Allegory of the Cave

When then, if he recalled to mind his first habitation and what passed for wisdom there, and his fellow bondsmen, do you not think that he would count himself happy in the change and pity them? He would indeed. And if there had been honors and commendations among them which they bestowed on one another and prizes for the man who is quickest to make out the shadows as they pass and best able to remember their customary precedences, sequences, and coexistences, and so most successful in guessing at what was to come, do you think he would be very keen about such rewards, and that he would envy and emulate those who were honored by these prisoners and lorded it among them, or that he would feel with Homer and greatly prefer while living on earth to be serf of another, a landless man, and endure anything rather than opine with them and live that life? Yes, he said, I think he would choose to endure anything rather than such a life. And consider this also, said I. If such a one should go down again and take his old place would he not get his eyes full of darkness, thus suddenly coming out of the sunlight? He would indeed. Now if he should be required to contend with these perpetual prisoners in 'evaluating' these shadows while his vision was still dim and before his eyes were accustomed to the dark--and this time required for habituation would not be very short--would he not provoke laughter, and would it not be said of him that he had returned from his journey aloft with his eyes ruined and that it was not worth while even to attempt the ascent? And if it were possible to lay hands on and to kill the man who tried to release them and lead them up, would they not kill him? They certainly would, he said. - From The Republic by Plato

Tiger's Moral Hazard

After reading Robin Wright's Essay on the NYT Opinionator (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/tigers-rapid-redemption/), I found this particular reader's comment to be very thought provoking. Woods owes the American people nothing but a good golf game. He is not our moral hero now and he never should have been in the first place. This American ethos of moralization is pathetic and it obfuscates the most essential character of what it means to be human. Our celebrities are not our heros, they are not even 'ours'. They are artists and athletes that excel in a particular area and share their talents with us. I don't mean to suggest that we are plebeians graced with the privilege to view their talents, but I do not think that we should judge them as anything but the performers they are. The author's suggestion that Woods is somehow pursuing golf success solely for the spoils it brings is misguided on two fronts. Firstly, it is a brash and stupid assumption, as well as a mean spirited thing to say about a person. Secondly, even if he did spend many, many years perfecting his golf game just so he could pick up women (which seems unlikely), it would make absolutely no difference to his talent. To say that Woods' contribution to golf is somehow negated by his philandering is like saying Gauguin's contribution to art is somehow worthless because he was he failed his family. If we have truly reached a point where a person's unethical actions negates absolutely all of his actions then our society has been poisoned by something truly and profoundly tragic. In his Shame and Necessity, the great ethical philosopher Bernard Williams lamented that "We are in an ethical condition that lies not only beyond Christanity, but beyond its Kantian and its Hegelian legacies. We have an ambivalent sense of what human beings have achieved, and have hopes for how they might live (in particular, in the form of a still powerful ideal that they should live without lies). We know that the world was not made for us, or we for the world, that our history tells no purposive story, and that there is no position outside the world or outside history from which we might hope to authenticate our activities. We have to acknowledge the hideous costs of many human achievements that we value, including this reflective sense itself, and recognise that there is no redemptive Hegelian history or Leibnizian cost-benefit analysis to show that it will come out well enough in the end" (166). We should all take a hint from Williams. The task of being human and living a robust life is not defined solely by one's ethical or moral actions. We are robust creatures capable of great achievements and great follies and our ethical character diminishes once we start condemning people on the basis of some moral litmus test. by WillL of Southborough, MA Tiger, I hope you win the Master's.

Arguments

by F.M. Cornford in his 1908 treatise, Microcosmographia Academia There is only one argument for doing something; the rest are arguments for doing nothing. Since the stone axe fell into disuse at the close of the Neolithic Age, two other arguments of universal application have been added to the rhetorical armoury by the ingenuity of mankind. They are closely akin; and, like the stone axe, they are addressed to the Political Motive. They are called the Wedge and Dangerous Precedent. Though they are very familiar, the principles, or rules of inaction involved in them are seldom stated in full. They are as follows: The Principle of the Wedge is that you should not act justly now for fear of raising expectations that you may act still more justly in the future--expectations that you are afraid you will not have the courage to satisfy. A little reflection will make it evident that the Wedge argument implies the admission that the persons who use it cannot prove that the action is not just. If they could, that would be the sole and sufficient reason for not doing it, and this argument would be superfluous. The Principle of the Dangerous Precedent is that you should not now do any admittedly right action for fear you, or your equally timid successors, should not have the courage to do right in some future case, which, ex hypothesi, is essentially different, but superficially resembles the present one. Every public action that is not customary, either is wrong, or, if it is right, is a dangerous precedent. It follows that nothing should ever be done for the first time. Another argument is that "the Time is not Ripe." The Principle of Unripe Time is that people should not do at the present moment what they think right at the moment, because the moment at which they think it right has not yet arrived.

New Rule by Bill Maher

New Rule: You can't use the statement "there will be no cooperation for the rest of the year" as a threat if there was no cooperation in the first half of the year. Here's a word the president should take out of his teleprompter: bipartisanship. People only care about that in theory, not in practice. The best thing that's happened this year is when President Obama finally realized this and said, "Kiss my black ass, we're going it alone, George W. Bush style." Two months ago, conservative Fred Barnes wrote, "The health care bill is dead with not the slightest prospect of resurrection." Well, if it's dead, you just got your ass kicked by a zombie named Nancy Pelosi. Seriously, the last time a Democrat showed balls like that John Edwards' girlfriend was filming it. Make all the botox jokes and she-shops-too-much jokes you want, but this is the biggest political victory a woman has ever achieved in America. Yes, Nancy Pelosi likes nice clothes. So does Sarah Palin. The difference is Nancy Pelosi pays for hers. But even before the Democrats got to take a single victory lap they were already being warned not to get used to the feeling, and not to get drunk with power. I disagree. All you Democrats: do a shot, and then do another. Get drunk on this feeling of not backing down and doing what you came to Washington to do. Democrats should not listen to the people who are now saying they shouldn't attempt anything else big for a while because health care was such a bruising battle. Wrong -- because I learned something watching the lying bullies of the Right lose this one: when they're losing, they squeal like a pig. They kept saying things like, the bill was being "shoved down our throats" or the Democrats were "ramming it through." The bill was so big they couldn't take it all at once! And I realized listening to this rhetoric that it reminded me of something: Tiger Woods' text messages to his mistress that were made public last week, where he said, and I quote, "I want to treat you rough, throw you around, spank and slap you and make you sore. I want to hold you down and choke you while I fuck that ass that I own. Then I'm going to tell you to shut the fuck up while I slap your face and pull your hair for making noise." Unquote. Continued at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/new-rule-you-cant-use-the_b_515354.html

Nation’s Pride in a Single Pitch

Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images URASOE, Okinawa — A year later, the play lives on in Japan and South Korea, where the World Baseball Classic has taken on a megalife in its fledgling four-year existence that far surpasses the impact the tournament has had in the United States. The South Korean pitcher who gave up the extra-inning single that gave Japan its second straight W.B.C. championship continues to pursue his craft — with the Tokyo Yakult Swallows. The player who had the winning hit — Ichiro Suzuki — is hoping that his markedly improved Seattle Mariners will find their way back to the postseason. And the intrigue over what really happened on March 23, 2009, continues to percolate, at least in these two countries, which are intense rivals. The 2009 game was played in Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles before 54,846 boisterous fans. A year later, it is still being replayed in this part of the world, most recently in a prime-time Japanese television program, “The Man Who Betrayed His Country.” The “Man” of the show’s title was the pitcher who lost the game, Lim Chang-yong. It was Lim who challenged Suzuki with the game on the line that night, even though he simply could have walked him. The score was tied, 3-3, in the top of the 10th with two outs and runners on first and third when Suzuki came to the plate. On a 1-0 pitch, the runner on first took second on defensive indifference. continued at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/sports/baseball/28korean.html?hp