Hypothetical Scenario for Strategically Using Subzero v. Raiden
Considering the class is of ethical questions concerning justice, I can only guess the most probable in class essay question will be of "Select Three Authors from our reading and deduce their concepts of Justice." That seems to be the closest I can come to in order to figure out. Now, let's assume that this will be the question, what will my authors of choice be?
Kant shall be an easy choice for me since I love to rail the fuck out of him in any fashion. Second choice will be Friedman for the same reason. Which one? The husband or wife? I hate both of them equally but for different reasons. His wife is a classic example of feminist. With her arguments she actually becomes what she dislikes, sexist. Given that, I'll have to side with Milton to write with because his portions are so easy to conjure up justice based philosophy and argue upon it. It's almost too simple with quotations inserted by him; he writes like a true bore... like a Dan Brown... or a Hemingway, just completely simplistic to either entertain the layman in order to understand what he's trying to say, or rather he himself keeps his vocabulary at such a minimalistic level to keep his economics at a cutting edge. (sarcasm must be noted here, mind you).
Third choice I would love to throw myself a curve ball like Aristotle but it's not as exciting with him. He presents no controversy to tear down with reason; instead it's rather plain errors not on his part but of his time, what knowledge there was for him he actually had the most prestigious of provoked use of reason. Nothing makes the reader more sympathetic for than to know the writer's errors after the fact. Don't even begin to tell me that you think reading about children in Pakistan actually produce more sympathy. If individuals here in the United States were actually sympathetic or cared for matters in Darfur, they would produce action. I'm talking about the everyday 9-5 layman (yes, I choose to use this word to describe such individuals, myself included in such a category). We play the role of morally sound so we act like it hurts us to hear about those people. I go against this notion not for rebellion's sake or fighting the current or differentiate myself from them or of any reasons full of stupidity or rather, emotional torrents; it's because I want to stay true to myself and I realize I actually don't care about people I don't even know. I accept that fact. If I tried and cared I would clearly be emotionally masturbating myself for public to view in order for them to acknowledge, "Hey Don, look, he's one of us!" but no, I refuse to do it on this topic.
Off track again... Aristotle, let me pass on you for now. Another day I'll let you shine because you're honestly more suited for a science essay than of philosophy or ethics (in my opinion). John Rawls with the veil of ignorance to guide our moral compasses? Yes, I could stretch his ideals of justice for a good while without running short on steam, but he's one that I generally agree with, I would thoroughly enjoy the blitzkrieg of pen to paper when I have opposition of view. If only we had someone like Ayn Rand to focus in on, but what am I to say about her? I haven't even attempted start the 2,000 page book of hers on my shelf. I have too much of a bias against her after seeing her books being used as conservatism propaganda (even though her philosophy proclaims atheism. It's quite funny to see political parties or members of such parties ignore that fact and use her market philosophy to push legislature). I really do need to conquer that book soon so I can have a valued opinion on her works, or at least one of hers.
Ugh, now I feel like I must read Atlas Shrugged before anything else; should I really read her book for the time before summer school, come on... yes, I do. I have to. Family, money, business... interesting, right?
I don't know for the third author, I'll just stop pondering and choose John Stuart Mill for an easy win, for the checkmate move upon the already decimated city of English class.
Finish him, Raiden! USE THE LIGHTNING! FUCKIN' DO IT!
Kant shall be an easy choice for me since I love to rail the fuck out of him in any fashion. Second choice will be Friedman for the same reason. Which one? The husband or wife? I hate both of them equally but for different reasons. His wife is a classic example of feminist. With her arguments she actually becomes what she dislikes, sexist. Given that, I'll have to side with Milton to write with because his portions are so easy to conjure up justice based philosophy and argue upon it. It's almost too simple with quotations inserted by him; he writes like a true bore... like a Dan Brown... or a Hemingway, just completely simplistic to either entertain the layman in order to understand what he's trying to say, or rather he himself keeps his vocabulary at such a minimalistic level to keep his economics at a cutting edge. (sarcasm must be noted here, mind you).
Third choice I would love to throw myself a curve ball like Aristotle but it's not as exciting with him. He presents no controversy to tear down with reason; instead it's rather plain errors not on his part but of his time, what knowledge there was for him he actually had the most prestigious of provoked use of reason. Nothing makes the reader more sympathetic for than to know the writer's errors after the fact. Don't even begin to tell me that you think reading about children in Pakistan actually produce more sympathy. If individuals here in the United States were actually sympathetic or cared for matters in Darfur, they would produce action. I'm talking about the everyday 9-5 layman (yes, I choose to use this word to describe such individuals, myself included in such a category). We play the role of morally sound so we act like it hurts us to hear about those people. I go against this notion not for rebellion's sake or fighting the current or differentiate myself from them or of any reasons full of stupidity or rather, emotional torrents; it's because I want to stay true to myself and I realize I actually don't care about people I don't even know. I accept that fact. If I tried and cared I would clearly be emotionally masturbating myself for public to view in order for them to acknowledge, "Hey Don, look, he's one of us!" but no, I refuse to do it on this topic.
Off track again... Aristotle, let me pass on you for now. Another day I'll let you shine because you're honestly more suited for a science essay than of philosophy or ethics (in my opinion). John Rawls with the veil of ignorance to guide our moral compasses? Yes, I could stretch his ideals of justice for a good while without running short on steam, but he's one that I generally agree with, I would thoroughly enjoy the blitzkrieg of pen to paper when I have opposition of view. If only we had someone like Ayn Rand to focus in on, but what am I to say about her? I haven't even attempted start the 2,000 page book of hers on my shelf. I have too much of a bias against her after seeing her books being used as conservatism propaganda (even though her philosophy proclaims atheism. It's quite funny to see political parties or members of such parties ignore that fact and use her market philosophy to push legislature). I really do need to conquer that book soon so I can have a valued opinion on her works, or at least one of hers.
Ugh, now I feel like I must read Atlas Shrugged before anything else; should I really read her book for the time before summer school, come on... yes, I do. I have to. Family, money, business... interesting, right?
I don't know for the third author, I'll just stop pondering and choose John Stuart Mill for an easy win, for the checkmate move upon the already decimated city of English class.
Finish him, Raiden! USE THE LIGHTNING! FUCKIN' DO IT!
Comments
Post a Comment