Helping friends, Harming Enemies

In Plato's Republic, the quote, "justice is helping friends and harming enemies" is argued by Polymarchus. I strongly disagree with this because I feel that harming enemies and helping friends is in no way just. For instance, say that a murderer is on trial. Is it just for the murderer's friend to lie and defend him, even though the friend knows he's guilty? Of course not. Also, say that it was the opposite. If John's arch enemy is rich, according to Polymarches' statement, it wouldn't be wrong for John to steal from their enemy. Obviously, this is not justice. If everyone harmed their enemies and helped their friends, the world would be a mess. Harming people you don't like is not morally correct, especially if the reason for not liking them is trivial. I believe that this argument is totally wrong. Yes, of course you should try to help your friends, but not unjustly so. I don't think you should harm your enemies either, especially since harming one enemy may lead to the creation of many more enemies. Justice is about what's right, not about what a person feels like doing. You feel like punching your ex-girlfriend/boyfriend in the face? Well, you could do it, but it wouldn't be justice. In fact, it would even be wrong of you to do so.

Ritual & the Power of Words

When thinking about today's class discussion on ritual & the Way, I kept on thinking about the power of words & how we use them. The phrase "How are you?" is used daily, merely in passing & more as a common greeting than an actual question. I believe that in order to be successful in the environment we live in today, New York City especially, this is an essential thing that most seem to pick up on. After reading this article last year I told myself that whenever I would ask that common question to whmoever that I would genuinely want to know the answer, but sometimes even I forget. I just thought it was interesting that the article compares two totally different societies & creates a common link between the two with words. The main point that I was trying to show is that the same phrase is ritualistic in both settings, but contain different motives & meanings behind it. I believe that in New York sometimes fake niceness is used for success while in other places the motives behind questions or kindness can be totally different.

This is a paragraph from the article that I think does a nice job at describing the two societies different responses to the question briefly.

"In my native country, I had enough of eternal lamentations. People would complain any chance they had. They felt almost guilty doing well and were embarrassed to admit it; they wished to be pitied. A New Yorker, even in his saddest moments, when asked how is he doing, would calmly answer, Thank you, I am well. The answer, beyond its formalism, implicitly means he is not sharing his problems with you. Truth be told, this sparse and formal language brings its own kind of alienation. On the other hand, the abuse of strong words (love, happiness, God, etc.) are pretexts to avoid living their meaning profoundly." (Firan)

Read more: http://www.utne.com/arts/power-of-words-zm0z13mazros.aspx#ixzz3H1KEV1oH

Contradictions

I thought it was very interesting that in 13.16 the Master says, "[Act so that] those near to you are pleased, and those who are far from you are drawn close." I know this quote is not exactly the same in other versions of Analects, but the main idea behind it is consist through all translations. Is it not a contradiction to the Master's previous words? In earlier books he states that one must only work to please themselves and accomplish their own goals. They should not take into account any others in order to benefit themselves. This quote is stating the complete opposite of the Master's earlier account. It calls for one to work to please others, rather than to only please themselves. However, this may also be interpreted in a sense that one should please those near to them regarding family. In which case, the Master would not necessarily be posing contradicting ideas. The second interpretation is not how I viewed it myself. What do you think?

Grading Scale for the Midterm Examination

100          92            A

91            89            A-

88            85            B+

84            80            B

79            77            B-

76            73            C+

72            70            C

69            60            D

59            0              F

repetition of themes in the analects

Throughout reading The Analects something that I noticed was the repetition of the themes of humaneness and perception. Today in class one of the quotes we discussed was "One does not worry about the fact that other people do not appreciate one. One worries about not appreciating other people." (1.16) I feel like these ideas came up again in 4.3: "Only one who is humane is able to like other and able to dislike other people". I found this interesting because in a way it contradicts the idea presented in Book One. From that statement, I would assume that "appreciating" or "knowing" other people means that you don't lay harsh judgement on them, which is not the idea that 4.3 seems to promote. What do you guys think? Have you found any other passages that seem to relate back to the earlier books?

[As a side note, I found there to be a direct relationship between 1.16 and and 15.19: "The gentleman is pained at the lack of ability within himself; he is not pained at the fact that others do not appreciate him." This chapter seemed to be a continuation of 1.16 in that it further developed the idea that one can't be bothered by the opinions of others in a sense, which we talked about in class as well.]

The Stone: The Reign of ‘Terror’ http://t.co/tXHkeIdwKJ via @nytopinionator

— Ashley U. V. (@ProfVaught) October 20, 2014

Pity for those who may not deserve it?

Today in class you guys discussed pity and how we're able to feel empathy for those despite them being in the wrong. I couldn't think of an example during class but afterwards I thought of one based on a current event. I don't know if any of you heard from the news, but Teresa Guidice - a cast member from The Real Housewives of New Jersey - and her husband Joe Guidice have been sentenced to 15 months and 3.5 years in jail respectively after pleading guilty to multiple federal fraud charges, including conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and lying on mortgage and loan applications. Allegedly since 2004 they have been taking out false loans to amass a wealth of over $13 million in stolen money, in which the Federal Government caught notice of after the couple constantly flaunted their rich lifestyle and many possessions on the hit Bravo TV show. While the general public consensus is that they do deserve jail time, many people feel sympathy for them because their four young daughters will be without both parents for the next 4 - 5 years (they received staggered sentences). Also, it is believed that external influences, such as the pressure to maintain this lifestyle to impress the viewers of the show and Teresa's supposed lack of knowledge of the content of the documents she was signing off for her husband contributed to their crimes. Also, Joe Guidice who isn't an American citizen (he's originally from Italy) can possibly be deported after he serves his time. Many people feel bad for that possibility because it will only further tear the parents away from the children, whether he deserves it or not.

Sorry if this tangent was too long, but I just thought this was a good example on an ongoing situation in which a lot of people feel bad for wrongdoers and are able to look past their negative actions because of the situations surrounding it.

Persuasive Speeches

Throughout the book there are many speeches that might or might not be very accurate but they do have a common theme. I've noticed that every time a figure of authority wants his army to act a certain way, that would be beneficial for their land, they say a speech. They refer a lot to ancestors and honor so the arm can feel a sense of responsibility to fight with pride. Most speeches are persuasive but different men use different tactics to persuade. For example, in Book 6 from paragraph 8-24 we see that Nikias is trying to persuade the Athenians not to go on the journey to Sicily but Alcibiades convinces them to go. However, Nikias didn't give up and gave another speech but this time instead of telling them not to go, he stated all of Sicily's strengths to scare the Athenians. Nonetheless, it didn't work but Thucydides made it clear that speeches were used as a way to persuade with authority.