insertfunnyusername01

[insertfunnyusername01]

What it Means to Be a Hero

My opinion now of what a hero is has not differed from pre-pols 383. There are different types of hereos but all in all I would define it as someone who is willing to sacrifice their individual desires for the greater good of the community/people. For example, I would not describe Pete Ricketts as a hero because he continues to put his own political priorities ahead of the communities good by refusing to implement stricter guidelines. I would describe health care workers as heroes because they continuously put themselves second in order to aid others. I would also define a hero as someone who selflessly leads with the hope of helping others. Sometimes being a hero means going against the grain of society.

[insertfunnyusername01]

My Favorite Read

The book that resonated the most with me this semester was Plato's The Republic. I like this book because after all of these years it still finds relevancy in the 21st century. We still often debate the questions he raises, such as (in a nutshell) how can anyone claim to serve justly when they cannot define justice or just actions? This year has highlighted the differing opinions/definitions of justice and it's really had me questioning what justice truly means in America and who we allow to define it. Socrates and Glaucon's back and forth dialogue throughout the book also taught me to question things. At one point Socrates said something along the lines of "I know nothing except that people should carefully think about what they know." In my opinion, if more people were to take a step back and carefully examine what they truly know compared to what they think they know, we would perhaps be more open to listening to others ideas and opinions.

[insertfunnyusername01]

Today in class Dr. Kohen briefly touched on covid-19 and how it relates to what we’ve discussed in class about our political community and civic friendship. It seems every news briefing from Ricketts disheartens me lately. Since the virus hit Nebraska he has placed a lot of trust and responsibility on the people and as we’ve shown him, that was a mistake. In every briefing he places importance on avoiding the 3 C’s but then refuses to acknowledge the real issue OR mandate masks so when people are not avoiding the 3 C’s (here’s to you, downtown!) they are still having to take the necessary precautions. There are people who argue if you’re at-risk then you should just stay home (those who are at-risk are less important?) because “the rest of us will not live our lives in fear”. The lack of civic friendship that is being displayed is not surprising to me. We often place our individual freedoms and liberties over the greater good - and now we are all stuck reaping the benefits.

Nebraska, it's not for everyone!

[insertfunnyusername01]

Many have been waiting for Trump’s news conference but let’s face it, we knew what was going to be said. I am proud of the news stations that cut away from the conference after Trump made many baseless claims of voter fraud. I think it’s heroic in todays world for a news network to stem away from their own biases and correct the president. While it might be expected for some of the networks with a more liberal lens (MSNBC for example) to turn away from Trump’s claims, I have been surprised to see Fox news even warning their viewers that his accusations have no current standing. With the political polarization our country is experiencing, it says a lot about the presidents administration when the two sides can agree on something -- his lack of evidence. 

[insertfunnyusername01]

Argumentative Post

In Book 1 of The Politics, Aristotle laid the groundwork for his premise "man is by nature a social animal whose inclination is to live in the company of others." He argues three other points:

1) The city-state exists by nature, because it comes to be out of the more primitive natural associations and it serves as their end, because it alone attains self-sufficiency.

2) Human beings are by nature political animals, because nature, which does nothing in vain, has equipped them with speech, which enables them to communicate moral concepts such as justice, which are formative of the household and city-state.

3) The city-state is naturally prior to the individuals, because individuals cannot perform their natural functions apart from the city-state, since they are not self-sufficient.

A fourth claim emerged from his three claims, "Therefore, everyone naturally has the impulse for such a political community..." I argue in my post that in today's modern times, people are growing apart from the once popular community feeling due to the hyper polarization we're experiencing. Speech is important for not only communities but friendships, but often times our friendships consist of people with similar views. Now more than ever I would say (quite a few) people are submerging themselves into their own echo chambers, bolstering their beliefs, and immediately disengaging with anyone who says otherwise. 

This is where communities become important.We're all apart of multiple communities -- communities of action, circumstance, interest, demographics, etc. Whether we recognize this or not, we are apart of multiple communities at any given time. Sharing these spaces with individuals that are different from us (personality, religion, beliefs, etc.) tend to increase our tolerance. The more political tolerance you have built up, the greater you are at having debates with others, listening and understanding their point of view, and accepting/respecting their POV.

This current polarization is dividing communities and friendships. It's now become normal to unfriend someone if their views don't align with yours (not saying I don't understand!!). It's easier to avoid the uncomfortable conversations by withdrawing, staying home, or not feeding into the other side. By pulling away from others and reinforcing your views we're losing sight of the common good. Aristotle is right, our speech has purpose and we need to use it to come together as one and figure out what is best for the people, instead of using it to scream louder than your opposition. Those that are able to see past the differences and are actively working together to create unity among us again are doing virtuous work.

[insertfunnyusername01]

In the News Post

Aristotle was interested in different kinds of virtues, one particularly mentioned in The Politics I think was civic virtues. He believed citizens needed to fulfill political duties, and since the U.S. is governed by the people it is then in our virtues that characterize the types of decisions made. A great example of us as citizens fulfilling our political duties while also covering civic virtue and unity is voting. That goes on to say that voting is the the bottom of the ladder, voters need to go above and beyond, to engage themselves actively in politics as well. With this election we saw an increase in civic unity and more citizens stepping in to fulfill their duties.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/elections/voter-turnout/

[insertfunnyusername01]

In the News 11/4

https://journalstar.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/elections/lincoln-and-nebraska-results-for-the-2020-general-election/collection_66da1513-e01e-55f6-8464-33f87fb4de64.html#2

While there are similarities between the Roman republic and democracy in the United States, there are also differences. One difference that is currently on display is our ability to vote for our representatives that create laws on our behalf, while Roman citizens voted directly on laws. 

This method can prove troublesome when the representatives voted in office end up having separate views than the people that elected them. Would you rather vote directly on laws, or continue to vote for representatives? Why or why not? 

[insertfunnyusername01]

10/22 Post

I do not have a news story to attach to this post, but rather comments on a specific part of Wednesday’s lecture. When all of the souls lined up to choose a life, one quickly chose the life of a dictator. He didn’t put much thought into his choice and instead acted on his self interests. This part ties back into Socrates famous line “an unexamined life is not worth leaving” in The Apology. I think this lecture came at a very crucial time - a few weeks before election day. The man who chose the life of dictator without thinking through all of the possible consequences and available options found himself committed to a life of terrible things. If he would have taken the time to examine all of his choices and consequences then perhaps he would have picked a life that better suits him. This really highlights the importance of voting with careful consideration rather than taking the easier route (relying on partisanship) or not voting at all. “An unexamined vote is not worth casting.” -Plato, 2020.

[insertfunnyusername01]

Additional Post - Are We Modern Day Philosopher Kings?

In The Republic of Plato, Plato views democracy as a government full of variety and disorder that lacks internal unity and doesn’t allow of the citizen’s voices to be heard. In contrast to democracy is Kallipolis, a just form of government ran by unwilling philosopher kings. Kallipolis political rule also focuses on knowledge rather than power. As I think about the power of voting in America and individual voting behavior I can’t help but wonder if we are modern day philosopher kings? Our votes are (should be) made with careful consideration, therefore making the rule defined by our knowledge. We, too, have access to ideas as well. Majority of citizens do what they think is best for the greater good (i.e. voting) and isn’t that what a philosopher king is all about? Their wisdom becomes the city’s virtue but as citizens our combined wisdom shapes the states virtue. However, there are some clashing details to be mentioned. Plato wanted the states to be ruled by only the philosopher king, while our states share the power between people. We are still very much democracy but I think there could be a connection made between citizens in a contemporary democracy and philosopher kings in Plato’s perfectly crafted government.

[insertfunnyusername01]

Socrates once said democracy is an “agreeable form of anarchy”, and like any regime, it can collapse with its own contradictions. In 1992, when I believe the country of Nigeria was still under military rule, SARS was formed. SARS stands for Special Anti-Robbery Squad and the idea behind this group was to curb the violence running rampant during that time. However, like anything that is left without rule, SARS quickly turned into the one thing they were fighting to stop -- robbing, kidnapping, committing acts of violence and more. They became a walking contradictory and it’s led to their collapse. The President Buhari has vowed to disassemble SARS but not before soldiers opened fired on peaceful #endSARS protestors, killing possibly more than a dozen people. President Buhari’s appeals for understanding and calmness are falling on deaf ears as the Lagos community continues to protest against police brutality.

[insertfunnyusername01]

Socrates proposed an ideal city and in this city there are two groups of military “guards”. One group is defined as rulers, or guardians, who are dedicated to what is good for the city rather than themselves. It seems that the Supreme Court is structured similarly - 9 justices who are called upon to serve for the greater good of the country rather than serve their own self-interests. While it’s hard to know for sure whether a Justice’s ruling is biased, their background/history make it easy to suggest it is or isn’t. How is it that we leave 9 justices to interpret the constitution and decide what is best for a country of 329.5 million Americans? A task that is not easy, bears a lot of weight, and also holds a lot of power. It is because of that that it is imperative we fight for justices who are more likely to be impartial when deciding the fate of our country.

[insertfunnyusername01]

Argumentative Post (AKA a string of thoughts)

In Book II Glaucon argued that if people could get away with injustice then you wouldn’t act justly. He used the story of Gyges to bolster his argument, claiming anybody would act the same given the chance. At one point, Glaucon even mentions that only a fool would act moral when unobserved; his actions would be seen as irrational, because people only behave justly when they cannot go unpunished acting unjustly. While I’m not prepared to argue against Glaucon’s main point, I argue against that last point, because abiding by your morals, especially when alone, does not make one a fool or irrational. Perhaps to practice justice even when alone is more common than they think.

Many people have certain sets beliefs, values and life goals. One belief may be placed in religion, Gods, which have their own personal rules or “laws” that followers are influenced by. Think of Catholics for example, they believe in their God and follow his words so they will be sent to heaven in their afterlife. So, for those devoted Catholics this might mean serving God for their whole life which is a long time compared to a few minutes of pleasure one might get from fulfilling immoral desires. If they were left alone and able to behave in an immoral manner, I would argue that their influence from religion would be greater than perhaps their own personal desires. Sure, this is motivated reasoning, and self-interested at that, but it’s still a valid reason for one to pursue justice at all times - for the health of one’s soul. I believe this example falls into the second category type of good justice, a thing that is good both in itself and for its consequences.

Glaucon’s understanding of justice is that it only exists because the old and weak, the one’s unable to carry out unjust acts, created laws to make such acts illegal. However, as a member of society, which kind of person would you rather call your neighbor? One who doesn’t answer to another, who lives out every desire no matter the cost, or one who has everyone’s interest in mind? Who makes deliberate choices and considerations? Basically what I’m saying is those who purse a life of injustice are welcoming other problems into their lives. It would be a lawless, nasty, and lonely world to live in. The life of an unjust man cannot be favorable in the long run. Those quick desires are just that, fleeting moments of happiness, presumably not at all well thought out for the future (I also can’t help but to think these people will continuously want more, bigger and better, always chasing the “high”). However, those who pursue justice are living for long haul, and that should not be seen as irrational, no matter how self-serving it may be.

[insertfunnyusername01]

In Plato’s Apology Socrates chose to not call on any witnesses to speak on his behalf and was calm and practical while presenting his case. He is quoted saying “It is not the purpose of a juryman’s office to give justice as a favor to whoever seems good to him, but to judge according to law, and this he has sworn to do. We should not accustom you to perjure yourself, nor should you make a habit of it.” I think Socrates understood he stood a greater chance at redemption had he played on their emotions by being overly apologetic, but instead he made the deliberate choice to be honest and respectful of the current judgment process. Socrates chose to do this out of fear that moving forward the jurors would continuously go against justice according to the Athenian law by basing decisions off of emotions. Socrates’ awareness of emotion in politics was obviously ahead of its time, although it seems like his idea of separating the two are not widely popular today. Political candidates have been appealing to voters through emotion for quite some time, with people like Drew Westen arguing that Republicans do it better. Every ad, speech, and debate are strategically designed to influence votes so it’s no surprise that some try to elicit strong emotions like anger or fear. There have been debates on the ethics of this technique but research shows emotion still strongly influence votes. I’ve attached an article from the 2016 election but if you’re interested more in this topic I highly recommend taking POLS 150 and/or 350! (Posting again because I didn’t finish last week)

https://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/16/t-facts-matter-most-in-convincing-voters.html

[insertfunnyusername01]

Sticking to the previous theme of The Apology, one of the reasons Socrates was on trial was for introducing new deities. He was found guilty of moral corruption and impiety due to asking students politico-philosophic questions. While the citizens of Athens viewed Socrates as a smart, philosophic man, the “wise” jurors viewed him unjust and immoral. This kind of reminds me of what the left is facing at this time. People like AOC are thought of as “radical” when in reality she’s right on track for the views of her generation. It is the “wiser” and older right-leaning groups that view liberals as immoral and unjust in their views because they go against the status quo, when left-leaning political actors like AOC are actually fighting for a better life for all. 

[insertfunnyusername01]

Socrates tried his luck at the interrogative form elenchus when he called on Meletus in The Apology. This exchange between the two men sounded much like the presidential debate we all watched in disbelief the other night. Socrates would ask Meletus a question and then quickly bully him into answering faster. One example of this is can be seen after Socrates asks Meletus if he thinks highly about the improvement of youth, “....you have taken the pains to discover their corrupter, and are citing and accusing me before them. Speak, then, and tell the judges who their improver is. Observe, Meletus, that you are silent and have nothing to say.” This type of approach we saw with Trump, his mocking, dismissiveness and bullying towards Biden became evident almost immediately. This debate, as Socrates Trial and conversation with Meletus, were supposed to give people faith but instead it was another missed opportunity. 

[insertfunnyusername01]

I see many, many people giving their views on the Breonna Taylor case and sadly most of their ill-informed views come from misleading social media posts. Today I read comments under a Facebook article where many people were justifying her death claiming she was a “drug-dealer, fired from her EMT job, police found drugs in her apartment, etc. etc.” Social media is breeding grounds for misinformation and many platforms let it run rampant with no fact-checking. Not only is it difficult to fight for justice, but it’s difficult to convince people that justice is needed when they don’t take the time to research the facts of a case. They retain the information that is most easily accessible to them and fits their views, which I think unnecessarily further polarizes the debate. It’s sad to see strangers so quick to justify one’s murder. This shouldn’t be about liberal or conservatives, left or right, it should be about the facts and seeking justice for an individual who had her life taken. I saw many people commenting on celebrities posts calling them liberals for demanding justice -- how does wanting justice make someone a liberal? 

[insertfunnyusername01]

It is of no surprise that people are dissecting the decisions that the late RBG made as a Supreme Court Justice, voters should remain cognizant of the views held by those with such power. While there are decisions she made that are less than favorable, there is no denying her work done in the Feminist Rights Movement was important. If Justice Ginsburg were alive during the time when women in Ancient Greece held little to no power she would have without a doubt been a force to reckon with. In modern time she fought for everything women didn’t have back then (or would not have had under right circumstances). Things like fighting to make gender discrimination illegal, giving the women the ability to sign a mortgage without a male co-signer, making state funded schools more accepting of women, keeping pregnant women in the workforce, and many more, were some of the things RBG had her hands in during her years here on Earth. These things probably seemed so far-fetched to mortal women in Homer’s books we’ve read, but RBG recognized these issues and took part in changing them for future generations.