The UWSA.. and my lack of Choice!

When I first came to the University of Winnipeg, I was filled with both excitement and fear at the same time. Although in general I found that my primary focus was on the education factor of my experience (go figure), I found myself drawn into the issues addressed by the community at large. While a lot of information about such things could easily be gathered around the campus itself, I found a large portion of the information I had about the university coming from our school newspaper, the Uniter. It was in general a very biased newspaper, either dealing with political issues with a very leftward slant, or with simple non-issues at all, such as new things in sex toys, or where best to get laid in the city. But yet I continued to read, mainly because such views were interesting and insightful, even if many times they were biased, and as well a few times a good article would grace its pages (although not nearly as often as one should expect). I also felt obligated to read such things as this was one of the major outlets for information on the UWSA, a mandatory student union all students must buy into in order to attend this university. The UWSA had never inspired confidence in me on my part, but at the very least they had provided some programs for students in need of them, and I had no reason to think them as nothing more than an organization representing all students to the University faculty, and the world outside of it.

Such a view of the UWSA would not last, and soon my I would find an article in the Uniter that would show me a side of the UWSA I had never known to exist before, one which angered me so much that I began to wonder if I should even be any part of it at all.

It was the second last week of school, essays and exams were looming over my head, and in all I was quite busy in life. But as was common I picked up a copy of the Uniter. In it I found an article titled On the Limits of Pluralism^[1]. “This week the UWSA Board of Directors again denied student group status and funding to a Pro-Life group. The group, whose proposal had previously been denied, requested an opportunity to present to the board. The Board denied the application once more, on the basis that the UWSA is a Pro-Choice Organization and that counseling services for potential mothers are already available as well as the support in the Womyn’s Centre”^[2]

So the UWSA was a Pro-Choice organization. I had never heard such view, nor had I been asked about them when I had to pay my tuition fees over six months before that. Now I must first point out that I am neither Pro-Choice nor Pro-Life. To put it bluntly, I find both camps are filled with ignorant fools, too zealous and extreme to looks carefully at the other side. Nether group is looking for truth; rather both simply want victory over the other. Such purely rhetorical arguments I try to stay away from. Little did I realize that in fact I was supporting a Pro-Choice group while proclaiming my innocents of such involvement. A little hypocritical if you ask me.

My problem is not so much that the UWSA is a Pro-Choice group. Options are held, and I respect the Pro-Choice side of the argument. What I resent was the fact that I had no choice in making such a decision. In essence I must agree that in order to attend the university of Winnipeg, I must adhere to a certain moral code, that of the side of Pro-Choice for example, even if that code is contrary to my own. Not only that, but the group that was to make up the Pro-Life group was not one based upon outsiders, but was going to be run by student of the University itself, all of which paid tuition as well.

What about elections? The Board is made up of an elected group of persons, and as such was democratically elected by all of us. It is the decision of the student body to be pro-choice, must I not respect that? Beside the point that only 909 student, from a population of over 8000 elected the new board, my question is “Do we have to make a choice at all?” Why is it that the UWSA is pro-choice or pro-life, or any such political position? From what I understood, the University of Winnipeg Student Association was not at political organization, with doctrines, dogmas, etc. I believed it to be an objective group, merely providing services to the student body, and occasionally organizing lobbying action on issues concerning students, such as student tuition. I had always considered it to be a non-political organization.

So then what can one do? How does one resolve the issue at hand? I only see two options for those of us who hold contrary views, or simply do not want to be part of the issue such as myself. I propose a fracturing of the UWSA into two separate groups. First can be called the UWSA, whose purpose could be what I had originally believed it to be. Simply and ONLY to provide services to the student body, such as computer services, books stores, all purely academic clubs for funding, etc. No political views can be funded or addressed by this group. The other group could be known as the UWSL or the University of Winnipeg Student Lobby. This would be the political entity of the Student body, and this would be the group responsible for lobbying of the government, funding for non educational groups such as the LGBT, Womyn’s Centre, etc, and this would be the entity that would and could be Pro-Choice, Pro-Life etc. Why create these two groups? Funding for both could be mandatory for students as with the UWSA is currently now, but one can if one desires have a refund of the funding directed at the UWSL, so as to allow the student body to decide if one desires fund non-educational groups.

Such is a difficult task at hand, and many will ask which tasks go to which, organizational questions such as how are these groups run and elected. This is the only ethical way in which I believe one can organize such unions and services, otherwise we are imposing political beliefs on those that do not support them, and forcing them to fund such beliefs. The question comes down to this, does the UWSA which claims to be Pro-Choice, allow freedom of choice, even when the choice is against them?

Works Cited

Tan, Jonathan. (2004, March 25). On the Limits of Pluralism, Uniter, 5

---

^[1] Jonathan Tan, (2004, 5)

^[2] Jonathan Tan, (2004, 5)

A Comparison of Republics: Roman Republic vs. American Republic

As new American military maneuvers and offences take place on almost a daily basis around the world, and as the number of nations in which there are American forces continues to rise, many persons looking back on history will wonder to themselves if the Americans are the modern version of a Roman empire. Is the American republic the same, or if not than similar to that of the Roman one? Is America a modern day Rome?

To answer that question, one must first looks back at the Roman Republic, look at its founding and political structuring. One must thoroughly examine the Roman republic, and see if politically and similarities arise with that of the American one. One must then compare and contrast to the new American republic that is rising, and see if it would seem that history is repeating itself.

Founding

The true facts surrounding the founding of Rome are almost entirely hidden in the shadows of history. Little is known on the bases of true hard fact, the kind of fact that would satisfy a modern historian. As such, historians have had to rely not only on simple archaeological facts, but also literary sources, although those that are available to us are often written hundreds of years after the fact.

Even in the literary sources, conflicting stories often arise, and are often more based on legend than fact. In Plutarch^[1] for example, a variety of very different stories are given, even a multitude of different details concerning the same story. Many of the stories given are linked to ancient Greek stories. In one the founding of Rome was taken up by refugees from the city of Troy, by others it was founded by a son of Hercules or Odysseus or a multitude of others. But to the Romans, the story of Romulus is the most popular (although this is again given by the Greeks). Here the details of the story are disputed, but the general outline is farley clear. The city of Rome was founded by Romulus and Remus (according to some they were even the sons of the god Mars, the god of war). While the details of the story are of some interest, the main point to stress is that from the very beginning, Rome’s founder was one which was constantly at war (in some cases even the son of a  god of war). This aspect will become important when looking upon the Romans in more detail.

“While geography rarely decides the fate of communities, it rarely fails to affect it.” ^[2] Again if ignoring the literary record, one can look at many things concerning the Romans simply by looking at the site at which it was founded. The river Tiber was a very difficult one to cross. The site of Rome however is an exception, for it contains an island within the river, making the crossing that much easier. It became a meeting point between different groups, such as the Sabine in the North, and the Latins in the south. Although just over 32 km upstream from the sea, the river ran swiftly and was difficult to navigate from the site of Rome. That fact, adding on that Rome was often the meeting point for farmers and herders; this would lead Rome to become a land-based people. ^[3]

Rome was also founded in an area where many different peoples and groups fought over each other for supremacy. If one looks at the accounts of Romulus one will find Rome’s first king in a state of almost constant warfare. It was his first act after founding the city to build an army. “When the city was built, in the first place, Romulus divided all the multitude that were of age to bear arms into military companies.” ^[4] It was with this force, Plutarch mentions that Romulus undertook some of the first battles against the Caeninenses and the Sabines. Often the results of the battles and wars were an expansion not only of territory, but of civilian population itself (the conquered were often incorporated into the Roman population). Thus even from its founding, Rome was at war and was expanding.

America however was founded under different circumstances. First and foremost, unlike their Roman counterparts, America was not founded in a single location, but in areas, two separate ones to be exact (of very different nature and purpose). The first being in Virginia in the south, and the other in New England in the north. Unlike the Romans, the history of America is very well known and documented. As Tocqueville stated, “America is the only country where one has been able to witness the natural and tranquil developments of a society.”^[5] As well, America was founded in an area in which the threat of competition was not as much of a factor as it was to the Romans. Contrary to war and expansion, the guiding principles to the Americans were ones of wealth (in the case of Virginia) and freedom from religious persecution (in the case of New England). Particularly in the North, the great experiment or the founding ideas of the American Republic would be brought from Europe. “Proportionately, there was a greater mass of enlightenment spread among those men than within any European nation of our day.” ^[6] Some might say, that free of the presence of war and competition, the Americans were allowed to build their utopian republic. The ideas brought about would later be revealed in the founding of it.

Since its founding, Rome was a monarchy. Ruled by kings, Rome would (through wars, alliances, and more wars) gradually expand its area of rule and influence. According to legend, by 509 BC however, the Roman Monarchy was no more and the Roman Republic was born. After the rape of Lucretia by the son of King Tarquinius Superbus, a coup was conspired and the King overthrown. After much war by the ousted king against the Romans, the king lived out the rest of his days in exile, and the Republic was allowed to take shape. Some others however believe that the date of the change in government to be must later than that (even as late as 450 BC), others say the change was not so drastic, but rather slow in coming, with the monarchy dwindling in power, to be replaced by the consul system of the Republic. Again much support can be found for the idea, for the simple fact that many of the institutions of the Republic were already founded before the monarchy came to an end.^[7]

The Americans also had a revolution, but in this case the history of it is well known. By the time of the revolution, the territory of the Americans had also expanded. This was due not only to the Americans themselves, but to their mother country which still ruled them. As such the Americans were also under the rule of a monarchy. However for the reason of taxes and want of self-government, a declaration of independence was signed by the thirteen colonies in 1776. It would be over ten years later, when the first attempt at self-government had failed, that a new constitution was made.

Political Structure

The institutions of the Republic were first found in Rome far before the monarchy ever fell. In the story of Romulus, some familiar political institutions are already in place. “He treated the remainder (after the army) as a people, and this multitude was called populus; a hundred of them, who were the most eminent, he appointed to be councillors, calling the individuals themselves patricians, and their body a senate.” ^[8] One of the oldest comitia, the comitia curiata was founded well in the reign of the monarchs. It is also during the reign of King Servius Tullius in the mid-sixth century that the comitia centuriata was also organized. It is now that we will look in more detail at the inner working of the Roman Republic.

The government of the republic is a large and complicated one, filled with checks and balances of power. To state that the republic is one form of government or another is something not only difficult to moderns but to the ancients as well. “It was impossible even for a native to pronounce with certainty whether the whole system was aristocratic, democratic, or monarchical.”^[9] When one looks at a certain part, one finds democracy, another aristocracy, and so on. As such we must look at each part one by one.

The democratic element consists of a number of assemblies, all with different purposes at different times in Rome’s history. The first and oldest is that of the comitia curiata. The people for military purposes were divided by three tribes (Tities, Ramnes, Luceres), each of those divided into ten curiata. Eventually recognition of the tribes faded away (for the military purpose) but the groupings still retained significance as each of the curiata (thirty in all) came together to form a committee. The comitia curiata would confer the rights of command (called imperium) on senior magistrates and other purposes such as witnessing adoption, wills, etc. By the time of late republic each curiata was represented only by a lictor. It only had a formal purpose and was rarely very important in the political scene (although it is said to survive right up until the end of the republic).^[10]

All other assemblies voted in the form of group voting (usually orally in groups, but by the late republic a secret ballot was common. By the time of King Servius Tullius, the comitia centuriata was organized. This was one of the most important bodies in Roman politics. Like the curiata, this assembly was also organized in the same mode as the military was. It was responsible for the elections of consuls, praetors, and censors, as well as declarations of war and treaties of peace and alliance. All citizens were eligible to vote in this comitia. The groups were chosen originally by the quality of armor, but latter by wealth. ^[11] It is not every group of voters was equal in number. For example a group of one hundred wealthy people would vote together and that would count as one vote, and so on and so on till you got to a few thousand poorer people voting as one group (and so one vote). The group distribution heavy leaned to the wealthy, and it was the wealthy that voted first. Groups would continue to vote till a majority was reached and as often happened the vote would almost never continue past the wealthiest of citizens( although some exceptions would happen from time to time). Within the mid third century B.C. the comitia centuriata was reorganized to enable it to lean slightly more to the poor. However wealth was still a major factor in the comitia centuriata.^[12]

The two other assemblies were the comitia tributa and the concilium plebia. They were organized not by wealth like the comitia centuriata but by region. Each area of the republic was divided into thirty-five tribes, only four of which were urban or from Rome. The catch was that all voting took place within Rome. So voters from the other tribes would have to travel to Rome and vote. This had the effect of making the voters from outside of Rome have more power than those inside Rome (as there were more tribes, and because less could travel to Rome, each individual voter counted for more votes). All citizens could vote in the comitia tributa, but only plebeians could vote in the concilium plebia. These assemblies were responsible for voting on legislation (although the plebia only got that power by 287 BC), as well as for voting in lower magistrates, such as curule aediles and quaestors for the tributa, and tribunes and plebeian aediles for the plebia.^[13]

What were the powers of the officials that the assemblies voted into power? First and foremost were the consuls. These were the positions almost equivalent to the king at the end of the monarchy, and are referred to the monarchal element of the Roman political system. They would be elected every year and for the most part re-elections were not so common. Consuls would often take command of armies and lead any wars Rome was to take part in. They also acted as executive officers of the senate, and would summon them for advice. Consuls originally acted in the area of jurisdiction as well, but this was taken up by the praetorship in 367 BC. This development was followed by a second praetorship in 242 BC. As the empire expanded, two more practors were added to manage the Sicily and Sardinia, and two more for the acquisition of Spain. Eventually by the time of Sulla, two more were added for a total of eight praetorships.

The aediles were used in the day to day running of Rome, including games, road, public buildings and in particular the grain supply. Quaestors were the financial assistants to the consuls, and often managed the financial aspect of the Republic (when the senate did not). Finally there were the tribunes, elected by the plebeians. Although their purpose originally was to act at the plebeian voice in a patrician government (the patricians were the original members of the senate, the aristocracy, while the plebeians where often new immigrants and the poorer persons), as the blending of the patrician and plebeian family began to take place the need for it decreased, they would often still act as advocates for the common Roman. They were also sacrosanct, meaning no person could harm them. They also had veto power to any legislation, although a tribune could veto another’s tribune’s veto.

There was only one major flaw in the democratic process in Rome, and that was that no discussion of the legislation could be made by any of the assemblies, nor could they pick any of the candidates. Simply put they could only vote yes or no on any given legislation, and only vote for the one candidate they preferred the most. Therefore, the job of making up legislation and picking candidates was left to one body.

The aristocratic element consisted of the Senate. The senate as stated before began as an advisory council for the kings and afterward the magistrates. However as time progressed, the senate began to acquire more and more power. Although never formal, the senate’s power was one of authority. Its main role was one of an advisory one to the consuls, as well as control of the financial aspects of the empire, and anything to do with foreign policy (a role which would become very important with the growing influence of the republic. Especially after the Punic wars, and the start of Rome’s expansion outside Italy, the senate would become the most powerful body in the Roman government. As military campaigns began to take longer than a year, and re-election was not encourage much at around this time, the role of military policy and management felt on the hands of the senate. This gave them much power, and some academics believe that it was the expansion of the empire than prevented Rome from becoming a full democracy. ^[14] The growing republic also fueled competition within the senate that would cause the breakdown of the Republic itself.

The American system of government however is far more different than that of the Roman Republic. As is apparent from an examination of the Roman republic, it is one that is based on a hierarchy. The American one is not.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights….”^[15] Such ideas would be laughable to Roman ears, and it is this principle of equality and human rights that sets apart the American republic from a Roman one. Such evidence can be found in the arrangement of the comitia centuriata by wealth, and that a certain wealth was required to gain entrance into the Roman senate and magistrates. Almost any form of permanent hierarchy attempted is to be eliminated in the American way of government. For example, all persons can vote, do so not in groups but individually, and as such no form of wealth will make one vote count for more than another. All people and citizens (this would eventually include all persons over the age of 18) would have the right to vote.

Does wealth play any role in American government at all? While in the past it may not have, it is no secret that today wealth is almost a prerequisite to it. The high costs associated with an election have driven position of power beyond the reach of the average man. The costs of an election campaign are in the millions in the United States as is much similar in the Roman Republic.

Unlike the Roman Republic, not all those who were wealthy have a huge concern with the American Republican system. While all those who where members of the senatorial class were senators, and because of the huge responsible was placed on the wealthy to maintain the republic, the wealthy Roman had to have a concern and interest in government. Not so in the American Republic. While large portions of the wealthy do exert a force on the government, the general population is still apprehensive about such shows of wealth (this can be seen in the campaign “common man” approach). In the Roman Republic a huge pressure was exerted to show off a huge and lavish lifestyle (such as the presentation of games), and shows of wealth were generally encouraged. It would seem that to the American, any form of extravagant wealth is looked upon suspiciously. Look for example at the protests against globalization, against the growing influence of the wealthy on government, etc. Such protests and indignation would not be found in a Roman setting.

Let us look for a moment at the political structure of the America itself. First the nation is divided into semi-autonomous states (and in the beginning of the American Republic, they were far more independent). Each state can elect representatives to the Senate and House of Congress. The House is based on a population standard (that is more populous states get more representatives), while representatives to the Senate are elected by a state (two senators from every state). Such care to include all areas of the Roman Republic on the democratic process where never considered, with the entire voting taking place in Rome itself, even when the Republic stretched out as far as Spain and Syria. A concept of equality and rights was never present, nor was there a suspicion of wealth as we find in the United States.

Finally let us look at the demands war and competition put on the Republics themselves. While the Roman Republics it seems is constantly in a state of war, the American seems almost entirely absent from it. Finding nearly a sparely populated continent and little in the way of competition, the Americans were under no pressure like the Roman to develop a massive army. No pressure to expand the borders (although the Americans still did so more for ideological purposes) to defeat enemies. As was stated before, one the measurers that may have prevented the Roman Republic from becoming a democracy were war itself. Wars can hardly be undertaken in a democratic republic, unless a strong executive class or a highly centralized power is present. As such as strong executive class will often destroy the foundations upon which it stood to begin with, absorbing power long after the threat is gone. “Hence it is that all peoples who have had to make great wars have been led almost despite themselves to increase the strength of the government… A long war almost always places nations in this sad alternative: that their defeat delivers them to destruction and their triumph to despotism.” ^[16] In the Roman Republic, long wars ment a stronger Senate and centralized state, and eventually a single emperor. America has not yet faced a long war. One might wonder what will happen to it if it does.

Works Cited

——– (1996) Declaration of Independence (Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia), R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company

Adcock, F.E. (1967) Roman Political Ideas and Practice, Ann Arbor Paperbacks

Cornell, T.J. (1995) The Beginnings of Rome, Routledge

Crawford, Michael. (1993) The Roman Republic, Harvard University Press

Patterson, John R. (2000) Political Life in the City of Rome, Bristol Classical Press

Plutarch, (1914) ‘The Life of Romulus’ in The Parallel Lives, Loeb Classical Library, http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Romulus*.html

Polybius,(1922-1927) Histories, Loeb Classical Library,  http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/6*.html

Tocqueville, Alexis de. (2000) Democracy in America, (translated by Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop) The University of Chicago Press

---

^[1] Plutarch Life of Romulus

^[2]Adcock (1967, 3)

^[3] Adcock (1967, 4)

^[4] Plutarch Life of Romulus 13 (Loeb Classical Library)

^[5] Tocqueville Democracy in America Pg 30, (translated by H.C Mansfield and D.Winthrop)

^[6] Tocqueville Democracy in America Pg 32, (translated by H.C Mansfield and D.Winthrop)

^[7] Cornell (1995, 215-216)

^[8] Plutarch Life of Romulus 13 (Loeb Classical Library)

^[9] Polybius Histories 6.11.11 (Loeb Classical Library)

^[10] T. J. Cornell (1995, 115,117)

^[11] Crawford (1993, 195-196)

^[12] Patterson (2000, 9-11)

^[13] Patterson (2000, 12)

^[14] Adcock (1967, 36-37)

^[15] Declaration of Independence (In Congress July 4, 1776 The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America)

^[16]Tocqueville Democracy in America Pg 159, (translated by H.C Mansfield and D.Winthrop)

The perfectly just political regime . . . and why it is not possible.

With proclamations of injustice and wrongdoing ringing throughout many headlines, articles, editorials, etc, one wonders what and if anything can be done to over come this. While the forms of injustice and corruption range from handing out a government contract to a friend, to losing more than a billion dollars in something as simple as gun registration, injustice seems to be a constant not only in the modern day, but in all of political history. So what can be done? How does one create the perfectly just political regime? For this we can look almost twenty-four hundred [360 B.C.] years in the past, to a book called The Republic written by Plato, where the perfectly just political regime is discussed and established in the creation of a noble lie, and in a series of three waves.

In order to eliminate corruption and injustice, one must look at why injustice occurs in the first place. The answers lie in the reasons people enter politics, which are for material self-interest and to seek justice. All of our rules have both reasons, all wish and seek justice in some form or other, and unfortunately all of our rulers are always corrupted by material self-interest as well.  A desire for power, money, love, friendship, family, all hinders the effectiveness of a ruler. While seeking power and money for example, a ruler will often suppress his or her people, and maybe even take power and money from others in the form of laws and taxes. A ruler will also often look in a favorable light toward his or her beloved, or toward his or her family and friends. Such actions are not just and so an effective ruler must not have a material self-interest.

How do you go about with the elimination of material self-interest?  For a start you must make up a noble lie, one told to all people (414 B – ff). This noble lie states that all the people of a regime were made and came from the ground, and that the earth on which they stand on is their mother. This is told so that all will seek to defend it, and so that all will see each other as brothers and sisters, not allowing for a favorable view by others because of family. Also, while in the ground, a little bit of metal was left in them, gold, silver or bronze. This is not a natural inheritance, so gold parents don’t always have gold children, etc. An education is made in order to determine what medals are found in each person. Therefore all children must be given the same education, all are educated equally so that all are given the opportunities to be rulers, guardians, etc.

When the medal of a person is determined, and the class of rulers, guardians, etc, is found, the next step occurs, which seeks further to eliminate material self-interest. All rulers must not be allowed to own land or property, and not receive any money, or are simply unable to use it. All rulers must live in communal living, in big barns where they all eat and sleep together, and all must wear the same type of clothing, so as to not make one person of more importance than the other. All forms of family, friends, and love must also be eliminated, so as to prevent any material self-interest. All of this comes into being through a series of three waves.

The first wave deals with the political equality of women, referred to as the inclusion of the female drama (451 C- ff) into political life. All tasks will be open to both men and women. Those that deal with physical strength (which look more favorably to men), will be counteracted by the assignment of specific tasks. For example in war, women will make weapons, and men will use them. Those that do not deal with strength such as medicine, education, rule, etc will be open to both sexes. Socrates goes to argue than in order that the best of the best become rules and guardians of the city, all people both men and women must be allowed to participate. Women must be taken out of the household and brought fully into political life. This will have the consequence of women unable to raise children or run a house because of their full participation in political life. This arrangement then leads into the second wave.

The second wave, larger than the first is the elimination of permanent relationships, and the state raising of children. In order to prevent our leaders from looking more favorably to family and lovers,  love must be eliminated all together. This is done by turning all relationships into a series of sexual relationships. All coupling is chosen at random by drawing lots, and when you find your partner, you engage in whatever actives you wish with each other, sexual or otherwise. This is done so as to insure no preference is given to one person by any other person, because no one can choose who goes with whom, not even rulers. Any children resulting in these relations will be given over to the state and all children will be raised in communal living. The state will use any means necessary to make sure no one will know who there true children or parents are. Therefore all children will be viewed as children of the state, and all must care for the children as though they were their own. All children are given equal education, and all can become rulers, guardians, etc. Love between two persons is eliminated, and the only family existing is the family of all people, of all citizens in a regime.

The final wave, the simplest and yet most difficult of all is best described in the words of Socrates himself. “Unless the philosophers rule as kings . . . and political power and philosophy coincide in the same place . . .  there is no rest from the ills for the cities . . .  nor will the regime we now described in speech ever come forth from nature, insofar as possible, and see the light of the sun.” (473 C- E) The philosopher must rule, because a philosopher king will combine both wisdom and power to impose justice.

So the perfectly just regime is now in place. Both men and women are seen as equal, all children, regardless of the class of their parents can now all become rulers or whatever they wish. A sense of harmony will now exist in the regime, as all will now become one family, knowing they are all from the mother earth, and all brothers and sisters. This myth can never be dissolved because no one will be able to truly find their own biological family. Finally we will have perfectly just rulers, philosopher kings that will rule with wisdom and a power to enforce it.

If any of this sounds not only improbable but impossible, well then you are on the right track. The perfectly just regime has many deeply rooted flaws that if not hindering its existence, then will make the system impossible all together. In fact one could have eliminated the possibility of the perfect regime in the first few paragraphs of the argument. The costs associated with the perfect regime are far too great for the persons involved. Although material self-interest could be minimized with the removal of love, family, etc, those most capable of ruling, the philosopher kings would never take on the position of rule. A philosopher by definition is the most erotic of all beings, and desires and longs for the truth and knowledge of the good, but the good itself. In an attempt to perfect one aspect of the good, justice, you must completely ignore or minimize all other aspects of the good as well. A search for the divinity, a love of nature, search and love of the beloved, will be just some of the good sacrificed in order to attain perfect justice. The third wave, the one that holds the entire system together, the rule of the philosopher kings, is not possible because by the definition of a philosopher, no true philosopher will accept the position to rule. Unless you have just rulers, wise and powerful enough to enforce justice, than the system will collapse and eventually lead to tyranny. The perfectly just system is therefore not possible.

Plato’s Curriculum

Over two thousand years ago, a student of Socrates by the name of Plato established what is now known as the Academy. With its founding, a new method of educational thought was devised, one which unlike all others encouraged an education based not on any political ideal, but on the concept of freedom of thought and the just human soul. Revolutionary, it is unfortunate that Plato’s educational thought has little to no influence on the educational thought of today. Little is known by the modern North American public as to what the curriculum of Plato actually was, or more importantly what its value and purpose was, and how it substantially differed from today’s education. Some go as far to say that it is the only true alternative to the current political-based education. Looking back on one of his most famous books the Republic, one can find out exactly what Plato’s conception of philosophical education truly was.

One must first remember that Plato’s educational theory was one of preparation for free thought, and given an education for a just soul (the city referred to in the Republic is an image of the human soul). Normally in a political order, the soul is ordered in a hierarchal faction. On the top one finds desire. Second to that is reason, which is used to find a way to simply satisfy those desires. Finally is the will, or the mechanism in the soul that causes action. Not only does one have natural desires though, but often habitual desires from ones environment will be present, and often they will be so strong they will seem like natural desires. A soul ruled by desires will not just be in conflict within itself (conflicting desires for different things) causing disorder and an unjust soul, but will also be unable to engage in free thought, as you will be a slave to the political environment (in order to satisfy desires you need resources, so then need to co-operate with current political thought). Therefore a different ordering of the soul is required to solve these dilemmas.

That different ordering of the soul should consist not in a hierarchal arrangement, but in one in which reason and desire work harmoniously, and ones true desires and natural desires are found. Plato’s educational theory then should habituate its students to that ordering within their own soul. Such an ordering can be most effectively done through music and art.

In Plato’s curriculum however, not any type of music will due. It must be a type of music that make both reason and desire work together. So popular music or music appealing just to the desire must be avoided at all costs. An education in music must be given so as to give the student the knowledge and ability to use his/her reason when listening to music. The music itself must be a classical-style type of music, one in which such a form of music cannot be appreciated unless one uses both reason and desire. The student’s soul will be habituated into harmony is this way.

Music is one of the most pivotal parts Plato’s education, but it is not the only component of the begin stage. Studies in Art, Gymnastics, History, and Literature are also essential. All these again are in preparation for the harmonizing of the human soul, as well as preparation for free thought. Gymnastics can for example harmonizes the body and the soul. Literature is used to look at different combinations of reason and desire within the soul, and looking at different responses to the permanent, universal questions that free thought is concerned with. History is used to see how dogmas change over time, and as many philosophical works are written in continuity with those that came before. One must look at the history of philosophy to understand current ideas and arguments, as all current and popular ideas (such as human rights or multiculturalism) have their origins in the history of philosophy. What is most important throughout however is the use of primary sources, which is one must learn the original texts of the day in their original languages. All this is necessary at the first and primary stage of education. But again we are missing one important part of the first step.

That would be “this common thing that all kinds of art, thought, and knowledge use as a supplement to themselves, a thing that is necessary for everyone to learn among his first studies”^[1] which is the study of arithmetic or the science of quantity. The student should engage in simple mathematics, combinations and relations of numbers, as well as dealing with units. Again this is so that the student will understand the concept of numbers and be drawn to the knowledge of being (To be able to bring human thought into relation with the object of study). When one looks at an object one is simply looking at it in a visual sense and no other part of the soul is at work. However when number is brought into it, the intellect is activated and used. This brings one closer to the good (as seen in the image of the line of Plato in book six and seven ^[2]).

The simple learning of numbers is not enough however, and soon one must apply it to objects. This leads us to our second step to plain geometry (squares, triangles, areas, etc). This again brings one closer to knowledge of being and the good, and a true harmonization between thought and the object of study. Previous to this numbers were simply that, and not able to apply to anything. That is to say that previous numbers were simply that. “Each one equal to every other one, without the slightest difference between them containing no parts within itself”^[3] Thus these number must now be applied to an object. The study of geometry is permanent and constant (a line is always a line, and that a square is always a square). It teaches the student about permanency and universality (which may help encourage the student to look at permanent universal questions). This however is not far enough and a simple learning of plane geometry must be taken further to bring it closer to knowledge of being.

So then a more advance form of geometry must be undertaken, one that takes into account the depth of objects (such as cubes, pyramids, etc¼).  This is noted in the republic as the third study ^[4]. This then teaches how one would calculate an object one cannot necessarily see. This will show the student that one can learn about things beyond sense perception, beyond what one can simply see. This again will help to bring into relation thought and object.

To summarize up to this point, first one learns of numbers, then one adds length and width in measurements of numbers and quantities to make squares and the like. Then one adds depth making cubes and the like. Each time we come closer and closer to the knowledge of being and the good, each time adding more value to that journey. We are bringing our thought closer and closer in relation to the objects external to us. Each step in Plato’s curriculum advances further and further, building on previous knowledge. Finally we must add motion to our three dimensional objects, and so move on to the study of astronomy in terms of the motions of bodies or astrophysics (which is mentioned as the fourth study^[5]).

It is in astronomy that one can see the motions of objects and bodies the easiest. By calculating them out and using our previously gained experience in such knowledge, one can try yet further to bring one’s thought into relation with the objects in the external world.

This then leaves one more step in our education and that is to seek knowledge of the Good, the final stage of Plato’s education.  Using again the image of Plato’s line, after mathematical reasoning one finds dialectic or knowledge of being. Knowledge of music and the arts prepared the ordering of the soul needed for dialectal reasoning and philosophy. Then using first simple calculation, geometry, and finally studying motion in astronomy, one led closer and closer to putting human thought into relation with objects and being till one is led inevitably to the study of the Good.

Works Cited

Plato. The Republic of Plato. Trans. Allan Bloom. United States: Basic Books

---

^[1] Plato Republic 522 C, translated by Allan Bloom

^[2] Plato Republic 509 D, 533 E – 534 A, translated by Allan Bloom

^[3] Plato Republic 526 A, translated by Allan Bloom

^[4] Plato Republic 528 E, translated by Allan Bloom

^[5] Plato Republic 528 E, translated by Allan Bloom

Scepticism’s Modes, and the faults within

Imagine for a moment you are walking in a city park. It is a beautiful sunny day, and there is a slight breeze flowing through the park. You walk along and you see a beautiful tree, with large green leaves. You go up to the tree and feel the bark of the tree and it feels smooth to you. An ant is crawling up the tree, and you notice that it walking along the ridges and valleys of the tree, which to you seem smooth, but to the ant must feel rough. You continue to walk along, and as a jogger passes you, a gust of wind blows. He remarks how chilly the wind is, while you think to yourself that it is in fact quite warm. As you continue to walk, you look up and forward and see a building in the distance. It looks round to you, but you have been there before and know it to be a square one. You continue on and you see a branch from a tree partially in the water, and you remark now it appears bent.

Now one might ask a few questions. Is it really a nice day? Is the breeze just slight? Are the leaves truly green? Is the tree rough or smooth? Is the wind cold or warm? Is the building square or circular? Is the branch really bent? All these questions come to mind, and as such many are left wondering what the true appearances actually are.

These are the questions that scepticism asks of us. It is an exercise in doubt, and it is often used to tear down the dogmas we all have become accustom to. Many of us simply look at the world in this way. There is the external world and in it there are objects. Our minds then look at the objects. Truth then is when our minds are in complete agreement with the view of the objects. Scepticism states however that we are missing one important point. That is between our thought and the objects is our senses. Because the senses are unreliable, we cannot know (or not know) anything about the objects outside our minds. “The Pyrrhonists (sceptics), as Sextus is careful to explain, do not assert that things are inapprehensible. They are not ‘negative dogmatists’: if they do not assert that things are apprehensible, they do not assert that they are inapprehensible either.”^[1] It would seem they do not assert anything at all! (This is a good position to take, as you cannot criticize someone that says nothing.)

How is it that scepticism can state that our senses are so unreliable? What is the case that they make? Finally how have philosophers dealt with this form of scepticism.

Scepticism wishes to show us the faults of our senses and perceptions in view of ten modes. We will look at these modes, particularly at the modes as describe by Sextus Empiricus and see how proven or flawed these arguments are.

Summary of First mode: Humans and other animals

Humans and animals have difference perceptions of the world around them. Humans and animals have difference bodies, different modes of reproduction, difference reactions to different compounds and elements, difference degrees of accuracy in senses, etc. A dog for example has a better sense of smell than a human, an eagle has a better sense of sight than a human. Some things are poisonous to some animals, while harmless to another.

How then do we prefer one view to another? Since we also have senses, how can we be sure that our perception of such things is better or greater than that of other animals? Therefore since we are unable to choose between a human perception and that of an animal one, we must then suspend judgment on all our perceptions.

Commentary on First Mode

While on the surface it may seem reasonable to accept the claim given by Sextus and others that no differentiation between animals and humans can be made, flaws can soon be seen in the argument upon closer examination.

In order to validate the premises, one must first know exactly what animal perceptions are, as well as what human perceptions are. How is it then that we know exactly what are animal perceptions? Sextus again does not claim that he knows what animals actually see, feel, etc, but that simply he knows that is it likely animals see things differently. “People with jaundice say that what appears white to us is yellow….Since, then, the eyes of some animals are yellow, of others blood-shot or white or some other colour, it is likely, I think, that their grasp of colours is different.”^[2] So while he gives us evidence to believe that this is the case that animals perceive things differently, he does not give us proof that animals do in fact see things differently. So it may be the case that animal perceptions differ from humans, but it may be in fact that they do not. As such this argument seems not actually a proof of scepticism, but just evidence for it. It would seem that for us this is not a good argument, but one must know what the Pyrrhonists see as a good argument.

As is stated in Modes of Scepticism, the Pyrrhonists “do not concern themselves with the soundness of their arguments but with their efficacy. A ‘good’ argument, or the Pyrrhonists, is an argument which works, an argument which is efficacious in producing suspension in judgement.”^[3]

Summary of Second Mode: Differences in Humans themselves

Humans all have different view on the same thing. We all come in many different shape and sizes. As well some of us will have physical difference to difference things. Some of us may state that an item of food is rather plain in taste while others may say that it is in fact too salty or spicy. Many of us also like different things. Some of us enjoy reading, others hate it. Some enjoy working outdoors, others indoors. Even the philosophers are subject to this. While all of them claim to use reason, many different philosophers come up with very different dogmas and doctoran. As such, because of the variations between humans is so great, a suspension of judgement must occur.

Also in order for the argument to work, the premises must be true. This would then lead to a contradiction in any sceptical argument (using truth to claim we don’t know the truth).

Commentary of Second Mode

So whereas before the differences in animals (particularly humans and animals) would cause suspension, now we move on to difference between members of the same species (in this case humans). If one looks at the story in the beginning of this paper one can find a classic example. What is the temperature of the wind, if some if feels hot, and to others it feels cold? But as before in the first mode, the premises do not naturally follow from the conclusion. Just because one finds differences does not necessarily mean that one cannot prefer one over the other, and that one cannot find proof or evidence to support one belief over another. Reason and intellect can also be used to find the most likely view, but that will be dealt with in more detail on mode ten.

Summary of Third Mode: Differences between the senses themselves

It is often the case that senses will disagree with one another as to what the true nature of an object actually is. Paintings for example will often appear to have depth when looked at, but when touched will show no depth at all. Perfume will smell wonderful, but will often have an awful taste. Also there is the case for properties of an object beyond our senses. If a blind man is given an apple, how is he to know that the apple not only tastes good, and smells wonderful, but that it is a beautiful red, and that it is shiny under the light. If this is the case, could it then be possible for there to be properties of an object that are beyond our perception. Reason cannot be used to find those other properties, because the intellect will only be able to think about perceptions given to it by the senses. As such we must suspend judgement on the nature of the objects around us.

Commentary on Third Mode

First one must ask if there is any sensation that the senses can share and conflict with one another on any particular property. A perfume as said may smell nice and taste awful, but that does not mean they are in conflict, as one evokes taste, and the other evokes smell. Second is there a reason why one sense may not be given preference to another sense. While they might disagree in some cases, one can use the intellect to see the failing of one sense (in the case of paintings, one can reason that the eyes are under the influence of an optical illusion), and so one could refer to the sense of touch to correct it. One in effect uses reason to judge the raw data of the senses, and does not take the senses at face value.

But what about perceptions of an object beyond the five senses?  How does one explain the idea of sight to a blind man, and even if one could, one would still need a man of sight to explain it to those without. It is possible that there are senses beyond the limit of five for humanity, but it is at this point in time we are simply unable to address it.

However even if there are senses beyond the five, it is important to know that it does not prove that the other senses at our disposal are flawed beyond correction.

Summary of Forth Mode: Circumstances

People are often in different states at different times. We are asleep or awake, drunk or sober, drugged, tired, sick, hungry, etc. All of these affect our perceptions of the world around us. Physical differences such as age and size can affect how one will perceive the world. Now one might state why not simply accept a standard as normal and judge from that. That is to say that if something appears different when you are drunk or tired, you simply compare it to its appearance when one is sober and wake, and using the later as a standard, derive the truth. But first how does one choose a standard? “ For just as healthy people are in a state natural for healthy, but unnatural for the sick, so the sick are in a state unnatural for the healthy but natural for the sick.”^[4]

Even if one were to chose one as a standard, which one cannot do as you yourself are always in a circumstance or condition of something (you are either asleep or awake, awake being a condition), then one would need to prove that to be true. Then in order to evaluate the proof, he will need to judge it, according to a standard. Then one will need to prove the standard one uses. Hence one is caught in either a circular argument (if one uses the same proof over), or an infinite one.

So again because of the difference perceptions caused by circumstance, one must suspend judgement.

Commentary on Forth Mode

Different states of being will often produce different perceptions of the same objects. Even if one accepts this premises as true, that in it may not lead to scepticism. Some may response that it is simply a matter of relativity, that the perceptions of one state of being are “true”, while in another case “true” for the other case. However it is important to note that the enemy of scepticism is dogma, and relativism is simply another form of dogma in itself. Scientific method could also be used to find the most likely standard as well.

As for the matter of proof, a crucial assumption is made. That in order to judge a proof, you will need another standard (and hence another proof) to judge if it is to be correct. However that does not have to be the case. If one is to examine the proof, one must first find whether or not the proof is consistent within itself (does it contradict itself). If it is logical and rational and no self contradictions are found, and the conclusion does follow logically from the premises, then at the very least one has found a conditional proof (where if the premise or premises are true, then this conclusion must follow from that, and will also be true). If not then one may even have found a sound proof (true premises, true conclusion). One does not need to use other proofs to prove a proof. If not by that method, then by indirect method is also available (prove the negation of a proposition to be inconsistent and self-contradictory to prove the original proposition).

Summary of Fifth Mode: Place, Position, Interval

The object of one’s study will often be found in a variety of places, positions, and in different intervals in time. Such differences will often cause a difference in appearance. As in the example above, the skyscraper appears rounded when afar, but square upon closer inspection. The branch in the water appears to bend, but out of water has no bend. Any person wishing to make a decision on such a state (wanting for example to prefer place, position or interval to another) is under the same burden of proof as stated above in the forth mode. The places, positions and intervals of the object are not the only concern, but as well as the position of the observer as well. As with the previous mode, no preference can be given from one position to another. As such a suspension of judgement must take place.

Commentary on Fifth Mode

Again this mode is very similar to the forth mode. However the primary difference is while the forth mode (and all other modes previous) deal with faults with the observer, the fifth mode deals with faults in the observed. Also while it may appear simple this mode is far more complex that given credit for. Some might even state it deals with three different modes (place, position, interval).

As again with previous modes, no convincing reason is given to accept the conclusion of the argument. While it may be the case that a suspension of judgement could occur, it is equally possible to accept one appearance for another on any number of bases, including one based on relativism, or scientific method.

As for the proof dilemma faced, a previous explanation is given from the mode above.

Summary of Sixth Mode: Mixture

Objects will never appear in their purest form to an observer. Everything is in a mixture with something else, and nothing appears in its purest form. “No external object makes an impression by itself but in every case together with something, and that it is observed as differing in a way depending on this, I think, clear.” ^[5] Not only does the observed object appear in mixture, but the senses as well are also a mixture themselves. The eyes contain liquids and membranes, the sound in our ears must wind down the passages and channels in our ears (because a noise will sound different in an open space as opposed to a closed one). As for the use of reason, as the data given by the senses is faulty “our intellect will not do so either, especially since its guides, the senses, fail it.”^[6] Even within the brain itself, one will find different mixtures. As such because of the failing of both the observed and the observer in the view of mixtures, we must then suspend our judgement.

Commentary on the Sixth Mode

While few of us would doubt that all things do in fact come in mixtures, it is still not clear that the mind in totally incapable of the ability to sort the raw data of the senses, correcting any illusion present. This then goes back to a theory of the function of the mind (one which we had touched on earlier). According to Sextus, the mind is simply a manipulator of the data of the senses. No logical laws are found present within the mind that may be used  to correct the senses inaccuracies. If such an object appears so in this mixture, and so in that mixture, could we then not using reason find the true properties and appearances of the object, if not then at least give us a highly probable property of an object?

The contamination of reason itself however is another matter. It is an important fact that “All of Sextus’ main opponents were thoroughgoing materialists.” ^[7] As such mixtures contaminating the brain (or the heart which is also given as a seat of the intellect) could also have an effect on perceptions as well. Even those of us who would believe the intellect has an immaterial cause will not deny that it is materially dependent. However the problem still exists, could the intellect using logical functions and reason still be unable to find again if not the truth, then a highly probable property of an object?

Summary of Seventh Mode: Quantities

It is the case that many objects will appear to have different properties depending on the different quantities they appear in. “The shavings from a goat’s horn appear white when observed simply, without composition, but when combined in the actual horn are observed as black.”^[8] When appearing in small or separate qualities something may appear different in one case, and in large quantities or as a whole object feel different in another.

A good example is things such as drugs. In small doses a drug can be beneficial, in large does it can harm or even kill. Even alcohol, or foods, or almost anything ingested can be good in some qualities, and harmful in others.

As we cannot know the nature of an object then, and we cannot prefer one quantity to another, we must then suspend judgement.

Commentary on Seventh Mode

While good points are made again in this mode, there does not seem to be a need to jump to a suspension of doubt when one is confronted with differences in quantity. It may just as easily lead to relativism as well. Object A in quantity X will appear with property F, or will be harmless, while Object A in quantity Y will appear with property G or will be harmful. Such could be the nature of the object itself, and could easily be accepted as true if not probable.

Summary of Eighth Mode: Relativity

“The Eighth mode is one deriving from Relativity, by which we infer that, since everything is relative, we shall suspend judgement as to what things are independently and in their nature.”^[9] Since everything is of a relative nature, and that to know one thing you must compare it to another, it is easy then to state that it we must suspend our judgement of the true nature of things independent on themselves (as it is impossible to see things independently).

Also any object that must refer to another object to support its appearance is untrustworthy, or simply unable to be known.

Commentary of the Eight Mode

While it may seem in many ways the simplest mode, it is actually far more complex then one can give it credit for. Different sceptical philosophers have treated relativity in different ways, as there were a variety of relativity theories put out by different schools of thought. But all seem to sum it up in this fashion. As a matter of fact, it matters little as to which school of relativity they draw such conclusions, because in order to assert that everything is relative would seem like an almost impossible task. One would have to examine every single object within the known universe, and then be able to see that each object cannot exist without a relation to an object. Even assuming that such is the case, the sceptics have used a universally true and known statement to support the fact that nothing can or cannot be known. One must judge that relativity is everywhere in order to suspend judgement. Such a blatant contradiction does not lend much support to the idea of scepticism.

Summary of Ninth Mode: The Common and the Rare

There are many objects that appear often to us, such as the sun every day. There are other things far more rare such as an eclipse of the sun. As such, many people judge that the sun is in truth a plain and normal fact, while an eclipse of the sun is something remarkable and even an omen of sorts. “Earthquakes, too, do not similarly upset people experiencing them for the first time and those who have grown accustomed to them.”^[10] Even with things that are valuable, for how valuable would one find gold if it was found lying like rocks on the ground.

As such, because of the differences in options when encountering something often or for the first time/ rarely, we must then suspend judgement as to its true nature.

Commentary on Ninth Mode

As with before, such an argument seems unlikely to lead one to scepticism of all objects, or even the ones dealt within the examples themselves. Are things such as value and shock truly properties of an object? Is it a fact that gold has the properties of weight, density, and value? Could one simply state that this is a property given to it by the observer and not so much a property of the object itself? Could one even go so far as to say that such properties are relative, that to some in certain situations this is valuable, shocking, amazing, etc, while to others it is not?

Summary of Tenth Mode: Customs and Persuasions

This final mode deals more so with ethics and morals than any other mode so far. It is the case that throughout the world many people have different persuasions,  laws, customs, myths, and dogmatic suppositions. Persuasions can often be translated as lifestyle or culture in today’s language, and many people act with different persuasions, customs, etc. Laws are written rules that have definable punishment given by the authorities, political or otherwise. Customs are ways in which a group of people decides how act (much a part of culture). Myths are fictions stories that have gain acceptance in a community. Dogmatic suppositions are beliefs that usually have some kind of argument and proof.

Different laws and different beliefs among different geographies are common. Many people believe that there is only one God, and it is the First cause of all. Some believe that there was a first cause God that created many gods, and they in tern created the world, others simply believe in the many Gods, or no God at all. Adultery is against the law in many nations, but in ours while it is frowned upon, no law forbids it (or if there is a law, it is no longer enforced). So great are the differences that one cannot believe in all of them, but must decided between one and the other. As well since no preference can be given to one or the other, we must suspend our judgement.

Commentary on the Tenth Mode

This mode is probably the most common mode one will find in practice today. Even in the time of Augustine, he states in his book the Confessions, that it is the case that many youth believe that moral certainty cannot be found. Today one finds this mode very prevalent, and is often used as an argument against those who speak out against one custom or another.

As with previous modes, this one again does not necessarily lead to scepticism. As one notices today, many people will fall back on relativism itself stating that such and such a custom, belief, etc, is “true” for this person. So the effectiveness of this mode, like all others leave something to be desired.

But is it still fair to say that we must still believe that no arguments can be made for one or the other? Is it the case that one custom cannot be given preference over another?

All customs, persuasions, etc, rely on arguments to support them. Is it not possible to then compare and contrast each custom and persuasion? One must first learn one custom, persuasion, etc, in detail, looking at the arguments for it. Then one must see if it is consistent, or if there are any contradictions in it at all. If not, then one can look in detail at another, doing the same thing as before. Then one could compare the arguments for both, and judge which are more consistent or of greater value.

As such I find that while it may seem convincing on the surface, when looked upon more closely, this mode again fails to induce us to accept scepticism.

Final Statements

One of the biggest and primary failings of the modes of Scepticism are that while many of them may suggest that scepticism is a proper response to the failings of the senses, it is not a conclusion one must derive from them. While no proof of scepticism is possible (because a proof would imply a truth of the universe, resulting in a paradox), evidence is given. The primary reasons for scepticism lie in the failing of the senses and the properties given by the object. However in order for scepticism to be a result, equal weight must be given to one appearance as well as the other.

There is as of yet no reason why in terms of the material world why scientific inquiry will not be able to, if not prove, than at least give a probable answer as to the most likely appearance of an object. While the tower may appear round, using optical science, one can determine the failings of sight as distance grows, so then it would be possible to assume that the closer an object is, the more like a true representation of the object would result. The oar may appear bent in the water, but does that then mean that we are incapable of ever finding out if the oar is truly bent or straight?

Not only that, but the modes of scepticism rely on us accepting as a truth that scepticism is the proper response. Scepticism if it is true cannot support any belief system, even itself.

Finally even if one could state that no truth could come about as a result of the senses, philosophers such as Augustine have said that one does not necessarily need to look at the senses to find truth. Using intelligible method, undeniable truths can be found such as properties of logic (the idea of self-contradiction for example). For example the universe might be finite, or it might have a beginning and no end, have no beginning but an end, or may be infinite, but we know it is one of these. Finally if one examine their own thought one will find the proof for one’s own existence, and according to Plotinus, Augustine and the like, one may even find the proof of a first cause (which some people will attribute the name of God).

Scepticism is a possible conclusion of the modes but it does not have to be. In listening to the challenge of the sceptic we are forced to defend our own beliefs, and maybe even lose some of them in the process, but that does not mean that we must stop our search for truth at scepticism itself. “At the gates of knowledge the sceptic stands guard: Before we can enter the citadel we must answer his challenge.”^[11]

Works Cited

Julia Annas and Jonathan Barnes. (1985) The Modes of Scepticism. Cambrige: Cambridge University Press

Sextus Empiricus. (1994) Outlines of Scepticism. Trans. Julia Annas and Jonathan Barnes. Cambrige: Cambridge University Press

---

^[1] Annas, Barnes (1985, 48)

^[2] Sextus, Outline of Pyrrhonism 1.44, translated by Annas and Barnes

^[3] Annas, Barnes (1985, 50)

^[4] Sextus, Outline of Pyrrhonism 1.103, translated by Annas and Barnes

^[5] Sextus, Outline of Pyrrhonism 1.124, translated by Annas and Barnes

^[6] Sextus, Outline of Pyrrhonism 1.128, translated by Annas and Barnes

^[7] Annas, Barnes (1985, 117)

^[8] Sextus, Outline of Pyrrhonism 1.129, translated by Annas and Barnes

^[9] Sextus, Outline of Pyrrhonism 1.135, translated by Annas and Barnes

^[10] Sextus, Outline of Pyrrhonism 1.141, translated by Annas and Barnes

^[11] Annas, Barnes (1985, 5)

What kind of Canadian history should be taught?

History and its teaching to the masses are among the most controversial subjects found throughout life among all peoples and in all eras. History being taught in verse and poem in Ancient  and Classical Greece, was not much liked by men like Thuscidysis who wanted a history taught more on the basis on fact than on mythology and oral tradition. The Athenians manipulated history to show them as decedents of Gods, and founders of the Ionian settlements in Asia Minor to support their claim to their rule over them. In Rome, history was manipulated to show the Romans as decedents of the warriors of Troy, to show them as proud and noble warriors.  Even in recent days, Nazi Germany went to great lengths to teach its children the superiority of the German or Aryan race by teaching a form of history which showed that view. Throughout history, the teaching of past events has been manipulated to show the prevailing political and/or the common religious prejudices of society. Wither it was Ishamal or Isaac that Abraham almost sacrificed to God is still one of the most dividing issues between Judaism and Islam for example. Many of the current conflicts of today’s world are based on historical events and ideologies. So the controversy of the teaching of history is nothing unique to Canada sadly. However in an effort to deal with the conflict, are Canadian educators trying to remove it all together? When they do teach history, are they manipulating so horribly out of recognition so as to satisfy the fear of the teaching of a one sided history? What is the state of education of history in Canada, and if it is in a state less than ideal, how can we deal and improve upon that?

In the book “Who Killed Canadian History?” by J. L. Granatstein; Granatstein claims that in many universities throughout Canada, there has been an increase in the number of social, regional, and cultural history classes and the decrease in the number of political ones. At St. John’s Memorial University in 1994-1995, of the twenty one Canadian courses, none were political. In the University of Toronto, out of twenty seven, two were political history. At the University of Calgary, eight out of thirty, at the University of BC, eight out of sixteen. (Grand. Pg 64-65) This has all been done according to Granatstein in a effort to expand the scope of history to include all peoples, both those responsible for change and those that were affected by that change. Not only do we now study John A. Macdonald and Confederation, but we also learn of the history of women, minorities, the working class, etc.  However it is a scope that has grown too big. Now hardly any political history is taught, and as such could have a detrimental effect on many of our Canadian graduates. “..unlike almost all those’s nation’s graduates (American, French, German), the Canadians know little about their own country’s history.” (Grand. Pg 66) Too many graduates are learning about  more regional and smaller histories than the grand national ones of the past. The attempt to learn more about everyone has become a call to ignore the past achievements of the political history of Canada. “The old (political) was swept away almost completely. The new (social) historians effectively and efficiently took over Canadian history…” (Grand. Pg 58)

However why is it important that graduates learn about Canadian history in the first place? “Many of the history teachers in the primary and secondary schools and in the universities are drawn from these graduates.  They teach what they know, and, in too many cases, they know nothing at all about the national history of Canada…. uneducated teachers produce uneducated students.” (Grand Pg 66) A focused national history is not taught in the universities Granatstein states, and so because of this, you will produce generations of the blind following the blind.

However is political history not being taught in the universities across this country? As A. B. McKillop states “ What Granatstein seems incapable of understanding is that.. recent works in social history are marked by an expansion of historians understanding of what ‘politics’ is.” (CHR Forum Pg 291) The definition of politics and nation are being racially altered in today’s environment. What Granatstein is observing is not an elimination of political history, but an explanation of it. “Politics… is found and practiced in struggles over the exercise of power in everyday life.” (CHR Forum Pg 291) Now instead of just learning about what went on in the legislatives of the Canada, we learn about what happened it the homes of those people as well. Not only that, but the value of the nation-state as a framework of history is also under scrutiny. The events of Canada’s past are not being ignored, but rather being re-organized into different structures in the form of immigrant’s history, women’s history, labour history, and the old form of political history.  What we are seeing in the words of McKillop is a “division of labour among historians.” As such more books on Canadian history are being written now then ever before. (The number of books reviewed in CHR in 1963: 44, The number of books reviewed in CHR in 1997: 107) Even Granatstein states “In most Canadian University history departments, there are more Canadian specialists than anything else” (Grand. Pg 55)

So as for the state of our graduates, one can conclude that because of this diverse amount of material, it would be harder than ever to become one. “The bibliography used when preparing his own major field examinations (graduate student) could in theory number books in the thousands…” (CHR Forum Pg 289) Hardly a case of the blind leading the blind. Now more than ever an education in the many fields of history are now giving graduates a more diverse and more encompassing knowledge of past events. One can hope that educated teachers can also produce educated students.

However some believe that Canada would best be served if its citizens were never to learn of its past at all. What purpose does the past serve us if it seems only to divide us? Look toward Quebec, with its endless threats to divide based on claims of a unique and different past and history from the rest of Canada. Its can even be found in its licence plate, which when translated say “We shall not forget!” Look at our mistreatment of the original peoples of this land, would we not best be served if we could put it all behind us and forget past injustice. The learning of regional histories serves further to divide us. What purpose is there in the teaching of history, why should we learn about past events if they only serve to divide us?

This is all true; the teaching of Quebec’s history and other regional histories has given many a reason to divide. Many state it’s only a matter of time before the whole of Canada is divided up, or swallowed by the American presence. Ironically if many of us knew our history, such grim prophecies could be disproven. When stating the question “Why should Canada stay together?” why not start by asking the question “Why did Canada unite in the first place?” For those of you that don’t know, Canada was formed at a time when the threat of invasion by the United States was high. The United States were involved in a bloody civil war, and many feared the war could spread northward when the war was over. The sentiment was high, that all the Americas should unite under the American flag, an idea Canadians did not like. So a few Canadian colonies on the Eastern half the continent united in 1867 as the Dominion of Canada. Although not quite an independent nation, it was a step in the right direction.

How can the French and English ever co-operate with each other. There are many instances in which the two “foes” united. Both in Upper and Lower Canada (Ontario and Quebec), government leaders came together to try to force the idea of representive government toward the British in England. How can both Aboriginal peoples and other Canadians ever get along? Well look at the alliances between Europeans and Aboriginals in the days of Cariter and the Hudson Bay Company. How have Canadians avoided assimilation into the United States? Remember that Canada was founded as a nation of united colonies not wishing to be part of the United States.

When one wishes to look at why things are the way they are, one can look toward history. When one understands the reason upon which certain events happened, maybe we can also use it to show how we can solve our problems, or how to avoid the pitfall our predecessors fell into. The old saying that “Those that do not know of the past are doomed to repeat it” rings true on many fronts.

Summary of Genesis

There are two ways in which to interpret the first three chapters of Genesis in the bible. Many choose to do so literally, that God did create the world in seven days, that there really was a place called the Garden of Eden, that a snake talked to Eve and tempted her to sin. While this interpretation may be fine to the average believer, to a non-believer (or even a sceptical believer) this literal interpretation would seem to be illogical and fantastical. Many simply brush off the story as fiction. However there is a second interpretation. This interpretation is found throughout all the monotheistic faiths, but for this paper we will use the interpretation of several Hebrew texts and classic Jewish commentators such as Rashi, Esra, and Nachmonides.

First the title. The work Genesis as a dual meaning, not only meaning the origin (where everything came from) but also beginning (signifying the beginning of time as well). In the Hebrew text, the name of God changes. While both mean the same God, the different names are meant to show different qualities of God. In Chapter One and the first creation story, God’s name is Elohim. Elohim is the creator of all the universe, and his name means the just God (God of Justice) Also while many versions state that “In the beginning God created…”, the Hebrew text also suggested that God is in the mist of creating, not simply to have created. Therefore the more correct version would follow as “In the beginning of the just god’s creating….”

This then would seem to suggest that the just god would in more secular terms be the first cause, and that it’s action (or it’s causing) created the universe (the effect). As we can find out about the universe and the material world, as the universe is an effect, and as one can reason from cause to effect, the study of nature in relation with reason can be used as a path to find knowledge about God. However one might wonder why is it that at this time God is Just?

Well first one must ask what justice is in this case. Well according to Jewish thought, justice is the fulfilment of the Law. However no people have been created yet, so therefore this must be in reference to scientific laws (there are no to apply moral law to yet). The just god then is creating scientific laws by which all matter must adhere to. In the beginning there is no law and the earth is formless. God then gives it form and the law.

God, seeing the earth formless (matter without form) then begins to order the universe more like him. From the least to the most, everyday the universe becomes more and more like him. Formless and void, the universe is the least like God. With the creation of order matter, and light, the universe becomes more like him. Now the universe has matter and form (form being a property of God). Next comes the creation of plants. Now more like God, plants have matter, form, and now the ability to reproduce (create more like it) like God is able to create. Next God creates the animals. Again more like God because now with matter, form, reproduction and consciousness (awareness of environment). Finally God created Adam, the most like God. Adam not only had all the properties that came previous, but now Adam had free self-conciseness (or free-will). He could choose what he wanted to do, and not want to do, and this made him “in God’s image” or most like him.

“And now we will create human beings…” one of the first questions one might raise is the “we” part. If God is singular, then what is the “we”? Well the only other thing excising currently is the universe (ordered matter). Therefore God and material came together to create Adam or humans. Humans have the properties of both the material world and God. The property given to human by God would seem to be freewill (because nothing in the material world seems to display that property), the ability to choose one’s actions, to decide to obey or disobey the law. We will go in more detail about the creation of Adam later on.

“God says, and there was…” was how the Hebrew text described the creation process. This is important to note, because what it states is that there was no effort on the part of God in order to create. He simply willed it, and it was. “.. and it was good” is also important to note. This is to further the point that God never created evil, that all in his creation was good.

Now in order to go into more detail about the creation of humans and human nature, a separate creation story was made. While the first creation story dealt with the universe, this creation story dealt with the creation of humanity and the moral order. Thus God must now have a new name, Adonai or the merciful/forgiving God.

But again, why the merciful God? If one looks at the universe, one will find it ruled by laws. If any of the objects in the universe did not work according to natural law, they would cess to exist. In the case of humans, they had the choice to obey or disobey the Law. If and when they did, according to the Law they would cease to exist. However a merciful God allowed their existence to continue.

In the Garden of Eden there is only one law, and that is not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Other than that they were free to roam the garden as they pleased. Like God, they did not have to labour, they could simply eat. The Garden of Eden was more like a state of being rather than an actual place. They were naked, and not ashamed. Then what exactly do human lack before they eat the fruit of the forbidden tree. Before hand humans had no desires, they simply obeyed God. While they had the choice to disobey, they choose not to.

Now in the beginning, there was only Adam. Adam means in Hebrew those from material. (A little note, both Adam and Eve in the original Hebrew are not proper, singular names, but merely stating groups of people with certain properties) Soon Adam was lonely for others of his kind, so God then took from him a rib to make Eve. In the original Hebrew, Eve means producers of life. From the original form of Adam (which was either male, or sexless) Eve was created to give Adam the means to create new life and others like him.

Soon after the snake, located in the tree tempts Eve. The snake representing human wilfulness, or the desire for unlimited power tempts Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He tells her that she and Adam will become like God, and will not die. She eats, and gives the fruit to Adam, and he eats as well. They then look upon each other and were ashamed. Before the fruit, humans had no knowledge of good or evil. They did not know how to turn to God, or away from him. They never had desires, and would never use anything simply for their own desire satisfaction. They then looked upon each other, and felt no shame, because they had no desire to used the other for there own satisfaction. But now when they did look upon each other, they looked with lust and were ashamed. They wished to use the other for there own desires.

“Now the man has become like one of us…” Man now has knowledge of good and evil, but not the wisdom needed to choose between good and evil. According to law they should perish for there disobedience, but the merciful God allows then to live, but at a price, all of those involved must now become less like God. The snake will be taken from the tree, and must craw around the ground (showing less close to god). Eve must now labour to have children, and Adam must now labour for food and livelihood (before like God they could will it, but now must work) and are thrown out of the Garden of Eden (or taken from that state of being to a lower one).