Knowledge or Ignorance?

There is some kind of peace of being oblivious to the surroundings and once people learn about the life and become "enlightened" that sort of peace suddenly disappears. I know I'm basically describing childhood to adulthood dependent. But, do people really want to hear the last minutes of the watergate videos? Sometimes ignorance is preferred to knowledge because people have to think whether the information does more harm than good. Us guys do it all the time, we tell girls that they don't look fat and that they look fine because we don't want to deal with the fallout. Do girls really want to know what we think in those instances or do they prefer the sugar cookie we offer them? I believe there is a balance between knowledge and ignorance: too much knowledge make people sad and aware of how unjust the world is and too much ignorance hinders the mind from growing so that it can take care of people and ultimately keep the circle of life.

I commented on Tyler Cofields' "I'm not a puppet... I'm a real boy."

I'm not a puppet...I'm a real boy!

In Plato's The Republic, the story of "The Cave" provides a glimpse of the deceptive methods used to influence people.  As the puppet master controls what the other individuals in the cave are able to see, a parallel comparison can be made with the government in the United States.  I have just completed the Cashflow Quadrant, which is Robert Kiyosaki's book that outlines the simple steps necessary to become wealthy.  His primary argument is that the United States seeks to retain more ignorant citizens as opposed to enlightened individuals.  By deceiving Americans in regards to personal assets, liabilities, taxes, salaries, and security, the government is able to absorb more income.  This increase in income is gained directly from the expenses of the lower and middle classes of ignorant American citizens.  The ironic comparison to "The Cave" becomes even more interesting after examining the individual that escaped from the puppet master's prison.  He became known as a philosopher after he experienced true reality; however, when he returned to release his companions, they believed him to be crazy.  Similarly in Kiyosaki's book, enlightened American citizens are perceived to be crazy because they combat the normal thought process that most people practice in economics.  The truth exists in the fact that the philosopher did experience true reality, and Robert Kiyosaki is a billionaire because he followed the steps outlined in his book.  Both of these people chose not to be ignorant puppets under the control of a seemingly superior being; instead, they enlightened themselves and sought to change the rest of the world.

yo

                I absolutely hate talking politics. I don’t do it.  I feel no desire to do so and honestly most of it goes over my head and I just tune out of conversations. So the fact that Plato felt like he even had a grasp on what a Utopian society would look like or what a superior government would look like is impressive in itself. But really what I got out of all of this is that there is no ideal government or society, it’s unattainable. He has this grand idea of what would work but it’s just that—an idea. So then as he went through describing the 4 types of governments there are holes in all of them. It’s like voting for president; you’re picking the lesser of two evils. There has to be a better choice but maybe there isn’t a right choice. Perhaps I’m going off on something not completely unrelated to Plato or Socrates and I’ve yet to even mention a cave but that’s what today’s discussion had me thinking about.

What's Around the River Bend?

Dr. Schuler mentioned a quote today in class that struck me. He said, “You never step in the same river twice.” This quote is so true. The river is never the same. It is always changing and flowing (insert Pocahontas here). I see this as an example of how we should be living our lives. We should never settle for one solid idea. As philosophers, we should not want to set one concept as the absolute truth. We should always be looking for more evidence to compliment or contradict that concept. What is truth anyway? We know nothing, and we are always looking for what we do not know.  And that is what makes us wise. 

PS. I commented on Jasmine's

Ideal in Theory

This is extremely painful for me to say, and if you know my views on politics, you know why.

Aristocracy is the best form of government. There, I said it.  A government with a supreme ruler, a just man, who runs his nation in the best possible ways.  Keeping his people from harm, both physical and mental.  All of his people have jobs to do, and it turn, no one is in need.  This form of government describes how I have always pictured the Kingdom of God, with God the supreme ruler, and all of his people cared for and happy.  

However, The reason it hurt to say this is simply because I am of the (rather strong) opinion that this form of government cannot work on earth as we know it, in a world full of sinful people.  Who would be our ruler, and more importantly, what would ensure that we always put the right man in power?  Sure, the rulers come from a certain group in the text, but who is to say or ensure that the one RIGHT man gets there.  And what if there is a time when no man is fit to lead the country?  Are we then ruled by a power-hungry dictator?  I am not saying that American government is perfect, by no means, but in its original form, the American ideal of government led by the people under the constitution is an efficient one and possibly one of the best options we currently have.  

Commented on Susan's "America the Tyranny"

-Jamie Kilpatrick

PS: There are several things I could/ kind of want to add at this point, but I am one who generally prefers to discuss my political views in person. That being said, if any of you would like to (respectfully and civilly) talk American politics, I'm almost always up for it.

Understanding Justice and Honor

In Book VI of the Republic, while debating with Glaucon on the type of man who should govern the city, Socrates makes a simple statement:

 

"...a man who does not understand how justice and honor are related to the good won't guard them very effectively."

 

I completely agree with this assumption. If a ruler does not know how justice and honor correlate to what is good then they cannot truly understand what "the good" is, and without that understanding they will never be able to lead their people to the ultimate city that Socrates is defending.  If a ruler does not have an understanding of justice, the city will become corrupt. If a ruler does not understand honor then he himself will become corrupt. Without these two founding principles a ruler can never know what is good, and therefore cannot defend it or the principles that amount to it.

 

 



 

The Cave and The Great Divorce

I noticed in the reading, which was likewise highlighted in class today, one of my favorite points of Plato: that which is real is eternal. It no doubt was a revolutionary thought in his day, and a mystery that other thinkers would expound upon in ages to come. It certainly fits in well with Christianity--and is a thought that C.S. Lewis seems to expound upon in his book The Great Divorce. When the main characters get to heaven, the grass, the rocks, the rain are all so real that they hurt to walk on. Instead of Heaven being a place that is shadowy and ethereal, it is the other way around. One sees a parallel between C.S. Lewis and his narrator and the individual of the cave, thrown into the real world after a life lived in the cave and seeing only shadows.