Blog 5

Aristotle and Tocqueville

Aristotle's Response to Howard Chandler Christy

I believe that Aristotle would've had both positive and negative things to say about Christy's painting. For one, it abides by the sense of equality, in that a variety of men are planning on signing the Constitution and that it appears as if they have all, in a way, contributed to the creation of it, too. Aristotle would also feel good about seeing them all work towards liberty. Considering Liberty is all about freedom, and the Constitution is all about giving rights to the people, the idea behind the Constitution probably brought solidarity to Aristotle. However, in the front of the room of the painting, we see George Washington standing in the front. He does not signfy a sense of unity because he will be the one taking charge. Additionally, all of the men in the room appear to be the rich and wealthy men. So, the artist of this painting is going against Aristotle's belief of the poor having more power and say than the rich because there is a greater majority of them, than the wealthy. In this painting, all that is shown are very famous and wealthy individuals, such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Ben Franklin, along with the leader, George Washington. Also, Aristotle believed that no one should run for office twice. And although George Washington was not officially in office because there wasn't a building built, he was put in a presidential/leadership position for a long period of time. All in all, Aristotle would've had both positive and negative things to say about Howard Chandler Christy's painting, so my belief is that he would've had a neutral reaction and understanding for it.

This is the picture of Howard Chandler Christy's famous painting entitled,

"Scene at the Sigining of the Constitution of the United States", which he completed

in the year, 1940.

Societal Elements from Howard Chandler Christy's Painting

Some of the elements of the upcoming society of the United States include the American flag with the 13 stars to represent the 13 original colonies. This shows the future progression and unification that they are trying to achieve by creating the Constitution of the United States of America. Also, the artist puts the most important people in the molding of our society in clearly focused positions throughout the piece, and also in dramatic colors, so that their presence is known. For example, the man in the middle of the room is covered in red. After doing some research, I discovered that this man is supposed to be a vote counter. He is a physical representation of what everyone in the room is hoping for: a democratic form of government. This symbolizes the equality that all of the members in this room are trying to gain by making this Constitution a possibility. By displaying these people, the painter is symbolizing their importance in creating the society that is to come.

Democracy or Oligarchy?

Based on the reading written by Aristotle, one can infer that Aristotle would've seen the painting of this scene as an oligarchy. The majority of his belief would come from George Washington's stance in front of the crowd. Aristotle would believe that the leadership position being taken by George Washington would not represent any sort of unity, but would show separation of the state. Considering that George Washington is also covered in wealthy clothes, Aristotle would judge and assume that all of these people were wealthy (which they mainly were). He would then argue by saying that the poor should have more say than the rich because the majority of the population is made up of the poor. Or, he would mention that having one leader would show inequality among others and that everyone should have a say in who they vote for and what they vote for, not just a group of one or a few wealthy individuals. Also, since the majority of the room also is dressed in the same rich attire as George Washington, he would continue to confirm the inequality between the wealthy and poor class. Once again, he would state that the rich should not over power the poor. Overall, I don't think that Aristotle would be too happy with the artist of this painting. If he (the artist) thought that this truly was a valid representation of democracy in the United States, then Aristotle would argue that it should be represented in a much more clear and correct way than it is currently displayed.

Who Signed the Constitution and Why Were They Important?

Everyone who signed the Constitution to the United States of America was deemed to be very intellectual. According to online resources, almost all of them attended either Harvard, or Yale. Even though those were the main universities present during the time, those universities today are accredited for their intelligence from those who went before them. Comparing the signers to the painting by Howard Chandler Christy, they represent the freedom and liberty that they sought to obtain from signing and creating the Constitution. Each individual man had, in some way, been a major contributor to the new government. Whether they were governors, senators, presidents of certain states and colonies, or spent a lot of their time making their new lives on American soil, better than their lives before. They were the physical representations of the American Dream. Additionally, all of these individuals seceded from Great Britain and started their new lives here. They then contributed to the creation to the 13 Colonies, or were very involved in making things better than they were back home in England. So, whether or not they contributed to the development of the Constitution, or just showed up to sign, each person played a huge role in shaping the new America and displaying avid liberty and freedom across the nation.

Benjamin Franklin was one of the 39 delegates that signed

the Constitution of the United States of America.

Tocqueville and Aristotle

After reading Tocqueville's, "Government by Democracy in America," the reader can assume that although Tocqueville believed that there was a strong democracy forming, he still thought that there was more to be done, similarily to Aristotle. Tocqueville, unlike Aristotle, believed that aristocracy was close to nonexistent. He thought that the United States was moving towards a more unified nation. However, the reader must understand that while comparing these two individuals, they were not even around in the same time period. So, at the time of Aristotle, aristocracy could've been very prominent, but Tocqueville could've seen a disappearing factor towards this form of government. Both Aristotle and Tocqueville's main goal is to make life equal for each individual. They both want to get rid of the rich and their pretentious ways. Aristotle and Tocqueville saw the wealthy as over powering, and that they would treat the poor with such inequality and allow no involvement for them in the government. This angered both individuals, but although they both complained about this issue, it appears that Tocqueville is the only one that took action towards fixing this problem. He granted all men permission to enter the clergy, and brought forth many opportunities for a variety of different groups of people, thanks to the growth in trade and commerce. Although they lived in different time periods, both Aristotle and Tocqueville had much to say on the rising inequality issues during their lives.

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote this novel to get the word out about

inequality in the United States and how it could be resolved.

Blog 4

Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau:

I believe that Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. were very similar in the fact that they were both willing to take extreme measures to stray away from man on man conflict. For example, both patrons were housed in jail for speaking out against what they believed in. Although Thoreau only stayed a night, King’s message written throughout his work describes what Thoreau was most likely thinking as well. Martin Luther King Jr. also believed that Civil Disobedience was not only necessary, but patriotic. It meant that a person believed so strongly about an unjust law and was still willing to turn towards love instead of hatred. They were able to focus on Civil Rights marches and boycotts, instead of attacking members of the KKK. The patience and obedience that both members of society held during times of inequality and an unjust government would not be achievable in this day of age. However, I do think that MLK Jr.’s ideas and oppositions were much more powerful than that of Thoreau. King had been offended at the time, personally victimized by the clergymen, whereas Thoreau had just in general been offended by President Polk’s tactics within the Mexican-American war. Additionally, MLK stated that engaging in these tactics of Civil Disobedience peacefully was good for the country. He slightly threatened that a war between the African Americans and white Americans would not be a war that would be easily resolved without multiple fatalities. Thoreau didn’t even have any support to back him up. MLK Jr. also explained how he engaged in these actions of Civil Disobedience and yet, actions of violence were still occurring from police brutality and the KKK and the peaceful acts still resided amongst the black community. All in all, Thoreau and King were very similar, but King’s points and tactics were highly supported and activists were more willing to join him in his methods of Civil Disobedience.

This is the letter that Martin Luther King Jr. wrote while doing

his time in the Birmingham jailhouse.

"The Defense of Injustice"

Cicero’s “The Defense of Injustice,” tells the story between two rhetoricians, Laelius and Philus. Through this work, Laelius challenges Philus to argue against justice and in praise of injustice. Each paragraph evokes a new idea on how to look at injustice. However, Cicero’s characteristics of Philus are supposed to make him out to be the Devil’s Advocate. Philus first starts off by stating that a fellow rhetorician, Cameades, and explained how Cameades tore apart many things to get his philosophy students to believe that there was nothing one individual could believe without examination. Philus then continues to rant about how no justice system is ever fair and ever will be. He states that it is a rare occurance and that a justice system so perfect would be unnatural to the world. Philus then continues by telling Laelius how justice has changed over the generations and will continue to change and mold into something different each time. He states, “Laws are not imposed on us by nature, they are imposed on us by the fear of being penalized”.This means that Philus believes that we don’t obey laws because we want to, but because we fear the punishment more than the crime itself. The main point of this writing of Cicero is to evoke fear into the audience. Philus tells the reader that there are alternatives if we don’t believe in what he is attesting to.

1. We can perform injustice and not suffer it ourselves

2. We can both perform it and suffer it, or,

3. We can neither perform it nor suffer it.

Philus explains that this is a sense of wisdom within justice. He justifys that justice says people should not be conquered against their will whereas wisdom explains that the empire cannot grow unless weak people are taken over and conquered by the stronger-willed people. Eventually, the reader reaches the final paragraph of the work and learns Laelius’s point of view. It is at this point in the story where Laelius has had enough with listening to Philus and his incorrect ways. Laelius explains how everything said was false. He states that the true law conforms to reason and anything going against this law would be considered sinful. Laelius concludes by saying that there will always be one natural law and one natural ruler, who is God; He states that if we have a little faith, then we will always have our justice in the end.

Author, Marcus Tullius Cicero was an avid, philosophical writer who composed

many speeches, letters, philosophical dialogues and treatises.

Blog 3

Civil Disobedience: David Henry Thoreau

Government

In the eyes of David Henry Thoreau, the United States is an unjust government system. He believes that the government is not useful and gets their power from believing that they are the majority and strongest group. This means, that although they might not obtain the most legitimate ideas and viewpoints on certain subjects, that because they are greater in population, they hold the most say. In his essay, "Civil Disobedience," Thoreau discusses that people should rebel when a government is prejudiced. He states that an individual should not be forced to rid the world of its wrongs, but should be able to stay away from those wrongs and not participate in them. In comparing the government of Thoreau's time to the government that we have acquired today, one would say that the two are quite relatable. First of all, there is corruption in any form of government, but it is not always as hidden in today's day in age because of all of the media and expansive amounts of information that we can find wherever and whenever we want. Through his work, he also participates in rebellious acts. When he refused to pay his taxes, he spent a night in jail. He also talks about this being relatable to a form of protest, which has been very evident in the news lately. And although we don't always agree with what the government is doing, (for example: this year's candidates) Thoreau agrees that as long as we are doing what we believe is right, then our ways should be accepted by the government.

Henry David Thoreau was against the United States government because it

supported slavery and had gotten very involved within the Mexican-American war.

Mexican-American War

Because of David Henry Thoreau's belief of a corrupt American government system, it is no wonder that he got actively involved within the Mexican-American War. Thoreau was so passionate on the subject of slavery, that he spent a night in jail to prove a point about how unjust and unfair this corruption was. Based on an article from Standford's educational website, "...a person should not be dismissed as “insane” by virtue of dissenting from the majority: his anger is grounded upon an awareness of the fact that slavery is a violation of human rights, and the law-abiding citizens of Massachusetts are not excused for turning away from this reality" Thoreau further discusses the importance of slavery and how negative of an impact it is having on society. During this time period, James K. Polk was the president of the United States. He was in fact the one to initiate the war, as military confrontation was an issue among the borders. Polk desired to invade the land of Mexico and expand. He believed that it was his right to expand across the border because they had more people attempting to seek new land and start new lives there. This event probably fueled Thoreau's reaction towards the war because the U.S. government would be taking over land that was not originally theirs and would take advantage of the people already living there, and potentially holding them as prisoners, or making them their newfound slaves. Overall, the Mexican-American war had an negative effect on the U.S. in Thoreau's eyes and went against almost everything that he believed him.

The ending result of the Mexican-American war led to a change in border,

which would lead to border conflicts within a new outside power (The United States of America).

Blog 2

Independence

Rousseau and Government:

They Say:

In Rousseau's work entitled, "The Origin of Civil Society," he explains what his preferred government style would be as based on the philosophical ideas of Grotius and Hobbes. Rousseau felt strongly against having elected officials to make decisions for the people. Rather, he believed that every citizen should have the right to vote for who they want to. This ideal government system could be similar to a direct democracy, but includes more say from the people. Rousseau also explains that men are not by nature, created equally. Some are born to be slaves and some are born to be kings, but this led Rousseau to the idea that the people should not give up their rights to one person in power, but as a whole, should allow equal representation to the decision making. In order to obtain this equal representation, bias about religion would not be tolerated. Rousseau believed that religion was important, but should not be welcomed within the political field.

I Say:

Based on the political mindset that Rousseau has for his society, I believe that Rousseau’s form of government today would be described as being similar to a Lassiez-faire/Democratic form of government. Lassiez-faire is an economic system in which the people or private parties, set the rules and regulations for the government.  In order to have this kind of government, the entirety of our economic system would have to be completely redesigned. Therefore, a system like this could exist, but not successfully. We would have to lose the bias of a person in authority based on their religion, or lack their of. This also includes not judging others for racial differences or differences in sexual orientation. And although America is known for being the land of the free, there are still many situations in which inequality resides. Plus, as Americans we use elected representatives to speak and vote on behalf of the state, which is something that Rousseau would not agree with. To conclude, although Rousseau has certain ideas that I agree with, I believe that attempting his type of government would end in failure.    

This is a picture of Rousseau's Social Contract, which he references in his book.

This was one of the works that helped clarify Rousseau's ideal government ideas.

Machiavelli and Jefferson on Independence:

They Say: Machiavelli was a Renaissance man who believed highly in the fact that in order to be a successful ruler, a man must force his people to obey him out of pure fear. This tactic was to make the people believe that if a ruler was harsh and feared, this meant that he was powerful and willing to take extra measures to protect his people. When, in reality, these measures were really only taken to ensure that the ruler's offspring would be able to take over the throne once the ruler passed away. In the "Declaration of Independence," it discusses that in order to achieve independence that this new land offered, the people had to secede from Great Britain. To them, gaining this independence seemed so simple and only amounted to ink being written on a sheet to confirm commitment to the new land.

I Say: When comparing Machiavelli with Jefferson on their ideas on independence, I believe that they would strongly disagree on what would occur if they seceded from the government of Great Britain. As discussed in the Declaration by Jefferson, one just needed to show his commitment to the new land by signing a document. He concluded that things would go over well, too, since they were now separate from the mother land; however, I believe that if Machiavelli were to write this, he would explain that this act of rebellion would lead to punishment. Machiavelli would most likely start a war, make those who rebelled slaves to him, or even take extreme measures and murder anyone who left the motherland. Or in the case that he was writing the Declaration, he would explain that anyone leaving the new land would subside to those punishments if they went back to Great Britain. All in all, Jefferson and Machiavelli had different ideas on punishment and independence. Jefferson would not have agreed with anything Machiavelli suggested or threatened to him. He had a mindset, and he would never have anyone with negative ideas alter it.  Jefferson was more laid back and focused on repairing the new government, whereas Machiavelli was more focused on keeping everyone together and fixing the old.

Thomas Jefferson wrote the "Declaration of Independence" in order for the people to express commitment to the new land they would call home after seceding from Great Britain.