Both the murderer and the disordered man are unjust because they are one and the same. The murderer must be disordered because murder is a crime of passion. When passion rules over reason, the soul is disordered. The disordered man is a murderer in a less literal sense. The disordered man murders the state, even if he is a "benevolent" artist, because he detracts from the strength of the whole by disrupting the natural order. You, Abyss, are defending our current view of justice and legislature. I agree that our state punishes acts of injustice rather than disordered minds. I also agree that this is the only practical method of keeping the integrity of our government. My short essay was a device to illustrate the true Form of Justice. Not practical justice. Our state is only concerned with the image of Justice. The Ideal state is just that, an ideal. It is in the same way that the justice-in-man I have described is only an ideal, and therefore, virtually unobtainable. Nothing short of shedding our human form (our nature) would allow us to have perfect control over both emotion and desire.
posted
You asked us the meaning of Justice. Justice is not an intangible thing; it is not a metaphysical thing, attainable only through an orderly mind. Justice is very physical and very real. Justice is a process. Justice is what happens when all have been done right by, especially the government.
What you have described to us is not justice. It is the cause of justice. If you had asked us the cause of justice, your answer would be correct.
When a man has an orderly mind, his actions are orderly, and therefor, just. When a government has an ordely infrastructure, it acts justly. The cause of justice is order. The meaning of justice is right.
I have no reason to argue with you because you are correct. Though I don't agree that Justice is tangible, I'm willing to overlook this minute detail in order to forge a practical alliance. You and I are working towards a mutual goal, the betterment of the world. By exploiting our current political temperament, a utopian state is wholly possible, but only through a network of able minds.
posted
Utopian state? No. Not happenin', no way, no how, foolishness to attempt. If utopia was possible, we wouldn't need a state. To recycle a good quote:
"If me were angels, no government would be neccessary". -Madison, I think
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I often wonder about the things I say. My breif argument with JLcke, for example, ended with him asking to "form a network of minds" with me. Clearly, not a bad thing. In contrast, consider my long-winded argument with Plemet, which origionally led to an "agree to disagree" compromise, but now has again led to him posting accusatory threads at me.
What gives? Plemet seems to have begun his Hatrack stint by attacking this thread. What have I done to deserve this?
Not that I particularly mind. As long as his arguments don't hit home (i.e., talk about anything I actually care about), I'll meet him on the philosophical level and, hopefully, come out successful. But I would like to have more discussions like my discussion of Justice with Locke, as opposed to my futile discussion of the Hegemon with Plemet.
posted
Do these threads really "belong" to anyone? Just because Abyss started the thread doesn't make it exclusively his property. Just because you started the Our Locke thread, Plemet, doesn't make it exclusively your property. If anything, "your" thread is more concerned with Abyss than with you, since you seem obsessed over "proving" him wrong, and he's only defending his longstanding point of view.
Posts: 497 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's only because you'd be wrong if you did. Hey! You did! Maybe you should try to make us forget about it by changing the subject, rather than continuing to talk about what you supposedly didn't say.
Posts: 497 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did someone delete a post between my last one and Nick's last one? I certainly wasn't talking to Nick, there.
EDIT: Hey! There are a bunch of posts missing! All over the place! Most of them (my memory being fickle, remember) were made by Plemet! And the sounded bitter!
What are you hiding, Plemet?
Edit #2: And what happened to JLcke? I miss him already...
JLcke: "The murderer must be disordered because murder is a crime of passion. When passion rules over reason, the soul is disordered."
What if crimes of passion were really the from the soul. What if passion makes the soul? Passion and soul are one in the same? Them how could the soul be disordered when passionate? Justice is not tangible. What is a just man? How does order make a man just? Order does not cause justice, in order there in no need for justice. Justice causes order maybe. Um lets see Utopian state, no.
Abyss:"Maybe not a utopian state, but certainly one better than the one we have now."
What's wrong eith the one we got, what could make it better? Could a just man? Could you?
I'm not trying to portray Plemet here but I just wanted to come on in here and stur up some good, healthy discussion. Plemet uses harsh words because he has in some way or another run out of good arguements.
"He who establishes his argument by noise and command shows that his reason is weak." -Michel de Montaigne
--Up is still not down, green not blue.
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As it is the topic of this thread, I will first address your statements regarding the state.
"...What's wrong eith the one we got, what could make it better?..."
What's wrong? The state we live in is a state of constant war. War against drugs. War against crime. Wars against disease.
If there is not a state worthy of improvement, I challenge you to show me such a state.
"...Justice is not tangible. What is a just man? How does order make a man just?..."
A just man is a man whose actions are just. Tangible, because they are the actions in the real world. His actions on the physical plane determine his Justice, because there is no other measurement which can be practically applied. If a man's soul is corrupt, but his actions just, he is a just man. The act of murder is the crime: the passion is the motivation. The justice is the action, order is the motivation. Organization. In a man, this means order of the mind, and this may lead to Justice through the order of the body. In a state, it is the structure of the government, the distributions of power. An organzied government is more likely to be just than a barbarian state.
Justice is tangible. It is the actions of a man, or of a state.
posted
Let us not forget, though, that a man with a disordered mind is capable of commiting an unjust act as easily, or more easily, than a just one; whereas, a truely just man can never commit an unjust act without forfeiting his right to be called just. It is in this sense that, ultimately, only the organized mind can be consistantly just.
posted
Justice itself is not tangible, like love or happiness. The actions of these things might be tangible to some degree, but the actual feelings and purposes are intangible. You cannot touch the Justice in a mans actions. You can't actually touch the action itself, because usually actions themselves aren't tangible.
"What's wrong? The state we live in is a state of constant war. War against drugs. War against crime. Wars against disease."
These are all actions to create peace and prolong life. Maybe they aren't just actions, but actions that are SUPPOSED to help America and the world. These ideas are good. The way they are carried out is another thing. Being at "war" with these things is not a bad thing, only a use of propaganda to try to illustrate how we are fighting these things. to bad at WAR is severe and when the government says its at "war" with drugs its sturring emotions. We aren't actually battling hand and fist with drugs themselves.
Justice is not actions. Actions may cause justice, but thats not the same thing. Just actions do not make a man just. Just actions with just intetions. A corrupt man is not likely to have just intentions.
Organization, though positive, is not directly related to justice. Justice is brought about by wisdom, courage and self-discipline among other things. These along with justice make up four major qualities of the state that it must possess in order to be a good government. IF this is what you mean by order then I agree.
JLcke- does a just man have to have an orderly mind? Why would a disordered mind be more capable of unjust deeds. If a just man, in order to be just, must forsake all personal wants and goals, then is it really worth it to be just. And if not, can a man really be just while he still has personal wants?
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
"If a just man, in order to be just, must forsake all personal wants and goals, then is it really worth it to be just. And if not, can a man really be just while he still has personal wants? "
The just man does not forsake all personal wants, he is merely in control of them. His reason governs both his passion and desire. This does not mean that both cease to exist, but rather, they work with reason as opposed to against it. A man must have both hunger and emotion if he is to be man. What determines whether or not a man is just is his self-discipline. The just man, enraged at the murder of his child, subdues his anger and realizes that it is better to allow the State to administor justice. He does not find the murderer and, in a blind rage, slit his throat. His reason is in constant control of his desire to kill.
posted
...To what goal. We all have goals. If we didn't there would be no purpose for life. What goals does a just man have?
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can you say then a just man may have a goal to become, say, the Hegemon, without losing his justness? How can the just man have ambition if it would interfere with his being just? Would he have to choose a goal that is just? How would we categorize a goal as being just?
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is a goal unjust? It stems from desire and reason. More the latter. Unless ambition can be seen as an uncontrolable desire or a saturating emotion, then a goal may be just.
posted
You mentioned reason. Who is to say what reasonability is? And how can we expect on man to be lead by reason more so than desire? Goals, as you say, stem from desire and reason, but goals of one are for the advancement of one. Other consequences might affect other people in good natured ways, but when men have goals it is for self preservation not the justice of others. We are talking about men. Men are not controlled by reason, but by emotion, desire and ambition. This might be a cynical view, but this is the heart of the thing. How can we expect one man to be unwaveringly just?
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, guys! I'm new to Hatrack. This looks like a cool place. I really like OSC's writing. I agree with MrFantastic, I am unwaveringly just to myself.
Posts: 8 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's this "unwaveringly just to myself?" We are talking about Justice. The only people that aren't just to themselves are people that purposely hurt or kill themselves. Justice is a thing done in society. I thought that was implied.
And you've missed the point. How can a just man have goals for personal success? Would these goals not interfere with his "justness"?
posted
Hey guys, I'm back...Stop cringing, you don't have to read the post. Ready for a stupid question?? What exactly do we mean by "orderly mind," and "just"? The latter is a bit more obvious, but I'd like to "define terms" before entering into an argument that could be avoided if I knew what you were trying to say. Or refer me to a post that already defines them. Although I still don't understand how justice, if we're working with the same meaning will help us with problems like disease and drugs and murder. Sure, justice can deal with drug dealers and murderers etc. But, and excuse me if I came in at the wrong end of the thread and got messages mixed, I don't see how a just government will rid us of addiction, passion as you mentioned, and the evolution of microbes. Though perhaps with a flower waving world govt. there could be a more concerted effort into dealing with all these issues. But, they'll always be there. Yes, another rousing speech of the obvious. Posts: 164 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glass, I entered this discussion too late to have commented before when the topic of justice came about, but I might be of some help. I believe, I being the operative possesive, that the "well ordered mind" is a completely analytical being that uses reason over emotion, because it has no emotion. As JLcke has said in the upper part of this page "Nothing short of shedding our human form (our nature) would allow us to have perfect control over both emotion and desire." The "well ordered mind" then is the ideal being of Justice, the only sentient being able to deal out Justice in an unncorrupted view. Since there can never possibly be this well ordered mind, though it is nice to talk of such a thing, is irrelevant to "bettering society."
Justice, again I believe, is the uncorrupted view of balance in society. Let me explain. Justice is the belief in which everyone does what they're are supposed to do and does not interfere with others in a way that would prevent them from doing what they're supposed to do. This is justice at its simplist. I got this idea, or a form of it, from Plato. I use it because I think it makes sense and I believe it to a point. Since we cannot have this form of Justice, we use a view modified for our imperfect society. We say just means fairness. If a man is murdered and we kill his murderer, is that not just? The only flaw in our justice is that in dealing our justice we commit flaws and unknowingly add imperfections to our system of justice. But, since it works better than nothing, we continue to use it.
I hope I have answered you question Glass, though I threw in some of my current denouncements of the system.
I still hold that Justice is not tangilbe and that actions are only a way to make justice. The point was already made that if a man's mind is orderly , than how can we measure it? I also believe that murder is not always out of passion. The government ends the lives of many without emotion. Is that not still murder. Or, sorry, is that Justice.
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The good parts. I read through to part V and I have skimmed The Philosopher Ruler and the Imperfect Societies. Its a good read though really hard for me to interpret the first time through the conversations. Theres almost always either a deeper meaning or the simplest trtanslation implied. Edit: for grammar
Books VI through X are very important. It's in these pages that Plato explains that justice in man does not really on man having a sole function in life, but rather that his soul is balanced. And this does not mean that he sheds all emotion and desire. It means he is not overcome by either emotion or desire. Plato also holds desire as the most evil of these three and explains that, in some cases, passion must be called upon to aid in controlling want. They are by far the most interesting books. I'd suggest rereading the entire thing until you really understand the nuances. I'm still trying.
posted
It is interesting, isn't it, that we seem to regard something old as being, of a necesity, very wise.
It makes you wonder if, in millenia to come, Mein Kampf might be regarded as an important, philosophical text.
Posts: 49 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
You cannot possibly say that Plato's "The Republic" is revered only for its age. Plato presents a sound view of governmental systems and the digression of both state and man. He also suggests a very insiteful look at the nature of both justice-in-man and justice-in-state. Its age is merely a testament to its vitality. Its being old does not suggest it is a glorious revelation, merely that it is sound enough the withstand the "tests of time" (sorry about the cliche).
posted
Having not read more than excerpts from The Republic, I can't really judge it. I've never read Mein Kampf, either, and I expect that there is some truth in it, somewhere. The ideas were, quite literally, revolutionary. Who is to say that people years from now won't look at Mein Kampf as a "time-tested" book of philosophy?
posted
I have read Mein Kampf and in it Hitler does site some revolutionary material. The only reason it would not become influential in the future in any way comparable to The Republic is because Hitler's views were only concievable in that state of Germany. If, though I hope not, that kind of economic and political catastrophe were to happen again then maybe. But Mein Kampf does not have the same contemporary significance as The Republic. As you can see many of Plato's views on Justice and the like are still used as conteporary philosophy or at least a basis for it.
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well that seems to be the end of our discussion here unless someone would like to add.
BTW, anyone see what happen'd to Plemets "Our Locke" thread? I think its gone missing. Probly deleted.
And for all those who still want a good debate come to "What should be done?" and try to refocus that one.
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
