Welcome 2008-2009 APLG'ers!!
Welcome to the blog! You don't need to register to post, but should add your first name and last initial somewhere in your comment so we can credit your brilliance. We encourage you to explore previous posts to get a feel for the style and text references we like.
First chance: Perhaps you didn't have the opportunity to share your views during the first Philosopher's Symposium on Monday. Feel free to add your own comments below.
posted by erdecker @ 10:38 AM
13 comments
13 Comments:
I think that it is interesting to look at how each of the three philosophers define a happy life.
Plato: "The wealth that brings happiness [is] a good and wise life."
Aristotle: "A happy life is the life according to virtue lived without impediment."
Thucydides: "Happiness depends on being free, and freedom depends on being courageous."
Even though none of these really define the view of happiness today (we seem to be much more concerned with possessions), Aristotle's view of a virtuous life with no obstacles being a happy one seems to be the most widely accepted. (Wanting no obstacles takes us back to people being lazy.) Anyone else have an opinion?
In his "Allegory of the Cave", Plato ponders about what would happen if a man, after having left "the cave" and seen "the light", comes back into the cave and is expected to share his opinions in competition with the prisoners who have never been released. Plato believes that "they [the prisoners] would laugh at him and say that he had gone up only to come back with his sight ruined".
This compares to modern times in the sense that this is often the way new, revolutionary ideas are treated when first presented; they are mocked and thought of as foolish because of already existing paradigms which overshadow these fresh thoughts. Yet, sure enough, they sometimes result in a huge paradigm shift that significantly alters life as we know it. Perhaps we, as a society, need to be more accepting as a people and try to stay away from such a tunnel-vision mindset...
As Aj said on Monday, I also believe that if we want everyone to go green, we must force it upon them instead of giving them a choice to go or to not go green.
As Plato says in "The Allegory of the Cave", "suppose someone were to drag him away forcibly up the steep...and not let him go until he had hauled him into the sunlight, would he not suffer pain ...his eyes so full of its radiance that he could not see...He would need, then, to grow accustomed before he could see things in that upper world."
Aristotle says something along the same lines but it has to deal with the rich, poor, and their roles in government.
He says, "Suppose the whole population of a city to be 1300...1000 are rich, and do not allow the remaining 300 who are poor...a share of the government." This meaning the poor would be forced to be the slaves of the rich.
Altogether, when new paradigms are present or suggested, they must be forced upon others for the praadigm shift to occur.
To go along with the whole cave thing, where the "prisoners" should be forced into the light so that they can see also. There was another thing that could happen if the person didn't grow accustom to it- they would just "run back to the darkness of the cave" so to speak and so the forcing would back fire. So to prevent that from happening it just takes a few more steps. Thats what most people fail to realize. Like in the case of the green "party" its not just that one first major action that then turns it into a revolution, but also the many other steps that follow afterwards that makes it so that it continues to work and make progress so that the goal is met.
(sorry that all this is 'all over the place' so to speak- I have jumbled thoughts. But I hope you get what I am trying to say.)
Looking at Aristotle's work, he notes that "those who have too much fortune, strength, wealth, friends, and the like, are neither willing nor able to submit to authority." Now, during our discussion, many people suggested that we forced big businesses to 'go green' and change how they operate. This would be extremely hard to do, if not impossible, because powerful businesses think only for themselves and will resist going green. Their only concern is making money, and going green will cut their profits.
I think the overall message I get from watching the paradigm video and reading the three philosophers, especially the allegory of the cave, is that we need to be more open-minded by ideas. History shows us that people who dismiss ideas immediately because their paradigms get hurt. History is bound to repeat itself which means we must reinforce being open minded about things. History is bound to repeat itself. As a result of this, when we hear a claim that seems absurd to us at first, we must listen to the supporting details of the claim and analyze them. The real challenge I think that comes from this is determining when your paradigms are getting in the way of something. Being able to tell if someone has "seen the light" is something that will benefit us greatly in life.
Secondly, I want to put an end to the whole "how to make America green" talk. I'm not saying you should waste resources like electricity, water, and gas, but I am saying all the ideas on how to make America green simply will not work. First of all, just telling huge companies to go green won't work becuase corporate leaders know that going green isn't the most effective way to produce something and will hence eat into profits. In response, some people said America should make laws requiring companies to produce in a more environmentally friendly way. This proposal would put America in HUGE trouble financially. Companies would go on with business and find a different way to make their same product. But, the method of production will be less efficient. (otherwise we would already be green) Due to the increased cost of production, companies will have to increase the cost of their product. Not only would this anger the common person because we have enough trouble with rising food and gas prices anyways, but it would also anger the people we export our goods to. Therefore, the people we export goods to will find a cheaper alternative like a different country to buy that good from since the other country can produce the same product for less becuase they don't have any "green" laws. For example, a British man will buy the a car for $20,000 from a Japanese car factory instead of a car for $25,000 from an American factory. This will result in America not being able to sell any of its goods globally becuase the increased price. So, we will end up importing a lot like we already are, and being able to export virtually nothing. This would mean America will fall into further debt and ultimately other countries will not sell to us due to our inability to pay. The other scenario is that businesses will simply move outside the US so they can produce their goods more efficiently and globally compete with the other companies. This would result in massive unemployment and America would go into a "super-depression".
The other way it wouldn't work is because somewhere, someone will be using "non green" methods and resources will run out. Since oil is easy to understand, I will use that. Say for example America makes a law that so that Americans can't use any gas. Excluding the internal effects, the price of oil will drop sharply due to the sharp decrease in demand since Americans don't buy it any more. The sharp decrease in price will ENCOURAGE people in other parts of the world to buy oil. This means the cost of production will decrease on virtually every product world wide and gas consumption will increase. Basically what I'm saying is that the world extends beyond the US borders and whether we use gas or not, gas will be used somewhere. So, our whole effort to save gas will be worthless since it will run out eventually. We will be able to say we didn't cause it, but that doesn't mean anything.
In conlcusion, the only way to successfully make the world "green" is to make and ENFORCE a law that requires everyone to be green. (So pricing would be fair) This would be impossible to govern across the world. OR We must make the reputation of product made in a "green" way so great that people are willing to pay huge amounts more for a product.
In the end, there will be no way to make our planet totally "green" and resources will run out. In my opinion we might as well take advantage of the resources while they are there and develop ways to cope without them when they run out.
Sorry this is so long.
When comparing the work of Plato and Aristotle, it is interesting to notice their differing ideas considering extremes.
On the one hand, Aristotle proclaims the importance of the Golden Mean. He says that "the happy life is the life according ...to moderation and mean." Therefore, "the life which is in a mean, and in a mean attainable by every one, must be the best." In other words, it is best to avoid extremes at all costs.
On the other hand, Plato infuses his allegory with extremities:Darkness vs. light, shadowed truth vs. enlightenment.Right vs. wrong."Hence it may be ensured that, instead of looking in the wrong direction, it is turned the way it ought to be." According to this philosophy, one is either accustomed to light or accustomed to darkness; there is no in-between nor do 'on the fence-ers' exist.
I wonder...Am I taking these philosophical points out of context or is there really a solid difference? If the difference is legitimate, how am I to know, as a U.S. citizen, which way to behave:in the mean or in an extreme?
In the Allegory of the Cave the idea of returning to the cave, to me, seems like returning to old habits in modern times. I think people get too caught up in the way things used to be, thus a paradigm, and want to return to the "cave" or old paradigm. Although in the Allegory man returns to share his thoughts with others, he still may only present such thoughts in the safety of what he knew.
People continue to be blinded by the "light" they see once leaving the cave or paradigm, but not only do the people left behind not believe those who come back, I feel they have no desire to. People tend to gravitate towards what they already know, and what they already see as being "safe". I think Plato understood that men are creatures of habit and therefore will forever continue to have issues changing paradigms.
I'm going to try and touch base with at least one point in both the Plato writing and the Aristotle writing.
In Plato's Allegory of the Cave those trapped in the cave were recultant to "face the sunlight". I believe this can directly applied to most people of the world today. We are so consumed to what we are involved in that it may be hard to move forward no matter how bad the situation at the time is. "I guess it's hard for people who are so used to things the way they are - even if they're bad - to change. 'Cause they kind of give up. And when they do, everybody kind of loses." (Pay It Forward script)
Aristotole states "In the perfect state the good man is absolutely the same as the good citizen; whereas in other states the good citizen is only good relatively to his own form of government." I agree completely with this statement. In the perfect world the everyday citizen would be a person who always does the best thing. In the world today however, people tend to do the bare minimum in order to seem like a good person while really just doing what is best for that specific individual.
Sarah Anderson
Well Katie... you got me thinking :)
With the whole extremes and mean question it depends on the situation. Take the "Allegory of the Cave" for example if you were to apply the mean and extreme to that i believe the people in the cave would be the mean and those who have seen the light would be the extreme. But there must be a point when the "light" becomes the extreme instead of the darkness. Then i come to the question, if there have been enough people to see the light would that be the new mean?
This is actually a trend that I found during the entire discussion. I dont believe that we ever reach true enlightenment, each time we become enlightened we are faced with the next paradigm/problem (darkness). I just dont think we will ever reach the light. If anyone want to comment plz do i would like more insight on that point.
I was also wondering a few things... Is there a way to apply the mean and extreme situation to the world becoming flat? I was trying to think that thru and i just kept getting stuck on what would be considered the "Golden Mean" of what Friedman was saying.
And another quick question to all those in the "Green" discussion. If and when we go green... what then? Are we going to try to force our opinions on other countries? just allow them to be different? or are going to make them change? Just wondering... :)
Ok yes i kno another thought. Aristotle says "in the perfect state the good man is absolutely the same as the good citizen" and in some ways i agree in what he is saying but is there a difference in what is good for you? and what is good for your country?
First of all, I'd have to agree with what Jennifer said. Aristotle's view of life does seem to be the most widely accepted in today's society... especially if we are talking about "life without impediment". And with the way that our economy has become there seems to be the new trend of "ultimate personal gain" and need of having the most money and material possession, hence referring to today's most general view of the american dream. People don't seem to be concerned as much with living a virtuous life as with living a rich and wealthy life.
Now shifting topics to our "green" discussion, I believe that the very first step that needs to be taken by anyone for this movement to actually begin taking affect in our society is sacrifice. No matter what, something has to be sacrificed in order for the movement to begin, be it money, time, or luxury. But I don't really believe that that will happen and I don't expect it to happen anytime soon. As I have mentioned before about the "ultimate personal gain", people are quite selfish, and they don't really want to help in the change of going green, since it is not affecting them directly. Even though there are global signs everywhere that show that going green might be a necessary step for the preservation of the earth in the future, these signs are not directly affecting people NOW. Since people's time, money and luxury are not being affected currently, why try to fix something that doesn't interfere with your personal gain? I believe that, in the near future, people will start paying more attention and start to include "green" in their lives, but only when their current lives are being "interrupted" in some kind of way.
Or that might not happen and the earth will die and we all flee to mars...
Now to try and answer some of Izzy's questions right above. I agree with her and I believe that we will actually reach the light, but only for a short time because soon an obstacle will get in the light's way and create darkness all over again, and we are forced to find a new light. I believe that this would be a continuous never-ending trend.
Now about izzy's "green" question, I believe that making other countries share the same views as us after we have gone green will either be quite easy or extremely difficult. It might be easy because the US does seem to be acting as a major political leader in the world, and other countries might just follow its example. On the other hand, going green will probably put the US in a huge economic disadvantage compared to some of the other countries in the world, and, naturally, these countries will take advantage of that in some way or another. But I believe that if the entire world were to go green, then no country would be at a major disadvantage because all of the countries would have had to make some sort of economic sacrifice, which would naturally drop the economic standards of the world, putting everyone at a similar level.
makes sense?... Probably not.
To sort of connect the whole enlightenment from the cave thing to the discussion of "The Prince" did anyone else realize that Machiavelli sort of plays into that of the cave and paradigms when he talks about the hereditary principality. He says basically that people are more willing to follow a prince who had gotten to be one through family, because the prince would most likely follow the traditions of his family- so in a way thats a paradigm because the subjects wouldn't really want to change that familiar ruling, so in a way its saying that they are still in the cave.
Also, just to throw it out there, do you think that maybe thats the reason why Bush got elected. Because his father had been president- so there was a sense of familiarity, then re-elected for that same reason?
After reading Bill and Joe's comments, I started seeing a paradigm of today with the rich and the poor. Basicaly what it comes down to is money.
Aristotle says "he who has the required amount of property has a share in the government, but he who loses his property loses his rights."
Today is see that connection with the phrase "money talks"
People with more money will have the means to get what they desire. (their share in the government) Where poor people/people with less money can't always do things they desire. (loses his rights)
Hopefully you can see my connection
any thoughts or comments?
Ben R
Post a Comment
<< Home