I've never read Rousseau and frankly slept through Modern Philosophy, so I only vaguely remember Locke, so you might have to give me a five-second rundown on what you mean by that. Unless we are talking about Lost, in which case I might have to disagree, but I am at a disadvantage, because I've only seen up to season 3.
On the first, though, if true social change requires time to determine, how does it get it's start? Is it some sort of random accident of colliding factors, like two atoms smashing into one another? Or is it already a predetemined outcome of innevitability, like two icebergs crashing into one another, regardless of conscious choice? Is fate destinied? Or is there free will, allowing for a study of factors that might allow for changes that can steer the icebergs of social movements into different patterns, causing or avoiding collisions?
Mo Philo ftw! Actually, I barely passed that class because it was incredibly boring. Still love the BOC, though...
You shouldn't change the world, because:
If your first question is right, about true social change being random, it wouldn't matter what you did. It wouldn't matter because it would be an accident, and you don't try to have an accident. If you try to have an accident, it's on purpose, negating it's accident-ness
( ... )
Well, it sounds like you don't believe in the first two choices any way, so let's go to your last argument. This is actually the kind of argument that I was looking for, that kind of Socratic dialogue that gave us Plato's Republic.
For those reading at home,The Republic was started out as an argument over the Ring of Gary Gygax, also called the Sandman's ring. It was a legendary ring that was said to allow men to turn invisible (women were already invisible in Athenian society. Zing!). Plato wanted to know if there was something good in being good for goodness sake, rather than the utilitarian rewards of playing nice with society by abiding by its rules. The ring essentially gave a man free rein to do what he wanted. He could steal gold and food, kill his enemies, spy on everyone undetected. Society could not catch him. But would his conscience catch him? Eventually, they decided they couldn't figure it out on the micro scale of a good man, so they went to the macro scale of a good nation state
( ... )
The problem is not one man. You may or may not be able to save a man in a burning car. If that man was in a horrible accident and has a family and friends to live for, then he'll thank you. If he's a bastard lawyer, he'll find a way to sue you, though. Or, if he set the car on fire in order to kill himself and save his starving family by defrauding his insurance company so his wife can collect on his life insurance policy, he certainly won't thank you. Once you start looking at different scenarios, it becomes apparent that even one man is hard to save, not to mention your own survivalist instincts. Is this car about to blow up? Is the fire so hot that my hair starts to burn within ten feet of the flame? Am I in the car next to you and also on fire and only have time to save myself? Sorry, burning dude, I have a family, a boyfriend, and friends
( ... )
So what you are saying is that if it is not likely for me to be able to do something, I shouldn't try? Let's say I do go to medical school or law school (which should dirty me up significantly). Why shouldn't I -try-?
As a former addict, I know better than most people that someone in trouble (an individual, a family, or an entire society, I believe) will not get better unless they want to. Hence the phrase "rock bottom." There are those who never come back from rock bottom, believe me.
The benefit of being a lawyer or a doctor is that at the very least, the people who come to you will, for the most part, want your help. They will want it and even be willing to pay for it. Ta-daaah! Win-win situation, my friend. The point is, you can only help those who want to be helped.
So your answer is that I shouldn't try because I realistically can't save the world, I can only facilitate salvation. Thank you for your answer. You have helped me redefine my question. Now I go back to the drawing board and shall draft up a new argument.
Comments 8
Plus, locke is an idiot, and rousseau hit it right on the money. Nobility comes with a pricetag, and exploitation is the currency.
Reply
On the first, though, if true social change requires time to determine, how does it get it's start? Is it some sort of random accident of colliding factors, like two atoms smashing into one another? Or is it already a predetemined outcome of innevitability, like two icebergs crashing into one another, regardless of conscious choice? Is fate destinied? Or is there free will, allowing for a study of factors that might allow for changes that can steer the icebergs of social movements into different patterns, causing or avoiding collisions?
Reply
You shouldn't change the world, because:
If your first question is right, about true social change being random, it wouldn't matter what you did. It wouldn't matter because it would be an accident, and you don't try to have an accident. If you try to have an accident, it's on purpose, negating it's accident-ness ( ... )
Reply
This is actually the kind of argument that I was looking for, that kind of Socratic dialogue that gave us Plato's Republic.
For those reading at home,The Republic was started out as an argument over the Ring of Gary Gygax, also called the Sandman's ring. It was a legendary ring that was said to allow men to turn invisible (women were already invisible in Athenian society. Zing!). Plato wanted to know if there was something good in being good for goodness sake, rather than the utilitarian rewards of playing nice with society by abiding by its rules. The ring essentially gave a man free rein to do what he wanted. He could steal gold and food, kill his enemies, spy on everyone undetected. Society could not catch him. But would his conscience catch him? Eventually, they decided they couldn't figure it out on the micro scale of a good man, so they went to the macro scale of a good nation state ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
As a former addict, I know better than most people that someone in trouble (an individual, a family, or an entire society, I believe) will not get better unless they want to. Hence the phrase "rock bottom." There are those who never come back from rock bottom, believe me.
The benefit of being a lawyer or a doctor is that at the very least, the people who come to you will, for the most part, want your help. They will want it and even be willing to pay for it. Ta-daaah! Win-win situation, my friend. The point is, you can only help those who want to be helped.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment