Finals finished two weeks ago and with that came a week of vacation. Originally I was hoping to reach the other side of the English Channel, but as things worked out I ended up staying in Florence. Luckily enough for me it’s still beautiful after almost a year and a half of walking its streets, hearing its accents, and eating its food. The Italian families have been great: one usually on Thursday nights and the other on Friday nights. Food, conversation and company are more than the menu can ever handle.
During the week of vacation I lackadaisically would wake up late, make something to eat, play the guitar, and head out as soon as I could. This was usually anywhere from noon to 2pm, and if you haven’t already figured out my days went quick, but the week went slow. The past two years February has been the longest month of the year for me, last year I was still in February in August, and still in August in October. Needless to say I think time has a harder time trying to understand me than vice-versa.
I finally worked out things at the university after running around the city like a tourist. I’m taking a course in Egyptology, which to my understanding is the study of the study of Egypt. In other words: archaeology, religion, art, and history, but our contemporary understandings of those concepts, not the Egyptian ones, if they had any (we’ll never know for sure). We mostly spend our class discussions going back in time and trying to figure out why the hell we can say what we say about what we are saying. If it’s confusing for you try to read that sentence in Italian.
The class meets three days a week: Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday from 11-13 in the Lettere and Filosofia department of the University of Florence, which is about a ten minute walk from my apartment near Piazza Santissima Annunziata. The U of F has a lot of departments located all around the city all with their own separate schedules. Classes start at different times at different locations, no one knows the whole story, and no one is willing to help those who wander around praying that they are in the right part of the city. The department of Lettere and Filosofia, for instance, has 4-5 different buildings where they have their classes. It’s hilarious, as even the Italians haven’t gotten a clue as to what is going on.
A typical 6 CFU class is 30 hours, and if it meets for 6 hours a week then the class is over in 5-6 weeks. Which means 6 CSU units in 5 weeks, if I pass the exam. Presence in class is optional, and testing starts at the end of May (even if the class ends around April). There is no homework, no midterm; just a final exam that everyone takes at different times depending on when we sign up for them. The final exam is oral, in front of the professor as well as other professors of the department. There are no predetermined questions; you simply just have to talk about what you learned.
I’m excited. Plato says that this “truth” is found in dialogue, so why not talk about the stuff we learn instead of writing it down on a secular piece of paper, continuously telling ourselves that that is how we learn. Just think of time before pencils, where you could only sit and listen, using memory techniques and then being able to articulate yourself by using your mouth and not your hand. I really can’t wait to take the test and understand if I know how to learn.
This is the way Italian universities work, and I can really appreciate the institutions and their way of doing things. It seems barbaric and unorganized, but it goes without saying that Europeans (especially Italians) are some of the most highly educated people in the entire world. School is hard, and when people fail they don’t lower their standards, grade on a curve, or give points for “class participation” or “extra credit.” I feel like most of the time schools in the states are more worried about the grades then the knowledge, and so the latter tends to escape us. Last year when we were in class the teacher asked us why we never studied, and we told her that we didn’t have to, that as long as we went through the motions we would be able to get a good grade, eventually getting a piece of paper that told us we were smart. We would then use that piece of paper to get a job and do things that had nothing to do with that piece of paper. She asks, “Doesn’t anything remain after the course?”
No. The answer is no. And that’s ok, because as long as we know the material for those 12-18 weeks, more like the 60 minutes during the test, then we don’t have to remember it every again. It will never come up, most courses that is, and so we do away with it, not really ever learning anything in the first place.
We don’t have to, and that doesn’t have to be right nor wrong, just the way that it can be. It’s up to us to individually while working in a group understand and learn, and unfortunately this has nothing to do with tests and grades. Learning really can’t be qualitatively valued, unless of course all the material is controlled and censored, the object of teaching therefore not being the provocation of though but the rigorous memorization of facts, and knowledge in this case wouldn’t be judged on the capacity to think and react but rather on the ability to remember things without letting them permutate and transform into personal ideas.
After the first module is over (5-6 weeks) I can opt to sit in on the second: hieroglyphic grammar. And once April comes my Esthetics class should finally kick in to gear, and I’ve been reading up: it’s intense. I’m also taking Roman History: The Empire at Cal State since I like the teacher. The first day we talked about the farce of the Empire, how historians created it, how it didn’t exist in the eyes of the Romans, and how it’s super similar to the Star Wars Trilogy. The Republic, the Empire, the Emperor, etc.
I started my internship this week: Thursday and Friday morning at the Regione Toscana – Giunta Regionale in via di Novoli, about an hour walk from my apartment in the outer north-west part of the city. It’s not a bad walk, streets looking more modern and people looking more and more Italian. As for right now I help in correcting grammar when it comes to emails and communication, since the project that they are working on now (involving a lot of useless business jargon and repetitive statements) has all documentation in English. They gave me an office and a laptop, I’m there 6-8 hours a week and it’s worth 3 units: not too shabby at all.
Me and some Italian friends went to Q-Zar on Tuesday night in a little town about a half hour drive from the center. It was fun: we ran around and shot each other for an hour, our team (green) winning 937 to 420.
I’ve been busy, a good busy, and with the days getting warmer and my beard getting longer I’m not sure what’s going to happen, which is a whole lot funner than planning out how I am going to think, feel, and react to future unknown situations.
I hope you don’t mind the light philosophy; more and more ideas have been in my head, and I also have some good ones for a few short stories that I would like to write, let alone movie upon movie idea that one day could land itself on youtube. Stay tuned.
Ciao,
Anthony
Friday, February 27, 2009
Monday, February 9, 2009
More Plato
I. Government
“What is a government, but more importantly, why is it needed?”
“Is it not the foundation of all societies? Are we not born with needs, these needs therefore being satisfied through the use of a government?”
“As far as this can be true I am sure of only the common definition, its ability to be understood, and the farces that arise from its misinterpretation. We begin first with the what, the why coming at a later time. A government is commonly just a group of people trying to survive. Time permitting we will be able to further develop concepts of people, groups, and survival, but for now we must assume that they are relevant and real.”
“What, then, would history be?”
“History in this case would be the study of governments with respect to time, groups of people that look to survive for as long as they can. We cannot forget that impermanence, although prominent, is still dependent on time as well as impermanent in itself.”
“Time, in this case, being a measure of knowledge.”
“Precisely, knowledge that we create at the instant we create time. We divide it up logically to show the consistent forms of change, looking ever so closely for the truth that Plato talked about. This truth was transformed into the idea of logic, by Aristotle, and today permutations of various dialogues (such as science and religion) still aim to touch upon the very truth of their day.”
“To understand the present would be to understand the past: this is what we mean by truth?”
“By truth we might mean reality, an ever-changing phenomenon that is concurrent with our own ideas and values. These ideas are used to construct these higher profound theories, that eventually become accepted as truth, as there lies little else to do with them. Truth, further, can be thought up as the convergence of all things, in this case one thing: the universe. However we must be careful when assuming that the universe is a distant and unknowable object. We are as much in the center of it as it is in the center of us, and therefore cannot differentiate the universe from humanity. We are one in the same, continually trying to understand ourselves by separating each other from these concepts. Only then are we able to see them from another side, releasing ourselves from the cave and adding substance to our own shadows.”
“Government, in this sense, would just be one of the many ways to find truth? Knowledge, education, the very reason of existence would be to discover the root of it all, the root from which everything grows, thus realizing that we are all connected, that the logic that breaks us up is not meant for destruction, but rather for understanding. This understanding, however, must become itself through the use of a hierarchy. In other words, the breaking down of this concept as well as its build up would be the definition of this process.”
“Yes, but we must not forget that it might still be possible to go from universe to truth without breaking down subjects and studying them separately.”
“Of course, there is no reason to limit our senses. Why then, would we exact these governments?”
“To secure not our freedom, but our safety. The common good, the bulk of this group, is the reason why governments exist. This does not come without a cost, however, as we must give up some freedoms in nature in order to ensure the safety and well-being of others.”
“What would we give, and what would it be?”
“The common term is popular sovereignty, and Cesare Beccaria tells us that it can be defined as the smallest bit of freedom that each person inherently holds. The collection of all these pieces form this popular sovereignty, this right to rule, and is used as the reason and means to govern. This taste of freedom is not given voluntarily; neither is it taken. It is more clearly understood, as a person cannot be accepted in a government unless he or she believes in its ways.”
“This government, therefore, would have to give also in itself in order to function. How would it do this?”
“There are many theories and practices in place, but the greatest of these was given to us by Aristotle in his Politics. He states that there are three main forms of government; three main forms of power used to govern; three fundamental ways to divide up popular sovereignty. This first of this occurs when one person shares with only him or herself, a Monarchy. The second is when a small group within the society shares it amongst themselves, an Aristocracy. The third and final is when the entire population has all the power, a Democracy. He argues that if there is no checks and balances system in place, this is to say: if power and this freedom-turned-government are not regulated, ultimate harm will be done, chaos being born again out of the order created by humankind. This is shown by the three degenerations of each respective form of government. A Monarchy, given all the power to rule, would eventually turn in to a Tyranny. The given society would then naturally turn to an Aristocracy, and over time as this small group held all the power they too would become corrupt; an Oligarchy. The civilization’s final choice would be to give the power back to all its citizens, thus forming a Democracy. However, as we have seen with the rest, this would theoretically turn into a Despotism: complete Anarchy.”
“Yes, if everyone was returned the freedom given up there would be no government.”
“Exactly.”
II. Respublica
“How will we solve this problem? We must put a system in place to regulate and govern government itself, to keep it from becoming corrupt. We would need checks and balances, to ensure that the safety of the common good is still the highest and most important scope.”
“We call this form of government a republic, in which all three forms are used at the same time. Fluctuating power continues to govern itself, allowing for no branch to become more powerful than another. If this were to happen, says our Aristotle, the other two forms would gather their power and use it to defuse that which was leaning towards evil. This is not to say that a Monarchy, Aristocracy, or Democracy cannot survive on their own. As we have seen in the course of history many different sects of derivatives of these types have been known to prosper for large amounts of time. However the kings of the past are no longer as prominent, and the most popular form of government as well as the most efficient would be the republic. This is notwithstanding the fact that it can be argued against.”
“This idea we have seen with the Romans, and it could be argued that both the French and American revolutions have roots in Aristotle’s teachings, as well as the practice of the Roman Republic that existed in between its two monarchies.”
“We can use history to further understand this concept of time, namely that it repeats, acting more like a circle or spiral than a solid straight line. And we see this strongest in the comparison of the past with itself, remembering that our ultimate goal is truth. This is but only one way that we go about dividing the universe and using our own concepts to distinguish the right from the wrong, another of Aristotle’s works. We should, however, continue down the road of making connections, namely those of the French, American, and Roman ideals.”
“I agree.”
III. French failure
“What shall we make of Desmoulins, Montesquieu, and Rousseau with respect to the French Revolution?”
“We can make a strong argument that their ideas were inspired by those of the Romans; that their revolution, government, and quick road towards anarchy and thus back to monarchy echo both Aristotle and Roman history. Up until that time the French had been governed by a King. The population, with the development of time, history, knowledge and its by-product: thinking, decided that an internal revolution was needed in order to overthrow the old government and form a new one. This new government was to look after the common good and be a republic, with well-outlined powers and balances of that power. A written constitution would be needed to outline these ideas and ensure that no one could manipulate them without the consent of all parties included.”
“What made this government fall in only ten short years?”
“After the victorious revolution of 1789 many constitutions were tried. Consciously more were written, as they were not able to perfectly outline the means by which the French society was going to govern itself as well as how it was going to be successful in doing it. However, there was a more important and fundamental mistake that befell the French population.”
“Would it include the inability of its citizens to accept and respect the aims of the common good?”
“Exactly. The French Revolution was able to change the role of its government from a King to a republic. We have already discussed what a republic is and how it functions and why it functions or should function. But the most important event is the acceptance of the population of itself, that the society is going to provide for the security and well being of its citizens, and this can only be done by conviction. However it was not realized fully, and due to this fact the French, tired of fighting with themselves, did what the Romans did: they bowed to an Emperor in hopes of regaining their security and livelihood. Are you starting to see how history, the study of time, has a way of using itself for understanding?”
“Indeed, the truth is clear.”
IV. American success
“What, therefore, did the American republic do in order to establish a consistent and polished government?”
“In short words: they found a way to eliminate the general population from holding any real power. They called this concept ‘representation’ and their reasons were this: the public does not know what is best for the common good (themselves) and so they need to elect officials that will be able to decide what is best for them. This is similar to how we differentiate ourselves from fundamental unknown (as well as known) concepts so that we can see the whole picture and be able to make an outline. Once this grouping and ranking of knowledge is set then and only then are we able to enter it. ‘Much like how the hiker cannot see the mountain unless he is far away from it, standing in the middle of the field. Only then can he appreciate its beauty and learn how to conquer it.’ This manipulation of our surroundings can best be described as the necessity of language.”
“This again would outline the principle that if the power is in the hands of one form of government created by that same population, that it would lead back into the chaos from which it was born.”
“Yes, destroying itself with itself.
VI. Entomology
“We can see now how definition and entomology has aided in the understanding of past traditions. The Roman Consul, the monarchical facet of its republic, has turned into the American President. The Roman Senate, being of aristocratic domain, has kept its name. The Roman Popular Assemblies have however been modified by this idea of representation, giving the democratic part of a republic the same name but with a different function: The American House of Representatives.”
“Aside from the change of Direct Democracy (formally simply Democracy) to Representative Democracy, the Roman model has proven true, aiding in the success of American government.”
VII. Conclusions
“As we have seen the scope of a government is to provide for the common good by using the individual freedoms borrowed from citizens. This idea is but just one used at attaining the essence of our beings: truth. It cannot be found in words, rather between them, through the use of dialogue, a word that I am sure will change or transform its meaning to include more creations and adaptations of the universe. We must not forget of the control of these concepts that we have, as well as our ability to be blinded by our own individual truths that we project outside of ourselves. The truth that we discuss is of everyone, and in a way can be a common good. This interconnectivity must continue to be appreciated for as long as we can understand it. If we can create and build we must comprehend destruction, using both to help ourselves learn more about each other. At the end it should be noted that both these ideas, although they seem opposite, are one in the same.”
There seems to be a common theme in the papers that I have been writing, so I hope you don't mind me sharing another one. I guess one of these days I'm actually going to have to tell you all what I do on a regular basis. But as for now its ideas on government. Feedback would be nice!
-Anthony
“What is a government, but more importantly, why is it needed?”
“Is it not the foundation of all societies? Are we not born with needs, these needs therefore being satisfied through the use of a government?”
“As far as this can be true I am sure of only the common definition, its ability to be understood, and the farces that arise from its misinterpretation. We begin first with the what, the why coming at a later time. A government is commonly just a group of people trying to survive. Time permitting we will be able to further develop concepts of people, groups, and survival, but for now we must assume that they are relevant and real.”
“What, then, would history be?”
“History in this case would be the study of governments with respect to time, groups of people that look to survive for as long as they can. We cannot forget that impermanence, although prominent, is still dependent on time as well as impermanent in itself.”
“Time, in this case, being a measure of knowledge.”
“Precisely, knowledge that we create at the instant we create time. We divide it up logically to show the consistent forms of change, looking ever so closely for the truth that Plato talked about. This truth was transformed into the idea of logic, by Aristotle, and today permutations of various dialogues (such as science and religion) still aim to touch upon the very truth of their day.”
“To understand the present would be to understand the past: this is what we mean by truth?”
“By truth we might mean reality, an ever-changing phenomenon that is concurrent with our own ideas and values. These ideas are used to construct these higher profound theories, that eventually become accepted as truth, as there lies little else to do with them. Truth, further, can be thought up as the convergence of all things, in this case one thing: the universe. However we must be careful when assuming that the universe is a distant and unknowable object. We are as much in the center of it as it is in the center of us, and therefore cannot differentiate the universe from humanity. We are one in the same, continually trying to understand ourselves by separating each other from these concepts. Only then are we able to see them from another side, releasing ourselves from the cave and adding substance to our own shadows.”
“Government, in this sense, would just be one of the many ways to find truth? Knowledge, education, the very reason of existence would be to discover the root of it all, the root from which everything grows, thus realizing that we are all connected, that the logic that breaks us up is not meant for destruction, but rather for understanding. This understanding, however, must become itself through the use of a hierarchy. In other words, the breaking down of this concept as well as its build up would be the definition of this process.”
“Yes, but we must not forget that it might still be possible to go from universe to truth without breaking down subjects and studying them separately.”
“Of course, there is no reason to limit our senses. Why then, would we exact these governments?”
“To secure not our freedom, but our safety. The common good, the bulk of this group, is the reason why governments exist. This does not come without a cost, however, as we must give up some freedoms in nature in order to ensure the safety and well-being of others.”
“What would we give, and what would it be?”
“The common term is popular sovereignty, and Cesare Beccaria tells us that it can be defined as the smallest bit of freedom that each person inherently holds. The collection of all these pieces form this popular sovereignty, this right to rule, and is used as the reason and means to govern. This taste of freedom is not given voluntarily; neither is it taken. It is more clearly understood, as a person cannot be accepted in a government unless he or she believes in its ways.”
“This government, therefore, would have to give also in itself in order to function. How would it do this?”
“There are many theories and practices in place, but the greatest of these was given to us by Aristotle in his Politics. He states that there are three main forms of government; three main forms of power used to govern; three fundamental ways to divide up popular sovereignty. This first of this occurs when one person shares with only him or herself, a Monarchy. The second is when a small group within the society shares it amongst themselves, an Aristocracy. The third and final is when the entire population has all the power, a Democracy. He argues that if there is no checks and balances system in place, this is to say: if power and this freedom-turned-government are not regulated, ultimate harm will be done, chaos being born again out of the order created by humankind. This is shown by the three degenerations of each respective form of government. A Monarchy, given all the power to rule, would eventually turn in to a Tyranny. The given society would then naturally turn to an Aristocracy, and over time as this small group held all the power they too would become corrupt; an Oligarchy. The civilization’s final choice would be to give the power back to all its citizens, thus forming a Democracy. However, as we have seen with the rest, this would theoretically turn into a Despotism: complete Anarchy.”
“Yes, if everyone was returned the freedom given up there would be no government.”
“Exactly.”
II. Respublica
“How will we solve this problem? We must put a system in place to regulate and govern government itself, to keep it from becoming corrupt. We would need checks and balances, to ensure that the safety of the common good is still the highest and most important scope.”
“We call this form of government a republic, in which all three forms are used at the same time. Fluctuating power continues to govern itself, allowing for no branch to become more powerful than another. If this were to happen, says our Aristotle, the other two forms would gather their power and use it to defuse that which was leaning towards evil. This is not to say that a Monarchy, Aristocracy, or Democracy cannot survive on their own. As we have seen in the course of history many different sects of derivatives of these types have been known to prosper for large amounts of time. However the kings of the past are no longer as prominent, and the most popular form of government as well as the most efficient would be the republic. This is notwithstanding the fact that it can be argued against.”
“This idea we have seen with the Romans, and it could be argued that both the French and American revolutions have roots in Aristotle’s teachings, as well as the practice of the Roman Republic that existed in between its two monarchies.”
“We can use history to further understand this concept of time, namely that it repeats, acting more like a circle or spiral than a solid straight line. And we see this strongest in the comparison of the past with itself, remembering that our ultimate goal is truth. This is but only one way that we go about dividing the universe and using our own concepts to distinguish the right from the wrong, another of Aristotle’s works. We should, however, continue down the road of making connections, namely those of the French, American, and Roman ideals.”
“I agree.”
III. French failure
“What shall we make of Desmoulins, Montesquieu, and Rousseau with respect to the French Revolution?”
“We can make a strong argument that their ideas were inspired by those of the Romans; that their revolution, government, and quick road towards anarchy and thus back to monarchy echo both Aristotle and Roman history. Up until that time the French had been governed by a King. The population, with the development of time, history, knowledge and its by-product: thinking, decided that an internal revolution was needed in order to overthrow the old government and form a new one. This new government was to look after the common good and be a republic, with well-outlined powers and balances of that power. A written constitution would be needed to outline these ideas and ensure that no one could manipulate them without the consent of all parties included.”
“What made this government fall in only ten short years?”
“After the victorious revolution of 1789 many constitutions were tried. Consciously more were written, as they were not able to perfectly outline the means by which the French society was going to govern itself as well as how it was going to be successful in doing it. However, there was a more important and fundamental mistake that befell the French population.”
“Would it include the inability of its citizens to accept and respect the aims of the common good?”
“Exactly. The French Revolution was able to change the role of its government from a King to a republic. We have already discussed what a republic is and how it functions and why it functions or should function. But the most important event is the acceptance of the population of itself, that the society is going to provide for the security and well being of its citizens, and this can only be done by conviction. However it was not realized fully, and due to this fact the French, tired of fighting with themselves, did what the Romans did: they bowed to an Emperor in hopes of regaining their security and livelihood. Are you starting to see how history, the study of time, has a way of using itself for understanding?”
“Indeed, the truth is clear.”
IV. American success
“What, therefore, did the American republic do in order to establish a consistent and polished government?”
“In short words: they found a way to eliminate the general population from holding any real power. They called this concept ‘representation’ and their reasons were this: the public does not know what is best for the common good (themselves) and so they need to elect officials that will be able to decide what is best for them. This is similar to how we differentiate ourselves from fundamental unknown (as well as known) concepts so that we can see the whole picture and be able to make an outline. Once this grouping and ranking of knowledge is set then and only then are we able to enter it. ‘Much like how the hiker cannot see the mountain unless he is far away from it, standing in the middle of the field. Only then can he appreciate its beauty and learn how to conquer it.’ This manipulation of our surroundings can best be described as the necessity of language.”
“This again would outline the principle that if the power is in the hands of one form of government created by that same population, that it would lead back into the chaos from which it was born.”
“Yes, destroying itself with itself.
VI. Entomology
“We can see now how definition and entomology has aided in the understanding of past traditions. The Roman Consul, the monarchical facet of its republic, has turned into the American President. The Roman Senate, being of aristocratic domain, has kept its name. The Roman Popular Assemblies have however been modified by this idea of representation, giving the democratic part of a republic the same name but with a different function: The American House of Representatives.”
“Aside from the change of Direct Democracy (formally simply Democracy) to Representative Democracy, the Roman model has proven true, aiding in the success of American government.”
VII. Conclusions
“As we have seen the scope of a government is to provide for the common good by using the individual freedoms borrowed from citizens. This idea is but just one used at attaining the essence of our beings: truth. It cannot be found in words, rather between them, through the use of dialogue, a word that I am sure will change or transform its meaning to include more creations and adaptations of the universe. We must not forget of the control of these concepts that we have, as well as our ability to be blinded by our own individual truths that we project outside of ourselves. The truth that we discuss is of everyone, and in a way can be a common good. This interconnectivity must continue to be appreciated for as long as we can understand it. If we can create and build we must comprehend destruction, using both to help ourselves learn more about each other. At the end it should be noted that both these ideas, although they seem opposite, are one in the same.”
There seems to be a common theme in the papers that I have been writing, so I hope you don't mind me sharing another one. I guess one of these days I'm actually going to have to tell you all what I do on a regular basis. But as for now its ideas on government. Feedback would be nice!
-Anthony
Friday, February 6, 2009
better to be the poor servant of a poor master
Imagine a cave. Inside this cave there are prisoners. These prisoners are chained by their limbs and cannot move. They cannot move their heads, and therefore can only look forward. Their heads face the wall of the cave. Now imagine on the opposite side of this cave there is a fire burning. Imagine that in between this fire and the wall where the prisoners are looking is a raised walkway. People, things, animals would walk over this walkway, and their shadows would be projected on the wall. The prisoners, therefore, would never see the object, but only its shadow. They would give names to these shadows, and the prisoner that knew the most names and that would be able to predict what would come next would be the king. The sounds, too, would be attached to the various shadows that the prisoners saw. This would be their reality, only seeing the shadow of the object and never the object itself.
Now imagine one day a prisoner is able to escape from the cave into the world of light. At first he would be blinded by its source, and would not want to comprehend the real world around him. He would be much more comfortable returning to the cave, back to the reality he thought he had. But, after a while, he would assimilate. He would understand the source of the light, the beauty of the truth, and he would be happy. He would see the stars and the sun, and know from where every shadow was born.
Now imagine that this prisoner, who no longer is such, returns to the cave. His friends would not recognize his shadow since they had never seen it. He would tell his old friends about the shadows, the real objects behind them, and the source of how they are formed. His fellow prisoners, however, would not want to hear this, as it would take them from the known and accepted reality. They have had this reality their entire lives. It is the only one they know and understand.
Having seen the world of light, the freeman would have a hard time adjusting back to the darkness and recognizing all of the shadows. He would not be called intelligent nor efficient, and the more he tried to convince the other prisoners about the farce of their realities the more they would want him killed. But this would not make the world of the light any less real.
In Plato’s Allegory of the Cave the prisoners represent humankind. The cave is the only knowledge and reality that they know, and the freedman is the philosopher. He understands that there is another world, that the fixed and governed one does not hold the great truth. It will be difficult for him to return to the cave and function in the prisoners’ society once he has seen the light, as they would not be willing to liberate themselves from what they considered true. The philosopher, for the betterment of humankind, should understand both the world inside the cave as well as the one outside.
Truth, according to Plato, was not something that could be taught directly. Guides could help, but the ultimate understanding would have to be the result of the individual liberating him or herself from the cave. This “transference” of knowledge did not exist to him, and was rather a trap than a conscious effort toward truth. That is to say that the memorization of facts does not constitute knowledge, and that truth does not lie in these facts. Truth, rather, is in the form of ideas, ideas that continually change and that can be altered or manipulated to change. The only way to find and understand this truth, says Plato, is through dialogue:
“Now I would like to discuss this concept of truth, what it is, what it can be, if it has to be, and why this must be true. How we use this truth and how we manipulate it are of great importance. Truth, to me, is the purest form of thought, and in some circumstances the purest form of purity. Purity, to my understanding is as close one can get to nothing. The concept of nothing, in this sense, would not be the void of all things, nor would it mean emptiness, and as with all definitions would neither be an end nor a beginning, but rather the source for it all, just as the sun is the source for all shadows, even when it is night.”
“But night, by definition, is the time of day without the sun, a time of rest, and the process therefore will begin the following day, right?”
“In the respect of secularization, yes. If we wanted to divide up the universe into subjects we would first have to define the universe as being a hub of subjects. These subjects we would have to develop further, giving them knowledge and importance. In this case the knowledge and importance are fully dependent on ourselves, and not of the universe, because we have now made it ours. The concept might have been able and might still be able to be understood without language, but we would never be able to say it, to speak it, to hear it. We need to know, to understand, and so we give things names. At the exact moment that an unknown becomes a known, it goes into the past. It does this by being understood, by making a connection with the past, as no fact can be created from nothing, nor can the universe, our understanding of it.”
“Although this might make sense, I have a hard time differentiating what I think is real and what actually is real. Are they one in the same?”
“Exactly. Our realities are built around what we see as true, as unchanging, as real. But this reality is always in flux, always changing, and the ideas that we do not want to let go of, that we cannot let change, become our downfall. We, fortunately or unfortunately, believe most of what we see, and if we do not we must create a knowledge for it, in order to understand and move on to the next. We compile all this information and call it “knowledge” or “intelligence,” concepts that we create and therefore have power over. We manipulate both in order to exact our own wills, and the main tool for this is education.”
“Education, in this sense, would be more of the strict memorization and processing of information created by humankind rather than the purest path towards truth? If this were so, what would learning be? Can we do anything that does not have to concern language? Can we exist? Can we even discuss truth?”
“To discuss truth would be to assume that it existed, which would be to assume that an idea of it located itself in someone’s mind. This would therefore be true, and the assumption would be correct if we accepted our assumptions as genuine. Existence, I still have yet to find, cannot exist without language. The concept that we put in to words is the way that we understand it, just like the shadows on the cave. Whether or not we realize what the subjects of the objects are will be difficult to ever know.”
“Will we know when we have left the cave?”
“We will know when things have changed, when we do not accept ideas that we might have accepted, when we use our minds to distinguish between good ideas and bad ideas, and only when we return to the cave of darkness will we fully be aware of our transformation.”
“So we must understand both the light and the dark in order to be sure we are on the right path for truth?”
“Yes, this duality and understanding of the balance apparent is needed to understand. Understanding one concept without its contradiction will only end in bloodshed, in the misuse of information, and in the controlling of truth, of language, and of knowledge. Education, in this sense, would be mistaken for all three. Instead it should be this guide that helps us follow the path of truth, rather than be the one that deters us, kidnapping our own thoughts and turning them into a circle that never ends. Questions like the ones you have asked will never be able to be answered fully, as the ideas will continue to change. They do not keep us on the path of truth, but rather deter our own thoughts, keeping ourselves busy. To answer these would however be a practice of the way in which to leave the cave, but to never return would be just as useless.
“I cannot follow your thoughts, as I continue to question myself, my reality, and my truth.”
“And that is where you are wrong, as with the independence of the individual comes the fraternity of humankind, one concept that we break into pieces, further continuing the farce of knowledge and of education, ensuring ourselves that the only thing we must do is understand, and we do that with knowledge and education. Do you see how the circle will never end?”
“I do, but what not is life if not a circle? And once it concludes it is over, but how can there be an end if there is no beginning?”
At this point the listener has realized why as people we must have a beginning and an end, for it might be the only way to conceptualize the concepts of the universe. One of these, time, has been created therefore by us, broken down and manipulated in order to squeeze as much knowledge and information as possible from it. Life, another product of the universe, has the same characteristics.
It is not as important to answer questions as it is to ask them. For in asking we understand the answers: those that cannot be put in to words.
Are we once again prisoners in the cave?
-Anthony
P.S.: I wrote this for my final mythology paper, focusing on truth in plato's allegory of the cave, and wanted to share it with all of you. The old text (written about 380 B.C.) can be found on the internet (http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/allegory.html) or in book 7 of The Republic. Ciao!
Now imagine one day a prisoner is able to escape from the cave into the world of light. At first he would be blinded by its source, and would not want to comprehend the real world around him. He would be much more comfortable returning to the cave, back to the reality he thought he had. But, after a while, he would assimilate. He would understand the source of the light, the beauty of the truth, and he would be happy. He would see the stars and the sun, and know from where every shadow was born.
Now imagine that this prisoner, who no longer is such, returns to the cave. His friends would not recognize his shadow since they had never seen it. He would tell his old friends about the shadows, the real objects behind them, and the source of how they are formed. His fellow prisoners, however, would not want to hear this, as it would take them from the known and accepted reality. They have had this reality their entire lives. It is the only one they know and understand.
Having seen the world of light, the freeman would have a hard time adjusting back to the darkness and recognizing all of the shadows. He would not be called intelligent nor efficient, and the more he tried to convince the other prisoners about the farce of their realities the more they would want him killed. But this would not make the world of the light any less real.
In Plato’s Allegory of the Cave the prisoners represent humankind. The cave is the only knowledge and reality that they know, and the freedman is the philosopher. He understands that there is another world, that the fixed and governed one does not hold the great truth. It will be difficult for him to return to the cave and function in the prisoners’ society once he has seen the light, as they would not be willing to liberate themselves from what they considered true. The philosopher, for the betterment of humankind, should understand both the world inside the cave as well as the one outside.
Truth, according to Plato, was not something that could be taught directly. Guides could help, but the ultimate understanding would have to be the result of the individual liberating him or herself from the cave. This “transference” of knowledge did not exist to him, and was rather a trap than a conscious effort toward truth. That is to say that the memorization of facts does not constitute knowledge, and that truth does not lie in these facts. Truth, rather, is in the form of ideas, ideas that continually change and that can be altered or manipulated to change. The only way to find and understand this truth, says Plato, is through dialogue:
“Now I would like to discuss this concept of truth, what it is, what it can be, if it has to be, and why this must be true. How we use this truth and how we manipulate it are of great importance. Truth, to me, is the purest form of thought, and in some circumstances the purest form of purity. Purity, to my understanding is as close one can get to nothing. The concept of nothing, in this sense, would not be the void of all things, nor would it mean emptiness, and as with all definitions would neither be an end nor a beginning, but rather the source for it all, just as the sun is the source for all shadows, even when it is night.”
“But night, by definition, is the time of day without the sun, a time of rest, and the process therefore will begin the following day, right?”
“In the respect of secularization, yes. If we wanted to divide up the universe into subjects we would first have to define the universe as being a hub of subjects. These subjects we would have to develop further, giving them knowledge and importance. In this case the knowledge and importance are fully dependent on ourselves, and not of the universe, because we have now made it ours. The concept might have been able and might still be able to be understood without language, but we would never be able to say it, to speak it, to hear it. We need to know, to understand, and so we give things names. At the exact moment that an unknown becomes a known, it goes into the past. It does this by being understood, by making a connection with the past, as no fact can be created from nothing, nor can the universe, our understanding of it.”
“Although this might make sense, I have a hard time differentiating what I think is real and what actually is real. Are they one in the same?”
“Exactly. Our realities are built around what we see as true, as unchanging, as real. But this reality is always in flux, always changing, and the ideas that we do not want to let go of, that we cannot let change, become our downfall. We, fortunately or unfortunately, believe most of what we see, and if we do not we must create a knowledge for it, in order to understand and move on to the next. We compile all this information and call it “knowledge” or “intelligence,” concepts that we create and therefore have power over. We manipulate both in order to exact our own wills, and the main tool for this is education.”
“Education, in this sense, would be more of the strict memorization and processing of information created by humankind rather than the purest path towards truth? If this were so, what would learning be? Can we do anything that does not have to concern language? Can we exist? Can we even discuss truth?”
“To discuss truth would be to assume that it existed, which would be to assume that an idea of it located itself in someone’s mind. This would therefore be true, and the assumption would be correct if we accepted our assumptions as genuine. Existence, I still have yet to find, cannot exist without language. The concept that we put in to words is the way that we understand it, just like the shadows on the cave. Whether or not we realize what the subjects of the objects are will be difficult to ever know.”
“Will we know when we have left the cave?”
“We will know when things have changed, when we do not accept ideas that we might have accepted, when we use our minds to distinguish between good ideas and bad ideas, and only when we return to the cave of darkness will we fully be aware of our transformation.”
“So we must understand both the light and the dark in order to be sure we are on the right path for truth?”
“Yes, this duality and understanding of the balance apparent is needed to understand. Understanding one concept without its contradiction will only end in bloodshed, in the misuse of information, and in the controlling of truth, of language, and of knowledge. Education, in this sense, would be mistaken for all three. Instead it should be this guide that helps us follow the path of truth, rather than be the one that deters us, kidnapping our own thoughts and turning them into a circle that never ends. Questions like the ones you have asked will never be able to be answered fully, as the ideas will continue to change. They do not keep us on the path of truth, but rather deter our own thoughts, keeping ourselves busy. To answer these would however be a practice of the way in which to leave the cave, but to never return would be just as useless.
“I cannot follow your thoughts, as I continue to question myself, my reality, and my truth.”
“And that is where you are wrong, as with the independence of the individual comes the fraternity of humankind, one concept that we break into pieces, further continuing the farce of knowledge and of education, ensuring ourselves that the only thing we must do is understand, and we do that with knowledge and education. Do you see how the circle will never end?”
“I do, but what not is life if not a circle? And once it concludes it is over, but how can there be an end if there is no beginning?”
At this point the listener has realized why as people we must have a beginning and an end, for it might be the only way to conceptualize the concepts of the universe. One of these, time, has been created therefore by us, broken down and manipulated in order to squeeze as much knowledge and information as possible from it. Life, another product of the universe, has the same characteristics.
It is not as important to answer questions as it is to ask them. For in asking we understand the answers: those that cannot be put in to words.
Are we once again prisoners in the cave?
-Anthony
P.S.: I wrote this for my final mythology paper, focusing on truth in plato's allegory of the cave, and wanted to share it with all of you. The old text (written about 380 B.C.) can be found on the internet (http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/allegory.html) or in book 7 of The Republic. Ciao!
Sunday, February 1, 2009
god's on vacation
“Are you lost, sir?”
“Yes. I was trying to exit from that end of the church but it’s blocked off.”
“It’s beautiful isn’t it? Are you from Padova?”
“No, I’m from San Francisco in California, the United States. I study in Florence and right now we are on a field trip.”
“Florence, I know where that is.”
“Where are you from?”
“Trieste, but I live here now. What do you study?”
“Art history, but right now a little bit of everything. I really like philosophy and think I want to study that next.”
“You made a mistake. Where is philosophy going to take you? You know what you should study? Languages. With China becoming the strongest world power, it’s going to be needed. You need to earn a living, and language is where you need to be.”
“Yes, language does interest me, but right now I really have no idea what I want to do.”
“How old are you, sir?”
“23.”
“Oh, you’ve got time, but you need to start soon: the more languages the better. Look at the world we have today, without language you have no other means to do anything if things begin to get worse, which they continue to do.”
“You’re right.”
“You know the four basic questions of philosophy, the ones that people have been trying to answer for the last 3,000 years: Who are we? Where do we come from? What are we doing? Why do we do it? These four questions that never lead anywhere, just a continuous circle. Take a look at this, you see what it says?”
“It says that life is the continuation of the wonder of existing.”
This was the conversation I had with a very nice old man inside Saint Anthony’s basilica. I had just finished using the bathroom and was walking around the courtyards, looking for the exit that eventually was blocked off. He stopped me and asked me if I was lost, and I said yes. I think that that question and answer have a more profound meaning that locates itself a little bit under the surface. He told me more of his life; we talked about politics, both Italian and American. I don’t need to get in to too many details. Then as we were walking out he started reading an old stone tablet, first the Greek and then the Latin, all this while he was telling me words in French mixed with his beautiful Italian language. He had to have learned it in school, since the city of Trieste is located at the southern border of Italy and Slovenia. Five languages that I could count in the short half an hour that we spent together.
I don’t remember his name, and for a few minutes it bothered me. He has an identity, and is alive just as anybody else, maybe even a little more, and at this point his name doesn’t really matter. It’s the experience and insight that we talked about standing in the courtyard of one of the most beautiful churches I have ever seen. And I’m not even religious.
The next day me and a few good friends decided to skip out on the Villas and head off to Venice to play around and hopefully get thrown out of a museum or two. The weather couldn’t have been more beautiful, and we spent just about the entire day walking around and laughing. Come to think of it, every time someone asks us what we did the only thing that comes to mind is walking and talking. Nothing too spectacular, but I guess that makes it more amazing.
We also formed a band called “god’s on vacation.” There are four of us, and all you have to do to join is fart in a church. I believe farting in church is one of the most rewarding experiences that anyone can ever do, and all I have to say to those non-believers is this: Jesus was a man, most if not all of us agree on that. Which means he pooped, he had boogers, and most of all he farted. Jesus farted, and so farting in church is being like Jesus, a man, rather, a person. Any questions?
Oh yea while walking around we tired to make as many “street” euphemisms that we could, obviously switching “street” with “canal,” since Venice doesn’t have any streets, just canals. I have to give credit to Mitch Hedberg for the inspiration and all the first two on the list that follows:
We’ve got to get the kids off the canals
I got canal smarts bitch!
That’s going to hurt your canal-cred
Is that thing canal-legal?
It’s the end of the canal for you bud
Let’s get this show on the canal
Hit the canal jack
Canal-head
Please pull your gondola to the side of the canal
Do you want to see some illegal canal racing?
Country canals, take me home, to the place, I belong
It’s a long canal ahead
I’m from the canals!
We were raised on the canals!
Do you want to end up on the canals like everybody else?
Go play on the free-canals
On the canal again
Canal-musicians
Canal-vendors, etc.
The last day of our trip we visited Vicenza and its sweet old theater and then Mantova and even got to see the “Pharmacy” where “Romeo” bought the supposed “Poison.” I didn’t ditch the group as much as last year but still managed to enjoy myself thanks to the beautiful Italian culture that still can be found amongst its cities.
In our Italian Politics class last week we were talking about the “American Dream,” what it was, what it meant, and the teacher brought up a very interesting point/question. He wondered how the youth of today (us) felt about our future, if we were given any hope for change, or if we were just told to keep our mouths shut and get a job. For the most part we agreed that we were told to study, to listen, and to learn, without ever questioning the means or the reasoning behind it. This “American Dream” and I put it in quotation marks for many a reason (one being that it never existed, similar to a marketing ploy aimed at convincing people to come over here and work like slaves (i.e. the Italian/Irish immigrants on the NYC subway and the Chinese on the transcontinental railroad), and the other being to work and keep quiet, because who likes a shit-disturber?). I’ll have to get back to that in a second.
The second article up for discussion was the war in Iraq vs. the war in Vietnam. He brought to our attention the fact that more people have died in the current war than they did in the Vietnam war, but for some reason the mass of people couldn’t care less. Yes, there are some newspapers that tell the story, but for the most part the mass media concerns us with britney spear’s kids and what color the homeland security monkeys have designated for the day. Strikes still seem to happen, but there definitely isn’t this unity in the so-called “united” states. One reason could be for all the toys we have (ipods, the internet, big cars, and 80 hour a week jobs), which seems logical. If our attention is kept in material things that we make important then we’ll never really open our eyes and see the world, at least not the whole world. This rise of individuality I guess has its perks if you are well off and don’t need to worry, but for the other 99% of the world population it’s not that easy. People need people to survive, at least that’s what Plato said, and Aristotle made sure to say that there are people that oppress and people that get oppressed, and that is how the hierarchy keeps to its own needs to survive. I don’t know if I agree with either of them, but it’s obviously a great topic to talk about, if we can ever turn off our ipods and stop telling our kids to sit and listen to the farces that come out of our mouths everyday.
This honor idea, I was talking to a good friend in Venezia, and it occurred to me that a very “honorable” life would be to be born, go to school, graduate, work for 50-60 years, retire, sit around the house, and then die. That, to us at least, is honor. We can all just stop right now, go back to work, and shut up, and in the end we fortunately have this great “excuse” for not doing what we believed in, for sitting still and being oppressed, and we call that honor. Honor, the American Dream, means to not question everything because we supposedly have everything we need. But once you scratch the surface you find that most of the fundamental values in society go away completely (honor, love, history, knowledge, order, majority rule, etc.). And I hope that we have understood at least the tip of the iceberg in the past few months.
Honor, however, has another meaning, and that comes with the Jesus’ and the Socrates’ and the people that go against everything we thought was true for a better life, assuming that progress means betterment and that betterment is related to the “common good.” That leaves us in a state of shock, because we don’t know what to do. We have a system in place to survive, and we are drilled that it’s perfect, that government is needed, and that democracy…whoops.
Democracy, majority rules, the people have the power. Wrong, at least for us. It’s never been about democracy, because our system of government is a republic. And a republic is a monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy put together, under the assumption that if one facet of government has unlimited power that it will eventually degenerate, ultimately ending up in anarchy and then right back to a monarchy (which happened in 1799 with the French Republic and Napoleon).
In other words, the Roman consul is the American president, which by definition is our king. The Roman senate is our senate, which fulfills the government of a small group of people. And here’s the kicker. We don’t have a democracy, we have representatives. The fundamental assumption associated with the reasoning from taking the government out of the hands of the people and putting it in the hands of people to think for the people? We don’t know what’s good for us, and we don’t have the capacity to think for the whole, so we have to elect someone to think and act for us, so that we can worry more about our jobs and our kids and our new TV and the paycheck that’s coming on Friday so we can buy more junk.
god I love the american dream
Just to add a little more fuel to the fire, marinate on this: George Washington, the first president of the United States under the constitution of 1787 (there were about 8 presidents before him under the Articles of Confederation that we borrowed from the Iroquois) fought for the british army. He was a red coat. You know what that makes him?
A TERRORIST!!!
And while we’re on the subject, that would make our precious jesus a terrorist too. Don’t you just hate logic?
-Anthony
“Yes. I was trying to exit from that end of the church but it’s blocked off.”
“It’s beautiful isn’t it? Are you from Padova?”
“No, I’m from San Francisco in California, the United States. I study in Florence and right now we are on a field trip.”
“Florence, I know where that is.”
“Where are you from?”
“Trieste, but I live here now. What do you study?”
“Art history, but right now a little bit of everything. I really like philosophy and think I want to study that next.”
“You made a mistake. Where is philosophy going to take you? You know what you should study? Languages. With China becoming the strongest world power, it’s going to be needed. You need to earn a living, and language is where you need to be.”
“Yes, language does interest me, but right now I really have no idea what I want to do.”
“How old are you, sir?”
“23.”
“Oh, you’ve got time, but you need to start soon: the more languages the better. Look at the world we have today, without language you have no other means to do anything if things begin to get worse, which they continue to do.”
“You’re right.”
“You know the four basic questions of philosophy, the ones that people have been trying to answer for the last 3,000 years: Who are we? Where do we come from? What are we doing? Why do we do it? These four questions that never lead anywhere, just a continuous circle. Take a look at this, you see what it says?”
“It says that life is the continuation of the wonder of existing.”
This was the conversation I had with a very nice old man inside Saint Anthony’s basilica. I had just finished using the bathroom and was walking around the courtyards, looking for the exit that eventually was blocked off. He stopped me and asked me if I was lost, and I said yes. I think that that question and answer have a more profound meaning that locates itself a little bit under the surface. He told me more of his life; we talked about politics, both Italian and American. I don’t need to get in to too many details. Then as we were walking out he started reading an old stone tablet, first the Greek and then the Latin, all this while he was telling me words in French mixed with his beautiful Italian language. He had to have learned it in school, since the city of Trieste is located at the southern border of Italy and Slovenia. Five languages that I could count in the short half an hour that we spent together.
I don’t remember his name, and for a few minutes it bothered me. He has an identity, and is alive just as anybody else, maybe even a little more, and at this point his name doesn’t really matter. It’s the experience and insight that we talked about standing in the courtyard of one of the most beautiful churches I have ever seen. And I’m not even religious.
The next day me and a few good friends decided to skip out on the Villas and head off to Venice to play around and hopefully get thrown out of a museum or two. The weather couldn’t have been more beautiful, and we spent just about the entire day walking around and laughing. Come to think of it, every time someone asks us what we did the only thing that comes to mind is walking and talking. Nothing too spectacular, but I guess that makes it more amazing.
We also formed a band called “god’s on vacation.” There are four of us, and all you have to do to join is fart in a church. I believe farting in church is one of the most rewarding experiences that anyone can ever do, and all I have to say to those non-believers is this: Jesus was a man, most if not all of us agree on that. Which means he pooped, he had boogers, and most of all he farted. Jesus farted, and so farting in church is being like Jesus, a man, rather, a person. Any questions?
Oh yea while walking around we tired to make as many “street” euphemisms that we could, obviously switching “street” with “canal,” since Venice doesn’t have any streets, just canals. I have to give credit to Mitch Hedberg for the inspiration and all the first two on the list that follows:
We’ve got to get the kids off the canals
I got canal smarts bitch!
That’s going to hurt your canal-cred
Is that thing canal-legal?
It’s the end of the canal for you bud
Let’s get this show on the canal
Hit the canal jack
Canal-head
Please pull your gondola to the side of the canal
Do you want to see some illegal canal racing?
Country canals, take me home, to the place, I belong
It’s a long canal ahead
I’m from the canals!
We were raised on the canals!
Do you want to end up on the canals like everybody else?
Go play on the free-canals
On the canal again
Canal-musicians
Canal-vendors, etc.
The last day of our trip we visited Vicenza and its sweet old theater and then Mantova and even got to see the “Pharmacy” where “Romeo” bought the supposed “Poison.” I didn’t ditch the group as much as last year but still managed to enjoy myself thanks to the beautiful Italian culture that still can be found amongst its cities.
In our Italian Politics class last week we were talking about the “American Dream,” what it was, what it meant, and the teacher brought up a very interesting point/question. He wondered how the youth of today (us) felt about our future, if we were given any hope for change, or if we were just told to keep our mouths shut and get a job. For the most part we agreed that we were told to study, to listen, and to learn, without ever questioning the means or the reasoning behind it. This “American Dream” and I put it in quotation marks for many a reason (one being that it never existed, similar to a marketing ploy aimed at convincing people to come over here and work like slaves (i.e. the Italian/Irish immigrants on the NYC subway and the Chinese on the transcontinental railroad), and the other being to work and keep quiet, because who likes a shit-disturber?). I’ll have to get back to that in a second.
The second article up for discussion was the war in Iraq vs. the war in Vietnam. He brought to our attention the fact that more people have died in the current war than they did in the Vietnam war, but for some reason the mass of people couldn’t care less. Yes, there are some newspapers that tell the story, but for the most part the mass media concerns us with britney spear’s kids and what color the homeland security monkeys have designated for the day. Strikes still seem to happen, but there definitely isn’t this unity in the so-called “united” states. One reason could be for all the toys we have (ipods, the internet, big cars, and 80 hour a week jobs), which seems logical. If our attention is kept in material things that we make important then we’ll never really open our eyes and see the world, at least not the whole world. This rise of individuality I guess has its perks if you are well off and don’t need to worry, but for the other 99% of the world population it’s not that easy. People need people to survive, at least that’s what Plato said, and Aristotle made sure to say that there are people that oppress and people that get oppressed, and that is how the hierarchy keeps to its own needs to survive. I don’t know if I agree with either of them, but it’s obviously a great topic to talk about, if we can ever turn off our ipods and stop telling our kids to sit and listen to the farces that come out of our mouths everyday.
This honor idea, I was talking to a good friend in Venezia, and it occurred to me that a very “honorable” life would be to be born, go to school, graduate, work for 50-60 years, retire, sit around the house, and then die. That, to us at least, is honor. We can all just stop right now, go back to work, and shut up, and in the end we fortunately have this great “excuse” for not doing what we believed in, for sitting still and being oppressed, and we call that honor. Honor, the American Dream, means to not question everything because we supposedly have everything we need. But once you scratch the surface you find that most of the fundamental values in society go away completely (honor, love, history, knowledge, order, majority rule, etc.). And I hope that we have understood at least the tip of the iceberg in the past few months.
Honor, however, has another meaning, and that comes with the Jesus’ and the Socrates’ and the people that go against everything we thought was true for a better life, assuming that progress means betterment and that betterment is related to the “common good.” That leaves us in a state of shock, because we don’t know what to do. We have a system in place to survive, and we are drilled that it’s perfect, that government is needed, and that democracy…whoops.
Democracy, majority rules, the people have the power. Wrong, at least for us. It’s never been about democracy, because our system of government is a republic. And a republic is a monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy put together, under the assumption that if one facet of government has unlimited power that it will eventually degenerate, ultimately ending up in anarchy and then right back to a monarchy (which happened in 1799 with the French Republic and Napoleon).
In other words, the Roman consul is the American president, which by definition is our king. The Roman senate is our senate, which fulfills the government of a small group of people. And here’s the kicker. We don’t have a democracy, we have representatives. The fundamental assumption associated with the reasoning from taking the government out of the hands of the people and putting it in the hands of people to think for the people? We don’t know what’s good for us, and we don’t have the capacity to think for the whole, so we have to elect someone to think and act for us, so that we can worry more about our jobs and our kids and our new TV and the paycheck that’s coming on Friday so we can buy more junk.
god I love the american dream
Just to add a little more fuel to the fire, marinate on this: George Washington, the first president of the United States under the constitution of 1787 (there were about 8 presidents before him under the Articles of Confederation that we borrowed from the Iroquois) fought for the british army. He was a red coat. You know what that makes him?
A TERRORIST!!!
And while we’re on the subject, that would make our precious jesus a terrorist too. Don’t you just hate logic?
-Anthony
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
