Pick two songs

Well, I picked three, and they are:

• Still Around - 3OH!3
• Your Hands Are Cold - Jean-Yves Thibaudet
• I'm With You - Avril Lavigne

1. Hows does each song reflect a different point in your life?

• Avril Lavigne’s I’m With You is from Let Go, the very first CD I remember getting, in third grade.
• All the other songs are from some point in High School, especially after I took IB Music and could appreciate the beauty in music even more so than before.

2. How did it/does it speak to you, and why?

• I know every single word to every single track on Let Go, and each one speaks to me like a familiar friend. It’s a very comforting song, but it also has underlying tendrils of sadness. One of my best friends, Mark, moved away in 4th grade, and I distinctly remember listening to this song on the radio with him, riding in the car, and the word “damn” was used. Mark’s foster mom said that she just meant a dam, like the kind which beavers used, but Mark and I knew better, and we smiled furtively at each other, feeling so smart with our insider knowledge on expletives. I still remember exactly which intersection we were at in the car when we shared that look.

• All the rest of them (from High School) had the same type of effect on me. At some point, when I was listening to them for the first time, I was stunned by their sheer brilliance and beauty. They had a point in them where I just closed my eyes and listened, for there was nothing, I felt, in that moment that had ever been as elegant, moving, astounding, or simply beautiful as the music which was being played. They are the few songs which I have actually been shocked into silence and wonder at their playing.

3. What does it reveal about your personal aesthetics?

• I really like things that sound really pretty/awe-inspiring to me. I’ve noticed that I’ve never paid as much attention to the words in a song as the musical notes and rhythms themselves. Which is strange, because I give so much credence to the written word. I guess I just love how music stirs your soul, and creates something that words can simply not convey.

There are also three others which I really like, but didn't play for class. They are:

• The Piano - Michael Nyman
• La Valse d'Amélie (Piano Version) - Yann Tiersen
• Life In Technicolor II - Coldplay

Closing Statement for Perfect Societies Debate

Tyranny is just one puffed-up guy who lusts for power, destroying everything in his path without regard for anyone or anything else. It is the ultimate embodiment of a selfish megalomaniac.

Democracy is just a bunch of old guys who also lust for power, doing everything they can to secure their power, and enacting policies in favor of that, not in favor of what the people actually want. It’s just a thinly disguised high school popularity contest.

The Republic is simply Plato’s ideal society. It’s one guy, at one time, who thought this one crazy idea could work. Who in their right mind would buy into the idea that you have a “function” to fulfil, much less the idea that these “gold-hearted” Guardians know exactly what your function is? The Republic is Plato’s well-intentioned society, but with major realistic drawbacks which contribute to its illegitimacy, and utter impracticality.

Oligarchy is a collection of people who believe that their money entitles them to be completely superior beings. They base everything they do off of wealth and material gain, not caring at all about the people, and lusting completely for just two more coppers to rub together.

Timarchy, on the other hand, is an historically effective and advanced form of government.
Yes, we have slaves.
Yes, Plato argues that we have intellectual limitations, that we exploit the lower class, and that we have private greed.
And yes, we don’t have the close-knit “traditional” family.

But if any society will dare to say that they don’t have any problems, then they are flat-out lying. The issues and problems that we have are real, and they are troublesome. But like the timarchic character that we are, we will confront them head-on, and attempt to fix them.

Because we have a lot of great aspects. We are ambitious, athletic, energetic, and loyal, with a system that has gender equality, fosters courage, promotes discipline, encourages stability, keeps structure as well as order, and is militarily excellent in all capacities. Our military strength is awe-inspiring. Look at the the Zulus, look at the samurais, look at Israel’s military staying-power, look at Sparta.

Timarchy is a society which produces sound individuals and a stable state.

To conclude, I’d like to leave you with a quote from Aristotle,
“We make war that we may live in peace.”

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.