Freedom

Reading “Being philosophical may be limited to ‘leisured’ classes,’” will give you the numbers, but  I will just state the reasoning behind the claim. Due to low application rates for undergraduate programs for philosophy, many have dumped the whole idea. Also, due to some market research, the merits of investing in a philosophy program deemed that there lacked a large enough pool to merit investment. And you cannot forget, no one is simply interested in the subject of philosophy (University College Plymouth St Mark & St John). What does it all mean? Well, it means that philosophy will fall into the hands of the few, homogeneous groups of students from “old” university (Being philosophical…). Philosophy is not where the money is babe. Going to college, even community college, is now becoming a  finical burden, and it is only looking to get worst. Majoring in Philosophy, having a huge loan to pay, and/or having to work is not the finical smart thing to do. Thus, it seems that philosophy is left to the well-off to-do middle class and the good grade student— is philosophy a leisure? There are so many ways to answer this question, then it hits you that you are reading this after you have fulfilled your “duty” to your tummy, kids (if you have any), wife (the bed) or house chores. Also we cannot forget that you have a computer, a roof under your head, a constant source of power, and little if any, disturbance that would hinder any real understanding of this post. So far, it sounds like philosophy is a leisure. Once, we meet our basic needs, it seems,  we can then start to philosophize— some have gone as far as to say “you do it (philosophy) when you’re bored”.

Now, let us suppose that more than half the world population is busy keeping their basic needs in check, or trying to survive, which is not too far from reality. It becomes rather clear, I would argue, little philosophy is done. But I would have to pose the question— kill me, I am a philosophy major— what is philosophy? There are different branches of philosophy and believe or not, a debate on the methodologies of philosophy, or if there should even be a system of methodologies. Point is, there are certain type of philosophical problems, if we can call them that, which is common for most of us, such as; what is the meaning of life? Is there a meaning to life? Does god exist? good and evil? And frankly, the professional philosopher will tackle and answer the above questions differently than a person who is philosophical. But I suppose I am missing the point; will philosophy really be left to the well-to-do class with good grade and “old” university? I see why not.

A personal experience. People are always, or more often than not, surprise when I tell them my major is philosophy. And I think it has to do with the fact that philosophy takes a lot of work and sadly this work does not pay well. When they say it does not pay well, it’s not hard to assume that they are talking about money. Because I have, and apparently The Philosophy Club, has accepted the fact that Poor Philosophy is philosophy. And every time this issue, or talk about money and philosophy it always seems to come up with me— and I hate to say this, but I can careless about money. So, I am pursuing philosophy because it does something to me and I have the “means” to do so, while the rest of the world does not have this leisure. Meh. I still think it has largely to do with the lack of interest and our societies emphasis on material goods, but I am shooting myself on the leg with the former statement.

Close.

I cannot forget my experience with philosophy and how it might have contributed some insight into this post. With my first introduction to philosophy, which was in high school, it was think. There are questions out there that might or might not have an answer and I am asking you to think about them. College, and when I started to read more on the subject and take a more academic route towards philosophy, it became a bit more complicated than THINK. In other words, I believe we all can, and will do philosophy, how much is debatable. I mean poor countries or oppressive regimes have produced some of the greatest thinkers, but professional philosophy is, simply, almost a different species, with a different pool.

Note: My comment on oppressive regimes is to be taken lightly. There HAS to be some freedom in order to have free thinkers.

What is justice? I recently saw the film “Law Abiding Citizen,” which was about a guy who had the unfortunate circumstance of  his wife and young daughter murdered. The DA, after the murder, put in prison both person and sentenced one of the murders to death. But the individual that was sentenced to death was NOT the one who killed his wife and daughter, in fact it was the REAL murderer who testified against his accomplish of robbery, and this was needed because the DA did not have a good case without the testimony. Therefore, the husband of a murdered wife, and a father of a murdered daughter, hmm that’s from Gladiator, maybe another movie about justice? Anyways, the husband goes back and kill, nearly, everyone involved with the case, whiles trying to show Jamie Fox, the prosecutor that cut the deal, what justice is– or so it seems. So what is justice?

The movie bluntly informs us that you do not cut deals with murderers, that regardless of what the system is,  there is a right and wrong and it is a simple fact that a murderers ought not to have a chance of a deal; they get a five year sentence and then let free– it is simply wrong. Therefore, justice would be the harmer of the good and rightly so, hammers the wrong/evil. Thus, it seems fair to say that justice is not about an eye-for-an-eye, although you may get this from watching it, rather it is about good triumphing evil. In the film, it is the justice system that did not permit good to send forth its thunder to evil, so the husband decided to lend a hand, an understatement, to show the city, the world, and Jamie Fox that evil is evil, period.

Recently, I finished an ethics course and at the on-set we established that justice has little to do with ethics, at least in that class. I suppose it’s from the argument that laws do not provided us with morality, or our moral reasoning, and I  have to agree. Justice, therefore, in the class was not really talked about, insofar as, this is just and that is not just. We, simply, or rather not so simply, applied theories of ethics to cases– applied ethics. But I am not saying, or at least I do not think the class was saying, that justice and ethics share nothing in common, if it were, I would have to disagree. Our sense of justice plays a big role in what we think is our moral ought. The idea of justice has become this fight between two theories of justice, one from the ancient philosophers, the other from the modern theories. The ancient talked about justice being something of virtue, or starts with having virtue. Whereas, the modern theories of justice begin with freedom. But I believe, and since I am reading a book titled “Justice,” by Michael J. Sandel, justice is tainted with judgments of what is virtuous, or what is the best way of life; or to turn the tables, the ancient theories of justice fail to realized, respect, or advance the freedom given to man by birth and it is unjust to step on this given right of freedom. In other words, justice for the modern’s is the respect of each person’s freedom to choose his or her own idea of a good life, whereas the ancient’s have a particular conception of virtues that define the principles of justice and our rights (Sandel 9). To go back to the idea that the ancients and the moderns are not competitors, but rather in reality both play into the real lives of individuals; Sandel wrote, “the conviction that justice involves virtue as well as choice runs deep. Thinking about justice seems inescapably to engage us in thinking about the best way to live” (10).

I just realized the huge task that I decided to write about, so let us narrow it down back to the film. Back to the film, the films seems to claim that justice is good triumphing evil. Therefore, there was no real middle-ground in which the movie pokes at that the justice system plays in. Justice does not involve the egos, the reputation, the perspectives of an individual– there is simply, in a world, Good and Evil and good ought to win and when it does justice is best served.

Looking at the title exemplifies softly, through irony, the idea that the law does not provide us with justice, nor our morality.

When I was younger than my teenage years I never disrespected my elders, and I would like to think I still don’t. I recall that it was so important that I behaved very proper and the adults would always say, “what a good boy”. So, am I saying that the result of my goodness was the want to please others, or that it resulted from the social approval I received? Yes. It can even be argued that being a “good” boy actually put restraints to my freedom to do what I want, therefore I was not happy in the simplest form of being able to do what I want to do, but I think this is for a different discussion.

When I think about stealing something from someone, say, their pen that is fancy, I do not promptly conjure up a scheme to steal the pen, rather I encounter the question of if I should steal the pen?  When, more often than not, I decide that I ought not to steal the pen it usually follows the reasoning of the consideration of the other person— after all I might see this person the next day, or this person was/is my friend. In other words, I am not stealing the pen, which in this non-complex example is the good thing to do, because I have a social tie with the individual. Now lets start to get a bit more abstract, i suppose.

Being part of a society is the most natural thing for men. Numerous philosophers, writers, and economist admits that we are social creatures. From this condition of being human, social creatures, it follows that we enter, knowingly or not, a contract and if this contract is breached there are a number of ways our fellow members of society make this explicitly or implicitly known. The reason why I want to be good is because I am not truly an individual, independent, and free agent that I wish that I am. Wait, “don’t go that far”, she would say. We are free agents and independent, and this is true, but we are restrained to do what we want because we have to consider others. When we are trying to be good, to say, is to understand that “no man is an island”.

interpretation from a tweet reply from my former teacher.

Plato wrote in the Republic about a certain lie, a noble lie, that must be told to the people of the state. This lie was needed because it would unite and keep the society vibrant and vital, and if this lie, or as some would call it, myth, were not told to the masses, it would result in the refusal of how the society was laid out. The Republic was built of three classes; 1. The Guardians 2. The Workers 3. The Philosophers.

Ideally, the philosophers would govern the state and the guardians protect the state, and the workers would be the labour in which would provide for the state. Socrates recognized the fact that there might be some jealously amongst the classes. The upper class might see the lower class to be more fun, or the lower class would envy the power and intelligence of the upper class. Therefore, Socrates created the need for a myth, and it was in this myth that would join the classes and accept their role in society.

Before the introduction of the myth in the Republic, great attention was paid to the myths, poets, and the such, wherein the argument lead to the destruction of these items in society, for they corrupt and among other things. Thus, it was interesting that in the destruction of the Greek myths came the Noble Lie (myth), which was to establish and/or keep harmony in the society. Plato admitted, I suppose, that the argument for the lie was but a weak one and the uniting force of the myth, weak.

EveryONE must be told this myth. Everyone is to be lied to, even the leaders of the state.

It could be argued that the idea of a Nobel lie and the reasons for it found in the Republic, gave birth to the many myths of current, or once existing states of our reality. Most of the time this myth was created to entice nationalism, ethnocentrism, that lead to aggressive, arrogant, racist and imperialistic actions by those states. The Republic was a state in which finds its success, or concern for the whole of the society, rather than the individual. Good states to look at, not for the myth per se, but for national pride and pride in history would be states that have a monarch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sgd9nYqVz2s

WATCHMEN

The grand joke was a deception, To LIE, lie to the people of earth so that they would unite and avoid nuclear Holocaust and ending the human species. This lie was constructed by the smartest men on Earth, Adrian Veldt, and it was no surprise that Dr. Mathaten, due to the lie, would become the icon of evil, rather than his previous task of peace and security. This hate of the doctor would result in the union of the world for peace. Adrian Veldt, decived mankind so that it would save itself from itself, but the only price, as one of the hero’s saw it as, was the truth. Was mankind so destructive towards one another, that there need be a lie, a myth that would unite and live in peace? Was the lie told to the world in Watchmen Noble?

The nature of men in this movie was far from the ideal one— what is the nature of men? Could it be that it was the mind-set, the way in which the world is govern artificially that lead to the horrific, destructive, and disgusting nature of these human beings, or is it rooted in us? The smartest men on earth wanted to end wars, wars for resources, for energy, for things not just, and he found his lie to be the only way. The world in the end was united in peace, not a crime to be found anywhere in the world. Constructed by the smartest men on earth and agreed upon by the Doctor whom has seen the universe.