The Anguish of Chaos on Reasonable Men

The Anguish of Chaos on Reasonable Men
Love creates a null inside mans head that defies all logic and grants what may be considered insanity. As conflicting love in its own nature can be, this conflict escalades when aroused by competition. The competition of love in its own natural state is the same as throwing lava into a tornado, its effects is worse and causes more devastation. To begin to understand the beast like qualities of love, the underlying factors of what causes love, what forces love into action, what happens when love is conflicting with another person or inside a singular person? What effects does love have on the individual? Is love an essence of chaos that controls a person to the very boundaries of sanity and pushes them off the cliff? These questions drive into the very heart of the matter of love. However, what is love? Love is defined as an attraction based on sexual desire, kinship, or personal ties (Merriam Webster). Following the definition of love we must explore why it defies logic and reason. That love itself is a chaotic force was earlier said but what makes it such a force, and why does it defy logic? We will say for arguments sake that man is a creature of companionship, love is the ultimate expression of companionship, and therefore man must seek out love in its ultimate form to no end. Therefore, man has to seek out love and cannot stop himself from this, hence man will stop at nothing to find love and this includes betrayal, deception, and death!
Love is the chaos that tumults the men in “Sleepy Hallow”, and death resumes order to that chaos, particularly to that of Ichabod Crane. This strict adherence to the cycle of chaos and order becomes the most important process in the story. This eternal conflict is constant in the dealings of Crane, Brom Bones, Katrina Van Tassel, and the Headless Horseman. The shifting tides of love represents chaos and death represents order and so shall be interchangeable thorough the argument. Instead of focusing on death as superstition and murder, it shall be viewed as a catalyst to what is right, for love in “Sleepy Hallow” follows too many definitions, whether it be Cranes idea of beauty and money or Bones idea of a fairy tale story, or even Katrina’s fleeting idea of a game. Death is not as diverse in “Sleepy Hallow” because it has one definition, killing a man, as seen when the Headless Horseman slays Crane and restores order to the village. To know the chaos of the story, the story itself must be portrayed as chaos and order completely, to see the change of order and chaos, to see the actions of Crane, Brom, and Katrina, and lastly to see what love does to these people.
Cranes path of chaos and order is a morbid one, but provides the largest picture of what chaos will do to man’s life. Crane traversed to Sleepy Hallow and became the local schoolteacher as well as a choral instructor, and in that role love, chaos, smites him at the site of Katrina Van Tassel.
“As the enraptured Ichabod fancied all this, and as he rolled his great green eyes over the fat meadow land, the rich fields of wheat, of rye, of buckwheat, and Indian corn, and orchards burthened with ruddy fruit, which surrounded the warm tenement of Van Tassel, his heart yearned after the damsel who was to inherit these domains, and his imagination expanded with the idea, how they might readily turned into cash, and the money invested in the immense tracks of wild land (999). “

Once in love Crane became obsessive and continuously thinks of his possible future with Katrina, creating a new chaos in his own mentality, creating a loss of thoughts on work, rationale, logic, and what his future really is.
“Nay, his busy fancy already realized his hopes, and presented to him the blooming Katrina, with a whole family of children, mounted on the top of a wagon loaded with household trumpery, with pots and kettles dangling beneath; and he beheld himself bestriding a pacing mare, with a colt at her heels, setting out for Kentucky, Tennessee, -- or the Lord knows where! (999).”
This chaos in Cranes life creates a heated rivalry with another man by the name of Brom Bones. The rivalry of Crane and Brom escalades to great acts of childish behavior, a sure sign that one is losing their sanity and becoming dull by chaos.
“Ichabod became the object of whimsical persecution to Bones, and his gang of rough riders…. They harried his hitherto peaceful domains; smoked out his singing school, by stopping up the chimney; broke into the school-house at night, in spite of its formidable fastenings of withe and window stakes, and turned every thing topsy-turvy: so that the poor schoolmaster began to think all the witches in the country held their meetings there”
Love is in fact causing harm to the schoolmaster indirectly by taking up his time to clean. Time that could be spent sleeping for better health, or even bettering his career. However, Crane is blinded by love and continues on his futile pursuit to win the love of Katrina. That is until Katrina strikes him down during one of their engagements, sundering his heart into pieces and sending him even further into chaos and despair.
“Ichabod only lingered behind, according to the custom of country lovers, to have a tête-à-tête with the heiress; fully convinced that he was now on the high road to success… Something, however, I fear me, must have gone wrong, for he certainly sallied forth, after no very great interval, with an air quite desolate and chapfallen. Oh, these women! These women! Could that girl have been playing off any of her coquettish tricks? Was her encouragement of the poor pedagogue all a mere sham to secure her conquest of his rival? (1007-08).”
As in predictable manner of all men who have fallen into chaos, Crane tries to escape it by fleeing what causes him this pain. He no longer tries to rationalize what his actions were or have done, nor does he take into consideration what actions he will take. No, Crane is only lost in the world that is his mind, and how warped it has become since love has entered. Thus, order must take place for this man and ease him of the suffering of chaos and thus the forces of order carry in death in the form of the Headless Horseman, and this incarnation of death kills Crane, as legend goes.
” Just then he saw the goblin rising in his stirrups, and in the very act of hurling his head at him. Ichabod endeavored to dodge the horrible missile, but too late. It encountered his cranium with a tremendous crash—he was tumbled headlong into the dust, and Gunpowder, the black steed, and the goblin rider, passed by like a whirlwind”
Order saves this man from the turmoil that is chaos, the turmoil that his mind has become because of love.
Katrina Van Tassel follows a different path of chaos to order and back again. Her path is not strewn with rivalry with another woman, nor is it as chaotic as Cranes’ or Broms’. Katrina’s path is straightforward because she has the option of choice. Her chaos is in deciding between A or B and thus order comes easy to her. Katrina started out to chaos fairly simply; she was the object of affection for Brom Bones. This affection was well known thorough the town and most possibly lead to the greater chaos her life would become, because Brom scared off all other competitors for love she most likely desired someone else to compete against him for her sake. This is such a notion that any rationale person would not have. The rationale person would take the love that is given to them and thus be happy with the life that has been given instead of pursuing a new possibility for the sake of it.
“This rantipole hero had for some time singled out the blooming Katrina for the object of his uncouth gallantries, and though his amorous toyings were something like the gentle caresses and endearments of a bear, yet it was whispered that she did not altogether discourage his hopes. Certain it is, his advances were signals for rival candidates to retire, who felt no inclination to cross a lion in his amours; insomuch, that when his horse was seen tied to Van Tassel’s paling, on a Sunday night, a sure sign that his master was courting, or, as it is termed “sparking,” within, all other suitors passed by in despair, and carried the war into other quarters.”
Thus, Crane ventured into town, unknowingly falling into the trap Katrina laid for him to be her choral teacher, to be her only lover’s prime rival, and to be her strongest pull for chaos. Crane is smitten by Katrina and begins to profess love to her and thus Brom had a rival and Katrina is swept into her own chaos. She now is in turmoil between two lovers in an escapade she has begun and thus has a choice to make, Brom or Crane. However, predestination picked for her because she was only using Crane to prove that Brom loved her, and thus knew from the onset that she will pick Brom as her lover and restore Order, but as previously stated Crane was still in love with her and so she was the precipitating force that called out to the incarnation of death to rid of Crane so that the chaos in Sleepy hollow will be neutralized and life will begin to go back to its previous order. This order becomes much known at the marriage of Katrina and Brom, “Brom Bones, too, who, shortly after his rival's disappearance conducted the blooming Katrina in triumph to the altar…” ( ), as the marriage would likely not have been able to happen if Crane still existed in the town of Sleepy Hollow.
Brom’s tale of chaos is one that takes the longest amount of time because he was first to love Katrina and was last to know her choice in the manner of order. Brom started off with courting Katrina and letting it be known that he was the best man for her, by feats of strength and purpose. He was in essence her fairy tale prince and thus is the prime figure for the beginnings of chaos in Sleep Hollow.
“ He was foremost at all races and cock-fights; and, with the ascendancy which bodily strength acquires in rustic life, was the umpire in all disputes, setting his hat on one side, and giving his decisions with an air and tone admitting of no gainsay or appeal. He was always ready for either a fight or a frolic; but had more mischief than ill-will in his composition; and, with all his overbearing roughness, there was a strong dash of waggish good humor at bottom.”
This perfect fairy tale match up is even punctuated by the fact the Brom has faced the dangers of the headless horseman once before, and that since he has already defeated great evil the idea of him being the fairy tale prince for chaos is even greater.
“Brom Bones, who made light of the galloping Hessian as an arrant jockey. He affirmed that, on returning one night from the neighboring village of Sing Sing, he had been overtaken by this midnight trooper; that he had offered to race with him for a bowl of punch, and should have won it too, for Dare-devil beat the goblin horse all hollow, but, just as they came to the church bridge, the Hessian bolted, and vanished in a flash of fire”
Brom, being the most prominent figure in the waves of chaos, is trapped by his adoring nature for Katrina, and thus begins to fall into the same web the whole town falls. However, Brom gets the heated chaos of rivalry with Crane. His rivalry with Crane is mostly because of his own mind believing Crane as a threat to his man hood and pride.
“from the moment Ichabod Crane made his advances, the interests of the former evidently declined; his horse was no longer seen tied at the palings on Sunday nights, and a deadly feud gradually arose between him and the preceptor of Sleepy Hollow”
Broms pride is insulted only in his own mind because of the fact chaos is spreading these thoughts of insecurity and eventually insanity. Love drives Brom into performing acts of jealousy, believing to disrupt the growing love between Crane and Katrina. “Brom took all opportunities of turning him into ridicule in presence of his mistress, and had a scoundrel dog whom he taught to whine in the most ludicrous manner, and introduced as a rival of Ichabod’s to instruct her in psalmody” (). These acts of jealousy were not made from a reasonable person but from a man driven to insanity, his insanity coming from the desire or love he holds for Katrina. However, order is brought back into Broms world at the death of Crane, preserving his and Katrina’s love together in this story. Katrina marries Brom as earlier stated and thus order is restored to sleepy hollow through death. Broms order is not complete though for he still shows signs of insanity at the mention of his dead rival. “Brom Bones… was observed to look exceedingly knowing whenever the story of Ichabod was related, and always burst into a hearty laugh at the mention of the pumpkin; which led some to suspect that he knew more about the matter than he chose to tell.” (). Broms laughter at such absurdity remains as telltale evidence that he himself still carries insanity in his own mind set. This insanity was carried over by the length of time Brom Bones was in contact to chaos and thus order could not be permanently restored to him.
The continual conflict of chaos and order is one that fights until the very end of “Sleepy Hollow”. The human mind is a battleground for war between chaos and order; it is the war between the abstract and the concrete concepts that turn us into the sane and the insane. To study the abstract is to study insanity and thus order will take you, such as the case of Socrates. The biggest example of the conflict between order and chaos is the Iraqi war, the idea of chaos being the abstract thoughts of terror and righteousness, while order embodies death, decay, starvation, disease, rulers, and rules.

Man and Divinity

Hick is a contemporary philosopher who addresses the problem of evil with a revised look at the works of Irenaeus. Irenaeus looked to the history of humanity as a form of salvation. That God created man as a child and is watching every step to ensure man matures to the divine state. Thus the world is intended to be difficult so that man will mature and overcome these ever increasing difficulties. Hick takes these ideas and addresses the problem of evil in the world with them. The contention being, “If God is Omni benevolent, Omniscient and Omnipotent, why does evil exist in the world”? Hick borrows Irenaeus’ theodicy and revises it to explain that evil exists so that individual intelligence, virtue and spiritual perfection may come about. This is only possible if a world of free creatures exist and they act esti deus non daratur, ’as if there were no God’. Thus evil comes not from the fall of man but because God created a world suited for his purpose, to develop man for divinity. “Man exists at a distance from God’s goal for him, however, not because he has fallen from that goal but because he has yet to arrive at it” (319). On the individual level, man faces pain and suffering to develop himself for Gods kingdom, and the larger level of humanity, evil exists to make man a perfect creature deserving immortality.
“we must admit ‘a two-stage conception of the creation of man’. On the one hand he is the product of a long evolutionary process which resulted in his being made capable of the infinite. This stage was easy enough for the divine omnipotence for in the process the ‘man-to-be’ was largely the subject of divinely organized processes. But the second state in which the man-that-had-come-to-be attains perfection as a child of God the process is long and labored” (McDonald 86).

Thus, by Gods design, evil exists for the perfection of man, and though we are in the process I will argue that Man is closer to obtaining this goal than we believe.
Man’s Evil
The claim is that God created the perfect world, but if the world is so perfect, why does evil exist? The first question that really should come to mind is, where is evils origin? The answer is split into two categories, the evil of man, and natural evil. The first look is going to be mans evil. “it is logically impossible for God to obtain your love-unforced-by-anything-outside-you and yet himself force it” (309). The previous quote is a statement to the effect that God did not create man to force his love, but instead created man to be grow and come into God’s love willingly. This means that God created man with free will, to do so otherwise will undermine Gods own purpose here. It is mans independence from God that allows for the origin of moral evil.
Natural Evil
The problem of Natural evil in Hick’s Theodicy is not a large problem. Hick’s explains the problem of evil as a non-evil entity but a growth entity and that evil is in itself a relative problem. Natural evil cannot be removed from the world because the world is a “soul-making vale” and that to remove the harshest evils will make the second harshest evil the harshest, and so forth, until we arrive at the point that there is no evil in the world and the process of a soul-making vale becomes irrelevant. Therefore natural evil must exist in order for man to become a divine being. It is the poor judgment of man to live on the side of a volcano, and that will cause man to grow in his intelligence and that will make him a more divine creature, granted only slightly, but all of these trial and error mistakes man makes eventually allows man to become fully divine. It is the shrinking world, by shrinking I mean the routes of communication, that speeds up this process.
Free Will
My biggest contention is that free will must exist for Hick’s Soul Making Theodicy. That man has the ability to make moral choices to mature and become divine in nature. Taken at an individual level, free will is an illusion. The choices a person makes are not actual choices but mere desires getting filled. A persons up-bringing and genetics are what design the desires, and his preferences are also designed by the same two inputs, thus a closed system that is determined from the onset. The traces of all decisions can be placed far back in history by causal-event analysis, and therefore, free-will doesn’t truly exist on the individual level. However, looking at the grander scale of humanity, you can see choices that are not pre-determined. The evolution of culture, war, and society is not easily predicted, and though it does not mean that it is not pre-determined but makes a stronger case for free will. There are too many inputs to factor how the society made the decision to use business suits as business wear and not casual wear, or how the development of nuclear bombs came before the development of mass incendiary bombs. Thus on he grander scale, free-will does shape mankind, and it is here that Hick’s soul-making can be seen.
Evolution of the Soul
The advancements of society and culture is the greatest way to see the development of mankind’s soul. How government has slowly left the ways of dictatorships and a promotion of global freedom is growing. The Geneva doctrine of human rights, the establishment of the United Nations and its peacekeeping policies, the end of the cold war saw the growth of peaceful decision making, all point to grand leaps of divine growth however, evil is still strong. The devastation that is brought from genocide, the creation of even more powerful weapons, and the disasters of nature having more effect, are the results of this evil. Mankind has not yet even seen the finish line where divinity lays, but the process of maturity and growth is stronger. Not less than 300 years ago did we see an end to oppression on a grand scale, and less than 50 years ago did we see the world unite in efforts to create peace and end war. Less than 5 years ago saw the boom of humanitarian efforts and the growth of science and technology to increase the global health, not just isolated portions for private gain.
Hick’s soul-making theodicy is a strong theory that holds well and shows it progress easily. It accounts for the reasons of evil, and with digging can hold to where evil comes from. The process of humanity growing can also be traced, and be seen to growing ever more. Irenaeus’ theodicy gave Hicks the needed ammunition to show that evil is not evil, but in a larger picture, actually the work of good. God is Omni benevolent, and has the interest of humanity in his mind. Mankind is well on its path to divinity, no longer are we the children who disobeyed god in a fit and ate from the tree of knowledge, instead mankind has become the young adolescent who has the right ideas, but still follows its impulses. Thus I am confident that divinity may be achieved for the whole of humanity.

Societal Man is Free?

“An absolute surrender of the individual, with all of his rights and all of his powers, to the community, as a whole” (Rousseau Contract Social, I, 6, 9; II, 2, 4.).
For man to be a moral character, which is no longer seen as or acts as an animal, he must give up his personal being to the community as a whole. The claim being that this surrendering of oneself to the State is emancipation from an individual’s tyranny. In simpler terms, give of yourself into the public will and be free from tyranny. This idea sounds great but in reality destroys the individual and makes one susceptible to be ruled over by tyranny. Far removed from the desired liberty and far beyond any known tyranny lies the man who surrenders to the public will.
Rousseau makes claims that are invalid, and I will show most of the claims to be invalid by proving contradictions within those claims. This will hope to undermine Rousseau’s arguments and grant that his society is far removed from his claims.
On Liberty
I shall use the following definition of Liberty “1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e: the power of choice”
Rousseau talks of forcing freedom upon the individual by the state. “That whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free” (Rousseau I, 7). Does this follow the definition of Liberty, the power to do as one pleases? I believe not; even if it is for the betterment of the individual, the tyranny of the general will, force the individual to obey. There is no talk of what will happen if the individual does not follow the group, but I believe it is their removal from the state. Therefore, what follows is, if I do not want to wear blue clothes on Sunday (for example) than I can no longer be a member of the state. This seems far from liberty or freedom, though I can see where Rousseau sees this as equality, because if everyone wears the same thing, no jealousy can be displayed over clothing and everyone is the same. Of course Rousseau does not take the point to these extremes and even sets a safeguard for instances like this by having a sovereign. A person the general will trusts to direct the general will to be more virtuous and moral. Now the general will is entrusted to an individual who is not going to exert his or her own personal will to guide the general will. This point I still do not understand, because the general will trusts this individual enough to grant them power of authority, yet this person belongs to the general will? I am reminded of the philosopher king in this instance. A person the people trust to make them moral. I believe this is more of giving the general will over to a person whose individual will is what the general will believes to be moral. In simpler terms, we grant authority to the person we wish to be most like. How does this coincide with liberty? A person is not free if they are trying to be like everyone else, remember Rousseau’s society is without private property. “Each member of the community gives himself to it, at the moment of its foundation, just as he is, with all the resources at his command, including the goods he possesses” (Rousseau, I, 9). Therefore, it can be concluded that no one has anything and tries to be like the Sovereign. Nothing of liberty is in this equation, only Tyranny of the majority with a leader. Rousseau does not think of this as majority rule though, I believe it is seen more as a compromise of all the individual wills over an issue. I come across a problem with this, because given time, this society will all think the same on an issue and thus the sovereign will have complete control making him a tyrant. Does this make the society one of liberty, no; however, the society does become one of equality. This means liberty and equality are not hand in hand, perhaps it is the existence of private will that grants liberty and equality the hand in hand Rousseau wants.
On Government
“The government gets from the Sovereign the orders it gives the people, and, for the State to be properly balanced, there must, when everything is reckoned in, be equality between the product or power of the government taker, in itself, and the product or power of the citizens, who are on the one hand sovereign and on the other subject” (Rousseau 3, 1).
The government is a civil institution with no power in itself but delegates and applies the laws where needed. This institution with no authority gets its power through the sovereign, which is the citizenship and applies it to the citizenship. I wonder if the government is truly needed then. For it seems that if the society is to be drones of the mass will under the control of the sovereign than the application and enforcement of the laws is unnecessary because everyone agreed to them. No this institution must serve another unspoken purpose and I believe it is to keep inline those who wish to exercise their liberty. The few who speak out against the general will shall feel the oppressing thumb of the government. This institution is corrupt by its very nature in these conditions because it forces equality and tarnishes the individuals will. How can moral character be developed if liberty does not exist to exercise one’s own free will.
The problem with Rousseau’s society is that it extinguishes free will. The individual will surrenders to the general will. “I love my city more than I love my soul” becomes Rousseau’s slogan, and this destroys free will. When society makes decisions for you, while making you believe you are part of that process, than it has total control over your will. This form of tyranny is far beyond the tyranny of the world today, where the individual will still exists and up-rises against tyranny.
Property
If we take Rousseau’s society and include room for private property and time for the individual, an equal and free society can be made. It should be the role of the sovereign to instill Moral character into the society but not by directing the general will but rather to inspire participation into politics. If man is allowed to exercise his individual will in the private sphere while in the public sphere participate into the general will by injecting ideas and discussing laws, than he is equal with everyone else having a voice and enjoys liberty by doing what they wish for the most part because the enforcement of the group will follows that he should. If the individual disagrees, they are not forced to agree, they are free to speak against and demonstrate against the law. This builds a truly moral character and not a moral drone of the sovereign. Thus, democracy is Rousseau’s Free State, not a republic but a true democracy. The issue arising is size, and here I think a federal democracy is important. Let the will follow through from individual levels to more federal levels. Tally votes not by representation but rather by individual communities overall will, creating a better shape of the countries will. An informed and educated federal democracy will be free and equal.

Empty

Slowly but surely I feel my Sanity slip right through my fingers
Lack of sleep and things to do draw me to my darkest places.
I am afraid, and it draws me deeper into myself
everything around me is changing, even now colors bleed.
Was that sound real or imaginary?

The further I draw into my mind the more I know,
this knowledge of myself is too much.
I am not depressed, I just know the meaning of the void,
the void just consumes and we are left alone.
I have seen the man in the mirror, is he a friend?

The tv flickers, and I am mildly entertained
the music plays and I could care even less.
Scream for me so I know I am real,
and yet my voice is constrained.
Is today the past, present, or the future?

Free Trade?

“Lunch time comes around and you are tired of your store bought cookies that mom packs everyday. Your buddy across the table has a chocolate chip muffin that was baked the night prior. Your friend looks disappointed at the muffin and longingly at your cookies. Likewise, you are staring and drooling over the delicious muffin, so you propose a trade, the cookies for his muffin. Your friend agrees and both of you are happy.” Using the above analogy the basic premise of free trade is found, however the person with the cookies could bake the muffin themselves and not have to trade away the cookies, but the effort and resources involved is much more difficult than the trade. Learning how to bake, spending money and the materials needed, and the time requirement all are more demanding than the trade; the problem then arises when the person with the muffin realizes this and decides to take advantage over the cookie person. They may require more than just cookies, or may require that the person with the cookies only trades their cookies for his muffin. Or the reverse could happen and one can make both easily, but decides to only make one and trades with the other because it allows the person to bake/buy more muffins/cookies and thus allows a greater range of trade. This analogy describes the process of trade and some of the reasons why countries trade with one another but it does not develop the problems trading have because the analogy works only on the individual scale, on the larger scale problems such as; draining a country of its resources, depletion of world cultures, and the abuse of labor forces, arise but are combated with the arguments; globalization provides economic growth, stability throughout the world, and the promotion of human rights. Globalization is a powerful, unstoppable, force that has a good and bad side, however it is going to happen and in the end globalization will benefit the world more than harm it. As a force globalization will bring potential peace and stability to the world.
Drained Resources vs. Economic Growth
An argument against globalization claims that the countries in power drain the weaker countries to stay in power. A prime example is Brazil. Brazil’s largest natural export is wood that is cut down from rainforest and other places. This resource is only partially renewable in time and so is depleted faster than recreated. Brazil uses this resource to trade for manufactured and process goods like equipment and necessary materials for the industrialization of the country. Therefore Brazil loses resources in the hopes to become a stronger industrialized nation, the argument against this process is that because other countries provide the funds and materials to industrialize Brazil in exchange for the natural resource, they drain Brazil of what is the base necessity for anything brazil could make and also produce what brazil could produce at a cheaper cost, therefore Brazil may never become strong enough to compete with the world powers and thus never grow. However this is speculation by those who are against industrialization through globalization. The speculation cannot be conclusive because enough time has not passed to see Brazil complete its process, but a growth can be seen in Brazil’s economy over the pass 20 years, after it started the process of industrialization, therefore the process of free trade has helped Brazil so far and therefore is a strong indication that globalization is more helpful than detrimental.
Depletion of World Culture vs. Global Stability
“The beauty of globalization is that it can free people from the tyranny of geography” (Legrain, 2). An argument against globalization is that it prompts cultural imperialism. The country that spreads the most in trade will build more of their culture with the countries they trade with and deplete that country of its own culture. Arguments that support this claim are MTV, McDonalds, Coke, and Hollywood. However the arguments miss one important fact, the use of these industries in the countries. In Thailand MTV promotes Thai music singers, McDonalds specializes its food for the culture it serves, in France McDonalds serves pizza along with burgers and fries while in China it serves noodles as well as the burger and fries. The only strong argument is Hollywood and that has large weaknesses because the top directors and stars are not American as well as a majority of studios are foreign owned, Hollywood just happens to have a start in Hollywood but is a promotion of culture in its own countries. All of this trade of culture between countries promotes stability. It is harder to trade products and gain economic growth when warring with a country you trade with. Also this trading promotes democracies and democracies rarely war with one another. Some claim it to be the Imperial Peace proposition but that differs greatly from the democratic peace proposition. America is allied with most of the western hemisphere and does not war with democracies, however US allied democracies war with US autocracies more than with US allied democracies. Therefore the imperialism peace proposition cannot apply. Democracies are able to promote peace for the strong argument that commerce is strongest in democracies and that commerce promotes moral capital, which has a civilizing and pacifying effect on statesmen and civilians. (Weede, Globalization Can Prevent War). Therefore free trade does not promote culture imperialism but promotes peace and is more likely to prevent war.
Abuse of Labor vs. Human Rights
One of the most convincing and probably incorrect arguments against globalization and free trade is the abuse of Labor pools in third world countries. The argument is appealing when compared with strong economic countries. The argument compares wages and conditions in countries like America with those in countries like Malaysia. The argument claims that Multi-national Corporations abuse the labor pools by paying them less than what they pay people in other countries and by overworking them. This is a completely ridiculous argument in those terms because paying a worker in Malaysia 8 dollars an hour will flood their economy with wealth creating inflation of prices for everyday basic needs and those who do not work in the corporation factories/plants cannot afford to live anymore. A person must look at the wages of the host country and compare those with the wages multi-national corporations pay. A close look at this will show that corporations on average pay more than other jobs in the host country, providing wealth but not an excessive amount of wealth that will flood the local economy. The opposing argument is the promotion of Human Rights. When a corporation comes in and pays wages to the employees that are normally higher than the other jobs it causes those in other jobs to demand higher wages and thus starts the promotion of human rights. Labor forces start to pool together and make demands on bother country and employers which allows them to gain some power and rights over conditions; this in turn creates activists who seek rights to benefits and eventually creates unions and other such facilities. This promotion of human rights and welfare is the result of just one person getting paid more than their neighbors. The idea of jealousy and capitalism thus promotes human rights and therefore promotes globalization. So in the end globalization and free trade provides opportunities that were not available before and thus makes globalization a force that helps labor pools, not abuse them.
The Perspective of Multi-National Corporations
As a student in Dr. Cremona’s International Political Economics class I was able to participate in a mock setting of the conference between multi-national corporations, the IMF, and the World Trade organization against interest groups, the devos economist and union leaders. During this activity I was the role of a multi-national corporation, namely Nike. As Nike I did research into products and their environmental safety, what the company does to promote wellness in other nations, and their policy. The conference resolved many issues I had with globalization and I learned a few things. The Nike Corporation is actually not the sludge it is presented as. The company does provide subsidized or free housing, it offers medical benefits and it pays more than the minimum wage of whichever country it belongs to. It has implemented a policy of retrieving old shoes and recycling them to create new shoes, saving base resources and staying green. The conference did have a downside in the idea of accepting a Tobin tax to create new roads and to help starving people. The agreement was of a Tobin tax about .05%. This tax seemingly small does equate to millions of dollars a year to help people across the globe.

In the end globalization promotes human welfare and rights, allows for economic growth of a country and promotes peace and cultural diffusion. Globalization provides opportunities that are not available before hand and so is a force that works to the benefit of the world. The arguments of Cultural Imperialism, Drained Resources, and labor Abuse are only the short-sightedness of those who do not grasp the entire concept of globalization. As the allusion in the beginning stated, every one gains what they want with free trade in the end.

Platonic Virtue

“You, Socrates, began by saying that virtue can't be taught, and now you are insisting on the opposite, trying to show that all things are knowledge, justice, soundness of mind, even courage, from which it would follow that virtue most certainly can be taught” (Protagoras 361b).
Socrates believes that virtue can be taught as a neutral objective science, opposite of what Socrates argued at the beginning of Protagoras. In which the opposite was true, Protagoras believed he could teach virtue while Socrates believed it could not be taught. In the breakdown of their argument, one position that was agreed upon was that everything had an opposite, temperance, wisdom, courage, each which is considered to be a virtue has an opposite.
“’So whatever is done in a certain way is done from a certain quality, and whatever is done in the opposite way is done from it’s opposite?’
‘I agree’” (Protagoras 332c).
Looking at the entirety of the Protagoras one can see the flip flop that Protagoras and Plato make. If reflected upon the entire subject matter, one could argue that Protagoras goes from being teacher to student, as well as Socrates going from philosopher to student. Who or what ends up in control is the argument itself, which places both men into a more humble state. Each man going from believing what can and cannot be taught until they argue the complete opposite of their original point and starting the argument anew. Taking the agreement from the text above, each man went to the opposite of the original, so which quality did the men exchange places in. The most humorous answer will be that both men started believing in the wisdom of their arguments so that both ended up in folly. Where then lies the answer to the dilemma, that of which is ‘can virtue be taught?’
Virtue is defined as the quality of doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong (wordnet.Princeton.edu). Can a quality be taught to an individual? Can a person be taught to be kind, wise, intelligent, cruel, ignorant, or courageous? These are things that conventional society sees as being taught and just in a persons nature. That the capacity for these qualities are encoded in a person and that our upbringing either brings out these qualities or it does not. In accordance to the question, whether a persons qualities can be taught, I would have to say nay, the qualities that distinguish us from one another can not be taught. A man cannot be taught to walk through fire, or taught to smile at every person he sees. If it is naturally in the person to do these things, they will do it but if it is not in a person to do these things, they will not do them. A prime example will be that of a person whom faints at the site of blood, you cannot teach this man to be a surgeon.
Since virtue is the quality of doing what is right as previously defined, then virtue is either doing what is morally right and/or doing what is right in accordance to the law. To seek out what virtue is, it will be better to split virtue into morally right and lawfully right, then try to combine the two into a more exact definition to virtue.
Morally right is conventionally seen as doing what is believed by the individual to be the right thing at the individual time. Whether or not what the result, if an individual believed it to be right, they were acting in accordance to moral virtue. A utilitarian viewpoint would agree to doing the greater good as being right. While a Machiavellian would believe it to be seemingly good for the greater cause while enacting one’s own ends. In both cases an individuals philosophy led cause to what is morally right for them. Therefore to be virtuous in a moral sense would be sticking with one’s own individual philosophy in all cases presented against them. Which means a completely ignorant person is morally virtuous if they stick to their ideals.
In terms of doing what is good in accordance to the law we have a different virtuous man. This person is the one who follows the law and reports on what they see as unlawful. This would be considered a citizen in ancient philosophy. Therefore a citizen is doing good in accordance to the law. Now following the law of a tyrant will still make you virtuous in the law-abiding sense because ignorance cannot be helped in such situations. “Where ignorance is bliss, tis folly to be wise” ~ Thomas Grey.
What about confliction between being morally good and law-abiding. The morally good man may decide to break the law in a case of need, such as a robin-hood. What of the law-abiding man who reports the thefts of a robin-hood? Two virtuous people are in conflict at this point, one being morally virtuous while the other law-abiding. Therefore virtue must have tiers. Which virtuous person is to be considered more virtuous?
The most virtuous a person can be is one who is knowledgeable and able to make decisions based on reason, loosely following John Stuart Mill. When a person makes decisions on their reason and knowledge they are not making a decision based on law but based on their own morals or personal philosophy. Therefore it could be said that the better virtuous person is one who does what is right based on what is morally right as opposed to a person who does what is right based on the law. So virtue is defined as doing what is morally right in accordance to one’s own philosophy. How does a person teach this?
Virtue cannot therefore be taught because each individual must develop their own philosophy, a person can be taught philosophy itself as a subject matter but this will only indirectly teach a person virtue. Does this make virtue objective as Socrates believes? No, virtue is now defined upon the individual and thus this will make every person virtuous as long as they listen to their reason and do what is right.
Virtue is therefore embedded within every reasonable person who sticks to and follows their own philosophy. Virtue cannot be taught and is subjective. there is no end means to virtue which makes it an objective science as Socrates believe, but it makes virtue an un-teachable science because a person cannot be taught their own qualities.

Us Hegemony = World Peace

The answer to such a question on U.S. policy is tricky. Should the U.S. even pursue a Global hegemony? The United States shouldn’t pursue such a cause, but will and has already started to pursue such causes. The case against any global hegemony is the same, it creates animosity between the super state and other states, power holds as long as tactics are used to keep a hold on that power, and those tactics tend to become rougher and more ruthless, international consideration is not taken into effect, and when the Super State falls as hegemony, it falls hard causing power rifts in its wake. However, since the United States has already begun its ascent as a hegemony, the question of whether or not it will lead to international peace is convoluted. As long as the U.S. remains a strong hegemony it will maintain peace, either through military, economic, or cultural force.
Military Force
In the case of Militant force, the United States will be able to maintain peace as a Hegemony. The reasoning behind this is simplistic in tactics. Ensure no other countries Military power comes close to the U.S. The united States has the most sophisticated military technology, and to ensure it stays this way a policy on non-private military corporations will have to be maintained and instead be incorporated into the US military research and development. Treat this sector of US Military as a private sector, allowing innovative and creative individuals to take reign of any enterprise; ensuring strong growth in military technology minimizing the sale of these technologies to foreign powers. This tactic will keep the US military as the most advanced military force and therefore the most powerful. Though the policy seems pretty straightforward, the hardship is keeping up a face of democracy and free market, while controlling a portion of the market. It could be said that this policy is not a breach of government because it ensures liberty to the world, but this is balderdash and will be seen as such, therefore any project such as this must be kept secret and military industries will have to remain as a cover for this type of operation.
Economic Force
In terms of economic control, the US Hegemony will need to remain the largest and fastest growing economy. This entails an economic policy of real GDP growth, and a minimizing of leisure time. Holidays will need to be removed and the work week expanded to include either Saturday or Sunday indefinitely, while jobs will have to go from nine to five, and become seven to seven jobs. Twelve hour days on a six day work week. This will insure economic productivity and efficiency. Jobs must leave a total service industry and technology research will need to grow, innovation is the key to a successful market. However, drastic policy changes such as this will cause much dissent, and therefore won’t be able to work, unless a threat is able to be proven to international peace. An economic threat such as an opposing governments economy growing rapidly and sharply, that holds to a different set of ideals. Once scared into the American people along with a decline of US Hegemony economy will in later years create an economic boon and such policies will be followed intently, for the citizenship will gladly lose leisure time in order to ensure their way of life and such prosperity will lead other nations to wanting this way of life.
Social Force
The last is a social power, the US Hegemony will need to ensure that its culture is the most desired, filled with fun and entertainment to captivate other nations into emulation. The quality of life enjoyed by the citizens of a US Hegemony must appear and be greater than any other. This will cause citizens of other nations to revolt or push for a joining to US Hegemony and ensure a growing hegemony, thus increasing the potential for International Peace. Once the majority of the International community is homogenous with the culture of the Hegemony, it should create a relationship between all people. What the US needs to do to ensure this is to create an atmosphere that attracts all peoples, ranging from parks of thrill and entertainment all the way to developed theater and cultured arts, to even majestic natural scenery. The US already has some of these things done by its policy of economic freedom and the low population in relation to its size. Disney world and the Rocky mountains are the two extreme examples the US has at its disposal to make such policy work. What the US Hegemony will need to do is take control of these places politically and enhance their appeal and make them easier to arrive at and afford. If the US takes a policy of lessening the prices of theme parks, and builds upon its natural beauty some more, it makes it easier to battle down resistance for other countries to emulate, and once emulation is obtained, the transferal of culture will be much easier.
The United States has already begun becoming a hegemony by using military and economic force in other places of the world to enforce its form of ideals. This process has been increasingly called globalization, but in reality it is the Americanization of the world. Recent developments in the international community, such as the E.U. and the growth of China has started to affect US globalization policy and I am sure that in a few more years we will see the American backlash against such power threats with cultural expansion and stricter economic and military policy.