Symposium wrap-up
Blog your additional comments here, and you might also consider looking back through the archives at some of the other issues addressed in previous years.
posted by erdecker @ 4:46 PM
10 comments
JM AP English Government
A resource for John Marshall's Advanced Placement English and Government class. Woo-hoo!
Monday, September 10, 2007
About Me
- Name: erdecker
- Location: Lanesboro, Minnesota, United States
Enchanted April at Roc Rep Jan 2016 (Sound Design). Donnybrook's Dilemma Murder Mystery Jan 10 (Donnybrook actor). Valentine's Murder Mystery at Plummer House Feb 13 (actor). Ole and Lena in Love at Rochester Sons of Norway March 19 (Director).
10 Comments:
Symposium went well today, didn't get a chance to talk much, so here goes...
To address many of the comments made today, I don't believe that a wealthy man born with a silver spoon in his mouth and all his opportunities given to him would best represent my voice in government. A "next door neighbor"-figure: middle class, possible rags to riches, intelligent and educated person probably has more similar experiences to mine. They would also have an understanding of the struggles and issues dealing with the middle class; to which I believe is the class that best represents the extremes of any nation. A state's gap between the rich and poor is ideally smaller; allowing for more equal opportunities, rights, taxes, etc.. Therefore, I agree with Aristotle; the middle class should run the government.
Also, if enlightenment is the ultimate goal and goodness is something that we all should strive to achieve/witness, then having a few of the enlightened bring those stuck in their paradigmatic darkness to the light is quite essential. Now, whether the enlightened are those in government/politics or the citizens of the community is quite another matter. I would say that in certain scenarios, the citizens and the leaders roles change.
I also believe, a long with many members of the class, that there are multiple types of passion and hesitancy. It is my belief that the hesitant are more likely to end up "corrupting" the government because they would seem more open to negative and evil influences. The hesitant could easily be led astray if they aren't careful. However, someone passionate about the common good and well being of a nation and who cares about the opinions of its inhabitant would be someone I would like to see in office. So therefore, I disagree somewhat with Plato in his allegory.
That's all.(:
If I would have commented in the actually symposium (instead of just the name and fast round)...this is probably what I would have said. :]
1.) Items to consider question 2
Belief that Good is the active cause and guiding purpose of the whole universe.
We as humans are supposed to be always working to the greater 'Good'. But what is the greater good? Is it the Form of Goodness which Plato describes in his piece? And if it is, how can we be working towards it if we Plato never explains what Goodness is?
2.) Items to consider question 5
The soul of every man does possess the power of learning the truth and the organ to see it with.
Going back to what I said in class, what organ is Plato speaking of? We as humans can intrepret the truth many different ways, through our eyes (which cannot be the answer because humans can live without them, therefore they are not an organ...or is Plato hinting that humans, although capable of living, cannot experience it in the same light as those with eyes?) Or maybe Plato is talking of the human brain. If this is the case, is he saying that those in the dark do not encompass the brain capacity to see the truth/light because they are in the dark, and that is why we need to come out to experience it? Indeed that may be so. In that case, it would be the humans in the light who have opened their brain to see those kinds of truths. However, what if Plato is talking of the human heart; a more emotional view of learning the truth? For example, when one learns that their family member has past, it is first the brain that interprets the situation. But it is the heart that truly has to accept it, the heart which has to feel the pain. The heart which has to grow accustomed to the change.
This leads me to my other point discussed in class.
If finding the truth is so mentally, physically and/or emotionally challenging, maybe Plato uses the word 'organ' because each human intreprets truth in their own light...therefore each person in the dark could find his own way up the passage. On page 229 in the second to last paragraph the text uses descriptive words including drag, forcibly, steep, rugged, suffer, pain, vexation. Those words describe the physical part of 'seeing' the truth, and it some cases,the mental side. However, it is later when he questions "...he could not see a single one of the things he was now told were real?"
That must mean that his brain and/or heart would not immediately allow him to see it, but that it had to adjust, as in said with the quote on the bottom of page 229, "He would need, then, to grow accustomed before he could see things in the upper world."
Lastly, to comment on the forward at the beginning of the piece. I found it interesting that it describes a moral. "The moral of the allegory is drawn from the distress caused by a too sudden passage from darkness to light. The earlier warning against plunging untrained minds into the discussion of moral problems." Interesting that our class came up with so many morals and conflicts from this piece. Also, if the moral is to warn of the pain that comes from too sudden of change, wouldn't that apply to what I have been saying all along, that the human brain and/or heart cannot quickly grow accustomed to the light, but needs time to see it's truth.
-Karli Kolbert
today i thought the symposium went well and i was introduced into a lot of new ideas that i had not previously thought of
If i wouldn't have been so hesitant to share my ideas, this is what i would have said:
topic 1
A perfect government:
In my opinion there can never be one solid, absolute definition for a "perfect government." When a government provides things such as national security, a stable economy,etc., etc., and the majority of the citizens are happy, then the government has fulfilled its duty. However each government, and each group of people is different, meaning that the means to fulfill the duties will be different = infinite definitions of a perfect government...no one government can be exactly like another *aristotle*
That quote by aristotle is why i believe that trying to implement a democracy exactly like ours in Iraq is a futile dream.
topic 2
passion and power:
In the allegory of the cave, Plato says "..in truth government can be at its best and free from dissension only where the destined rulers are least desirous of holding office.."
I agree to some extent with this quote. A ruler must not be power hungry lest he exploit his office, but at the same time he can not be the least desirous. A ruler must be passionate, not for his/her own ambitions, but for the greater good of the community. A happy medium must be reached.
topic 3
the definition of Goodness:
In the allegory of the cave, when the prisoner is released from the chains, he stands up and realizes he is surrounded by other prisoners, he is not the only one. He then ascends to the light, and finds this whole new world. I believe that Goodness represents Selflessness. It is only when someone can break the metaphorical chains of their egos and realize that there is a bigger picture than themselves, that a person can reach the light.
Although I was able to comment a few times during the symposium, I didn't quite get all of my thoughts expressed. Specifically there was one point about the importance of the middle class that I had been mulling over. I heard a while ago that the only class with which people in society are able to identify or understand is the class they are in or the class directly above or below them. In the examples given by Aristotle, this would mean that the rich and the poor could only identify with others in their own respective classes, and people in the middle class. On the other hand, people in the middle class are able to identify with people of all classes (middle, rich, or poor). If we take this to be accurate, then it backs up the idea that a government would be most stable with a foundation based in the middle class, because otherwise the population is made up of extremes that are unable to relate. The idea also reinforces the thought that the ideal ruler would come from the middle class in order to be understanding and empathetic toward all classes. So with this viewpoint in mind, I think Aristotle is correct in saying that the government should be run by the middle class (even if our current system does not advocate a middle class leader).
-Lauren Fynskov
Shajada Akther
***#MY THOUGHTS#***
Some people thought that the symposium went well but i think that it didn't because many people kept talking about one thing and couldnt look through different lenses. Everyone kept talking about how Plato and Aristotle related their words to today's politics. Sometimes that made sense but other times i think that people werent speaking clearly and there were too many distracting words. sorry!!
***#TYPE OF PRESIDENT#***
well about my thoughts...i think that the person best suited to become president would be someone who is more down to earth and isnt some rich person who feels like they should be in power just because they have the money and connections. the person who is middle class and worked their way up to a comfortable lifestyle and isnt looking towards to doing things that arent realistic, that would be the type of person i would want as a president. but if there was someone who was born rich and had connections but really doesnt know what real people think because he/she is only influenced by the "connections" then wouldnt that make that person biased? the person who is soo devoted to doing what they think is right for the country, are they really thinking about the consequences? they could make thousands of mistakes just because they took actions right away. the same would go with a president who is too hesitant, he/she could wait too long and the problem would increase also. for example, looking at past presidents, who didnt do anything during the Great Depression (Hoover), but once the new president (FDR) came, and immidiate action was taken, people were happy but the country itself lost alot of money.
***#PERFECTION#***
also, it was mentioned a couple of times in class, about perfection...i just want to ask what really is perfection? is there something in this world that is perfect? or is this something that humans strive for and that is why they always evolve and try to improve thier past mistakes...i think that there isnt anything close to perfection unless you look through a religious lense, then you would say god is the true perfection that humans try to imitate.
***#RELIGIOUS LENSE#***
also looking through the religious lense, as i did when i was reading Plato's allegory to the cave, i saw it as someone who was forced into the light when they didnt even expect it and because of that, he has the responsibility to help others see the light that was shown to him. yes i do admit that there were many prophets who tried to show others their way...hence the various religions...but all the way to the raw core, the religions have similarities...so could that really mean that humans always change things to fit their own perception and add on their own ideas...or really is each of the prophets/person who had seen the light just showing different sides of the light? so would that mean if there's different sides of light then there's just different sides of religions and they all do tie up into one?
well i think i've said enough....
bye! :)
I have a few thoughts that conviently could not be shared in person, but rather through this technological marvel. Amazing.
Also, bear with me on this, It takes me a little bit to make my point.
Throughout Aristotle's packet, I constantly found Aristotle triumphing the value of the middle class in government. He constantly is championing his belief in moderation or 'the golden mean' if you will. A few key quotes that I want to discuss are as follows: "There only can the government be stable where the middle class exceeds one or both of the others." "The arbiter is always trusted, and he who is in the middle is an arbiter." "The middle class is large, there are less likely to be factions and dissensions."
From all of those quotes and the many more that could be extracted from the text, we can reason that Aristotle believes that the best society is obviously one run by the middle class with as small as interference from the rich or poor class as possible. Maybe it's just me, but my mind would carry this situation to the potential extreme, a classless society. Indeed, Aristotle seems to support this thusly: "Great then is the good fortune of a state in which the citizens have a moderate and sufficient property; for where some possess much, and the others nothing, there may arise an extreme democracy or a pure oligarchy." He also advocated for the middle class to be indivisible and preferably able to outweigh one if not both of the other classes in number in a more perfect government.
So is Aristotle advocating for a more socialist government than any of the ones that he listed in his text? Im still not sure. Let me quote from earlier in his article "The higher parts of state, that is to say the warrior class, the class engaged in the administration of justice, and that engaged in deliberation, which is the special business of political common sense - these parts are more essential to the state than the parts which minister the necessities of life." He seems to admit that certain people have a larger effect or impact on the state than their peers (and I think he is talking of warriors, judges of law, and philosophers.) However, he does not explicitly state that any of these classes will be wealthier than their peers, in fact, he almost states that these people must be middle class because "The rich and the poor are regarded in a special sense as parts of state."
Well, I'm running out of time, so I'm not going to be able to finish Bloom's Taxonomy on this one, but I hope you can get the gist of what I'm getting at.
-Ethan
I hate to be the guy beating the dead horse out here. Half of the comments made in the symposium were saying how it's impossible to have a perfect government. That was pretty well established now.
In the discussion, we briefly touched on the idea that people could become enlightened in different ways, interpreting the "light" for themselves. This wuold suggest that it is impossible to determine which light is best. Perhaps the idea of a universal truth, an ideal government we can apply to all people, is something we will never acheive.
So let's think about it. Humanity is so incredibly diverse. All sorts of factors determine what people might tend to believe is an ideal form of government. Cultural, environmental, genetic, etc...
Instead of fighting for a government that accurately represents the preferences and ideas of all people, perhaps we should have everyone on the world take a survey. This survey would take into account what kind of government people would prefer, and make a suggestion as to where they could live to be governed as they choose. Someone who feels that government should have a large role in providing healthcare would be governed that way. Another person who prefers low taxes and limited government involvement in his affairs could be governed that way.
Obviously this is a radical and impractical idea. But my point is that people have different ideas about what a perfect government should be, depending on all sorts of little factors. Trying to lump each person in the world into some sort of "perfect government" is oversimplifying the problem.
I think that the symposium went OK but overall there were things that need to be improved. I know that this one was already mentioned, but there are too many people to really get a good conversation. What ended up happening,which in my opinion is unavoidable, is that a few people dominated the conversation and lots of other people didn't get to talk at all. However, requiring everyone to say the same amount doesn't work either. If you look at how long it took us to go around the circle and say one thing you'll see what I mean. Doing this leaves enough time for everyone to only make a few comments. This leaves everyone feeling like they didn't really participate in the conversation. The only logical answer I can see to this is make the groups smaller.
I would also like to comment a little bit on an issue adressed in the symposium.
We talked about the theory that the best leaders are the ones who are least desirous of holding these positions. I disagree with this theory. There was some debate about what least desirous meant. Some people said this just meant people who are not eager for the position but will except if it is given to them. In my opinion this can not be the "least desirous." Would not someone who hates the idea of being in that position and has to be forced to take it have less desire then the person mentioned above? If this second person was put in a position of power what would they do? I don't think that they would put there best effort into the job. How many of you work your hardest when you are doing something unenjoyable to you? Taking this matter even further, couldn't it be possibe for the person in power to purposely make bad decisions in hopes that he would be judged as unfit to rule and thus have his position taken away? I think these arguments clearly show the error in this theory.
I had to leave early due to a doctors appointment. I am typing this with 2 of my fingers on my left hand i'm unable to use so I hope you guys appreciate this.
Many of the ideas brought up in the symposium and show up in the philosophical readings we were assigned all were able to hit home to me so I could understand where these guys are coming from. For example, the idea from Aristotle saying that a person with no political ambition and desire to gain wealth should be the one to lead our government. Rich people are not the type of people I would want running my government because wealth can do some evil things to people and corrupt them to stray from their intended goal of keeping society's best interest at heart. Aristotle's philosophy is the one I agree with the most because I also believe that the middle class should run the government not only because they are living comfortably now and do not desire the wealth that rich people do, but because there are more of them and their experiences can identify with the averasge person.
The one philosophy that I understood but didn't agree with was Plato's allegory of the cave. I understood all of the meandings of the story (well maybe not all, but I got the one about being enlightened), but the idea madwe no sense to me. I can't speak for people in history who may have been enlightened, because I can't just ask them or listen to them tell me how they got enlightened because they are dead. The only experiences I can go off of are today, and today it seems like just about every politician is corrupt. If, for example, a man is "enlightened" and invents some new idea which he exposes to the rest of the population, not everyone is going to be like the people in the cave and mock them. There will always be the people that see right away that this is a good idea and they are able to shift their paradigms accordingly to this new one. Now, don't get me wrong, the allegory does make some sense because there will be those people in paradigm paralysis and they will not listen to this "enlightened" individual and they will stick to their old ideas.
And now as I'm reading Kelsey's to the left of this box, I realize we have similar ideas. Just in case anyone is wondering I did not copy her ideas because I think she's a genius. It is because great minds think alike!
The symposium was pretty dang sweet, although I wasn't there the whole time, but I like this format better where we can express all of our ideas without being interrupted while being able to read what everyone else is thinking.
Plato said that the enlightened were obligated to return to the darkness and help those in the cave. If we are saying the politicians are the enlightened ones, what do people think the government's obligations to its citizens are?
Government's major obligation to the people is to maintain peace. The government may not be obligated to prevent monopolies by major corporations, but they still place regulations to avoid monopolies because people would protest and it would disturb the peace. Another way to maintain peace is offering the option to change the current government, which is done through elections. Other issues are more hazy, such as universal health care. Is the government required to keep its citizens healthy? I think a government should keep people safe, which America does with its military, firefighters, and policemen. I don't think the government is obligated to keep the commonwealth healthy, as the enlightened are obligated to return to the darkness. Health is the resposibility of the individual, but I still think universal health care would be an improvement over our current system. A majority of Americans support universal health care and so in order to maintain peace I do think the government would be justified in implementing it.
This is some of what I thought Plato was talking about with his cave allegory. The enlightened have a responsibility to return to the dark and help those in the shadows. I'm trying to define how far those responsibilities should go when it comes to government.
Post a Comment
<< Home