Life needs direction and purpose, or at the very least, a code of morals or ideals to lead a satisfactory life. Faced with the human experiences of death, sickness and poverty some higher meaning needs to be in place in order to lead a fulfilling life. The defining experiences of being human are the search for external gratification, such as niceties and necessities, as well as the search for internal gratification. The human condition is characterized by the deep internal questions that deal with life. These quests are often at odds with each other. In today’s society, we are often told what to think, not how to think. Excessive consumerism leads to the excessive desire and the loss of soul, for you will never be truly satisfied while always wanting more.
It is helpful to think of an educational environment or even a debate stage as a “playground” of ideas, where competing ideologies can play out with one another. This doesn't happen often. Every idea, no matter how seemingly crazy, should be mentally toyed with at least once. Of course, when discussing deep matters, it is important to separate the higher, logical parts of the brain from mere emotional responses. Decisions, arguments, lives, and morals based simply of reactionary emotions are pointless and rambling. Writing obviously has to reflect this. Civility is a must when discussing ideology. When conversations draw to controversial topics individuals and society fall into the chaos of banal ad hominem, particularly when shielded by a computer screen.
On the subject of plagiarism, it is obviously wrong; it is stealing, used only by the lazy. Of course, when does “borrowing” become plagiarism? As a composer of choral music, it is difficult to police plagiarism in the music world. Artistic plagiarism offers up the most discussion. You can't copyright a chord progression, a voicing, a scale. If you write a melody, is it yours? What if someone happens across the same melody in their practice? If Beethoven was alive today, would it be right to use the famous theme of his fifth symphony in my own music? On one hand, no. He wrote it, that would be theft. But on the other hand, it's just a mere outline of a descending minor scale. You can't own a scale or rhythm.
Political correctness is a blight on learning and any valuable discourse. In its common modern applications in so-called “woke” culture and schools, it has created a ranking of people based on their identities and not their ideas- thus placing value on the ideas based on the identities of the speaker. Although some say it may protect people's sensitivities and that's a good thing a culture of safe spaces and trigger warnings and not conducive to a good educational environment or larger society. The sensitivity should be confronted, particularly in education. Whatever its original intent of it was it has become a tool to enforce an orthodoxy of opinion upon the masses.
Words have power. Clarification is important. The meaning of words is interesting- some words, like “bitch”, are offensive and rude in some contexts and perfectly applicable in others. How does a word become a slur? “Slut” didn't originate as a slur, and neither did “faggot”. It is less the words themselves, and more the subjective meaning we as a society attached to them. For example, “diarrhea” is, when you think about it, a nice, pleasing word. But the meaning, of course, is not.
In my various other classes respect for the classroom and education is always at the forefront of my mind. Civil dialogue and writing quality are always goals to keep striving to master. Furthermore, while being respectful of various people and experiences, I do not bite my tongue in an ideological discussion simply because someone is offended, This has gotten me in trouble several times during political discussions at school. But the diversity of ideas is vital to any educational setting.
Good classroom conduct doesn't -or shouldn’t- require a set of steps for implementation. It is a simple matter of academic integrity, personal integrity, and respect.
I do not think any explanation of the steps is necessary for classroom conduct. It needs to be a habit.
People need to learn how to think, not be taught what to think. We should organize our public education system around this idea- not forcing pre-determined analyses of books or historical events upon students, but rather opening their minds to a vast array of ideas, where the focus of the classroom is how to examine ideas and create them and challenge them. Secondly, our society as a whole needs to move away from being overly focused on political correctness to its own detriment. People shouldn’t be canceled for something offensive or a difference of opinion; all ideas should be entertained, and if they are found bad, let them be disproven through civil debate.
First, our national curriculums will need to be re-written to not be textbook-based. Subjects should be read, (if history, focusing on primary sources). Teachers should all learn how to effectively lead a discussion, not just lecture. Class times should be extended. All education spaces should issue official statements condemning political correctness and promoting free thought and civil debate.
We must restructure our education standards. Students will focus on learning to read at an advanced level early on. Teachers will all be trained to facilitate discussions, and classes will focus on the reading and discussion of texts, where every student can form their own opinions.
Audio
The first major points of this lecture on Plato’s Republic are Justice and morality- is it moral to do harm even it may be just or fair? Plato’s second point is of the duty of the state. The duty of the state is not to solely be an instrument of law and punishment but a nurturing entity dedicated to the improvement of society. The third point is the idea of “special excellence”, the internal qualities of “excellence” that define the goodness and unique individuality of each person. Plato’s fourth point is about the nature of power. The government must exercise complete power of the state, for the sake of the wellness of the state and not the personal gain of the one in power. Furthermore, the ruler must have a basis for power- a science of politics. The final major point in the lecture is Plato’s three steps to bring about this internal societal change- allowing women to be rulers, abolition of the family unit and molding of the society into one large communal family, and the establishment of an aristocracy of philosopher-kings.
Justice, fairness, and right conduct or morality are not the same. Being just means being fair, but this is a problem when concerning enemies. Because the idea of everyone getting their due is subjective, you get a mess. I agree that justice should be re-defined in society as right conduct, to do good unto everyone, or to “do no harm”. In Plato’s view, the government should take the role of a nurturing teacher unto society, in order to create the best society possible. The problem is the idea of the state having that expansive duty in the first place. If good comes from within, shouldn’t each individual be responsible for the good of himself, and the job of government be to make sure harm does not come to others? Plato’s model would work if his rulers were perfect paragons of morality. I do not think that the state should assume responsibilities for any individual’s personal growth (although you could argue that they do, in child services), lest the state mold the individual to the state’s idea of excellence, and not the individual’s idea of personal excellence. However, taking a more realistic approach, a popular libertarian government is a much better option. On the nature of power and political science, intelligence qualifications for public office would ultimately be beneficial. Requiring the study of political science to hold public office would keep inexperienced people who have nothing but opinions out of politics. Zealots and ideologues are dangerous.
I can live life with the idea of “right conduct” vs fairness and justice in mind. When I am treated wrongly, the first thought should not be of revenge but how to rightly treat the person. Exercising the right conduct is to follow the simple principle of doing no harm. In addition, I can look and try to identify the inherent goodness and qualities that define me as an individual, and live according to maximizing these traits. I can look for these qualities in others and help them to realize their fullest potential.
As noted in the lecture, it is easy to practice good conduct to your friend, but not to your enemies. First, I can stop and empathize with someone. When a confrontation happens, I can diffuse the situation and never harm others. To maximize the “special excellence”, I will make a list of the unique qualities and interests that define me as a person, and work towards refining these traits in myself.
Empathy with others, especially those you don't get along with, comes first. This goes along with diffusing tense situations. Just treatment of all, right treatment of all can be personally accomplished through empathy and putting that into action to base your treatment of others off of. Steps relating to “special excellence” are first making a list of my own special qualities. Taking steps to maximize these will be primarily how I focus my time and what projects I focus on throughout life.
Our justice system can be reformed to focus not on punishment but on bringing out the “special excellence” within criminals to better integrate them as productive members of society. Secondly, All rulers, and leaders of any sort, have a responsibility to examine their duties. Not the written duties of their office and position, but there a moral philosophical duty to society or the group which they lead. Secondly, leaders must do their duty to use force only when absolutely necessary, focus on individuals, and making each individual the best they can be.
In punishment for crimes, instead of focusing on the severity of the punishment itself, our society should focus on what went wrong in the person’s life. Prison should be less restrictive, less brutal, and have more programs focused on rehabilitation.
The governing bodies and legislatures of society need to pass bills to reform the criminal justice system. More money should be spent focusing on education and the betterment of the prison populace, rather than their punishment of them.
Video
The first point that Alain De Botton makes is that we have enough good ideas in the world. The problems we as humans face cannot be attributed to a lack of good ideas. Instead, he argues, the problem lies in that these ideas are not being communicated to the masses, the ideas don't have power. Alain’s second point is a simple truth that is difficult; life is suffering. He goes on to explain how religion was the only institution that directly dealt with these difficulties of living, but in the modern era, religion needs a replacement. Alain recommends culture as a replacement for religion. The next point in his talk is how the idea of art as pure aesthetic is a dead idea. Art is propaganda for ideas. To solve the problem of good ideas without any power, Alain suggests an integration of mass media, education, psychotherapy, and philosophy.
I agree with De Botton’s argument that the media is the main source of “ideas”, and that the major problem is good ideas aren’t reaching the masses that need to hear them for them to be implemented. But what would constitute a good idea? There have been a wealth of bad ideas that were many thought were great ideas- eugenics, for one extreme example. Furthermore, great ideas in some circumstances may fail horribly in a different set of circumstances. When bringing the “great ideas” of these lone geniuses to permeate mass media, how can you, and who will weed out ideas and select the good from the bad? I would take an extreme position and say that no filtration or prior review of ideas is necessary- the public can form their own opinions. De Botton mentions that life is difficult and full of suffering and that religion is the only institution to have addressed that. “Life is suffering” is one of the four noble truths of Buddhism and the foundation for that religion. However, I would argue, as many Buddhist scholars would, that Buddhism is not a religion. There is no god, no worship, no conventional tropes of “religion” as we think of it in the west. Buddhism instead is a philosophy- just a set of rules and practices to live a good life. Other Asian “religions” such as Daoism and Confucianism are not religions at all, but really philosophies. De Botton’s ideas for changing the world only need to be adopted in modern westernized culture. Traditional Asian culture already lives by these principles. Culture and “religion” (or rather philosophy) are already intertwined. For much of human history, religion has been culture. What if we adopted this model? What if we thought of philosophy as a practice to follow, instead of some ideas to ponder? With masses of devotees practicing philosophy, we could have the integration of art, media, culture, and ideas without faith to a god.
I, just like any other human, seek meaning in life. But I am an atheist. Instead of god, I can turn to ideologies and philosophy for meaning. There is a wealth of ideas about living a good life. Why not practice that? Furthermore, I am currently in art school studying the visual arts. A lot of my work is portraits and illustrations. I can think of my work as propaganda of ideas and question what it is conveying other than aesthetic beauty. Thinking of my own craft in this way gives me an outlet for the communication of ideas.
With every piece of art that I make, first I should ask myself what the message is. What does it communicate to the audience? How can I be clear with my message? For meaning in philosophy, the first step is to read and listen and otherwise seek out as many ideas and as much knowledge as possible. Then, study this and apply it; let is infuse it into life and the culture I surround myself with.
The questions listed above should be standard for my artistic practice, as well as every other artist. The second important step is the audience. Artists should stop focusing on exhibitions in museums, performances in elite concert halls, and societal elite and instead to the masses- and anyone who needs to hear or see these ideas.
First of all, our focus on consumerism and ‘things’ needs to end. We need meaning, as De Botton says. In society, philosophy should advertise itself as a religion without faith or god. Living these ideas if it is presented in the style of faith will permeate all of culture. Secondly, just as is proposed in the lecture, integrating philosophy and mass media is a great idea. Easily accessible ideas that provide meaning will lead to a more constructive and fulfilled society.
The economic change from the desire for things and consumer items to human needs must come from the private sector. Companies should be created to advertise ideas and education. There is an argument against the commodification of ideas and human needs, but in order to make these easily accessible, capitalist economics is the best way.
The best way to implement private-sector change is through public reform. Unfortunately, this isn't very applicable in this instance. Instead, we need to encourage those lone geniuses to come out and be entrepreneurs for and of their own ideas. We already have put a price on learning- college, books, video tutorials, etc. TV stations and shows can feature less news of disasters and more ideas about life. All that is needed is more influx of this everywhere.