SumBlog#3

Emile Durkheim

       For Emile Durkheim, the Sacred and the Profane in the general sense, is simply the differentiation from the rare and the common place. At first glance, I may be able to see the reference in example, like the every day to day job is profane while the vacation is sacred. With little thought a problem can be noticed, is it to say that because one's own children are in the household by definition are not something to be considered sacred? So if according to Durkheim should children not be cherished?

    However those definitions might be validated if applied to those in power. What I mean by that statement is the tendencies shown by those who become rich, famous, and well respected by the masses. It seems that for the initial period of time when someone is thrust into the spotlight, they display a large amount of self control, intelligence, and benevolence. At some time after unfortunately, there seems to be a common occurrence of those of such elevation to begin showing frequent failings and instances of corruption. It seems it is because they no longer find the attention they receive as sacred, and become complacent in their lives, and take the fame they have for granted.

 

 

 

     It is not apparent for those who are famous, to have displayed any real admiration for the activities of the less famous as sacred, due to their likely lack of participation. It there for appears to me that in extreme generalized application of Durkheim's proposals, that as an individual's fame and prestige increase they loose aspects of what the hold to be sacred,without gaining much to replace what is lost. This when applied to the ever controversial realm of politics, could be in part an explanation for the frequent issues in the Government of the united States, which can be observed today.

SumBlog#2

Reversing Carl Marx’s “Camera Obscura”

 

Alright first, at this time I am not making a political statement about FOX news, I’m only suggesting that the full reversal of Camera Obscura may not be ideal either.

Basically the problem I see as proposed by Marx, is that of the social cherry picking of the good things while ignoring the bad. The people in any society I think are bound to emulate their society at the individual level, because they are not mutually exclusive. So aren’t the claims against the FOX news network at least a possible micro example of the opposite of Marx’s concern?

                So, instead of cherry picking only the good, I think that cherry picking only the bad can be just as detrimental to mitigating the issues. These problems such as excessive greed are definitely a product of the capitalistic mind set. Although as part of the news media, FOX can also be considered as Macro is scale, as they reach a large amount of viewers.

                I’ve spent some time thinking of a metaphorical solution, to this occurrence of both versions of Camera Obscura, and I see it like a weight placed on the end of a scale, tipping it (society) off balance. The equal opposite of this weight, is also placed on the scale. The problem I see is that this placement sways repeatedly due to the momentum of the moving scale. It also seems to be a blind guessing game if where the equal and fair point is, should someone arbitrarily stop the discussion.

                This arbitrator would need to be a Philosopher King “Plato’s Republic”. This person would be required to be person who is non-biased and in full expertise of the issue at hand. Muck like as the conceptualized ideal Pope, if limited to any and only Christian Vs Christian issues. The obvious problem with the reality of the world, is that there is no real pure mediation, that is on a Macro scale.

SumBlog1

I am quite interested it the points of view, given by Alexis de Tocqueville. Considering how Alexis, is in the position to advocate stratification in the form of an aristocracy, I may see what he was meaning. From what I can tell about the aristocracy before the French revolution, much like the rest of Europe, was that aristocrats viewed the majority lower populous as somewhat like their own extended family. Perhaps in that they were of the mind of “I benefit, when my country is strong”. When you pair this with his notion that such titles should be given due to individual merit, I can see him viewing his ideal as the best are working for the whole. I can agree that this is can or would be a great thing.

                The problem, I do see in the real world application of this, is the unfortunate result when one of those two needed components, is corrupted. In the first component, the “one for all” is that there are many historical examples of leaders instead having the “All for one” ideology. (I realize the 3 Musketeers reference) Corrupted leaderships who’s main focus is self-preservation or self-glory, could leave the populous destitute. In addition, a desire for one in power to keep power, by only advancing ones own family, is quite desirable, because it will keep one at such a status. Assuming that the case is for an ideal honorable person doing such things, eventually that person will pass on, leaving those who were only pawns, in charge.

                In regards to the other point of advancement through merit only, yes, merits should always outweigh inheritances that are passed on. Someone should always be rewarded for their effort. However, not as often as corrupt inherited power, there needs to be a distinction to what an individual accomplished, as compared to what a large group did, and if that great  success realy be given to the “leader”. Great examples of this are the most notable generals of history. Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and the rising star during Tocqueville’s time Napoleon Bonaparte. All are famous examples, the great campaigns these men participated in, resulted in mainly all the credit going to those themselves, while few if not none of the many thousands of soldiers remain unknown, and unrecorded. It is as if only recalling General Washington, and forgetting Baron von Steuben, General Lafayette, Benedict Arnold, or "I have not yet begun to fight" John Paul Jones.

 

Sefishness Is The Chalenge Of Any Society