The City of God by Saint Augustine -- Foundations of Political Thought -- Blog Post #5

Textbook: The City of God by Saint Augustine (Translated by Marcus Dods, D.D.)
Blog Started 7:43p.m on Saturday April 21, 2012
Required Reading: Book X: 6; Book XI: 1-2, 22, 27; Book XII: 3, 8, 23; Book XIV: 1, 5-6, 9-26, 28; Book XV: 1, 4, 5
Chosen Portion: Book XII; Page 8

In this excerpt from Saint Augustine's City of God, Saint Augustine describes the faults of the human soul. He starts by mentioning that God is perfect and incorruptible, yet human nature is not insusceptible to the allure of wickedness. As such, Saint Augustine specifies that it is not the creations of God that are evil but the intentions of them. So for instance, greed is not a poor trait inherent of gold, but in the man that excessively loves gold, especially in cases where it becomes an obstruction of justice, which (according to Augustine) should be held in much higher regard. I agree with Augustine in part that it is the motive of a man that drives him to commit unjust acts.

However, I disagree with him in that "avarice" is not a trait of natural things. I still hold firm to the belief that money is the root of all evil as it is a form of power. It is versatile and as such, can inflict one's will upon others in a manner similar to peer pressure (or in some cases duress. i.e. holding someone for ransom). Money (or gold) can however be used as a tool for good in places where it is needed most like in hospitals and the like. Yet it seems as though it always draws some sort of need AND a desire. As it has been stated countless times by people of this era, with more gold or cash, one can accomplish more and as such, men tend to turn from God in times of abundance as his divine intervention may not be fully realized or praised. (Loss of respect for God etc.) The manner in which this money is obtained also affects one's "nature" as one can become prideful in the tactful way in which it was earned. Sometimes causing a man to act unknowingly arrogant or inconcieveably boastful.

To be blunt, I think if this nation eliminated some of its capitalistic tendencies, and perhaps went back to a bartering system, the world would be a more just society.

The City of God by Saint Augustine -- Foundations of Political Thought -- Blog Post #4

Textbook: The City of God by Saint Augustine (Translated by Marcus Dods, D.D.)
Blog Started 8:13p.m. April 19, 2012
Required Reading: Book IV, 3-4, 15; Book V:8-22, 26 (pp.223-24 only); Book VI: Preface

In this passage, Saint Augustine discusses matters regarding free will and the role that it plays in relation to fate. He vehemently opposes Cicero's belief that one (whether it be man or God) can not have knowledge of future events and that if there is fate or pre-destiny, then free will cannot exist as it has already been determined what shall come to pass. (The City of God by Saint Augustine pg. 137; Book V: pg 9). Augustine argues that if there is no such thing as freedom of will, then laws are made in vain as there is no suitable punishment for the wicked and no suitable reward for the just man. Augustine states that for the religious man, there is both free will AND pre-destiny. I agree with the concept, but it is difficult to see Augustine's reasoning behind his argument as it takes a sort of small leap of faith in order to acknowledge the omnipotence and omniscience of God. It is also difficult to defend because one does not know the future events beforehand and thus the feeling of not being in control of one's own destiny becomes foreboding (for those that feel as that there is no free will because if free will exists, then the foreknowledge of God is susceptible to change or worse, non-existent thereby nullifying the status of God).

The City of God by Saint Augustine -- Foundations of Political Thought -- Blog Post #3

Sunday, April 15, 2012 7:40p.m.
The City of God by Saint Augustine
Selected Readings: (Book II) Pages 1, 7, 17-21, 26, 28, & 29

In these passages, Saint Augustine attempts to persuade Romans to reject Christianity as the one true faith. He does this by using examples of the misfortunes that had plagued them (and Greece) before the birth of Christ to show that the worship of false Gods lead to faults in morality and political interaction. Interestingly enough, one could make distinct comparison's with Plato's cave theory and how Augustine states that "...even after the truth has been as fully demonstrated as man can prove it to man, they hold for the very truth their own unreasonable fancies, either on account of their great blindness, which prevents them from seeing what is plainly set before them, or on account of their opinionative obstinacy, which prevents them from acknowledging the force of what they do see." (City of God pg. 37; Book II pg. 1).

With relation to Plato's allegory of the cave, when returning to the cave with this new-found knowledge, a person would be met with fierce opposition and resentment (Plato's Republic, 517a) so, that same idea can be applied to the absolute truth (being that Christ is the one true God) as the light. In one example, Augustine claims that the "teachings of the philosophers were not the commandments of the gods" and that they were but the discoveries of mere men, who were, by nature, flawed (City of God pg.42-43; Book II: pg. 7). Some of them apparently made great discoveries with God's help but when left to themselves, they were betrayed by their own human weaknesses.

In a way, I suppose I agree in-part with Saint Augustine (in a sense). I can see how man has created an imperfect just society in that for example, when enacting punishment or retribution against those that are unjust or have committed a crime against another just person, the punishment can sometimes be cruel and unusual and that the punishment, by nature, is often an unjust act (there are exceptions to the rules). There has be much debate even now on whether justice comes from divine inspiration with much scrutiny on the religious aspects. If there is anything to take from Saint Augustine it is that it is not deeds that create virtue (as he uses the youth's desire to hear of Jupiter's tales of valor) but humility in all things.

Aristotle: The Nicomachean Ethics -- Foundations of Political Thought Blog Post #2

Foundations of Political Thought Blog Post #2
Text: Aristotle: The Nicomachean Ethics (pages 3-9,13-16, 18-25, 27-30) Book I: i-vii, vii-xi, xiii
Editor's note: I'm covering pages 3-9
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 11:27 p.m.

In Aristotle's first book, titled "The Object of Life", Aristotle attempts to educate his readers on the essence of life and attempts to shed some thoughtful insight as to man's purpose in the grand spectrum. He also talks about the role of political science and the purpose (goal, objective, or ends) of one's pursuits (Book I: i-ii). For the most part, I agree with a majority of what Aristotle states and I would argue that his reasoning is fairly sound. However, when he stated that "...a young man is not a fit person to attend lectures on political science, because he is not versed in the practical business of life from which politics draws its premises and subject matter." (Book I: iii). I wholeheartedly disagree, because a student is one whom is willing to learn (or at least SHOULD be) and as such should not be denied the right to partake in the bountiful knowledge that can be gained from attending such lectures simply because they have not lived as long as their would-be mentor. Aristotle's claim that because of a young male's tenacity "to follow his feelings" he will make no progress is far-fetched and too accusatory of the young or youthful at heart. Aristotle seems to view all young men as impudent and incapable of self-restraint. If one were to give them the time and patience necessary to learn, I'm sure that they would meet or exceed their potential for understanding.

Thucydides: On Justice, Power, and Human Nature -- Foundations of Political Thought - Blog Post #1

Thucydides: On Justice, Power, and Human Nature, 66-95 (Book III, sec.37-68, 81.2-85; Book IV, sec. 47.3-48)
Post Started: February 2, 2012 at 8:47p.m.

Selected Section: Book III, sec.37-68 (I focused just on the the Mytilenean Debate for the sake of a shorter argument. The Plataean Debate is also pertinent to the ideas presented here, albeit with an alternate result as the final outcome.)

This passage, a debate between Cleon and Diodotus (as told by Thucydides) concerned what penalty should be given to the Mytileneans for their betrayal of the alliance they had once formed with Athens. The Mytileneans had been a former ally of Athens until in the summer of 428 when they rebelled alongside those residing on the island of Lesbos. On the one hand of the debate, Cleon advocated that those Mytileneans of military age should all be put to death as retribution for their insolence and those remaining Mytileneans not of military age should be enslaved while Diodotus on the other hand, vehemently rejected and opposed this cruel suggestion of capital punishment.

I was more in favor of Diodotus as he stated that "We should not...[rely] on capital punishment to protect us, or set such hopeless conditions that our rebels have no opportunity to repent and atone for their crime as quickly as possible." It seemed a rather harsh proposal to have the women and children atone for the sins (or unjust actions) of a select few (those that lead their followers to rebellion) and have them bare the burden for years to come, possibly making them MORE resentful than their fathers had been of Athenian Empirical rule especially considering that the casualties of war alone are a sufficient enough punishment (at least in my own opinion). By Cleon's judgement, it would only serve to "rub salt on an open wound". Diodotus instead thought that the assembly should "impose moderate penalties to ensure that we will, in the future, be able to make use of cities that can make us substantial payments".