Skip to main content

Absolutely happiness corrupts absolutely.../// Micah V. Powers

    I think I got that wrong...Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That phrase is a phrase seemingly instilled in every American yet Plato seems to change that phrase throughout the creation so to speak of this city of his. Humans, well more over being human automatically attaches you to this trait of Constantly seeking comfort, pleasure, desire in summary happiness. As Christians we know much of this is bound up in sin nature, but we fail to recognize so often that the reason sin nature is so prevalent is because we are inherently created to worship something. For the vast majority of non-believers and even Christ seekers that thing that we choose to worship is personal happiness. "

    "My friend, you have forgotten again that the law is concerned not with the happiness of any particular class in the city but with happiness the city as a whole" (Plato, 519e) 

This is what I believe should be the use of laws although not for the general happiness of the populous but the general safety of the populous. Plato is correct here in placing the laws in the context of the good of the whole unfortunately it fails to recognize the consistent quest for contentment. For the most part the law bearers and bringers within this "Ideal city" would seek to bring the truth from the peak into the context of the cave but instinctively the very same would end up imparting regulations intended for their own benefit.  It would be as inevitable as Thanos's snap. We see this in the context of today in the insanely outrageous salaries which our major public officials rewards themselves with, not to mention the way their power is used to collect funds from big businesses to do their bidding. Now we are back to absolute powers corrupts absolutely. Where was I going? Oh yeah, Personal pleasure is always pedestaled above popular protection. Platos point of keeping the Personal happiness out of government resonates well with me but his use of the word happiness concerns me. I don't think it is the job of any government to make its citizens happy. (Smol rant coming) I think the majority of the problem with the laws in the endless law book of the United States of America is that much of the laws seek to bring pleasure to one of the parties related to whatever the topic is. The government should not seek the happiness of the people. The government should seek to protect the dignity of all citizens. This dignity is guarded via laws that protect a citizens life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The fundamental difference between America's ideal city and Plato's ideal city is it being the responsibility of the citizens to pursue happiness versus the right of the government to find your happiness. 


P.S. I commented on Abbie Hedden and Braylan Stringfellow's Blogs.

Comments

  1. Ian BlairOctober 6, 2020 at 9:22 AM

    Your point that the laws of a society are not for the happiness but the safety of the populace is probably the best point any legislature can make in justifying its existence. In certain systems, certain compromises must be made in order to achieve universal peace, or however close we can get to it.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Aristotle Might Not Like Me...Or Jesus//Haylee Lynd

      Aristotle says that the man who does not get angry at the things he should be angry at "is thought unlikely to defend himself; and to endure being insulted and put up with insult to one's friends is slavish" (Aristotle 41). While he states that passivity is preferred to excessive anger, he still gives great criticism to it.  In contrast to Aristotle, the man who Christians believe to be the most just is Jesus who states in Matthew 5:39-40, "...do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well." Essentially, arguing that one is not to respond in anger when insulted or hurt, to not defend one's self. Most individual's are unable to achieve this. Our natural instinct is to defend ourselves, especially in physical cases. However, Christians strive to be like Jesus in this way. I would also argue that it is a very admirable wa...
2 comments
Read more

Oedipus’ Children/Siblings—Lily Caswell

Ok, so Oedipus is a bit of a train wreck to say the least. I love the fact that even after Oedipus found out about his less-than-appealing relationship with his mother, he still tried to look after his children/siblings. After he gouged his eyes out, his children came to him at which point Oedipus talked about how that when they were old enough to marry, no one would want them due to them being products of incest. He said for the people not to condemn them based on what their father had done. Even after he knew what he had done and what his children were, he still wanted the best for them. I commented on Logan’s and Ian’s posts.
3 comments
Read more

Overanalyzing Everyone's Intentions Here-Rachael Gregson

 First off, I'd like to say this is going to be a two part blog post, because a lot of things happened in this reading assignment that demands to be discussed.  As with any war I've realized, it's tricky not to fall into the initial perspective I am given. I began this book skeptical of Hector because I was bias toward the movie Troy, which was told mostly through the eyes of Achilles, but neither were what I was expecting. It's actually funny that they both hold values completely opposite from one another. Hector represented everything related to city-state pride, honor, and humility whereas Achilles was everything wild, reckless, and unpredictable solitary. This isn't to say that Hector is all good and Achilles all bad. Both had instances where I rooted for the other more or less. I just thought it was interesting how their two personalities represented something that basically causes all wars: the clash between civilization and savagery.  Secondly, I'm not de...
2 comments
Read more