Grades already available in CRS

We have submitted the grades already to Pol Sci Department. It should be available in the CRS by now.

Thank you and good luck with your studies!

Reminders for Final Exam

Please be reminded that final exam will be on October 18, 2010, Monday at 1:45-3:45 PM same room. Please bring 1 blue book. Format of the exam will be the same as the second exam.

Although the focus of the exam will be from Smith up to our last discussion in class, it is better to review everything as some of the questions may require knowledge of earlier Philosophical thinkers discussed in class.

Do bear in mind that those who ought to take the final exam will run the risk of bringing their grades down than their present one. Please assess carefully and study well. Otherwise you will have the grade we gave you as your final grade (except for those who are required to take the final exam). We do not give a grade of 4 or incomplete so those who are at the low end will get a grade of 3 or 5.

Thank you and good luck!

The following short excerpt exemplifies how bureaucracy should work as well as the problem often attributed to it.

A man went to knock at the king's door. . .

A man went to knock at the king's door and said, Give me a boat. The king's house had many other doors, but this was the door for petitions. Since the king spent all his time sitting at the door for favors (favors being offered to te king, you understand), whenever he heard someone knocking at the door for petitionss, he would pretend not to hear and only when continous, pounding of the bronze doorknocker became not just deafining, but positively scandalous, disturbing the peace of the neighborhood (people would start muttering, what kind of king is he if he won't even answer the door), only then would he order the first secretary to go and find out what the supplicant wanted, since there seemed no way of silencing him. Then the first secretary would call the second secretary who would give order to the second assistant, and so on all the way down the line to the cleaning woman, who, having no one else to give orders to, would half-open the door and ask through the crack, what do you want. The supplicant would state his business, that is, he would ask what he had come to ask, then he would wait by the door for his request to trace back, person by person to the king. The king occupied as usual with the favors being offered him, would take a long time to reply, ang it was no small measure of his concern for the happiness and well-being of his people that he could, finally, resolve to ask his first secretary for an authoritative opinion in writing, the first secretary, needless to say, would pass on the command to the second secretary, who would pass it on to the third secretary, and so on down once again to the cleaning woman, who would give a yes or no depending on what kind of mood she was in.

Excerpt from "The Tale of the Unkown Island" by Jose Saramago (Nobel Prize Winner for Literature). As translated from Portuguese by Margaret Jull Costa. Hardcourt Brace and Company, 1998. pp1-3

Characteristics of Bureaucracy:

1. Fixed and official jurisdictional areas/ Specialization and division of labor

a. regular activities and fixed duties

b. there are rules on authorities to give commands

c. only qualified persons are employed

2. Hierarchical positions

a. system of super and subordination, where there is a supervision of lower office by higher ones- unity of command; authority

b. serves a formal system of communication

3. System of abstract rules-rules persist whereas personnel change

a. exhaustive, stable and can be learned

4. Impersonal relationship

a. seperates the private (personal life) from the public (office life)

b. make rational desicions; avoiding emotional attachment

c. official activity demand the full working capacity of the individual

5. Merit principle (promotion and selection)

a. special examination are pre-requisite to employment

b. presupposes thorough and expert training

The position of individual:

1. Office is a vacation

a. loyalty to office is pure and does not establish a relationship to a person

2. Position is patterned in the following:

a. rules of rank order

b. appointed by a superior authority

c. tenure for life

d. regular compensation

e. official is set for a career

Ang Gerilya ay Tulad ng Makata

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtvXXTcT56

I cant find the gerilya song (youtube) that i keep on singing when i was grade 3, I only found this gerilya video, but I think this video is also helpful in relation to our last discussion (Oct 1, 2010 - friday) . In connection to this i am willing to sing (as long as I remember the lyrics) the "gerilya song" in class =).

This is a video I found last week. I think it can relate to what we've been learning over the weeks.

I know it isn't stated in the video. But while I was watching this, I remembered the industrial revolution. This was a time when manufacturing and technology was advancing forward.

I thought about if there could come a crisis along with the use of the internet?

All over the world (in my opinion) the biggest advance in mankind's achievement was the advance in communication. It's become become extremely influential in almost everything we do. The market has even moved on to the internet. It's even gone to a point where it could be a source of easy money.

Let me put it this way, when a web developer creates an application for a phone or the internet he could could sell it over the internet. When people buy that application using their credit cards (this includes foreign countries too) that money would be sent to the country of the web developer. This makes the internet a source of income for an economy right? Please note that successful applications could earn $200,000 in a few months. If people did this on a large scale just like the industrial revolution would there come a crisis?

Could there be a consequence to connecting the world. There are some terrorism threats that could arise from the net. Could there be more.

Karl Marx Explains the Labor Theory of Value

- The main points of the labor theory of value are stated here. It was said that the worker is just being paid enough to survive, while the extra goes to the employer. Out of the labor of the worker, the employer makes far more than what he pays the worker. This makes the employer richer and the worker becomes poorer.

Exploitation nowadays

Exploitation is the act of using something for another purpose or the act of using something in an unjust or cruel manner. In exploitation, people are being mistreated and unfairly used for the benefit of other people. Their talents, skills and work are being used for the benefit of others and little or no benefit for themselves.

With this definition, I think there are a lot of workers at present who are being exploited. What is the government doing about this situation? Are they aware of this and just simply allowing it?

Alienation

As a fine arts student, what i learned to appreciate in Marx is the value he gave to creativity as the most important aspect of a person.

In his analysis of the capitalist mode of production, he showed the damaging effect of the division of labour to the being of a person.

I know the importance of seeing a creative product as a result of my imagination, but in a capitalist system the artist's work is treated more as a product.

i once saw a movie "Sea Biscuit" which begins with showing the making of cars as a product of the division of labour. i remember the lines saying "under the division of labour seamstresses became button-holers, furniture makers became knob-turners. The beginning of the division of labour was the end of imagination." These words struck me. I can now understand that if a seamstress just makes a part of a dress the whole day, like a sleeve or a collar, without seeing the whole dress, then how alienating that would be.

If i am an artist and i am hired to do only certain effects in an animation process and if I will never get to see the end product, i would feel that i am an alien to myself. This will surely result in the dulling of my imagination. Marx's idea of imagination has opened my eyes to what is happening these days. We and our works are being turned into commodities. Can artists live in such a condition? If my imagination would be dulled, will i still be a person?

Of Ideas, and Material Force and self-change.

In Dialectical Materialism, the spiritual world is not separated from the material world and thus, ideas and matter are always in the same plane. Matters can only be tackled by a material force but an idea can be a material force if it captured the allegiance of the masses.

Now with this, I am supposing that in terms of Dialectical Materialism an idea even if it captured an individual cannot be counted as a material force, if 1.) It cannot bring change in a certain phenomenon 2.) It cannot cause an impact to society.

An idea must capture a wide united audience, and unite in a way that the effort that will given by the mass for the idea is collective in nature and not individualistic.

So is the concept of "ako mismo." be counted as a material force, if it gives a freeway for individualistic paths to be constructed? Can real change in terms of dialectical materialism be reached with this concept?

On Privatization

According to Adam Smith, man's natural unending needs and wants are directed by an invisible hand, the rules governing the market, especially the law of supply and demand.

He proposed a let alone policy, on which the government only role in the economy is to provide security and stability and maintain the rules of the trade.

With this minimal government involvement in the market, privatization comes to play. Privatization, is the process of transferring a public service given by the public sector in the hands of the private sector of society. Privatization, being a concept of free market, aims to achieve the goals of a competitive market involving efficiency in terms of profit and usage. With this, is privatization good or bad?

Why did the old Hegel supported monarchies

In his early years, Hegel was a liberal who carries French revolutionary ideas. He supported the overthrow of all monarchies. Why is it that when he got old, he changed his views and became a conservative?

Dalisay Lecture

Please check your email and read Prof. Dalisay's speech. Thank you!

COMMUNIST MANIFESTO

Which chapter of the Communist Manifesto do you think holds the bulk of the manifesto?

Chapter 1-Bourgeois and Proletarians, Chapter 2- Proletarians and Communists, Chapter 3-Socialist and Communist Literature, Chapter 4- position of the communists in relation to the various existing opposition parties.

Minority vs Majority

Bigla ko lang naisip: In a democracy, where unanimity is not always possible, should the minority submit to the will of the majority? And if so, is it because it is what ought to be done, or is it just for the sake of preventing chaos?

Social Contract Theory.. Try watching this.

3 Natural RIghts

It was discussed that we citizens have three natural or in-born rights. These are: life, liberty and property. But at present, do you think that these rights are really retained by the citizens?

These rights are not surrendered to the sovereign and the sovereign cannot take away these natural rights. but at present, I think that the state or the sovereign somehow takes away these rights of ours. They may not take them away absolutely, but they sometimes abuse it.

State of Nature

Who's take on the state of nature do you agree with more? Hobbes' claim that because men are essentially evil, they will eventually enter the state of war or Locke's claim that because men are essentially good, they understood the need for national cooperation?

All For The Monarchy?

Machiavelli did propose a monarchy for uniting Italy. But i don't think it was the government that he truly wanted to build Italy on. Machiavelli did write a means to uniting Italy under a single ruler but he did also write about how a republic should be started and structured.

I think he wanted to unite Italy with a single ruler, but only to a point of uniting Italy and to see that Italy can see itself as one nation. Then, like he wrote on the Discorsi would build a republic of Italy, which was his main goal.

I find it amusing that Machiavelli was open to more than one form of government and that he was also a person who was quick to changing one means to another means (eg. when being cautious over others).

Zacarias Daniel A. Baricuatro

Machiavelli Being Loud

It was said in our lessons that Machiavelli had a reputation for praising himself.

I find it to be a very practical way to get noticed and to sell. It could have been Machiavelli's strategy for the public to buy his works. Machiavelli was a person who thought ahead of most people at his time. His strategy for marketing the works he wanted people to read would be this difference that he wanted people to know about.

But what I perceive through his writing in The Prince on a psychological basis was that Machiavelli was a man of little trust for acquaintances. He wrote about making alliances and he also wrote about how to stay on top of everybody else. I guess he believes in the achievements a self-made man can do.

This said I believe Machiavelli was a strong marketer of himself and that in order for a chance to achieve his dreams he had to set himself apart from everybody else.

Zacarias Daniel A. Baricuatro

Something I Found...

I thought this would help serve as a quick summary on Machiavelli before we move onto our next lessons. It's a Video Link to a Discovery Channel Video on the Machiavelli

Additional reading for Karl Marx

Aside from "The Communist manifesto", please read also "The Return of Karl Marx" by John Cassidy. Please click on the link below for a soft copy of this journal article. The Article was originally published in the journal, New Yorker, in October 20, 1997.


http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=vKns1MCdu3MC&pg=PA264&lpg=PA264&dq=John+Cassidy+The+Return+of+Karl+marx&source=bl&ots=FACac-zbK9&sig=qMMMvB9tiuVu8h1x78xVnHsoZVQ&hl=tl&ei=E3VOTK2pA4aCvgOz2r1F&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=John%20Cassidy%20The%20Return%20of%20Karl%20marx&f=false

Thanks!

Machiavelli

You may think of this as a quick Review on what we learned about Machiavelli. What do you think are the highlights of Machiavelli's The Prince? Which points do you deem make the most sense? or most practical? Which of Machiavelli's teachings struck you the most or you agree with the most? Do you agree that it is better to be feared than loved? Was Machiavelli was really not Machiavellian? Do you agree that there are two kinds of morality?

Notes on Caligula (and Leader Appointment)

"Caligula also kept his favourite racehorse, Incitatus, inside the palace in a stable box of carved ivory, dressed in purple blankets and collars of precious stones. Dinner guests were invited to the palace in the horse's name. And the horse, too, was invited to dine with the emperor. Caligula was even said to have considered making the horse consul."

We do not need horses as leaders. He who chooses them shall discern a worthy leader from an inept, egotistic one.

First Exam reminders

Please take note of our scheduled exam in Soc Sci 2 on July 23, 2010 Friday (same room). The coverage of the exam will be from Plato to Machiavelli. Please bring 1 blue book. Thank you.

No Classes on July 7, 2010 (Wednesday)

There will be no classes on Wednesday July 7, 2010. Please use this time to read on John Locke and Thomas Hobbes (as they will be our next topic after Machiavelli) as well as the rest of the assigned readings for the class . Thank you!

Machiavelli was not Machiavellian

This is an interesting article that you could ponder on.
Available in this link: http://www.italian-american.com/machi2.htm

by David K. Fry

In 1739 Frederick II, the King of Prussia, wrote a treatise condemning Machiavelli's The Prince. He wrote that Machiavelli "corrupted politics, and in so doing hoped to destroy the very precepts of sound morality." Since its publication in 1532, The Prince has been attacked as unprincipled and immoral. Machiavellianism has come to represent corrupt, ambitious, totalitarian rule, where the ends justify the means. However, this modern view of Niccolo Machiavelli is unjustified. We can see this by looking at Machiavelli's support for republics and his hopes for Italy.

Niccolo Machiavelli's republican beliefs are very apparent in most of his writing. However, when writing The Prince, he was focusing on monarchies instead of republics. He started the second chapter with the words, "I shall omit any discussion of republics as I have discussed them fully elsewhere" (Machiavelli 1). Since he was writing for the Prince, it would not have been appropriate to examine the republic.

While The Prince is Machiavelli's best known work, it is The Discourses which portray the most about him. The Prince was just a pamphlet dashed off to gain influence with the Medici, but in The Discourses he sought to include his entire system of politics. The basic idea of The Discourses is the superiority of the democratic republic and the ultimate reliance of even the most despotic regimes on the mass consent of the people (Lerner 10). This writing shows Machiavelli's love for the common good and the injustice of the modern connotation of Machiavellian.

Machiavelli's love for liberty is also evident when looking at his life. Machiavelli came from a republican family and had a position in the government of Florence. He was very concerned with maintaining the Florentine republic, and he worked to form a militia to protect it. After the republic fell in 1512, he was jailed for a month and tortured as a suspect in an assassination plot (De Grazia 34). As a republican, he was not trusted by the Medici in power, but he always strived to find a way back into politics. In The Prince, Machiavelli represented himself differently in hopes of gaining a position in government. This depiction of Machiavelli as a supporter of corrupt totalitarian rule is unfair because Niccolo Machiavelli strongly favored republics.

The modern view of Machiavelli can also be seen as unjust because of his love for Italy. Machiavelli had many hopes for Italy and spent most of his life working towards them. He supported the republic, but he wanted most of all for the people of Italy to be happy. He was very patriotic and wanted Italy to reach its full potential. While he did not support the often immoral and totalitarian rule of the Medici, he felt that by having a position in government he could make it better.

Niccolo Machiavelli understood the reality of the chaotic situation in Italy. He had seen corruption, deceit, and ruthlessness in government and knew how and why it existed. Few others have analyzed how to be an effective dictator because it is rather distasteful. But Machiavelli accepted the predicament and tried to understand the political and personal interactions that kept it going. In writing The Prince, he was not examining right or wrong. He was simply setting down what he knew in the hope that it would benefit the Prince and the country. He hoped that by helping the Prince rule more effectively, he might help Italy achieve the greatness he hoped for.

During Machiavelli's lifetime, Italy went through many changes and years of turmoil. When he wrote The Prince, Machiavelli most wanted stability. He wanted Italy unified under a single ruler. The final chapter of The Prince, "Exhortation to Free Italy from the Barbarians," encourages the Medici to this end. Machiavelli wrote:

"THIS BARBARIAN OCCUPATION STINKS IN THE NOSTRILS OF ALL OF US. Let your illustrious house then take up this cause with the spirit and the hope with which one undertakes a truly just enterprise so that under the banner of your house the country may be ennobled" (Machiavelli 78).
Machiavelli's hope for a unified Italian state far outweighed his dislikes for the Medici. "To Machiavelli, man's mission in this life, and his first duty, is patriotism toward the glory, greatness, and liberty of the fatherland." (De Sanctis 23) The Prince was his way of helping to bring about the changes he felt were necessary. He was not advocating corrupt, immoral totalitarian rule but a powerful ruler to give Italy stability and security.

Machiavelli is unfairly remembered as something he was not. The western view of Machiavellianism is one of power, ambition, and corruption. Instead, Niccolo Machiavelli was a republican and a patriot. He supported the republic in his writing and in his actions. He loved his country and worked fiercely to protect it. The term "Machiavellian" should represent liberty and patriotism. He supported the republic and loved his country.

Works Cited
De Grazia, Sebastian. Machiavelli in Hell. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989.
Frederick II. Oeuvres de Frederick II, Roi de Prusse. Berlin: Chez Voss et Fils, 1789. Translated by De Lamar Jensen
Lerner, Max. Machiavelli the Realist. Random House, 1950.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Arlington Heights: Harlan Davidson, 1947.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince and the Discourses. New York: Random House, 1950.

For Advance Reading

Please start reading "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith and "Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels for upcoming discussions. Our next topic after Machiavelli would be on John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. Thank you.

Lessons from "The Prince"

How can we use the "lessons" or the concepts we have learned from "The Prince?" How can we use the concepts of ruling and leadership, given our present government and situation? Are these leadership styles really true and helpful, and should they be used by our leaders today in order for the citizens to follow them?

Government

Anyone can answer my question. :)

What type of government would be best for our country given it's current situation today?

No Utopia Nor Perfect Reality

I believe there is no perfect form or type of government. The most essential component to build a good government is the morality-centered relationship between the leader and the followers. For the rulers, leadership should be a matter of give AND take, not give OR take.

Democracy

When does the meaning of Democracy from Aristotle's time changed?

When you look at it closely, Democracy on Aristotle and Plato's time is unorganized and unsystematic, and no country for hopes of having a generally good name to its foreign neighbors would adapt the term.

Going back to the present, we can say that Democracy has really changed way back from Democracy in Aristotle's time. Democracy, today is the in-thing and major powers such as America and most of the EU support it and carry it like some sort of sociopolitical banner.

What gives?

Would the countries fall just like the polis fall when Democracy failed?

Cheers.

PLATO + ARISTOTLE?

I think Plato's Utopia could have been improved.

Plato's idea of philosopher kings and Aristotle's governing laws (polis) could have been put together that may form a more reasonable ideal state. Imagine a city composed of citizens who are all of well education. All could be philosophers. Notice that I used could. The main deciding factor that will lead a person to the hunt for more knowledge and to become a philosopher king is the actual will of that person. He/She may be brightest in all the world but if that person doesn't want to be a leader. Then the way he/she will lead will not be as great as a person who does.

Back to the main topic. If a wise few were to control a city of educated people who could become philosophers then possibilities of an unpredictable yet a prosperous future could arise.

Slavery: Natural vs. Convention

Why did Aristotle defend slavery in the first place?

Actually, he defended slavery by nature wherein this person cannot exercise reason on his own and he's the one who makes himself available to the beck and call of another person. 

On the other hand, slavery by convention is imposed by society and is backed-up by laws. It's as if you don;' have a choice.

A slave is someone who is an animate article of property and a part of a household. He has a function in order to make the household run. A slave by nature is someone who cannot stand alone and who needs someone to decide for himself.

A modern-day slave in a high school setting is the "lacky" of the clique --- the one who follows orders without question or any hesitation. He always asks, "What are we going to do today?" Or sometimes you'd ask him, "What do you want to do?" Then he will reply, "I don't know. What do you want to do anyway?"  His life cannot revolve without other people directing it.

So think, does your description fits this person? If yes, then you're a slave by nature too!

The possibility of citizens belonging to a mixed class; an argument.

Isn't it possible for a citizen on Plato's ideal state to have two virtues? A good example a citizen having both the qualities of a Guardian and an Auxiliary, or a citizen born from the class of the Workers and have the qualifications of both a Worker and an Auxiliary. Would it mean destruction of Plato's ideal state?

We knew how Plato plan to exclude the wise and the pursuant of wisdom from the polis to create the guardians but how could he or the philosopher-king distinguish an auxiliary to a worker without the probability of locking a citizen and his/her would-be offspring to a certain class, say a son of a worker will be always a worker?

The Possibility of an Ideal State

Plato paints the portrait of his ideal polis in his dialogue Republic. Here he suggests that the ideal State must be ruled by philosopher-kings: rulers that possess the highest political wisdom. He claims that the State, just like the human soul, naturally comes in threefold. In the soul, there are the rational, the spirited, and the appetitive elements, of which the rational must rank the highest. In parallel, the State’s citizens are divided into three classes: the Guardians (rulers, the rational), the Auxiliaries (soldiers and civilian administrators, the spirited), and the Workers (artisans, farmers, and the like, the appetitive). And likewise, Plato claims that the Guardians must naturally rule over the two other classes, for as the rational part of society, the Guardians know how to rule, protect, and sustain the polis. Plato definitely wants only the best to rule the ideal State. And it is in this kind of division of labour where Plato establishes his concept of justice: justice means doing your part in the work, staying in your post, and not interfering with others’ affairs. Hence neither a craftsman nor a military official can rule the ideal State.

What kind of philosophy must the philosopher-king possess? How could you produce such wisdom in the Guardians? Plato answers these questions in his suggested educational system in the Republic. He reserves for the Guardian class a special type of education that will enable them to reach the ultimate political wisdom, the Truth. He believes that the philosopher cannot rely on sense perception solely. In fact, he asserts that sense perception is the lowest form of knowledge acquisition. In Book VII, Plato presents his ever famous Allegory of the Cave, where he compares men to prisoners in an underground cave. There they were in chains since birth, and all they can see are shadows of real things as they cannot turn around their heads. And the sight of shadows is equated to sense perception: one does not see the totality of reality through mere senses. In Plato’s suggested education for the philosopher, one must advance from sense perception to the belief in visible objects, to the understanding of mathematical entities, and finally, to the knowledge of the Idea. For Plato, the Idea or Form is the abstract entity that underlies reality. And since the Form is abstract, the philosopher cannot only trust in his perception and belief of the material world; he must enquire into the ultimate truth and reality behind the physical realm. It is this kind of wisdom that Plato requires of the philosopher-king: discerning the first principles, abstract and obtained by pure Reason.

There are some objections one may raise against Plato’s idea of the ideal. For instance, in Book II, Socrates declares that “a State arises out of the needs of mankind; no one is self-sufficing, but all of us have many wants.” And while Plato sees this material origin of the State, in Book VII, Socrates most emphatically asserts in the Allegory that “just as the eye was unable to turn from darkness to light without the whole body, so too the instrument of knowledge can only by the movement of the whole soul be turned from the world of becoming into that of being.” But then the State, in its very nature and origin, is part of the world of the becoming: the physical, the tangible, and the sensible. So how can the ruler separate himself from the world of the becoming to be politically wise, when in fact the State that he rules is itself a physical being? If one has faith in Plato’s metaphysics, he might rejoin with this answer: the philosopher has to leave the physical world of the becoming temporarily, understand the abstract Form that governs the tangibles, and return to the physical world and govern the State according to how the Form governs physical objects. This might be true in science: the scientist observes physical phenomena, tries to discover the abstract mathematical law that governs it, and then applies that law to draw more conclusions about real events. But does this line of reasoning also occur in the managing of a State, or to set things in correct perspective, the polis? The State isn’t just about the people and geography; it is also about the intangible things that arise from, instead of underlie, these people: social interactions, civic affairs, and the like. These interactions arise from the needs and wants of people, from the appetitive portion of the people’s souls, that portion which Plato wants to be subjugated by the philosopher’s reason.

Whence the question arises: is the philosopher-king ever possible? History had an approximation of one: Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, or simply Marcus Aurelius, eminent Stoic philosopher and fifth and last emperor of Rome during her Pax Romana. So he might be an actual proof of the possibility of the Ideal State. But think again: Plato describes the philosopher-king as the perfect ruler. Hence he must be infallible in all judgment; this must be the case, since Plato suggests that the citizens must entrust all decisions to the philosopher-king, who with his wisdom cannot make a devastating decision. And yet Marcus Aurelius, despite his being a philosopher, made the biggest mistake in choosing his son, Lucius Commodus, to inherit his throne. Well-known was Commodus for satisfying all his and his soldier’s vices, so well-known that one would not think he belongs to the bloodline of a faithful Stoic. Perhaps Hadrian, third emperor of the Pax Romana, was wiser in requesting his chosen heir and fourth Pax Romana emperor Antoninus Pius to include the then young Marcus Aurelius in the latter’s choices for his heir to the throne. Hadrian was so wise to see in Marcus Aurelius’ young age the potential to become an able ruler of the huge Roman Empire. Thus, even if Marcus Aurelius was a philosopher-king, he wasn’t infallible.

But what Plato suggested in the Republic was a perfect philosopher-king. His trust in the philosopher-king’s wisdom was so great that in Book V, Plato exclaims through Socrates the Republic’s most outstanding passage: “Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those commoner natures who pursue either to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from their evils—no, nor the human race, as I believe—and then only will this our State have a possibility of life and behold the light of day.” Indeed, can we entrust everything to a single man? Can we have faith in the existence of an infallible person? Can a man ever separate his wisdom from his appetite, his desires, given that all power is in his hands? If every man is imperfect, the State cannot entrust all political power to a single person. Otherwise we cannot watch out if at one instance he suddenly slips out of his wise lines and unexpectedly dwells in his selfish appetites. If every man is equally infallible, it must be better to entrust power to everyone equally likely to make a mistake. Moreover, I do not think the right to access the Truth and have power should be limited to a certain class of society. I will not argue about inequality or equality of men or whether there are natural superiors over natural inferiors; I will only rely on what Plato himself admitted in Book III: “But as all are of the same original stock, a golden parent will sometimes have a silver son, or a silver parent a golden son.” In fact, let me add that the most able ruler may emanate from the bottommost level of social hierarchy. So how can one limit power to a certain class of society?

In another point of view however, Plato might actually be referring to the “gold” people when he speaks of the Guardians. That is, he doesn’t speak of a particular family or class of people. He could be describing the Guardian class as the TYPE of people that should be trained towards the attainment of political wisdom, whether this guardian comes from artisan parents or whatsoever. And besides, what is Plato’s intention in writing the Republic? Is it really to oppose democracy in theory? Maybe not. Perhaps Plato was trying to oppose the particular kind of democracy that existed in Athens that time: that particular democracy that persecuted his most respected and beloved teacher Socrates. Perhaps Plato was attempting to say that Athenian democracy was in the hands of the wrong people: not that they are of the wrong class, but they are the wrong TYPE of people. They are not the worthy guardians, and they are not the best people who could handle the State most wisely. In his desire for a philosopher-king, Plato might be speaking of a wise and open-minded ruler that will know what is true and what is not, and not just someone who will blame the gods (who will eventually blame Socrates) for Athens’ loss to Sparta.

Still in another perspective, Plato might actually be sending an optimistic and pessimistic message in his Republic. He speaks of an Ideal State that can only occur when philosophers are kings or kings become philosophers. Then he is optimistic in saying that if the people could just let the wisest rule them, then they will be freed from strife, famine, wars, and the like. There is hope for change, and Plato describes the path to this change for the better. Meanwhile, he is pessimistic if he sees the ideal to be just the ideal; indeed, the ideal is much different from the actual. Plato might be an optimist in saying that the Ideal State is at least a model that we can approximate. In our approximation of the Ideal State, we may live in a good life close to the ideal. But he is a pessimist if he says that the ideal, the perfect, is unattainable and yet the ONLY sort of state that will uplift us from worldly miseries. As he emphasized in the Republic’s best known passage, we will never be at rest from evil unless we live in the Ideal State ruled by the philosopher-king. It is only in Plato’s imaginary utopia where we can live happily ever after; and imaginary as it is, we thus cannot escape reality’s pains and sufferings.

We shall never be sure of what Plato would have thought while writing the Republic. This dialogue could even be just a sentiment in response to his teacher’s execution. Observe in Book VII how Plato’s Allegory parallels Socrates’ fate, recalling that ascending to the light meant attaining wisdom and returning down in the underground abode meant returning to the pitiful world of chained men believing in shadows: “Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if anyone tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.” But at least we are sure about Plato’s idealism: that he believes in one absolute Truth, and THAT Truth must govern all of us. That the Truth or wisdom will be attainable in a man’s lifetime might be a separate question for him. He only suggests what is perfect, but doesn’t inquire into the possibility of acquiring it. In fact, in Book V when Glaucon tells Socrates that “we are enquiring into the nature of absolute justice and into the character of the perfectly just … but not with any view of showing that they could exist in fact,” Socrates replies, “Would a painter be any worse because, after having delineated with consummate art an ideal of a perfectly beautiful man, he was unable to show that any such man could hav ever existed? Were we not creating an ideal of a perfect State? And is our theory a worse theory because we are unable to prove the possibility of a city being ordered in the manner described?” Indeed, Plato wasn't so concerned of the possibility of the Ideal State: Plato tells us, "Here is the ideal. If that could coincide with the actual is not my concern." The possibility of a philosopher-king, an Ideal State, then is our concern; we who always want to escape from life's sufferings and live in the happiness of the imaginary utopia.

Aristotle/ Plato vs. Aristotle

ARISTOTLE

- natural philosopher
- born in Stagira
- he was from The Academy, a student of Plato
- he tutored Alexander, the prince of Macedonia

For him, politics is a part of natural philosophy. The city state, polis, is a natural organism.
Polis consists of families, association of families (all part of nature) governed by laws. He thought that polis is the best form of organization. Anyone who is not a member of the polis is not a human being, he is either a beast or a god.


Plato - Idealistic
Aristotle - Realistic

Plato's Academy
- conversation
- nurture imagination of the people
- pure philosophizing

Aristotle's Lyceum
- empirical research
- ideas out of concrete reality
- study 158 constitutions, laws covering the life of the society

Feel free to comment if you want to add or correct. :)

Christine Kaye Dacumos

Dr. Nemenzo at DZUP

For those who might be interested, Dr. Francisco Nemenzo will be on air at DZUP (1602 frequency) this monday June 14, 2010 from 5-6PM. He will discuss about Philippine Foreign Policy especially on RP-US relations. Thank you!

Additional notes that might help:

Demos-people
Cratos-rule

Democracy = rule of the people

From the book Great Political Thinkers:

The education of the rulers/philosopher kings were about literature, music, physical and military instruction, elementary and advanced mathematics, philosophy and metaphysics and subordinate military and civilian-service assignments.

Threefold division of the population:

Rulers
Fighters/soldiers/administrators
farmers/artisans/traders

Chris Alquizalas

PLATO (428-347BC)

• Born into an aristocratic family
• Philosopher & Mathematician
• Student of Socrates and Teacher of Aristotle
• Founder of THE ACADEMY
• Writer of Philosophical Dialogues - most famous of which is The Republic
• Much that we know of Socrates and his ideas comes from the writings of Plato.

Plato questioned democracy when the people condemned his teacher, Socrates, to death. He started to question the system and believed that power was put into the hands of people whom were not fit to rule.

Socrates was put to death because of the claim of the people that Socrates angered the gods.

because of that anger they believed it was the reason they lost the war (Peloponnesian War) to Sparta, which was a huge upset to Athenian pride.

Plato then came with the idea and asked who would make good leaders. He understood that the Athenian Democracy made unjust and unfit decisions.

His answer came to be a select few of the wisest and most intelligent. THE PHILOSOPHERS.
The philosophers thirst for knowledge would make a good basis for a just society.

He also had the concept that society was divided into 3 classes

The WISE/ PHILOSPHERS/ RATIONAL
These were the ones fit to govern

THE GUARDIANS/ SOLDIERS/ SPIRITED
These were the ones who fit for war

THE PRODUCERS/ PRODUCTIVE/ DESIRING
These were the ones who produce

NOTE: Plato's image of justice was to do what you were meant to do and that was your purpose. Injustice arouse when the Athenians wandered off their purpose and meddled in affairs unrelated to their purpose.

The PHILOSPHER KINGS were to undergo rigorous training and education to become fit for this society governed by the wisest who knew what was best for the people.

WHEN THE 2 LOWER CLASSES ARE GOVERNED BY THE WISE AND RATIONAL THERE IS JUSTICE.

I hope the information I typed is correct po.

ZACARIAS DANIEL BARICUATRO

Assignment for June 11, 2010

Who was Plato? What was his attitude to DEMOCRACY, the political system in Athens in his time?