Should Locke's notion of tolerance be extended to members of the Flat Earth Society? Why, or why not?
As long as they do not intend to establish authority over the rest who think the Earth is round, then they should be tolerated. As John Locke said about atheists, "yet if they do not tend to establish Domination over others[...]there can be no Reason why they should not be tolerated. " However, if the Flat Earth Society (F.E.S) acts in manners that are a threat to the Civil Order they should not be tolerated. That's a possible explanation as to why they are not getting hired in universities and state government's divisions. They should be allowed to believe in whatever they want without government interference, yet this doesn't mean they are to be accepted into society's structure. While this argument may seem contradicting in today's context, it is important to examine it in Locke's context (17th century Europe). In very simple terms, Locke's tolerance refers as to not starting a war, a persecution, or any other violent action against a certain group. It does not mean welcoming and accepting them into society. That's why, even if the tolerance is extended to the members of the F.E.S., it is most likely that they won't get hired. As expressed at the beginning of this post, they are to be tolerated as long as they do not seek domination over the groups that disagree with them. However, putting them in positions of authority over geographic matters would certainly propose an advantage to a group who presents a risk towards the notions of Civil order and Tolerance. Therefore, the fact that members of the Flat Earth Society are not being hired in certain Geography-related jobs should not be considered relevant to John Locke and his notion of tolerance.
2 Comments
Does "The Prince" from Machiavelli still apply to today's politics?
That question was very debated throughout the class, and I find it very interesting and relevant to the topic at hand. The realism expressed by Machiavelli clearly determines the limitations of power and how it should be managed. He takes into consideration human nature and human tendencies to explain political behaviors. "The Prince" could be dismissed as irrelevant or out of date for many reasons. One of them is that the political situation in the world has changed since the Renaissance. Machiavelli writes the book as advice for Lorenzo d'Medic who was a single ruler with dictatorial power over a principality. Today's political power in Westernized countries, theoretically, is ruled by democracy. Yet, "The Prince" relevance comes not from its views on principalities or physical fortresses, but from the human tendencies exposed. I believe that human nature does not change. These could be exemplified by comparing situations explained throughout the book with historical and current accounts. Update: While doing some searching I read an article from George Mason University's journal that expresses similar views to mines. It goes deeper into the ideas I exposed here. I have the pdf if anyone is curious about it just leave a comment with your email and I'll send it to you. Have a good week everyone! I don't intend to write a review about "The Prince" right now, and will leave that to the blog post for next week. Today I just want to share my experience while reading the book. The first time I read it I had too much caffeine and too little sleep in my system to fully comprehend it. The second time around left me with the desire to go through it again. I'm still trying to finish the third round, but other pending assignments have made it hard to finish.
The copy of "The Prince" which I obtained is in horrible conditions (if anyone doesn't want theirs anymore and it is in favorable conditions I'll buy it for a reasonable price) and has "annotations" all over it. These annotations from the previous owner, who circled almost every instance where the word "men" was employed, were very distracting, annoying and sometimes triggering. At first I just ignored the previous annotations, crossing them off and writing my own instead. Later I started reading some of them, and my initial reaction was a dislike towards the previous owner's thoughts. Where I agreed, there was a note from him disagreeing. Where I came up to a certain conclusion, he wrote something completely opposite from me. In short, his way of thinking is the opposite of mine and at first it bothered me not being able to read the book without some notes, which I didn't agree with, distracting me. Now I'm grateful for the annotations on my copy of "The Prince" because they are a reminder that the "truth" has many perspectives. Points of view differ, and ideas crash, especially around topics such as the ones mentioned by Machiavelli. I like to think of my copy of "The Prince" as a representation of what AU means to me. An opportunity, not just to learn what a Professor or expert has to say on a topic, but to form my own point of view, listen to others who might not agree and challenge my own ideas. What is the most unrealistic element of the game?
While this game has many elements that could be considered unrealistic, I want to focus on the cultural aspect. In the classroom we all speak the same language and come from similar backgrounds (considering our geographical location). In real life, languages and culture around the world are extremely different, and some clash with others and make relations more complicated. Communication during the game, wether it is between state leaders or diplomats, its simplified and very direct. The resolutions and agreements can be reached in a surprisingly short time and without translation or clash of world views. These does not reflect real life conversations between states. I do not think this is a problem that we should worry about because there is no way of "fixing it". Yet, it is important to notice it and keep it in mind. World Politics and International Relations are topics deeply tied with culture. The more we understand other cultures, through language and other forms of immersion, the better chance of reaching agreements and solving international conflicts. Immersion can be between states, regions, countries, continents. It is necessary for us, who focus on the international stage, to understand cultural differences and learn from them and about them. Personally, I love immersing myself in foreign cultures and trying to understand them with an open mind. By doing these, many aspects of their traditions, history and current political inclinations become more clear. Saturday night my friends and I went to a Mexican restaurant. I'm very passionate about food, and I was worried I was going to be disappointed with the restaurant. Surprisingly, the food was not just good, but resembled the food I have in my city. The way they prepared it, the ingredients used, and the presentation were as close as possible to the traditional dishes served in Mexico.
After this satisfying experience of finding food that made me feel at home, I started thinking about the way traditional dishes from different parts of the world represent culture. How something as simple, yet as complicated, as food can be a major component of the cultural identity of a country or ethnic group. With this experience, questions started to appear: is it possible that the food, and the way it is prepared can bring together people of the same culture and break ideological barriers? Do chain restaurants who employ cultural elements of certain countries for their food affect the appreciation of the culture? Is it possible to understand another culture, their problems and history, through the way they prepare their traditional dishes? While I don't have the answers to these questions and I can't even begin to elaborate on them, I do understand this: food is another way of connecting with the world. Something as simple as a well prepared taco can say as much about my culture as any history book. I really do want some tacos now... At the end of the novel, Awiti comments:
"No matter the destruction that ensues, I have learned no amount of vengeance can replace what I lost. There is no reparation great enough to substitute for what was stolen. Is there truly a cost for an altered destiny? There is nothing that can overturn the curse of a nation that was once blessed." I agree with Awiti's sentence where she mentions that "no amount of vengeance can replace" what she lost. Although retaliation is commonly the first reaction humans have when offended or attacked, it has never worked as a mean to resolve a conflict or as a reparation. Actions taken as vengeance can make as much damage as the initial conflict, usually creating a cycle of hostility and distrust between the two sides of the dispute and leading farther away from resolving the issue. For example, a group X(ethnic, racial, ideological, religious) of individuals in a certain area is being discriminated by another, somewhat larger group Y(ethnic, racial, ideological, religious) existing in the same geographical place. Group X decides to have vengeance by attacking violently every time there is an injustice towards them. After some time, group Y starts retaliating with violent attacks too. Eventually the violence rises so much that they decide to segregate the area, which leads to more disputes over what pieces of land go to which group. Hate from both sides increasingly grows to the point where a clear division is marked between the two new areas, each belonging to one group. Eventually both groups start talking again, but from a distance, always careful not to turn their backs on the other. From broad global view point, disputes like the one mentioned above have been happening since the beginning of human interactions. Without stating which specific conflict is the example referring to, more than three historical examples surely are on your mind already. Sometimes history is very clear, sometimes it is blurry as to which State or group offended first and which other was just seeking reparation, but the outcome is always a bigger, more complicated conflict. As history has proved many times before, Awiti will never be able to find peace as long as she keeps hoping to obtain that reparation through damage. My conclusion: It is important to realize that direct retaliation or vengeance is not the solution to international conflicts between states or groups. Such actions, instead of leading towards peace, create a deeper wound and more hate. Arriving to a different country, learning in a different language and starting college are all new experiences in which I didn't know what to expect. So far the experiences have been satisfying. First week of college and I feel it has been more productive than a whole month in High School. I have obtained new knowledge from different sources; from books and articles to professors and blog discussions. Yet, my favorite method of learning so far has been the class discussions (which are a big part of my World Politics class).
Class discussions are more than just a way for everyone to express what they think and feel about a certain subject. They provide an opportunity to listen to other opinions and agree with them, question them, or challenge them with your own facts. For example, when discussing the book "The Truth About Awiti", while many people considered the immortality issue somewhat unnecessary for the story, others defended it. The important part was that everyone provided their own facts and logic to the subject, therefore widening everyone else's point of view. While the discussions are not about proving who is right or wrong, they are a great way of expressing the ideas and positions from each of the classmates and providing facts and logical reasoning. I look forward to many more class discussions, and hope to prepare myself accordingly. As I mentioned before, so far college has been a satisfying experience, and an opportunity to grow in knowledge and to question my personal convictions, which is the best way to strengthen them. |
AlonsoI'm from Mexico City. I love cooking and eating Mexican food. Archives
December 2018
Categories
All
|