Thursday, November 2, 2006

Aristotle and Tyranny (2005)

It seems that if I want to participate in a BLOG containing WRITINGS, I might have to actually write something.

Some day, I will. Today is not that day. Instead, here is some archive fodder.

[ARCHIVE: While taking a course on classical and medieval political theory, I was tasked with writing a short essay about Aristotle's reflections on tyranny. For all its shortcomings, this may be the best academic paper I ever wrote.]

Of the many diverse concepts addressed within Aristotle’s Politics, none is more controversial than the preservation of tyranny detailed in Book V. Aristotle very clearly despises tyranny, yet he devotes a chapter to its survival. Contemporary philosophers struggle with the purpose of this section; why was it included in a book focused on justice, virtue, and correct governance? Aristotle was not writing a manual for tyrants, and those ambitious demagogues that read it as such miss the point. Book V contains a concession; an acceptance that not every city is fallow ground for polity, aristocracy, or even kingship. The passages are a warning that all tyrannies will fall, and those ruled by might and cruelties are ever-more likely to face the blade of an assassin or the fires of revolution. If tyranny is the only government to take root, there are at least some actions a sovereign can perform to extend the longevity of his rule.


Aristotle divides his reflections on preserving a tyranny into two possible methods. These modes create the illusion of a choice to aspiring tyrants, but in actuality Aristotle is simply dichotomizing tyranny into the strategies of brutality and moderation. The more rudimentary mode of maintaining control is the iron fist. A brutish, merciless regime is detailed by Aristotle with specific examples of actions and conditions that help control the people. Aristotle explains that a body of people may be ruled best if they are groomed for tyranny. A ruler must not allow them to form solidarity or intellectual collusion. They must distrust each other, feel humiliated by their lot in life, and (being so convinced of the immense power of the state) consider the idea of revolution or reform an impossibility. Aristotle includes state espionage, poverty, flattery, narcissism, and primitive brainwashing in a list of techniques to oppress and control the population (1314a15). After focusing so closely on justice and order, the brutality of this regime forms a stark contrast to earlier chapters. Aristotle is quick to undercut these tactics with their ultimate affect: brevity. The brutish tyranny is effective, but short lived.


The second method, the kingly tyranny, approaches the issue of control through appeasement. Where a brutish tyrant rules through fear, and imposes his will with intimidation and power, a kingly tyrant appeals to the ideals of the people, and gives the impression that he is a public guardian of the state. Where a brute cleanses exceptional people from his city, a kingly leader personally honors “men of merit” to a degree higher than the general public would if the government was overthrown (1315a5). He maintains a record of purchases to appear fiscally responsible, and either moderates his use of drugs and “sensualities” or abstains from them completely (1314b31). A kingly tyrant respects and embraces the people’s religion, with enough conviction to appear genuine but not so much zeal that he appears foolish (1315a4). A kingly tyrant must spend the revenue of the state on public goods, if only to preserve the image that he serves the state and not his own petty lust for power or pleasure. Perhaps most importantly, he must reserve the call to war for necessity and seizure of resources, rather than expansion. As long as the people believe that the common good is the goal of the leader, they will not object to his rule.


Several critical questions arise when reflecting on these controversial chapters of the Politics; chief among them, motive. In a book devoted to the evolution of a supreme regime, why include detailed instructions on the preservation of what both Aristotle and Plato regarded as the worst form of governance? The Politics is an intellectual writing. It does not serve as propaganda, an article of persuasion, or a hidden lesson. Therefore, it is not limited to a singular thesis, and examines the task of governing a population with some level of objectivity. Aristotle reflects on the most common regimes as well as the most desirable. Conceding that not all cities will be suitable for the “best regime,” his work finds refinements possible in the most common types of government. Although he accepts that rule may be kept by force and might alone, Aristotle repeatedly gives examples of the short term of brutish tyrannies, and touches on the consequences of inciting the contempt of the people. Cruel rulers are more likely to generate hatred among the people, and whether by the actions of a single, “spirited individual” or the uprising of an entire faction, the regime will fall. Aristotle makes no promises about the lifespan of a tyranny save its inevitable fall, but gives some assurances that the closer it is to the typological ideal of kingship, the longer it may endure. Leading into Chapter 12, Aristotle lists the longest lasting tyrannies, and makes note of their nature. Even with moderation, honor, and respect of the people, the greatest tyranny only stood for a century. With such guaranteed fragility, Aristotle hardly praises tyranny as an admirable government, but appeals to those who wish to preserve a tyrannical regime with moderation.


One may question the prudence of including tips on extending the life of a tyranny in a work intended for distribution and education. Aristotle makes it clear at the start of Chapter 12 that “no forms of government are so short-lived as oligarchy and tyranny” (1315b12). Only through moderation and appeal to the common good will a tyrant appear as a king. However, appearing to serve the common good is not the same as actually serving it. While Chapter 11 praises moderation, honor, and kindness towards a tyrant’s subjects, it does not require a ruler to actually strive towards justice. Rather, he need only appear to be just, and hide his cruelties and exploitations from the public. This is not high-minded philosophy or a subtle sympathy for tyranny. This is gritty realism surfacing within Aristotle’s political theory; the same truth that Machiavelli will less tactfully approach centuries later. There are times and places where the people cannot be counted on to rule themselves. Through inefficiency, corruption, crime, or bureaucracy, certain publics do not possess the ability to maintain even the most undesirable forms of democracy or oligarchy. A strong, resolute leader must lead them, even if he doesn’t have the word of law or will of the people behind him. Until the populace is capable of producing anything besides anarchy or demagoguery, a firm but moderate tyrant may be the only suitable government available.


To accept tyranny in modern times is liberal blasphemy—we are a culture raised and washed with the ideal of a democratic republic. Aristotle is not burdened with the bias of a functional regime. Ancient Greece was populated with brutish tyranny, mob-rule democracy, corrupt oligarchy, and anarchy. Aristotle’s kingly tyranny is the advantage of the stronger, but few regimes of the time are concerned with justice or the common good. For all the ideals of his typology—kingship, aristocracy, and polity—their negative counterparts were far more prevalent. As an intellectual, Aristotle included analysis of realistic regimes along with idyllic scenarios. Book V is not an endorsement or strategy guide to tyranny. Aristotle’s reflections are a concession—the rise and fall of tyrannies are inevitable, and if they must exist, perhaps their brief spark across the span of time might be marked with moderation and the semblance of justice.

Read More......

Thursday, October 5, 2006

Follow-up

It took a little while, but inspiration finally struck.

Fahrenheit 316

In addition, I've uploaded three other archived stories/articles.

Excert from Every Hour Wounds(2005)
Nida
Blogprov: [psychodoughgirl6]

Read More......

Fahrenheit 316

Most times I feel good about the kind of Christian I am. I'm not overly committed or sure of myself, but I do good things, because I think that's what Jesus would have done. And I do my best to ignore the hypocrisy of extremists who thinks threatening people's lives is justified because the targets are considering abortion as a viable option, or that since someone belongs to a different ethnicity and/or faith whose own fanatics are committing atrocities, that makes them obvious (and justifiable) targets of God's wrath.

But sometimes I just can't ignore this shit.

The gist of the article is that a parent, upon hearing that his daughter's class was reading Fahrenheit 451, petitioned the school board to remove the book from the curriculum. If you've read the book, or even heard what it's about, you can appreciate the irony of this. For those who don't, here's the very brief overview: a man whose job is to burn prohibited literature begins to question his purpose when he reads one of the target books.

There is a willing and dangerous naivety at play here. Firstly, the man questions the worth of the book without reading it himself. By doing so, he is alleging that a full and accurate description can be derived from a superficial glance. If the same test were applied to, say The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe, one could say it is filled with dangerous ideas of witchcraft, heretical pagan practices and prepubescent delinquency. If applied to the Bible, the focus would surely be laid on the descriptions of incest (incestuous rape, at that), sodomy, and fraternization with prostitutes and loan sharks. These simplifications are completely slanted, but that's the point. The true substance of the story is lost when one focuses on only a few of the details, and the grossly insignificant ones at that.

Secondly, the man goes from half-baked formulation to outright refusal of the material in question. So not only is his view incomplete, but he acts on this information and immediately rejects the book. Without even attempting to get a complete picture, he precludes any dialogue that might redeem the book, or at least illuminate some positive points that exist along with the perceived negative ones. Imagine if your college professor had decided that your thesis was wrong just from reading the first sentence and immediately gave you a failing grade. Despite any kind of information, logic or evidence you might have to support your argument, it gets tossed aside by an unyielding mind. While incomplete assumptions are dangerous enough, close-mindedness can be even more harmful.

And yet, both of these could be forgiven. While I find such opinions deplorable, the thoughts of one individual, even if they were in my family, would not affect me. The ability to have complex ideas is the singular characteristic that sets us apart from all other life. The Bible even references this fact, stating that the Lord created God in his own image (which I interpret to mean not just physically but spiritually and psychologically as well). Free thought should be cherished in all its forms (more on this in a future article maybe). So for this man to attempt to impose his will on others is abhorrent to me. In his case, there was no imposition of ideology over his own. His daughter, displeased with the literature, was given an adequate substitute. No persecution took place (I say this as a preemptive strike against any responses about the "oppression" of Christianity in American public schools). Seeking to end a system that is (perceived as) domineering by replacing it with one that conforms with your own ideals is an exercise in hypocrisy.

So I read the news, about these Christians who can't even see the irony in trying to ban a book about the dangers of censorship. In the past, I would have written this off as being another extremist, a dissimilar individual who had somehow interpreted a gospel that preaches inclusive love and understanding to support their actions of intolerance and ignorance. But more and more I question if what I see truly is the fringe or not. As some of you already know, I'm working as a youth mentor at a Church in Taiwan right now. Most of my duties are limited to teaching English and monitoring the kids, but I also do Saturday morning English lessons for elementary school kids, as well as running team-building games for their youth group. And it's fine. I do good work, some for kids less fortunate than me, and I feel good about it.

But a week ago some visiting pastors from the Taiwan Presbytery regional office came to visit and they pressed me on attending seminary (which, for those who don't know, is essentially grad school for ministers). I gave what I felt were honest answers about my tenuous faith, my desire to initiate a refocusing of ideals within the church, and the need for a massive retooling in the presentation of Christianity in the public domain. But for each of these points I brought up, and the long minutes I spent explaining, defending and shaping these ideas to them, their answer remained the same each time (about every five minutes): go to seminary and you will learn all you need to.

I felt like I was talking to brick walls, confident in their habits despite the increasingly changing world. My first concern was overlooked, and my ideas about reinvention were dismissed. And these were the people who are meant to oversee all the different churches. These ideas were simply my musings on the subjects of Christianity, crafted as presentable as I could on the spot. Yet here too was the same unwillingness to listen to something that differed from guidelines set forth centuries ago for a society that no longer exists.

When did Christianity become a private club? Why is ignorance of the secular world considered a virtue? Why is God's grace inclusive in rhetoric yet exclusive in practice? How is it that I feel like the only Christian who even recognizes these problems, let alone ponders them? I understand the need for tradition and continuity, but to deny the evidence of increasing public indifference and the need for change address these issues would doom our religion to stagnation, a pride of ostriches with their head in the sand, unwilling to see the storm as it approaches.

Read More......

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Starting for REALS this time

honestly. First up is probably a migration of a couple short stories i have floating around the web, as well as the last long-forgotten blogprov that is long overdue (and got shafted with the whole Bar Exodus thing).

EDIT: Three old writings have been entered and backdated.
Mark's Story
Singles (1992)
To Be Asian

Read More......

Friday, January 27, 2006

Declaration of Principles

KANE
I've changed the front page a little, Mr. Bernstein. That's not enough - There's something I've got to get into this paper besides pictures and print - I've got to make the "New York Enquirer" as important to New York as the gas in that light.

LELAND
What're you going to do, Charlie?

KANE
My Declaration of Principles - Don't smile, Brad - Take dictation, Mr. Bernstein -

BERNSTEIN
I can't take shorthand, Mr. Kane -

KANE
I'll write it myself.

BERNSTEIN
You don't wanta make any promises, Mr. Kane, you don't wanta keep.

KANE
These'll be kept. I'll provide the people of this city with a daily paper that will tell all the news honestly. I will also provide them -

LELAND
That's the second sentence you've started with "I" -

KANE
People are going to know who's responsible. And they're going to get the news - the true news - quickly and simply and entertainingly. And no special interests will be allowed to interfere with the truth of that news.

Read More......