A Philosophy for all an analysis of the Tao

There is no single definition of Taoism in the Tao de Ching.  The reader realizes that she will not find one in the text after seeing the first sentence.  By saying that whatever can be described of the Tao is not the true Tao, its author, Lao-tzu, establishes his first premise: the Tao is a force beyond human explanation.  However this assumption does not mean that he can't attempt to describe it.  Using the literary tools of contradiction, parallel structure, and metaphor, Lao-tzu discusses the Tao in language regular people can understand.

Contradiction

In the beginning the Tao gave birth to both good and evil (Ch 5) and along with that came all of the other pairs.  In Chapter 36 Lao-tzu discusses action and reaction,

      "If you want to shrink something,

      you must first allow it to expand. 

      If you want to get rid of something,

      you must first allow it to flourish. 

      If you want to take something,

      you must first allow it to be given."

     

This excerpt ties into the statement in Chapter 30 that "for every force there is a counter force" which is applicable to political situations.  For example, if a ruler noticed an uprising of disgruntled subjects, it would be wise of her to let them organize, or expand, and state their grievances as a whole before she individually addressed their complaints.

      Lao-tzu also uses contradiction in Ch 22,

      "If you want to become whole,

      let yourself be partial.

      If you want to become strait,

      let yourself be crooked.

      If you want to become full,

      let yourself be empty.

      If you want to be reborn,

      let yourself die..."

In other words,  if a person wants to succeed she must first understand the opposition.  This strategy is used often in war.  In order to predict what the enemy will do next, one can think like the enemy, be the enemy.  Another way to understand this contradiction is by applying it to modern day life.  In many cases those who are most against drinking are former alcoholics.  They have, in a sense, gone straight from being crooked, been reborn from having died.

      In Ch 45 Lao-tzu uses contradiction to discuss human nature,

      "True perfection seems imperfect,

      yet it is perfectly itself.

      True fullness seems empty,

      yet it is fully present."

People are always in seek of more.  Everything must be bigger, better, newer.  We need to look closer at life because even when shown fantastic splendor, humans have a tendency to ask "is that all?".  When Lao-tzu says that "true fullness seems empty" he is referring to the fact that people hardly ever notice what they have until it is gone.  When something is gone, that is when people realize how "full" their lives were before.

Parallel Structure

      In Ch 41 Lao-tzu uses parallel structure to describe the Tao. 

      "When a superior man hears of the Tao,

      he immediately begins to embody it.

      When an average man hears of the Tao,

      he half believes it, half doubts it.

      When a foolish man hears of the Tao,

      he laughs out loud.

      If he didn't laugh,

      it wouldn't be the Tao."

Parallel structure is a method of repetition after which a conclusion is stated.  In this case Lao-tzu describes how a superior, average, and foolish man take to the Tao, and then, how the Tao is defined.  In the same way that the superior man must embody the Tao, the foolish man must laugh at it.  This is one example of the duality of the Tao- it needs both good and bad aspects to exist. 

      Another instance in which Lao-tzu uses parallel structure is to explain non-being in Chapter 11,

      "We join spokes together in a wheel

      but it is the center hole

      that makes the wagon move. 

      We shape clay into a pot,

      but it is the emptiness inside

      that holds whatever we want. 

      We hammer wood for a house,

      but it is the inner space

      that makes it livable. 

      We work with being,

      but non-being is what we use."

     

      Although in our daily lives we focus on what is, what is not is of more importance.  This is another comment on human nature.  People tend to overlook what they have, and focus on what they don't have.  Like the hole that makes the wheel move, this struggle for what is lacking, i.e. non-being, is what causes people to strive for improvement.

Adjectives and Metaphors

      One of the most effective ways Lao-tzu explains the Tao is through metaphor.  As contrasted to bare adjectives, metaphors explain abstract concepts by relating them to every day objects.  For example, "It is serene. Empty. Solitary.  Unchanging.  Infinite.  Eternally present" in Ch 25 doesn't really help explain the Tao.  However in Ch 4 he says, "The Tao is like a well: used but never used up."  And in Ch 5, "The Tao is like a bellows: it is empty yet infinitely capable."  These metaphors say essentially the same thing as the description in Ch 25 but they are much easier to comprehend.  If the Tao is like a well it is restorative and replenishing.  One must work at the Tao to get its rewards just as a person must lift the bucket to the top of the well in order to drink the water.  If the Tao is like a bellows, then when it is not used it is vacant, dead.  But when in action, the bellows produces powerful currents of air as the Tao produces powerful guidance.

      Lao-tzu has taken these abstract concepts such as nothingness and infinity and analyzed them in terms of things people understand (i.e. well, bellows...).  In Ch 32 he goes on to explain, "The Tao can't be perceived.  Smaller than an electron, it contains uncountable galaxies....All things end in the Tao as rivers flow into the sea."  Lao-tzu makes the Tao seem so much greater than the reader by explaining that it contains galaxies, but then goes on to connect the reader with it saying that everyone is drawn to the Tao like rivers to the sea.

The common man   

      It is important to Lao-tzu to make the people understand the Tao because the Tao is for all.  This is why he attempts to state its principles in a fairly straightforward manner.  He appreciated the common man and after spending so much time on explaining the Tao, he uses it to tell the people how to live.

      Often times, to do this, Lao-tzu offers examples of how the ancient Masters conducted themselves.  In Ch 15,

      "They were careful

      as someone crossing an iced-over stream. 

      Alert as a warrior in enemy territory. 

      Courteous as a guest. 

      Fluid as melting ice. 

      Shapable as a block of wood. 

      Receptive as a valley. 

      Clear as a glass of water."

With these similes he explains that as a Taoist the reader should be cautious and kind, flexible and open, observant and straightforward.

      He does not accept honor or glory as values.  Unlike many other philosophies/religions where the ideal person should be an example to others, Taoism focuses on the individual herself.  Also unlike many other philosophies which view the commoner as a dullard, Taoism looks upon a moderate person favorably,

      "The mark of a moderate man

      is freedom from his own ideas. 

      Tolerant like the sky,

      all-pervading like sunlight,

      firm like a mountain,

      supple like a tree in the wind..." (Ch. 59)

In Ch 39, "He doesn't glitter like a jewel but lets himself be shaped by the Tao, as rugged and common as a stone." 

      This concept of the ideal moderate is mentioned a number of times.  In Ch 9 Lao-tzu admonishes extremism, "Fill your bowl to the brim and it will spill.  Keep sharpening your knife, and it will blunt."  A Taoist is not someone who is driven by hopes for the respect and admiration of her people, but rather wants to be humble and normal.

A Critique of the Book Feeling Good

In the book Feeling Good ,  David Burns, MD, the author, outlines certain cognitive techniques an individual suffering from depression could use in combating the disorder.  He begins the book by briefly describing the pertinence and the prevalence of depression.  The author captures the audience's attention in the first paragraph: " In fact depression is so widespread it is considered the common cold of psychiatric disturbances" (Burns, 1992) p. 9.  Burns(1992), continues to suggest that the difference between the common cold and depression lies in the fact that depression is lethal.  Irwing  and Barbara Serason (1996) suggest that at least 90 percent of all suicide victims suffer from a diagnosable psychiatric disorder at the time of their death.  Irwing and Barbara Serason (1996) also state that one of the risk factors in committing suicide is the presence of mood disorder.  Silverman (1993) states that suicide among young people 15 to 19 years of age has increased by 30 percent from the years 1980 to 1990. 

      In my opinion David Burns brings up a valid issue in addressing the pertinence of depression as it pertains to peoples tendencies of committing a suicide; other academics have agreed with the same findings.  However these academics have not specifically stated that depression is the only risk factor of committing a suicide.  They did not even suggest that depression is the heighest weighted risk factor in committing a suicide.  The impression the reader gets after reading the introductory paragraph of the Feeling Good book is that severe depression will inevitably result in suicide unless it is cured.  Implying that if a person has a depressive disorder,  it will lead to a suicide can be dangerous and counterproductive for a person who already feels hopeless;  this may reaffirm their belief  of hopelessness and the inevitability of the disorder. 

      Once the first paragraph is passed the author indicates that there is hope in curing depression, giving the reader an encouragement to continue with the book. 

      According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders(DSM-IV), mood disorders are classified into two broad categories, bipolar and unipolar depressive disorders.  The book Feeling Good only talks about the unipolar depressive disorders, thus, I will only concentrate on that one category.  Unipolar mood disorders are classified under axis I of the DSM-IV.  Unipolar depressive disorders are further classified into two categories: dysthymic, and major depressive disorder.  Even though both of the disorders are mood disorders they have some fundamental differences and similarities.  According to DSM-IV people experiencing major depression must have depressed moods and/or diminished interest for at least two weeks, for most of the day, and for most days than not.  They must also experience four additional symptoms, such as: weigh loss or gain, insomnia or hypersomnia, psychomotor retardation or agitation, feelings of worthlessness, feelings of hopelessness, low self-esteem, difficulty concentrating, or suicidal thoughts.  This is an acute , and usually recurrent disorder.  Around 50 percent of people who experience one major depressive episode will experience another in the course of their life.

      Dysthymic disorder is similar to major depressive disorder in that people experiencing the disorder go through periods of depressed moods.  However, intensity, and duration of such moods are one among many differences between the two disorders.  Dysthymic disorder is a chronic disorder lasting, on average, five years.  In order to be diagnosed with the disorder one has to feel depressed for most of the day, most days than not for at least two years.  The person experiencing this disorder also has to have two of the symptoms mentioned in the section that described major depressive disorder.  Due to its chronic nature, dysthymic disorder is sometimes difficult to distinguish from a personality disorder.

      Feeling Good  does not clearly identify the categories of unipolar disorders; it groups them together into one category called "depression".  The danger of this is in the reader's perception of what condition they may have.  For example, a person who is expressing a major depressive episode and is incapacitated may not have the energy or concentration to employ some of the cognitive techniques outlined in this book.  This person may however benefit more from of an Electroconvulsive treatment (ECT) which is not outlined in this book.  The readers are not informed of all the options they have to treat the disorder they are experiencing.  Rush and Weissemburger (1994), suggest that ECT is very effective in treatment of the major depressive disorders.  Research indicates that in 80 to 90 percent of patients experiencing a major depressive episode, ECT is effective.  However this treatment is shown not to be effective in treatment of milder forms of depressive disorders such as dysthymia.  David Burns' neglect to classify the two separate disorders into distinct categories does not allow him to identify ECT as a successful option in treating major depression.

      The author however discusses some alternative options in the  treatment of depression.  He describes one study that was done at the University of Pennsylvania school of Medicine.  Doctors John Rush and  Aaron Beck, and some other specialists were involved in the study which compared the effectiveness of cognitive therapy and pharmacological treatment of depression.  Individuals suffering from major depression were randomly assigned to two groups.  One group received individual cognitive psychotherapy while the other group was treated with a tricyclic antidepressant drug called Tofralin.  Both groups were treated for twelve weeks before the symptoms were re-evaluated.  The results showed that cognitive therapy was superior to the pharmacological treatment in almost all of the conditions measured( number of people recovered completely, number of people who recovered considerably but still experiencing borderline to mild depression, number of people who did not substantially improve, number of people who dropped out of treatment).  The empirical findings indicated that fifteen out of nineteen people who were treated with the cognitive therapy completely recovered.  Only five out of twenty five people treated with antidepressants completely recovered.  The only category where pharmacological treatment was superior was the category that measure the number of people who recovered considerably but are still experiencing border line to mild depression.  Only two individuals recovered partially under the cognitive treatment, where 7 people recovered partially under the pharmacological treatment.

      Similar research was done in 1992 by the National Institute of Mental Health(NIMH),  NIMH did not find significant difference between the two therapies immediately after the treatments.  They however did find in a 24 month follow up study that patients who were treated with cognitive therapy were much less likely to have the disorder return than the patients who were treated with antidepressants.

      Even though cognitive therapy seemed to have been superior in both studies, the findings from the two studies were not corroborative.  The study David Burns describes in order to support cognitive therapy indicated that significantly more patients recovered in cognitive therapy than in  pharmacological therapy immediately after the twelve week treatment.  NIMH study found no significant difference between the two treatment immediately following the therapy.  The reasons the two studies came up with different results may be numerous.  It is impossible to conclude which one of the two studies is more valid.  However both studies have experimentally demonstrated that cognitive therapy is a superior form of treatment whether immediately following the therapy or after 24 month follow up period.

      In order to make a stronger point about the superiority of cognitive therapy, David Burns could have offered at least one more experiment that corroborated the results.  In addition the methodology of the experiment he  illustrated has some obvious flaws.  The group sizes of the two compared conditions(Cognitive therapy and Pharmacological therapy) were not equal.  The cognitive therapy group had 19 individuals where the drug therapy group had 25 individuals.  In calculating the significant difference between the two group means, using the t-test, would require the groups to be of equal sizes.  Therefore, due to the group size inequality, the results may have been interpreted more liberally than if the group sizes were the same.  On the other hand having a smaller degree of freedom in the cognitive therapy group required a greater t score in order to infer significance.  As a result it is difficult to conclude whether the methodology of the experiment had anything to do with the significance of the results.  However, if the study is to be replicated, it would be beneficial to keep the sample sizes the same.  This would make the study stronger, and results more interpretable.

      The author of this book has been greatly influenced by the theories and studies of Aaron Beck MD.  Specifically, the author has based the theoretical part of the book on  Beck's cognitive distortion model.  This model postulates that depression is best described as a cognitive triad of negative thoughts ( Saranson & Saranson 1996).  Beck suggests that a person who is depressed focuses on negative thoughts, interprets situations in a negative way, and is pessimistic and hopeless about the future.  In other words people who are depressed might blame themselves for their actions in the past and continue to believe that the future is just as gloomy.  Beck also believes that any misfortune that happens to a depressed person is internalized and attributed to their own character.  These internal and stable interpretations of negative events leaves the person feeling hopeless and in turn depressed.   On the other hand, according to Beck's theory, any positive events in the depressed person life are externalized or considered to be "lucky".  In a sense, such people may feel that only bad things happen to them and that if anything good does happen it is due to a circumstance that is beyond their control.  However, people who are not depressed tend to do the opposite, they blame the situation for anything bad in their life and accept full responsibility for the positive aspects of their life.  Beck describes the above as the attributional model of depression.   

      David Burns  summarizes this theory in a way that is very easy to follow and conceptualize.  He identifies the process that is going on in the depressed person/s mind as the process of cognitive distortions.  He identifies the ten most common cognitive distortions.  Most of them are self explanatory therefore I will name all of them and only elaborate on some.  The first cognitive distortion mentioned is "All or Nothing Thinking", a tendency to evaluate personal qualities in black or white categories. Second is "Overgeneralization". Third is a "Mental Filter", which is a way of picking out a negative part of a situation and thus assuming that the situation as a whole is negative.  Forth is "Disqualifying the Positive".  Fifth is "Jumping to Conclusions".  Sixth is "Magnification and Minimization", which is the  way a depressed person magnifies the bad elements of their life and minimizes the good.  The seventh cognitive distortion mentioned in the book is "Emotional Reasoning", which is interpreting emotions as proof of how bad the situation is ( i.e.,  I feel stupid, therefore I am stupid).  Eight is "Should Statements".  Ninth is "Labeling and Mislabeling", a way of creating a negative self-image based on the errors of the person's errors.  The last cognitive distortion David Burns mentiones is "Personalization", which is assuming responsibility for negative events even though there is no basis for doing so. 

      Once the author identified and explained the cognitive distortions, he then attempts to illustrate how they are used in every day life,  which makes  the book  much more relevant to the reader; this is one of the crucial differences between academic writing and self-help books, such as Feeling Good;  the reader automatically understands the relevance of the theory and feels compelled to apply it.

      The strength of the cognitive theory of depression is that it concentrates on the obvious problem at hand.  The person who is depressed often does not have the energy or will to search deeper than the problem that is facing them.  Therefore, this theory seems very useful especially in its ability to raise motivation in patients.  Patients usually understand the thoughts and resulting feelings more clearly as a result of this approach.  However the cognitive theory of depression does not break the surface of the problem;  the theory does not go deep enough into the "wound"( in order to try to conceptualize and "fix" the root of the problem).  The psychodynamic approach is far superior to the cognitive approach when the nature of the problem is deeply rooted and stems from the person's childhood.  If the patient who is experiencing depression has an unresolved conflict inside their psyche, the depression may recur if such conflict is not addressed.  Unfortunately the original idea behind the cognitive theory would not support that.  Fortunately some cognitive therapists, such as Beck, have recognized the importance of this issue and have appropriately reconstructed the clinical application of the cognitive theory so that provision for such deep rootted problems are made. 

      David Burns implements the cognitive theory of depression by suggesting some simple to use self help techniques.  These techniques are similar to some of the therapeutic approaches clinicians use in cognitive therapy.  For example, a clinician may try to coach the person who is depressed to identify some automatic thought that leaves them feeling  depressed, and substitute it with thoughts that evaluate the situation more realistically.  David Burns implements this approach in a similar way.  He first identifies the importance of gaining self esteem in order to deal with depression.  Burns presents some cases where he first identifies what the patient is saying about themselves, and then  challenges their statements.  This shows the patient how unrealistic their negative self evaluations are and in turn boosts their self image from hopeless to somewhat hopeful.  The second step was to help the patient overcome their sense of worthlessness.  This was  done in a way that the patient is encouraged to identify thoughts that lead them to feel depressed.  This approach is concurrent with other cognitive therapists' approaches.  The cognitive therapist  reasons with the person, encouraging them to understand why these thought are distorted, and finally helps them to implement more realistic self-evaluatory statements.  As a result, the approach of combating  distorted thoughts by talking back and implementing more realistic thoughts corroborates David Burns' therapy with other cognitively oriented  clinicians.

       

      This book seems to be very effective in identifying some common thoughts and feelings depressed people might experience.  As such, this book would be very appealing to people experiencing depressed moods as well as anyone who feels hopeless about their day-today life.  The author describes everyday feelings and thoughts in a way that is very comprehensive.  The reader is left with the encouraging impression that their feelings are common and curable.  However, for a person  experiencing clinical depression, this book may present a false sense of hopefulness. The reader who is in this predicament, may solely rely on  this book and ris failing at implementing the techniques suggested by the author.  The therapeutic techniques suggested are best utilized under the supervision of a clinician.  The author does not  encourage the person to get help beyond this book. Therefore, the therapeutic techniques illustrated in this book are  left to be interpreted by the patient.  This might be dangerous if the depressed person is in a frame of mind where he or she is hanging on any breath of hope put forth.  In short, the book itself may not completely accomplish its purpose; which may bring the patient back to their original state if not leave them feeling even more hopeless about their future.

A Critique of Socrates Guilt in the Apology

A Brief Comment on the Query:

"Is Socrates Guilty As Charged?"

History of Political Thought 47.230 B Mini-Essay for Discussion Group #3

                                   

      In any case of law, when one is considering truth and justice, one must first look at the validity of the court and of the entity of authority itself. In Socrates case, the situation is no different. One may be said to be guilty or not of any said crime, but the true measure of guilt or innocence is only as valid as the court structure to which it is subject to. Therefore, in considering whether Socrates is 'guilty or not', we must keep in mind the societal norms and standards of Athens at the time, and the legitimacy of his accusers and the validity of the crimes that he allegedly committed. Having said this, we must first look at the affidavit of the trial, what exactly Socrates was being accused with: "Socrates does injustice and is meddlesome, by investigating the things under the earth and the heavenly things,    and by making the weaker speech the stronger, and by teaching others these same things."1    In breaking this charge down, we see that it is two-fold. Firstly, Socrates is charges with impiety, a person who does not believe in the state gods of Athens and, not only that, but by its literal meaning, does not believe in the authority of gods at all. To this, Socrates seems baffled. He states that the reason behind the 'criminal meddling', the questioning of people's wisdom, was commissioned to him by the gods through the Oracle of Delphi. As Socrates said, "...but when god stationed me, as I supposed and assumed, ordering me to live philosophizing and examining myself and others...that my whole care is to commit no unjust or impious deed."2He even seems to win a victory over one of his accusers, Meletus, in questioning this point. As Socrates points out, it is impossible for him to be both atheistic and to believe in demons, or false gods, for if he believes in the latter, then that would contradict his not believing in gods at all (since even demons are considered to be at least demi-gods).

      The second part of the charge was that Socrates was attacking the very fabric of the Athenian society by corrupting its citizens, namely the youth. In other words, Meletus and the other accusers are accusing Socrates of a crime of 'non-conformity' - instead of

                                               

                                                      page 2

bowing to those who are held in places of authority and those who have reputations of being wise, Socrates believes that it is his role in life to question these people in their wisdom, and to expose those who claim that they are knowledgeable and wise, but who really are not. This nation of questioning the legitimacy of those in power would certainly not be called a 'crime' by today's standards, nor would it really have in Athenian time. The true nature of this charge was vengeance carried out on the part of the power-holders of Athenian society: the politicians, poets, manual artisans. Socrates, in effect, made fools out of these people, exposing their speeches are mere rhetoric than actual wisdom and knowledge. By being a teacher as such, but never collecting any fees and therefore innocent from profiting from such ventures, he was said to have been corrupting and citizens of Athens into believing that these so-called people of wisdom were not actually wise at all. As Socrates says, "...and this is what will convict me, if it does convict me: not Meletus of Antyus, but the envy and slander of the many. This has convicted many other good men too, and I suppose it will also convict me. And there is no danger that it will stop me."3        Another point to be made is that Socrates proves that if what he has done has actually been corrupting society, and could be considered a crime, then he has not caused any harm voluntarily. In any criminal charge, the fact of the accused's mens rea, or 'guilty mind', would be compulsory to prove on a guilty charge. But Socrates states that, at least for him, voluntarily corrupting any human being would simply be impossible, "...I am not even cognizant that if I ever do something wretched to any of my associates, I will risk getting back something bad from him?"4 Although his 'guilty mind' was never proved, Socrates does realize that he will be found guilty of this charge, although he does say that justly this would never have been a criminal charge, but could have been dealt with

privately, "...and if I corrupt involuntarily, the law is not that you bring me in here for such

                                                      page 3

involuntary wrongs, but that you take me aside in private to teach and admonish me...where the law is to bring in those in need of punishment, not learning."5     There is one other point that might be raised in questioning the legitimacy of the trial, and that is the fact that it was carried out in only one day. Socrates says after his verdict has been read that if his trial could have carried on for a longer period of time, as it might have in other cities such as Sparta, then he might have been able to convince the jury of his innocence. Alas, Socrates quickly became the victim of the wealthy elites in Athenian society, who did not want their hold on the power and minds of the rest of society who be tampered with. If justice is to be questioned in the charge of Socrates, then I do think that Socrates should have been found innocent, since no real crimes were committed. As for a question of the Athenian laws, and the structure of the Athenian justice system, one could say that Socrates might have dabbled in a bit of treason in a way, since those who he was publicly making a mockery out of were those who were in positions of authority. But overall, it cannot be denied that Socrates suffered a great injustice by being found guilty, by being put on trial in the first place. The true substance of the trial was never a criminal matter nor a strain on democracy, but a challenge to an oppressive and oligarcical ruling class, and Socrates became an symbol of true wisdom and knowledge, a symbol that needed to be disposed of for the elites to remain the power-holders in society.

List of Works Cited

Plato. "The Apology of Socrates." West, Thomas G. and West, Grace Starry, eds. Plato      and Aristophanes: Four Texts on Socrates. Itacha, NY: Cornell University Press,   1984.

1Plato, "The Apology of Socrates," Thomas G. West and Grace Starry West, eds., Plato and Aristophanes: Four Texts on Socrates. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984), s.19c, p.66.

2Ibid, s.29a/32d, p.80/p.85.

3Ibid, s.28b, p.79.

4Ibid, s.25e, p.75.

5Ibid, s.26a, p.75.

A Comparison of Plato and Aristotle

Plato and Aristotle, two philosophers in the 4th century, hold polar views on politics and philosophy in general.  This fact is very cleverly illustrated by Raphael's "School of Athens" (1510-11; Stanza della Segnatura, Vatican), where Plato is portrayed looking up to the higher forms; and Aristotle is pointing down because he supports the natural sciences.  In a discussion of politics, the stand point of each philosopher becomes an essential factor.  It is not coincidental that Plato states in The Republic that Philosopher Rulers who possess knowledge of the good should be the governors in a city state.  His strong interest in metaphysics is demonstrated in The Republic various times: for example, the similes of the cave, the sun, and the line, and his theory of the forms.  Because he is so involved in metaphysics, his views on politics are more theoretical as opposed to actual.  Aristotle, contrarily, holds the view that politics is the art  of ruling and being ruled in turn.  In The Politics, he attempts to outline a way of governing that would be ideal for an actual state.  Balance is a main word in discussing Aristotle because he believes it is the necessary element to creating a stable government.  His less metaphysical approach to politics makes Aristotle more in tune with the modern world, yet he is far from modern.

      Plato's concept of what politics and government should be is a direct result of his belief in the theory of forms.  The theory of forms basically states that there is a higher "form" for everything that exists in the world.  Each material thing is simply a representation of the real thing which is the form.  According to Plato, most people cannot see the forms, they only see their representation or their shadows, as in the simile of the cave.  Only those who love knowledge and contemplate on the reality of things will achieve understanding of the forms.  Philosophers, who by definition are knowledge lovers, are the only beings who can reach true knowledge.  This concept has to be taken a step further because in The Republic, Plato states that philosophers should be the rulers since they are the only ones who hold the form of the good.  Plato seems to be saying that it is not enough to know the forms of tables or trees, one must know the greatest form--form of the good--in order to rule.  The reasoning is: if you know the good, then you will do the good. Therefore,  philosopher rulers are by far the most apt to rule.  

      In The Republic, Plato builds around the idea of Philosopher Rulers.  Even though it is not his primary point, it certainly is at the core of his discussion of the ideal state.  The question that arises is, 'Why do you need ideal states which will have philosophers as rulers?'  There are many layers to the answer of this question.  The first thing is that a state cannot be ideal without having philosophers as rulers.  This answer leads to the question, 'Then why do you need ideal states to begin with?'  The Republic starts with a discussion of Justice which leads to the creation of the ideal state.  The reason why an ideal state is needed is to guarantee the existence of Justice.  This does not mean, though, that there cannot be states without Justice.  Actually, Plato provides at least two reasons why the formation of  a state cannot be avoided.  These are: 1. human beings are not self-sufficient so they need to live in a social environment, and 2. each person has a natural aptitude for a specified task and should concentrate on developing it (The Republic, pp 56-62).  Although a person is not self-sufficient, a composition of people--a state--satisfies the needs of all its members.  Furthermore, members can specialize on their natural fortitudes and become more productive members of society.

      States are going to form, whether purposefully or coincidentally.  For this reason, certain rules have to be enacted for the well-being of the state.  The main way to institutionalize rules is through government and in the form of laws. Plato's The Republic is not an explication of laws of the people.  It is a separation of power amongst three classes--Rulers, Auxiliaries, Commoners--that makes the most of each person's natural abilities and strives for the good of the community.  The point is to create a harmonious unity amongst the three classes which will lead to the greater good of the community and, consequently, each individual.

      The three classes are a product of different aptitude levels for certain tasks amid various individuals.  Plato assigns different political roles to different members of each class.  It appears that the only classes that are allowed to participate in government are the Auxiliaries and, of course, the Philosopher Rulers.  The lower class does not partake in politics because they are not mentally able.  In other words, they do not understand the concept of the forms.  Thus, it is better to allow the Philosophers, who do have this knowledge, to lead them.  Providing food and abode for the Guardians is the only governmental responsibility the lower class has.  The Auxiliaries are in charge of the military, police, and executive duties.  Ruling and making laws is reserved for the Philosopher Rulers whose actions are all intended for the good of the state.  To ensure that public good continues to be foremost on each Ruler's agenda, the Rulers live in community housing, hold wives/children in common, and do not own private property.  The separation of classes is understood by everybody Self-interest, which could be a negative factor in the scheme of things, is eliminated through a very moral oriented education system.  All these provisions are generated to maintain unity of the state.  The most extravagant precaution that Plato takes is the Foundation Myth of the metals.  By making the people believe, through a myth, that the distinction of each class is biological as well as moral, Plato reassures that there won't be any disruption in the harmony of the state.

      Whereas Plato's The Republic is a text whose goal is to define Justice and in doing so uses the polis, Aristotle's The Politics's sole function is to define itself--define politics.  Aristotle begins his text by answering the question: "Why does the state exist?"  His answer is that the state is the culmination of natural associations that start with the joining of man and woman ("pair"), which have a family and form a "household"; households unite and form villages; villages unite and form the state.  This natural order of events is what is best because it provides for the needs of all the individuals.  Aristotle, like Plato, believes that a person is not self-reliant.  This lack of sufficiency is the catalyst in the escalating order of unions among people.

      In The Politics, it appears that Aristotle is not very set on breaking down society.  His argument says that there are different classes in society, but they are naturally defined.  For example, he devotes a lot of time to an explanation of the "naturalness" of slaves and their role in society.  Aristotle is also very sexist and explicitly states so.  His view is that women are inferior to men in all senses.  Perhaps the most pertaining to our discussion is the citizen, whose role is purely political.  Both Plato and Aristotle seem to agree that some people are not capable of practicing an active role in political life.  Plato's reason is that the lower class is not mentally adept for the intricacies of higher knowledge on the good.  Aristotle seems to base his opinion on a more political issue.  He believes that only those that fully participate in their government should be considered citizens of the state.  For this reason, he excludes workers as citizens because they would not have the required time to openly participate in politicking.

      The Aristotelian polis, as opposed to Plato's, is a city with a large middle class which promotes stability and balances the conflicting claims of the poor and the rich.  Aristotle combines elements of democracy with elements of aristocracy, again to balance opposing claims.  Because he is aware that human interest is an inextricable  entity, the distribution of scarce and valuable goods is in proportion to contribution to the good of the polis.  This system provides for the self interested who believe that those who work harder should receive more.   Another point is that the citizens rule and are ruled in turn, insofar as the mixed social system allows.  This is permissible because of the strong involvement of the citizens in government; it is what one would call a "true democracy."  Overall, a spirit of moderation prevails.

      The philosophies of Aristotle and Plato have been around for over sixteen centuries, yet today it is difficult to find specific instances where either philosophy is applied.  This may be a result of the fact that today's political philosophy differs from both philosopher's.  While Aristotle and Plato uphold the good of the community or state above individual good, today's constitution includes a bill of rights that guarantees the rights of each individual in the nation.  Having these individual rights is a necessity for today's citizens.  Going back in history to 1787 will show that one of the reasons there was controversy in the ratification of the constitution was that it did not include a Bill of Rights.  When the drafters promised that as soon as the constitution was ratified, a Bill of Rights would be added, the doubting states proceeded to ratify it.  According to Plato and Aristotle, a Bill of Rights is not necessary because it does not improve the good of the community.  

      Another point of discrepancy between the philosophers and today's society involves the topic of slavery.  Aristotle argues for the naturalness of slavery in The Politics, yet slavery has been considered grotesque for quite some time.  In correlation to slavery, there is the undermining of the female population by Aristotle.  Although Plato is a lot less discriminatory, he also believes women are the sub-species.  While women have had to fight endless battles to achieve the recognition they deserve, today it is a well accepted fact (generally) that women are as capable as men in performing tasks.

      Naturally, since Aristotle and Plato have been around for such a long time, our society certainly contains some of their influences in a general sense.  For example, today it is believed that certain people are born with certain capacities.  Intelligence has been attributed to genetics.  Because of the different intelligence levels among people, we have different classes--for example: advanced, intermediate, and beginners.  In their appropriate level, each person develops his or her abilities to the highest potential.  This concept is sometimes at odds with the ideal of equality, ie. we are all human beings.  Yet, in essence, it does not take away from the ideal because we are all humans, but we differ in certain capacity levels to complete tasks.

      Plato's and Aristotle's philosophy have helped shape present thought, though, by no means, mandate our practices.  The philosophers are very community oriented while we value the individual.  Besides differing with today's standards, each philosopher is in his own way distinct.  Plato is very attracted to metaphysical philosophy, while Aristotle is much more methodical.  Both perspective views are and will continue to puzzle students for years to come.

A Civil Rebuttal (not revolt)

Philosophy -- a:pursuit of wisdom. b:a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means.

      Through this most specific definition given to us respectively by Sir Webster's dictionary, I choose in my best interest to refrain to you just what the meaning of philosophy is.  I implore you to try and comprehend this matter in what exactly this word brought abrupt to us is about.  The word philosophy has two definitive definitions.  The first simply means to pursue, or strive for, wisdom.  I beg to differ in the understanding of the fault I make in trying to gain this unprecedented 'knowledge.'  The knowledge that we as a unity try to strive for have made us, again as a unity, divides.  I asked myself exactly how we have achieved 'civilized chaos' in the search for our solutions and resolutions of the very 'virus' it seems we have caused.  I would not of course go so far as to say a civil war between the generations within this house, but moreover to express that simply by me using philosophy, it becomes not only my benefit, but a mutualism between us.

      Please feel more than obliged to correct me if I am incorrect (morally or politically) but are we not all philosophers ourselves?  As a baker's vocation is to bake, a philosopher's vocation is to think.  Is it not that we all think?  I was deeply saddened at your comments in the oppression and restriction to what I may or may not strive to think.  As a pacifist and non-sadist, I call what you believe in as 'ingraining or indoctrination', whereas our own society may call it 'brainwashing'.   Our human nature gives us freedom, as does the Constitution.  It guarantees us the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".  Within the refines of this home, I find it a task to see those liberties granted.  Here is a few of the world's greatest oppressors: Jim Jones, Adolph Hitler, Napoleon Bonaparte, Julius Caesar, David Koresh, and Anton Szandor LaVey.  I know, as well as you, that these notorious six are among the world's most hated.  However here are a few oppressors from another standpoint: Sigmund Freud, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus Christ, Mahatma Ghandi, and Siddharta Guatama the Buddha.  These are the exact opposite of the previously mentioned, who put an oppression into a good morality.  It's not about who uses the gift, it's the entirety of the user's ethics. 

 

      The second definition of the word philosophy aptly states that it is the desire to learn more through speculation rather than observation.  Without speculation, we as a planet would be at loss.  There would never have been discoveries of planets, medicinal uses, genetic finds, and behavioral studies.  Lets face it, without philosophy, we would still get leeched at the doctors for the common cold.  These fine discoveries were all made by philosophers.  Now these philosophers were brave enough to challenge science, the government, and even the Church.  Now, I am not one to stand here and say that I will believe in unholy blasphemy, but rather I feel I should receive the liberty to speak freely as long as I hold myself in a civil and adult manner.

      In conclusion to this essay, I must tell you that this in itself is my philosophy. I believe it was the great reformist Voltaire who says, "I do not agree with a single word you say, but will fight to the death your right to say it."  In some respects, I feel non-indifferent to his theory.  So I beseech you to help yourselves as well as others in this house to let me speak freely of my philosophy, for the word is simply a synonym to the word think.  The famous quote, "I think, therefore I am."  supports my belief and should support yours.  Furthermore, if we do not philosophize, we do not think.  Scholars have made it known that the only relics of others are within their philosophy.  For instance, GOD, Elshadai, or Adanai, is known exclusively through his philosophies.  The Bible refers to creation as, ". . . and GOD saw it was good. . ."  GOD philosophized that things were good.  I know you cannot disagree with me on this reasoning, for you would be one to doubt GOD.  I am trying my best to not make this about theology, but to simply keep it within one field.  In short: the only people that choose to who speaks of philosophy are the speaker themselves.