Pericles Funeral Oration

Some Values Of The Athenians:

Courage and Loyalty for the State
Friendlieness (when it works to one's advantage)
Democracy
Open Society
Freedom and Tolerance
Respect for Ancestors

I think the ideas of an "open society" that supports "freedom and tolerance" are great basis for a society such as Athens. Wheither Athens really stays true to these values are questioned by events such as the trial of socrates. I think it makes a strong arguement in defence of socrates that convicting him as they did goes directly against these fundamental values. A government built on freedom and tolerance does not arrest a man for expressing and sharing his opinions.

Don Imus Controversy

1. According to the NAACP, why should Imus be silenced?
He should be suprressed because it is a beggining step in what NAACP is trying to accomplish, which is the abbolishion of all things offensive.

2. According to Frank Rich, why should Imus not be silenced?
Because he has his rights to free speach just like anyone else. And it's not like this is the only racial comment anyone has ever made, why focus on this one?

3. Do you think Imus should be silenced? Why?
I think that I am mostly leaning towards the side of Frank Rich, but not completely. I believe that just because something is controversial, that doesn't mean we should hide from it, in fact I think there is good to come out of putting controversy out in the open and discussing it. But, derrogatory racial comments are a slightly different story. I think people can say what they want, racial or not, but that doesn't make it right. It's up to the Broadcasting station to decide whether they want to air it or not. Regardless if they had supported Imus, or acted as they did and fired him, there still exists millions of racial jokes and comments in the media and our everyday lives.
I like the arguement, and I cannot remember exactly what the term that Mr. Jana used, but it was something along the lines that things like this, the firing of a host for a racial joke, leads to more and more people holding their toungue in racial instances(which is for the better, most of the time) but eventually getting to a point where peope become confused and are afraid to voice an opinion or crack a joke about something just because it is controversial.
Had CNN chosen to not fire Imus and leave it, just as they had all his other derrogatory comments in the past, then I'm sure there would have been much protest and outratge. But it really makes you stop and think, why this comment? I have never seen the show but it has been made clear to me that Imus is not one to bite his toungue, ever. Also, what people neglect to consider is that it truly is up to CNN. Unless there is some law prohibiting it, they can air whatever they wish, no matter how much people disagree(although this would be unwise, considering ratings). Nevertheless, the viewers are not the ones funding or producing it, it's their job to watch. As a broadcasting station, it is CNN's job to provide the viewers with, among other things, entertainment, offensive and innapropriate as it may be. While I personally think that this comment was not something to be publically aired and the Broadcasting station was correct in their descion in not supporting the comment or the man who's lips it was uttered from, it's exactly that, their descision.
NAACP araises the matter that comments like this and related media can negatively influence youth. While this particular comment whas unprovoked and completely unneccisary, I cannot help but to think back to my arguement that I raised against the last section in Plato, in which he wished to censor or eliminate plays and poetry for the exact same reasons. One way to see it is slightly insulting, that these assumptions are made that we cannot comprehend anything of even to the slighest depth, and so it must be vigorously censored or done away with copletely. I'd like to believe that the majoraty of society can diffrentiate reality from misrepresented fictional stories, or crude jokes, but sadly this is nowhere near the truth.

Comments

Helful comments:

I really enjoyed reading a comment Kit left on my "rage" post about me being ridiculed for my eating habits. She sympasized with me and gave positive feedback about my writing. I also liked that she was very descriptive and quoted me directly so i knew exactly which part she was talking about.

I also really liked the comment from Bionca on my F451 pages 126-137 entry. It's good to know that people from the other class are actually reading my blog. I always find it encouraging when people agree with what I say, as Bionca did and she also made a good point that I had not considered when I was writing the entry.

This was a really old comment, but i recently discovered it on my music=happiness post. It was from Austin Cook and it was good to read because he was able relate to what I said. He gave and exact phrase and a good description of why he was able to connect to it.

I liked the comment that Laura left me on my Fire=Anger entry. I don't think this was an actual assignment, I just felt like posting it and I was surprised that people actually read it. Laura didn't offer any criticism or real feedback other than agreeing, but she sort of added on to it and I really like what she said about people being exited by the prospect of destruction.

Republic- April 17

1Q) What is your reaction to the ending of the section? What is good and/or bad about the type of society outlined by Socrates?

I don't fully understand his theory that,
"someone who has the skill to transform himself into all sorts of characters and represent all sorts of things, and he wants to show off himself and his poems to uss... we shall tell him that he has no place in our city."
So basically he's flattening individualism and any form of creativity?
I disagree with this limiting of the arts. I think that expresssion of creativity is an essential part of a society. And I don't mean Socrates's useless little censored-to-perfection stories and poetry. People need to see expression of emotion. They need to be exposed to this and I believe that the absence of it will only lead to the kind of rebellion that censoring it is trying to supress in the first place.

Socratic Seminar Prep (More Socrates and Justice)

The question I am going to talk about is, of course, not one of Mr. Jana's, but one that I sort of asked myself earlier today as I was reading my response to a previous prompt. It is simple, but it really made me think; Who defines justice?
What gives Socrates, or Thrasymicus, or anyone else for that matter, the right to define justice. They may define justice for themselves personally, but who says that their glorified idea of justice is the correct one, or the truth. In my opinion, this is just like religion. Who says that there is, in truth, no god or one god or 300 gods? Well, in America, (and I am NOT getting into the whole free speach thing) any one who wants. We have the freedom to believe that justice is whatever we see it as, so technically the individual in question defines their own sense of justice. Isn't that what justice is about after all; the personal sense of right or wrong, or correctness, or adhering to the law, or whatever else you want to call it? Are we not the judge of our own justness? A police officer can tell you that you are breaking the law, but he cannot decide if it is a personally just or unjust descision to do so. A teacher can tell you that cheating is wrong, and those caught will be punished, but people still cheat. Does that make cheating just or unjust? Well, ask the teacher and they will say it's unjust. Ask the student and they will say that they were perfectly justified. It is all a matter of personal justification, for I beleive that only inside ourselves can we truly define justice.

Republic pg 37- Justice vs. Happiness

This is pretty similar to the original prompt, but here's what I want to answer:
Does a man need justice to be happy?

Socrates would answer that he absolutely does because justice helps a man fulfill his purpose in life, therefore making him content, or happy. I think that for the most part this is true, but it really depends on the man. Justice brings happiness, but because men define justice differently, it brings them different forms of happiness. For someone like Thrasymicus, justice is the law. It is a set of rules to follow that will please everybody. Therefore, by following the law, he believes he is being just and can be happy. But for Socrates, justice is more of a moaral sense of right and wrong and truth, being just has nothing to do with the law. So Socrates's happiness comes from spreading what he believes to be true justice to others, and living it himself. But this sort of raises another question; So justice certainly brings happiness, but is it the only way to achieve it?
Consider the average happy just man. He's got a job that he works hard at to fairly bring in income, a family for that income to support and he is, for the most part, content. But there are also those who live in contentment while leading a life that is very unjust on any terms. Take someone who is part of the Mafia for example. They go around shooting innocent people, and attaining money in all kinds of illigal ways, yet seem to be perfectly happy with themselves. It is just their form of work(or at least that's how they see it.)
So it would seem that justice is not the only way to obtain happiness, it is simply the just way to attain happiness.
Consider a homeless person. They may be perfectly kind and never steal or cheat or lie, but are they happy? Probably not, if they live an unfortunate life of poverty. But why is that, if they are being completely just (on the terms of both philosophers)? So maybe being just does not always bring happiness, just as being unjust doesn't being complete happiness either. Justice may bring the most pure or rightious form of happiness, which people like Socrates would settle for none less than, but a form of happiness can be reached in the absence of justice, and the just man can be truly unhapppy; it's all circumstantial.

Socrates's Ramblings (The Republic) pgs 15-29

1. Notice that our reading on Thrasymachus is divided into two parts. The first part is entitled – “First Statement and Criticisms”. In this first part, what are Socrates’ main argument(s) against the idea that justice is whatever the strong (i.e. the government) says it is?

Well, after they argue for about four pages about giving eachother an answer, Socrates finally reveals that there is corruption in any kind of practice, especially the government. I don't like the way he almost always disregards what Thrasymachus says and goes on to argue his point, but I do think he is correct. If everyone believed everything they were told, then all it would take is one person down the line to screw up, whether purposefully, or accidentally and everyone would become unjust. The idea of right and wrong would become completely twisted and noone would be making descisions for themselves. Thats not exactly what Socrates said, but it's along the same lines, and I think it makes more sense.

2. In the second part – “Second Statement and Final Refutation” – what are Thrasymahcus’ two main points and what are Socrates’ main points in response?
Again this is sort of my interpretation, so don't quote me on it, but this is what i got out of the reading. Thrasy basically says that the whole idea of power is just those in power taking advange of those who are under them (like the sheep herder and his sheep). Which means that a person who is above someone else is no doubt going to take advantage of the ones below them in any way they can to selfishly further themselves. But in benifiting themselves, they are at the same time benefiting those around them, which leads into his second point; this little bit of controlled selfishness not only acceptable, but neccecary for a society to continue. For if those in controll, or any person for that matter, was only looking after others, and not himself, then the people would loose the skill or practice that he contributed.
Socrates argues that government is not just about those in power exploiting those under them, and that is not anywhere near his idea of justice. He wants Thrasy to view the government as a specific job with a specific practice, just as doctors are for healing and sheepherders are for hearding sheep. And just like any other job it can be performed to its fullest extent, or purposefully or accidentally not done incorrectly, therefore (like he said before) treating what comes out of the governmental laws as just is not taking into consideration human error and will result in unjust and corrupted population.

Question: Is it ever right to harm somebody? Why or why not? What would socrates and or Thrasymachus say in response to your answer?
As always, it depends on your defenition of "right," but I think that no human being is ever justified in harming another, be it another human, or any other living organism. First there is the matter of inferiority. Injuring those smaller or weaker than you has always been considered morally unjust simply because it is not fair or even. Regardless of the eqality of the other, it is still never ever morally acceptable to resort to violence. Nothing good can ever come out of violence towards another or ones self. One might araise the question of revenge. Referring to the example Mr. Jana had in class today; If a man kills another man's brother, the man is going to want to seek revenge and kill the man who murdered his brother. While the killer was certainly not right to kill the brother, that is no justification to murder the killer, vengence just creates more violence. For after all, in killing the murderer, are we not resorting to his unjust terms, or stooping to his level in commiting a crime that is no better that the one he commited originally?
While it took many more pages that I expected, Socrates eventually reached the conclusion that his idea of justice being to "help ones friends, and harm ones enemies" was not completely correct. The harming ones enemies part was not right in itself, because violence on any level is unjust. In the respect, I think that Socrates would have agreed with me.
Based on Thrasy's political views about justice being what the powerful, or government make it, I think that he would have a differing opinion that my own about violence. I'm not sure if this is the official view of the Sophists, but it seems to me that Thrasy would agree that it is just to resort to violence in the proper situations,(such as revenge) just as it is alright to indulge selfishly in the right circumstances because in the long run it will benefit the community.