Chapter 2 of my book. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Saved posts from the old blog area.
By Zyx
#13141990
Socrates finishes his discussion on morality with Glaucon when Cibreca begins to step forward.


Cibreca: A moment, Socrates?
Socrates: Yes, what do you want Cibreca?
Cibreca: You’ve mentioned much on morality, so I was hoping to discuss this more clear matter of “Military Capital.” Though, you seem out of breath, should we speak another time?
Socrate: Yes, I am exhausted, maybe your daughter, Serenity, will have to suffice.
Cibreca: Serenity, will you take Socrates place and discuss this matter with me?
Serenity: Yes, father.
Cibreca: Were you listening attentively?
Serenity: Yes.
Cibreca: Would you be pleased with a reminder of the important components of the past discussion?
Serenity: Yes.
Cibreca: Well, remember the matter with the divisions of the brain and the divisions of society? The former being reason, passion and desire; the latter being classes: guardians, leaders of the society; auxiliaries, agents defending the society; and workers, those influenced towards luxuries beyond their trade.
Serenity: Yes, I understand it well and agree with it. The mind is divided into three parts, and societies are divided into three classes, the ones above mentioned.
Cibreca: Didn’t we agree that the first in both categories, reason and guardian, were to be above the last four?
Serenity: Yes, and that, that were a moral arrangement.
Cibreca: This is indeed correct, but there is more to it, didn’t we establish that a system wherein the last, namely desire or workers, were in charge, such an arrangement would be immoral?
Serenity: Yes, but I’m unclear how workers being in charge would be immoral, are you suggesting that in their charge, luxuries would be the aim of society, such that a designed ethical framework would be lacking.
Cibreca: Yes, that is nearly the case, albeit lacking 'military capital.' Will you entertain the idea?
Serenity: Of course I will, please continue.
Cibreca: Well, you agree that this paradigm of mind and society working in three categories is correct, so I do not need to prove both cases, just one, right?
Serenity: Of course, Socrates established the two equivalent, so proving one does prove the other.
Cibreca: Yes, so let’s work on society, if that is alright with you.
Serenity: I’ve no problem, please continue.
Cibreca: Well, wouldn’t you agree that of the three categories, the auxiliaries, defenders after all, were most militarisitic?
Serenity: I do not know what you mean.
Cibreca: For instance, the auxiliaries, because they comprise those 'defending' society, they are most equipped for antagonistic tasks, correct?
Serenity: Well, yes, for although Guardians are trained to be fighters, the auxiliaries would be those most populating the trenches of warfare. Therefore, one could even consider the auxiliaries the agents of warfare, the military.
Cibreca: And, with regard to warfare, aren’t there, for the most part, two sorts of tactics: attacking and defending?
Serenity: Put simply, yes, though Socrates mostly covered the latter.
Cibreca: Indeed, but, wouldn’t you say that 'defending' is really just a 'counter attack' so truly auxiliaries only attack, thus Socrates’ focus on 'defense' was diversionary.
Serenity: I suppose so, defending is an 'attack' in many ways, and even the simplest defense, a moat for instance, 'attacks' in a sense.
Cibreca: So, given the three parts, aren’t there two ways in which an auxiliary can operate: beneath guardians or beneath workers?
Serenity: Yes, this is so.
Cibreca: So, we understand that an auxiliary under guardians is moral and an auxiliary under workers is immoral, right?
Serenity: Yes, you are repeating yourself.
Cibreca: Well, my dear, wouldn’t this mean that attacking under a guardian were moral, but attacking under a worker were immoral?
Serenity: Yes, if all of the prior statements are true.
Cibreca: So then, here is where “Military Capital” comes into play.
Serenity: How so?
Cibreca: Well, wouldn't you agree that society is not truly divided into classes, at least not in the way Socrates divided them.
Serenity: I suppose so, neither you nor I have heard of Guardians or Auxiliaries before Socrates mentioned them.
Cibreca: But wouldn't you agree that societies have militaries and defenders and perform antagonistic actions?
Serenity: Naturally, otherwise Socrates' statements would have no base.
Cibreca: Therefore, shouldn't we assign them a name, say, "military capital," assuming that the word settles perfectly in place of the auxiliary?
Serenity: There isn't a better word, and it does seem reasonably well suited.
Cibreca: Well, we define the actions of this auxiliary to be "Military Capital" and, knowing the Guardians to be without property, just moral guidance, we'd consider all other capital, "Non-Military Capital," to be in the domain of the workers. Is that fair?
Serenity: Very. As I understand "Capital" and this framework, I'd suppose such a distinction were well-minded.
Cibreca: So, it follows that the actions of the auxiliary, In Socrates' class system, are “Military Capital,” and “Non-Military Capital,” being the desire of the workers, again in his class system, the luxuries if you will, are what decides whether or not the actions of military capital were immoral.
Serenity: Yes, this is so. The workers want non-military capital, as the Guardians have no need for such. Therefore, the non-military capital is in the domain of the workers.
Cibreca: And wouldn't it be right to state that some 'workers' wanting non-military capital would use military capital to get the latter?
Serenity: That'd be reasonable to say, and a reasonable definition for immoral behavior, for it'd be a clear exercise of workers controlling the auxiliary, something definitively immoral.
Cibreca: So then, isn't it the moral behavior, of the Guardians, for instance, to use military capital against "workers," at least those who'd use military capital for non-military capital?
Serenity: Quite so. The Guardians actions would not only be an assertion of Guardian control above workers, something moral, but it'd be a seizing of something immoral, worker control over auxiliaries.
Cibreca: Then therefore we've solved Ethics in the context of an actual society or individual, yes?
Serenity: Indeed, how'd you summarize it?
Cibreca: Maybe, "Morality is the use of military capital against immorality, the use of military capital in want of non-military capital."
Serenity: Yes, that is wonderful father, and Socrates smiles.
By Zyx
#13141996
Can you imagine that someone told me that I'd never become smarter than Socrates? ;)

Give me my polymath cap.
User avatar
By Dr House
#13142007
tl;dr
By Zyx
#13142011
Are you kidding? That's super short. I regretted having such a short 'chapter.'
User avatar
By Socrates Johnson
#13143283
That's great!!

You really nailed the Socratic method. I'm very pleased to read someone who appreciates Socrates like that.

It's funny.......When I meet young people I encourage them to major in Philosophy. I'm always saying "the world needs more Philosophers" and I mean it.

I once met the daughter of two Chinese/American medical Drs who had just changed her major to Philosophy. When I went into my rant her parents (friends of mine) looked at me like they wanted to kill me.

I wasted my youth getting a degree in Biology. I'm now trying to make up for it by studying Philosophy, History (which properly studied is Philosophy) and a bit of Theology.

It is a pleasure to meet you!
By Zyx
#13143491
Socrates Johnson wrote:It's funny.......When I meet young people I encourage them to major in Philosophy.


Much regret. :|

There were qualification exams for my major that I didn't want to take, as it required too much studying over the summer, so I dabbled in near three hundred pages of Philosophy (pre-Socratic, Plato and some Aristotle) and came up with this. The problem was that this was during the end of my University term and during the summer. Now that the summer is over, I return to an Astronomy Doctoral Program. I'm neither a learned Philosopher nor one who will formally study or publish in Philosophy. :hmm:

It's notable, though, to mention that I partially chose my major, Astronomy, in high school in a homage to the little snippet I read of Plato's Republic on how a Philosopher King, my aspiration then, had to study certain subjects and Astronomy was the one I had never learned. The notable part is that my copy of the Republic was abridged and didn't let me read the original text surrounding the special mention of Astronomy. :lol: That was a large reason for reading the Republic.

Socrates Johnson wrote:I wasted my youth getting a degree in Biology. I'm now trying to make up for it by studying Philosophy, History (which properly studied is Philosophy) and a bit of Theology.


I feel like this now, yet I can't drop out of my Graduate program. They never tell you that Philosophy is so amazing. :*(

Maybe only Socrates is?

Socrates Johnson wrote:It is a pleasure to meet you!


Likewise. You know, this summation of morality has some interesting implications. The book, which I intend to be available online, will go through what its implications are, but essentially it's a pretty wicked framework that solves a lot of the world and its problems. I intend to put on the first and third chapter at a later time--I'm working on the third, but I can say a few things that won't really be in either chapter.

Well, here's a bit of the first chapter:

Zyx wrote:
Nevertheless, the features of this prescription are more than enlightening. The resolution suggests a plethora of things: Morality is an action and a militaristic one, such things as 'capital' are at the heart of the ethics question, the recipients of morality need to be capable of morality and one can use this summary to tell the morality, immorality or amorality of a certain scenario. All of this should be discussed throughout this book.


Well, within the resolution is an explanation of the IQ debate, what 'rights' are and why all humans are equal.

The IQ debate is very simply that given that one can not be 'immoral' to something incapable of 'morality,' (i.e. something that can not control its desires rationally) if one claims something one is exploiting to be stupid, one can not be claimed immoral with regard that exploitation. Interestingly, this prescription worked with slave masters on slave women, claiming them unable to control their sexual desires, so raping them (sexually exploiting them) under the justification of their inabilities for "sexual morality."

On what rights are, it blows the entire paradigm out of the window. I read this to find out how to revise my thesis to make certain statements but ended up not changing it. Nevertheless, 'rights' seem unjustifiable but one can retroactively apply the justification of rights to something capable of morality--but this requires the greater scheme of understanding morality, which is what I summarized above.

As to why all humans are equal, and forgive me if this is unclear, as I'm writing late at night, I'm due to have the debate in this thread. Essentially, as all are bound to be moral to those capable of morality, and as all humans are capable of morality, that is we have the same range of desires and an ability to rationally control one's passions over these desires, we are all bound to fight against immoral behavior and not be immoral ourselves. Therefore, when one argues the subjectivity of the value of life, I've an objective response that empowers my, or anyone's, opposition to the mistreatment of people just because they were prescribed to an 'others' group. Interesting, no?

It's a powerful tool. :D

I realized that there was one part worth editing:

Zyx wrote:Cibreca: Therefore, shouldn't we assign them a name, say, "military capital," assuming that the word settles perfectly in place of the auxiliary?
Serenity: There isn't a better word, and it does seem reasonably well suited.
Cibreca: Well, we define the actions of this auxiliary to be "Military Capital" and, knowing the Guardians to be without property, just moral guidance, we'd consider all other capital, "Non-Military Capital," to be in the domain of the workers. Is that fair?
Serenity: Very. As I understand "Capital" and this framework, I'd suppose such a distinction were well-minded.


I don't have an idea on how to actually logically introduce a new terminology (I, more or less, invented the word.) If you've a suggestion, feel free to suggest.

Nevertheless, I feel as if I solved world peace, the child's aspiration. 8)

--

By the way, sitting down and thinking of this 'success' over Socrates is very cheering. I am sort of waiting to see which Philosopher beat me to the idea, but at the same time, I'm mighty happy to have succeeded over Socrates. It's a life accomplishment (at a young age.)
User avatar
By Socrates Johnson
#13143708
Wow! Philosophy and Astronomy! Plato would have loved you!

I think that a background in science goes a long way in grounding one's Philosophical views......I don't need to tell you the some Philosophers are fruitcakes.

The relationship between stupidity and morality is something I've been struggling with for years. I've had liberals in internet discussion groups furious at me for saying that in many cases stupidity can't be separated from immorality. You can't be moral if you're stupid.......That's harsh (and doesn't always apply) I know but.....

I've spent many hours going over this problem in my mind. The "stupid immoral dichotomy is a major issue in my mental world. I'm very happy to know that it's a problem for others as well.

I read a lot. I spend a lot of time working stuff out in my mind too........I suppose I distrust the ideas of others to much to just swallow them whole.

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong???[…]

Sure, but they are too stupid to understand, Trum[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

This is the issue. It is not changing. https://y[…]

@annatar1914 do not despair. Again, el amor pu[…]