BUSH IS PHILOSOPHICALLY JUST AND DID NOT BREAK THE LAW

[Jeffersons Ghost]

While the preceding remark seems outrageous, proof remains glaringly obvious in Book 1 of The Republic. I certainly do not expect anyone to take such an extreme statement on my word and I highly recommend readers compare my subsequent version of Instant Plato to any of the numerous translations online by simply searching for “Socrates and Thrasymachus.” Yes, you read correctly; it said INSTANT PLATO… welcome to America.

The Republic represents ten Books and each one originally fit onto a single papyrus scroll. Much of the writing consists of dialog between Socrates and others interested in his notions. After a discussion about justice proceeds in a manner one might expect of Socrates, it takes a startling turn as Thrasymachus asserts that he knows what justice is and suggests the definitions others present are “nonsense.”

In Book 1 of The Republic, Thrasymachus says, "I declare justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger" Robbery and violence generally represent injustices but when practiced wholesale by rulers becomes justice, because it serves the interest of those stronger rulers. In this approach, since the rulers do not obey the laws they impose on citizens, they are essentially unjust but still able to claim they are just, in a sense. At one point, Thrasymachus says, "You will understand it more easily, if you consider the perfect injustice; one which makes the unjust man most happy and makes those who are wronged but unwilling to be unjust miserable."

According to Thrasymachus, tyranny is a type of wholesale plunder but if a citizen commits theft or violence, they will face disgrace and punishment. When someone robs or commits atrocities against a whole nation and then reduces them to slavery, however, the people will eventually forget ugly names like theft or violence, only to call him fortunate, in spite of his unmitigated wrongdoing.
To Thrasymachus a tyrant is happy and fortunate because he breaks the rules of justice he imposes on the weak. What a weak citizen calls "justice" is essentially slavery and the strong do not obey those rules. Later, existentialists, like the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, will expand these notions to challenge traditional morality and Christianity.

After listening to Thrasymachus, Socrates refutes him: “If the weak can prevent the strong from becoming a tyrant or taking what they want, they are in fact strong! As one might expect the voice of the master quiets Thrasymachus but at the beginning of Book 2, Glaucon and others renew arguments that anyone would be unjust, given the opportunity, if injustice leads to happiness. The students ask Socrates to prove that it is better to be just, since unjust individuals often enjoy happiness and rewards as just people suffer poverty and disgrace.

In much of the rest of The Republic, through the words of Socrates, Plato attempts to prove that just individuals are actually happy, while unjust people, such as tyrants, generally tend to be unhappy.

In summation, First I will ask: "Is this why King George smirks constantly?" While I pose the next question second, it is not secondary in importance: "Are we, as a people, strong or weak?"

[geckosfeet]

1. Last I heard, the rule of law in this country was based on something

called the Constitution.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

11. I apologize...

Your response took a little longer to write than my post to CTYankee, which appears later on this board. In keeping with the example our draft-dodging "just" ruler sets by bending the basic Constitution to the needs of his party, I've designed two examples of the preamble. If you don't like my examples feel free to create your own. King George shows us that, as Thrasymachus argues, it really doesn't matter how justice is defined by a society, a tyrant doesn't have to follow, even his own rules, like the U S A Patriot Act.

First, here's the original version:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Now, I offer two revised versions, where I use many of the same words, in keeping with the tradition of our current tyrant:

We rich people, in order to form more perfect posterity, establish extra justice for ourselves and promote only the welfare of our family and friends through insurance, will give the Ordained extra power, to secure their blessings of a two-class system that will provide billions for defense contractors of the United States of America.

We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, re-establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, must provide a common defense from the ultra-rich by ordaining a Constitution to promote not only Welfare and Social Security but also a National Health-care Program for the United States of America.

Which version represents the "strong" as Thrasymachus perceived them, well over two-thousand years ago?

[xchrom]

2. where is the proof that the unjust are happy?

and why is happiness a justification for acting unjustly?

[Jeffersons Ghost]

12. "happiness justifies nothing:

Power is the primary justification in preceding arguments by Thrasymachus. As I state in the original posting, Plato uses most of the remaining nine books of The Republic to prove that only the truly just (not "unjust") can attain real happiness but it takes time and work.

At this point in my replies, I hope readers consider, their first impulse upon reading the headline "BUSH IS PHILOSOPHICALLY JUST AND DID NOT BREAK THE LAW and realize how modern spin-doctors attempt to induce feelings, as they calculate not only positive but also negative responses to trigger emotional public outcry that tends to achieve their goals.

[CTyankee]

3. Thank you for the elevating discourse

The dialogue between Socrates and Thrasymachus is one that fascinates me. It's too bad not many folks read the Dialogues. We could get such a historical perspective if we all did.

P.S. Have you read "A War LIke No Other" by Victor Davis Hanson? It's another take on the Peloponnesian War and looking at our war in Iraq.

"Might makes right" is an old, old argument.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

4. as a history buff...

It's my "historical perspective" that scares me the most as a review the current administrations actions.

[CTyankee]

5. I tell people to read what happened to Athens

after it tried to "export democracy." Some descriptions by Thucydides are hair raising.

I just got back from a trip to Sicily and thought of the Sicilian Expedition as I looked at the Greek temples there.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

14. I agree, CTYankee

With Thucydides presenting a subtle influence of Hippocrates and perhaps possessing medical knowledge, it is a shame he didn't co-other with Plato to describe a theory that provides "just" health-care to Republican Utopia. We had better come up with a good theory fast. The tyrant robbed Social Security and numerous other public trusts, just as nature and time descends on a large group called "Baby Boomers."

Indeed, not only Thucydides but also Plato reads like a combination of Stephen King, the Twilight Zone and George Orwell in places; quite spooky and ominously on the mark, even in OUR time. Oddly, George hit pretty close with his date.

How did you like all the national news reappearing tonight that barely mentions how unjust it is for a president to be above his own law; the USA Patriot act and instead focuses on making that violation of liberty permanent? I guess the spin tyrant tires of fighting his war against trees and has returned to the white-palace.

[CTyankee]

15. In the war against trees=olive groves?

I see your point. He keeps trying to burn or cut down the olive trees of Attica in a desperate attempt to discourage Athenians in their war for hearts and minds for democracy. Of course, it comes to nothing for Sparta after all. But Athens doesn't see too far into their future either. That is MY fear. If the Athenians cannot value their own democracy, we are lost. It happened before.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

16. Indeed,

If the stellar leap in logic you suggest was my point I'd gladly take credit but it would be unjust for me to claim your analogy. To clarify for our readers: Even a tyrant who cut Attica olive trees, is not above the law and might face severe punishment.

I find it very entertaining to perceive that petty DC spin tyrant as making a symbolic gesture that His Majesty can chop what he wants on his farm or in Alaska, while thumbing his nose at us all because it proves he is above all law and controls a media that barely mentions the Patriot Act and never defines it. I wonder if Joe and Sue Average even know what the Act does to the legacy of freedom they intend to leave their children.

To clarify; however, I was simply thinking of how his flying spin-monkeys are obviously feeling uncomfortable releasing the same old story that he is once again on vacation. It certainly improves his poll results when he takes long vacations as media offers local blah, blah and silly spins on some freakish war on Merry Christmas, with very little national or international news. I wonder if he set another negative record by spending more time on vacation than ANY other US President.

[CTyankee]

20. My reference was to the war in Iraq

not clearing brush on his potemkin village ranch in Texas. the two wars have some symmetry but of course it is not exact. The olive groves in Attica were devilishly difficult to destroy for hoplites who lacked any modern tools and they had the nasty habit of just growing back just like they had been. We go into areas in Iraq to clear out insurgents only to have them flood back in once our troops leave.

Not to put too fine a point on this, of course...

[Vinnie From Indy]

26. We have become the Helots

Who will be our Epaminondas in the Democratic party?

[Jeffersons Ghost]

27. Feingold

Russ seems to possess the legendary courage and integrity often associated with Epaminondas. I only hope he also has the ability to organize that ancient statesman exemplifies.

[radio4progressives]

34. Hear! Hear!

:applause:

[Beetwasher]

6. How Silly

The laws in this country are not based on Platonic discourse.

So, you're arguing "might makes right", and you think that's original? We all know Chimpy believes that. It's a selfish, destructive and shortsighted worldview that can only end in disaster for a whole lot of people. But you go ahead and believe that, see if it works for you, personally.

[Neil Lisst]

18. The 1st post sounds like something from the Heritage Foundation

I can't take seriously anyone who quotes Plato.

Unless it's the cartoon dog, of course.

Or was that Pluto?

[radio4progressives]

35. LOL!

you say pluto, he says plato, it's all there in the big tent...

ptchaww!

[Jeffersons Ghost]

21. Since I'm not a lawyer, Beetwasher

I'm not going to debate individual laws. I agree it would be "silly" for any reasonable person to put forth the idea that "might makes right." The brutish approach in not original, moral or just and even predates Cleisthenes, who set up one of the earliest democracies around 500 BCE. I will, however, say that Platonic discourse was a strong influence on the writings of Jefferson and the basic concepts of the Constitution. Even Jefferson's style of writing appears influenced either directly by Plato or indirectly through Neo-Platonic thinkers that Plato influenced. In fact, if we consider the impact the Italian Renaissance had on Western Civilization as a whole and the influence Neo-Platonists, like Pico had on that period, it could easily be shown that Plato is an underlying influence on much of Western culture in general.

[Beetwasher]

22. So What?

Plato was a philosophical influence on lot's of people and institutions, but his discourses are NOT US law and NOT the constitution. And as others have pointed out, you fail to put that portion of the dialogue in context anyway. You can not say, in any way that resembles logical debate, that Bush's actions are somehow magically made just and legal because of something Plato said. It's just plain silly. Again, US law is NOT based on Platonic discourse. US law is based on the constitution. Period. End of debate.

Now, if you want to discuss Plato and his influence on the Consitution and US law, that's another story. But to say that Bush actions are somehow justified by Platonic discourse is to have a very fundamental misunderstanding of how our country works.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

23. Like Plato...

I set up logical debate with the dissenting opinions of Thrasymachus but try not to let that confuse you. My personal opinions become evident in subsequent posts, like Plato presents his ideas in the remaining nine books of the Republic. If you take the time to read Book 1 of The Republic, you'll discover my short overview takes nothing "out of context." What I sought to do with this post is prove King George is a tyrant and instead of simply resorting to shallow name-calling, I allow Plato through the words of Thrasymachus to define the archaic term. Like "might makes right" tyranny is not an original thought. Humanoids much older and animals much lower on the evolutionary ladder than homo-sapien lived by both concepts. Are we animals? In a sense, since we are not plants, we indeed fall into the animal kingdom, which brings me back to the Neo-Platonists.

Fourth century Neo-Platonism, which links other philosophies with Platonic ideas, became an influential element in fifteenth century Italy. Renaissance Neo-Platonists, however, tend to focus on unifying religion with philosophy instead of tying together philosophies like the fourth century Neo-Platonists. Giovanni Pico della Mirandola synthesized Platonism, Stoicism, Judaism, Jewish Mysticism, and host of other ideas into a single system. Above all, Pico personifies the Humanist. Before the birth Pico in 1463 CE, Humanism, which focuses on relationships between humanity and the Divine, became a social force in Italy. In his Oration on the Dignity of Man, Pico states that you have "free choice and dignity, so you may fashion yourself into whatever form you choose. To you is granted power of degrading yourself into lower forms of life, like the beasts, and to you is granted power, contained in your intellect and judgment, to be reborn into higher forms, like the Divine." Almost a manifesto for the Renaissance, his speech affirms the importance of a human quest for enlightenment in philosophical terms.

A "tyrant," like King George, conducts himself like a brutal leader of a pack of mongrel dogs and has nothing in common with Divinity but he had a choice. He decided to degrade himself into a beastly pack leader and anyone who supports him degrades themselves into a member of his wild and vicious pack by following such a leader.

It's really unfair for you to campare King George to a chimp, just as it's unfair for me to compare him to a mongrel dog: It's unfair to animals like chimps and dogs, since they are higher life forms.

[Beetwasher]

24. Heh?

Thanks for the philosophy 101 refresher, but no thanks. I'm already quite well versed in the classics.

Your original premise, however, is still flawed and illogical. Nothing Plato has said in any way legitimizes or legalizes Bush's abrogation of his duty as President. He defied the US constitution, separation of powers and judicial precedent, and that is all that matters in determining whether or not what he did was illegal. There's really not much of a debate about that, even on specious philosophical grounds. Once again, Platonic dialogue is completely irrelevant in regard to determining whether or not Chimpy broke the law.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

28. what?

That is a good headline... When I read your first post on this board, I wondered if you had read my posting after the headline " BUSH IS PHILOSOPHICALLY JUST AND DID NOT BREAK THE LAW." While my lead-in was designed to draw in readers, as any headline should be, we must all realize that modern leads can be misleading and often not a premise of the story that follows. In fact, in modern American media, I find most of the stories extremely misleading as well. Will we as readers allow spin-doctors, control our responses? I believe we will if we react in a predictably emotional manner. When the far-left reacts in a predictable manner it serves these professional liars, which somehow gained the nice sounding title of a spin-doctor.

I say, when the left becomes less predictable, we snatch power from the tyrant and his control-freak party, which likely has another tyrant waiting to take office for the next term. Why, though, should they even put it to a vote. The current tyrant can simply start a war in Iran as an excuse to forgo the next presidential election and free-thinkers will still be debating the finer points of philosophical argument. I say when free-thinkers snuggle up with moderate-thinking sheepish types, those sheep begin to see the light. Sharing Plato, even in a psyc 101 setting is sharing enlightenment. Let's break down a few fences and free a few sheep to use their God-given intellect. We ALL want to leave the same legacy of justice and freedom to our children that America's forefathers endowed to us. Instead of allowing a party that endorses a life form that mirrors the classic Platonic definition of a tyrant to rule, we must act now, which leads to my personal philosophy: "It's now or never." Are you active in the Democratic Party Beetwasher? If not, your wasting all that righteous indignation on a keyboard. Sharing illumination is primary in some philosophies. Let's lead a few others into the light.

BTW, had I wanted to attempt to prove my headline the philosophy that followed would have been from the mind of Niccolo Machiavelli, where not only does "might make right" but also "the end justifies the means." As reported in media the spin-tyrant indeed reads HIS Bible but reporters fail to mention that Machiavelli wrote it.

[Beetwasher]

47. LOL, Uh, Yeah, Ok, Whatever

"While the preceding remark seems outrageous, proof remains glaringly obvious in Book 1 of The Republic"

Your headline was, perhaps, meant to grab attention, yes. But the first sentence in your post seems to indicate that in fact, it is exactly what you meant and you meant to show the proof of it's veracity w/ the rest of your post.

"...we must all realize that modern leads can be misleading and often not a premise of the story that follows."

Well, first of all, that's not true in your case since you did not mean it to be misleading and meant to offer "proof" of it that was "glaringly obvious in Book 1 of The Republic", and second of all, misleading headlines are the hallmark of either poor writers or propogandists.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

50. Whatever indeed

To accept the notion that "might makes right" in the case of His Royal Chimpness, is to accept that King George is a tyrant.

[Beetwasher]

51. Who's Accepting That Notion?

Not me.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

52. nor do i

My point, however, is that ANYONE reading my whole post would have to admit King George is a tyrant to accept that Machiavellian idea.

[Beetwasher]

53. No, They Wouldn't Have To Admit Any Such Thing

And if that was your point, sorry, you made it poorly and you're still doing so.

Are you saying Bush is a tyrant because he thinks might makes right? :shrug:

[Jeffersons Ghost]

54. so far

you ask a great deal of questions without answering any. First: did you EVER read the whole post? second: what are you personally doing about King George and his royal den of thieves?

[Beetwasher]

56. LOL! Nice Attempt At Changing the Subject

It's irrelevant what I'm doing about Chimpy. It doesn't change the fact that your original post was poorly constructed and that your conclusion is not well founded.

[Justitia]

7. Thank God for Aristotle, cleaning up after Plato's mess.... -eom

[Hosnon]

31. No kidding...eom

[Jeffersons Ghost]

38. here's something to think about

Certainly, Plato's Utopia is bizarre and idealistic but Aristotle in deviating from Platonic patterns is what really caused the mess. I thank God for the subsequent Neo-Platonists that tried to reconcile the two disciplines in an attempt to clean up a philosophical mess. The book A Beautiful Mind could have been about them.

Speaking of a mess, who's going to clean up this big one the spin-tyrant has made. This petty dictator has created a bigger economic mess than all other presidents combined and gotten us into something that will be much messier than Vietnam. Let's see... hmmm it's not a war as spin-monkeys call it... it's not a conflict... not a police action, that was Vietnam... Oh! I know! I know! IT'S AN INVASION FOLLOWED BY LENGTHY OCCUPATION, JUST LIKE THE ATROCITIES THAT MADE OTHER TYRANTS IN HISTORY FAMOUS!

Seeking honesty in politics quickly makes you feel like Diogenes in the streets of ancient Athens but my flickering little lamp has cast a glint of light onto this guy named Russ Feingold. While it's certainly not fair to ask a truly just individual to clean up the mess of a tyrant, that is the way it usually happens in history. Sorry for the mess Russ, it's really our own fault by being so complacent in the past.

[greyl]

8. No he isn't, yes he did and

no, there isn't proof in Book 1 of The Republic.

Did you also write this? :
http://www.unitypublishing.com/Government/Plato.htm

[Jeffersons Ghost]

41. no i didn't

yes it is and no, if I'd written that the theory of Forms would be more concise and the Allegory more detailed.

[greyl]

43. Hi Jeffersons Ghost, I can't make logical sense of your post.

Firstly, as fair divulgence, I'll tell you that Plato was an ultimately irrelevant and unnecessarily complicated rhetorician. "Rhetoric is an art because it can be reduced to a rational system of order?" - and that Aristotle spouted some whoppers of his own which shackle our culture today. Wither the world of mindsets modeled after prophets and authorities.

How shall I apply your three responses phrased in feigned parallel to my lone inquiry?
What happened to your logic all of a sudden? ;)

Did you happen to notice the similarities to your op here and the copy at the link I provided?
Having fallen into similar static patterns of my own along the way, I recognize that as a lack of creative thinking over there in the world of Plato.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

46. long inquiry???

Did you fail to read your query before posting this more recent comment? It directly precedes mine, in case you're having trouble finding it. While I totally disagree with your opinion of Plato, your postings are welcome here. You certainly have the right to disagree on a reasonable level, as you just did. Unlike some, when my personal ideas and beliefs are challenged I attempt to keep an open mind, since that is how I learn or grow.

[greyl]

48. No, "lone" inquiry.

(or are you making a joke of some kind?)

[Jeffersons Ghost]

49. no

I was responding to this part of your post "How shall I apply your three responses phrased in feigned parallel to my lone inquiry? What happened to your logic all of a sudden? ;)" but as i repost it, i see apologies are in order... I'm particularly busy today and misread the word "lone" as "long." I might also need to consult my optometrist. My eyes grow dim as age creeps in. While I have your attention, may I ask: How does one put those logos, slogans and pictures by their nick-name at this site. I just found a neat one on last year's Democratic website I'd like to use next to the name Jefferson's Ghost.

[RoyGBiv]

9. This analysis is incomplete ...

I don't like discussing Plato, or philosophy generally, in shorthand. It pretty much goes against the whole point, and intentionally conflating the meanings of common terms with their meanings as discussed by philosophers does very little but confuse things.

The brief discussion you present above seems strikingly similar to the beginning of such a discussion published by a philosophy professor. Perhaps it is accidental you have some direct quotes and similar separation of subjects, or perhaps you're him. I don't know. In any case, what's missing from this is the meat of the remainder of the discussion in which Plato, as Socrates, more completely dismantles the proposition offered by Thrasymachus and reconstructs it around his own ideas. The point of a "dialogue" is never presented in whole at the beginning.

Aside from any of this, the *legality* of Bush's actions are not addresses even in the slightest by this discussion.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[brindis_desala]

13. To judge from the content and paucity of replies it would seem the

answer to your second question is answered. Perhaps the genius of the founders was in managing to let the weak believe themselves strong.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

57. That my friend, is interesting.

Frankly, not only is your idea intriguing but also a bit spooky. On one mental level, I must evaluate the idea but at a deeper philosophical level, I believe if we stand for everything, we truly stand for nothing, so I will stand up for the character of these original acts of patriotism that we can correctly call USA Patriot acts. Does Guinness have a category for the biggest misnomer? Unlike the current regime, the hearts of these early patriots were in the right places.

[zulchzulu]

17. Fuck Thrasymachus! I dig the 4th Amendment to the Constitution

Even King George wasn't above the law. Does eBay sell guillotines?

[Neil Lisst]

19. Plato is OK, but I prefer regular clay for kids to play with.

know what I mean?

[Skidmore]

25. This is why philosophy majors are perpetual grad students...

* is a criminal from a monied family who bought, lied, and cheated his way into power. People can only be weak or strong when there is knowledge, and the junta also owns the media. Many people are just learning what those among us who take the time to read and pay attention learned with some difficulty. We've done it on this board through many people tracking the details.


Bottom line is * is responsible for his crimes and it seems to me his smirk is less certain and frequent now.

[Neil Lisst]

29. "I got kicked out of philosophy class for looking into the soul of ...

... the guy sitting next to me."
--- Some guy

I've read extensively for decades, and I can't think of anyone whose writing I respect less than Plato's, with one exception. Ayn Rand.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hosnon]

33. I love Ayn Rand...nt

[Neil Lisst]

36. Why? Her writings and characters are not realistic.

At best, she stole from others who wrote much, much better.

When someone says "that which does not kill me, makes me stronger," I always punch them hard in the stomach, then say "feeling stronger yet?"

[welshTerrier2]

55. here's the source ...

Woody Allen: "I went to NYU myself, I was a philo-major there, too. I took all the abstract philosophy courses in college, like truth and beauty, advanced truth and beauty, intermediate truth, introduction to God, Death 101. I was thrown out of NYU my freshman year, I cheated on my metaphysics final in college, I looked within the soul of the boy sitting next to me".

from: Annie Hall, 1977

[Hosnon]

32. I was a philosophy major - and not a perpetual grad student:) nt

[NativeTexan]

37. Hitler used much of the same ......

....philosophy to justify everything he did. He even made believers out of HIS regime leaders, too.

[CTyankee]

39. Well, actually, I am a native Texan and a perpetual philosophy

student.

Living in New Haven, it is possible to be both. Also, I am trying to learn Italian, be a great grandmother, and just have a helluva wonderful life.

[NativeTexan]

40. Well, HOWDY, Ma'am!!

Always great to find others in lands abroad. Any chance we could send Bush BACK to CT, where he belongs, and get you back down here??

[CTyankee]

44. Neither will happen

Bush seems to deny that he was born in New Haven and New Haven generally is glad to accommodate him. My user name for this board suggests what I consider myself to be.

People who arent from Texas don't realize how strongly Texans feel about not leaving Texas. My mother and father tried to relocate from Dallas to Arizona about 30 years ago, but had real problems leaving Texas and moved back within 6 months. I was a second generation Texan and when I moved away there was consternation in my family.

I like your tag line. What still manages to burn me up is *'s fake Texas accent. My mother had a lovely East Texas accent, the one that Bill Moyers has. I no longer have my accent but I absolutely will not say "pecan" any other way but "puh-CAHN."

[Baconfoot]

42. If do Philosophy halfway, SQUISH just like grape

Here are some questions to guide your rereading of the material:

1)The various characters have different notions of what justice IS. What are these various notions? What are the arguments for the various notions? What notion is the one the author clearly prefers?

You need to be able to answer these questions correctly in order to avoid the mistakes which come from using one definition of a term when in fact another is appropriate.

2)What is meant by happiness?
hint: It's not what you thought happiness meant before you read any Philosophy.


Here is a hint as to how to approach Philosophy:
If you think the guy is saying something incredibly stupid that any idiot who paused one minute to think would realize was false, he most likely isn't saying what you think he is saying. Look back to see if you have misread anything.

[Rodger Dodger]

45. Regarding Justice...

Justice... is simply "A believable Fiction." As is Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, heaven and hell.

The symbolism of the statue of Justice blindfolded and holding a balanced scale is absurd symbol. Conservative and Liberals try their damn dist to make sure the scale is tilted in their favor.

[sirjohn]

58. Perfect example of paradoxes created by words

Reasoning and proofs based words spin infinite chains of paradoxes. (can't define the word "infinite", sorry)

30 years ago I worked in a library and was astounded by the amount of printed material on single topics such as social theories. Much more is in print now. Today people are debating the same ideas, with constant new twists based on current events.

Hypocrisy is part of human nature and no person is objective. How easy it is to jump on things people say and debate them, each person offering his own justification or condemnation as to the words spoken and their "meaning".

[Jeffersons Ghost]

60. "spin"

Thanks for using a more perfect definition of that word... Spin is designed to make us feel and react and plenty of the propaganda from these modern spin-monkeys is aimed at us to evoke a predictable emotional response. Thanks Sir John, you strike me as a scholar, while I am but a perpetual student.

[sirjohn]

61. Thanks, from one perpetual student to another

Most things in life are very simple but not easy.

The endless splitting of hairs is not for me.

Understanding begins with honesty. The most honest thing a person can begin with is, "I don't know." That's the only foundation upon which something more substantial can be built.

Cheers.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

62. exactly!

It's always nice to meet another perpetual student. Whether it's here, on the far left, where we write or on the far right, open minds are becoming increasingly rare. My topics and especially my head-lines on DU are designed to help us become spin-proof instead of offering predictably emotional outcries that serve these propagandists. We must all use our heads when it comes to reacting to news these days, since the Reichstag controls much of it. Let's not allow our hearts get in the way of our heads.

[sirjohn]

64. I won't disclose which side of the aisle I'm on

but someone told me way back that one's reason can be improved by listening to the other side of one's argument.

Meaning, one sees similar flaws and pointless points used by both sides.

The same person told me the world was full of sleeping people. After seeing this it becomes obvious that the only thing to do is to awaken.

You see how difficult it is to awaken yourself even if you want it. This comes as a tremendous shock. One sees the futility of trying to awaken people who have no interest in it.

To begin with "I am in a self-induced hypnotic state" is the beginning. That will never create a popular movement.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

65. plato knew it too

You are my target demographic on this article. Thank you for admitting ancient wisdom still serves its purpose. Now that we can agree the shadow merchants are attempting to deceive us all, let's look at that small light at the mouth of the cave and begin to ascend toward true light. After all, a little wisdom is dangerous, especially if we remained chained in a cave of deception. Will we walk toward true light or continue to submit to deceptive flickering emotional fires?

[sirjohn]

66. To say the shadow merchants are trying to deceive us

is your first error. Every human being is practiced in the art of deception, with their neighbor and worse, with themselves. To say "they" are doing something (deliberately) is to presume they have a will. The only way you'll know whether they have a will is to develop one of your own; only then will you be in a position to measure theirs. And until then, yours is just another opinion, one warring against another, just the same as the world you are complaining about. Except you have an exalted view of yourself because you "understand" philosophy. Like I said, friend, it ain't easy. Best wishes.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

67. my last post shows my "will"

Sorry, I failed to fall into your word traps. My will is obvious in the post that precedes your last entry: I seek to rise above propaganda and seek illuminating truths. I also never claim to "understand philosophy" but instead claim to be only a perpetual student. I totally agree with your main points; however, none of my quests are easy or popular.

[sirjohn]

68. Wishing to seek is not the same as having acquired.

Your possession of will is not obvious. You ascribe characteristics to yourself that you do not possess.

If you think I'm trying to trap you with words, any further communication between us is pointless.

Check back in about 15 years and tell me how far you have gotten with this tack.

Sorry to be rough with you, but it's the most economical way to go for both of us.

Take care.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

69. makes sense...

Anyone who concludes "Every human being is practiced in the art of deception," is fully qualified to snap-judge me personally, based on a limited example of my humble writings, although they know nothing of me as a human. As I first said, it's an honor to meet such a scholar. In fifteen years, will the subsequent quote from my first analysis have become reality? "When someone robs or commits atrocities against a whole nation and then reduces them to slavery, however, the people will eventually forget ugly names like theft or violence, only to call him fortunate, in spite of his unmitigated wrongdoing."

[sirjohn]

70. First know thyself. n/t

[Jeffersons Ghost]

71. true

next, avoid judging others based on what you've learned about yourself and instead get to know them for who they truly are.

[depakid]

59. Hogwash

The guardians in Plato's Republic would never have let him get away with that....

[Debs]

63. OUR government is based on the Constitution

The Presidents powers are set forth in article 2 and they specifically say the President shall take care the laws are FAITHFULLY EXECUTED. The President takes an OATH to uphold the constitution. IF, and its seems likely, the President has violated the law he cannot say he has the right to consider the law as a list of suggestions. The Constitution says so directly. He should be impeached and prosecuted. Let justice be done though the heavens fall