justice...better late than never

I cannot think of a time when the world is complete state of being just. Even if some iniquity is corrected in one part of the world, certainly another part of the world is suffering. Its like squishing a balloon("What is just in this sense, then, is what is proportionate..."1131B), when you press down on one end of the balloon, the air will just travel to other side. Just as it seems impossible to compress the balloon to a perfectly equidistant sphere, it also seems impossible to make things perfectly just. Its frustrating; we so anxiously desire to make things right but the more we try the more apparent our injustices become. Its like were playing a never ending game of wack-a-mole, and it just keeps getting faster over time.

When I think about it this way, why is justice worth the effort? It would be so much easier to just accept things as they are and ignore the problem. However, I don't think this line of reasoning has longevity. Sooner or later, your buttons are going to be pushed and you cannot turn a blind eye anymore. When you lose this capacity to recognize great injustice and respond, I think an essential part of your humanity is dead. People have an innate desire for things to be just even if we don't know what that looks like entirely.

Aristotle says, "Everything, then, must be measured by some standard, as we said before. This standard is in fact demand, which holds everything together". I found this to be an interesting beginning link Aristotelian justice and Christianity's. Injustice is born from wanting more than what is rightfully yours (an overzealous demand in the case of Even), this causes scarcity (banishment from Eden) which only makes injustice more prevalent.

Temperance

Okay so it is established that Aristotle believes virtue to be a mean between two extremes, and temperance is a virtue. The question begs, what two extremes does temperance lie between. On one hand you have un justified anger. Unjustified anger is anger either at an inappropriate amount, at the wrong time, for the wrong reason, invoked too quickly, or a combination of all of these. Aristotle seems to think that this is the most common extreme in respect to temperance, and I would have to agree with him because anger is so easily and quickly invoked it often fails to do so by reason. On the other hand there are people who do not even get angry for the reasons. Aristotle describes these people sort of as push overs saying they, "seem to be insensible and to feel no pain, and because he does not get angry, not the sort to stick up for himself; and its is slavish to put up with being insulted oneself or to over look insults to those close to one. " It seems like justified anger in this sense is stemmed from having an appropriate amount of respect for things. You should not be a push over and let injustices go by, but at the same time have a sense of humor and don't give things too much reverence when they are not deserved.

To be honest when I chose "Anger" as my virtue I thought I was choosing passion or spirit. I am actually somewhat disappointed (but not unreasonably disappointed of course). The word θυμός means anger, passion, spirit, heart, and in the case of Parmenides "longing". Aristotle does talk about θυμός, but unfortunately  it is in respect to courage. What I find interesting about passion is that it carries us to do things that perhaps under normal circumstances we might not be able to do. Passionate people generally able to overcome obstacles, to make sacrifices easier than reason would allow us to permit. The challenge of passion is to not let it make sacrifices that are too large.

Zip it up and zip it out

Aristotle, virtue, and happiness

My dad is a horticulturalist who specializes in palm trees, so all my life I've grown up surrounded by palm trees. Palm trees are weird in the sense that they have different requirements than other trees to grow and maintain health. Its not really surprising my dad's relationship with trees has made him an Aristotelian. Even though he has never read any of Aristotle's works, he often identifies with the mean of virtue Aristotle is famous for. Many times my dad will just say something like, "life is just a balance, from finances to nutrition, its just a balance." I cannot tell you how annoyingly often he says stuff like this, but he is right.  Just as trees have different needs with the amount of water, sunlight, temperature, and  sustenance in accordance to their size and species so that they may become healthy and strong, humans also have different needs for becoming virtuous in accordance to their moral identity and their intellect. Because of different people's innate nature, or their experiences, we approach the balance of virtue from different sides and distances on the teeter todder. In order to become virtuous different people need to practice it in different manners.

Aristotle's idea of happiness has been my favorite part of the reading thus far. He says happiness is the chief end of all things. It is the chief good, and we always choose it for itself, and never for the sake of other things. I've been trying to think of an action that has been done, without the ultimate goal of happiness in mind, and I couldn't. Everything that has ever been done has been done in an attempt to become happy or at least happier. I am not even sure if complete happiness even for a short amount of time has even been attained, at least in this life. Its rather odd that Aristotle calls happiness complete and self sufficient. On one hand complete happiness is the goal of everything, but on the other hand it seems like nobody is completely happy. Why are we set on trying to attain something that appears impossible to obtain? And with that...

Zip it up and zip it out

Alcibiades

Alcibiades entrance was by far my favorite part of the symposium so far, despite the beauty of diatomas speech. Frankly Aclibiades is just an entertaining character. Its easy to relate to him because we have all either had "one of those nights" that Aclibiades is experiencing or, for non drinkers, we have seen someone who has been that intoxicated. But in all seriousness, I think that his speech, though it is not on the topic of love, he gives insight into the character of Socrates. He tells stories about how Socrates values moral beauty over physical. He also goes on to to recall a story of how Socrates stood thinking in one place for over 24 hours.

I think the most striking thing about Aclibiades is the fact that to an outsider he has everything, beauty, wealth, political and civil success. However, for Aclibiades, he counts that all as nothing because he does not have the wisdom that Socrates has.

Many more blogs on the way.

For your viewing pleasure,


Drunk History: Douglass & Lincoln (Starring Will Ferrell & Don Cheadle)

via McTube for iPhone/iPad.


Zip it up and zip it out yall
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLAoxCSb1tc

Protagoras

The central question of protagoras is: Can virtue be taught?

In one corner there is Protagoras, a sophist, Who believes that proper education is a prerequisite for producing good citizens. This belief assumes that if someone were to teach what is right, then inevitably the student will do what they are taught. However, people don't necessarily do what they are taught; people do what they believe.

For Socrates virtue is the same as knowledge. Learning how to be virtuous means learning a specific type of knowledge or science. For example, learning to be courageous is learning what to fear. Evil is knowing the ignorance of knowing how to act virtuously in a particular form.

Traditionally I have more or less agreed with protagoras. I equate it to basketball. If you aren't properly educated on the rules of basketball, it is exponentially difficult to to play, even though this ignorant player might score a basket without realizing they have done what they have supposed to do. However socrates is kind of challenging my belief that wisdom and virtue are divisible. I need a little more time to think.


Zip it up and zip it out y'all.

Empedocles: A weirdo with a few thought provoking ideas

On one hand Empodocles was a cooky character. He thought immortal healer who likes to wear fancy Greek swag. On the other hand, he was a pretty good scientist and physician, able to correctly observe nature.

He thought that the cosmos was created from the four elements (Earth, Air, Fire, Water), and the forces of Love and Strife. I interoperate the force of Love merely as being a binding force, and Strife as being a force that separates. All things are created of a mixture of elements, with varying degrees of love and strife to give things shape.

Side note: I really liked Empedocles concept of the sphere. It is the epitome of love because there is no foreign strife within it; all of its faces are equidistant.

Its easy to see how Empedocletic thought parallel chemical concepts such as bonds and disincorporation.

I find Empedocles view of ethics interesting because it is different from my own. He tends to think as evil being foreign to man. That is why I presume he writes rules such as "Fast from evil" (in the dietary sense) "Keep completely away from laurel leaves!" and "keep your hands off beans!". He thinks that these are things that are evil and could corrupt man. However, I believe that evil is rooted within humanity. Nature, without Man, is in harmony unable to create evil.  Humans have corrupted desires for our advantage that distort things things from the way they ought to be.

How can Man redeem himself? By living how humans are intended to live, righteously.


(A departure from the way things ought to be is my definition for evil)

Zip it up and zip it out y'all

Brain power

Challenge of the week: imagine an animal unlike any other. You cannot use any other animal resources to create this new one.

Can't do it.

Human beings are not very good at creating things. We cannot even come up with a completely original idea of a new animal. How is this even possible?  Are we not the most intelligent of all of the animals?

Our lack of creativity is a result of being a created creature (alliteration intended). We didn't design what animals look like someone or something else did. How then can we create something new, when we lack the capacity to do so?

Paramenides applied this reasoning not just to animals but to truth. Humans cannot manufacture truth, our capacity only allows us to seek it, and build off of what others have found. The only way to discover truth is to use our brains and our logical reasoning to recognize it where it exists.

I think that this can equally apply to love and righteousness, but we must use different organs for that*



Zip it up and zip it out y'all


*(heart and soul) I fear my implication wasn't strong enough. But whateva.