The Social Structures in Philosophy

In Book IV of The Republic, the three classes of Greek society are outlined to the the businessman, the auxiliaries, and the Guardians. The Businessmen are those with desire/appetite for wealth, auxiliaries with the spirit to protect the city-state, and the guardians rule the city with their wisdom. According to Plato, justice is best achieved through allowing each class to accomplish its own tasks and not interfering with those of another.

In Confucian philosophy, Chinese society is separated in four classes: the gentleman/scholar (士), the agricultural class (農), the craftsman (工), and the tradesman(商) in the order of higher status in society. In his philosophy, this hierarchy achieves the most harmony. However, in contrary to Plato, Confucius states that "There should be no distinction of classes" (Analects 15.39) and supports the idea that any virtuous plebeian that cultivates his qualities can become a gentleman.

Within both social structures, men have the potential to reach a higher standing in their society but with categorical differences from one another.  In Platonic society, each individual class attains its own idea of "success" - a wealthy trader, a military general, or a successful ruler. However, the Guardians are ultimately the rulers above the two other classes. In Confucian society, individuals are urged to practice virtue throughout life and gradually transcend the agricultural, craftsman, or tradesman classes into being a scholar. 

Which social structure do you think is the better? Is it better to examine society under the lenses of justice or harmony? Furthermore, which one provides better class mobility and equal opportunity?

Socrates Way of Questioning

While reading the first book of The Republic, I found it very interesting how Socrates speaks to his acquaintances. He seems to look for "precision", something which is later noted by Thrasymachus. However, the organization of thought and the breaking down of an original definition or belief is done similarly to the modern lawyer, in my perspective. He asks questions that appear almost rhetorical to him. They seem to be about things that he may already know the answers to. For example, when referring to justice, Socrates continually asks Polemarchus if justice is useful in certain aspects, such as agriculture or shoemaking. He asks him repetitively, almost as if Polemarchus is being examined. Does anyone agree with this interpretation? If not, what do you perceive this form of questioning as?

Perspectives on the Possession of Money

I know we have not yet begun our discussion on Plato’s Republic, but I just finished Book I and wanted to reference a point I thought was interesting. In Book I, Socrates discusses with multiple men the definition of justice, the character of a just man, and whether justice is truly the advantage of the stronger. Towards the beginning of his persuasive discussion about justice with Polemarchus, Socrates makes the assertion that wealth is good for men.  He states that “the possession of money contributes a great deal to not cheating or lying to any man against one’s will” and that having more money makes dying more peaceful (pg 7).

Do many of you agree with this argument? I have often grown up under the belief that a materialistic view on life can be harmful. In my opinion, having more money can take one’s focus off of being virtuous- for often times it is easier for those who have money to want to gain more of it, becoming what we call greedy. One who is greedy may certainly fear the world that comes after death, then, for they have lacked many virtues of selflessness, generosity, and humbleness. Of course, I am very much open to hearing what everyone else thinks on the topic! Post away!

-Ali Swoish

Thank you.

I really enjoyed the discussion on the Analects we had this evening and wanted to say thank you. That was one of those moments that makes teaching worthwhile. I learned something. 

humaneness and what it entails

Wendell Pfeffer

Social Foundations 1

            There were many different perspectives on what defines humaneness. In class today we were trying to figure out if whether or not humaneness stems from a persons actions or the individual himself. Like I said in class, humaneness is impossible to achieve through action as even the master refers to his peer that he is unable to achieve humaneness because he is not a gentlemen. The idea behind the master’s explanation of the gentlemen and humaneness both intertwine. Thus, one is only able to acquire humaneness if they are born with that quality. Those that are not born with that quality are only able to do respectable things that can lead up humaneness, but will never be able to achieve it. Like Ashley said in class “were not achieving humaneness because we cannot achieve abstraction.” This idea of abstraction can more so be related to the idea that Tory introduced in class – fitness. Anyone that commits to going to the gym must continually go in order too not only retain their physique but to keep on building towards it. Perfection is never achieved in the eyes of a person that goes to the gym day in and day out. It is the same thing with humaneness. You must have the desire and motivation to work towards humaneness but you will never actually reach it.

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

#FilmForum is playing Vertigo, the Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Touch of Evil and Hiroshima Mon Amour. The weekend that dreams are made of!

— Ashley U. V. (@ProfVaught) October 23, 2014

Inequality

Hey Everybody!

So while reading Confucius's Analects, there are multiple reference's to not treating people as inferiors and the equality among people. At the same time there are also many chapters in which he mentions that "gentlemen" must act a certain way or else they will be no better than the "small man." This in itself perpetuates inequality, which seems really strange and contradicting...anybody else able to make sense of it?

Anu

Trying to Understand Humaneness

After our class discussion yesterday, I am left with many questions as I try to define humaneness from Confucius' perspective.  Does action precede humaneness or does humaneness influence one's actions? As a class, we did not have a clear answer.  I think this is because both can be justified.  From Confucius' point of view as a leader, the idea of humaneness was probably devised to create stability and a moral code for his people.  So, in that case, humaneness precedes action.  Humaneness is a standard for behavior that in order for society to thrive, everyone must adhere to.  We discussed self reflection and self awareness.  Professor Vaught said, "Well those are two very different things."  At first, this confused me because the two aren't that distinct from each other.  I thought about it some more and did find some differences.  Self reflection happens after the action, after the good or bad deed, or behavior has happened.  Self awareness goes alongside the action.  If either of these complement humaneness, it would be self awareness because if behavior is not monitored in the moment, one will likely disobey the principles.  Self awareness is similar to self discipline, which one must have in order to adhere to humaneness.

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

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

I asked Professor Vaught this during our last class; however, not everyone was there at the time and I wanted the whole classes' perspective. The understanding of who the Israelites were in comparison to the Hebrews seems to cause some confusion. My understanding was that Jacob, who was renamed Israel by God, was the first 'official' Israelite. All of his sons and their descendants were presumably known as the Israelites. Since the term Hebrew is used generally, it is safe to say that it represents all who believed in Yahweh while the Israelites were a portion of them who existed at a certain period of time. Could one argue that Abraham, Isaac, and even Esau were part of the Israelites? Or were they simply just their predecessors?

Historical Sense of Honor

The problem with reading a historical account such as The Peloponessian War, or a religious account such as The Old Testament, is trying not to read it with a modern understanding. Today we see many of the actions that Israelites and the Greeks committed  as unreasonable or immoral because we are thinking with a modern philosophical stance that often tends to lead to the fact that all people are entitled to equal rights and that violence of any sort is wrong. However, this was not the view of those peoples at the time. The measure for whether or not violence was wrong was immensely different from what we understand today. The Israelites came from a region in which killing was very common. Many of the small civilizations there and even the larger nations such as Egypt were constantly at war. In addition to this, ritualistic sacrifice of people were still relatively common among some of the polytheistic religions of the area. The larger point is that the common sense of morality of the area was to do what was pleasing to your god, and in this sense, the Israelites are very easily able to justify actions like Sodom and Gomorrah. 

Similarly, the area of the Greek city states was an area of almost constant warfare between the independent nations. To these people, there was nothing wrong with killing people in warfare, so long as the war was justifiable according to their code of honor. In fact, not fighting a justifiable war would probably have been viewed as shameful. 

The problem lies in the fact that neither groups of people were concerned with being seen as hypocrites for killing people in battle, even though their code of morals stated that they should not kill others. Instead, they felt justified in their actions because it either went along with what they believed was commanded of them by their god or it followed suit with their code of ethics.  

Universal justice across different novels?

The topic of “war ethos” has been an ongoing discussion in class, and while we have established that the Greeks were biased in their definition of “justice”, I can’t help while writing my essay but find irony in the fact that perhaps the Hebrews within the Bible were impartial of their justice too. How can a society that claims that “anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death”(Exodus 21:12) believe in “destined slaughtering”? When the Hebrews set out to claim their “Land flowing with Milk and Honey,” (3:33), surely the Amorites, Midian, and Og would not have regarded themselves as “wicked people”. Yet, while we have agreed in discussing the Peloponnesian War that it is not right to justify war through God, we seemed to have accepted the Bible’s innate bias. 

I think the injustice found in the Peloponnesian War can be summarized very concisely through one of Sun Tzu's quotes in the Art of War: "To avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak.” Yes, the slaughtering of the Plataians and Boeotians were wrong, but it was done as part of the “Scorched-Earth” mentality that all enemy resources must be destroyed to prevent further use. Imagine if the Athenians or Lacedaemonians justified killing through Gods - it would have been totally against the Greek paradigm of honor. 

So if we have deemed this “practicality” of the Greeks to be unjust, how come we accept the Hebrew mass murders? Furthermore, is “equality” still the basis of justice when we transition from historical to religious records?

-Robert

Honor and Imperialism

            I think one of the most interesting concepts that I came to when I was reading was honor and imperialism. The acts that made up honor back then were burial practices, the practices between armies that let each side acquire their dead after any battle, and also the mutual respect enemies had with one another that let them negotiate their indifferences before their imminent clash. But, aside from all these different practices the one scenario that interested me in the reading was the situation the Helians had with the Athenians. The Athenians came to their little island and demanded that they were to join them and that staying neutral was not a question. The Athenians were, during the time, trying to acquire as much land due to the fact that they were powerful (imperialism). They negotiated but I don’t necessarily think that they were fair with their proposals. Even though the two powers were mutually and honorable talking out the situation with one another it came to a point where the Athenians were not being fair and honorable with their demands. A larger power can’t just necessarily force a smaller power to join them due to the fact that they are simply more powerful it isn’t just. The Helians though handled it incredibly well even though they were destroyed later on. They did not seem intimidated and were honorable with their intentions of not selflessly giving themselves up.

-Wendell Pfeffer

Morality

In class I asked what the standard is in defining justice. There are different beliefs and so there are different behaviors. Wouldn't our beliefs be relative to different circumstances? Is there even such a notion as universal justice? And how would you judge different behaviors that arise from different beliefs?

I noticed that in many aspects of life, the way humans filter out what is "just and what is not" comes from a sense of morality. If there was no such principle as an objective morality, then people, in history and even today, would not advance their rights, abolish slavery, or denounce witch craft as if we are all under an obligation to be good and to live in peace and harmony. In the Peloponnesian War, different powers go to war for the sake of security. I don't think the honor comes in killing other men, but, ironically, in contributing peace by fighting.

I think there is an innate knowledge of what really constitutes justice, and essentially what is good and what is bad (moral conscience).

What Were the Lacedaemonians Real Intentions?

In class we discussed in length about whether or not the Lacedaemonians decision to kill the Plataians was just or not. When discussing this, we brought up the idea of honor, and how that can shape ones idea of what is just and what is not. Personally, I felt as though they gave them a pretty fair chance to stand up for themselves, considering the lengthy speech they made, declaring that they had no other choice but to be fair in order to uphold their honor. Then, the Lacedaemonians proceeded to bring in each Plataian to question them individually. From a casual readers standpoint it seems as though they went about the process honorably and were very just in their decision. However, one also has to bring into account whether or not the decision to kill the Plataians was premeditated or not. While we can never really know for sure, the concept is an intriguing one. Despite knowing beforehand what their intentions were, the Lacedaemonians gave the Plataians fair trial in order to appear as though they were upholding some system of honor, when in fact, they may have known the entire time what they were planning on doing, regardless of what the Plataians said.

War and the Follies of Justice

In class today, we tried to distinguish justice and honor - two words that are often mistaken to be euphemisms. While honor codes can differ amidst social groups, it seems as though justice is always concerned with the sense of equality. Oftentimes in Thucydides’ accounts, the warring nations decided to carry out justice to the defeated. However, there always appeared to be two common flaws among the judicial decisions: 1.) Other than justice, the victors applied their own version of honor, and 2.) They gave into expedience based on the war situation instead of fair trial. From the deliberation of the Plataians to the punishment of the Mytileneans, it always appeared that the Lacedaemonians/Athenians interpreted Justice through their own lens. For instance, Kleon argued that punishment by death for the Mytileneans, in addition to setting a “clear example…for anyone who revolts”, would be “expedient and just”(3.40). Clearly, Kleon has skewed the sense of equality in justice by involving Athenian interests in judgment. On the other faction, debating whether to slaughter Plataians “made enemies by necessity” (3.58), the Lacedaemonians chose vengeance after being convinced by bloodthirsty Thebans. While both sides claimed to be upholding “the law of Hellas”, this act can never be entirely true because the Hellenic World is nothing but fragmented at the time. What both sides have done was merely using justice as their form of retribution; slaughtering men and enslaving women and children. 

What do you think was the correct way of carrying out justice in the scenario of war?

Do you think retribution was a justified action towards these “neutral states”?

-Robert

Concept of honor in Thucydides

Given our discussion in class, I thought I might add the following summary. 

1. The obligation to the dead, to the "fathers", to ancestors. Burial rites. 

2. Allowing enemy military leaders opportunities to speak before battles or before sieges. 

3. The importance of the city and its good preceding that of the individual. 

As for #3, it seems worthwhile to mention that those civic goods, if you will, do not extend beyond the city, nor to citizens of other cities. 

And some other possible additions:

4? The "law of Hellas," which Robert mentioned in class, and I think I explicated as a law of identity and obligation to other Greeks, specifically before non-Greeks, or Medes, or Persians, or "barbarians."

5? 

 

Athenian Lawlessness

There is a scene in Book Two of The Peloponnesian War that, in many ways, foreshadows and parallels a scene in Book Seven. The scene in Book Two describes the effect of the plague on the Athenian army and people (5.52-53), and demonstrates the "lawlessness" that is felt throughout the city. With the overwhelming number of people succumbing to the plague, the healthy citizens could not afford to give the dead proper burial rites. Thucydides described that "all the funeral customs they had previously observed were thrown into confusion" and the corpses were dealt with dishonorably (5.52).
Similarly, in Book Seven, the Athenians were defeated by the Syracusans near Sicily. The Athenian response to the defeat is similar to their response to the plague; "in reaction to the enormity of their terrible situation, [the Athenians] did not even think to ask permission to take up their dead," but instead chose to leave the corpses without a burial (7.72). The plague really is a mirror image of the defeat at Sicily in terms of death, burial rites, and "lawlessness" (which I take to mean as a failure to uphold the standard of honor associated with a dead person's burial rites).

Also, I forgot to say in class today, if anyone doesn't have Microsoft Word and plans on buying it, DO NOT! There's a free download for university students for Microsoft Office that lets you keep it for four years, or until your college email expires.
This is the link:
https://portal.office.com/start?sku=e82ae690-a2d5-4d76-8d30-7c6e01e6022e

The importance of genealogy

I wasn't able to touch base with this subject very much during my presentation due to time constraints, however I thought it would be interesting to share what I noticed concerning genealogy throughout the third book and most of the second. Thucydides often refers to and describes his characters as being the son of someone, such as "Diodotos son of Eukrates" (3.41) and "Archidamos son of Zeuxidamos" (3.1). Even after he references them once, if the character is brought up again the same words "son of" are used. I thought of this in either two ways, one being a reflection of the time and the role men played in society and also the stress that was placed on the continuation of bloodlines when it came to men who accomplished brave deeds. I also took note of Sophie's blog post in which she drew the parallel between empire continuation through war and God's covenants of land and offspring in the Hebrew Bible. In my opinion, the same concept can be applied here. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?