very contradictory to book IV

I like this acknowledgment that everything does not fall into place.

stronger in what? strongest to lift a heavy rock, strongest with mental math? strongest is already very subjective.

highbirth takes away consent of governed. The people did not earn their position, they were born into it.

are we assuming the masters cannot be crass?

I like that the conclusion they come to is that if a government is overthrown its the governments fault. This is in sharp contrast to book IV where rebellious people were to be forced into submission.

I am confused. The use of Sun-god makes me believe they are discussing multiple deities, however, earlier in their discussion they have used God.

This glosses over how this representative is chosen

It this insinuating because they were 'dirty' it may be for the best that their cities were destroyed?

This is what Socrates was talking about. The leader leading because of their wisdom, while the people getting lead want to follow because the see the rationality of what the leader is planning.

I like this approach far more then the one Socrates was taking. Socrates was using theocraticals while this Athenian is studying data. The Athenian will encounter how humans act, not how they theoretically should.

the person who dose not directly agree needs to be forced into submission

as soon as they agreed on three parts of humans, I knew this is where it was headed. Although I do disagree. Spirit can imagine something that rational make claim is impossible, but spirit persisting is how things get created or change.

not a statement I'd personally align with freedom.

I do not think the feeling of resent can be used interchangeably with guilt as being suggested. I believe someone can be riddled with guilt, understanding it their fault but still resent the negative consequences. People are not as black and white as this article suggests.

The questions are being asked in a manipulative way. The second person does not have to come up with their own answer, just decide if they agree with what is being said.

How are you to know what job someone is best suited for if they are never given the opportunity to show you.

If you are an enslaved person or a women at this time you work is not based on what you are best at. It's based on what someone else decides your work is. This is contradictory.

I like how the idea of rulers here isn't something like devine right. Although I do not think it would work out in theory I like the idea of the ruled having complete content with their rulers.

and justice, their 4 virtues.

Again, who decides what they are suited for.

I do not see a world in which the ruling class and the working class would agree on who is to rule.

But how do we deem them superior? Relating to negative Freedom, who deems them superior?

I would say desires, pleasures, and pains are some of what makes us human. Its interesting these things are mostly found in people who in this society are not 'free'. I would argue they are the freest if they are allowed emotions and free thought.

Like berlins Higher and lower selves

Sounds to me like they are setting up an oligarchy.

Can anything be completely good? Relating back to our first reading of "ugly freedoms" everything has two sides. Nothing including freedom can be completely good or bad.

The Delphic Apollo is believed to deliver prophecies.

This is an interesting idea. If I had little knowledge of something but many people told me the same thing about it I would take it to be true. Is this naïve to not investigate myself? but in the same way, is this not like grade school teachers? I never knew of the revolutionary war until I was told of it where I excepted it as fact. This idea shows how easy coercion really is. Especially in the 'ideal city' they are creating, where they teach people to follow the rules and stay in the lines and frown upon questioning the authority.

These statements in themselves contradict each other. They will easily find out themselves what laws they need, but they are to always keep the ones we want in place? And its not appropriate to dictate these men, but also they must keep our laws in place.

This is one of the first rational things said. See how our definition of rational changes over time.

How do they intend to monitor the games children play? This is heavily giving thought police from 1984.

It seems to me this 'perfect' city being created, is a city free from independent thought and imagination. At least from my definition of freedom, this city is not free.

I disagree that it's likely, human error and greed does not seem to be taken into account in this idealistic world. The guardians would want to stay in a class above, what's stopping them?

Relates to the belief in Berlins paper, that if other people are rational they would agree.

This idea is idealistic. However, unachievable. Berlin said there is no finial solution for balancing liberty.

This gives the same vibes as the last reading calling less intelligent people 'sub-human'.

They are leaning towards a city with the only two classes being Guardians and then what we refer to as 'middle class'. Would that not create the same problem. If the extremes are eliminated, the next farthest become the extremes.

To me this sentence means, extremes in any direction lead to unwanted results.

This is unfair. To remain wealthy, or even build up to wealth the potter would have had to create a reputation for their pottery, as soon as the quality starts going down so does the amount of money they are making(idealistically). In addition, the potter may just love pottery, and want to pay attention to their craft. Painters who became famous still paint details,

This conversation is about how to place limitations on people/groups of people freedoms to have the over all best/happiest society. However using the wording compel and persuade is interesting. It is coercion. But, as was addressed in the last reading, is believing you are free the same as being free? If they are persuaded their coercion is best, can they be happy with the coercion?

I'm still not getting this guardian thing. I think maybe they are the rule makers and police like people?

If these workers are essential to the city, they should be treated as such. If workers with which the city could not function without does not deserve a luxurious life style, then who does?

Are guardians the same as statues?

very good understanding that if they are conducting an experiment(I believe they are) that a larger sampling size leads to more accurate results

there are so many things the question could be....

What's best for the most people.

What took took out of this, is that the person speaking does not see this group of people, the 'they', as happy because the do not make enough money to be able to do things that is contributed to happy people. This debate is very old. Can money buy happiness? My take is although wealth can not supply joy, it makes it easier to enjoy.

Having an opening without context is leaving me very confused. Who is the them? Is it the angry men? How do they own it? Is it there land? are 'they' the government? Are they blue colors workers so the city would not exist without them?

The way this sentence is phased makes it seem like Socrates has some form a blame, but followed by' and it's their own fault' intrigues me. Adeimantus say 'how would you defend yourself' making it clear he places the blame on Socrates originally. Is Socrates defending an point the men cannot fully grasp? Is he exposing something the men don't want the world to know about? I like this opening.

So, as was said earlier in this text, there is not one single answer to every problem. Our entire lives up until the moment of deciding a solution factors into what we see the solution as.

bias

I like the author saying this stuff happened in the future, but is also still happening today.

I don't like this. What makes us human? is it our genetic make up? or our ability to have free thought. Cats can think on their own, does that make them human? In my opinion its more complex then then that.

if its not precise it can be left up to interpretation.

This is very interesting. To be known is to be what others think, but to not be known, to some degree is to be nothing.

this is why it is impossible to live in a society and not have freedom restricted in some way.

are children, savages, and uneducated people all the same with this viewpoint?

but to develop what we know about science someone had to have free thinking enough to investigate or preform experiments.

Its interesting seeing dictator and bully with the same classification.

Is this to say, an uneducated person who does not deem the same thing rational as you, does not deserve to be called human?

When educated is being used, it it saying school educated? Those who are born into a family of peasants and is not given the opportunity to get a traditional education for this time, can still be highly educated in farming technics. Both parties are educated, just in different ways. Who is to say which education is better?

I think this currently is not the case. children are raised with what their parents believe is their best interest, which may not align with what is society excepted as their best interest.

Can it not be true two peoples reason can lead them to different truths?

is that to say that nations historically have not been lead by rational people?

This is what we have been talking about. When it comes to my freedom, what if that infringes on someone elses?

is this not also coercion?

historically, it made its rounds

I think this is a very interesting thought process. what are your "lower impulses" is that part of your desires?

this phrasing made me think of 1984. Thought control, something heavily touched on in 1984.

Its interesting to me that even when discussing freedom for everyone pronouns tend to lean masculine.

This text has talked a lot about freedom being part of what makes us human. Do animals and nature not have freedom then? Or is their freedom different then ours. Many times it has been brought up that being isolationists is the only way to be 100% free. Are wild, non pack animals not the epitome of freedom then?

this shows a town shift from the rest of the text.

shows bias of author.

I find this interesting because the word freedom in my brain is absolutely associated with self-government

How do we determine if our own liberty is infringing on others, and to what extent. Many people own something shipped from over seas that do not have the same labor laws as we know them. It is within our freedom to order these products even with the knowledge they may be made with inhumane labor. Is the person who orders this product unjust? Is it the website they order from? What about where the add was displayed? Is the blame placed on the united states shipment companies that let packages come in? Is it the fault of the pilot or caption that helped them arrive to our nation? There are people working to unload this cargo, pack this cargo all throughout the process. Is it the people who own giant factories, the government who allows, or doesn't stop them from operation? I love this sentence in thought. But with how complex current times are, who are we calling unjust? It makes sense to say sweatshops and underpaid labor is bad and the products that come from that create misery for the ones making it. but the complex part is calling the system unjust. the system has so many steps, some legal and unknowing jobs are involved. Is everyone participating unjust?

Is this because of there occupation? Professor versus farmers? Is it because they are in different cultures? Or is the implication that peoples freedom varies depending on their social class?

I disagree with this line to an extent. Northern Pike are carnivorous. without consuming fish like minnows, the pike would not be lacking of freedom, it would be dead.

This co aligns a lot with what we talked about in class on Tuesday. What can freedom be outweighed by? The author is giving us a list of their thoughts of what people may place above.

This reminds me of the idea of the purge, (I've never seen the movie only generally know the idea) without laws what would people do.

This gives us an incite on the authors experiences without having to deeply research them.

this sentence is originally underlined, which makes me think it has some importance. This sentence gives coercion a definition within his discussion of political liberty.

I kind of see this as a definition of philosophy.

we talked about types of freedom in 'Ugly Freedoms'. I believe the freedom being talked about here falls under rational thought.

This brings me back to the in-class discussion today. The question asked was along the lines of "is any time someone breaks the law an expression of freedom?" I think laws are a good example of the highlighted statement.

I like this sentence. Everything starts as an idea.

Why only discus British or American universities? Is the author insinuating other universities would not be as advanced or do not experience the same 'liberty we do' ? or where other locations simply left out with now deeper though?

I feel as though this is something the other was trying to prove over and over again using different examples. This one sentence is what I mainly got out of the last 24 pages.

Many accounts throughout history, the only way groups gained their freedom was through violence. That is not to say without violence this 'freedom' or rather equality in rights may not have been born. But for me at least I do not address freedom gained through violent acts as inheritably wrong or right.

This stands out to me. It prompted me to google the definition of freedom. "the quality or state of being free" This definition is not very clear, which this statement aligns with. Thinking back in my lifetime, of what I can remember, I was never taught the definition of freedom, whether from a parent or teacher.

Last class, a classmate said they believe our freedom was different then in our poem because we live in a different time with different political happening. I think any word or situation needs context to fully understand. The specifics matter.

I really struggle to understand this part. Even when breaking it down by sentence I feel like I am not gathering what the author is saying. From what I can get out of it is, there are freedoms that can be argued good or bad, but they work together to twist what is seen is 'free'.

This statement standout to me. Throughout this reading I have been thing as ugly freedom as being something that is not considered real freedom. I thought the words on the page convinced me of such. However, this makes me think again to who gets to define what freedom means?

I have never associated the word beautiful with politics. This sentence makes me reexamine id beauty has ben bent and altered in my own mind/meaning.

The author calls to other people in this field. This leads me to believe the audience this was written for was not the general public, but rather people who have also studied these ideas.

This is interesting to me. I wonder if the author says this meaning there is no beautiful freedom or that even though beaty and ugly can be seen as opposites, when being used as adjectives to describe freedom they are not obverse.

I am confused where the masculinity in this sentence came from? Why is this article attributing anti-masker with tradition values of masculinity.

Earlier in this writing the author made a statement about wwII, "freedom was a legitimating factor when the United States entered the second world war, helping to mobilize the fight against the genocidal authoritarianism and violent territorial expansion of the Nazis." why is it that they will fight for these people 'freedom' while still enacting ugly laws to keep them banished from public space?

How do you determine what is good for everyone, when every person has drastically different needs?

The wording 'justified' reminds me of the of old question of, is the good of many justifying the hurting of few. What about the word freedom was able to convince people what they are doing is politically or morally sound?

In discussion last class we where asked to vote if freedom was objective or not. However many people agreed throughout history, the word 'Freedom' has been twisted and used as a means of manipulation. I believe this article highlights that thus far. Americans won freedom from England, on stolen land. Freedom to improve the land, by using enslaved peoples. Every time freedom has been used in this article so far, it has come with a negative following.

If this method was already being used against people within the United states, why was there not public disapproval until it was happening over seas?

Use of the wording 'caught another' makes it seem like a game. I feel like it dehumanizes the Filipino captives.

This word choice is very interesting to me. Earlier in the introduction this method is described as torture, yet in the perspective of the individuals doing it, they called it an operation. In the main land the population protested it, how did it morph from torture, to an operation in their eyes?