Unexpectedly Spicy Arguments!

One unexpected downside of democracy that I did not see coming was that it is unstable due to conflict and people who value person greed over the good of the polis. In modern media I typically conseive demcoracy with a positive connotation, and ever never thought to think any further than that. In The Republic, Plato argues that democracy is unstable and gives unfit people the right to rule. This made me realize the unexpected positives of a tyrannical government, which is that there is one ruler with one opinion, and therefore there is stability. However, this made me wonder how to determine if someone is fit to ruler or not, and how the laws might be abused if only certain people were given the right to rule. An unexpected negative of Oligarchy was that the importance of money could cause economic corruption and a biased government. I was not aware before this debate that America is considered an oligarchy, but now that I know this I can understand why oligarchys have a negative connotation. This caused me to consider the faults of our own American government more indepth, and I was able to come up with multiple examples of economic corruption in our government - times where politicians were tempted to stray from prioritiing the good of the people and instead "following the money". However, an unexpected positive to oligarchy is that people are more highly motivated to practice and perfect their techne to the highest degree, due to the promise of financial compensation.

Ken Taylor on Plato

After watching Ken Taylor's Ted Talk about Plato, I have a few thoughts about his conclusion. Taylor says that he thinks everyone should be a philosopher king, instead of just those who are in charge. I think that it will be difficult to make everyone a philosopher king through education. For everyone to be gifted this knowledge "as a fundamental human right" as Taylor says, there will have to be lots of educational reforms within our government. In order for everyone to be taught at an equal level, citizens need to be equally born into circumstances where they can all get the same level of education. I also think that it makes sense why everyone would be more equal if everyone is a philosopher king, but i'm not sure if it's realistic that everyone would be able to be one. If everyone were a philosopher, no one would have the incentive to develop crucial techne and no work would be able to get done. However, I found the video very interesting and think it's a cool concept!

Thoughts on Plato's "The Apology"

After reading "The Apology" by Plato, I think that I have been given further insight into Plato's perspective and beliefs throughout different platforms. I was particularly striken by the quote "the unexamined life is not worth living." I somewhat agree with this statement, because I think there is value in being aware of the condiditons of you life - be that existential or otherwisie - but I also think that there is value in a blissful ignorance. I think that not everyone on the earth is meant to be a philosopher king, and although this is a lifestyle that seems to fit Plato's persepctive, it's not for everyone. This can be seen through the dialogue on levels of society in The Republic, where society is divided into classes where each class has their own priorities and ways of life. For example, for one particular tier of society their techne is the important thing in their life, and that is enough to git it meaning. In this quote it feels like to me that Plato is saying that any life which is not that of a philosopher king is not worth living, which I do not agree with. I think there is still meaning to the lower tiers of society, and that being a philosopher king is not the end-all-be-all of existence. This demonstrates how in The Republic, Plato portrays the philosopher king as the most just, and furthers this argument in The Apology by saying that any other life that is not that of the philosopher king is not worth living.

What is my Techne?

The first thing that comes to mind when I consider a techne that I could develop is improving my technological literacy. This could function as a skill, and also as a hobby that I could practice in my free time. Through developing this skill to it's highest capacity, I will not only feel more fulfilled in my day to day life (due to the importance of technological literacy for personal benefit) but also within the confounds of my workplace. For example, what started out as learning more about how to use a computer for person enjoyment could end up greatly benefitting my career. Employers value someone who knows how to use, understand, and fix technology. Addtitionally, I think that this is an area where I currently lack skill, so practicing this techne every day could be very important towards improving my general knowledge.

Defying the Cave

Something in history that is similar to the story of the cave could be someone in a very oppressed country such as North Korea (where public opinion is a crime) who suddenly is transported to a less oppressive country such as America. The silencing of public opinion in Korea represents the shelter of the cave, where the outside society is withheld. The sun, which represents knowledge, is unable to be fully viewed, and shadows are all they are capable of seeing. If this person were to exit the cave - or for example be transported suddenly to America - the change would be so drastic that it would overwhelm them. To better understand the similes of the sun (knowledge, truth), I compared these to the truth that might be found in comparison to the oppression in North Korea. The knowledge and truth that is compared with the sun is warm and is the center of all life, just like the sun. Therefore, this knowledge and truth is essential for just life, so the oppression in North Korea is not just. Without the essential knowledge and truth, life can never be just, and would will live in a cave surrounded by shadows.

TechNAY or TechYAY?

Although there are a multitude of arguments throughout the book that I find intriguing, I find the arguments including techne as justification to be particularly engaging. In book one, Socrates uses techne to further his belief that someone who is just would not try to be unjust. He specifically states that for example, a music teacher would not strive for their student to be unmusical, and a horse-riding instructor would not want their student to be unsatifactory in riding. He uses these examples of techne to justify his argument. In my opinion I find in to be very sucessful, because he uses relatable, every-day situations (through his usage of techne) to help the citizens to further comprehend and relate to the argument he is making. Additionally, techne is used again by Socrates to argue that the goal in building a city is not to make one group more happy than another, but to promote happiness for collective. He describes the construction of a building to further explain his argument. This use of techne helps to make it easier to comprehend his stance. I think that this usage of techne is still incredibely important. There is a lot of media that distributes news that is biased, or unintentionally complex, which isolates many of it's possible consumers. I think that if techne was used more in modern news, more peiple would be able to understand different perspectives. Much likes Socrates is doing with the townspeople in The Republic, using techne to provide everyday, relatable, and digestable examples of arguments could help more people comprehend standpoints.

Is Life Meaningless???

One of the philosophers that I found to be the most meaningful was Albert Camus. He believed that life was essentially meaningless, comparing it to rolling a ball up a hill only for it to eventually fall down the hill. However, he thought that although life was meaningless by these standards, that by absurdist beliefs you shouldn't let that fact bring you down. You can still live a meaningful life even if existence is in it's nature meaningless. I think these concepts are very relevant and valuable today, because I think many people get caught up in the depressing "life is meaningless" aspect of existentialism. In reality, I think people should listen to Camus, and try to make your life meaningful to yourself even if it is technically meaningless.