What is an excellent marriage?

“Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments....”
That’s how Shakespeare begins his famous 116th Sonnet - Which some say is the best definition of love ever written.
Marriage should certainly be a marriage of true minds. That meeting of minds is certainly the center post of any marriage. The partners in such a bonding should both be perfectly satisfied with themselves and their spouse in all respects, entering into the union with no doubts or reservations. The idea that each partner should “give 50 % or more” is foolish. In an excellent marriage there is no thought of giving or sacrifice - the couple is doing what they both want to do -all the time.
In their book “Mirages of Marriage” Lederer and Burdick divide marriages into several different types, from dysfunctional to weary battlers, to comfortable,, etc. They mention the ideal type, which they called “The heavenly twins” but said they could find no examples of this type, however it theoretically did exist. this was a marriage where the spouses had absolute mutual interests, were each other’s best friends, went everywhere and did everything together, and never conflicted.
Lederer and Burdick didn’t look far enough. A few years ago a group of geriatric specialists did a study of long-married couples (50+ years) - as I remember in rural Texas - and found many such examples. Apparently the heavenly twins are not all that uncommon.
I have not, of course, listed all the components of an excellent marriage - just suggested the beginning framework.
A Question: Is such a relationship a starting point where two like-minded lovers sort of stumble on each other, or would a couple grow into such a relationship? If so, how?
Do you have any examples of such a relationship you personally have observed. I have one such example I’ll enlarge upon later, if anyone’s interested.

Evil is defined as : Immoral, wicked, harmful, disastrous, bad, ill-reputed, etc., etc. Or the cause of the above.
You will notice that these pejorative terms are all pretty much culture-linked, that is what is considered evil seems to depend on the culture so that while each society has its list of evils, they don’t necessarily agree - and in fact may be at odds with each other.
Iraq today is a good example. We consider the terrorist insurgents and religious terrorists as evil but they do not so regard themselves - As they see it, they are freedom fighters doing Allah’s will.
One aspect of evil is the idea that a person or persons willfully and deliberately violate their culture’s moral tenants - that is commit acts that they know are considered evil just to “be evil”; but even this kind of act is often for a purpose which the person feels is desirable or good : To gain admission to a group or to please God, or because the person is psychotic. (Can psychotics be evil?)
This raises the question of the existence of Absolute Evil - Is there any act or idea so evil that it is so universally condemned that no one would do it?

This week's Socrates Cafe discussion is both interesting and timely:
Politics - the art of persuading or coercing a person, group, or nation to an action you desire - is most often associated with government but actually is part of most human interaction.
Its best use is to enable all parties to reach consensus or at least agreement on a topic or course of action. Its worst use is tyranny.
Constraints on political action are generally Moral, Traditional, Constitutional, legal, and the degree of power involved. These constraints are best reached by consensus and the underlying base of constraint is usually determined by basic cultural values - and nowadays, perhaps world opinion.
There are certain problems peculiar to Democracy’s politics. These range from the persuasive power of the Demagogue to the economic power of the Oligarch; and in present day America, we have experienced all of them.
We have attempted to rein in such obvious political injustice as buying an election by simply overwhelming your opponent with media spending; but our culture, as exemplified in our constitution’s guarantee of free speech makes this almost impossible. We can define “honesty” in politics and attempt to keep elected officials to some kind of standard but even this is difficult to implement. In the real world, most political machines don’t work without “grease” and greasy things collect dirt very rapidly.
Coping with demagoguery is even more difficult. Freedom of speech means that you can’t arbitrarily shut the demagogue up - you have to out shout him which those of us not inclined to bombast and demagoguery find distasteful.
Perhaps we need to ask ourselves how we should deal with the problem of “leveling the playing field” and dealing with the popular and powerful, but deluded or dishonest political leader.
I’m open to any suggestion.

This discussion topic has to do with changes that have take place in the American Armed forces as well as the decision to use more mercenaries - funded apparently by the U.S. government - in Iraq.
When I was in the Army, back in the flintlock era, the army pretty much fed, guarded and cleaned up after itself - now as I understand it, all those chores are contracted out. the argument is that it saves money - something I find hard to believe. If a private, for-profit company can feed the troops cheaper than the army could feed itself, than the troop aren't eating as well or the mess sergeants were taking stuff home - a lot of stuff.
I think the thrust of this discussion is not about that subject though, rather the rising use of mercenary units in the fighting zones of Iraq. The references for this topic include the article from the Norfolk VA newspaper about a visit to a mercenary training camp where the reporter was impressed by the hard training and competence of the soldiers.
Mercenaries have a long and somewhat mixed history. In Lucerne there is a moving memorial to the Swiss mercenaries killed defending the French royal Family during the French revolution and France's use of its Foreign Legion is legendary but in modern times mercenaries haven't faired as well.
I know of at least one incident in Iraq where an American army communications unit that was supposedly guarded by the mercenary troop guarding a regional administrator came under attack by Muktar al Sadir's militia. The mercenaries, led by a couple of the graduates of the training school mentioned above all fled, leaving the americans under severe attack. Fortunately there was a group of Russian marines (about 20) who were able to come to the Americans aid and keep several hundred Iraqi militia at bay until american Marines could get there (about 24 hours). No Americans were killed in this fight but there were some casualties.
This raises the question - how dependable are mercenaries? I see them as analogous to Bank security guards - they have a gun and may look impressive, but how dependable they are depends on how committed they are to the cause - not how much they are paid.
Using mercenaries does give the politicians an opportunity to commit fewer regular troops to the fight, and thus put themselves at a little less political risk. the British used them during the American Revolution with the usual results.

One of this week's topics concerns the sacrifices necessary for "Greatness". I have a pretty short answer: In a word, NO.
The question presupposes that effort must be accompanied by sacrifice - that is giving up something you really really want so that you can accomplish your goal - but this suggests that you don't really want your goal- or at least aren't totally committed.
Either you are being pushed or driven to accomplish "Greatness" or you have decided this is what you want, have presumably "measured the pleasure" and have set out to become "Great" at something.
Depending on the degree of competence you identify as "great" you may spend a good deal of effort striving with few results and much frustration, or find there is no sacrifice or problem for you at all.
I suggest all really great accomplishments are the result of a combination of talent and desire and most achievers of "Greatness" would be somewhat surprised at this question. Perhaps some really great people have decided it really wasn't worth it in retrospect, but I think that's pretty rare.
Many people strive for "greatness" - think politicians here- when they have neither the talent nor a clue as to what greatness really is. IMHO, "Greatness" is an accolade given by your peers and history. what you should strive for is competence - not labels.

I'm, a host for this topic, so I'll be visiting any site that comments but here's my quick take:
I tend to look at Religion from the Sociologist's viewpoint: As a major social Institution of every culture that has ever existed; and one which each culture assigns certain specific responsibilities.
Traditionally, Judeo-Christian cultures have assigned Religion the duty of explaining man's basic moral responsibilities as well as explaining the underlying meaning and purpose of the universe. Religion is also, in our culture, the ultimate source of security and solace.
With the development of the concept of Rationality by the ancient Greeks and its further evolution into Science and the Scientific Method, part of Religion's role, that of explaining the evolution of the world and universe, came under considerable questioning and doubt. Gradually, over the past four or five hundred years Science has assumed more of this responsibility and religion has gradually (and somewhat reluctantly) acknowledged Science's supremacy in this area.
Science has seldom attempted to address the "Meaning and Purpose" questions about the universe, leaving that to Religion and the metaphysicians, but those of ultra-conservative Religious bent have always rejected Science as an explanation of how the universe has evolved and see scientific explanation as an attack on their religious views.
Religion and Science are by nature separate. They look at reality from very different viewpoints and have very different social roles. Science is really a tool and method used to examine the "real" world and has little or no moral content. The morality of Scientists is determined primarily by their cultural background which in turn is influenced by the religious moral teachings of their culture.
Any conflict between Science and Religion is actually an argument over their social roles - which are determined by cultural consensus.

Socrates cafe has two topics this week. everyone seems to have strong opinions on the subject of dangerous philosophies, so I'll give this one a shot.

Blogging is the modern manifestation of what Marshall McLuhan was talking about forty or so years ago when he spoke of the "Global Village" and the idea that the "Medium is the message".
It has brought the world community much closer together - I suppose you could say it has created a world community. Even this small Xanga blogring has members from around the world -who can communicate more-or-less instantly.

Of course our open society and the concept of internet freedom (Except for China, of course) allows every viewpoint, however peculiar, it's day in the sun and lots of kooks have developed a following through the internet but it also allows ready refutation. I think the blogs sort of balance each other out.

From the point of view of the individual, blogging has been heaven sent. It widens your world, itroduces you to people you would otherwise never have met or known, exposes you to differing viewpoints - which has the effect of either strengthening or allowing you to modify your own viewpoint.

Blogging allows the physically restrained (Me, for example. As a full-time caregiver, I don't get out much) a much wider world. It is also, when you think about it, one of the Safest forms of communication; it allows the shy and reticent to become "party animals" - they can even (try) to remake their image to the rest of the world.

To sum up: Blogging is Good.

Well, here I am in Maine. Computer broke down (external power supply) got a new one from Apple $$$
and can at least access the computer. Now the internal Modem is very shakey.
I have been somewhat curtailed by medical problems. Blowout on a curve, damaged thumb, massive infection in thumb, MD, anitbiotic, did not work, ER, intravenous, antibiotic+ sulfa, ER, intravenous.
Mu thumb is back to a size approaching normal and doesn't hurt (except when I laugh).
Finally got car unloaded.
My wife is fairly well healed from her accidental fall. The ramp I had installed along with the new floor really pleases her and makes life easier for her.
Today, we finally got to just sit and admire the lake. With all the rain we've had here, it's very high - washed out some loon nests so we won't have as many chicks this year but the eagles seem happy with the fishing.

For the past thirty-seven years we have been making summer in down-east Maine our vacation.
We leave tomorrow (Sunday) morning for a very familiar drive of three of four days, avoiding interstates for much of the trip. My wife should be surprised with her anniversary present- a new floor, new wider door, and a handicapped ramp. This will make the cabin and camp much more accessable for her - Hey! I'll use the ramp also
Our camp's on the shore of a beautiful lake and I just had the drive down to the shore re-graded so hopefully we will be able to get right to the door. I'll keep you posted.

Should the Marriage Amendment be added to the United States Constitution?
That's one of this week's discussion topics at Socrates Cafe

While this particular constitutional amendment seems to be mostly a Republican political ploy designed to mollify their conservative base; it exemplifies a more serious underlying american dilemma, that of disliking prejudice while still wishing to keep traditional value interpretations alive.
Marriage is a very basic custom and important part of our value system. It is fundamentally the public recognition the pairing of a couple and their public statement of commitment to become a family. The rituals of the marriage ceremony are traditionally handled by the Religious institution while the Government is very much involved as part of its responsibility to maintain social order.
Even though our Constitution and our custom specifically prohibits the government from sponsoring any religion, it is a important basic part of our culture and there has always been an interlocking of basic religious social values and governmental rules. The concept of marriage has always been one of these, and civil law often shows a religious origin. The rules about who can be married, at what age, how many times, etc. all have a base in social custom that is part of our general religious heritage.
In modern times, many people have elected to make their marriage a completely civil and legal affair with no religious association apparent, but the basic assumptions and laws of the culture still control almost all "pair-bondings" even those called "Common Law Marriages" which assume the legal and social commitment after a length of time. Even the Hippies of thirty+ years ago, some of whom refused to get married because they wanted no government intrusion on their private lives, could not completely escape the legal responsibilities that come with this socio-sexual commitment.
The marriage amendment as it is written is pretty obviously an attempt to prevent legal pair-bonding of homosexual couples, a prohibition based on our religious background which has come under scrutiny and attack much as racial discrimination did forty years ago.

What's the difference between faith and religion? Is the world losing faith?
I have been assigned as a host for this topic and I thought I’d make a few comments about the terms and their meaning. As a one-time Religious Education Director for a Unitarian Church; and as a teacher of History and Comparative Religion, I have long had an interest in this question in all its ramifications.
Religion has many meanings but I have always favored that of Sociologists and Anthropologists: A fundimental Institution of all Cultures with the responsibilities of moral guidance, reassurance and comfort, and explanation of unknown phenomena. This Institution can be Organized (with priests, ritual and complicated dogma) or Unorganized (Where a shaman or “medicine man” is regarded as having a direct pipeline to the Gods).
In our Western Culture, Religion is almost always pretty heavily organized with established rituals, places of worship, and a well-trained priesthood or ministry as well as established dogma and well-known religious materials.The Bible, for example, was once thought to contain all those books necessary for complete knowledge. It’s a good example of the religious material I’m talking about.
Faith might be defined, for the purpose of this discussion, as belief in those religious principles taught by your culture. Faith is almost always treated as an individualized concept and as one held by the believer without any tangible proof of its actual truth. Small children almost always accept their parents’ religious beliefs “faithfully”, that is without question as being true. Many of us continue to exhibit our faith with unquestioning acceptance of our religious leader’s interpretation of moral guidance and “world truths” just as we have been taught.
For the past several hundred years Western Organized Religion has had a competitor in the explanation of the unknown and exotic, that is: The Scientific Establishment.
Early on, the Church bet on the wrong side of the astronomy argument (Earth-centered universe) and it has never really recovered as, when science was proven right and the religious establishments had to agree (well, most of them anyway), doubt entered the equation and Faith, in the West at least, diminished in many people and has continued to do so.
Today, according to a poll done several years ago under U.N. auspices, only about 10-12% of Europeans labeled themselves “very religious”. The western nation with the largest percentage of those labeling themselves “very religious” was the U.S. (40+%). This seems to indicate that faith in organized religions at least, does seem to be diminishing.
Faith however, is an individual thing. Is it possible to separate faith in organized religion from belief and “Faith in God” ?

How about this for an open-ended question
I think I'll start by approaching this from the point of view of current American (and Western) Culture:
We are very much a time-bound culture which tends to try to predict and plan for where we think we are heading - and worry that we might not get there, or that when we do arrive, it won’t be as we expected.
This leads us to take the gloomy view and predict the worst while exhorting each other to “Wake up and stop ruining things”. This viewpoint is a sensible one, if you are one of those who is convinced that the world was a better place when you were young, or are a scientist noting the changes and disappearances that mankind seems to have caused.
In 1798 and again in 1803, Thomas Malthus, to take a famous prophet of doom, predicted the famine overpopulation would cause the world. Was he right? Depends on whether you died of starvation in the early 1800’s or not - many did.
In 1972, to move closer to the present, The Club of Rome published “The Limits to Growth” in which they used fairly primitive computer models to prove that world-wide collapse was probable beginning about 2010 and continuing into the next century unless we took drastic measures by the year 2000. We didn’t take the measures (or at least most of them) and we still seem to be tracking by their models.
At the time they were ridiculed, denounced, and persuaded that their models needed revising. They revised their projections and published two more reports: “Mankind at the Turning Point” (1974) and “Reshaping the International Order” (1976), neither of which was acceptable to most Americans as they tended to call for “Balancing the world’s economies”, and reshaping the United Nations so as to insure world peace, environmental regulation and world monetary and resource regulation and control, all of which meant giving up a good deal of our sovereignty.
Like it or not, the Club of Rome called our attention to what Humans are doing to the planet and made us more aware of global resource utilization, climate changes, pollution, the implications of a rapidly rising population, and world industrialization.
To answer my own question: Not much; or None, time’s run out.
Welcome to the brave new world.

What constitutes an invasion of privacy and where should we draw the line in light of national security? - or- What are our most important and fundamental Rights? What constitutes a violation of our rights and is such a violation ever justified?
One of the topics discussed this week in Socrates Cafe.

Our most important and fundimental Rights are those spelled out in the First Ten Amendments to the U.S. constitution, called the “Bill of Rights”. If you have not reviewed them lately, I suggest you do so.

What constitutes an Invasion of Privacy as pertains to National security?
Our right to privacy is protected by not one, but two of the Constitutional Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
The first Amendment says Congress shall make no law ....abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...
Under this amendment, anyone can say whatever that want about you but in so saying they are open to civil law suit if they:
1. Intrude on your “right to seclusion and privacy in an unreasonable manner”
2. Appropriate your likeness or identity without permission
3. Give unreasonable publicity to your private life
4. Slander of Libel you
In each case you must prove personal loss or harm and this is Civil Action between two private citizens.
The Other Bill of Rights Amendment protecting your right to privacy is the Fourth Amendment which spells out the “Right of people to be secure in their persons, papers, houses , and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..” Except upon a warrant of probable cause “supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized”
This amendment protects private citizens from government intrusion and is most likely to be the one questioned “In light of national security”
As America’s Bill of Rights is our best protection against a tyrannical government, it has been jealously guarded for the past 230 years despite many attempts tamper with it.
Many people feel that the current attempts to water down these rights in the name of security is just another try at increasing government power over individual citizens that will prove intolerable to Americans and will be rejected.
There are now, and have been in the past, ample laws protecting our nation’s security from foreign and domestic threats and any new laws or revision of old ones should stand the test of constitutionality. Since the President takes an oath to uphold and defend to constitution, he should be the last one to claim powers which violate some of these Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Social constructs of gender: What are they and do they affect our realization of truth?
This is one of the current topics and probably requires some definition.
The social constructs of gender generally refers to what are culturally defined as "Women's work", "Men's jobs", or the supposed cognitive and emotional differences between the sexes - as defined by the culture. Does gender perception affect our realization of truth? That's a good question. Inasmuch as truth is defined by your cultural world-view, it probably does. This is a serious question with implications for current International Politics, World Health, and American Basic Value re-interpretation as well as other areas. this should be a lively discussion.

Socrates cafe has been revived and here we go:

"Please remember that the main purpose of Socrates Cafe is questions rather than answers and that we need to be open and listen to others' opinions so that we can better review our own. Listening to others helps us think more deeply and can strengthen our own views. It can also help us to understand each other better."

This plea for tolerance sort of typifies our site's purpose, but I suspect we will have to balance off courtesy and passion.
I'm sure we are all intolerant of intolerance, especially if it's someone else's; but it's not that easy to feel strongly about a subject and still be completely level-headed in the discussion, so I suppose we will have to allow each other to fly off the handle every now and then.
Tolerance is best practiced by those who feel pretty secure in their own worth and understanding of their beliefs and position but are still willing to allow others the same worth. This is difficult because tolerance of another's beliefs tends to do two things: First, gives their belief some worth or standing; and second, allows you to compare your belief with theirs- which may make you uncomfortable if you don't think your belief should be questioned.
Those areas where tolerance is most strained are usually those most closely associated with your basic values and their interpretation, or where your values conflict c- such as abortion, to cite an obvious example.
Suppose someone steps on your most cherished beliefs, how tolerant should you be?

Hopefully this webring will become active once again. In the meantime I suggest interested members and fellow-travelers visit each other's sites to keep the discussions going (No biting and scratching allowed!)

The question for discussion here this week is:

Should colleges emphasize Liberal rather than Vocational-oriented training at the undergraduate level? What should be included in "Liberal Education", emphasized or not, and should the study of Religion be included in the Liberal curriculum?

Here's a starting point:
For over 2000 years, Liberal Education, by which we mean a general knowledge of those things which make up our culture, has been the focus of most college undergraduate training, but here in America, as more an more people have chosen to attend college, more and more of them have demanded training in "Useful, practical subjects which will fit them for a well-paying job". This coupled with demands from prospective employers for graduates that could move immediately in to useful jobs, has led many colleges and universities to focus more and more on this type of training. Now we see Colleges of Architecture, Agriculture, Engineering, Education, Business Administration, ad infinitum.
A recent survey indicated that less than three percent of modern American college graduates were from traditional liberal arts colleges, and the Arts and Sciences Colleges and Departments of most major universities have much declined in popularity and prestige.
This has meant that many modern college graduates are pretty deficient (read ignorant) in that basic knowledge which used to define the educated free person:
This includes a general knowledge of our culture, its literature, music, art, politics, and history; as well as some general knowledge about those arts and sciences outside of their own narrow field.
Recently, business leaders have begun to demand a wider depth of knowledge for new employees and there has been some renewed interest in Liberal Studies. How ironic, that those who demanded vocational training are now beginning to rethink their demands.
Liberal Education started in Ancient Rome as that training necessary for a "Free Man" and by the Middle Ages included the "Trivium" (Grammar, Rhetoric, and Logic) and the "Quadrivium" (Arithmetic, Geometry, Astronomy, and Music). Today Liberal Arts degrees show the same wide range of subjects, from Literature and History to Biology and Chemistry as well as Rhetoric and Grammar (language arts).
Some say we should return to this tried and true curriculum and leave vocational training to vocational schools.

As the host of this topic, I suppose I should comment at little on the subject of Regrets.
Regrets seem to come in two flavors: Those of commission and those of omission, in other words:
Regret over Paths not taken
Regret over Paths I wish I had not taken
The assumption of the question for discussion is that somehow we learn from our regrets and that may be true sometimes. The child probably will learn not to touch that hot stove eventually, but the puzzling part of human nature is what slow learners we seem to be and how often we repeat those "sins of commission" both as individuals and as entire nations.
A strange phenomenon that I personally have noticed is how regrets fade with time and how, as I grow older, there seem to be fewer and fewer. Perhaps that is because I'm able to put them in perspective. That is not to say, I don't have at least one major regret:
Five years ago, my wife and I made a medical decision (to trust a cardiologist's advice about a medicine) which has led to five years of hell for her and changed our lives irretrievably. What have we learned from this? To be more cautious, to distrust doctors, to do our own research, to lose hope - all rather grim lessons.
There is an unspoken question assumed in this subject:
Should we have regrets, just ignore them and move on, or should we try to rectify our errors?

I’m sure this question has been debated in one form or another ever since humans learned to speak. The debate can take a very practical form - “I see/smell/taste/feel/hear it so it must be real” all the way to “What is/do you mean by, reality?”
You would think that in our modern world of scientific certainty there would be little doubt of the meaning of “Reality” - Whatever can be scientifically proven is real if we are talking about the physical world, and that which cannot be scientifically proven may be nice, but it’s not Reality. That’s what the study of Metaphysics is all about - Beyond Physics.
This simple definition of reality is not very satisfactory to many people. Too often they see two people observe or experience the same thing yet come out with very different conclusions as to the “truth” or “reality” of the observation.

Does how we perceive something color our judgment about whether or not the “something” is real?
Can nonmaterial things and concepts be “real”?
Can we even agree on the basic definition of “Reality”?
Presuming perception IS reality, is each individual's perception of equal worth?

The Death Penalty. Good? Bad? Useful? Useless? Does it serve a purpose in today's society?

I've recently altered my personal position on this question. I used to think it was a relatively secure way of making sure the convicted didn't ever do it again even though I never did go along with the argument that it acted as a deterrent. I did however, think that it was still an acceptable way to remove really really bad guys from society.
Now, I think the days of "Off with their heads" has passed no matter how well it satisfies the desire for revenge. There is enough government-authorized death and destruction in the world today without the justice system adding to it. Add to that the uncertainty of justice and the fact that this punishment cannot be undone, to say nothing of the expense to taxpayers because of long drawn-out appeals, and you have some pretty cogent arguments against capital punishment.
I have deliberately avoided the moral question of supporting the society's right to kill. I think, given all the killing that society condones, that would seem hypocritical as I am not a pacifist. I am opposed to capital punishment strictly on practical grounds: It is too uncertain, too expensive, and is bad for the image and prestige of the State.
Is there any situation where capital punishment is, despite these objections, either useful or necessary?

A Socrates Cafe Discussion

As no one has chosen to comment on this topic, I'll take a stab:
The problems of an Official State religion far outweigh the advantages in my opinion.
Religion is one of the great social institutions (Family, Education, Religion, Government, Economic, et al) and has traditionally had as its major roles Moral and Spiritual guidance as well explanation of exotic phenomena and the purpose of life. In our society Religion must contend with Rationality as it has been developed in other social institutions, notably Science and Philosophy - subsets of the social institution of Education. This has, in our culture, somewhat limited Religion's role, as rational scientific discoveries have proven more useful and correct than religious opinion.
A State Religion puts that institution into a role which infringes on that of the institution of Government in a manner which puts the two at odds. Religion, by its nature, deals in absolutes and moral dogma, while most modern developed societies - including ours- are basically democratic in nature with government which responds to the input of all its citizens and which changes as their opinion changes.
A State Religion must therefore either struggle to enforce its dogmatic rules and opinion or become irrelevant. Such a Religious institution will also be subject to governmental politics and is in danger of being taken over by politicians for their own non-religious purposes.
Another problem with a State Religion is that it is by nature dogmatic and autocratic and this condition makes democracy impossible and more or less breaks the Social Contract upon which our nation is founded.

The Primary Purpose of Politics is to Insure Justice in an Imperfect World

The association of politics and justice is an ancient one. Philosophers of the 18th and 19th centuries were especially conscious of relationship between the social institution of government and natural rights as they saw them. Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau based much of their philosophies on the Social Contract; the idea that humans were willing to modify some of their individual natural rights for the benefits of living in an ordered society but that rightly the individual demanded that the society protect those natural rights and allow them the benefits on a equal basis.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident; That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...” is a clear abbreviated statement of this idea.

Our society accepts this idea of a just government insuring our civil rights and our Constitution spells out how the political process is supposed to work.
In practice the “imperfect world” often leads to a less-than-perfect implementation of this ideal. the democratic political process, however, is probably the best way to insure justice for us all as it allows the individual maximum input in the process.

A modern social philosopher, John Rawls has somewhat updated the concept as follows:
“...Two Principles of Justice. These two principles determine the distribution of both civil liberties and social and economic goods. The first principle states that each person in a society is to have as much basic liberty as possible, as long as everyone is granted the same liberties. That is, there is to be as much civil liberty as possible as long as these goods are distributed equally. (This would, for example, preclude a scenario under which there was a greater aggregate of civil liberties than under an alternative scenario, but under which such liberties were not distributed equally amongst citizens.)”
“The second principle states that while social and economic inequalities can be just, they must be available to everyone equally (i.e., no one is to be on principle denied access to greater economic advantage) and such inequalities must be to the advantage of everyone. This means that economic inequalities are only justified when the least advantaged member of society is nonetheless better off than she would be under alternative arrangements. So, only if a rising tide truly does carry all boats upward, can economic inequalities be allowed for in a just society. “ (Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice, 1972)

Other modern movements, notably Feminism, have objected to the Social Contract on grounds that some of its basic assumptions, i.e. Equality of individuals and rejection of Paternalism include a basic assumption of sexual inequality. Others have implied the same about Racial inequality.
In almost all serious discussions of Politics, Justice and Ethics are important considerations just as in discussions of those concepts, politics is often at the forefront.
The idea “Practice what we preach” comes to mind.

Four Favorite Things Tag

 
Tagged by Robyn Here goes...

Four Jobs I've had:
Sailor (merchant seaman )
Soldier (Korean War)
Teacher - the BEST possible job
Labor negotiator

Four Shows I Love:
(don't watch much tv, but if I did...)
Nikita - I really dug that show
South Park
Rome (HBO)
Whatever’s on the Cooking Channel

Four Movies I'd Watch Over and Over:
CoolHand Luke
Dr. Strangelove
Fitzcarraldo
Romance with a Double Bass

 
Four Places I've Lived
Miami Beach
Bloomington IN
New York
Sopchoppy FL (actually a little north of the city limits)

Four Places I've Vacationed
Ulvik, Norway
Bali, Indonesia
St Petersburg (then Leningrad USSR)
Venice, Italy

Four of my favorite dishes
Paella
Lobster salad
Roast turky
Chicken Cordon Verde (my wife’s invention - it’s in a couple of cookbooks)

"What is the ultimate one-sentence philosophy? Why?

This is the next topic for Socrates' Cafe and here's my take on it:
Philosophically speaking this question has lots of interesting answers. the one that came to my mind first is that aphorism which is found in so many religions and early philosophies:
THIS TOO WILL PASS
This has been said in many ways, perhaps the most memorable being the Jewish legend; though it is to be found among the saying of most religions.
Philosophically the saying sometimes runs:
YOU CAN'T STEP IN THE SAME RIVER TWICE
Which has been attributed to Heraclitius (?)
The idea is the permanence of impermanence.
Another one-sentence philosophy might be that of Albert Schwitzer:
RESIST NOT EVIL, a philosophy that he followed only imperfectly.
A one sentence zinger I’ve always been attracted to was Descartes:
I THINK, THEREFORE I AM
Which is a pretty good base for any metaphysical adventuring.
Any one of these would be a good basis for developing a philosophy and all have been used many times. I would tend to favor “YOU CAN'T STEP IN THE SAME RIVER TWICE” as I think it includes the idea of an ever-changing but nevertheless all-inclusive reality. We discussed this a couple of weeks ago when we talked about Time but this concept also is part of human psychology and experience. The aphorism “History repeats itself” isn’t really true as the circumstances are never exactly the same and our adaptation to ever-changing circumstances is the most (to me anyway) fascinating part of the Human Condition.

Socretes Cafe Topic#31: If human beings are all considered to be equal, then how do we act equally in social terms?

An American value; “..All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
This value has been reinterpreted many times, sometimes to exclude certain groups (Blacks, Indians, Women, etc.) and sometimes to open the equality door to the previously excluded. One constant however seems to be the CREATED part which excuses a lot of the inequality we see around us. We tend to think that those who are NOT equal by virtue of being poor, handicapped, unemployed, homeless, whatever; have themselves to blame because they obviously did not take advantage of society's generous offers and opportunities.
Another part of our interpretation of this value is that we tend to think of it in legal terms - equality under the law- or in terms of opportunity - we have free public education, after all. If it turns out that schools and laws are not equal, we feel real bad and scurry around trying to fix the problem so that we can continue to blame the inequalities on the “less equal” themselves.
This allows us to come to terms with the fact of social inequality which, interestingly enough, is defined by the very culture that abhors it.
All cultures have some form of social stratification based on Religion (India), Ancestors ( I suppose European Aristocracy), Wealth or worldly possessions (most of the cultures), Education (ancient china), and Intelligence and Competence almost always have a part ot play. In our society, physical prowess and beauty have important roles in establishing status as well as almost all these other attributes I’ve mentioned.
For a culture with the “Equality” value, we spend a awful amount of time deciding what makes us unequal. I suppose that’s because we also have a “Competition” value.

Socrates Cafe Topic # 27 : What is Time?

topic 27: What is Time? Is it merely a human invention?
                      Does time really move fast and slow?

In his book "A Brief History of Time" Stephen Hawking does a pretty good job of explaining the physicists’ view of time as a dimension of the physical world. It is part of defining where and when something exists and without time, real existence isn’t possible. Time, as a component of speed, also limits our existence and our observation of other phenomena. It’s a well-written interesting book. I recommend it to you.
Time is a dimension of the Universe that exists whether we are here or not but that doesn’t mean we can’t observe and even to some extent manipulate it. While our understanding of how we are “time bound” has come to us slowly, our use of time is as old as humanity. It is an important part of all religions, navigation, regulation of all societies, and very much the computer you are reading this on.
An important part of the human condition seems to be the struggle to control speed, )our concept of the combination of time and motion), and we have succeeded pretty well except for the fact that this dimension only goes “one way”- toward entropy. This has been called the thermodynamic arrow of time and it greatly influences the psychological arrow of time. Our brains, like our computers, remember or record things in the direction of the entropy arrow - toward disorder. To quote Hawking: “Disorder increases with time because we measure time in the direction in which order decreases. You can’t have a safer bet than that!”
Until about 140 years ago, time was thought to be “absolute” that is completely measurable and unchanging. Beginning with W.C. Maxwell in 1865 and continuing with the work of Michelson, Lorentz, and most particularly Einstein, we now know that time is really pretty variable - being slowed or increased by the gravitational attraction of large cosmic bodies. This, by the way, isn’t theory. The accuracy of global positioning devices depends on this fact.
Can we speed up or slow down time? The Earth and the Sun can, but our human mass is too insignificant to make a measurable change. We can, however, surely alter our perception of it. that’s why time runs so much faster on weekends and holidays.

I've decided to add my opinion to some of the Socrates Cafe discussions
Socrates Cafe

Art may be defined as the deliberate attempt to make an object in such a way that its form pleases the maker and others who come in contact with it. The pleasure may be because it satisfies some desire for beauty, esthetics, worship, or psychological satisfaction.
Occasionally the artist seeks to please only himself with little regard for the effect on others and sometimes these efforts are recognized as prime artistic examples of the world and culture of the artist's time. an example of this is the work of van Gogh.
van Gogh sold only a very few paintings and was, as the world knows, scorned as an artist during his lifetime, but somehow his art has come to define an era and influence almost all painting since his time.
Many artists are very popular and strike a responsive chord with their efforts only to have their art fade from popular regard as their efforts become less and less relevant to modern society or seem at odds with the "feel" of the idea they try to depict.
Some artists try very hard to please their patrons and settle into a familiar pattern which they know will sell. These purely "decorative artists" may be very popular but they have little impact on their culture. The work of the visual artist Thomas Kinkade is in my opinion, an example of this.
Each culture has rules and guidelines which the artist must follow if their work is to be considered "art" and occasionally artists break these rules either to make a statement or please themselves. Their art may or may not be accepted by following generations. It seems as if the really good and lasting art contains some kind of deeper meaning or perhaps the inner feelings of the artist; feeling that resonates with the viewer (or listener).
As a painter, I know how very hard it is for the artist to capture the feeling of the scene or idea and the frustration when the result isn’t personally satisfying.

Miami Beach Christmas Pageants II

Opulent wasn't the word. Fleischer Studios, the makers of the popular Popeye cartoons, was just going under and many of their artists were looking for work. My father hired some of them to make the large "Christmassy" cutouts and figures- they looked, as I remember, sort of like mardigras float figures. they also designed some of the displays. When I said 90 feet - that would be the average length - many of the yachts were bigger - the length and draft limited by the waterway depth.

The layout of the city of Miami Beach was carefully designed so that there was access to much of the in-town waterways without having to go under bridges. I only remember a couple of drawbridges. The early history of that city is pretty interesting and much of it is already lost or fading from memory fast.

Carl Fisher, the founder of the Indianapolis Speedway among other things, was the developer of this off-shore sandbank - and he thought large! He was a member of the club mentioned in the last post along with a good many of the mid-western auto industry tycoons. They had lots of money for those days (the end of the depression) and enjoyed spending it.

Fisher, who died broke, was quite the showman. He had among other things, a pet elephant he used for publicity photos. when not posing, Rosy - the elephant- hauled a garbage cart. The Geiger brothers, Fisher's architects, tried to give the beach a Mediterranean flair -even importing some gondolas, complete with gondoliers to pretty the place up. As a child I remember playing on and in the stored gondolas (the gondoliers went back to Venice).

A CHILD'S CHRISTMAS

When I was eight to eleven years old (Back before World War 2) Christmas was a strange time for my family. My father was responsible for organizing some of the first Christmas boat parades, these on Christmas Eve each year in and around Miami Beach. He also supervised the decorations of many of the yachts. In those days a yacht was a yacht (most of them over 90 feet long) though there were smaller boats in the parade.
Planning and work on the decorations and lights started in July, but Christmas Eve was the big night. The owners threw parties on the boats during the parade so it was almost as raucous as a Mardi Gras parade. As the parade route was almost all up and down the extensive waterways that lace the Beach, past estates themselves decorated with the lights of the era, It was something to see. there were a few points where the public could see the parades but the paraders were mostly out to impress each other, at least that's how a child saw it. The parade went on until the wee hours of Christmas morning, so Christmas at our house was always pretty late getting started.
Those parades were sponsored by the Committee of One Hundred, a Miami Beach Men's club with quite a list of millionaire members. As well as being Marine Inspector for the beach, my father worked for this club (as a matter of fact, I grew up living on the rather extensive club house grounds in the middle of downtown Miami Beach). All this has been gone for many years, the clubhouse site is now overrun by one of the Beach's busiest streets.
Other places now claim to have the "oldest" of "first" marine Christmas boat parades, all of them dating from after the war, but I remember those early ones.

IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES?

I'm a little upset at the actions of George W. Bush.
I suppose he has authorized the NSA to scan all blogs and highlight words like those, so I won't be too surprised at midnight visits. After all Hitler, Stalin, and even Saddam Hussein were all "defending their country from those who were out to get them". That's how tyranny starts - with unchecked actions based on the belief that the leader's decisions and attitudes are RIGHT and not to be questioned, ignoring the rule of law.
Thirty something years ago we had a paranoid as president who did approximately the same things Bush has done, for approximately the same reasons. He was convinced that there was some kind of conspiracy which had to be thwarted by any means possible in order to preserve the nation he was sworn to protect and defend. His defense included breaking into private offices without warrants, hiring burglars to break into the Democratic National Committee offices and plant phone bugs, lie to the american people repeatedly and conspire to deliberately break the laws he was sworn to uphold. He was forced to resign and later pardoned by the next president (which action probably helped that guy - who strangely enough had never been elected to anything but Congressman representing Flint, MI - loose the next election). That president was R.M.Nixon; who almost caused the nation to self-destruct. Bush probably admires him. Incidentally, Nixon's Vice President was forced to resign (taking bribes) and that's how we ended up with the fellow from Flint.
In the case of Bush II, we have a similar situation where the President and his administration have used the 9/11 terrorist attack as an excuse to invade a country which had nothing to do with that attack, ram a law through congress that has been patently unsuccessful in discouraging terrorist activity (all of which since 9/11 has been overseas - and has increased) and is probably mostly unconstitutional. He has used that law to authorize illegal wiretaps arguing that this was necessary because "we can't wait for judges to act" even though there has, for several years, been a secret court procedure in place for post-facto judicial review which has approved thousands of prior wiretaps and surveillance episodes and has only disapproved four. When bush says, as he did last night and again this morning, that his extra-legal authorizations are necessary he deliberately lied. They aren't necessary, they are convenient. they are also illegal and unconstitutional.
What more does G. W. Bush have to do before Articles of Impeachment are drawn up?