Severus Snape

So, while reading Plato's Republic, on page 45, I read Glaucon's account of the perfectly "just" man - and got that eureka! moment. This description came when Glaucon was saying that one needed to have a perfectly just man and a perfectly unjust man, and judge them against each other to determine which was indeed happier. And his description of the perfectly just man was strikingly similar to many movies and TV shows that I have seen. "Our just man must have the worst of reputations for wrongdoing even though he has done no wrong". My first two thoughts were Severus Snape from Harry Potter and House, played by Hugh Laurie in the TV series, House.
Both of these characters are ones whom you only learn about their amazing sense of ethics in very short bursts or at the very end of their life. Their entire "justness" is concealed in their "UNjustness" - and Glaucon argues that the truly just man is always SEEN to be unjust, while the truly unjust man is seen to be just.
The fact that this idea is still prevalent in modern society is a testament to its accuracy. I personally always thought that Snape was just the most self-serving coward who lacked any ethics at all. He is then, at the end of the books, shown to be the one who, in fact, has some of the highest ethical standards.
House plays this mean doctor who seems to be all in it for himself. He shows no empathy for anyone else and actually delights in their misery. However, every now and then there are slight glimmers of him in which you realize, wow, he is actually super-empathetic and CARES so much - but he has to hide it under this shell of aloofness and cruelty.
I just wonder if there is any credence to this theory. Are the people who actually seem to not care at all some remarkable human beings, while some other angelesque people are, in fact, quite malicious? It seems to be the case with most politicians at least. Or is there a more murky, not as clear-cut definition of the "just" and "unjust" person?

Last quote! (V for Vendetta as well)

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
-V

this is a variation of :
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

V for Vendetta quote (November 5th!)

It seems strange that my life should end in such a terrible place, but for three years I had roses and apologized to no one. I shall die here. Every inch of me shall perish. Every inch, but one. An inch. It is small and it is fragile and it is the only thing in the world worth having. We must never lose it or give it away. We must NEVER let them take it from us. I hope that whoever you are, you escape this place. I hope that the worlds turns, and that things get better. But what I hope most of all is that you understand what I mean when I tell you that, even though I do not know you, and even though I may never meet you, laugh with you, cry with you, or kiss you, I love you. With all my heart, I love you.
-Valerie.

Sartre quote

You and me are real people, operating in a real world. We are not figments of each other’s imagination. I am the architect of my own self, my own character and destiny. It is no use whining about what I might have been, I am the things I have done and nothing more. We are all free, completely free. We can each do any damn thing we want. Which is more than most of us dare to imagine.
-Jean Paul Sartre

Hegel was on to something

So, I've been thinking about Hegel's idea of mutual recognition (thank you Anne and Nomka! - the two Sartre quotes), and I'm pretty sure that Hegel has a good idea. His whole concept of only being able to attain this level of self-consciousness through mutual recognition was a little confusing at first, and, in fact, I considered it downright incorrect. However, thinking on it more, I have discovered more validity in this statement. Sure, you can be yourself, define yourself by your own morals, and not by what others may think of you, but there is also a part, a significant part of you which is STRONGLY influenced by others. We have no control over this influence for at least the first 13-15 years of our life, because we are not consciousness of it. But I think the point that Hegel is trying to make, or at least what I'm getting out of it, is that by realizing that this other influence exists, and   that it is exerting influence on you, you are able to understand yourself more fully. This recognition of the other being's recognition of YOU is what allows us to understand ourselves to the greatest extent.

Truths

1. Everything is subjective


2. Nothing is absolute


3. Life is inherently meaningless - which therefore provokes its meaning. This is a representation of Hegel's mutual self-recognition. By acknowledging that life is meaningless, you are acknowledging the existence, and power struggle of this object of life itself. By acknowledging this, and having it acknowledge you (in the process of recognition) you are given self-consciousness - a rise to purpose. 


4. The point of life is to be happy