Book Club: Plato’s Republic Book 3

On the last episode of Book Club I kind of got sidetracked into talking about the mental process of interpreting the book rather than the actual interpretation. Book 3 is pretty interesting, at least in my opinion, and seems to mostly focus on the idea of, capital-E Education. People who know me know that I am firmly in the camp that Education, again capital-E Education and not grade k-12 American education system or “higher” education, I.E. college. I put “higher” in quotes cause it’s bullshit but that’s a tangent I’ll try and control myself.

Now, since Socrates is ostensibly trying to sketch out an image of the Perfect City he’s gonna try and control/redefine every aspect of the society that city contains. So, book three starts off talking about religion, specifically talking about the stories of the Gods and how the actions and decisions of the Gods affect the sociological norms of the worshipping society. I agree that the religion of a society has a massive impact on that society. I mean, that seems pretty freakin’ obvious right? Regardless of where that society is on the scale of “incredibly devout” to “mildly apathetic” any story is going to be important. Religious stories and religion itself is, at least in some, possibly large, part, is a guidebook on how to live; the things to strive for, a set of ethics, guide to social interactions, etc, etc.

Obviously, a God is, on some psychological level, gonna be something people think of as better than them and therefore something to change themselves towards. Socrates basically makes the argument that a God will invariably be seen as an Ideal being that is kind of like a goal for the people to emulate and because of this the stories about them should reflect the ideals. Zeus coming down and raping people is the kind of choice that is… well… unethical and no ideal being should act like that. If there is a person that acts like that then it essentially impossible to argue that they actually are a God. God’s are beyond reproach right? So, if a god does something worthy of reproach then they must not be Gods. Socrates essentially lays out a guideline on what kinds of things in the Pantheon of Greek God Lore should be edited out. The Gods shouldn’t be unethical or even overly emotional. If Gods can let there emotions dominate them and make them do foolish things then that could be used by weak people to excuse their own failings in that regard.

Along this line of reasoning Socrates sets out things to get rid of in Poetry, Music, Comedy, drinking, religious stories, non-religious stories, speeches, and all sorts of things. To our own 2021 ideas this all sounds eerily like government controlled censorship of all aspects of our lives. The natural response for people like me is to fully disagree with these ideas. Personally, after consideration, I still disagree. I think that Socrates would say that this is all hypothetical so, while it might be impossible to get the exact right ethical people to set the exact right guidelines and getting the citizenry to 100% trust in that, this city we are describing is hypothetical. For the sake of this conversation we have just accepted that this city has actually achieved that perfection and without that suspension of disbelief the entire thought experiment would be pointless.

It’s like if you found an alien piece of technology that let you defy gravity. If you are going to try to figure out how it works you can’t sit there and say that defying gravity is impossible. You’d just give up. If you really want to reverse engineer it you’d have to start at the beginning with the acceptance that the end goal of gravity defiance is possible. Now, in that scenario you have proof right in front of you that defying gravity is possible while in this City hypothetical there is no proof but it’s logical, as a thought experiment, to assume it is possible and go from there. If you assume it is possible and you try to reverse engineer it and it NEVER makes sense or works then there’s either something wrong with you or with your starting point. Maybe a better example is the strategy in math of Brute Forcing a problem. If you don’t know the equation that makes finding the answer easier you can just plug answers in endlessly until one works. With a topic as hypothetical as the one Socrates is discussing you’ll need to do a whole boat load of these thought experiments and even with a lifetime working at them you may never find The Solution but Socrates would say that finding The Solution isn’t the point. I feel like I’m going on an unnecessary tangent.

The question becomes, even if we did find that perfect set of ethics and that perfect system of education, would it be the right choice to force it on people? It’s one of those annoying philosophical questions that would sooner make you roll your eyes then it take the question seriously. My answer is “no” but it’s almost useless to try and answer myself unless I plan on writing dozens more pages of explanation. You should think about the question yourself. You don’t even need to come to an answer for the contemplation to have been worth the effort but that’s up to you.

For Socrates I think this book, at least so far and on initial reading, actually does not communicate what Socrates’ answer would be. Even though he’s the one positing all these censorship strategies he could be doing it as a smokescreen to posit more nuanced ideas. He certainly does make a whole host of smaller comments and claims about The Arts and Education aspects of society that somehow seem important even if they were fully disconnected from the discussion of if they should be censored.

Here are some of the lines I like, mostly paraphrased to make them more intelligible.

  • Hell, as a concept, creates undesired fear in all men that leads them to make irrational decisions.
  • Men shouldn’t be allowed to love gifts or money.
  • A writer imitates the people in his writings. Narration / exposition is the writer himself without imitation.
  • Literacy requires first knowledge of letters. Being good first requires recognizing the forms of goodness.
  • “For badness would never know both virtue and itself, while virtue in an educated nature will in time gain a knowledge of both itself and badness simultaneously.”
  • The best ruler would be one that truly loves the city. It is easier to do what is best for something if that is also the best thing for yourself. Therefore, rulers should be those who find that what is the most beneficial for the city is also the most beneficial for themselves.
  • The best safeguard against becoming unjust is to be truly and properly educated.
  • A good “Guardian” makes the enemy unwilling to do harm by guarding over them from without and they make their friends unable to do harm through guidance and guarding over them from within.

One particularly interesting section I like is the idea of how people lose or gain the truth. Socrates says that Opinion departs from our minds either willingly or unwillingly. The departure of the false opinion from the man who learns otherwise is willing while that of every true opinion is unwilling. People are unwillingly deprived of good things and willingly of bad things. Being deceived of the truth is bad and having the truth is good. Men lose truth from being “Robbed”, “Bewitched”, or “Forced”.
–Robbed means being persuaded to change via speech or forgetting via time.
–Bewitched means being Charmed or Terrified away from truth via pleasure or fear.
–Forced means leaving the truth due to the effect of some intense pain or grief.

Here are some statements that are either disagreeable or at least need more clarification.

  • All, starting at birth, should only do that which they are needed / “destined” to do.
  • Those destined to be “guardians” should never be shown great emotion, know of hell, or drink alcohol.
  • The way to find the best of men is to test them. Test their ability to combat being robbed, bewitched, or forced. Test their ability to guard over enemies from without and friends from within. Those that remain “untainted, harmonious, and graceful” should be lifted and the failures rejected out of the Guardian designation.
  • Only the rulers and the doctors should be allowed to lie.
  • Only Decent craftsman should be allowed so that all are imbued with decency.
  • Sex should have nothing to do with real love since pleasure is intrinsically linked to bad.
  • If living requires the entire life to be dedicated to combating a disease you should reject medicine and continue their “work”.
  • Doctors rule over bodies with their souls and should therefor let their body experience sicknesses to gain knowledge. Judges rule over souls with their souls and should not harm their soul by trying to experience being unjust. A good Judge should be old, a “late learner of injustice”.

Near the end the book Socrates combines everything he’s said into a sort of parable imagining of what that city would look like. There is apparently a Greek story about a man that founded Thebes using Giants he grew in the ground. Socrates explains that the people of the city should be like those giants grown underground. The people should reared and grown with perfect precision and purpose so that when the job of creating them is finished and they rise above ground they are perfectly outfitted to make plans for the land that is their “mother”, to defend that land if anyone attacks, and to think of and love all other citizens as brothers born of the same Mother or, in other words, the Earth.

These people should believe in this tale. They are all certainly brothers but the gods mixed different elements, Gold, Silver, and Bronze/Iron into them as they were fashioned underground. Into those competent they mixed Gold. Into the Guardians, and the Auxiliaries to the rulers, the Gods mixed silver. Into the Farmers and craftsmen the Gods mixed Bronze and Iron. While people are likely to produce offspring of their same element any element can come from any element. People of Bronze can come from Gold and vice versa. Because of this the most important of all tasks is to keep a careful watch of the children to see which element is mixed in their souls with zero bias whatsoever to ensure that all are assigned their accurate value. The people all should believe in these rules as if there was some prophecy stating that the city will entirely be destroyed if people are incorrectly put into the wrong group.

Socrates then asks the group if there would be a way to convince a citizenry that this is the true way of things and even if the best story to convince them would only work on the second generation of the city, who could be told the story from birth, it would be a good for making them care more for the city and one another. They don’t have an answer and at least in book 3 Socrates doesn’t either.

The book ends with Socrates explaining how the “Guardians” of the city should live. I think the “Guardians” are mostly soldiers, prospective rulers, or “auxiliaries” to the rulers, but at least so far they’re pretty poorly defined. Anyway, Socrates says the should live in that part of the city that affords them the most control over the city. They should, in every possible way, be made sure to NEVER harm the people through “licentiousness, hunger, or some other bad habit”. In order to ensure this the Guardians should be receive in “wages” from the citizenry only what is necessary for their survival and health. They shall never have a surplus or lack of sustenance. They will not be allowed any private property of anything outside of what’s “entirely necessary”. No one shall have any house or storeroom that anyone at all cannot enter if they wish to. They’ll eat all together and live together. They’ll be told that because they have a Divine sort of Gold and Silver mixed into their souls by the Gods then they have no further need of gold or silver or valuables and for them to posses wealth in any way is unholy. Thus, by having no desire for things of wealth they are saving themselves as well as the city. If anyone of the Guardians ever do possess any private land, houses, or currency then “they themselves as well as the rest of the city are already rushing toward a destruction that lies very near”.

So ends book 3.

My Favorite Movies: Data Analysis

You know those types of people that keep a weird number of lists? Like, for some reason they just keep lists of all the beers they’ve tasted or all the National Parks they’ve been to, all the books they’ve read, or every country they’ve taken a shower in. I am one of those lists people. I don’t mean to say I keep track of the countries I’ve showered in, that was just an example. Most of the lists I keep fall into the category of “List of Greatest ______ of All Time”, E.G. greatest movies, soundtracks, songs, cars, actors, etc. Some of my lists are more abstract like greatest smells, disappointments (not sports related), accents, or laughs. Well, I was looking at my Greatest Movieslist and I decided to do some research to find some statistics to analyze about them. I collected data on release dates, genres, writers and Directors.

Honestly, I’m not sure why I think this is worth writing a blog post about but I guess it’s good to mix in mediocre blog posts. I mean, every other post is so astoundingly brilliant and mind blowing that people might not keep believing I’m capable of it all on my own unless I throw in some boring ones. That was sarcasm obviously but whatever.

Let’s get the quick stuff out of they first. I have 36 movies on this list. The earliest film is His Girl Friday from the year 1940 and the newest film is from 2018. I hesitate to say what that 2018 film is called for reasons I’ll get to later. Maybe a little teaser like that will keep you invested in reading? There is only one writer who appears more than once and that’s Pixar’s Pete Doctor for Up (2009) and Inside Out (2015). To be fair he co-wrote both with multiple people credited with helping in Writing, Story, and Screenplay so I wouldn’t get too much into praising him. 4 films are based on real events with one of those 4 being an actual documentary, the only documentary on the list but, I will say I haven’t seen all that many documentaries so if you have some incredible documentary like “Hearts of Darkness” that I just implied is not on this list it’s because I haven’t seen it.

Basically that finishes up everything but talking about the timeline of when these movies were released. I guess I also should have kept track of what country each film came from but I’m not taking the time to go back and skim through all the Wikipedia pages again. Anyway, let’s see how many of my personal G.O.A.T. movies came out in each decade. This is where a formatting system that doesn’t rely on fucking Blocks would be nice so I could do some bullet points or something. Freakin’ WordPress P.O.S. I’ll see what I can do but I’ve known WordPress to reformat my posts to look different from how I’m seeing it while writing it.

  • 1940’s- 5 films
  • 1950’s- 3
  • 1960’s- 6
  • 1970’s- 5
  • 1980’s- 2
  • 1990’s- 6
  • 2000’s- 3
  • 2010’s- 6

There are four single years that contain the release of two films, those being 1947, 1975, and 1998. The year 1979 actually has three films on my G.O.A.T. list. There are also two 5 year long gaps without even one of these films. That would be 1970-1974 and 1980-1984.

Now, obviously the numbers seem to suggest that the 60’s, 90’s, and 2010’s were the best decades for movies but here is where I have to explain why I didn’t say the name of that 2018 film before. You see, in my list of G.O.A.T. movies there are 17 movies with an asterisk next to them. These are the best of the best and while I could have made the list only these ones that would just exclude alot of great movies and also essentially make keeping the list incredible boring since it almost never gets additions. In fact that special tier of films hasn’t grown since 2009. That’s why I wanted to make sure I could take about the 2010’s specifically.

While the 2010’s have 6 great films non of them are top tier and to honest there’s only one film from that decade that I haven’t debated with myself about just getting rid of them from the list. I could very easily be convinced that while I really like these other 5 movies they aren’t really worthy of being on this list. It’s actually quite odd. There are 5 movies in the 2010’s that I think might not deserve their spots but outside of that decade there is only 1 movie that even causes me to hesitate at all. Actually, the more I think about no, I can’t see myself getting rid of Field of Dreams (1989), meaning that while the 2010’s have 6 great films it really isn’t nearly as strong as it looks.

Obviously, I’m pretty biased towards my own opinion so I simply believe that these movies in the 2010’s just aren’t as good but I guess it could be some sort of recency bias where movies that are products of the society and culture I live in right now are simply more boring to me. I really don’t think I’ve fallen into that trap but I felt I had to bring it up as a possibility. If we only look at this tippity-top tier of films here’s the timeline.

  • 40’s- 3 – His Girl Friday, A Walk in the Sun, and The Bishop’s Wife
  • 50’s- 1 – Ben-Hur
  • 60’s- 3 – Lawrence of Arabia, The Good the Bad and the Ugly, and Cool Hand Luke, West Side story
  • 70’s- 4 – Monty Python’s Holy Grail, The Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now, and Monty Python’s Life of Brian
  • 80’s- 1 – The Breakfast Club
  • 90’s- 3 – Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, Shawshank Redemption, and The Truman Show
  • 00’s- 2 – Stranger Than Fiction, and Up.
  • 10’s- 0

1979, by the way, has three top tier films and is the only year to have more than one. There are 2 eleven year long lengths of time between top tiers, those being 1948-1958 and 2010 to the present day. That, of course, doesn’t include 2021.

The only other thing to talk about is genres. It was hard to put some movies like Inside Out, The Bishop’s Wife, and Up into a single category and I’m sure some people would have made different choices. According to me, the person in charge of this shit, the genre of Drama absolutely dominates the rankings with 18 of the 36 films and 10 of the 17 top tiers. Comedy comes in with 6 films including 4 top tiers. Then, Action, War, and Musical each have 2 films with only 1 top tier in War. Documentary, Western, Sci-Fi, and Romance all have just one and Horror is entirely empty though Alien (1979) and The Thing (1982) almost made the list.

Damn man 1979 almost 4 G.O.A.T. films. There are three entire decades with less than 4. Anyway, like I said, I don’t really have some sort of message or lesson in mind while writing this. In fact, I’d probably rate this as my most boring post ever but fuck it. I’ve been really failing at consistently posting here so I guess I just decided I’d rather fail at quality than continue failing at quantity for a change, though I guess my quality hasn’t exactly been amazing either. Whatever, I find statistical analysis interesting and since my baseballs teams are bad I guess this will have do as my fix.

Book Club: Plato’s Republic: The Loyalty Issue

Usually I use this blog to take notes, citing exact lines to comment on and what not. When I read book 3 however, I was on a car ride so this post will be a little different. I think I mostly want to go over how I approach those parts of the book, and anything in life really, that I disagree with and challenge my own ideas going into reading it. For example, if I have claimed to be a fan of Socrates and then he goes and says some shit I disagree with, how do I reconcile that conflict. I think clarification on that is good to get out of the way before I go back to more focused discussion.

It’s been so long since I read books 1 & 2 that I don’t exactly remember the finer details in those but Book 3 was pretty different to me, at least in how I felt responding to it. The book is primarily focused on the education/upbringing of the people in this hypothetical ideal city. Plato, via the character of Socrates, talks about the kinds of stories that should be told to children, the kinds of mythologies to support or to censor, and the general strategies involved in making sure that the population is given, from the start of their individual lives, the “best” possible education in every aspect of the word.

Alot of what Plato discusses in this book would be immediately seen as negative by our current society, U.S.A. specifically, and while I often criticize our society I’d have to agree with it on this one. Obviously, Plato talks about many different sorts of ideas and strategies, not all inherently “bad” so to speak, but he does do quite alot of casual mass censorship to the point that it could be called brainwashing.

There are two main aspects to this book that make it pretty hard to find a solid idea of how much of it is ethical or unethical, right or wrong, wise or foolish. Two main things that make a real understanding of Plato and his mind difficult. The first aspect is the obvious one; it was written like 2396 years ago. Certain parts of human history happened so long ago that I think the human mind has a hard time really grasping that it did actually happened here, on Earth, the same place we live now. The Roman Empire, for example, always feels like it occupies the same vague section of my brain that fictional stories do. Obviously, they aren’t the same and we all know that but… well… maybe this is hard to describe. The point is that this book was written when Rome was still just a small part of the Italian peninsula, controlling an area only about 280 miles long from Naples to Lake Bolsena. Things were obviously alot different back then so trying to keep that in mind and to understand the context of life from such a long time ago is going to make things more difficult.

The second aspect of the book, at least in my opinion and the opinion of many others, that makes it really difficult, approaching impossible even, to actually pin down the author’s exact opinions and ideas is that Plato is going well out of his way. He is specifically to be hard to pin down. There are probably alot of reasons for him to do this. One obvious reason would be that Socrates, who was Plato’s teacher and is the main character in this book, was forced to commit suicide by the authorities of the time because of his ideas. That usually makes people a little more careful with how they use the art of rhetoric. Mixing in Plato’s actual ideas or criticisms with outlandish statements or with contradictory statements is probably something he made an effort to do.

Another reason for his esotericism could be that he wants to make sure that each ideas in the book is examined by the reader on a more even playing field. I think these philosophers had an idea, one way to get someone to actually consider each posited idea based on it’s own merits, to get the reader to use their own mind independent of what they think of the author. The more you use your mind the stronger it becomes. The more you think for yourself the more you can add to the thoughts of others. The more time you spend thinking of your own mind/ideas as separate from your favorite philosopher the better you become at avoiding the manipulations of the unjust. If you can get better at that skill you therefore become more experienced using that technique later in life. I personally think this ability is one thing Plato and Socrates were always trying to imbue on the people around them. The strategy they seem to have come up with is to keep the reader from ever really knowing which ideas should be considered real, or as the real opinions of the actual writer, who was quite famous at the time, fame being a notorious source of bias responses. It’s kind of a fascinating idea and I think it’s implemented really deeply into this book.

Now, you might start saying that I’ve just done some crazy mental gymnastics to rationalize the ideas in the book to the point that Plato could literally make any claim he wants, no matter how idiotic or unethical, and using my mental gymnastic routine I can explain it away as being actually genius. With this routine I can fall into the trap of assuming that all the things Plato posits that I disagree with are the things Plato disagrees with as well, he’s just saying them as satire or whatever and he can never be wrong. Plato has transcended the mortal realm of flaws and we can all now worship him as a god.

I fully understand that the… “addiction” to rationalization strategies like this one are a real danger. I see people, writers, politicians, friends, enemies, and people all over the place use these types of mental gymnastics to rationalize everything from war, hatred, and murder, even love. I can only ask you to trust me when I say that I have worked very hard, my whole life, at avoiding traps like this. My #1 priority in life has always been, for better or worse, to learn. One of the most vital parts of learning is making sure you never assume that you are done learning anything ever about anything. All I can do with this book, and to a greater extent my life, is to make sure that I myself look at each individual idea presented to me with an unbiased examination, and to analyze each at an individual level as well as, but less so, at a macro level in the context of all my past analyses of ideas from the same source or otherwise.

I can only ask you to trust that I will never let my own psychological desires to know the capital T, Truth affect my willingness to admit that I’m wrong. So many people are so committed to their beliefs and so afraid of being wrong that they simply reject even the possible concept of being wrong. Our society treats being wrong like a massive weakness. Our education system literally ranks us by how good we are at being perfectly correct at regurgitating knowledge. I have not fallen into that pattern. The best way to avoid drowning is to avoid the ocean, and I have avoided that ocean of blindness at all costs. I believe that a commitment to, and acceptance of, being in a permanent state of knowledge-inadequacy is vital to the efficient accumulation of real knowledge and real wisdom.

Random Thoughts: 4/8/2021

Just a reminder, I don’t plan these out or edit them, except for this reminder I guess.

Damn, its been a long time. I think I’ve written in this blog twice in the last 6 months or so. The crazy thing is, the last thing I posted actually talked about a new strategy I was gonna try to get myself to write more. That was months ago so obviously the strategy either didn’t work at all or, the alternative possibility, I just didn’t try the strategy at all and continued to just do whatever I wanted. 

Regardless, I haven’t written here in a while. I guess I expect myself to feel kinda bad or something but I don’t. Basically, I think all that hedging I did, over all my posts about how I don’t care about this blog being “successful” or that I would simply use it whenever I personally felt like, ended up being true. I know nobody, including me, suffers from my inactivity. Only my own desire to be “responsible” can cause me mental pain for this “failure” to stick to a steady regimen of writing. 

Psychologically, I would say that the imagined form of my Father, in my subconscious, asking me to explain why I’m doing what I am, is the primary source of my self doubt about these types of things. My dad, who I love, was a regular dad in that everything I did as a kid had to be in the service of The Almighty. For my dad that was a mix of God and Financial Stability. Both of those are important, to be sure, but what happened to me was that I ended up having to constantly explain to myself, or to my subconscious image of my Father judging me, how whatever I was doing could possibly be construed as “productive” by the societal definition of the word. 

That society being the United States of America, an incredibly materialistic and empiricism focused society where only the provable is valuable, even in terms of life experience. Until you get that degree in high Finance you clearly have no idea what your talking about when you talk, or even think about, money. Until you get that degree in Creative Writing you can’t really be trusted to successfully write. Until you get that $100,000 piece of paper that says you get to help people psychologically, you better not waste any of you time trying to psychologically help people. I mean, until you get that piece of paper, surely made out of solid diamond considering it’s price, that says a respectable “Higher” Education Center considers me fit to be a psychologist, it’s basically a fucking crime to try to talk to people about psychological things.

Obviously, my real father never said any of that shit and would probably even agree with me that those things are stupid but the subconscious versions of things never really line up with reality, for better or worse, and our Fathers are always destined to be our greatest sources of psychological imagery, again for better or worse. It had always been almost impossible for me to do something without having to figure out a way to explain it to myself. 

Whether that explination was to an image of my Father or to an image of people my father’s age that didn’t know me and would always ask, “What are you gonna do when you grow up?”, or if it was to an imaginary woman my own age that was judging me for some aspect of my life that I liked but was considered, by my subcouncious version of society, to be unnattractive, I was always explaining myself.

Can you believe that entire paragraph was just one sentence. I can feel myself morphing into a philosopher more and more. Don’t think I’m complimenting myself by saying that. I mean, I’d like to be considered a philosopher but It’s important to make sure that people are aware that even if I am what I want to be it doesn’t mean that I think I’m better than them or that I’m some sort of wise sage handing out knowledge to the rest of the village. While I personally like philosopher types, not the pretend philosopher types that teach philosophy in college and make you buy their $150 book they wrote where they just regurgitated the shit dead people said.

It’s actually a really weird aspect of our society. I mean, our society is so focused on the empirical, the provable, the statistically corroborated, and so dismissive of everything else. We don’t see the unprovable and say that it’s without cause or completely lacking in worth at all. Instead we see that unproven theory, that emotional reaction, that mysterious in origin opinion, and we basically put it into a category separate from empirically provable claims. One category, the category of the empirical, is useful. You can win arguments with these things, these claims or notions. You can prove to any fool, and more importantly to yourself, that you’re correct, that you have been right the whole time and that you have a true understanding of at least that thing. 

Whenever we can convince ourselves of that we get a feeling of satisfaction or maybe we should call it a feeling of vindication. Life is really fucking hard and happiness is hard to find even though we want it so bad. Because of this we, as humans, are constantly looking for ways to make ourselves feel better or to feel happier. I don’t think either of those last two claims can really be argued against. It’s obvious that the vast majority of humans struggle with things like self doubt and self esteem. Life is hard even if it is also incredibly beautiful or whatever else and no matter how easy my life is there are people suffering right now. In our desperate search for happiness we fall into these traps all the time, without even realizing it. 

I want to tell you a story that relates to what I’m trying to say about finding happiness. The story is about a video game but just humor me here. When I was maybe 10 years old or so I started playing a game called Final Fantasy 10. In this game you progress through a story while fighting in turn based battles. Most battles you fight in are just random fights against nameless monsters but boss battles always involve some story element. Usually, a boos battle is a fight against a character or a machine important to the plot. The boss battles are hard but every time you fight some unimportant, and easily defeated, monster your characters get stronger. What this means is that the more you run around fighting boring monsters, the stronger you get, and then the easier the boss battles that continue the story are. 

Now, being 10 years old and new to this type of game I did not really understand this system. I didn’t give a flying F about the battles. I was drawn into the game by the Story because that’s was interesting and new to me. Because of this state of mind I would skip as many battles as I could. I wanted to just get to the next plot point as fast as possible. The game lets you run away from the easier battles with unnamed monsters, in case you need to get somewhere fast or something. Of course, this means I would just run from every fight to make the story continue. I got about halfway through the game like this winning boss battles by skill alone but, eventually I got to a boss battle that I couldn’t beat. I had been lazy on my journey and in avoiding every fight I had ensured that my characters never got any stronger. After a dozen, or so, hours of playing the game my laziness finally caught up to me. Because the Boss battles are part of the story and are therefore un-skippable I essentially “hard locked” my game. I couldn’t get out of the battle and I couldn’t leave to get stronger so I had actually had to restart the whole game from the beginning. 

On my second playthrough I told myself that I wouldn’t run from any fights. I knew that some people would go out of their way to fight more and more monsters to get even stronger but I told myself that if the game was gonna make me go out of my way to find even more boring battles to fight I would just stop playing and go do something actually fun. On this play through I beat the entire game without ever struggling in a single boss fight. Simply not avoiding any fights was enough to make the game easy. All I had to do was not scroll down in the menu to that button that said “Run” and I was good. Ok, now I’m gonna use that story to explain the desire to people have to be provably correct. You probably won’t see the connection for a while but don’t worry about it. 

As I implied before, I think the sort of “goal” for most people in life is to be happy. That seems to be the simple way to describe the Prime Motivator, at least as far as I can tell. Now, obviously how to get happiness is one of those incredible questions that almost everyone that has ever existed has tried to answer but we still don’t have a consensus. In my opinion some strategies that are used the most often are actually the strategies I believe are most unviable. 

One way to make yourself happier is to increase your self esteem. The most common way to do this is to compare yourselves to other people. We, as social creatures, compare ourselves to others all the time anyway. Who among us hasn’t looked at the life of some old friend who now has a family, a nice big house, a nice car, a respectable career, and an attractive husband? How many among us have really never wondered why that other person the same age as us is so successful while we have no fucking clue what we’re doing with our lives?

This is a super common way comparing ourselves to others has an impact on our self esteem and even though we might not like to consider it we do the exact same thing in reverse just as often. When we see someone who’s life has turned to shit there’s always a part of us that says, “You know, I might not have a career or kids but at least I’m not them.” This is basically why bullies exist. Everyone knows the stereotype that bullies are usually the kids with the lowest self esteem and with the most problems. This isn’t exactly true but what is true is that everyone has issues, bullies included. My theory is that when a bully is making some other kid miserable they are doing it to make themselves feel better. I mean if I’m gonna say that a desire to be happy is the Prime Motivator than I have to find a way to rationalize “evil” acts with that motive.

A bully is often someone who is has come to rely almost entirely on the “at least I’m not them” thought for happiness. If your self esteem is based on comparing yourself to other people, obviously with the goal of being among the best. One way to move yourself up in those comparison rankings is to raise yourself up and the other way is to push other people down. Both strategies supposedly end with you higher up in the “who’s the best” rankings that you are sadly basing your self worth on.

Now, before we talk about how actually viable any strategy for happiness is we gotta talk about how obvious some strategies are. Clearly, any strategy that is either super complicated or difficult is gonna be tried less often by people than a strategy that’s simple or easy. So, what we might try to do is to find which strategy is the easiest to try. In my opinion the simplest strategy to enact is to make other people feel miserable. 

What are the reasons this strategy is so easy and so seemingly effective? This strategy makes you feel powerful since you are influencing others so much. It makes the notion that the other person actually is worse off than you easier to convince yourself of. You just put all that work in being an asshole to make sure that its true. It’s a really easy strategy to get good at because you already know what makes you miserable so you just do that to other people.

It’s also really easy because there will ALWAYS be someone around that can easily be made miserable. We can all easily be made miserable so you’ll never run into an availability issue with this strategy. It is a VERY easy strategy to learn from others because, as it is the most common, it’s therefore the most likely to be learned at an early age. This strategy also makes the people that you currently are not attacking afraid of you because of your skill at making other miserable. Therefor, the better you are at this strategy the less likely it is for your peers to use it on you, at least so you think. This strategy can be implemented with just words and body language which means you’re never actually breaking any laws or serious rules. Words, additionally, leave no empirical evidence of being used like a bruise or an injury. In a society that only really values the empirically provable most verbal assaults go almost completely without consequence. The reward, of feeling “better than”, is immediate as you watch your victim cry in front of the other kids while everyone looks at you with fear. This strategy is also an especially clear message to the people watching. This means that anyone else who might agree with your strategy can spot you and join in the joy with you. You can use the fact that another person agrees with you to further convince yourself you made the right choice in strategy. It’s harder for someone who has chosen a different strategy, like the strategy of isolation, as one example, to surround themselves with like many minded people who can help generate the “mob mentality security blanket” humans always crave.

It also feeds into some other strategies without any additional effort. What I mean by that is this.

Another strategy to maintain your happiness is to never ever let yourself consider that you are wrong. Obviously, being wrong is horrible and anyone who is wrong should be ashamed of themselves. That’s an exaggeration of course but a lot of people don’t realize how scared they are to be wrong. I know when I was a kid I was terrified of it, that’s why I wouldn’t raise my hand in class to answer a question. Everyone knows the feeling of the teacher calling on you and then telling you your answer was incorrect. Everyone knows the feeling of an elementary school teacher calling on you to read a book passage out loud. You sit there terrified that you don’t fumble any of the words. Terrified that there may be a word you’ve never seen before and you’ll have to get the teacher to pronounce it for you. Everyone also knows that that particular fear usually makes it more likely for you to actually fumble a word. It feeds into itself, a self fulfilling prophecy. 

Our society and our education system make being wrong equivalent to the religious concept of being a sinner. You are constantly compared to your peers by your grades which are decided based on how good you are at “avoiding being incorrect”.

All of these things contribute to a psychological fear of being wrong despite the fact that we all know and agree that nobody is right 100% of the time. It’s the same thing as the feeling of shame in Christianity. Despite all of us knowing that we are sinners and knowing that Jesus, or God, or whoever, forgives us and loves us completely, we still seem to have the need to feel so much shame about being flawed. When we make a mistake we need to give the church money so they forgive us. We need to say 12 Hail Mary’s and pray for an hour so that God forgives us. This whole thing contributes to a fear, deep inside of us, of being wrong. 

If you can prove to yourself that your strategy is working than you can prove to yourself that you’re right about picking that strategy. If, every time you start to doubt that strategy, you can simply walk up to the nearest person and make yourself feel better through their pain then, you can basically tell yourself to fully commit to that strategy. If that kind of happiness is freely available at all times then there’s no need to change it. Everyone wants the strategy they chose to be correct because otherwise that would mean they’ve wasted time, made mistakes, been wrong. So many people have just gotten to the point in life where they will never again consider the possibility that they’re wrong. They’ve spent their entire life using other people’s mistakes as a tool to convince themselves that they are better than. At this point admitting to a mistake would mean that you’re just like all those dumb, sad, pathetic, weak, losers that you’ve used as the very foundation for your own self worth. 

Everytime you choose to be a bully to someone not only do you reap the supposed benefits of that action but you force yourself further and further away from the possibility of considering another option. The more you commit, the more people you sacrifice, the deeper you dive into that ocean, the harder it is to see the way out. That way is simply admitting to error, in other words admitting to humanity. Eventually, over the course of so many years you can end up so deep under water that you forget the surface even exists. Eventually, you’ve been in the cave for so long that all other types of living that you could consider simply cease to exist. You remove the possibility of being wrong, of introspection, of change, of “weakness” from the metaphysical universe all together. 

Every time you attack another person to make yourself feel better you get closer to that glorious moment of ascension where you never have to worry about anything ever again. You are finally free from the questions of life and the struggle of being human. In the same way that it never occurs to a tree what the world might look like on the other side of the horizon, it will never occur to you that you might be worse off than those people you think of as below you.

So, basically we, me the writer and you the reader, have laid out the most common, most obvious, most immediately rewarding, and easiest strategy for happiness. People who have chosen this strategy are all over the place. We all know them. I bet that some of you reading this post I’ve written here and using it as evidence that you must be better than those sad people who have chosen the life of bullying. I, in describing that possible path, might just be trying to convince myself that I’m above the people around me. I’m trying to convince myself that I’m better than people who say incredible things like, “I believe the election was stolen from Trump as much as I believe in the love of Christ.”

I know I just threw in politics, the type of topic that immediately dominates all others being discussed, but I despise Trump so you should stop reading this if that pisses you off.

I am not God or even Godlike in any way. I have no illusions about this. It is impossible for me to know what’s truly correct and truly wrong. All I can do is look at the evidence provided by the empirical world around and the evidence provided by my emotional self and try to come up with the correct answer. I know I’ve been deriding empiricism this whole time but the goal in life is never to completely eradicate one side of things from yourself while fully facilitating the other side. What you want is Balance and the idea of Purity cannot allow more than one side to exist. Balance, however, does requires more than one thing.

That desire for some kind of “Purity” will inevitably lead to that “glorious” existence I said was at the end of The Bully Path, no matter how righteous or ethical your idea of “Purity” is. The reason the two strategies, Desire to be Correct and Desire to be Pure, lead to the same outcome is because both goals are IMPOSSIBLE to accomplish, impossible to achieve, impossible to ever exist. You cannot possibly fully eradicate the part of yourself that you think shouldn’t be there and if you try you doom yourself to simply never seeing it and never understanding it while it sits there continuing to be a part of you as much as it always was. 

Balance is what you want. That doesn’t mean a 50/50 balance. The Yin-Yang symbol we all know might suggest at first glance that some sort of philosophical idea of balance means equality between the two dyads. I’m not suggesting anything so concrete and I want to be clear that my definition of balance is not the same as equality. I don’t think the best way to balance anger and love is to believe that both should be given equal respect and equal space in my mind. When I talk about the balance of empiricism and… uh… what is the term for the opposite of empiricism? 

According to Google the opposite is rationalism? I don’t like that term and I also don’t like the way it frames the concept of empiricism. To me Empiricism means provable, arguable, agreed upon, statistically obvious, mathematically irrefutable. Maybe that means I’ve been using the term Empiricism wrong this whole time but I actually don’t care about that. I believe that every person in existence, through the fact of having different lives, will have differences in our connotations of words. Because of this no word you hear another person use should be assumed to mean exactly what you personally think it means. When a stranger says “Liberals” they could honestly mean anything regardless of how I might define the word. In this way, I have come to have many terms for things that are probably misappropriations of the actual word itself. Regardless, huge parts of humanity have been, and will remain, obsessed with clearly defining, labeling, categorizing, and quantifying everything in existence and the fact that words are inadequate creates many issues between people.

Sorry for that rant about words. 

The thing I’m trying to say with all this rambling is that; in the struggle to find happiness there are countless paths to take and so many of them remind me of that video game I talked about earlier. That button that said “Run” gave me what I thought I wanted and it did so immediately. There are so many paths towards happiness, that work like The Bully Path that human’s have been following for millennia. Another point is that you need to keep your eyes open for signs that you might be on the wrong path. When the game stops letting you forward, when the world throws a sign at you telling you that the strategy you’ve chosen isn’t working, when that moment comes, as it inevitably will, you can choose to ignore it, or to call the game stupid, or you can declare that the world around you is must be filled with idiots that are below you, idiots that couldn’t design a good game if it was their jobs. You and I, we can choose to double down on the wrong path just like so many people before us and around us have done without even realizing it. We can desperately swim with all our might, fueled by denial, fear, anger, and self-loathing towards that point of bliss where the concept of choice leaves our field of vision; where change becomes impossible, where release begins, where death begins.

Or, we can embrace the facts of our humanity. We can actually believe the fact that we all already know; that we are not perfect, we are not pure, we will never be. Until death itself takes us, we will not be finished learning, growing, or choosing. We can choose to keep our eyes open and never avoid the things that are hard but true. We can let the evidence around us be enough for us. We can choose to let the stories and warning given by others be enough for us to trust. To trust that we don’t need to see for ourselves how paths like War, or Hatred, or Meth might turn out. We can pay attention to the happiness, the real happiness, or lack thereof, of the people around us and learn from them. We can learn from each other. All people may learn from each other. We can choose to be “ok” with being wrong. Any alternative is to ensure that we’re never truly “ok”. We will never actually achieve perfection and to convince yourself that you have is to lie to yourself, to kill yourself. We can actually realize that imperfections are the source of all things beautiful and new and that even if perfection, or purity, was possible we would still reject it as the death it is.

Random Thoughts Oct. 23: It’s Been a While

How long has it been since I’ve written in this blog? A few months probably, idk. Moving to a new state seems like it should be a good excuse but to be honesty I’ve still had alot of free time so to say I’ve been too busy feels like lying. Whatever the case may be, I want to get back into doing writing even if it is only Random Thoughts type stuff that takes basically zero real effort or thought on my part. God, I’m pretty lazy. I’ve somehow managed to convince myself that mindlessly writing whatever thoughts come up is near to work or effort. I don’t even have to worry about these writing being good because I’ve hedged so much that the onus of getting over a lack in quality has been shifted to the reader instead of me, the guy responsible for writing it. That seems weird to me, almost wrong, maybe. Whatever though.

The reason I’ve come back to the blog is because I bought myself a new toy. I don’t mean like action figure or something but when I bought this thing I thought to myself that it would be a good idea for me to restrict my usage of it. I decided I could only use it if I do some sort of writing for at least an hour that day. Until I write for an hour I won’t let myself play with the toy. Is that a childish strategy to use a toy as a reward for essentially the mental equivalent of brushing my teeth? I guess it doesn’t matter if it is. I really wonder if that means I’ll be updating my blog almost every day like a did right at the beginning. Maybe if I do some type of more serious “work” that day I can just count that as fulfilling the pre-requisite to using the toy.

What do I talk about now? I don’t really feel like going into depth on what the “toy” actually is since it doesn’t matter. My family, that I live with now, is getting a puppy today. I probably could have started off with that news since puppies are always pretty good at hooking people in. Nobody sees those youtube thumbnails of cute puppy video compilations without at least hesitating to see if they want to watch it. If you see a thumbnail of some guy making an over reaction face or something like that it’s pretty natural to just scroll past without ever stopping to even consider watching but puppies? You gotta at least look at how cute the thumbnail is.

One of my goals for this blog is to finish my series of Plato’s Republic. I got a LONG way to go but if I’m doing one or two hours of work on it almost everyday I should get through it eventually. It’s a good thing I don’t mind this blog having zero readers cause anyone who isn’t interested in reading the notes of some random guy reading ancient Philosophy is gonna get tired of my blog posts populating his queue. I don’t know how wordpress actually works so maybe you don’t get a queue of posts by people you “follow”.

Queue is one of my favorite words. Mostly it’s just because of how it’s spelled. I know I’ve said this before but I’m a list keeper and one of my lists is all my favorite words. It’s a pretty long list, let’s see. There are 174 words on the list. The most recent additions are “Persnickety”, “Vociferous”, and “Pooper Scooper”. LoL… pooper scooper. That’s a fun one to say. I keep a list of words I don’t like as well. Mostly these are words that I think are annoying to say out loud like, “Crisps”, “Yield”, “Palimpsests”, and “Griped”. I might like a word for all sorts of reasons but I typically only dislike words that are unwieldy to vocalize.

How long were these Random Thoughts posts? Have I done enough to pick up the fancy new toy I bought? Should I do a Plato’s Republic post as well today before I move on? I guess you’ll know the answer if you see I haven’t posted again today. You probably won’t see another post today if I’m honest. I’ll use the excuse that I should slowly get back into the groove again instead of just writing two whole posts. I mean come on. TWO? that’s just not possible for me right now. I’ve got to build up my stamina again, obviously.

I’m pretty good at coming up with excuses. It’s an art form, almost.

Book Club: Plato’s Republic: Book 3: Part 1/?

There was a months long gap between books 1 & 2 and now only a 3 day, I think, gap between 2 & 3. I guess I can skip the standard preliminaries but I am trying today to make paragraphs using periods to indent. WordPress deletes spaces I use to try and indent So I’ll try periods. Maybe I’ll also try a single period with spaces. Ok, I tried it with one period followed by space and freaking WordPress deleted those spaces as well. WTF?
…….The book starts with the line “About gods, then.” so I guess we’re doing more religion talk today.

386A: This part has been rough to understand. Socrates keeps using “he” for the other speaker but I don’t know who the “he” is since it’s a new chapter and I took a small break between reading chapters. I’m just gonna copy paste the first paragraph so you can see how philosophers, lovers of wisdom, are not very good teachers.
…….”‘About gods, then,’ I said, ‘such, it seems, are the things that should and should not be heard, from childhood on, by men who would honor gods and ancestors and not take lightly their friendship with each other.'”
…….I had just been telling my mom that this book wasn’t that hard to follow but damn Plato, help a brother out a little. Let’s see… 1 sentence, 5 commas, “should and should not”, and all this nonsense is to start a new section of the book? It’s no wonder that people say Greek Philosophers purposely tried to make their writing so complicated so that poor people couldn’t understand them. I’ve heard claims that Plato and all them wanted to keep their ideas among the educated, for whatever reason. That might be true but I’ll be able to say more definitively after reading the rest of this book.

387C: I think what Socrates is trying to say is that when people fear hell more than they fear death they are more likely to give in and surrender anything it takes to stay alive. As an example he says that a soldier can’t be his strongest if he is more willing to become a slave than to die. This is an interesting point of Sociological criticism that I’ve never thought about. Our fear of death leads us to accept a lot of things that we probably shouldn’t but at the same time I’m not convinced that a fear of death can be removed simply by taking out descriptions of hell form our culture.
…….I’m not even sure that’s what Socrates is trying say. This section is confusing me. I could finish it and come back to write this summary but I think recording my confusion is more interesting.
…….Socrates claims that a man who doesn’t fear death is most capable of being independent and handling misfortune in life.

391C: I think what makes this section so confusing for me is the heavy use of ancient Greek mythology stories and references. Maybe that’s just a small addition throwing me off cause I do think this book has been more confusingly written. Sometimes Socrates will make a claim and ask if his conversation partner agrees. Then, when his conversation partner does agree Socrates will just move on to the next thing without helping ME come to agreement. Why does he think that “Illiberality accompanying love of money” is opposite to “Arrogant disdain for gods and human beings”?

392C: Ok, let me try and see where I’m at here. It seems like Socrates has been making an argument this whole time in support of some sort of censorship system. So far he only seems concerned with mythology. He claims that regular citizens shouldn’t hear about how the Gods do bad things like rape and betrayal and hatred. Socrates claims that they should cut all tales about those sorts of things but keep tales that highlight endurance of hardships and good determination.
…….He also talks about lying in a way that is kind scary. He claims that it’s ok for a leader to lie to subjects. The analogy he uses is that the crewman of a ship must never keep truth from the shipwright who is in charge of the ship’s maintenance but it’s ok for the Shipwright to lie to the crew. I think Socrates, at least on the surface, believes that it’s possible for the Public Man, the man in the know, to control the Private Man, the commoner type man, with self control and honor.
…….Does he think that people can be trusted to lead a city with the mentality that the subjects are like beloved children that should be moderated by the knowing adult? He seems, so far, to be suggesting a system where people like him are left in total charge of everything the commoner even knows about.
…….I know I’ve heard before that this is exactly what Socrates believes but, again, I’ll reserve judgment at this point. I can’t just discount the idea that he might be speaking more esoterically. To be honest it wouldn’t surprise me if half the book was esoteric lies and double truths while another half is actually what the man thinks. There seem to be little jokes now and then make me think that it’s possible Socrates would rather just get rid of Greek mythology as a whole.
…….For example, when he talks about how we can’t teach kids all the fucked up stuff Zeus has done and asks if his conversation partner agrees his conversation partner says “No, by Zeus. It doesn’t look fit to me.” That looks almost like a joke to me since Zeus is the one they’re deriding. It’s like a statement on how deeply the character is entrenched in Greek society despite everyone knowing that he isn’t exactly a great guy.
…….I’m not saying that this necessarily is the correct interpretation or that this proves that Socrates is being facetious for the entire book so far regarding censorship. It just seems like Socrates is the kind of guy that would completely fine letting someone think he believes something that he doesn’t agree with. Obviously, that makes for a hard guy to understand.

For me censorship is a grey area. I know alot of people nowadays get offended at the idea of censorship as a good thing. I’m right there with them. I want to be allowed to come to my own conclusions on things. I think that for me the problem is that even when information is freely available, like it mostly is in modern times with the internet, most people do not go out of their way to get all the information. They might not even have the time to hear information from more than one source. If Fox news and CNN are primary sources of information for people they might have the freedom to go and find other sources but, for the most part, they won’t. Most people do not have the means to explore all the information or they simply don’t know how because sources in America are financially incentivized to keeping you with only them.
……If you, as someone who has all the means in the world, see that everyone else is essentially wasting their freedom to know everything by focusing entirely on only one side of things at a time, would you still support total freedom for information to come from anywhere? If you wanted to get your idea of the truth to people you would have to start your own information source but that would be in direct financial competition with the millions of other information sources out there.
…….I don’t have a good idea of what a solution to this freedom of information problem would be. I can see a world where an independent third party news source is supported by the ruling system of the country but how in the hell do you run it without it being turned into something less than absolutely pure? If it can’t stay absolutely pure in its journalism and reporting than what does that do to the country? Humanity has proved thousands and thousands of times that something started with the right intention cannot be trusted to maintain itself. So many times a person has risen to power with the intention of creating a better world only to have that same person turn around and start destroying things.

If Socrates makes arguments for a sort of Benevolent Dictator system then I can’t really agree with him. Even if you found the perfect person and gave them all the power that person will eventually die and other people will be given their power.
……Jesus and the church is a good example of exactly that. Christianity reportedly had the most benevolent leader of all time but the Church is responsible for some incredibly horrible actions in it’s history. It has facilitated ideas and practices that directly contradict Jesus. You see, even if we go all out and admit that Jesus really was as amazing and inscrutable as anyone can possibly imagine the system of Benevolent Dictator still couldn’t have worked.

I’ll end this post here even though I’m only 8 pages into Book 3. I’m anxious to hear what Socrates has to say further. I’m willing and able to keep an open mind and try to look at things from Socrates perspective. I excited to try and parse through what he has to say but it won’t be easy or simple.

Book Club: Plato’s Republic: Book 2

It’s been a long while since I did one of these. I finished book 1 and never started book 2. Just as a recap I’ll remind my millions and millions of readers that all I’m doing is reading Plato’s Republic and using this blog to take notes. Every section has a number, IDK why the numbers start off so high but hey, who am I to judge? Every section is divided into subsections with letters so Book 2 starts with 357A. I’ll respond to things in the Book with my own thoughts starting with an annotation of where I am in the book. If there is a line in particular that I like I might just copy and paste it as a quote to keep. I’m also taking notes in a journal but these are more to help me keep track of things. Philosophy is obviously tough to understand so I sometimes try to create a sort of cheat sheet to keep all the threads together.

357C: Three different kinds of “good”s. One is a good that is only desirable or “good” in its process like laughter or “harmless” pleasures. Two is is a good where both the process and the product are both intrinsically desirable such as thinking. Three is a good that people don’t really enjoy the process of but they want the product. These would be things like Surgery, or exercise. People who partake of this third kind are typically paid for it, like doctors. Socrates claims that Justice is a type 2 good but Greek society says that justice is a type 3 good that is boring and only done for the benefit of reputation.

360D: The argument is that people will praise a Just man that refrains from using his power but they secretly find him foolish. They only praise him to try and trick everyone else into thinking injustice is bad and hopefully that trick will stop people from committing injustice against them.

362: Glaucon has set up a hypothetical where there are two extreme men. One extreme Unjust man and one extreme Just man. Both given absolute power. This hypothetical Unjust Man commits Injustice but gets away with it and is praised and adored. He gives and takes from whoever he wants. The Just man does not use his power and is also hated, tortured, and killed. Glaucon asks Socrates which of the two has been happier and what Injustice and Justice did for each man.

368C: I love this little idea. Socrates says that if you want to study something hard to see it would be great if there was a version of the same thing that was much bigger and easier to see. With this in mind he suggests first looking at whole cities as Just and Unjust before looking at individuals with the same distinction. “So then, perhaps there would be more justice in the bigger and it would be easier to observe closely.”

369B: “A city comes into being because each of us isn’t self-sufficient but is in need of much.” Socrates describes a whole city full of interconnected people producing and and relying on each other; Merchants, Wage Earners, Ship Builders, Farmers, Shoe Makers, etc. The city Socrates describes is too perfect in its simplicity for Glaucon and instead of being happy with the necessities Glaucon insists that some would want tables, couches, ornamentations, and art. Socrates calls the former a “healthy” city and the latter a “Feverish city.” The city will need to be much bigger. The city gets too large and war with other cities for resources is inevitable if “they let themselves go to the unlimited acquisition of money overstepping the boundary of necessary.” The city now requires an army and grows even bigger.

375D: The guardian must be both gentle to its own and the opposite of gentle to the stranger. If they are cruel to their own they destroy their own. They establish this as possible with dogs who can be gentle and deadly in turn. The Noble dog is angry at the unknown and warm to the known regardless of either one’s goodness to them. “It distinguishes friendly from hostile by nothing other than by having learned the one and being ignorant of the other.” The dog is therefore a “Lover of learning” since knowledge defines what is its own. I like this image of the dog as a philosopher since love of learning and love of wisdom are the same.

377B: Socrates is starting to talk about education. This section is going to be important to me. He talks about how the first thing we do with children is tell them lies in the form of “tales”. There are truths in them but they are false.
– “Don’t you know that the beginning is the most important part of every work and that this is especially true with anything young and tender? For at that stage it’s most plastic, and each thing assimilates itself the model whose stamp anyone wishes to give it.”
Socrates says that “tales” need to be supervised and that most tales told nowadays should be thrown out, E.G. tales of how the gods plot against each other so that none think that anger is holy. Socrates claims that he as a founder should not be the one creating the right tales but instead would be a judge. “The poet mustn’t be allowed to say that those who pay the penalty are wretched and that the one who did the punishing was a god.”

381A: “And a soul that is most courageous and most prudent, wouldn’t an external affection least trouble and alter it?”

382B: “To lie to the soul about the things that are, and to have to hold the lie there is what everyone would least accept; and that everyone hates a lie in that place most of all.”

Finished Book 2. Socrates obviously has antiquated ideas about what a “God” can be but at the same time I don’t think Socrates is a very religious man. It seems like he understands that if he were to describe an ideal city he would come up with a new religion in the same way he probably feels all the other religions were born.

The idea of an openly atheistic society didn’t really exist back then and honestly, I don’t think it exists now. Nationalism is very much like religion. The way people from both political parties act often reminds me of religious zealots. Even Atheism and Nihilism serve the same sort of purpose as religion. It is a faith in an improvable idea that comes to umbrella over everything you know and leads your decision making.

People think that if you change the word for something it changes what it does in your mind. Examples of my broadly defined”Religion”s exist everywhere in any culture. The only thing that makes something a religion is if people let it define the world around them. I would not say that having a religion is a bad thing. I think what makes a religion “bad” is if it leads you to do harmful things. I.E. Nationalism is typically a “bad” religion.

In this way I can rationalize what Socrates is saying despite living more than 2400 years after him in a new kind of world outlook, especially on religion. He thinks of religion more as an educational tool for the masses to know what is and what isn’t “good”. I think most religions would actually be totally fine with that definition. I don’t know how you would get mad at someone saying your teaching are designed to teach people goodness. Any god that cares more about being constantly worshiped than they do about their people being good is not a god to follow anyway, at least to me.

When Socrates started talking about education I was hoping for more than just a discussion of religion but maybe there will be more in later books.

Only In America: “Interesting Times”

Oh my God! Kanye West is hilariously the most American MoFo in this race. Every thing America is, with all her faults and fascinations. Its out of nowhere. It never seems to make any sense. Its completely cultural. Its dynamic and polarizing. It might be horrible. Could it actually be great? Its dumb in alot of ways. I don’t even know what party he’d run for. He likes Trump.

This wouldn’t even be a new thing to happen in American politics. Even if Kanye won the election this would ALREADY be the second time in recent memory that a polarizing, undefined nut job got elected President using only “Low-Brow” celebrity fame among the masses!

Despite everything I’m about to say, I’m about 95% certain I’m gonna vote for Biden. If you think 95% sounds dangerously low, keep in mind that I’m afraid of commitment.

I have secretly and self-amusingly have had a joke thought for years. Once or twice a year, when Kanye news would actually get to me, I would laugh to myself and think that me and Kanye West would kinda be friends.

First of all relax. I’m not saying I actually know him. I’m not saying I agree with anything he says. I’m not claiming we would be “da bestest buds in da whole wide world”. I just think that I excel at translating a person’s words into what that person is actually saying. That’s step one right there. Plus, I think he cares about alot of the same things that I do. He probably has different ideas of the path to take though. I’m good at communicating my mind as well as being open minded, a rare combo, it seems, and a requirement. Plus, I’m really just super good at being a friend.

From a Buddy-Cop trope perspective it works. He has all my motivation and persistence so I have none. I have all his ability to speak in coherent vernacular and he’s clumsy with expressing in clarity. We come from vastly different backgrounds. We’re like exact opposites in every way that a classic buddy cop movie could imagine. You’d have to get some actor type-mix of Jon Heder and Micheal Cera to play my role and then Obviously, Kanye plays himself. Kanye is Kanye bro, stop trying to make Not-Kanye Kanye! I AM WRECK IT RALPH!

Not voting for the guy but that would be a funny movie.

Have you seen this clip? I actually LOVE this clip.

It is so freaking funny, adorable, and coherent to me. You might think he’s crazy but he’s just paying attention to the movie. You know, that’s the point of movies, of all good stories but especially kid’s movies. The point is to let people better understand themselves by giving them something to compare with. I love that he so strongly connects with Glitch. I mean, its crazy but come on.

Imagine a political debate between the American “Fuerdai” Donald Trump, 2017’s Get Out vibes Joe Biden, and Kanye flippin’ West. That would be the most Human thing in history, in the sense that we are entirely unimaginable.

Trump – Pence
Biden – Token
West – Musk

This could only happen in America.

Again, not voting for him. But, lol #Kanye2020

One Red Dot: Redefining Trivial

I wrote this a couple years ago during an intro to poetry class. I’d often write down stuff during classes, due to boredom mostly. I wrote it in just one draft over like 10 minutes and I’ll transcribe it just that way. If there’s a spelling error I’ll leave it and believe me there are plenty. Sometimes a sentence will start one way and finish another way because I wasn’t focusing. When I wrote it I titled it “One Red Dot” but I added the subtitle to this blog post. The piece starts with a little dialogue that I made up where I’m asked what I’m thinking about and I answer “Nothing”. That’s typically how I answer that question. Laziness is a flaw of mine and taking the time to explain something is work.

Imaginary Person – “What are you thinking about?”
Me – “Nothin’ much.”
Imaginary Person – “Come on. You know that’s impossible. What are you thinkin’ about?”

Me – “Ok. I’m thinking about my desk. There’s this little red dot here in the upper right corner of the otherwise pristine, parchment colored surface of this desk. Without it this desk I’m sitting in is entirely lifeless. The dot gives it life, gives it history. It’s a tangible representation of past. A representative of the 100’s of people who have sat in this desk before me. 100’s of people taking notes and thinking and sitting in this same desk. All those people leading their own vastly complicated live that, without this desk, would be completely seperate from my own life.

this desk has led its own life before I got here. The line of its existence has been flying and dancing through space the same as my own line. And now, like two gnats bumping into eachother in the middle of a swarm our two line have collided.

The jogger I drove by on my way here, the plane I saw before walking through the door, the girl that rode past me on her bike yesterday. They’re all lines Flying around like a swarm of locust all moving in the same direction, from past to future and the incredible nature of every collision is lost in its triviality. Even the shirt I’m wearing now is an incredible node where a thousand line connect. The 1000’s of fibers from 1000’s of plants tended to by a hundred farmers with families who send that material out to factories where 100’s of people use machines to form a shape out of those plants. Those machines invented by someone, assembled by other someones with metals pulled out of the ground by other someones. All those someones wearing their own shirts, driving their own cars and eating their own foods.

This shirt is its own line with tens of thousands, possible millions, of lines all colliding into it before running parrallel with my own and now being colided into by your own line.

This unfathomable mass of line is all intermingled and supposedly every line of every atom that makes up every person and every shirt and every star began at the exact same point in space. Every line flying out and intermingling until they coalesce into this shirt and this desk and this person sitting at this desk.

Without this little dot I may have simply taken notes every class without ever stopping to think. This dot seems so trivial and honestly is, in actuality, incredibly trivial. I’m realizing that I need to change my definition of the word “trivial” from ‘Something with absolutely no meaning or purpose worth thinking about.’ to ‘Something who’s beauty and grandure may just take a little bit longer to explain.'”

Imaginary Person – “Someone probably just accidentaly marked it with a pen.”

Me – “Exactly. It’s trivial.”

Random Thoughts: May 17

I’m in charge of my life. Nobody is gonna control me. I’ll listen, respect, learn, apply, and live but don’t think I will ever agree with something for the sole reason that it has been said by someone I respect. People say shit all the time that they know nothing about. None of us, including me, know anything for certain. None of us, including me, are experts on anything. We aren’t even a little bit knowledgeable about anything. We know nothing. Stop thinking you’re smart shit based on things like job titles, bank accounts, experience, respectability, or anything else. None of us are smart shit. Just understand that you’re a fool like everyone else and then make your best guesses based on your own identity.

That’s what humans have done for thousands of years and even though shit looks dark right now, it is an undeniable, simple FACT that we have made an insane amount of progress as a species. People are still alive from when freakin’ Hitler was alive. Slavery used to be a fact of life. From 1882-1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States. I think it’s safe to say we’ve improved since then.


I know shit seems hard but just keep guessing your best guesses. It’s working. It will keep working. Maybe you’ll be super wrong. Actually you will be wrong for sure. We all will be. That’s kinda the whole point. God doesn’t live up on a mountain somewhere answering all of our tough questions for us. We have to learn for ourselves and, unfortunately for us, its process of elimination. You’ll be dead long before you see the progress you might believe in but you don’t really exist in the large scheme of things. On the grand scale only the WE exists and WE are just going with our best guess. And WE have been doing mostly pretty good.

Not sure what I’m trying to say exactly but whatever. Who cares, amIright?