Inspiration: Aristotle On Friendship

I am still knee deep in Aristotle, and will probably be up all night but these are some questions I came up with while reading that I'd like to contemplate... and you might like to entertain as well

Is the life i'm living being lived through incidence, or do I know how to act in situations because i am a "good" person?

Can a friendship exceed the defenition of friendship within a society?

for context of these questions it may help to read Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics Book 8 Chapters 9-12 for friendships within a society and Incidence versus a good person is laced throughout book 6 and 9 i believe

Intimacy

I'm in a comparative philosophy class right now, and one of the main texts we're working with is called Intimacy or Integrity by the authour Thomas P. Kasulis. The title of the book is a reflection of a way that Kasulis proposes to compare cultures or subcultures within cultures. He proposes two orientations-intimacy and integrity- which dictate more or less( meaning that over the next couple of days expanding however long in the future- i will probably add/ annotate this) what is foregrounded and what becomes backgrounded to a cultural perspective. The characteristics of intimacy are as follows:

Intimacy (from the latin intimus which means having to do with a close friend)
1) objective but personal rather that public (objectivity is due to expertise)
2) in relation, self and other belong together without a sharp distinction between them (imaging a venn diagram shape, these two figures share the relationship where their two circles meet, if that piece were removed they would both be changed and incomplete)
3) has an affective, emotional aspect
4) is somative
5) is dark, not noticibly conscious, esoteric (knowledge is reserved for those who are consumed/ expert)

Integrity (from the latin integritas which means whole)
1) objectivity is public and verifiable
2) relationships are external
3) knowledge is free of affect
4) intellectual (as in distinct from somatic)
5) knowledge is reflective, self-conscious, bright

As reflected in my title, something was sparked in my mind by our class discussion of Intimacy and I'm going to write about it. Somehow during the course of the class, it was brought up that friendship could only be intimiate, that intimacy must be embedded if something is going to be called a friendship. Maybe I wasn't paying attention during the transistion, but the next thing i remember happening is a girl, i will call her M, getting defensive and saying there are other things that you can be intimate about. Her example was driving. She is from Argentina, and brought up the example of safely navigating the unregulated roads in Buenos Aires. She explained that she is somehow intimate with the unregulated mess. Some people in the class attacked this view saying that driving lacked affectation and therefore could not be an intimate activity. The verdict, especially the textual verdict after some time seemed to be that one can have an intimate relationship with something non-human like driving. Often people are spoken of as have intimate knowledge of something, like a chess player may know the board and conceptual moves in chess. With driving, even in the anarchy semblant streets of Argentina, if one drives repetitively and engages and understands that there will be the people who cut you off and the people who go fast, the people who have no internal right of way... they will be able to intimately know their place and how to use the streets because the chaos will become backgrounded and their place and embodied knowledge will translate into intimately maneuvering the streets.

Somehow around this point someone made an argument which I thought would be heavily criticized. Again i don't really remember what happened since I went off on a tangent, but the person said something about anarchy with a negative intonation. Thats where my tangent began, with the word anarchy. I started to parallel anarchy more to the imagined chaos of the streets of Argentina. At that time it came back that M had mentioned she experienced less accidents on the unregulated streerts of Buenos Aires than she did in the United States with its integrally organized traffic system and regulations. This got woven into my idea. I have never contemplated anarchy to a great extent, never done any research mainly because I cannot imaging a world without government regulations since they seem to be so woven into my culture. For some reason though today, maybe it was talking about gestalts and backgrounds and foregrounds and their manipulation and capability to be switched around, but i was able to imagine anarchy. Though it still seemed chaotic, like my imagining of a street in Argentina, the chaos translated into something knowable, something engaging. There will always be the people with their characters just like there will always be the people with their animated and probably speedy driving characters. It somehow made it easier to imagine life without government, and people intimately engaging into their surroundings, occupying a character and acting in a way that makes them experts at knowing not only their place but how to situate themselves in relation to other people and inevitable knit something together whether it be culture or the seemingly contraditctory organization.

Back In Black

actually, back to philosophy. this time its epistemology. the question is how we define knowledge. plato famously defined knowledge as justified true belief. this means that if someone beleives something, is justified in believing it, and it is true, then they have knowledge of it. this view, unfortunatly, had been acepted until 1963, when edmund gettier refuted and provided situttions in which it is said that the person has justified belief in something, and that thing is true, but it is said that the person does not have knowledge.

its short, and you can read it here: http://www.ditext.com/gettier/gettier.html

i have a few objections. id like to see what other people say first.

detroit has been named the most dangerous city by some stupid report. i guaruntee references in rap.

there are a lot of hobos in california. when i see them and they ask me for money, usually i say no. this is because im unsure of what it is i have to say to them , but im under the impression that i dont quite aprove of hobo-ness. i mean homeless. i dont know the difference if there is one. the thought that comes to mind is that i want to say listen im with you i wish the world was another way, but thats not how it is money isnt free and comfort isnt free, comfort would exist if not for economic selection. ive had the idead recently to somehow, humor me, start an orgaization which takes willing homeless people, helps them complete whatever schooling is necessary, tutors and whatnot, for free. havent decided whether this theoretical organization willprovide board, but i would certainly require going cold turkey on whatever drugs or alchohol they use; quitting a physical addiction is in the same league as add and depression, they are 90% mental struggle, the rest can be cured with distraction and healthy diet and physical activity, plus the experience of overcomming such an addiction on ones own builds far more character than will assisted recovery, i know that i am much more of an arrogantly self confident person that i can overcome things like depression and my very mild add and dislexia than taking medicines. same goes for physical addictions, which may require more physcial effort and change in excercise and diet...

outside the lines

its a show on espn. there was a debate with a few guys they had on about barry bonds. dont care about the debate or barry, but i do care that they had a guy ive seen a few times now on. dave zirin. it was funny. you could tell he purposely made himself look like he jsut got out of bed to show how little he cared about it. and hes a grounded dude. they were all arguing about sports and he was like. 5 years. millions of dollars. because an annoying fat old bald guy stuck a syringe in his ass a few years ago. no one is going to sleep better knowing barry bonds and marion jones are off the streets. he also mentioned the washington march today and the cases they were protestig that couldve been funded by the money that was wasted on bonds. some zirin articles can be found here: http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/dave_zirin he wrote a book as well, havent read it yet, but im intruiged

love

i've really not wanted to post on this, im not sure if i have before, on thisblog, but im gooing to now. it's possiby the most annoying word to consider philosophically because it is arguably the second strongest human emotion, besides anger of course, and if you disagree with people who are conditioned in their beliefs on love it will insight that one stronger emotion. but here it goes. discuss love. try to be objective. is the pursuit of love a self-centered pursuit. if you think that there are different kinds of love, why? what evidence besides your perceptions is there for this? what kind of good can separating love do for others if you think that there are 'types' of love. while i dont want to get into this, keep in mind the originally kantian concept that the way in which we develope concepts and experience in the manor in which the mind categorizes things, he proves this fascinatingly, and it has been backed my numerous neurological research, so take my word for the heirarchical form which we believe the mind to operate in; can this present problems when we try to consider love objectively?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6330009.stm

as embarassing for the sport of soccer as it is, this for some reason, seems more believable genuine reaction to social conditions. with that said, i have no idea what the conditions are of these peopl, nor the influences; i could be wholly and entirely biased. either way, it's disgusting the malicious violence that surrounds all sports culture, im aware that our football is a violent game in itself, but wouldn't you think thats enough outlet for them not to have to go to a club and start a gun fight, or have 6 billion rounds of ammunition found in their homes?

i was just watchin a termanology video mike had a link to on his shit. at times its that i appreciate that the whole culture is an expression of the lifestyle, but i just cant get my head around that expressing oneself in that manner is a legitimate form of expression. a plethora of "but"s come to mind; it is indicative of the lifestyle to do anything for money, it is a psycological complex to both be socially identifiable, but at the same time be removed and narcissistic. it seems too much of a hump to get over for anyone with a heart and with love for their family and for the people who had to go through what they had to go through to encourage that kind of activity by brandishing a gun in one frame and kissing his daughter in another. id like to sit down with termanlogy, or any other rapper for that matter, and have a utopian dialectic on what they would have as a social system in theri world, etc, and break it down to the point where they would realize violence and the extreme encouragement of gunplay and gangster lifestly are conceptually idiotic and unecessary, and furthermore that the lifestyle they choose to live is simply a product of their moronic predecessors finding new ways to make the human body less human with hats and chains and perms and tatoos and piercings. there reaslly far too much to say now, it just resonated in me that i still cannot find any tenable reason for how any mention of guns or violence that isnt an emphatic "dont be stupid, grow up and live with dignity and a sense of pride about your respect for humanity, which includes women, who incidently are not yoursex toys, however much they seem to think they are". theres no defense for it. it can only be harmful. sure they sort of preach around it, and people latch onto that too, but all they really hear is "click clack". if youve ever seen crash, the part with ludacris in the beginning with the carjacking is a paradigm example of the guntalk sinking in and the actual discouragement (what little of it there is) going in one ear, being saved as a meaningless self-righteous pillar with which to justify immoral actions, and going out the other

Commitment.

Now buy a new car.

i paraphraze from a sports center broadcast:

'...mr goodell was not impressed with his attempt at community service, which was buying inner city atlanta youths tickets to see him at a wrestling event'

on pacman jones of course. i mean, so many things wrong with that, but obviously im most concerned with a sucessfulguy that comes from some poor area that has made a reputation for himself as irresponsible and violent (which im sure makes him popular to such groups as inner city atlanta youths) actually thinking that hes doing something good by buying those same kids whos futures hes helping to ruin tickets to a display of hypermachismo and violence. oh no. just very very very bad. i really think that he thinks he was doing something good, and moreover im gonna assume that hes from atlanta, i bet those kids look up to him...

ON THE MORAL LIMITS OF GOVERNMENT: Should Governments Be Under The Same Moral Limits As Individuals

By Warner Bass



The existence of governments presents the individuals that entrust their collective power in them with many difficult dilemmas. One such dilemma is the question: should governments be under the same moral limits as individuals? The enormity of modern governments, in both physical size and concentration of power, make their moral boundaries far less limited than those of the individual. This fact does not mean that a state’s breach of individual moral limitations is morally right. Rather, such a breach is a purely circumstantial consequence of the unjust amount of power centralized into the state apparatus.


When people invest their collective power in a system of governance, they usually do so with the hope that that institution will provide them with a certainty degree of protection from what John Locke[1] describes as the state of nature. In doing so, these people are expected to act in a certain way in order to preserve the status quo. This preservation is facilitated in the west through a combination of written laws as well as a set of unwritten morals. Such moral codes may or may not be the foundation of written laws, but nevertheless they are to be followed if order is to be preserved. For example, it is considered beyond the moral limits of an individual to end the life of a fellow individual. Murder being morally wrong (as well as legally impermissible) greatly reduces the amount of murders in a given society.


Given the aforementioned example of murder, it becomes immediately clear that such a moral restriction cannot be placed on modern governments. If a government is to properly protect its citizens’ security, it should be expected to exhaust all powers at its disposal before abandoning its promise of security. Government sanctioned killing is one such example of a power states have at their disposal for preserving security. Even though the act of murder is not moral for the individuals owing their allegiances to the state, it becomes the “duty” of the state to commit the action if the status quo (and thus security) is threatened. In fact, the individuals of a society might protest if the government does not take such an immoral action in response to threatened security. For example, the Turkish government has been subject to demonstrations and protests[2] by its citizens because of its hesitation to invade Northern Iraq to fight PKK rebels who have been attacking Turkish soldiers as part of their campaign for greater Kurdish autonomy. By not taking every possible action to protect its Turk citizens, the Turkish government is failing the very people that have entrusted their power in it.


Security is not the only service expected by citizens when they entrust their power into the state. Public services such as education as well as transportation are two of many examples of other functions a government is expected to provide. By putting so many varying responsibilities in to one public body, it cannot be expected that that body will be able to be dictated by the same limits, moral or otherwise, as the individuals that make it up. The end product of the centralization of such massive forces of power becomes something that can’t be considered anything other than super-human by character. As something which is “more than man”, as far as sheer powers and responsibilities are concerned, it would be naïve to believe that the state can be governed by mere mortal moral limits.


It should be understood, however, that the super-human nature of modern governments only explains their moral-transcending character; it does not, by any means, justify it. Rather, this harsh fact simply explains the immoral phenomenon associated with governments. Once the very nature of government is understood, it becomes immediately apparent that the question: should governments be under the same moral limits as individuals, is unanswerable. If government must be immoral to serve its basic functions, it is impossible to have an opinion on whether or not it “should” be moral. To make such an argument would be like arguing the question “should a blind man see?” The man’s disability is a fact, to argue for or against whether he “should” be blind is useless.


In his book, Political Thinking, Glenn Tinder presents the reader with the example of Machiavelli[3]. Machiavelli, it is said, held that governments should not be under the same moral limits as individuals. Using similar reasoning as presented above, Machiavelli argued that “there is a moral law but that rulers must occasionally break that law.” While the example of Machiavelli agrees in principle with the aforementioned beliefs (governments “should” not be under the same moral limits as individuals); the ideas presented above and Machiavelli’s theory split onto two different paths. From Tinder’s explanation, it appears the Machiavelli is perfectly content with the existence of immoral ruling bodies. On the other hand, the ideas presented above relate a theory which is not convinced that the existence of such governing bodies is good in the first place.


Later in his book, Tinder addresses the struggle between moral absolutists and moral relativists[4]. He gives the example of a state organized assassination, and then proceeds to characterize each group’s reaction. The moral relativists, he explains, will “perhaps be undisturbed”, while the absolutists will be horrified. In his following comments, Tinder makes it clear that he feels, understandably, that by taking a hard-line approach to the issue, the absolutists are being naïve with respect to the complexities of the state system. Such absolutists, however, cannot all be considered naïve if they recognize that the state system is inherently corrupt and not compatible with proper human thought and behavior. The moral absolutist is only naïve if he/she is content with the existence of the state, for as it has already been proven, it is impossible for the state to be a moral institution. For this latter form of absolutism, Tinder claims that they may be inviting “an idealistic distortion of reality.”[5] Surely, he claims, humans would be unable to function properly if they were to be morally absolute at all times. Forget governing bodies, forming personal relationships would be a near impossible task. While this is true, it is hard to say that such a harsh reality (humans can never be perfectly moral) should imply that humankind give up on our moral seeking efforts and make due with super-human/super-moral institutions that currently govern countries like the United States of America. While perfect morality is impossible, it is not evident that near-perfect morality in a social system is doomed to the same fate.


Upon final review, it becomes quite apparent that due to their fundamental natures, governments cannot be held under the same moral limits as individuals. As long as the fundamental role of governments is the security of the people who entrust their power in them, moral behavior will constantly have to be compromised. The sheer level of power and responsibility held by governments in countries like the United States of America relegate most moral absolutists to the status of fools. Belief in a state system of government (or any system of government for that matter) and moral absolutism simply are not compatible. All of these harsh realities, however, only serve to highlight the imperfections of the current system of centralized governance and the need for change.


[1] Locke, John. "Second Treatise of Civil Government ." Marxists Internet Archive. http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/politics/locke/ch02.htm.

[2] Rainsford, Sarah. "Turkish Anti-PKK Anger Mounts." BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7073718.

[3] Tinder, Glenn. Political Thinking. 6th ed. Menlo Park, Cal.: Longman, 1995. 134

[4] Tinder, Glenn. Political Thinking. 6th ed. Menlo Park, Cal.: Longman, 1995. 136-139
[5] Ibid.

Rumors of Their Greatness Have Been Greatly Exaggerated

peyton and brady. wow their so great. but really, i mean some names deserve to live in peoples memories. these are not those names. i do voluntarily choose to watch a lot of sports, which is probably just to distract myself, but i am clearly more grounded than most people seem to be about it. its wonderful that adrian peterson ran for an nfl record 296 rush yards in a single game in only his 8th game as a pro, already reaching the 1000 yard mark - yea, he's sick, but he's really not doing anything for anyone but himself, i know i and surely anyone else watching could do a lot better than watching the sports center segment on him 3 times over. the NFL is a multi-billion dollar idustry, if anyone involved wants really to become legendary, great, they can liquidate the team and start some sort of enterprise in a third world country, do something good for the whole of humanity, invest heavily in a car company and discourage them from producing the type of vehicle that produces any chemicals that's harmful to our planet. its necessary now to mention those that live on in our memory; ghandi, mother theresea, jesus, to name an especially altruistic few. these people live in our memories not because they were marketable, not because they did anything good for their economy, because they lead their nations through a hard time, these people were more than the idiots who so heavily involve themselves in their time, so to speak. so shit, i get wrapped up breifly in how it's possible for randy moss to catch that ball like his gloves got gorilla glue on 'em, but who the hell cares, it's entertaining, but as ive stated before, it's far from real physical acheivment, something i really don't care all to much for anyway. but with that said, it's because of these great individuals, and the combined efforts of those who have strived to be great and haven't quite had it all there, that we are able to be such an incredibly ignorant and narcissistic society, we owe this luxury to them. there must be ways in which we can improve somewhat the quality of life for many others, but as it is here, it seems to be pretty good, is it not close to the height of civilization when the entirety of the citizenship of the most sucessful (for now) country on the plant are ignorant and narcissitic? now given however many remaining people there will be that can greatly impact human civilization, what will that highest point be? it almost seems like the human abillity to reflect on discomfort and such will always lead to laziness, and our tendencies when left to our own devices towards nihilism, it seems that this is the way that life will turn out; I'm not sure that the whole of the human community has the capacity for intellectual progression, we revert to laziness and pleasure too quickly, and im not so sure it's all that bad a thing. as a philosophic mind i am faced with mcuh ambiguity and discomfort towards wholly unanswerable questions, and having been in the lifestyle of how life is for many when i was younger, the pains seem similar, and possibly less severe because when one does not concentrate on those larger questions of life there are still many questions and wonders with room for mysticism and superstition about those questions - humanity may be better off left in ignorance and left to destroy our planet and each other at some point; if only becasue ive lost so much faith in people ever being able to not be collectively selfish and absolutely and utterly ignorant.

alright so hear me out. a fast hybrid, like the v6 hondas and the something like 300hp lexus, is like trying to cure cocaine with crack. it goes faster than your old car! it costs less than other fast cars! it makes you feel good for transient periods of time between remembering that your're still driving a car. and by the way with all this hype for environmental conservation, which is going in the right direction even though we all know that cars aren't gonna cut it they can only cause negative imact, what the hell is with mercedes? they test drove their new c-class 14 million miles! 14,000,000 miles...i wonder how much pollutants that put in our atmosphere... people stink.

"well, i definatly think im a better person now because i have more money" - i like tony romo now

>>>i gotta add this as well. there were a couple penalties on one play in the game and the ref was doing all the hand motions and tony romo was standing behind him mimicing every move. it was really funny.

its juat dawned on me that professional sports an college sports can potentially show promise for people, in that they can provide motivation for children from troubled backgrounds to not be idiots. the biggest problem is that college football is quick becoming a haven for people who havent actually changed their bad habits, there are so many criminals in college football, i mean a kicker stabbed another kicker last year. this is tantamount to how the lifestyle is often:poor as hell to free college, to millions. as mr vick, as well as the entire bengals roster from last year, pacman jones, tank johnson, etc, have showed us, its really just live what the rappers say is cool. yea i guess rap had to come into this as well, but its not the focus (though i do contest that it plays a large part), it is that the "hood", violent, mentality is being carried over (remember the miami v florida atlantic brawl of last year) and then millions are being put in the hands of the people acting like this; thus it must be right to act like this via a few psycological mesages; such as you do this, ysou get millions, when you have the millions buy A LOT of guns (tank johnson) - its a vicious sycle...yea i cant spell

I think they call this poetic justice.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7068549.stm

i have a huge smile on my face