Since I left class early on Wednesday, I did not get a chance to pose a question that I had written for the Q&A segment of class, so I would like to pose it now.
We established in class during our study of Confucianism that sagehood seemed like an impossible goal. After all, Confucius himself admitted that he didn't think he would ever meet one. With a set of standards so high, it seems unlikely that any of us will ever meet one.
Between sacrificing any and all personal relationships with other people and going through intensive schooling, Plato's philosopher kings also had a high set of standards to live up to. That being said, my question is: Is becoming a philosopher king any more plausible than becoming a sage, or are they both two completely unrealistic ideals?
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Response to Emily Follin: Communal vs. Personal?
Emily Follin raised the question in her blog, The Evils of Utopia, "Which is better: being raised communally or being raised by your parents, thus forming a personal bond with them?"
I live with a family of hippies. Just recently--in the last few weeks of August--I attended what is called a Rainbow Gathering with them. How a Rainbow Gathering works: many hippies (anywhere between fifty and several hundred) come together in a certain area of the woods and build up a community from what they carry in on their backs and whatever they can find in nature. What does this have to do with anything? As many people know, hippies tend to live communally. This includes taking care of children communally.
Since there is so much to be done to make a community work, parents cannot always keep a close eye on their kids. To help out with this problem, one or two people will volunteer to take care of them. They are responsible for feeding them, playing with them, keeping them clean, and making sure they do not get into trouble (and disciplining them when they do).
I was responsible for child care during my time at the Rainbow Gathering, and I can say from first-hand experience that there are many positives aspects of communal child care. First and foremost, it relieves a lot of stress for the parents. When there is so much to be done, it helps not to have to worry about what your kids are up to. This is probably one of the reasons Plato advocated it; when a philosopher king is so busy solving life's quandaries, it would be hard to focus on raising a child. Another positive aspect: when children are being raised communally by one or two people, they are all answerable to the same rules. This means a lot less conflict between the kids. For instance, if one kid's parents tells him not to play by the fire, and another parents tells their kid it's ok, then the kids might fight about it. A final thing to advocate communal child care: if one person is responsible for all the children, then there is no doubt that all the children will be taken care of. In example, if one person is caring for all of them, then they all eat at the same time. If busy parents are looking out for their own kid, they might forget to feed them, or may simply not have the time or resources to.
Despite my advocacy of communal child care, I also believe that children being raised wholly in that environment would be disasterous. After all, it IS critical to form that important bond between parents and children. Studies such as Jeanie have shown that no connection to your parents can result in the inability to interact socially with others. Therefore, it is my belief that parents should raise their kids, but there are many times when raising children communally can be a good thing.
I live with a family of hippies. Just recently--in the last few weeks of August--I attended what is called a Rainbow Gathering with them. How a Rainbow Gathering works: many hippies (anywhere between fifty and several hundred) come together in a certain area of the woods and build up a community from what they carry in on their backs and whatever they can find in nature. What does this have to do with anything? As many people know, hippies tend to live communally. This includes taking care of children communally.
Since there is so much to be done to make a community work, parents cannot always keep a close eye on their kids. To help out with this problem, one or two people will volunteer to take care of them. They are responsible for feeding them, playing with them, keeping them clean, and making sure they do not get into trouble (and disciplining them when they do).
I was responsible for child care during my time at the Rainbow Gathering, and I can say from first-hand experience that there are many positives aspects of communal child care. First and foremost, it relieves a lot of stress for the parents. When there is so much to be done, it helps not to have to worry about what your kids are up to. This is probably one of the reasons Plato advocated it; when a philosopher king is so busy solving life's quandaries, it would be hard to focus on raising a child. Another positive aspect: when children are being raised communally by one or two people, they are all answerable to the same rules. This means a lot less conflict between the kids. For instance, if one kid's parents tells him not to play by the fire, and another parents tells their kid it's ok, then the kids might fight about it. A final thing to advocate communal child care: if one person is responsible for all the children, then there is no doubt that all the children will be taken care of. In example, if one person is caring for all of them, then they all eat at the same time. If busy parents are looking out for their own kid, they might forget to feed them, or may simply not have the time or resources to.
Despite my advocacy of communal child care, I also believe that children being raised wholly in that environment would be disasterous. After all, it IS critical to form that important bond between parents and children. Studies such as Jeanie have shown that no connection to your parents can result in the inability to interact socially with others. Therefore, it is my belief that parents should raise their kids, but there are many times when raising children communally can be a good thing.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Comparing Rwanda to NHN
I brought up in class Wednesday the case of the Invisible Children--that is, the children soldiers of Uganda. When reflecting upon that, it occurred to me that discussing the Rwanda genocide would be more appropriate. I'm assuming that everybody has read An Ordinary Man for their respective English classes. For those who have not, I will fill you in a little.
In 1994, over 800,000 people were massacred in Rwanda. They were primarily Tutsis--a smaller ethnic class who once ruled Rwanda--and people who supported them and would not join in the killing. An Ordinary Man is the story of a hotel manager who hid over a thousand Tutsi refugees from the soldiers who sought them. One thing the book demonstrates is how completely normal, friendly people turned into murderers overnight. The author explains that a good deal of the ill-feelings and need to kill came from the hatred projected by a radio station, which perpetually made racist comments and dehumanized Tutsis.
The question I posed about the children soldiers of Uganda was, Are these children evil beings because they were given a gun and told to kill? The class consensus seemed to be that no, they were not evil because they were too young to know better and had no real choice in the matter. The majority of the Hutus who contributed to the slaughter of the Tutsis in the Rwanda genocide were teenagers or adults who had been brainwashed by years of hatred and months of subliminal--and not-so-subliminal--messages. The question I am posing now is, Are those people considered evil beings? Why or why not? How are the two situations (the children soldiers in Uganda and the genocide in Rwanda) different, and how are they the same?
In 1994, over 800,000 people were massacred in Rwanda. They were primarily Tutsis--a smaller ethnic class who once ruled Rwanda--and people who supported them and would not join in the killing. An Ordinary Man is the story of a hotel manager who hid over a thousand Tutsi refugees from the soldiers who sought them. One thing the book demonstrates is how completely normal, friendly people turned into murderers overnight. The author explains that a good deal of the ill-feelings and need to kill came from the hatred projected by a radio station, which perpetually made racist comments and dehumanized Tutsis.
The question I posed about the children soldiers of Uganda was, Are these children evil beings because they were given a gun and told to kill? The class consensus seemed to be that no, they were not evil because they were too young to know better and had no real choice in the matter. The majority of the Hutus who contributed to the slaughter of the Tutsis in the Rwanda genocide were teenagers or adults who had been brainwashed by years of hatred and months of subliminal--and not-so-subliminal--messages. The question I am posing now is, Are those people considered evil beings? Why or why not? How are the two situations (the children soldiers in Uganda and the genocide in Rwanda) different, and how are they the same?
Response to Hallie Jackson: Can we advance if we are self-less?
I would like to take the time to respond to Hallie Jackson's question on her blog, Self...ish? Hallie posed the question, "If people were-hypothetically-truly good and selfless beings, what would happen to us as a race? Would we continue to advance as we have?"
It is my belief that no, we would not advance if we were truly selfless. Part of this is because I agree with Hallie that there is no such thing as being completely selfless. The Romans who built the aqueducts did an incredible thing: they created a way to keep sewage out of the streets and people out of the sewage. The sanitation problems in the city got better, less people were sick, and the number of deaths went down. The system benefited everyone in the city, but the people who created the system were included in the list of those who benefited. Would they have started the aqueduct project if, for instance, they were told that only the highest political figures would be able to access the water? If they did, it would most likely have been only because they feared retribution if they refused--another incentive.
As college students, there are a lot of things that we don't want to do. To list a few, we don't want to clean our rooms, do our homework, adhere to the drug and alcohol policy (some of us, anyway), eat the cafeteria food. However, we do these things anyway because there is an incentive. If we don't clean our rooms, we might lose things or gross out whatever boy/girl we bring home for...ahem..."studying." We do our homework because we don't want to fail school and end up working at a McDonald's until we're forty. We adhere to the drug and alcohol policy because we don't want to get written up and kicked out of MCLA. We eat the cafeteria food because we don't want to starve and most of us don't have the money to order take-out every night. If none of those consequences existed, I'm willing to bet we wouldn't do any of those things.
Unfortunately, simple daily tasks are what help us advance as a person and then as a race. Sally cleans her room because Donald is coming over and she doesn't want to gross him out. Donald is impressed and sticks around to...ahem..."study" with Sally. They fall for each other, date, graduate, get married, have kids. Hypothetically, of course. Sally advances personally because she has a loving man and family. The human race advances because Sally and Donald are bringing more people into the world. Bobby does his homework because he doesn't want to fail. He ends up learning the new material better, getting an A in the class, going on to graduate school, and becoming a engineer and making a cushy amount of money. Bobby benefits because he has all the comforts money can buy, the human race benefits because Bobby designs the next World Trade Center.
On the opposite end, when we don't do things that benefit us, the human race suffers. If Lulu decides not to adhere to the drug and alcohol policy and gets drunk every night instead, she'll probably end up missing classes and therefore failing out of school. There goes a mind that could have been used to cure cancer or make another great contribution to the world. Dwayne doesn't like the food in the cafeteria, so he starts eating less and less until he has to be hospitalized. A few months of his life are spent trying to regain his strength when he could be going to school and getting his degree instead.
Although not all selfish behavior helps the world, many behaviors that benefit the individual also benefit the human race as a whole.
It is my belief that no, we would not advance if we were truly selfless. Part of this is because I agree with Hallie that there is no such thing as being completely selfless. The Romans who built the aqueducts did an incredible thing: they created a way to keep sewage out of the streets and people out of the sewage. The sanitation problems in the city got better, less people were sick, and the number of deaths went down. The system benefited everyone in the city, but the people who created the system were included in the list of those who benefited. Would they have started the aqueduct project if, for instance, they were told that only the highest political figures would be able to access the water? If they did, it would most likely have been only because they feared retribution if they refused--another incentive.
As college students, there are a lot of things that we don't want to do. To list a few, we don't want to clean our rooms, do our homework, adhere to the drug and alcohol policy (some of us, anyway), eat the cafeteria food. However, we do these things anyway because there is an incentive. If we don't clean our rooms, we might lose things or gross out whatever boy/girl we bring home for...ahem..."studying." We do our homework because we don't want to fail school and end up working at a McDonald's until we're forty. We adhere to the drug and alcohol policy because we don't want to get written up and kicked out of MCLA. We eat the cafeteria food because we don't want to starve and most of us don't have the money to order take-out every night. If none of those consequences existed, I'm willing to bet we wouldn't do any of those things.
Unfortunately, simple daily tasks are what help us advance as a person and then as a race. Sally cleans her room because Donald is coming over and she doesn't want to gross him out. Donald is impressed and sticks around to...ahem..."study" with Sally. They fall for each other, date, graduate, get married, have kids. Hypothetically, of course. Sally advances personally because she has a loving man and family. The human race advances because Sally and Donald are bringing more people into the world. Bobby does his homework because he doesn't want to fail. He ends up learning the new material better, getting an A in the class, going on to graduate school, and becoming a engineer and making a cushy amount of money. Bobby benefits because he has all the comforts money can buy, the human race benefits because Bobby designs the next World Trade Center.
On the opposite end, when we don't do things that benefit us, the human race suffers. If Lulu decides not to adhere to the drug and alcohol policy and gets drunk every night instead, she'll probably end up missing classes and therefore failing out of school. There goes a mind that could have been used to cure cancer or make another great contribution to the world. Dwayne doesn't like the food in the cafeteria, so he starts eating less and less until he has to be hospitalized. A few months of his life are spent trying to regain his strength when he could be going to school and getting his degree instead.
Although not all selfish behavior helps the world, many behaviors that benefit the individual also benefit the human race as a whole.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
