The Political Model of Plato on Modern American Government (acedemic report)

A student of Socrates, ancient Greek philosopher, Plato, generally considered one of the most crucial philosophers of the Western world. Writing in Athens in roughly the 4^th Century BCE, Plato philosophized on a broad range of topics including virtue, education, justice, metaphysics, and politics. Plato’s Republic, his main work of political thinking, is still prominent in modern political theory. In this work Plato outlines via narrative an ideal society and the way in which its society and government is organized. After outlining the ideal, Plato recognizes that eventually government will break down slowly – to become degenerate forms of themselves. Two key forms which he examined were the Plutocracy and Democracy. These two styles of government are particularly important because their model can be applied to contemporary American politics. However, before society reached these two forms, there were multiple steps government would have to take to get there.

            According to Plato, the ideal society was what he called an aristocracy, or, “Rule of the Best”; the best in this case being the most intelligent. Even though in this society wealth would be minimalized, Plato said that eventually there would be a defined economic divide in citizens. This divide would be perpetuated by spoils gathered by warriors in their raids. Through a gift economy the warrior class would take power creating an honor based society called a timocracy. The economic divide would continue to grow until nearly all wealth was in the hands of  the very few in power. To Plato, this was the above mentioned plutocracy, or “Rule of the Rich”. Eventually the impoverished majority would rise and end the Plutocracy creating a democracy ruled republic – the “Rule of Everybody”. The final administrative step, once democracy was instated , according to Plato, despotism. Eventually a single charismatic individual would pander to society and be swept into power. After taking power all actions of the leader would become purely self-serving and society would crumble.

            Plato’s notions of the plutocracy and democracy are interesting in this model because of how their ideas work into modern politics. As stated before a plutocracy is a society in which the vast majority of wealth, whether it is currency, land, goods, or something else, is in the hands of very few people; and these people are in turn the rulers. Examples of this can be observed in history – land owning lords and fiefdoms during the middle ages of Europe, for example.

            Plato constantly stressed virtue in all things in his philosophies, and government was no exception. The Plutocracy, to Plato, was two steps removed from his virtuous ideal of the Aristocracy. He speculated that when so few have so much, they will inevitably act in completely self-serving ways. With loss of virtue in leaders, he said, comes a loss of unity in society.

            When this loss of virtue and unity eventually meets a fever pitch, it was deduced that those without power and wealth will gather together in a unified uprising against the rulers. This is very comparable to Marx’s notion of class warfare; stating that after being treated poorly for so long, eventually the proletariat will rise against the bourgeois.

            Contrary to what is typically thought today, democracy, to Plato, was a very bad thing. Plato’s political philosophy stressed order and specialization; something he referred to as “excellence”.  To know one’s duty, and to be able to perform it well, was a mark of excellence. In his Aristocracy, all individuals would pursue excellence, whether they were craftsmen, farmers, diplomats, or philosophers. Everyone ruling led to a massive loss of such excelling.

            Plato thought of democracy as a kind of “happy anarchy”. With all of society governing themselves, granted they are happy, but there was no order. An individual could spend a day being a tanner, a day being a writer, a day being a fisherman, and so on. With every citizen doing whatever they felt whenever they felt it, Plato identified the fact that they were all behaving in purely self-serving ways. Virtue is essentially gone, and the republic has a massive lack of excellence.

            These thoughts put to today’s government are very interesting. Some would argue that we are living in a sort of plutocracy. Americans live in a capitalist run economy, corporations are considered people, and there is regular media coverage of citizens protesting “the 1%”. However, it is likely that Plato would disagree with such an argument. While wealth is poorly distributed in some cases, the instances of subsistence farmers are markedly fewer than in the dark ages.

            It is entirely more likely that Plato would see current society as being in a transitional phase between plutocracy and democracy. It is important to reiterate that democracy to Plato was not simply voting, it was in essence anarchy. One can recognize that American society is ruled by a very marginal number of individuals, and while most of them are rich, it is not necessarily their money which gave them power, so the conception of plutocracy does not exactly apply. The citizens themselves are allowed to decide what to pursue professionally, to become excellent in, and this leads to another half developed portion of Plato’s idea.

            While many individuals today do act only selfishly, not pursuing major endeavors, content with scraping by in menial work – acting as Plato expected those in a democracy to – many work very hard to pursue personal excellence. This creates a major conflagration of Plato’s model.

            This dualist republic that American society has created is very novel when examined through the lens of ancient political theory. The fact that thinkers, such as Plato, came to close to forecasting how world politics would actually play out is staggering. This only applies, however, to a macro view. On a small, nation to nation, basis, their ideas are essentially flawed. Plato would have most likely been pragmatic to the idea of combinations of styles of government. Especially during a transitional period, such as the one, he would be likely to identify with The United States.

Samkhya-Yoga Metaphysics (academic report)

            The Samkhya-Yoga school of Hinduism is considered by some philosophers to be the most significant schools of philosophy to come out of India. They have drawn this conclusion because of the fact that Samkhya deals integrally with metaphysics; making sense of our reality, and how we fit into it. The school has many complex principles, but the two most imperative notions are the ideas of pakriti and purusha. According to this school of thought, all that we know, see, and are, are created by pakriti and purusha, and the ways in which they interact with each other. 

            Purusha refers to the idea of our soul or spirit. This is also known as our individual atman by Hindus. The Hindu interpretation of the spirit is quite different from the typical western view of the soul, and can be difficult to conceptualize. According to the Samkhya School, it is pure consciousness, and, in essence, the purusha is our true selves. It is not affected by anything happening around is, as our bodies are, it does not die, and is eternal. It is not bound by space, size, shape, or any other definition.

            Pakriti refers, broadly, to Nature; the physical world. It is not, however, simply matter. Pakriti can be thought of as the most basic pieces of Nature. “It is the primordial fabric of all that comes to exist, including mind.”. That is to say, it is everything in the world in its most basic and pristine state. It is, however, opposed to purusha. While purusha is conscious, pakriti is entirely unconscious.

            The notion of the three gunas is an aspect of all pakriti. Gunas can be thought of as inherent traits within an object. According to the Samkhya School of thought, these three traits, or gunas, are sattva (clarity), rajas (activity), and tamas (inactivity). All pakriti exists in balance of the three gunas when it is in its natural state. It is not until it is observed by a purusha that it is knocked out of balance. Considering the fact that all pakriti is unconscious, it should be noted that being observed by purusha – true consciousness – in effect, activates it. When the pakriti is activated, the natural balance is lost. The gunas are plunged into a state of competition, each one attempting to be dominant trait.

            What this means is that when we observe something, what we are seeing is the trait, or guna, which dominates it. A stationary rock, for example, would be dominated by tamas, while a hurricane might be driven by rajas.

In our everyday lives, we do not realize our Purusha. Our minds are clouded by our egos, and kept from seeing it, and by extension, true reality. The ego is created when our purusha views pakriti. As stated before, the purusha observes. When the purusha observes pakriti, it naturally attaches itself to it. That is to say, a person observes a tree and thinks “That tree is far away from me” the formation of this sense of self is the ego.

The ultimate goal of a practitioner of the Samkhya-Yoga school is to be able to cleanly distinguish between their purusha and the pakriti in their daily lives. While the purusha acts purely as an observer, it “recognizes the miseries and suffering associated with the production of the world.”. Hindu philosophy states that all suffering in life is created by ones inability to draw correct conclusions about reality. Our inability to see and be truly liberated, to achieve pure consciousness, is what causes pain in life. With these metaphysics gurus have sought to expand their minds and to stave off their own suffering as humans. With these same philosophies, even if they are not taken literally, a person can take the lessons of the Samkhya School and apply its ideas to themselves, which could potentially lead to a better lived life.

Bhagavad-Gita (academic report)

            The Bhagavad-Gita is the Gospel of Hinduism. Its authorship is attributed largely to the ancient Indian scribe, Vyasa, who was typically seen as an avatar for the God Vishnu. While only a very small segment of the Hindu holy book, the Mahabharata, the Gita has been looked at through the ages as one of the great religious classics. Many past political leaders, including Mahatma Gandhi, have drawn heavily upon the wisdom it contains. Today, the Bhagavad-Gita is still read by Hindus and philosophers alike as a continuing source of inspiration and reflection.

            Similar to The Old Testament of the bible, the Gita is an allegorical story rather than an abrasive exposition of doctrine. The story itself centers on a major war that is about to occur in India. The leader of one side, Arjuna, sees loved ones and kinsmen across the battlefield, and upon realization of the fact that he will have to kill them, he slumps into sadness and refuses to fight. His chariot driver, Krishna then relates to him the many lessons of the book.

            The first lesson, or yoga, that Krishna tells to Arjuna is the Yoga of Knowledge. In this, Krishna stresses to Arjuna that he need not be upset by the notion of killing his kinsmen. This is due to the fact that one can never have their soul, their atman, harmed. Krishna explains that since the atman never dies, is never born, and is truly eternal, then it is unnecessary to worry about one’s body. He analogizes that, “Worn-out garments are shed by the body: Worn-out bodies are shed by the dweller within the body. New bodies are donned by the dweller, like garments.”. That is to say, a physical body is simply a shell for the all-important atman.

            This revelation is significant on multiple levels. For one, it provides hope and perspective for those in physical or mental pain. If an individual can distance themselves from a life of hardships that is beyond their control, they will live a happier life. Additionally, if one believes that the atman is paramount over the body, it allows them to accept death more comfortably, as is Arjuna’s position.

            The Bhagavad-Gita continues with Krishna providing Arjuna with many more yogas on things including meditation and proper action. It’s not until the end, however, that the key philosophical and religious teaching of the text is brought forth.

            The final yoga that Krishna reveals is The Yoga of Mysticism. This principle can be contrasted to The Yoga of Knowledge in various ways. In this teaching, Krishna grants to Arjuna a mystic experience. That is, Arjuna is permitted to see God and the way in which all things are one with God. It is something of a mysterious passage, as stated by Krishna himself, “Although I am not within any creature, all creatures exist within me. I do not mean they exist within me physically. That is my divine mystery. You must try to understand its nature.”

This section of the Gita continues with Krishna’s divulgement of the way that everything is singular and that through mysticism an individual can experience the bliss of direct union with God. The reason, he says, that we aren’t able to enjoy such a union at all times is because of The Veil of Maya, or simply Maya.

            The Yogas of Mysticism and Knowledge are similar in ways. When one knows their atman, as taught by the Yoga of Knowledge, they are able to break away from their ego. It is because of man’s ego, his illusionary sense of self, that all suffering occurs. Since the atman is eternal, and the physical body is merely a vessel, all pain imposed upon us a construction of said ego. When one trains themselves to see beyond the ego, the atman is allowed to flourish. A kind of liberation is achieved and the suffering inherent in life is forgotten.

            This liberation is necessarily the mystic experience that Krishna imparts to Arjuna in The Yoga of Mysticism. From this we see that these two yogas are linearly connected. Once The Yoga of Knowledge is mastered, one is able to advance to The Yoga of Mysticism.

            When an individual experiences a moment of liberation through mysticism and views oneness, there is little else for them to dwell upon. Like the characters in Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, when the figure is freed from being chained to the wall, only seeing shadows across from them, they have little desire to go back to such an existence. Likewise, one that has realized the oneness of God has little desire to go back into the cave.

            The gospel of the Bhagavad-Gita teaches six different yogas. These are only two, but they can be identified as the two most critical of the text. They provide a framework for living a more fulfilling life. Whether one reads the Gita literally and takes its lessons as a means to become closer to God or it is read as a collection of philosophies for the sake of thinking differently, the Gita provides insight to real, and metaphoric, liberation.

GameMisinformer (article)

One day, comrades, we will live in a worker's paradise where we are all equal and money will have no value. Yes, one's value will determined solely by what they are able to produce for everyone else to use as they need; not by the amount that they are able to horde, comrades. It will be a new utopia, free of avarice and amorality, once only the fevered dream of Marx or Rousseau. Until that day, however, I will continue to have my money plucked away by GameStop.

Ever since the messy fiasco that was Brink, I've avoided buying video games new (Skyrim being the exception - soul sucking, meme generating, life destroyer that it is). In this used game buy-and-resell-a-thon I've wound up with the GameStop discount card affair. Which is useful and all, but like a clandestine tab of LSD lodged in a cheese curd, there's something extra that struck me by surprise. And has left me uncomfortable. And it was made of paper, also.

A free subscription of GameInformer is the subject of the acid analogy (obviously). While I appreciate magazines, and all of the charm that a paper version of the internet holds, this and similar publications reek heartily of a distinct lack of integrity. There's a million reasons for it, and I don't blame the writers. No real writer would ever want to beat their integrity over the head and leave it bleeding in the moonlight. The soupy, red, puddle that forms around the 'zine when I leave it on my nightstand is very telling, though.

I have to wonder what it's like to write for a mainstream video game magazine/e-zine. Each month I thumb through the odd article in GameInformer, and I just feel bad for the poor mooks that paint up the downfalls of the video game industry like it's a good thing.

"We've experienced the pivotal Racoon City outbreak through the eyes of Jill, Chris, Leon, and Claire, but what was it like for the Umbrella operatives?" opens Tim Turi of GameInformer. "Let's see how Capcom is going to siphon the last few putrid juices out of the dead horse this year!" seems like it would have been more appropriate. My true hope is that Turi is as disillusioned with unnecessary sequels as I am and his opening was a tongue-in-cheek jab at the game; like a movie critic wondering if George Lucas' next project will be to show remake The Clone Wars from the point of view of R2D2.

Tony Hawk's Pro Skater HD received attention in the same issue, and for a brief moment I was excited. The article opened with a, call it what it is, shameless hit of nostalgia for people old enough to appreciate two minute level timers. Then, transitioned nicely into beating on the franchise for its eventual derailment into sophomoric hijinx, and name dropping, over gameplay.

To my chagrin, the reporter blithely went on to say that THPS:HD was a carbon copy remake of all of the most popular levels from the first few installments. There's no way that I'm the only person in the world that has bile rise in their throat when a remake is announced. Who reads this and is excited by it? Who decides to write this stuff? Who gets excited and buys this crap at launch?

You see, the problem with these magazines is that they reinforce the idea that repetition and big titles are good. Yes, yes, I'm aware that I'm flirting with the pretentious "indie or bust" type crap right now, but put the pitchforks down, the beret and turtle neck are staying in the closet. Information is what originally drove these magazines; hence, the "informer" in GameInformer. Now, though, the line between information and marketing is so badly skewed it looks like a roadmap of Europe. Every problem that is strangling innovation out of the video game industry is squarely perpetuated by this kind of shameless ad mongering.

Articles like these instigate excitement over something that is simply not exciting. There's no question that each year's new Resident Evil or Tony Hawk or any other heavily franchised game installments will be playable, but that's all they are. They are average. They are nicely put together and provide fun distraction for around 10 hours. Painting average games up like they're going to revolutionize the way we play games is doing nothing but putting a cork into the creativity bottle. When something original and fun finally does come along, it doesn't get so much as the time of day from developers.

Remember when the first Guitar Hero came out? Get the hell out of my office, you do not. Why do you not remember? Because it was weird, and new, and freaking hard, and likely to be crushed by Dance Dance Revolution so no one cared to push it. Look at it now! Well, its churning out half-baked installments and doing exactly what I’m against, but that’s not the point. The point is that things that are new and original never get the attention they deserve, and that’s squarely because of media publications that won’t quit drooling down our earholes that the next annual Call of Battlefield and Forza Worldcup Batman is going to make us forget our families they're so good.

So who is to blame in all this? Who is responsible for the bleeding magazine on my table? Again, I don't blame the writers for all of this, what I truly feel is sympathy. I'm sure that they are just doing their jobs and writing what is assigned to them. What they write is smudged by their editors. And their editors have it smudged by the ones above them. And they, the ones above them, and so on, with the all-important ad revenue having the final say. I can only try to sympathize with the writers that have their hard polished work muscled over by the signers of their checks; like greedy children plunging their smearing fingers into a refined, clay, statue.

Visceral Gratification (article)

Anyone with vague interest, or who even knows someone with vague interest, in the video game world knows that on November 11th Bethesda launched the fifth installment of The Elder Scrolls series. As fan of the games since 2002, I'm not shy in admitting that I eagerly awaited the launch of Skyrim months in advance. I even waited outside of my local game retailer in sub-freezing temperatures for two hours waiting for the midnight launch.

After having spent nearly 35 hours on Skyrim in one weekend, I could write a novella of praises I have for it. The developers went to painstaking measures to ensure that the world was beautiful and varied. I personally shivered the first several times I went out exploring during a blizzard, and spent at least an hour walking through the lush autumn forests, enjoying the way the sunset was hitting the yellow trees and hopping off the streams.

In addition to being one of the most visually striking games I’ve ever played, the redesigned level system has made playing much simpler. It’s a sin to imagine the number of cumulative hours I’ve spent planning my characters on previous Elder Scrolls games. I would do everything short of making a flow chart to figure out how I could juggle every skill I wanted while still raising all of my stats. Bethesda was able to trim huge amounts of fat away from character creation without making gameplay overly simplistic, the way Fable III blundered.

The experience Bethesda gained from working on Fallout 3 is evident in a few ways in Skyrim, specifically the combat. This gave way to a problem I had with the game, and led me to question Bethesda’s direction.

Skyrim’s combat is a far cry from the old "hack away until the other guy fell down" of Oblivion. Often times when you finish off a character, the game will go into a two or three second, VATS-style, scene of your character running them through with a sword, or hammering a final blow on their face with your cudgel. Or if you took the stealthy approach and came up behind the enemy, undetected, you get a satisfying throat cutting scene. This is enjoyable, and the scenes never become boring, but they leave something to be desired.

I’m rarely impressed by excess gore in video games, but it really felt Skyrim should have pushed the envelope more in this regard. The game opens with your character witnessing a public execution. A prisoner is put on the headman’s block, and, I admit, I cringed when the executioner’s pole arm whizzed through the air, and decapitated the character with a visceral slice, leaving the character’s to head roll into a basket. This is where the serious gore ends though. After making Fallout 3, it seems like it would have been obvious for Bethesda to include some meaty head explosions or limb severings.

This omission really struck me the first time I picked up a mace and got into combat with a particularly difficult bandit. After a long, difficult fight, I’d whittled his health down to a sliver, and he fell to his hands and knees. I relished the moment as I walked over to him and charged a heavy swing aimed straight for the top his head. The hit connected, but with no blood, no crunch, and not even a groan from the bandit. He just fell limp.

“What the hell is this?” I thought to myself. After a serious fight, a shining moment of blood soaked victory is the perfect icing on the cake that is a game's combat system. That’s why smashing the faces of thugs on Dead Island was so enjoyable. That’s why knifing on Battlefield is so satisfying. Don’t misunderstand, I would be disgusted if Bethesda had gone the MadWorld or Mortal Kombat route - going into medical detail of what you had just done to the other guy's internal organs, and reminds you of how depraved and desensitized to violence you are. But in a game where a good majority of the combat it spent swinging a sharpened slab of metal at someone else’s face, no visceral gratification is a serious let down.

Assassin's Creed II and Brotherhood are keen examples of flowing combat systems with incredibly satisfying coup de graces, with the omission of excess blood. You gain a very strong understanding that the hammer Ezio's swinging is heavy. Seeing him counter a guard's attack, pelting him across the temple, and hearing a crack as the guard collapses into a pile is fulfilling. To take away such a satisfying reward for learning, and perfecting, how to fight in the game world is like finding out your diploma is printed on recycled toilet paper. Sure you feel accomplished and are proud you pulled it off, but can't shake the feeling that the entire thing is shit.