Re: NY Times' article on Ecuador's Constitution Granting Rights to Nature

The new Ecuadorian Constitution, as I have read it, is an authoritarian, centralist and abortionist one:
It concentrates most powers on the executive branch by controlling, in an undemocratic way, inalienable rights such as freedom of speech, right to privacy, and freedom of the press.
It cuts most ties with the private sector, and by the same token, it nationalizes these companies.
It stupidly acknowledges "5 genders", rather than 2 [male and female]. One thing is to acknowledge different sexual orientation -as there actually are-, than to acknowledge 5 different genders -when there are only 2!
It does not defend and guarantee life FROM conception -hence it gives right to abortion.
It trivializes and eventually negates cities' autonomy, where all cities' production goes straight to the government to later be "equally" distributed nationwide.
It has created an impossible and unrealistic economic plan that heroically and, by means of magic, pretends to provide for all the Ecuadorian people, when in actuality economists nationwide, that have studied the plan, have consistently said this plan is burdensome, and unrealistic given the production and the economy of the country.

In other words, this constitution is a utopia that pretends to adapt a bad copy of socialism as its main ideology, when really what Mr. Correa is doing is not socialism, but rather totalitarianism.

While there may be some good articles as you have mentioned here (nature's inalienable rights), there are many more that are just the opposite. For this reason, it is childish and ignorant to believe that this new constitution is going to be Ecuador's savior. Sadly, and by contrast, it seems this constitution and its main promulgator are set to doom the country.

Plato’s Symposium: The Real Meaning of Beauty

Plato’s idea of beauty is quite complex for common minds to grasp, however, that is not to say that his idea is incomprehensible to us but rather that we need to dedicate more time studying and analyzing his words and concepts to get through his meanings. Plato’s views of this concept pass beyond physical awareness and human sensations and take on in what follows to be an intelligible realm or knowledge. He believes that once one knows the real meaning of beauty one will obtain knowledge, and in order to achieve this he conceives a very specific approach.

According to the Symposium, Plato states that in order for a man to grasp the real and profound meaning of beauty, he has to start in his youth, “A lover who goes about this matter must begin in his youth to devote himself to beautiful bodies” (par. 210). Plato believes that in order to achieve this higher concept of beauty one has to follow the rites correctly from an early age in order for them to work –he even suggests that Socrates, being and old man, might not be capable to follow them. He may think this way because a young man is easier to be persuaded and thus be taught these ideas [by a leader], more than an older man who may already have formed his own concepts.

In other words, Plato believes that loving the bodies correctly is pursuing the beauty in and of itself, not as a sensible matter but rather as a higher concept of form and intelligibility; concepts that based on the leader’s teachings will make the lover understand that there is only one beauty to everything and to all bodies and he will then disregard his previous understanding of physical beauty. Therefore, the lover will be able to value people’s souls and minds more than the physical beauty of their bodies. He will see further beyond the sensible and visible beauty that we all know. He will worth people’s souls even if their bodies are aging, or if they are not physically attractive, “After this he must think that the beauty of people’s souls is more valuable than the beauty of their bodies, so that if someone is decent in his soul, even though he is scarcely blooming in his body our lover must be content…” (par. 210c).

Consequently, the relationship that Plato suggests the lover must have now, with all his knowledge about real beauty and love itself, is one that is immutable and unchangeable. Plato believes that perfection of soul and mind consists in the unmovable forms, the real and the intelligible knowledge. In this same way he views the relationship between the lover and the beautiful things: “it is not beautiful this way and ugly that way, not beautiful at one time and ugly at another, nor beautiful in relation to one thing, and ugly in relation to another” (par. 210). In other words, beauty, loving and knowledge do not change; they always stay the same for everyone and everything, even when they could physically change, the idea of beauty or objects does not suffer any change. Hence, the relationship the lover should have with beautiful things is one that remains the same; one which is timeless and ageless.

As a result, all these beautiful things and all the processes that the lover has seen and gone through all along his journey will serve him as “stairs” or steps to help him climb up to the highest form of knowledge possible; the knowledge that “in the end he comes to know just what is to be beautiful” (par. 211c). The lover uses all these tools as a support to ascend to the next step and from that one to the following and so on –like an escalating wall— thus achieving the final goal which is to know beauty in itself and by knowing what true beauty is, he will obtain true knowledge.

The Proper Points in Politics: Freedom and Justice

In order to know what the proper point in politics entails we ought to look at the real definition of politics itself. According to the Merriam-Webster online-edition dictionary politics is: a: the art or science of government b: the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy c: the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government (m-w.com/dictionary). There’s no doubt that this is, more or less, the generally accepted notion of what politics is. However, that concept does not fully tell us what the proper point in politics is all about, and in order to understand that, we should look back into some great philosophical minds. Political philosophers and theorists, Plato, John Locke and Hannah Arendt have developed their own ideas on how politics should be regarded and applied: Plato’s main ideas are based on justice, John Locke goes for equality and Hannah Arendt is a true defender of freedom. Even though these three proposals —justice, equality and freedom— seem attractive, based on former discussions and analyses I’m inclined to argue that justice and freedom alone might very well be the proper main points in politics.


When one refers to a proper form of government there are mainly two points that come to mind: Freedom —stated in the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights first article as a vital human right “all human are born free and equal in dignity and rights” (un.org) as well as promoted by Hannah Arendt in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem, and the second one, justice [or the eradication of injustice], which is seen by Plato as an imperative requisite to achieve his kalipolis:
“Then it is an ideal pattern we were looking for when we tried to say what justice and injustice are in themselves, and to describe what the perfectly just or perfectly unjust man would be like if he ever existed. By turning our eyes to them and seeing what measure of happiness or its opposite they would enjoy, we would be forced to admit that the nearer we approximate to them the more nearly we share their lot” (472b-c).


Starting with Hannah Arendt’s freedom, we can say that this is one of the proper points in politics because it is a fundamental need in order to carry out human interaction; freedom is also a right that all human beings must possess. Since politics is also described as “social relations involving authority of power” (dict.die.net) this tells us that the acquisition of freedom is imperative to form ‘social relations’ —and thus a socio-political government— with others in a state or community; without it there would be no realpolitik. It is for this reason that freedom is a very important factor specially when discussing proper point in politics because it lets us take our own decisions, live and make our dreams a reality, it lets us associate, express and share with one another –—Canada might serve as a good illustration for this case–— Freedom gives a state [head and citizens] options and choices that both can utilize to improve the well-being of the community as a whole. As it has been previously discussed this well-being can only be achieved through freedom and not through equality; these two are not mutually exclusive since it has been shown that the advantages and rewards that freedom provides to a state and its citizens are much larger and beneficial than the advantages equality might be able to provide.


Similarly, considering Plato’s justice as the other part of the proper point in politics is highly significant because with it a state can form an organized, well-structured socio-political system under which both its citizens and the state itself are taken care of and be protected from crime, injustice and decadence. As a result, justice in politics becomes a communal interest –—interest in the good sense— that brings harmony, respect and security to the citizens, this also brings a sense of joint and mutual caring from one another. As for the government, justice brings it power and control over the citizens and the problems that may or could arise in a society, however, that is not to say that justice is a mean to obstruct freedom or any type of liberties that peoples have, but rather justice stands for and defends the well-being of the community as a whole under the direction of just, elected leaders.


In addition, it is a worth mentioning point to emphasize the relevance of the works and ideas of another great political philosopher, Aristotle, whose ideas on politics have been studied and regarded as incredibly influential throughout history. Aristotle believed politics starts with the state’s natural association who is always aiming at common good; he believed the state and its citizens are naturally intertwined “the state belongs to the class of objects which exist by nature, and that man is by nature a political animal” (The Politics, 1253a1). Aristotle relates all natural human interaction like the husband/wife and master/slave as an already natural political relationship. He stressed that the state-citizen relationship should be carried out fairly –—with justice, and with respect to the individual’s natural right —valuing freedom.


Both Plato and Hannah Arendt’s main ideas on politics have proven to be key factors in stable, organized and Free states around the world; these two premises have been politicians’ main flags when campaigning for political posts –—current South African presidential campaign comes to mind as well as Palestinians cry for their unfair social and political situation. While it may not be the case that both points are achieved in its entirety on part of all the leaders who proclaim it, it is undeniable that these two points are of immeasurable importance, as stated previously, for the well formation of a state and its preaching and acting of proper politics.

Re: Thomas L. Friedman's "Who Will Succeed Al Gore?"

In regards to his New York Times' Op-Ed article "Who Will Succeed Al Gore?", two things are clear: Electing George W. Bush as president was a mistake. During all these years he hasn’t been able to take advantage of his power and early popularity to make sound decisions towards the war in Iraq and social security problems. Alternatively, Al Gore has very-well deserved the share of the Nobel Peace Prize for his tremendous dedication and work on global warming awareness, not only in this country but abroad also.

Undoubtedly, Mr. Gore has achieved, by far, more success by teaching and alerting the world about global warming than George W. Bush has achieved success with the so-called ‘work on democracy’ in Iraq.

One could argue that if Mr. Gore would have won the election of year 2000, this country and the world would be greener, peaceful, eco-friendlier and safer. Unfortunately, America and the world are everything but that these days because Americans decided to elect Mr. Bush as president.

Peace and Freedom for Myanmar

As of now, we all have read, heard and seen all the atrocities that are currently happening in the South East Asian country of Myanmar -also known as Burma. I believe it is completely primitive and archaic that at this point and time, in the 21st century, this type of political regime is still alive. This is an utterly undemocratic and totalitarian regime that keeps its citizens like slaves and its leaders like kings and queens, therefore, undermining their voices and their needs.

The Burmese political regime grants no freedom of speech, no freedom of assembly and no freedom, of least of all, press to its citizens and this should be ended as fast as possible. Right at this moment there is a grotesque battle between the people seeking for their freedom and peace and the leaders keeping those away from them. This horrible situation that the people of Myanmar are going through is completely unacceptable; it goes against all possible human rights with which we are all born and we, as fellow human beings, must stand up to make all human rights be respected and practiced in Myanmar and all over the world.

This is why I strongly urge you all to take some action and make your voice heard against the Burmese totalitarian and militaristic regime by going to http://www.avaaz.org/ and signing the petition to call for action for the big nations of the world to step-up and rescue the Burmese people and defend them from their abominable leaders. You can also go to http://www.freeburmacoallition.org/ to learn more about what is happening in Burma and please get involved. They need us!

Plato's justice vs. Thrasymachus' injustice

The first book of The Republic revolves around the concept of justice and injustice and whether one pays better than the other. There are three main points of view: Cephalus’ and Polemarchus’ view, respectively, is that justice takes place when one pays one’s debt and that justice happens when one benefits from friends and harms his enemies. Thrasymachus’ view is that justice is only in the interest of the stronger; in other words, justice is determined by those in power and the weak have to submit to it. In contrast, Socrates’ view is that justice pays better than injustice because it elicits the goodness and wisdom in people and only the just and wise are able to live a good life. While Thrasymachus’ and Socrates’ points of view seem compelling, one could argue that they are also extreme and their failure to seek for middle grounds, rather than extreme opposites, is somewhat naïve and one-dimensional.

Thrasymachus’ argues that justice is only in the interest of the stronger because [political] power controls the lower social class –whether right or wrong only those who have power are in a position to come off better than the weak because they can ‘buy’ or create their own justice. Later, he goes on and says that injustice pays better than justice because men who are unjust are happier since they can get away with a lot more than the just, for instance the just man pays for taxes while the unjust man avoids it and thus ends up ‘better’ than the just man who lost money paying for taxes. He believes men are by nature individualistic and selfish and that men should go after whatever makes them happy with no consideration whatsoever of others’ lives.

His arguments for defending injustice seem very compelling if thought in a very narrow-minded way: Thrasymachus fails to see that not all people with power are unjust, selfish and individualistic; he fails to understand [or consider] that maybe happiness is subjective and that not everyone believes happiness comes only with the acquisition of power or money –to many, Socrates being one of them, happiness is a spiritual state of mind conquered with the achievement of other virtues. Also, he fails to realize that not all situations in a man’s ordinary life are at stake or that they have to be decided in court with a judge; there are events in a man’s life that are private and thus are not of importance of anyone else but himself. Therefore, Thrasymachus’ view of injustice triumph over justice, pretends to defy all notions of moral-affiliation, moral values and all types of bonds between two entities, thus leaving us with the biased belief that injustice pays better than justice.

Alternatively to Thrasymachus’ view, Socrates believes justice is the key to achieve the greater good and the extremely well-crafted Kalipolis he had in mind; a city governed by philosopher rulers whose justice, wisdom and excellence would lead its citizens to excel in every aspect of their lives. However, Socrates, as well as Thrasymachus, views justice as an interest, though, as opposed to Thrasymachus, Socrates views it as an interest of a community, of a whole, of a group and not as an interest of the individual solely, like Thrasymachus.

As a result, Socrates standpoint in Book I is that a man in power –such as a statesman, looks only for the interest of those under his ruling with no self-interest whatsoever. Consequently, Socrates’ arguments against Thrasymachus’ are proven to be easily won due to his tremendous ability to seek for the truth using the Socratic method which, one can argue, was the decisive factor of his argument victory against Thrasymachus.

Undoubtedly, at a simple view, Socrates arguments for the defense of ‘justice pays better than injustice’ are the ones that are going to have more adepts [**followers?] because his reasoning as to why this is true makes moral sense to us and fits with the values that we have been taught. However, when arguing about ‘justice as the interest of the stronger’ or why self-interest is the ultimate demise of a society, Socrates fails to find some other reasons for which a society can be terminated aside from self-interest, which by the way, does not seem as harmful to a society as malice or hatred can be.

Even so, Socrates views the relationship of statesman – citizen or shepherd - herd, as a completely selfless parent – child relationship in which the parent seeks for nothing but the wellbeing of his child, in this case, the ruler will only want the best for its citizens and nothing less than that, even the statesman forgetting about his own wellbeing and comfort. This ideal premise of a statesman-citizen relationship, although a very nice one, is a very impractical and non-realistic one. To think that Socrates would believe this was plausible makes one wonder if Plato was, indeed, very well aware that he was just writing about a utopian society.

Both Socrates and Thrasymachus have well-founded, extremely opposite, debatable arguments pro and against justice and injustice, respectively. However, what really makes one question is whether they thought this was the only way possible to sustain a society, and if they did not think this was the only way, then why aren’t there any other ways explained or talked about in the book? Was it a matter of the eras in which they were living? Was it a cultural matter -Greek gods, sacrifices, myths? Whatever the reasons they had to sustain their points of view, the grounds why both theories do not seem to work in a society is that both are extreme and too far away from reality; it seems that it never occurred to them to combine both theories in order to bring middle grounds. One was too loose and careless and the other too methodic and perfect. Neither of them could have worked, because men’s behavior does not represent those extremes; men are a combination of both.

__________________________________________________________

If you'd like to hear more about Plato's definition of justice and injustice, visit the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy at: http://www.iep.utm.edu/. It is very helpful.