arts for each thing: one that will use, one that will make, and one that will imitate. It goes on to say "the man who uses each thing will be most experienced and he will report to the maker what are the good or bad points in actual use of the instrument he uses . . . doesn't the man who knows report about good and bad flutes, and won't the other, trusting him, make them?" (601d and 601e) I was a little bothered by this reasoning because I don't feel like it rings true in every situation. When you think about it, it could go either way, but I would argue that the maker knows more than the user. A person who builds computers undoubtedly knows way more about how they work and what constitutes a good computer versus a bad one, while an end user can simply know how to turn it on and access limited functions. In this scenario, how would the user be more knowledgeable?

I agree with Socrates that the imitator has to trust one of the other two when he paints (or whatever his form of imitation is), but I feel that it's more of a give and take between the maker and the user, a mutually beneficial relationship that leads to the best possible outcome. The maker receives feedback from the user and turns it into knowledge of why something doesn't work properly and then can therefore craft it differently to solve the problem. Without the user's feedback, the maker couldn't fix the problem, but without the maker knowing HOW to fix the problem, then the user's critique is of no use.

What I have brought up may seem like a small aspect of the chapter, but I think it is a valid point to consider when going on to discuss who has the knowledge of fair and right, and who else is just following orders.

Couches--Book X

I would like to adress the three types of couches that Socrates discusses. They are as follows: the painter, the couchmaker, and the god (597b). The couch is obviously a symbol for truth. Therefore, the god (or God) produces truth. Then, we have the couchmaker. This is someone who has knowledge of the truth, but not full knowledge. Finally, we have the painter--or the imitator. This person can paint a picture of truth, but lacks the actual substance of truth itself.

I think we can find that each person is either a couchmaker an imitator (this includes the apathetic).

Although couchmakers aren't fully knowledgeable, they are still knowledgable enough to teach someone else how to make a couch so they can start making couches for themselves. They can offer the "structure" for a couch, but ultimately it is up to the other person to be wise, recieve, and follow through with their desire to learn about the couch.

Although an imitator can have the apperance of being knowledgable, what it seperates him is the fact that he has nothing to give away that comes from himself. Everything he says is adopted. However, this is not to say that when he DOES find truth, it will be the same truth that other men have found. Asking someone not what they believe in, but why they believe in it, most almost always reveals whether they are a couchmaker or an imitator. At least, that's what I've found.

The Myth of Er

In Book X there is a very interesting interpretation of what happens once you pass away. As we read Er was sent to observe what actually happened in the afterlife and then to come back and report what he found. He found out that people are reward on virtues on rather or not they get to go to Heaven or Hell. This happens over a period of 1000 years. After they have served their time in Heaven or Hell they are brought into a common area. This is where they decide if they want to be a human or an animal in their next life.

I really thought this was an interesting portrayal because until I read this I had never heard of the idea of a common area. You do not stay in Heaven or Hell for eternity, but once you have spent your time then you are sent to a common area. I found it interesting that depending on if you choose to be an animal or a human depended on if you had a good afterlife. As Bloom wrote in his interpretive essay, "The myth attributes full responsibility to men for what happens to them and thus teaches that there is no sin but ignorance."

Does the Soul Live Forever?

The death of a soul, no matter how metaphorical that may sound, is something that i believe happens and something doesn't belong under the logical rules of the way people look at the death of something else.

The argument begins in 608d with socrates proposing that the soul is immortal and can never be destroyed. He uses this statement and the argument behind it to jump into the "myth of Er", Socrates' dramatic climax to all his final argument. The argument that is behind the immortal soul is what i consider now.

Socrates claims that what is evil is what corrupts and destroys everything. Socrates also claims that something cannot be destroyed or corrupted by something that is not of it own or something alien to it. Socrates also purposes that because vices or the evil that belongs a part of the soul doesn't completely destroy it and force it to leave the body, then the soul doesn't die and therefore must live on forever.

This, in my opinion, is where Socrates' argument has a hole. He claims that just because the soul doesn't leave the body when it is brought to the point of death by its interior evil, then it is not dead. The problem is that i do not believe that the soul leaving the body when brought to the point of death is a logical indicator of whether a soul has truly perished. The soul is not something physical, like all the other items that Socrates is comparing it to. The soul doesn't abide by the physical rules that Socrates is supposing it does. I would go even farther in saying that not only does a soul die, but it has the ability to be brought back to life.

The death of a soul can be detected when the will of a person fails to exist. The person no longer wants to do anything or simply live. The dead soul has no concern for anything and this is reflected in its host. The host doesn't perish because the soul is not one of the required organs that allow life. The life of the host will be empty of purpose and desire, but the bodily functions will continue if only by habit.

Poetry: Pros and Cons

As a songwriter, it is difficult for me to set my own personal beliefs aside in regards to poetry. I personally love poetry and art and think it is vital to our existence as humans. It allows us to express ourselves in a way that no other medium is capable of doing. However, in Socrates' perfect city, I do not think some types of poetry should be allowed.

The only way to fully rid the emotional connection that art implies, is to fully eradicate it from the city. This is hard for me to say because I do believe that music IS good, but just like everything else, it can be perverted and made bad and cause people to dwell on negative emotions and thus lead to a regression in attitude and production among the people in the city. Therefore, and music that can lead to emotional connection should be removed.

The remaining poetry and art will be purely calculable. This type of poetry is analyzed and has no emotional connection. I believe this type of poetry is necessary to the city because as we discussed earlier in class, one must know images (thought) before one can know forms (intellection). Poetry would be classified in the image category and thus is necessary to help people to higher "forms" of thinking.

Evoking Emotion: The Ramifications of Poetry

The Republic Book X closes the work in a somewhat unexpected fashion, but the earlier half of the book is still considering a specific law within the city, as Plato has been doing for the majority of the book. This time, the law concerns the banishment of poets. Socrates argues that poetry is, regrettably, a negative influence due to its praising and amplification of the desiring part of the soul. Up until this point, one presumably agrees with Socrates in that calculating part is certainly the best part of the soul, and it is hard to deny that poetry aids the desiring part in usurping the calculating part's power. Why, then, do we find it so difficult to let go of poetry and songwriting in all forms?

We tried to defend its usefulness in class, but I feel as though we cannot entirely justify its place in our society. However, poetry, songwriting, movies, and other forms of art are cornerstones of our culture. We all immerse ourselves in these quite often, despite the fact that they are not logically good for us. Of course, some of these works do have educational merit, but those are often considered the least enjoyable by many. Do works that evoke emotion truly make us more susceptible to letting those emotions rule us? Socrates seems to think so.

Socrates also tells us to do nothing without calculation, though. Is it not possible to read poetry using the calculating part of the soul, as well? Analyzing poetry for its meaning is surely considered to be a worthy endeavor, and this can be applied to the analyzing of songwriting and movies as well. Whether or not one agrees with the content of a poem, attempting to divine the author's meaning is an exercise in and of itself. So long as we approach these mediums with an analytical attitude, there is at least some merit from these works. If we attempt to remove the emotional connection we have with the words, we remove its negative impact upon ourselves.

That's the Beauty of it

"That [which] is connected with something always the same, immortal and true" (585c) is that which is more and is above all else. Here, the simplicity and beauty of the learning-loving life comes to light. It lies within the single possession of that which cannot and will not be changed because it simply is.

While all three levels, the gaining-loving, the victory-loving, and the wisdom-loving souls have all tasted pleasures of different kinds of pleasure, the lover of wisdom alone encompasses all three. It is this soul alone that can connect itself with the “vision of what is” (582c). All three have the evidence of gain, all three have the experience of honor, but the man who takes the greater, riskier leap is the only one that can possibly taste the true pleasure of what is. The further we step away from learning, one of humans’ greatest functions, the further we step down the political ladder. We take a step back from what is and from truth and into the not only shadows but into loneliness and fear. Slowly we depreciate and decimate our being until we are the tyrant, feeling the false sense of pleasure, being only master or slave, fearing for every moment, “killing each other because [we] are insatiable; for [we would not be] filling the part of [ourselves] that is, or can contain anything, with things that are” ( 586b), and living with the phantoms of pleasure.


In all respects, the life of the wisdom lovers rises above honor and gain and asserts itself, much like calculation, to be the greatest of the three; however, the distinct problem arises from its singularity and brilliance: so rigorous and challenging the path to this particular soul that few dare or simply can find themselves with the curious, strengthened souls required of this regime. In addition, the lover of learning isn’t used in the same context as we might possibly consider it today. It isn’t someone learning the facts or memorizing for the moment; instead, it’s the understanding of what is and will always be; the unchanging forms that don’t fade in and out of existence. This is the true beauty of learning: the grasp of the lasting through the world of the ephemeral.

Ah, Clarity

For the extent of the book we have read up until book eight, I have struggled to see the point in a lot of this. I didn't understand how the just city was going to help us find justice in the soul and how having debates about one topic for an entire class period or for an entire chapter was going to help us reach our final destination, if that is even our final destination. The reason why I question if it is in fact our final destination is because I am starting to get small things out of this book that are benefiting me without reaching that destination. I would be content as of right now if we stopped reading this book because of what I have learned, but I look hopefully forward to the rest of the book expecting to learn even more.

Clarity came to me as I read book eight. Book eight deals with all the different forms of government. This, in all honesty, would be the last place I would expect to see anything relate to myself because I despise politics, but as I read about these different forms of government and how they would affect the city, I began to see how they would apply to my soul.

For me, one of my greatest personal struggles is balancing out my desires with my morals, or applying my conscience and sense of self-control to my life. When I thought about how tyranny, a timocracy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy, a democracy, and other forms of government, I realized that there were pros and cons to these different forms of government--especially when applied to my soul. Out of aristocracy I can pull goodness and justice, but realize my depravity. Out of timocracy I can pull honor, but lack the obsession for it. Out of oligarchy I can pull parsimony, but not let it become my idol or become vengeful. Out of democracy I can pull all of the voices of my heart into one right choice for a decision, but look out for selfishness and conceit.

It takes a blend of these forms of government to guide the soul in the right direction. This list goes on and on. This is one book in The Republic that has had a lot of application for me. I hope it continues to be like this for the rest of The Republic.

The City's Rotation of Politics

I agree with Socrates in that a city will go through phases of politics depending on who's leading. I've definitely seen it in our country. Although we are called a "democracy" through it all, we all know that's not quite the accurate definition of the politics that we are under. Also, as Socrates shows in the book, it's very evident when our political system's priorities change and throughout history I believe we've had a mix of all of these political stages. I have a feeling our founding fathers intended our country to be ruled more as a timocratic-oligarchy if using Socrates' definitions of each. I believe it was intended that our country be run with honor-driven men with appetites towards necessary desires that are in the best interest of our country. However, there are times throughout history that flashes of Socrates' democracy and tyranny have proven to surface. Examples of tyranny with Nixon and Clinton and democracy being amongst different special interest groups such as the focus on global warming and the search for aliens.

I also believe that our country is under a sort of phase that Socrates describes as democratic. I took Socrates' definition of democracy as the necessary desires he mentions in oligarchy, but an over-indulgence of those necessary desires. As Socrates mentions starting with 560 c in regards to children of the oligarchic leaders (being democratic leaders themselves), "they proceed to return insolence, anarchy, wastefulness, and shamelessness from exile, in a blaze of light, crowned and accompanied by a numberous chorus, extolling and flattering them by calling insolence good education; anarchy, freedom; wastefulness, magnificence; and shamelessness, courage. Isn't it in some such way, that a man, when he is young, changes from his rearing in necessary desires to the liberation and unleashing of unnecessary and useless pleasures?" That definition, I think, exactly portrays the mindset of the majority of people in our country and our political system. The desire for money is necessary, but the never-satisfied, greedy desire for more and more money, with the mindset that enough is never enough, is highly unnecessary but highly popular in our country. Also, being hungry and to have food is necessary, but the desire for super-sized meals and gluttonous portions is unnecessary. We see huge plates of food as magnificent, but in all actuality it is wasteful. Also, the highly popular desire for disgustingly expensive clothing, cars, and houses is seen as so magnificent when it really is just a huge waste of money. Especially when there are many alternatives available with the same quality, if not better in some cases, than the designer logo has to offer. A country that is known for its freedom for all, where did the line first get crossed where freedom overlooks the values and beliefs our country was founded on and on which many of us draw our morals from? Today's high schools, ideas of marriage, ideas of family, etc. have all truly turned into separate anarchies. When did the ideal that the in-your-face attitude of so many business executives, stars, athletes, and politicians have turn into courage when really it's a lack of respect and shame?

Socrates sees a democracy as beautiful. "It is probably the fairest of the regimes just like a many-colored cloak decorated in all hues, this regime, decorated with all dispositions, would also look fairest, and many perhaps like boys and women looking at many-colored things, would judge this to be the fairest regime" (557c). Unique, bright, and colorful it is, but I'm not so sure I see the way our politics have turned as beautiful or fairer than the other regimes.

Ms. McKenzie

The Case for Democracy - Book 8

I disagree with Socrates in his claim that a democracy is worse than an oligarchy in Book 8. I think an oligarchy is at least as bad as a democracy if not worse. The greedy pursuit of wealth is possibly the worst corruption a city can experience because wealth, material possessions and the pursuit of instant gratification are delicate, temporary and fleeting. The sort of city would only be possible somewhere that already had an abundance of wealth in the first place, because the unabashed pursuit of decadence comes at a heavy economic price.
I also believe the distribution of rule among only those with money is worse than the random distribution of rule in the hypothetical democracy. With the random distribution of rule, at least there will be some good rulers in the mix. I believe the people with wealth and property in Socrates’ oligarchy are less to fit to rule as a whole than the poor people because they’re goal of absolute wealth is so narrow-minded and self-absorbed. At least the democracy has a sense of unity not governed by a dollar sign.
The democracy has the greatest potential of all the “unjust” cities but also has the worst potential for failure in that is the only city that can turn into a tyranny. It has the greatest potential in that it possesses absolute freedom and allows virtuous men to rise up of their own accord without the factor of wealth or lineage. It is the only city that could produce the philosopher king. However, freedom is a double-edged sword that allows the corrupt to rise into power, hence the probability of transformation into a tyranny. I believe the ideal democracy would realize that some freedoms must be sacrificed for the sake of societal unity, which I have concluded is the type of democracy we live in today.

-Justin C

The Consequences of Context

In class on Thursday, we went on a brief tangent considering this question: if the potential philosopher kings dwelled upon the truth for long enough, would they reach the conclusion that the only thing that they can know for certain exists is their own consciousness? We decided that this would not be the case for a few reasons. In my opinion, the most interesting reason is that these people would be assuming, due to the context of their upbringing, that there is such a thing as truth in their lives, and the pursuit of it would be their primary goal.

Let's examine this further. Socrates is, in a way, constructing an elaborate structure for the creation of the ideal people. He builds this city on the premise that people are born with innate skills which, through the structure of the city, will be cultivated and improved. This is a huge concept in the city, and its a concept that modern ideas tend to clash with. Another assumption that is made is that, assuming the city is constructed perfectly, the people within the city will also fulfill their roles perfectly. The idea of a perfect human is quite alien to us, but Socrates proposes that, in theory, it is possible. In fact, the city depends on this. This idealism is very much a consequence of the context of the times: since Christianity's widespread popularity began, this idea has faded. This crucial difference, along with many others, explains quite a bit about many of the troubles we stumble upon when trying to understand The Republic. Context is always an important consideration when reading works of any time period; however, it is important that the work can stand alone and present relevant ideas as well.

Looking up or looking down?

While reading Book 7, I was caught up by sections 529a-b when Socrates was rebuking Glaucon about his praise of astronomy when he says in 529a, "In my opinion it's plain to everyone that astronomy compels the soul to see what's above and leads it there away from the things here." Socrates disagrees and says the opposite: "As it[astronomy] is taken up now by those who lead men up to philosophy, it has quite an effect in causing the soul to look downward." What does Socrates mean by this?

After discussing it in class as well as going back and rereading the passage I have decided what I believe Socrates meant by saying that the soul looks down while the eyes look up. In 529b Socrates says, "Even if a man were to learn something by tilting his head back and looking at decoration on a ceiling, you would probably believe he contemplates with his intellect and not his eyes." I think this is important because it shows that he thinks people who are looking up and studying the stars, are only doing so with their eyes and not using their soul to contemplate things the way they should. Socrates also says that, "I, for my part, am unable to hold that any study makes a soul look upward other than the one that concerns what is and is invisible." In this he is stating that astronomy cannot make the soul look up because it is not the study of what "is."

In 529d Socrates says, concerning the usefulness of studying astronomy, "They[the movements of the stars and planets], of course, must be grasped by argument and thought, not sight." This made me question whether or not Socrates thought that sight, along with the other senses, were worth anything at all because he always seems to be bashing them down like talking about the man looking at a ceiling. Then I remembered the diagram drawn in class about the different levels of thinking. It must first begin with senses such as sight, but it cannot stop there and then progresses into intellect and the soul.

In conclusion, I think that Socrates wasn't saying that astronomy technically makes the soul look down, but that astronomy does not lead to involving the soul. It is a useful study for the philosophers and leaders, but not what they should put all of their effort and time into because it will not answer what is.

-Rachel Tidwell

The Cave

The cave only has one entrance and the men are chained facing towards the back wall. There is a fire behind them and objects in front of the fire. The fire is causing a reflection on the back wall. The chained men have no sense of what this is. They can only perceive this as real because this is all they know. They do not know what a shadow is or even what light comes from. All they know is what they can see in front of them. These are ordinary people, but they have not seen the intellectual/spiritual world.

The cave is a great example of how we perceive things. When a child is little, they only know what they are taught and what they can see. They do not realize that there are other things in the world or how they work. A child has a brain that can be sculpted in any way just like the men that are chained. If a child is sheltered they will not see what the world has to offer. However, when a child goes out of the "cave" they can experience the world for themselves and can learn from their surroundings. When the child leaves the "cave" they will receive a genuine education instead of a sheltered education.

Necessity of the Cave

After reading Socrates' description of the cave and its purpose, I am beginning to see how necessary it really is to produce the type of philosopher that they want to properly rule the city. Up until this point we haven't specifically been told how the philosophers are developed, but as brutal as the cave might seem, I feel it most definitely serves its purpose. To our modern minds, keeping people trapped in a cave their whole life seems incredibly cruel and inhumane, but Socrates says, "we won't be doing injustice to the philosophers who come up to be among us, but rather that we will say just things to them while compelling them besides to care for and guard the others." (520a) This reinforces his idea of the good of the people versus the good of the one. Essentially those philosophers are suffering so that they can rule better in the long run, in "a state of waking." (520b)

Socrates continues his use of the divided line that was started in Book VI and uses the cave to describe the four stages of human development. The cave proves its necessity in order to see the clear progression of the philosophers from sensible thinking to a high degree of intellectual thinking and an understanding of the Forms of the Good. Socrates uses an example of looking at a finger. To our sight, a finger is a finger and when we look at one, our eyes just see "finger." Intellect comes in and distinguishes between a big finger, a small one, the skin tone, the shape, etc. "In order to clear this up the intellect was compelled to see the big and little too, not mixed together but distinguished, doing the opposite of what the sight did." (524c) To be able to do this, it is essential that the philosophers have intellection, and if I am understanding correctly, that is only obtained through the process of the cave.

The Sun

One of my favorite quotes is one by C.S. Lewis that says, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

I thought it was interesting that in class we gave God the metaphor of the sun. He truly is the light by which we see everything else. I think it is pretty evident that by the end of Plato's Republic we will not have a satisfactory answer to what justice is. Due to people's different beliefs and disagreements with what Socrates is doing, the entire group will never be satisfied. I believe that everyone was create with this desire to learn and to know. Most college students are in school because they want to know everything about a certain profession. Similarly, in this philosophy course, we all want to know whatever it is that the class teaches. For now we are speaking about justice, and naturally we all want to know exactly what justice is. However, as I said earlier, I do not believe we will ever reach a satisfactory answer.

For me, I know that my brain is limited. I am aware that there are things that I will never know no matter how long I contemplate or how hard I think. However, just like Mr. Davis said, there is a sort of satisfaction in knowing that we will never know. I am fully aware that I am limited and that God is unlimited and that I truly have to rely on Him for understanding and wisdom. He is the light by which I see everything else, including justice, virtue, and knowledge.

"The Greatest Evil"

I feel like we skimmed over a very important contradiction back in chapter five. This contradiction of plato is related to the "Guardians."

On page 130, line 451 e Plato via Socrates says, in respect to the guardians, they shall have "Everything in common." On page 141, line 462 b Plato (or socrates) says "Have we any greater evil for a city than what splits it and makes it many instead of one?" "No, we don't" was the response to the question. With these words it seems clear that creating factions among the guardians would be at the very least "evil." The contradiction arrives when Plato and his characters decide how the guardians should reproduce with each other. They do exactly what they have agreed is crucial not to do; split them into groups. "There is a need for the best men to have intercourse as often as possible with the best women, and the reverse for the most ordinary men..." Plato is creating factions among the guardians...? How is this possible. As we mentioned in class, Plato's excuse for all of this is his "Noble lie." "Our rulers will have to use a throng of lies and deceptions for the benefit of the ruled." Certainly the "Greatest evil" for a city would outweigh a noble lie which benefits a certain faction which makes up the smallest percentage of the city. None of this makes any sense. Am I missing something here?

The Pilot

Throughout The Republic Socrates has provided us with a string of analogies and stories in an attempt to illustrate his ideas. Towards the beginning of book VI he compares the philosopher to the true pilot of the ship. Not the sailor who quarrels with the others and has never actually learned the art of navigation... but the one who pays attention to the "year and season and sky and stars and winds and whatever else belongs to his art." I found this parable to be clever and extremely effective in promoting the philosopher king. As I continued reading I could not help but have that all-knowing pilot in the back of my head. This was probably the strongest connection I have made between Socrates' ideas and his amusing analogies.

I finally feel like I understand why Socrates chose to build his city the particular way he did. I still have a hard time understanding his different limitation. I feel like it is necessary for a totalitarian society in order for it to be just. For the longest time, I felt like you should understand each side of the situation before you make a decision on what is just or not. Nevertheless, after think back on my past, I have noticed many simlilarities between in how I've dealt with different situations and how Socrates advices the people how their children should be raised in a just society. I have been taught morals all throughout my childhood, especially "Do the right/just thing". My wonderful parents controlled every aspect of my childhood so that they could ensure I was taught the difference between what was right or wrong. I believe that the way my parents raised me has influenced my entire life which has different experiences which have taught them about justice because not all parents/guardians teach their children about justice. It isn't a common topic discussed on a regular basis. It would be a lot easier if there were just one clear definition of justice which would allow individuals to know what they should or should not do. However, I love being able to make my own decisions and decide on what I like to do. Socrates has made his point in different way throughout the different books, and I am finally beginning to understand where he is coming from. It will still take a lot more time to fully understand, but I will figure it out.

Plato's Republic, Book VI

In class, the question was raised as to what Plato’s Republic has to do with “religion.” I wanted to address this question before I addressed anything else. The thing is: Plato’s Republic has everything to do with “religion;” As does everything else we’ve ever read. Our “religion,” so to speak, serves as a filter to everything we comprehend. Even if you don’t believe in God, you then comprehend everything through a filter that denies His existence. If you do believe if God, everything you read is comprehend through a filter that acknowledges His existence. Thus, all of the ideals in Plato’s Republic must answer to each individual’s view of God, or lack thereof. If you don’t believe that justice is established by means of the supernatural, then you therefore believe that justice is determined by something imperfect (man). The theory of justice not being attributed to the supernatural leads to an immediate end in our quest because perfect justice cannot flow from imperfect beings. We must assume that justice is something outside of ourselves.

In Chapter VI, Plato discusses the need for a philosopher king and the ways to which the perfectly just city will acquire its philosopher king. Though I have not put enough thought into it, I disagree with Plato’s idea of having a philosopher king. The king, who is or once was a guardian, has most likely been exposed to things that alter his perception of good and evil i.e. war. It takes someone who has been set apart from the city, detached to a certain extent, to accurately guide the city towards justice and truth. Otherwise, there’s politics (inevitable in office), biasness, etc. that would conflict with pure philosophy.

The Philosopher King

While Socrates makes a decent argument for the idea of the ruling philosopher king, a man with the utmost character, desire for knowledge, and a "soul with memory" (486d), Ademantis' counterpoint, that "those who linger in [the study of philosophy] for a long time...become quite queer, not to say completely vicious...[and] they become useless to the cities" (487d), begins to dissolve the argument of Socrates.

For this reason, in the ideal situation the philosopher would make the greatest, most capable ruler due to his love of learning and truth. It's true that we all at some point have wanted this type of ruler: one that has the higher knowledge, wisdom, and makes sure that we, his people, benefit and flourish in to the greatest degree; however, it seems partially impractical to have this level of knowledge tied to only a minuscule group.

The philosopher, those who explore the nature of the soul, the realms of knowledge as few dare to, and strive to tackle the perennial questions, should be, much like the ship's "true navigator" in Socrates' imagery (488d), not seen as the true ruler. I only say this because it seems that to be a true philosopher one must center themselves around these questions that are left to be discerned and debated over. To do this, however, doesn't leave the time or the capacity to look after an entire city, especially one like the city in speech that requires that the philosopher glean the knowledge to separate each person into their task.

The role of the philosopher, unless, as aforementioned, the ideal world/situation arises, lies within their search for knowledge not on the throne. Throughout history and the world, those on the intellectual level of philosophers have often served as advisers to rulers and have had the precious time to develop their incredible philosophies. Those like Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates don't rule, they search and never stop asking questions.

Guardian or King Philosopher?

Line 484c states, "those who look as if they're capable of guarding the laws and practices of cities should be established as guardians." At the end of class today we discussed how guardians and king philosophers are now one and the same. Before we were just speaking of guardians, but now we have gone in-depth into who they should be. I don't agree that kind philosophers should be the same as guardians, and I believe Socrates has contradicted himself as placing them as such. Earlier (I can't find the passage) he talked about how when you are given a duty you will focus on that duty and that alone so as to finish out that task to the best of your abilites. So, if king philosophers are to do just that and study, find knowledge, set the laws, interpret the laws, and teach; then isn't it true that they should not also fight for the safety of their city. They should not be the ones in battle because that will take their focus away from finding what is good and true. A conflict of interest will arise when one is out fighting the enemy from discovering what is good and true within their own mind. Also, what will the people do if all of their king philosophers and leaders are killed off because they're out fighting to keep the city safe. No one will be left that knows truth and solely searches for what is good. It seems to me that in doing both, they are creating a mess.

Blind Faith

The point, or counter-point, I was ultimately trying to make in class that I never got around to saying was that I believe many people use their belief in God as an excuse not to think for themselves. As a Christian myself, I believe God created us with analytical minds and free will for a reason. I believe that if you have never questioned your faith in God and you call yourself a Christian ( or a Muslim, Buddhist, whatever) then you aren’t really a Christian. No one is born a Christian. You have to be “born again.” You must make a conscious decision utilizing your own free will to decide to put faith in God. If you’ve just blindly accepted what your parents have taught you since you were young then you’re faith is simply not real. Basically what you’re communicating to me then is that if you had been born and raised a Muslim rather than a Christian you would be a Muslim right now because you lack the propensity to question your own beliefs and just blindly accept whatever you have been taught. This is why God constantly puts our faith to the test, to strengthen it and determine if it is genuine.
The statement “ I don’t know what justice is so I’m just going to trust that God knows what it is and stop thinking about it” is a very dangerous road to follow. This would only work if there was one universally accepted religion and view of God, but there is not. Justice is defined differently within different religions. In some sects of Islam, there is jihad. In some sects of Christianity, there is persecution of homosexuals. All of the people in these extremist sects trust that what they are doing is right and just and that God condones their actions. This is why blind faith is potentially so dangerous. Just because you were lucky enough to be born into a non-extremist sect of your faith doesn’t mean you should not question your faith. Between a faith in God that has been truly questioned by the individual and put to the test and has stood firm or a faith that has remained delicate and untouched since youth, I’ll take the former, because it will withstand further tests in the future.
It is debatable whether or not God will reveal these concepts such as justice to us once we get to heaven. Do you really believe that because our finite minds cannot comprehend something here on earth that somehow our minds will become like the mind of God once we get to heaven and we will have His powers of understanding? How could God bestow knowledge on us that only He can comprehend? Our minds will never be like the mind of God. This is why we have to trust. Blind trust, however, leads us down a very dangerous road, which is why philosophy and religion must go hand in hand, because religion provides the morality and philosophy provides the analysis. This way, you don’t have infanticide for the greater good of society and you don’t have jihad for the sake of your religion.

On the Lifestyle of the Guardians

In Plato’s Republic, the ruler has no private wealth, he can’t take a trip, and he can’t have a mistress, or do other things that make people happy. “They work simply for their keep and get no extra wages as others do.” Socrates responds to this complaint by stating that the goal is to have a city full of happy people, not just one particular group.

This concept seems really interesting to me because in modern society, those with the most power also have the most privileges. In a capitalist society, those who work the hardest and have the best education are normally the ones who prosper financially. That is a good thing, though. It motivates people to work hard and move up in society, and most people who do that, have many opportunities to succeed. In America, even an innovative idea or the right lottery numbers can make people lot of money.

Another interesting point is that money and position really aren’t what give people happiness, as Socrates leads us to believe. Some of the richest people are the unhappiest and some of the poorest are the happiest. I think it’s really gratitude that makes people happy, and that has nothing to do with how much you have, but has to do with how thankful you are for it. When you are unthankful and always jealous of what others have, you can have a lot and still be miserable.

Socrates was right that when the leaders have more than the others, some of those they are leading get bitter. This seems to be the case especially if leaders take advantage of their position by using taxpayer dollars for their own vacations and mistresses. The people rebel. A case in point is Senator John Edwards. His personal life is all over the news right now. He has used his position to get his mistress a job, a home, and monthly child support payment, all in order to make himself happy at the expense of the taxpayers and those who voted for him. Another example is that President Obama used Air Force One, at enormous cost to the tax-payers, from Washington DC to New York City to take his wife to a Broadway play and dinner. Both of these leaders have gotten very bad press lately and both are scoring lower and lower in public opinion polls.

I wouldn’t want to live in a society where all people have the same amount of money and luxury. There would be no need for serving each other, or to get up every day and work toward a college degree, or work hard on my new internship, or to practice my musical skills. I’m not doing it all for money and position, but if I happen to get either of those things, I will not abuse the privilege.

Do we finally have a working definition of justice?

Over the last few weeks we have discussed the word justice and its meaning many times and I must admit that never before have I given so much thought to one word. There is a "given" definition that I, and I'm sure many others, have grown up with and have learned to understand and accept. However now, that entire understanding has been thrown for a loop and we are faced with defining it in real terms without using examples as we are used to doing. This has proven very difficult.

Now, in Book IV of Plato's Republic, we are for the first time given a wee bit of a definition of the word we have spent so much time on. "... justice is the minding of one's own business and not being a busybody..." (433a) In class we discussed that minding one's own business is a bit misleading here. Generally we think of that as only interfering in what concerns you or the avoidance of meddling when your input serves no contributing purpose. But what does that really entail? Are we supposed to ignore everything that isn't directly related to us (as in the letting-someone-choke example in class)? I don't think that's what Socrates is trying to say. Perhaps he means that when you do not do the task you are meant to perform and instead try to do someone else's, you are performing an injustice because you are not only leaving your tasks undone, but you are probably half-assing someone else's because you were not trained to do them. You are essentially screwing with the natural order of things and consequently causing injustice. If this is the case, I can more easily understand his train of thought.

Right after the aforementioned quote, Socrates goes on to say that what is left over after moderation, courage, and prudence are in the city, is justice. (paraphrased from 433b/c) Therefore, can it be assumed that justice is a by-product of those and those must exist for justice to exist? It becomes the chicken-or-the-egg argument to me. Personally, I think you do have to have those in order for justice to be possible. Without them, then injustice is inevitable.

-Ms. MacDonald