Think. Learn. Live.

Civil Disobedience #5

2008-12-01T03:28:08Z

What is the role of personal integrity in a free and democratic society? What is the role, if any, of martyrdom in society whether free or totalitarian?

The role of personal integrity in a free and democratic society is through equality. To have your voice heard, for all men to be equal in their rights, and for the democratic society to let freedom exist in all its forms. In a democratic society, a person should be allowed to express and sustain their own (personal) ideas, ethics and beliefs--even if they differ from the governments.

Martyrdom, in a sense, is a lot like personal integrity. Both martyrdom and personal integrity stimulates change. Without martyrs, we would all be vanilla--no one would make a stand, no one would be different, no one would separate themselves from the "norm". I believe that martyrdom should exist in every society--both free and totalitarian. I may be biased in my feelings on this subject since I am allowed to be a martyr in a free, democratic society (and really have no idea what it would be like to practice martyrdom in a totalitarian one). However, I believe a martyr is someone who passionately believes in something so much, that they would die for the cause--and that should always be allowed. (Wikipedia defines a martyr as: an individual who sacrifices his life (or personal freedom) in order to further a cause or belief for many.) Although I don't think individuals should go around sacrificing or victimizing themselves to make a statement, I feel that if someone passionately believes in something that will benefit or effect a majority, they should make a stand--in both a free, democratic society and a totalitarian one.

Civil Disobedience #4

2008-11-30T22:30:35Z

How do Socrates and King “persuade”? Are they trying to persuade individuals, the state, or both? Does it matter which it is? Why or why not? Does engaging in “persuasion” entail one’s having (or believing one has) access to correct knowledge? If not, why not? If so, what does Socrates “know”? What does King “know”

Although their stimuli differ, both Socrates and Dr. King used persuasion to implement their ideas.

Socrates used persuasion when questioning the people and the Athenian State. He desired answers and persuaded all beings to think. King also questioned and hoped to bring change to both the people and the state through persuasion as well. From the segregation laws that existed prior to the civil rights movement, to the acts and thoughts of racism that were alive in most individuals, he persuaded people and the state to create change.

Although both of these men tried to persuade the individual and the institution, in my opinion, it really doesn't matter which object of persuasion is focused upon, as both the individual and the institution are crucial in life. (Meaning, whether the target of persuasion is a person or the state, both have a dramatic effect on society.)

Persuading individuals requires inept knowledge; however that knowledge is ambiguous, and not necessarily "correct." For example, both King and Socrates believed that their subject of persuasion was needed, and that their knowledge was correct. However, it didn't mean that the knowledge they had was in fact correct; it just meant that they believed it to be. (To someone else, it may have been extremely arbitrary or incorrect). This is because everyone has a different idea of what is "right" or "correct". Therefore, although the persuader may believe their knowledge is "correct", others may completely disagree.

Civil Disobedience #3

2008-11-30T22:15:21Z

What — REALLY — was Socrates’ civic goal and why — REALLY — is Socrates in jail? When is it right to criticize the government?

Socrates’ civic goal was to question the individual and the institution; to make people think, rethink and ponder the ideas that they believe or had formerly believed, and to create the best possible answers to the questions that plagued Socratic philosophy. (Which, we can tell from the writings of Plato, mostly dealt with piety/impiety and justification).

Socrates was (unjustly) jailed because he questioned authority and challenged people to think. Ultimately, the Athenian State was fearful of Socrates because he flirted with depth, demanded knowledge and encouraged the individuals/institution of Athens to find answers to central questions that challenged old ideals or created new ones.

According to the Bill of Rights, it is each individual’s right and freedom to think and speak their mind how they please. Therefore, although it may be looked at as civilly disobedient and socially unacceptable, it is the right of each individual to criticize the government in any circumstance they disagree with.

Civil Disobedience #2

2008-11-30T06:23:52Z

What is the relationship between committing civil disobedience and accepting punishment for it? What constitutes a “harm” to the state? Should the state ever be “harmed”?

The relationship between committing civil disobedience and accepting punishment for it only bears a small gap, as they are closely related. This is because most acts of civil disobedience are done whole-heartedly, where the person who commits the act is fully aware and willing to stand behind it. This closely resembles the idea of accepting punishment due to the fact that the consequences one might endure are understood before the civil disobedience takes place. Sometimes, however, this doesn't matter. For example, a sit-in or boycott--one may know the possible consequences before the act takes place, but the passion for the cause overrides the possible punishment that may follow.

What constitutes “harm” to the state is not following the laws and legislature set forth by that state, or putting the state in jeopardy/threat. I don’t feel, however, that the state should be “harmed”--the state, as an institution, is much larger and more powerful (sometimes unfortunately) than the individual, so therefore it should rarely be in concrete jeopardy of harm.

Civil Disobedience #1

2008-11-28T23:23:05Z

What is civil disobedience? Is “thinking” a form of civil disobedience? Is speaking?

Civil disobedience is a refusal to obey the government. This may be through questioning the government's actions, or through refusing to abide by the law.

To ask if "thinking" is a form of civil disobedience is somewhat absurd. To imagine that the notion of using one's mind to ponder, "think" or learn something could be considered as disobedience is lunatic. "Thinking" is not a public act; you are not refusing to abide by the law when you think. Expanding one's knowledge and using one's mind is nothing short of a blessing that we are allowed by the human body to do. (In my opinion, to neglect our brains and minds by not thinking would be disobedient.)

Speaking, on the other hand, could be seen as civilly disobedient because it is a public action. If someone is thinking quietly to themselves, it will not affect anything, nor are they expressing internal ideas which could be seen as disobedient. Once you open your mouth, however, and voice your internal opinion, it allows questioning by the public, and could be considered as government disregard.

Existentialism

2008-11-28T22:59:10Z

Begin blogging on existentialism in the lives of Socrates, King, Malcolm and in contemporary US. What existential issues do you think we face today?

Existentialism (is defined as): A philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe, regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one's acts.

There's no doubt that the existence of revolutionary philosophers like Socrates, Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X influenced society. Although their passionate ambition and forward-thinking ideas differed, their similarity is unmistakable: they breathed to prove their beliefs and stimulate change.

Socrates was a man who was misunderstood. His philosophy was not intended to cripple the Athenian State--just shake it--as he demonstrated existentialism by questioning others. He desired enlightenment, and would annoyingly urge people to think and rethink their thoughts and ideas, hoping to arrive at the best possible answer.

King and Malcolm X, on the other hand, desired metamorphosis. Their longing to terminate racism and segregation didn't stop with protests and boycotts--they lived their lives, day in and day out, urging people to recognize the concept of change.

Although their stimulus and circumstances differed, the existence and existential practices of these three men changed the face of philosophy and the world. Even in the modern day, there are many existential issues we face in which change is desperately needed (i.e. global warming, HIV/AIDS prevention/treatment, ethnic cleansing overseas, etc.).

Creative Tension

2008-11-28T21:12:12Z

Blog on "creative tension". What should individuals and society be challenged about today?

Not a commonplace saying, "creative tension" is difficult to define. After reading King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail, I think that creative tension is a form of non-violent tension that confronts an issue in a creative and constructive way. Although the contexts differ, both Dr. King and Socrates portrayed creative tension throughout their lives.

Even though "creative tension" was demonstrated in the philosophies of these men, whom are noted in history books, there are many issues that individuals and society should be challenged and motivated to create positive tension about today. (And if Dr. King or Socrates were alive to stimulate the public, I believe that they would.) Some of these issues are domestic, such as the economic recession, American relief in disasters (i.e. Katrina), poverty, and discriminatory prejudice that still exists, (i.e. the RECENT passage of Prop 8). And some of these issues are international, such as the war in Iraq, the growing HIV/AIDS epidemic, and ethnic "cleansing"/genocides that routinely occur in Africa. However, no matter the locale, all of these challenges are in dire need of "creative tension"--something King and Socrates would have powerfully advocated today.

King vs. Malcolm X

2008-11-28T21:09:21Z

Blog on King and Malcolm X. How are they similar? Different? Do they have the same goals? Which approach do you think is best?

Comparing King and X together is like comparing a gadfly and a "gad-bee"--both try to stimulate society with their somewhat annoyingly poignant beliefs, hopes and actions (just like a gadfly who persistently stings a horse into movement), but one is much more vicious than the other.

Do they have the same goals: yes; are they similar in their methods: no. King, a man commonly referred to as a gadfly, was a non-violent demonstrator who urged equality between whites and blacks, and demanded if not change, recognition from the community. Malcolm X, on the other hand--a mover and shaker that I like to refer to as a "gad-bee"--wanted the same outcome as King (change for African American's and equality for all), but advocated it in a much more violent, hasty manner.

I understand that during a time of blatant inequality, uproar and violence may seem not only cathartic, but powerful, and so I do not disagree with Malcolm X's methods. However, I believe that King had a much better approach. His immaculate oratory capabilities combined with his patience and non-violent action made for an unmistakably revolutionary movement that was crucial during this time.