Panel Schedule

2/21 3:30-4:30 -- Emily (panel: Philip and Jane)
2/27 3:30 -4:30 -- Jessye (panel: Bryce and Jon)
2/28 3:30-4:30 -- Leah (panel: Anthony and Eric)
2/29 7:30-8:30 -- Caroline (panel: Philip and Anthony)
3/1 7:30-8:30 -- Ali (panel: Cesa and Judith)
3/1 3:30-4:30 -- Anna (panel: Bob and Dylan)
3/2 3:30-4:30 -- Taylor (panel: Kiernan and Frances)
3/5 3:30-4:30 -- Kyle (panel: Renee and Leon)
3/6 3:30-4:30 -- Elana (panel: Brian and Kiernan)
3/7 7:30-8:30 -- Maggie (panel: Judith and Philip)
3/8 3:30-4:30 -- Pippin (panel: Allen and Bryce)

Thesis

Democracy needs to be constantly re evaluated by it's subjects, and in doing this we ensure that it remains a just representation of the people that it represents and that gives it power.

I was also going to go into how we as moral beings have the duty to contribute to the public sphere in order to improve our society and help it be as mobile as a a democracy fundamentally should be. I also realize that if i use the word "just", then I'll need to go into the meaning of just by all of the philosophers that are required for our paper, so I'll go into that as well.

Kyle's Thesis

A government must provide jurisdiction, including instilling a sense of duty, only until it is no longer needed because only when individuals have the freedom to think, speak, act, and make mistakes on their own, can they develop the maturity and understanding to become enlightened and contribute, listen to, and engage with others in the public sphere.

p.s. Elise can you help me out grammatically as well :)

Redheads & Caroline

This is pretty long and unwieldy (I'll try to cut it down into one sentence) but does it make sense?

Since individuals are shaped by their historical and societal context, the government has the power to form and influence them. The government’s primary obligation is then to create moral individuals; it exists to be of maximum benefit to the citizen, and this is most successful (ie, citizen’s life is most enjoyable and productive—I’ll make this more eloquent later) when the citizen is surrounded by and interacts exclusively with moral individuals (I’ll define morality in the intro too).

I'll also talk about how the government should go about doing this, but I wasn't sure whether or not to put it directly in the thesis.

Pippin's thesis, Team Rocket, I guess?

The government’s role in its society is its own continuation, precisely balancing national needs with the complacency of the populace, the citizenry filling the role of the creators and judicators, giving the government its conception, as well as holding the threat of rebellion in
the event that a government loses balance to the point where its termination is
necessary. This creates a cycle of a thesis set by the government that if unfavorable by the masses creates an antithesis, which will result in the synthesis of either the rebalance of power or a compromise for the appeasement of the people.

Roughly my thesis-Please comment

Government must understand the difference between desire and need in order to guide the individual to obtaining basic human needs and human rights.

I don't have a coherent thesis yet, this is a first stab at one and it's still in three sentences, but I do think I know what I want to write about.

As humans we are born into very specific situations, which remain enormous influences on our developmental process into citizens of a socity. These situations include but are not limited to pre-formed societies, privilege or lack thereof. As we observe the society we are born into, we experience reactions, which then leads us to shape a sense of morality.

Simple example that will illustrate what I am trying to say:

Someone hits a baby- the baby thinks “ow, pain, pain is bad, therefore hitting is bad.” (Sort of following Rawls’s reasonable and rational)

Also--I have this, and I know they're connected I just haven't quite grasped the concrete link yet...

There is no ideal society, Capitalism is an unsustainable reiteration of a state of nature, and it’s opposite, communism, is unjust, (using Plato/1984/Mao China/USSR). I propose a Social Democracy as a happy medium. Although the capitalist mentality is understandable, that what you earn is yours and only yours, ideally all humans are “reasonable and rational” (Rawls) and ideally then the top one percent of the economic totem pole (ladder? I am blanking on a legitimate way to say this) will see that it is fair, as well as to the benefit of society, to contribute a just amount of their wealth back into society. This top one percent was able to attain their status as so because of the capitalist system in place, in which there will always be some citizens that benefit, but a large majority who do not. As the wealth gap increases, and once this one percent has been established, almost cemented, it becomes impossible for most citizens to be hugely economically successful, no matter what their education or intelligence level may be. Here I will draw slightly on Sartre’s theories of colonialism, namely that the top one percent should see that it is in their best interest to keep some money in the lower classes, because that sustains a market that will buy into whatever industry has made this citizen wealthy in the first place. But hopefully, colonialism aside, the top one percent see contributing back to society as a duty, for in order to ensure success for another generation, they must provide the same environment that they were granted, a society that provides economic opportunity.

Through each citizen’s participation and contribution to a public sphere of ideas, that brings everyone’s personal reasoning together, society will gradually move to a greater truth.

Taylor: Team Rocket!

Hey guys! This is a very rough idea, but let me know if this is a good direction to go in!

Rebellion is essential for the foundation of society, but because there is no way of knowing what is best for everyone within that society, we need to incorporate the marketplace of ideas, so that the new state can thrive and develope. All citizens are encouraged to share their ideas and concerns before a panel of elected citizens, that rotate regularly.

I wanted to cover the ideas that: rebellion is neccessary for the foundation of a new state, citizen relationships are important for a society to thrive, and the marketplace of ideas is a valid place for the citizens to have discussions and progress, but the marketplace won't move on in discussion if no group of people are "clerking" them and the marketplace of ideas is easy access to all citizens.

So far, my thesis is somewhere along the lines of: In the ideal State, the relationship between a government and its citizens is an ongoing dialectic. Thus, the government becomes an impermanent thing, changing its laws and basic structure when the needs of people demand. Staticity will crumble any form of government, given enough time; Constant evolution is the foundation of a thriving society.

Leah Team Rocket Thesis

Hi team rocket. Thanks for your edits! Here's the general idea:

In order to form a functional society, citizens must develop a universal morality through individual trial and error- infringing on others' liberties, experiencing the reactions, and using those experiences to refine their morality. Government, then, only exists to intervene when an individual evades the consequences of his actions.

Hannah's thesis-- redheads + Caroline

Democracy is a dialectic between the individual and the community: the individual sacrifices to better the community, but the community must allow the individual certain basic rights.

Team Rocket Thesis

Okay, so here's my thesis for the time being:

No one individual knows what is best for all of society; therefore, it is necessary to establish, within the public sphere, a market place of ideas, where all citizens are able and required to submit their concerns, suggests, and thoughts, which will be put put into effect by a group of elected officials, thus improving society and moving towards establishing the best way to live.

5th period, spring term

Dinner Party Civics: Democracy, Leadership and Amendment One

Thinkers since Plato have questioned the proper role of intellectuals in society. In this class, we will continue that investigation by considering our role in the current fight against North Carolina’s proposed Amendment One. First, we will take an adapted version of Marshall Ganz’s Moral Leadership course, a mainstay of Harvard’s undergraduate curriculum, in order to question what it means to be called to serve as moral leaders in a fragmented world. Second, we will brief ourselves on the techniques of grassroots activism to address the following question: How can we use our limited powers to affect the greatest possible positive change? Third, our intellectual work will culminate in the fun-loving creation of a Civic Dinner Party Troupe, a nonprofit, for-hire group inspired by the Murder Mystery Dinner Theater genre. Our group will work to master the arguments of particular thinkers throughout history, both level-headed and bigoted, from Gandhi to Rush Limbaugh, to offer our characters, and murder-mystery plots, to willing dinner party hosts. Our hosts will have the opportunity to debate against, and amidst, famous thinkers in the comfort of their own dining rooms. Proceeds from our theatrical escapades will go to Equality NC’s Amendment One campaign.

For tomorrow -- Monday 1/30

Please read (sorry for the late notice but it is short):
The passages from the Bible (study of the Prophets) in dropbox.

Questions to think about:
Who speaks for the marginalized in a society?
What if the speech (or what they have to say) goes against the status quo or is otherwise unacceptable?
How do you make people recognize that what these people have to say is relevant?
To what extent do we need history and tradition to inform our action?
If the prophet is one who delivers an unpopular message, how do people listen?

As you are pondering your notions of the marketplace of ideas and the public sphere, an acknowledgment of these questions is essential to move forward. Another way to think about it would be to find the spaces within for social justice.

Also, please read your email (I sent you something to read) and come to class with panelists in hand. We will go to 2:15 with our guest speaker on Monday.

For next week (1/23)

For Monday (1/23) -- Read Nietzsche from Beyond Good and Evil (aphorisms: 44, 202, 203, 204, 212, 219, 242, 265) -- in dropbox
Read carefully (take notes while you read!)
Eric Downing will join class today. Class will go until 2:15

For Tuesday (1/24) -- No new reading, catch up with Foucault, Nietzsche, Sartre from the past few days (lingering questions?)

For Wednesday (1/25) -- Jamie will join us. If no lingering questions we will begin the process of review and recap.

For Friday (1/26) -- Read Fanon from The Wretched of the Earth (not in dropbox yet, but will be soon)

Remember: Names of panelists are due on Monday (1/30) and thesis statements must be on the blog by next Friday (2/3)

Important dates!

Final Paper – Due, Monday, February 13, 2012
IN FOLDERS – WHICH CONTAIN EVERY OTHER ASSIGNMENT!
Length: 10 + pages (don’t go over 15)
Must include: Cited reference to Plato, Kant, Marx, Hegel, Nietzsche
May include: Any other philosopher or thinker discussed this year
Footnotes or parenthetical citations are fine

Thesis statement – Due, Friday, February 3, 2012 ON THE BLOG
One sentence is fine, but the more of your first paragraph you have the better

Comments to thesis – Due, Tuesday, February 7, 2012 ON THE BLOG
You must comment on your group, you may comment on any others
Jamie and I will comment to the best of our abilities

Names of panelists – Due, Monday, January 30, 2012
In class, you must give Elise the names and email addresses for your panelists

The social contract... another perspective

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOyDR2b71ag

This video (less than 2 minutes long, find the time to watch it) is Elizabeth Warren, professor at Harvard Law School and democratic candidate for Senate (Massachusetts, 2012) speaking at an event. She raises a different view of social contract theory. You will find this interesting, even if you don't agree with her. (ps and bonus point -- Which philosopher whom we have read would most agree with Warren? Why?)

Next week (1/16-1/20)

For Tuesday:
Continued discussion of "The Ballot or the Bullet"
Please listen to at least part of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRNciryImqg

For Wednesday:
Please read Sartre "Colonialism is a System" (in dropbox)
What does Sartre mean by the "system" of colonialism? Where do you see links to Fanon? To Malcolm X? To your evolving ideas about nationalism and the marketplace of ideas?

For Friday:
Please read Foucault "Body/Power" (in dropbox)
Jamie will teach class today!

Reading for Friday 1/13

For Friday (1/13), please read the speech by Malcolm X titled "The Ballot or the Bullet." Think about the ways in which Malcolm constructs citizenship and nationalism. What are the options he gives to citizens to express their opinions? What would he think about your public sphere marketplace of ideas? How would Malcolm X respond to King? To Fanon?

One more thought on MLK

In the Letter, King remarks that NOW is the appropriate time for this type of action.

In the "I Have a Dream" speech (August 28, 1963), King revisits his Letter response to the eight clergymen's "untimely" argument: "We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now."

Just FYI, the new Carolina Friends School inclusivity brochure is titled: "The Fierce Urgency of Now" (What began as an issue that could be described in terms of black and white, has moved well beyond just a matter of color.)

French Translations of Fanon

Hey guys, here are the translations of the French parts of the Fanon thing in dropbox.
As Jamie said to our Romanticism class, "translations are like women: either faithful or beautiful, but not both." Hopefully these are at least comprehensible.
Anyway, I numbered them on here and on the actual PDF... enjoy

1. Our aim is to help blacks to free themselves from the complex struggles that have grown from Colonialism.

2. Discovering how wrong and unjust his alienation is, he who has been made to feel inferior (the black man) returns to his original traditions. He engages, with passion, in this culture that has been abandoned, rejected, misrepresented, etc.

3. The indigenous’ struggles/inner conflict with his culture is too solemn and abrupt to allow for any faults or vulnerabilities. This total immersion in the chasm of the past and of past cultures is the source of his liberty.

4. The mobilization of the masses introduces into every mind/consciousness the idea of the communal cause, the national destiny, and the collective history.

5. In a true collective stance, families that were previously enemies can put their differences behind them (literally, erase and forget everything). The reconciliations multiply; old buried hatreds are again awoken only to be even more surely eradicated. Everything becomes simultaneously mystical, a brotherhood, and a church.

6. Nationalism is not a political doctrine. If an individual truly wants to spare country these setbacks and faults (I’m assuming, this ‘period of bourgeois rule in new states’), it is necessary to move from the national conscious to the political and social conscious.