BLOG NUMBER 8

Task: What is the role of personal integrity in a free and democratic society? What is the role, if any, of martyrdom in society whether free or totalitarian?

Personal integrity isn't an integral part of a free society. Though the concept of having leaders that posses grand integrity is a nice fantasy, in reality, history has displayed a multitude of leaders that had horrible personal lives.  An example can be seen in the most recognizable face of the civil right movement, Martin Luther King; though he led a movement that ensured freedom for entire races of people he had a storied history of womanizing in his life, many believe he had dozens of illegitimate children.  However, despite personal integrity not being essential, martyrdom is an essential component.  Though many of the champions of history haven't had the greatest personal lives, they have all possessed the quality of unwavering sacrifice for the people they love.  Though the good doctor cheated on his wife with many women, the man took a bullet for the cause he believed in.  Personal integrity isn't a necessity for leadership, however, the need for sacrifice always will be.

BLOG NUMBER 7

Task: How do Socrates and King "persuade"?  Are they trying to persuade individuals, the state, or both?  Does it matter which it is?  Why or why not? Does engaging in "persuasion" entail one's having (or believing one has) access to correct knowledge? If not, why not? If so, what does Socrates "know"?  What does King "know"?

Socrates and King both use the same tactics to "persuade" people.  They use creative tension.  They generate a problem and a solution.  They say that they want to reach the solution but can't unless the problem is overcome.  To overcome said problem, society must understand it and come to grips with it.  Basically, the society needs to wake up and smell the coffee.  They pretty much point out the "elephants in the room" type thing.  They're trying to persuade anyone who will listen.  It doesn't really matter who.  People will be persuaded no matter what.  They both succeed in persuading individuals and the state. It doesn't matter because everyone will hear about what they did/do.  If they persuade individuals and not the state, then the people will fight for what they think is right.  If the state only listens and not the individuals, it doesn't matter anyways because the state has the authority to change anything.  If the individuals don't like it they can protest, or leave.  

Yes, I do believe that if someone engages in persuasion that they have access to correct knowledge.  They obviously think they know more than others to the extent that they can change their minds.  On the other hand, persuasion isn't always knowledge either, it's just someone that's confident enough to make you believe them. Part of establishing a sense of validity in a subject is having the confidence that you know what you are talking about.  Socrates knows that he knows nothing, which ironically makes him the wisest man in all of Athens. If you know nothing, you must know something. ha!

King knows that if things keep going the way they are going, people will continue to die and the situation will worsen. They know things and are trying to help, not exactly persuade.

They're not trying to trick anyone or anything. They know what they know, and it's knowledge.

BLOG NUMBER 6

Task: What - REALLY - was Socrates' civic goal and why - REALLY - is Socrates in jail? When is it right to criticize the government?

Socrates' civic goal was to make people THINK. He was on a mission to prove if he was the wisest man in Athens and he was.  He didn't know that until he questioned everyone and spoke of his findings.  Socrates pretty much checked everyone and made them eat their own words.  He did things people were too scared to do.  It wasn't illegal but it was something new, it was change.  People do not know how to react to change. Kids listened to him because they liked seeing people in high places being embarrassed.  They admired Socrates.  

Socrates is really in jail because people didn't like being made fun of.  No one likes being criticized.  It's only right to criticize the government if what they do is unjust.  By unjust I mean like the human fairness thing. Like, we're all equal, we all have freedom to say whatever we want, we all should be treated fairly, etc. If the government were to ban a certain book just because it's against a certain president, I would say the government could be then criticized. Or Segregation, if the government were to make segregation legal again, the government could be criticized. Even though it wouldn't be criticized, it'd be demolished.

Technically, in Socrates' time; it is actually NEVER okay to criticize the government. Whatever they say is whatever goes.  You must respect the rules they have put in place.  If you don't like it, you can leave.  No one is forcing you to stay here.

I think it's fine to criticize the government as long as it is done in a kind fashion.  A complaint here and there isn't bad, but to like go on a rant is absurd.

That had nothing to do with anything, but I'm just saying.

I don't think Socrates should've been put in jail, he did nothing wrong.  He did have his chance to prove himself and Athens didn't think he had it.  He chose to die because he wanted to make a point AND he was never going to betray Athens.  He criticized the government just by not disobeying and going into exile.

BLOG NUMBER 5

Task: What is the relationship between committing civil disobedience and accepting punishment for it? What constitutes a "harm" to the state? Should the state ever be "harmed"?

Civil disobedience goes hand in hand with punishment.  Civil disobedience is committing a crime, nonetheless. No matter what way you look at it, it's still a crime.  Unjust or not.  There will be a punishment to the crime.  If people just committed crimes and there were no consequences then there would be total anarchy. When one commits a crime they should know that there is going to be a punishment after it.

A "harm" to the state could be that everyone jumps on the bandwagon and just disobeys the laws.  If everyone thinks that a certain law is unjust, then everyone can have the right to civil disobedience making it impossible to have a civilized group of people, I guess? I don't know if what I'm saying makes any sense at all...If everyone were to think a law is unjust, they can disobey it as long as it is done in a peaceful manner. That being said, it shows people that the government really has no authority over them at all, thus the state can't be governed and it is harmed.  

In Socrates' opinion, the state should never ever ever ever ever ever be harmed.  No matter what. As long as you lived there, reaped the benefits and all that stuff; you never harm the state. In Martin Luther King's opinion, you can harm the state if and only if the law in which you are going to disobey is unjust, AND must be disobeyed in a tasteful and non violent way.

In my opinion, I would go to with a common ground between both MLK & Socrates. I think they're both right but that sometimes it is necessary to disobey a law.

For example, Prop 8. If I think it's wrong I'm going to disobey that law by having a protest even though the state voted to pass it, I think it's wrong and I'm going to fight it.

I can see where both parties make sense and both fail.

That's all.

BLOG NUMBER 4-CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

Task: What is civil disobedience? Is "thinking" a form of civil disobedience? Is speaking?

Civil disobedience is non violent resistance.  It is taking a stand against a certain law or something and just not obeying it.  It's as simple as that.  A boycott is a form of civil disobedience. It's breaking the law, but it's breaking a law that may or may not be unjust according to that person. 

I don't see how thinking is a form of civil disobedience, no one can take that away from you.  Unless they put chips in your brain, I can't see how anyone can possibly manage that.  UNLESS, that person thinking about civil disobedience does something to disobey the law and they do it in a violent way. 

Speaking is definitely a form of civil disobedience, you can persuade anyone to what you want them to believe.  

Someone might be undecided about segregation but after a minute or two of persuasion will partake in a boycott or sit-in just because of what someone told them.

BLOG NUMBER 2

Task: Blog on "creative tension". What should individuals and society be challenged about today?

Creative tension is pretty much pointing out the 'elephant in the room'.  We have a certain goal we want to reach, but it's almost unattainable unless change is put in place.  To change anything, it has to be understood first.  One can't just decide to stop being an alcoholic, they have to first understand that they have an underlying issue as to why they were an alcoholic in the first place.  Once that is understood, achieving the goal shouldn't be too difficult.  Although, one has to create tension, some sort of awkward or problem so that people can talk about it.

Realize that change needs to be made and then devise a plan on how to fix it.

Society should be challenged about a lot of things, like peer pressure or something.  Or the way society portrays women as objects rather than as human beings with emotions.

We see celebrities everyday ruining their own lives and who is at fault here?

Mostly them because everyone is responsible for their own actions, but the media/society doesn't help the situation.

They make the celebrities seem so glamorous and amazing, when they're normal people and are tired of the spot light.

No one wants paparazzi following them around 24/7, nor do they want to read slander about themselves the next day.  It's pathetic.  

Then we have young girls who see these celebrities and idolize that life style, as if those celebrities are genuinely happy.

It's sad, it sets a bad example for kids everywhere. Until some people step their game up and stop treating celebrities and people in general like objects, then and only then can there a less messed up society.

BLOG NUMBER 1

Question: Blog on King and Malcolm X. How are they similar? Different? Do they have the same goals? Which approach do you think is best?

King was a very non violent man, everyone knows that.  He saw that there was a problem with the way things were being done in America and he approached it very wisely.  He had the motives of Ghandi on his mind.  He was all about civil disobedience, if the law was unjust, it shouldn't have to be followed. Although, when you are disobeying a certain law, it must be unjust and it must be done in a civil manner.  Through like friendly protests, sit-ins, and boycotts; not by violence.

Malcolm X on the other hand was almost on the opposite spectrum of Martin Luther King Jr. They were similar in that they both wanted the same thing for African Americans; freedom.  

Malcolm was a devout Muslim and he believed in peace but also standing up for ones self.  If a law is unjust, disobey it no matter what; violent or not.  

They also both believed in peace, but had different views on how to achieve said peace.

They have the same goals, obviously.  They both saw something wrong with how things were being done and they stepped up and did something about it.  Whether it was violent or non violent, they made people open their eyes to what was going on in the streets.

Personally, I think Martin Luther King's approach was more effective.  That's just me though.  I don't believe fighting/violence to get a product.  If you force someone to do something, they won't do it. If you treat people the way you want to be treated, they'd listen a lot better to what you have to say.

It was more mature, I'm not saying Malcolm's was immature, I just thought that MLK's approach was better.