Pleasures of Hating

In our last class we discussed William Hazlitt's On The Pleasure of Hating. We discussed how it seems as though Hazlitt hates the fact that anger and hatred have such an ingrained role in human nature, as well as himself. He ultimately acts as the ultimate pessimist in his essay and states that there is no hope for mankind because the only thing seem to be able to do is some form of hate. He talks about how if an Englishman fights alongside another Englishmen that they do not actually fight for the sake of Englishmen, but because they both hate the French.

However, is this common or mutual hatred all that bad? The old saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" could not be more true. Hatred is a very strong emotion. It is an emotion that makes friends out of enemies. There is a mutual understanding or friendship that forms sometimes from the mutual hating of something. An example that was brought up in class was how students at Furman who have never met before form friendships by sharing the same mutual hatred for the Dinning Hall or their hatred of FUPO for giving them Alcohol Violations, and these people become instant friends.

We are told day in and day out that hatred is bad and that we should love everyone, but should we? Hatred is human nature and it is an emotion that is engrained in us. Although hatred for certain things and the understanding of what it is is cultured through society. Society determines and shapes what hatred looks like and what its meaning is. However, we are all naturally engrained with the emotion of hatred, so why try and change something that is so primal? Hatred brings people closer together, although that sounds counterintuitive I truly think it does.

In my personal experience I have made some of my best friends after we both discovered that we hated a certain song or a certain smell. I regularly get coffee, dinner, lunch, breakfast etc. with my friends and we have venting sessions where we just talk about what we hate and we hate what we hate. The only difference that I think Hazlitt does not cover is that after I have these venting sessions I try to constructively change whatever it is I hate. I think this where Hazlitt could have benefitted from and it probably would have changed his view on hatred.

Illiberalism and Plato's Cave

Through an analysis of Plato's cave allegory I found there to be an interesting parallel between the shadows and illiberalism. In the cave allegory there are prisoners who are chained down and constrained to a wall. They have been in the cave their whole life--the cave, to them, is life and all that life encompasses. They know of nothing different because they were brought up in this cave and have never left. Of particular interest to me, there is a fire. In front of the fire there are puppeteers who hold objects up that, in turn, make a shadow of these objects on the wall. This wall of shadowed objects is all that the prisoners are able to physically see--this is what they understand to be true and real.

This aspect of the cave demonstrates the way in which illiberalism and its dangers are produced. In the cave, the shadows are ideas and objects that represent superficial truth and realism. The prisoners have never been able to leave the cave or see anything other than these objects; therefore, these objects are what they know to be real and certain. They have been brainwashed into thinking that this is all there is to know and to believe in, so I'm sure there is not a genuine desire to leave since they are unaware that there is more to life than this cave. In an illiberal society, the government has determined what will and will not be allowed as well as they will be sure to advertise only ideas or objects that they want their citizens to understand and accept. In a liberal society, government allows for diverse ideas and beliefs to be permeated through society--there is no intolerance of any belief or idea.

In the cave, the prisoner are unable to perceive or understand any other idea or object--they are only capable of understanding the shadows because this is all that they are offered. The parallel I would like to make is between the prisoners in Plato's cave and the individuals locked in an illiberal society. The individuals in an illiberal society are essentially prisoners who are unable to expand or experience a life that may be different than that which is the norm, or accepted lifestyle in a society. Because of this class I have been made more aware of liberalism and illiberalism as well as when to identify when a society is existing through one or the other. In understanding how illiberal governments limit their citizen's understanding and freedom to experience life to its fullest extent, I have developed a greater appreciation for our society in the U.S. In America, we are able to hold various different ideologies--our government believes in the freedom of expression and religion. With all this being said, I feel as though there is much work to be done to encourage nations--those who restrict their people from their ability to fully express themselves--to operate through more liberal ways, such as allowing for the freedom of expression and religion. In all, we must free the prisoners from this constrained and intolerant life or else these individuals will never be able to truly reach their full potential or delve into the expression of their most sincere beliefs.

"On the Pleasure of Hating" Response

"What chance is there of the success of real passion? What certainty of its continuance?" These questions asked at the very end of this piece have provoked me to consider my own passions and their respective chance of embrace.

Oftentimes we hear that we should "follow our dreams" no matter how unrealistic or realistic they may be. There is essentially nothing too outrageous in this world and there is nothing we should feel reluctant in committing our hearts to. Is this a rational perspective? In knowing that one of our dreams or aspirations are feasibly unattainable with our given circumstances--economic status, geographic location, gender, etc.--is it worth, is it realistically rational for us to continue this endeavor to attain the unattainable?

I find myself torn in this scenario. Surely, I do believe that individuals can sometimes overcome their seemingly restrictive circumstances; however, I also believe that passion should be matched with a sense of realism. In my mind, the more realistic a passion, the more willing and excited an individual is to live out this passion since they understand practical ways in which to achieve whatever it is they are striving for. For me, my unrealistic passion of singing is more frustrating than it is liberating. I know, for certain, that I'm a terrible singer. I have lucky and unexpected moments where I'm able to carry a tune; however, 95% of the time I am stuck in my monotonous tone. I've learned to accept this and embrace this because I know that, realistically, I will not wake up tomorrow morning with a new voice that embodies the perfection of all musical pitches. Do I still wish that I could sing like Adele? Sure, but I will no longer convince myself that there is any ounce of success waiting for me once I commit my life to this career.

In this realization, I urge all to truly consider their passions and the practicality of committing one's life to these passions. Are there clear and feasible ways in which to accomplish your goals, or are you waiting for a miracle? Waiting and skeptically wishing for a miracle to occur so that the path to accomplish your goal becomes more realistic is somewhat counterproductive. I believe it is certainly important to believe in ideas and possibilities outside of the reign of our current circumstances; however, I also hold it to be beneficial for individuals to truly consider their goals and really analyze whether or not it is a fantasy or a passion. There is a particular difference between fantasy and passion; fantasy are those ideas and aspirations that are merely a fixation on the end goal rather than any contemplation of the ways in which to achieve this goal, while a passion is something that, too, fixates on the end goal but also is accompanied with practical ways and methods to go about reaching this end.

In addition, liberalism is a lot like a fantasy sometimes. People definitely enjoy and agree with its main principles: equality, tolerance, sovereignty, etc. Nonetheless, many people are not willing to do the dirty work or to take procedural steps in order to instill liberalism in an entity or society. Moreover, liberalism is fantasized as a hopeful end; however, I would find it to be quite effective if we focued on using liberalism and its qualities to assure that it is the end result rather than just assuming it will be produced.

Freedom and the Second Amendment

         During the last class in our discussion of liberalism we touched on the idea of how it may relate to gun regulation. It is written into the bill of rights as the second amendment that we have the right to bear arms. This was added in efforts to expand our freedom and to ensure prevention of federal oppression.
Though this right of ours is widely debated politically it is not the existence of gun ownership that is usually questioned but rather it's extent. Although the second amendment was added for the purpose of protecting our freedom, it is also prone to infringe on it. The ease at which guns can be acquired is often held accountable for violence that might have been otherwise prevented.
Unlike most freedoms, which I believe should be given with no reservations, right to gun acquisition is a bit different. Because of gun ownership's possibility to affect safety of others, it is a right that arguably should be controlled. I believe this is a special case in which maintaining the maximum freedom for the entire county requires rules. Though regulation may limit the freedom for acquisition of arms, it protects our right to life and helps ensure safety.
In comparison to other similar nations, the US has a very large homicide rate. I believe that to maintain the greatest freedom for all citizens, it is necessary to narrow the types of guns allowed and enact more extensive background checks.

Is it wrong to censor stories?

The education that Plato prescribes for the guardians in The Republic is a very typical Homeric education. The boys are taught virtue and strength; they must mimic Homer’s heroes with their actions. Plato’s education of the boys extends from lessons in moderation (Book III, 402e) to methods of preparing food through roasting rather than boiling so that soldiers do not need to carry pots with them (Book III, 404c). Plato’s comprehensive education teaches boys how to be courageous soldiers, but his methods make me question the effectiveness and reliability of his education. The boys are taught their virtuous education in a way that censors stories containing lack of virtue because “they sow a strong proclivity for badness in our young” (Book III, 392a). Plato suggests removing stories that incite fear of death and contain comedy, lying, and excess of food, alcohol, or sex. This method of education simply implies that these things don’t exist, rather than teaching them to control their fears and worldly desires. I think that it is important to provide good examples of virtue in stories and behavior exhibited by instructors and societal figures, but mistakes and bad behavior can be effective teaching tools as examples of how not to act. For example, stories about consuming excess food and alcohol may represent immoral actions, but they can easily be used as teaching tools considering the adverse effects of gluttony on physical and mental health. It’s important that guardians maintain physical strength and sharp wit, so showing the effects of this abuse could be very beneficial for their education. Children can learn from the good and the bad; even Augustus advocated the value of Pagan texts as teaching tools in his Christian education.

Unfortunately, the fear of children learning through bad stories continues to cause censorship that is seen throughout schools and libraries as banning books. Of course, I do not think that some books should not be available to children. Think Fifty Shades of Grey, which comes in at number 2 in the American Library Association’s “Top ten frequently challenged books of 2015” list. However, some of the books that are banned seem to take the fear of imitation a little too far for me. One of the most commonly known banned books is the Harry Potter series, which many fear advocates for Satanism. This reasoning was also used to ban Bridge to Terabithia. I loved both of these books as a child, and for somebody to think that they would lead children to worship Satan is ludicrous.  I feel sorry for the children that aren’t allowed to experience these stories. In addition, many of the classics have been removed from schools and libraries do not feel like they are appropriate for younger readers. While I do not think that some may be appropriate for elementary or early middle schoolers, books like Brave New World, 1984, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, and The Great Gatsby are not books that are going to taint the minds of adolescents today. To ban these titles that contain some graphic and/or immoral behavior essentially implies that adolescents today will not be able to go out and function among the immoral behavior that they will encounter in their daily lives.

It’s pretty interesting to take a look at these lists of banned books published by the ALA:

By year (2001-2015): http://www.ala.org/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks/top10

Commonly challenged classics: http://www.ala.org/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks/classics

Appearing to be virtuous in The Prince vs. Appearing to be virtuous in today's society

Last class we discussed both Machiavelli and Plato and how liberalism appears in their respective texts. My interest in this discussion was more focused on Machiavelli's The Prince and how this text represents any sort of liberal values. Personally, I've studied this text in the past and have analyzed his methods for retaining power in a society. Machiavelli, to me, is ruthless and persistent about the maintenance of power. He believes that if a price can preserve their power throughout his reign, this ultimately reveals how effective he is as a prince, no matter what measures or strategies used along the way. This means that a prince can appear to be virtuous, but internally find no value for virtue; essentially, he uses the appearance of virtuosity to garner the trust of his constituents so that they don't rebel against him.

As Machiavelli emphasizes this point--to appear to be virtuous, but to no fixate on genuinely acting virtuously--I find myself unconvinced that he could possibly behold any liberal values. To me, liberalism exists where a government or organization empowers and encourages their constituents through the means of liberal values--tolerance, equality, sovereignty, etc. However, I find it to be superficial when organizations or government emphasize these values for the sole reason of solidifying their entity; by this I mean that they only represent these values because people generally find these values to be important as well as people do not want to become affiliated with an organization that represents inequality, intolerance, etc.

The flaw I find in this method is that these organizations do not sincerely believe in liberalism; they, in actuality, have just found the benefit of employing liberal values. It is difficult for me to look around in today's society and point out an organization or business that genuinely exists on liberal principles, rather than existing through these principles. Machiavelli's The Prince reveals a somewhat troubling understanding about liberalism. This text and our respective discussion on it showed me that liberalism is more of a means to an end; true liberalism cannot exist because of ulterior motives and desires. These ulterior motives and desires are, moreover, the only reason for acting upon liberal values; an organization would not find use in these values by themselves--they are incentives. In Machiavelli's text it is revealed that virtue is only employed in order to preserve power, it is not employed for its own good and inherit value. As a result, I find myself in consternation of whether or not true and pure liberalism can exist without any illiberal motives; in addition, I find myself questioning whether or not it would even be beneficial to society if a pure form of liberalism existed.

I believe in liberalism and all that it embodies. I find myself most attracted to those organizations who take a stand when inequalities are reveal, even if their organization encounters strife or hardship as a result. It is this sacrificial liberalism that people are most drawn to and admirable of. When a CEO decides to cover up inequalities in the work place this portrays that this CEO does not actually believe in the liberal value of equality. In this, I also find myself in disagreement with Machiavelli. Machiavelli is so convinced that the appearance of virtuosity is good enough in order to maintain power and one's principality. However, what if the CEO--as a result of attempting to cover of the inequality--is now facing a lawsuit from the victim involved. In this situation, it is clear that the integrity and stability of the organization is now in question and could most definitely face some backlash as a result of this. Therefore, this reveals that "appearing to be virtuous" is not enough and is not truly effective in the maintenance of power.

Views of Low-Paid Jobs and their Effects

In the previous class we discussed how the jobs that are typically viewed as successful are the one's that are highly paid. One of the particularly interesting points that was brought up in the discussion was that the jobs viewed as not so great are also one's that have historically been considered marginal. In the past they were done by women, and immigrants. As the need for manufacturing jobs decreased these jobs rose in number, which has lead some to the believe that America simply just doesn't have good jobs anymore. But in reality jobs haven't gotten worse in quality, it's just that we have named these jobs as jobs unworthy of good pay and therefor respect.
Perhaps if we viewed these jobs as having more worth they would be paid more, and also possibly be held to a higher standard of performance. In the end it's almost hard to decipher which came first; whether we view low paying jobs as bad jobs because they are low-paying, or whether jobs have low wages because we view them as undeserving of high wages.
Recently a raise in the minimum wage has been a highly debated political topic. In a sociology class I took last semester one of our larger assignments was to design a budget on minimum wage. We found actual housing listings, accounted for SNAP and TANF, and budgeted everything down to our groceries, transportation, and utility bills. In the end I actually had to conclude that I couldn't do it. I managed to pay for everything except for food which even with assistance I couldn't afford sufficient amounts of.
It's possible that a raise in salary of these jobs could not only solve the view that America is lacking in good job opportunity, but also much improve the lives of those working within a system of employment deemed undesirable.