34698376038th time trying to get this posted

Rebellion is an exercise of one’s
position as a citizen. To become a citizen is to accept the laws of society and
to recognize self and others as human. According to Camus it is important to
rebel because it is the only sphere in which one person can unite with another.
A true rebels goal is to defend humanity. Therefore if one man believes that it
is wrong to own another person and shares his idea with another, their
rebellion against slavery is the only way that they connect. In that situation
it is empathy that urges the non-oppressed to rebel on behalf of those who are oppressed.
One does not become a rebel when they realize their right to be free and in
doing so, recognizes the right for every individual to have freedom, but when
their recognition of their right becomes action in order to protect their right.
For Camus, if the individual recognizes something as sacred or higher, then the
individual has no ability to rebel because they unconditionally accept the
world as it is. In contrast to Camus, Arendt shows that for productive rebellion
(Civil Disobedience) to happen, one must recognize the way things are and
follow by the laws in society. By accepting society as it is, they can have a
more effective change on the part that they wish to see change.
Government’s responsibility to the individual
in society is to create a place such as the marketplace of ideas. It is necessary
to have rebellion because similarly to the individual, a government can further
explore its structure, and self, through the interaction with the group of
rebels. Rebellion is a form of societal self recognition.
Labels: RED HEADS AND CAROLINE

For over the break

Please read Marx, from Capital: A Critique of Political Economy for Tuesday and Wednesday (January 3rd and 4th). Think about how this connects to what we've been talking about with Marx in relationship to the public and the private from the Jewish Question.

For Monday, January 9th please read Martin Luther King, Jr. "A Letter from a Birmingham Jail". Think about King as an extension of the tradition of rebellion as an expression of citizenship begun with Thoreau, Arendt, and Camus.

Somehow, someway, I will both return your papers from forever ago. I will also construct a new blog posting.

(ps -- Redheads + Caroline, no blog post about rebellion? Explain? Thank you.)

Every citizen has a duty to work to better both himself, and the society in which he lives. It is the responsibility of the citizens of a State to rebel, so that the State is allowed to improve itself. The ultimate goal of any society is the greatest happiness for the greatest number. The people need voice their opinions in order to facilitate the evolution of their State to a better version of itself. While the marketplace of ideas, the so-called public sphere, offer catalysts for opinions to be heard, the voice of the majority will always overshadow the thoughts of the minority.

In order for the minority to do its duty to the rest of society, it must rebel in order for its voice to be heard. When an unjust law is passed, especially one that denies the rights of a minority, many people cannot be bothered to respond. If it only affects the rights of a minority, the majority will not bother to try and stop the law. This law hinders the progress of Society, placing a barricade on the path to enlightenment. It is the responsibility of the minority to rebel, because, "the establishment of civil disobedience... might be the best possible remedy for this ultimate failure of judicial review," (Arendt 101)

Rebellion also sparks, within the rebels themselves, a greater sense of morality. The rebel becomes part of something greater than himself, throwing himself to a cause which he deems worthy of his entire person. The rebel simultaneously gains a understanding of himself, as well as understanding of his connection to other men. The slave who rebels against his chains begins to realize, "the part of himself that he wanted to be respected ... [is placed] above everything else and ... it becomes for him the supreme good." (Camus 156) This new self awareness is something the ideal state would foster in its citizens. When a man rebels, he gains this awareness and spreads it throughout the State. He also gains a community of fellow rebels, and an understanding that he is connected to fellow citizens. After the rebellion, the self awareness and community remains, leaving the State better off.

Once the government becomes aware of a rebellion, it should begin to look closely at the roots of this disruption. Much as the citizen has a duty to his government, the reverse is also true. If the people are restless, and are willing to rebel, the government should attempt to ascertain the cause of this rebellion. The government is there to protect its people, so when the people are unhappy, the government should work to mitigate the problem, thus helping both itself and its citizens.

Rebellion

Rebellion has proven itself to be the deciding factor in the histories of many of the world’s governments, being the last ditch effort of the citizen to change the machinations of their society. Whether the government likes it or not, the right to rebellion is a right of the people, and one that cannot be taken away no matter the amount of oppression. The only way for a citizen to rebel is for them to “refuse allegiance to the State, to withdraw and stand aloof from it effectually [Thoreau, Civil Disobedience, pg 15].” Only through the violation of one’s social contract with their government and the removal of themselves from it can they actively take steps to harm the State without the act becoming a self-destructive movement. The method of rebellion is unimportant, because the “Reasons for rebellion do seem to change,
in fact, with periods and civilizations [Camus, The Rebel, pg 158].” The only thing of any importance is the idea
that the rebels know that they are no longer part of the State, and will from
then on never be allowed to be part of that particular State again.

The government, on the other hand, still needs to respond to the rebellion, and the
obvious response is resistance. It would not behoove the State to submit to the rebellion’s demands, as that would simply bolster them, giving the rebels a victory over the government. My question is that if a government’s duty is to provide a stable platform for their subjects, what should their stance then
be, since submission will make them weak, and retaliation will vilify them?

Also:

If Sir Ken Robinson is right, than we really should do more dancing:

http://www.ted.com/talks/john_bohannon_dance_vs_powerpoint_a_modest_proposal.html

But if you wanted to watch the video from Friday again:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

Or if you wanted to see his popular follow-up:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/sir_ken_robinson_bring_on_the_revolution.html

But probably, you should just watch the one with dancing.....

And read Arendt for Monday.

To think about:

Hannah Arendt wrote this in 1954:

"Education is the point at which we decide whether we love the world enough to assume responsibility for it and by the same token save it from that ruin which, except for renewal, except for the coming of the new and young, would be inevitable. And education, too, is where we decide whether we love our children enough not to expel them from our world and leave them to their own devices, nor to strike from their hands their chance of undertaking something unforeseen by us, but to prepare them in advance for the task of renewing a common world.”