What is a Nation?

In the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, in his essay “Circles,” “ . . . life is an apprenticeship to the truth that around every circle another can be drawn; that there is no end in nature, but every end is a beginning; that there is always another dawn risen on mid-noon, and under every deep a lower deep opens.” In shorter terms, Emerson is saying that every aspect of life, as well as everything that is a result of life, is constantly changing. There is always another circle that can be drawn around the previous. Cells are constantly changing, and it is these cells that create life. Conception starts with one cell, which multiplies to create twenty cells, which multiplies to create one-hundred cells, and so on, until the multiplicity of cells resembles that of a child. This process of continual change occurs on into old age, and even after death. Change is necessary for the evolution of life to occur, as well as those things that are a product of life.

However, as all entities of life, and those things that are a result of life, change, there is an element that remains constant: interconnection. In order for constant change to occur, there must be an interconnection between all elements on this earthly plane, otherwise the circle that life evolves around will shatter into a chaotic array of separate, insupportable entities. Never, in perceivable history, has any living being (or non-living being) been able to sustain itself entirely on its’ own. A living creature needs vital elements in order to survive. Even a rock, a non-living entity, needs the wind to caress the earth in a particular manner to create its’ shape and texture. Each entity is dependent upon several other entities to ensure its’ existence.

Humans, in particular, have taken interconnection farther than any other entity by establishing large societies to not only improve their chances of survival, but to create a better standard of living. Societies originally formed to allow separate individuals to focus on one specific area, such as gathering wood, or hunting. This provided the society with the basic needs for survival, allowing more time for ideas and inventions. Eventually societies began interacting and communicating with other societies, allowing for the exchange of ideas and inventions that would further improve their standard of living. It is the extent to which humans have taken interconnectedness that has come to create nations.

Although nations change individually, and one nation may appear to be very different from another, they are structured similarly due to a nations innate dependency on interconnectedness. With every president elected, or leader appointed, each nation will obtain its’ own perspective on foreign and domestic policy, resulting in a distinctly different nation. Despite such differences, nations have historically developed in relatively the same manner due to interconnection. Traditionally, nations have been restricted to certain territories. This is due to the fact that a nation depends on its’ ability to communicate with its’ members. If a nation cannot communicate with its’ members, then it cannot express the ideas that bond the group together, and a nation would not exist. Nations have also traditionally maintained a common culture, due to large groups of people living and communicating in the same area for centuries at a time. Eventually the influence of these people spread through nearly the whole nation, creating culture. Both territory and culture have been created through interconnection, which is the foundation of a nation, resulting in a commonality between nations.

The concept of a nation is currently changing in the same manner it has always changed, through its’ ability to communicate. With every new communication technology invented a nation strengthens and gains the ability to seek territories else-where, or widen boarders in its’ own territory. This makes sense as the very foundation of a nation is its’ ability to communicate. Creating an easier way to communicate will create larger and stronger nations. The European Union is a good example of how instant communication has shifted the definition of a nation away from a relatively small community and towards a larger, global community.

Every nation today is forced to reconsider the definition of a nation, as instant communication is bringing people closer together. Instant communication brings both good and bad to a nation. Good because culture and ideas are shared and bad for the same reasons; perhaps a larger global community with actually transform culture as well as territory.

Works Cited
Emerson, Ralph Waldo. “Emerson’s Essays.” The Over-Soul. New York: Harper and Row, 1926.

Simone de Beauvoir

Simone de Beauvoir, author of The Second Sex , and famous French existentialist philosopher, was born on January 9th, of 1908, in Paris France. She was born during a time period and within a country where a woman’s worth was dependent on her dowry, and where arranged marriages were still practiced. Beauvoir was encouraged by her father to pursue education. She passed the baccalaureate in mathematics and philosophy in 1925, received certificates of higher studies in French literature and Latin in 1926, in 1927 received certificates in the history of philosophy, general philosophy, Greek, and logic, and in 1928 obtained certificates in ethics, sociology, and psychology. She became the youngest professor of France at the age of 21. Beauvoir became acquainted with John-Paul Sartre, entered his elite circle of friends, and remained “open lovers” until his death in 1969. Many scholars debate whether her works influenced Sartre or if Sartre influenced her works. The Second Sex was published in 1949, was banned by the Vatican, and became one of the most influential texts for philosophy, feminism, and women’s studies. Beauvoir died on April 14, 1986 (The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

Beauvoir sees that women are defined in relation to men, and because of this women are considered the “other.” She begins her argument by stating that humanity,
“ . . . is to be defined by the manner in which it deals with its natural, fixed characteristics . . .” (195) Based on this excerpt from the Second Sex, I believe she thinks that fixed characteristics are such things as sexed bodies, and innate desires, which are common to the majority of human kind. The desire, common to all humans, which Beauvoir finds particularly concerning to women, is liberty. She says, “Every subject plays his part as such specifically through exploits or projects that serve as a mode of transcendence; he achieves liberty only through a continual reaching out toward other liberties” (194). Beauvoir believes that depriving women of the ability to transcend and achieve liberty is what creates the oppression of women (194). She believes the reason why women have been subjected to this oppression is due to the fact that many philosophers and thinkers of the past have deemed the male as the representative of the human form, and women as the peculiarity of the human form (191). Thus, I conclude from this excerpt, that Beauvoir believes that males have become the norm, and females, the “other,” leading men to believe that women are inferior, as they are not the “human ideal,” and must be denied liberty. Beauvoir believes that femininity and masculinity are constructs of society that need to be broken down in order for women to transcend “immanence” and obtain liberty (195).

Within Beauvoir’s idea, that gender is a social construction, lies the idea that we can shape and play with our reality; in other words, we possess free will. Previously, women and men who believed in the constructs of the “eternal feminine” and “eternal masculine” (or those fixed essences within the female and male), have imprisoned themselves within an idea that they believed was immutable. But these rules are not unchangeable, as we often believe, and apply not only to our gendered situations, but also to the world around us. Perhaps there are other social constructions that shape the way we live that should be analyzed, such as our concepts of happiness. If one is not happy, perhaps it is due to our concept of happiness. America is a material culture in which, I think most of us will agree, defines happiness by the amount of money or material possessions. But this may not be what makes us truly happy. Often times these constructions make us forget that there are other modes of existence beyond those that society presents to us. Either way, I believe what Beauvoir is getting at is that the freedom to be creative and productive transcends (raises us above) our socially constructed concepts, and I believe that this should not be limited to constructs of gender, and is applicable to a majority of our thought patterns.

Beauvoir believes that if society rids itself of the “eternal feminine” and the “eternal masculine” then homosexuality will disappear, but I disagree, and believe that homosexuality is not a negation of heterosexuality. Beauvoir says, “The excessive sentimentality, homosexual fervors, and platonic crushes of adolescent girls, with all their train of silliness and frivolity, are much more injurious than a little childish sex play and a few definite sex experiences” (202). In this sentence Beauvoir has lumped homosexuality, or a least the tendency, with sentimentality and crushes. By doing this she is suggesting that homosexual tendencies are a fabrication of the mind, just like a crush, or excessive emotions. This excerpt does not explain her position fully, so I will include a quote from the full text, which explains this more clearly. Beauvoir says, “The lesbian, in fact, is distinguished by her refusal of the male and her liking for feminine flesh; but every adolescent female fears penetration and masculine domination, and she feels a certain repulsion for the male body; on the other hand, the female body is for her, as for the male, and object of desire” (The Second Sex 407). In other words, lesbians exist as a result of their fear or dislike of masculinity. She does not mention male homosexuality, but I would conclude that it has something to do with the gender constructs as well. However, humans are sexual beings, and I do not believe they would limit themselves to sexual experiences with one particular sex, even if gender constructs did not exist, or were not a limited. I believe humans could even possibly construct a world were homosexuality was used as a form of birth control, or perhaps even a world were penile penetration of the vagina was not the “sexual norm.” Beauvoir sees homosexuality as a peculiarity that is resultant of heterosexuality, and I believe this is a result of her “lack of imagination” (205).

Although Beauvoir believes that males and females should be allowed access to the tools necessary to promote their creative and productive interests, still she also concludes that for the modern women this will be rather difficult. She says,
“At this moment they [liberated women] have been realized nowhere, in Russia no more than in France or the United States; and this explains why the women of today is torn between the past and the future. She appears most often as a ‘true woman’ disguised as a man, and she feels herself as ill at ease in her flesh as in her masculine garb. She must shed her old skin and cut her own new clothes” (201).

What she’s trying to say is that no matter which part of the dichotomy a liberated woman adheres to (male or female) she will feel out of place, for these are constructs of the old which she no longer identifies with. New attitudes, new clothing, new methods of marking the self need to be created in order to affirm a new identity that differs from the old standards. How can a woman create a new identity when she is rewarded for acting feminine and shunned for being too masculine? What ways can we help to create a new identity for women, or should there even be a new identity for women? Aren’t we all individuals? Instead, should we be celebrating individuality?


Works Cited

Beauvoir, Simone de. The Second Sex. New York: Vintage Books, 1949.

Mussett, Shannon. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Villanova University. Feb.
27, 2005. < http://www.iep.utm.edu/b/beauvoir.htm#The%20Second%20Sex>

Similarities Between Nietzsche’s Overman and Emerson’s Over-Soul

In Friedrich Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche examines and deconstructs morality. Nietzsche does not accept the moral structure religion imposes on its followers, as humans should be able to decide individually how they will conduct their lives. In his deconstruction of morality, Nietzsche also targets other philosophers, such as Kant and Plato, for the same reasons he rejects religion. Despite his negative outlook on religion, and certain philosophical ideas, Nietzsche was still influenced by the ideas and concepts presented by religion and philosophy. One possible influence is Ralph Waldo Emerson, an American transcendentalist. Although Emerson and Nietzsche appear to have very different beliefs, Nietzsche’s writings are often reminiscent of Emerson’s Essays. Nietzsche’s Zarathustra and On the Genealogy of Morals present the overman, or Ubermensch, who appears to be very similar to Emerson’s over-soul. Nietzsche did read Emerson. He says in the appendix of the Genealogy of Morals, "Emerson with his essays has been a good friend and cheered me up even in black periods: he contains so much skepsis, so many 'possibilities' that even virtue achieves esprit in his writings" (Genealogy of Morals 339) Regardless, exploring the similarities between Nietzsche’s Zarathustra and On the Genealogy of Morals and Emerson’s The Over-Soul, can show how a similar philosophical idea can be embraced by two very different people, with two very different concepts of human existence.

Before a comparison can be made between Nietzche’s overman and Emerson’s over-soul, an analysis of the overman is required to establish the basis of this comparison. The prologue in Nietzsche’s Zarathustra provides a good summary of the overman. Zarathustra, the main character, speaks to the people of the marketplace about the overman in this paragraph,
“Behold, I teach you the overman. The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say; the overman shall be the meaning of the earth! I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! Poison-mixers are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying and poisoned themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so let them go.” ( Zarathustra 13)
Zarathustra says that the overman is the earth, or the truth, and the otherworldly ideas (think of these as other “earths”) are false, and poisonous to those who follow them. The overman is a higher being who has escaped these otherworldly ideas, and has ventured on his own in order to create an independent existence. The overman desires to escape these otherworldly ideas because they cause one to live a finite existence, which is a false existence. A true existence is one in which a person is not bound by moral restraints, and thus does not have finite ends. The overman also accepts eternal recurrence, which is the acceptance of life as it is (violent, unfair, etc.). But rather than weeping, or becoming nauseous over this fact, the overman laughs and accepts life as it is. In other words, he sees life from a different perspective, and from this perspective creates his own morals, his own existence. So, the overman transcends the old morality in order to create a new existence of the overman’s choosing.

A summary of the overman deserves a summary of the over-soul if a comparison is to be made later. Emerson sees the over-soul as some sort of transparent, divine connection between all individual souls, in which one can only possess if he or she is knowledgeable of this over-soul. He states, “We see the world piece by piece, as the sun, the moon, the animal, the tree; but the whole, of which these are the shining parts, is the soul.” (The Over-Soul 190) The over-soul is the sum of all parts of existence. However, Emerson states that the majority of people are not taught about the over-soul, rather their perception is clouded by material wealth, and the inner workings of the church. Only by withdrawing into the self, in order to listen to nature and god, can a person become one with, and possess the over-soul.

The overman and the over-soul, although somewhat different, are similar in that they both possess a change in perspective and an understanding of truth. When the overman or higher being accepts the eternal recurrence, he or she must accept the pain and suffering that is involved in life for what it is, rather than try to fight or change it. The over-soul requires a similar shift in perspective. To posses the over-soul, one must realize that god is not within the church, but is within nature, and is the accumulation of all existence. The one in pursuit of the over-soul must break away from the traditional concepts of Christianity and form a new perspective. Both of these new or different perspectives require the unveiling of the truth. In order to change perspectives the person in search of the overman or the over-soul must acknowledge the truth. So, truth is the element that shifts one’s perspective. For the overman the truth is, life will never change from it’s current position, in which pain and suffering is involved. And for the over-soul, the truth is that god is within nature and cannot be found within society or the inner workings of the church. Perspective and truth are the broad themes that tie together Nietzsche’s overman, and Emerson’s over-soul.

To begin a more in depth comparison between the overman and the over-soul, the reader will observe the connection between Nietzsche’s “Will to Power,” and the concept of power behind Emerson’s over-soul. In Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals he states, “Thus the essence of life, its will to power, is ignored; one overlooks the essential priority of the spontaneous, aggressive, expansive, form-giving forces that give new interpretations and directions, although ‘adaptation’ follows only after this . . .” (Genealogy of Morals 79) For Nietzsche, the “will to power” is that element which brings the true essence of life, or a true reality, which has been ignored by society. The absence of the “will to power” leads one astray from the spontaneity of life, and from creating one’s own life. The “will to power” pushes one to find truth.

Emerson has a similar concept of power, which he calls an “overpowering reality,” that embodies the same concept as the “will to power.” Emerson says, “. . . that overpowering reality which confutes our tricks and talents, and contains every one to pass for what he is, and to speak from his character and not from his tongue, and which evermore tends to pass into our thought and hand and become wisdom and virtue and power and beauty.” (The Over-Soul 189) Emerson is saying that there is an overpowering reality that can move a person to rid his or herself from the veil of society, and embrace his or her true reality. In return this person will acquire wisdom, virtue, power, and beauty. Both Nietzsche and Emerson acknowledge that there is some force that pushes and enables one to seek a new perspective of truth: the overman or the over-soul.
Once one has been pushed into seeking a new perspective of truth, both Nietzsche and Emerson agree that some sort of metamorphosis must occur before one can achieve the desired state. Nietzsche says, “ Of the three metamorphoses of the spirit I tell you: how the spirit becomes a camel; and the camel, a lion; and the lion, finally, a child.” ( Zarathustra 25) The camel is the state in which most people are in while they are under the influence of the herd, or when they posses the old concept of morality. The camel is burdened by morality, yet takes on this burden. However, when the “will to power” has begun to push the seeker in the right direction, a second metamorphosis occurs. The camel now becomes the lion. The lion represents the second stage in which the person fights against morality. The final push for the “will to power” is towards the form of the child. The child represents a new beginning. The child laughs at the old ways, and is young and innocent enough to play with his or her own concept of morality. The child is able to see the truth.

Emerson’s metamorphosis is not as complex, but proposes the same concept. Emerson says, “The soul’s advances are not made by gradation, such as can be represented by motion in a straight line, but rather by ascension of state, such as can be represented by metamorphosis, - from the egg to the worm, from the worm to the fly.” (Emerson 194) The soul does not advance towards the over-soul in three stages, as in Nietzsche’s metamorphosis, but in several pulses. So, each pulse brings one closer to the truth, and in the end the seeker has gone through a metamorphosis. Both Nietzsche and Emerson realize a metamorphosis must occur in order for the seeker to obtain the truth: the overman or the over-soul.

Part of the process in seeking the overman or the over-soul is shaking away the old ideas, which veil the truth. Nietzsche believes that those within common society (the herd) are poisoned by their overburdened morality. One can free his or herself from this society by searching for the overman. He says, “Verily, a polluted stream is man. One must be a sea to be able to receive a polluted stream without becoming unclean. Behold, I teach you the overman: he is this sea; in him your great contempt can go under.” (Zarathustra 13) Aspiring to the overman de-pollutes one’s stream and shakes off the old concepts of morality present in traditional society. Nietzsche explains the effect of the herd mentality in The Genealogy of Morals. He states, “. . . instincts of wild, free, prowling man turned backward against man himself. Hostility, cruelty, joy in persecuting, in attacking, in change, in destruction - all this turned against the possessors of such instincts: that is the origin of the ‘bad conscience.’” (Genealogy of Morals 85) The herd tries to constrain natural human desires and instincts because they feel this is the only way they can avoid, or cope with oppression from a higher authority. However, Nietzsche says if humans break away from this mentality, then they will free themselves to create their own reality.
Emerson shakes off these “old ideas” similarly to Nietzsche, but in a different context. He says, “When we have broken our god of tradition and ceased from our god of rhetoric, then may God fire the heart with his presence.” (The Over-Soul 207) The traditional idea of Christianity is, for Emerson, the problem. He says people should dig further than the surface layer that the church and society present. If this is done, then the original truth of Christianity will be found. Another quote suggests how one may shake traditional Christianity, “He must greatly listen to himself, withdrawing himself from all the accents of other men’s devotion. Their prayers even are hurtful to him, until he have made his own. Our religion vulgarly stands on numbers of believers.” ( The Over-Soul 20) By inverting one’s spirituality, one is able to focus attention on the self, and can find the true meaning of god, the over-soul. Nietzsche and Emerson are breaking away from tradition, and are trying to capture reality.

The seeker’s journey for the overman, and the seeker’s journey for the over-soul appear to embrace, relatively, the same idea and concept. Both Nietzsche and Emerson are pushing their readers to seek truth, question the traditional concepts of society, and see life from a different perspective, a different existence. Because of this, it seems both have achieved a similar formula for doing so. Both believe there is a power that initiates the desire for truth, and a metamorphosis that one must go through in order to ascend to the overman or over-soul, and obtain truth. Perhaps Nietzsche’s overman was influenced by Emerson’s over-soul. There seems to be enough evidence to support this statement. Either way, comparing Nietzsche with Emerson shows how similar concepts can evolve from very different modes of thinking.

Works Cited
Emerson, Ralph Waldo. “Emerson’s Essays.” The Over-Soul. New York: Harper and Row, 1926.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. “On the Genealogy of Morals.” New York: Random House, 1967.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. “Zarathustra.” New York: Penguin Books, 1978.

Nietzsche and the Sunflower

In The Sunflower, Simon Wiesenthal, the author and main character in this narrative and a Holocaust Survivor is confronted by a dying SS soldier who asks Simon to forgive his crimes during the holocaust. Simon finds this question hard to answer or respond to and walks away without granting or denying the SS solider, Karl, forgiveness. At the end of the narrative, Simon asks the reader what he or she would have done in his situation. In On the Genealogy of Morals, the author Friedrich Nietzsche explores a framework for good and evil that is unlike frameworks previously presented, which divides the attitudes of slaves (the suppressed, the passive, the “ressentiment”) from the attitudes of nobles (the dominant, the active) and favors the attitudes of the nobles. By applying Nietzsche’s framework to Simon’s problem I will show that Simon was not acting in accord with the ressentiment mentality, and that Nietzsche himself, if he was sticking to his framework, would have been decisive in his moral decision.

I will begin by explaining Nietzsche’s framework of morality. As mentioned before, Nietzsche divides morality into the active and the passive. Individuals in the active group, which he refers to as the nobles, act quickly when they have been wronged, and individuals in the passive group, which he refers to as ressentiment, bottle up their anger when they have been wronged (Nietzsche 38). Nietzsche says, “The reverse is the case with the noble mode of valuation: it acts and grows spontaneously, it seeks its opposite only so as to affirm itself more gratefully and triumphantly . . .” (Nietzsche 37). The passive group, on the other hand, withholds its anger and allows it to fester until it turns into hate. Nietzsche says, “The slave revolt in morality begins when ressentiment itself becomes creative and gives birth to values: the ressentiment of natures that are denied the true reaction, that of deeds, and compensate themselves with an imaginary revenge.” (Nietzsche 36) In other words, the passive group does nothing directly to compensate for wrongdoing or to correct wrongdoing; instead, they allow it to fester. This mentality leads the passive group to believe (perhaps through self-deception) that they are the “good” people and harbor hatred towards the nobles. The active group, on the other hand, act out their anger, allowing it to diffuse. Nietzsche does not necessarily agree that the active group is ideal, but he does believe the passive group acts in a self-destructive manner, which breeds hatred, ill feelings, and guilt.

Simon, at first glance, seems to fit right in with Nietzsche’s ressentiment, but I will argue that Simon remained passive only out of necessity, and was not of the ressentiment mentality. Simon explains the way in which the SS soldiers controlled revolts within the camps, “Staying in camp meant that one was guarded not by a single SS man but by many, and often the guards amused themselves by wandering from one workshop to another, whipping prisoners indiscriminately, or reporting them to the commandant for alleged sabotage, which always led to dire punishment.” (Wiesenthal 11) Since the guards had no problem torturing and killing indiscriminately for some sort of pleasure or fun, the punishment for revolt would be much more severe. This leads me to doubt that prisoners would have even had a chance of escaping or truly punishing the SS soldiers if they had fought back. Simon also notes that the prisoners were often underfed and exhausted (Wiesenthal 77), which would have made the prisoners incapable of fighting. Thus, Simon was in no position to fight against his perpetrators. However, after the holocaust ended, Simon was then able to fight back by seeking justice, rather than revenge. So, Simon remained passive only out of necessity and when he did find the opportunity to fight back he took it. Thus, Simon does not appear to be a part of the ressentiment mentality.

There are many instances where Simon has the opportunity to use his position as a victim of the holocaust to purposefully hurt another or prove he is a better person, but instead he chooses not to, which separates Simon from the ressentiment. The first example of this is when he walks away from Karl without granting or denying his request (Wiesenthal 55). Simon could have easily hurt this dying man by cursing him for his wrongdoing, yet he refrains. The second instance is when Simon visits Karl’s mother. Simon could have easily ruined Karl’s mother’s image of her son as a “good boy”, but instead he remained silent. He says, “ In her present circumstances, to take from her her last possession would probably have also been a crime.” (Wiesenthal 95) So, Simon is not vengeful, as a person of the ressentiment would be.
But the main reason Simon does not fit into the ressentiment mentality is due to his inability to respond. A person’s response to a situation is dependent upon how he or she has been trained to respond. According to Nietzsche, the active group responds to wrong doing spontaneously, in an outward fashion, where as the passive group, in the same situation, responds within the self (36-37). I believe Nietzsche would even say that these responses have been established through years and centuries of practice. He says, “The progress of this poison through the entire body of mankind seems irresistible, its pace and tempo may from now on even grow slower, subtler, less audible, more cautious--there is plenty of time.—To this end, does the church today still have any necessary role to play?” (Nietzsche 36) Thus, according to Nietzsche, both the active and the passive groups have been trained, through time, to respond in one way or another. Because of this, I believe Simon cannot be considered a part of the ressentiment mentality. Simon did not have a trained response to the situation presented to him. If he was of the ressentiment mentality I believe he would have responded based on his training within this mentality. In other words, Simon does not display hatred, as mentioned above, and does not use his position to harm others or make himself feel better, as a person of the ressentiment mentality would have been conditioned to do. Nietzsche, on the other hand, would not have been indecisive, as he has taken the time to reflect on his method of response. I believe both the ressentiment and noble mentality are methods of response, which require training, and, which Simon did not seem to posses.

It is impossible to know exactly how Nietzsche would have responded to Simon’s situation, but I believe that in whatever way Nietzsche responded, he would have responded decisively. Throughout this essay I have shown that Nietzsche disagrees with the ressentiment mentality; therefore, I feel safe in concluding that Nietzsche would not have adopted this mentality to respond to Karl’s request. However, I do not believe that Nietzsche would have adopted the noble mentality either. Nietzsche’s Zarathustra explains his ideal mentality, which is different from the noble mentality, yet I’m still not convinced he would have responded with his ideal mentality either. But in whatever way Nietzsche would have decided to respond he would have been decisive, for the fact that he has critically analyzed his moral position, where as Simon has not.

Although one might expect Simon to be rather vengeful after such atrocities happened to him and those he loved, Simon seemingly refrained from hating. Perhaps he did hate, but from what is portrayed in The Sunflower Simon does not seem to possess this feeling, which I personally find amazing. Because Simon did not respond with vengence, or with action, Nietzsche could not say he was a part the ressentiment mentality, as Simon’s was confused about his moral position.

Works Cited
Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Genealogy of Morals. New York: Vintage Books, 1967.

Wiesenthal, Simon. The Sunflower. New York: Schocken Books, 1997.

Plato and Aristotle on the Issue of Men and Women

This essay will show that, although Plato and Aristotle agree on a few minor points, Plato tends to be more “woman friendly” than Aristotle, and because of this, I will later assert that Plato’s view of men and women appears to be more accurate than Aristotle’s.

To begin, I will start with the differences between Plato’s and Aristotle’s view of men and women. In Plato’s Republic, Socrates creates an ideal society where men and women are considered equals (to a degree). Socrates argues, “All things, he said, should be done in common, except that the women are physically weaker and the men stronger.” (Plato 451 e). This means that men and women may partake in almost any job regardless of their sex. The only jobs, or duties, that Socrates excludes are those heavier duties of “guardianship.” Aristotle, on the other hand, believes that women are deformities of human kind. He says, “The reason is that the female is as it were a deformed male . . .” (Aristotle 63). Thus, for Aristotle, women are not considered equals to men in any circumstance; rather, they are males gone wrong, and do not share the same intelligence or abilities as men. So, Plato allows the possibility that some women may be equal to or superior to men, whereas Aristotle sees men strictly superior to women, and does not allow for this possibility.

Secondly, Aristotle believes that one’s reproductive function determines his or her mental and moral capacity, where as Socrates, in Plato’s Republic, sees the reproductive functions as irrelevant to a person’s position in life. Aristotle tends to work within the framework of “hierarchical dualisms” (Prof. Norlock, Jan. 31, 2005). Thus, Aristotle concludes that males and females are opposites of each other, with the male on the positive side, and the female on the negative side of the dualism. He believes male semen has a higher value than female semen, for male semen gives soul and female semen does not; rather, it gives matter (Aristotle 66). Aristotle believes that because males are capable of giving soul, they must also be able to will their soul, for males are the example of human kind. Females have souls too, but cannot deliberately will their soul (Aristotle 66). Plato, on the other hand, would not agree with this distinction because he has observed empirically that women and men, although they do possess different reproductive functions, have the ability to participate in similar activities or duties. Socrates says, “But if they seem to differ in this particular only, that the female bears children while the male begets them, we shall say that there has been no kind of proof that a woman is different from a man as regards the duties we are talking about . . .” (Plato 454 d). Thus, Aristotle believes reproductive function determines one’s position in life, and Socrates believes that this distinction is irrelevant.

Although Plato and Aristotle have different views on the issue of men and women, both would agree that men are generally better at performing duties than women, and both would agree that women should have some form of education; however, the two authors do vary in degree of the statements mentioned. In the Republic, Socrates says, “What you say is true, he said, namely that one sex [the male sex] is much superior to the other in almost everything, yet many women are better than many men in many things, but on the whole it is as you say.” (Plato 455 c) Socrates is saying that women can do many of things men can, but in general males tend to be better at performing a majority of the duties required of a city. Aristotle outlines the tasks which men and women are supposed to perform, with the male being better at the majority of tasks. He says, “For that which has the capacity, in virtue of its intelligence, of looking forward is by nature the ruling and master element [the male], while that which has the capacity, in virtue of its body, of carrying out this will of the superior is the subject and slave by nature [the female].” (Aristotle 66) So, men are the active ones who have the intelligence to rule over and effect the world around them, whereas the females are designed to obey.

Aristotle and Plato also agree on education for women. Socrates, in the Republic says, “So if we use the women for the same tasks as the men, they must be taught the same things.” (Plato 452 a) Therefore, men and women should be educated in the same way. Aristotle, at the end of his Politics states, “ Since every household is part of a state, . . . it is necessary that we should have our eye on the constitution in educating our children and wives . . . For women are half the free population; and it is from children that grow the members of the constitution.” (Plato 68) Although Plato and Aristotle both agree that women should be educated, Plato extends education for women to all areas previously accessible to men, whereas Aristotle suggests women should not be denied education. Aristotle probably would not grant women the same type of education since he believes women would not be capable of learning the same things as men.

I do not agree completely with either Aristotle’s or Plato’s view of women, but I do think Plato comes closer to a “woman friendly” state, and has, perhaps, influenced western society’s current concept of men and women. Aristotle outright states that woman is the lesser of the two sexes, and calls her deformed, and compares her in opposition to the male. The ideal form for a human is the male. Many of Aristotle’s ideas are based on empirical data that was collected through cadavers, but as we know, science is dependent upon technology. So, as new technologies developed, Aristotle’s ideas on men and women were proven wrong. Plato’s ideas about men and women, however, seem to have influenced today’s western culture. Men and women today work side by side, in and out of the public sphere, as Socrates had suggested. Although Plato’s suggestion to create a “community of wives,” and his suggestion to raise the children away from their parents, seems quite far-fetched, his ideas about men and women have come to life in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

So, it seems that Aristotle and Plato hold rather contrary views, but agree with each other on men’s superiority to women, and for the education of women (although they do vary in the degrees of education allowed, or necessary). But Plato’s view seems to hold strong as western society is shifting from Aristotle’s view of men and women towards Plato’s view of men and women, where men and women work side by side, and are not denied certain opportunities because of their sex.

Gender Identity

Dr. John Money, who is a professor at John Hopkins, has presented western society with a concept of gender identity, which claims that gender is malleable before the age of three or four. However, years after Money’s theory was presented, other research began to show that gender was not as malleable as one thought, and that perhaps the body does have something to do with gender. Anne Fausto-Sterling provides an argument against Money, claiming that there is no clear distinction between the body and gender, and that sex identity depends on the body, as well as one’s environment. I will present in this paper support for Anne Fausto-Sterling’s argument that gender and sex are difficult to distinguish, but will offer a new perspective in regards to her argument.

Dr. Money believes that gender is socially constructed. He believes that one’s sex, or the category of genitalia one’s body closely resembles, has nothing to do with one’s gender. In other words, Money believes that, for example, a person who has a vagina can be raised as a boy, if he or she is raised from the age of three as a boy. However, Money would prefer that one’s genitalia match his or her gender. John Colapinto, author of As Nature Made Him, quotes Money in regards to gender and sex matching: Money says, “ ‘ . . . one usually expects that the child’s psychosexual differentiation will be congruous with the sex of rearing.” (Colapinto 55) So, sex identity, for Money, is malleable before the age of four, which implies that gender is not innate.

If Money believes that gender is constructed, then he would have to believe that sexuality is constructed as well. If one believes it is possible to construct the psychology of a woman, then there is no reason to say that one could not construct the psychology of a gay male. Based on his social construction theory, Money would have to agree that a child who was raised to be gay before the age of three or four would be gay for the rest of his or her life.

Anne Fausto-Sterling presents an argument, in her essay Is Gender Essential, against Money’s theory that gender identity is entirely socially constructed. She begins her argument by stating, “The separation of sex from gender is never clean, which means that there is always messiness and difficulty around deciding what we mean by ‘gender.’” (Fausto-Sterling 53) She is saying that there seems to be some connection between a person’s physical sex, and a constructed gender, but the distinction is unclear. Fausto-Sterling says that human bodies are sexed for the purpose of human reproduction, and that one’s biological sex is of importance. However, she does not believe that one’s gender encompasses the entire life of an individual. She states, “We are born with bodies that are, in one sense of the word (i.e., a groundwork, framework, a structure on which other things are built or layered), essential. But as a biologist I don’t find this to be a very accurate account of what bodies are and how they work.” (Fausto-Sterling 55) Fausto-Sterling believes that our bodies are not fixed structures, and to place a rigid category upon a specific type of body (for example, a male body) does not make any sense. She states, “So we have to stop thinking of the body as something prior that is unchanging and that becomes the base on which some sort of cultural framework is built.” (Fausto-Sterling 56) So, Fausto-Sterling disagrees with Money when he says that gender is entirely socially constructed because the body does play a part in who a person is, as well as cultural influences, and to distinguish between the two is difficult.

I agree with Dr. Money on one point: that gender can be socially constructed; However, I do not agree that social construction is the entirety of an individual. The body is the instrument through which humans perceive the world, and it is the instrument through which humans create their identity. Each body is sexed and in some ways shapes the individual’s outlook on life. For example, a female, if she is capable of having children, must be conscious of the fact that a child could change her life. This shapes her outlook. So, sex does have some influence on our perception.

However, sex does not prescribe how an individual will act. According to Foucault’s concept of liberal power, liberal power normalizes and shapes our actions in order to maintain a web of control. I believe that gender norms are a part of this web of power. David Halperin, author of Saint Foucault, explains liberal power. He says, “Liberal power does not simply prohibit; it does not directly terrorize. It normalizes, ‘responsibilizes,’ and disciplines.” (Halperin 18) Gender norms set standards for male and female behavior. These standards are then sanctioned by mothers, fathers, teachers, the media, and almost every where in society. Having to sanction male and female behavior in order to create norms implies that males and females do not naturally fit into these categories, which suggests that gender is malleable, and constructed by society.

Ultimately I disagree with Money that gender is entirely socially constructed. Rather I believe we are each born with a particular body that provides us with a perspective on life, and that human behavior is in large part determined by gender norms. I do not condone gender norms, as they are confining, but acknowledge that they, in part, have shaped my reality, and my gender identity.

Works Cited
Halperin, David. Saint Foucault. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Colapinto, John. As Nature Made Him. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2000.

Gender and Foucault

Michael Foucault proposed a new theory of power that claimed “power is everywhere.” He said that power normalized people’s actions within society. Foucault specifically speaks of this power’s normalizing effect on heterosexuality, which has denigrated homosexuality. Foucault also proposes a way of challenging the heterosexual norm. However, Foucault did not explore to a large extent how this form of power has normalized masculinity, and denigrated femininity. This paper will explore how femininity is controlled by the same power structure as homosexuality, and will also explore certain forms of resistance femininity can partake in, in order to challenge gender norms.

To begin, a summary of Foucault’s concept of power is needed in order to understand how homosexuality, as well as gender, is constructed by liberal power. According to Foucault, “power is everywhere.” Power does not come from one source; rather, power is ingrained in every human relationship. Power exists between teacher and student, between mother and daughter, between friend and friend. David Halperin, author of Saint-Foucault, says that according to Foucault, “ . . . power is what characterizes the complex relations among the parts of a particular society—and the interactions among individuals in that society—as relations of ongoing struggle” (Halperin 16-17). Foucault would say power is not necessarily negative. Positive power exists: “It produces possibilities of action, of choice—and, ultimately, it produces the conditions for the exercise of freedom . . .” (Halperin 17). “Liberal Power” is the power of the “modern liberal state,” and is the type of power mentioned above. Halperin states that, “Liberal power does not simply prohibit; it does not directly terrorize. It normalizes, ‘responsibilizes,’ and disciplines” (Halperin 18). This power determines what will be positively or negatively sanctioned. Foucault would say that every human is within many different power relationships. In some relationships one may dominate, and in other relationships, one may be dominated. The dominant is the “norm.” Norms are established and perpetuated by those in relationships. A positive value is given to the dominant, while the dominated is seen as something other than the dominant. Those who are the dominant cannot maintain their position without the dominated, and the dominated cannot maintain their position without the dominant. Foucault believes liberal power is what creates and sanctions norms in order to maintain a power structure within society.

According to Foucault, homosexuality was constructed by liberal power. As mentioned before, liberal power “normalizes” certain aspects of society in order to maintain control over a population. Heterosexuality has become the norm within this liberal power structure. Anything that is different than heterosexuality is considered abnormal, unnatural, and disgusting in the eyes of normalized persons. Halperin says, “ ‘The homosexual’ is defined by negation and opposition as everything the heterosexual is not. In short, ‘the homosexual’ is an identity without and essence” (Halperin 61). The homosexual actually defines the heterosexual by showing what heterosexuality is not. These “abnormal” people are rejected from families, jobs, housing, etc., simply because society has deemed heterosexuality as the norm, and placed a negative value on actions outside of heterosexuality. Foucault is saying that homosexuality is not intrinsically bad, rather society has constructed a view of homosexuality that is negative.

Halperin does not specifically address why Foucault believes heterosexuality has become the norm (rather than homosexuality), but the arguments against gay marriage explain why heterosexuality is preferred. Robert Knight, author of How Domestic Partnerships and “Gay Marriage” Threaten the Family, explains that, “The purpose of [heterosexual] marriage is to stabilize sexuality and to provide the best environment in which to procreate and raise children” (Knight 302). In this example heterosexuality is preferred because children are often produced in this coupling. Society wants more children for the purpose of growth and for the purpose of control. A child is easily manipulated into conforming to the norms. Also, children are the continuum of kinship, which apparently strengthens society. Knight argues, “Kinship entails mutual obligations and a commitment to the future of the community. Homosexual relationships are a negation of the ties that bind—the continuation of kinship through procreation” (Halperin 302). So, it seems that heterosexuality is valued because children can be produced, and is what society needs in order to grow, but by embracing the advantages of heterosexuality, one has blinded his or herself of the advantages of homosexuality.

Gender is normalized in the same manner as sexuality: the male or the masculine is normalized, and the female or feminine is something outside of the masculine, and possesses a negative value. Halperin says, “The heterosexual/homosexual binarism is itself a homophobic production, just as the man/woman binarism is a sexist production. Each consists of two terms, the first of which is unmarked and unproblematized—it designates ‘the category to which everyone is assumed to belong’ . . . whereas the second term is marked and problematized . . . ” (Halperin 44). So, the feminine is the marked term, which defines masculinity, just as homosexuality is the marked term which defines heterosexuality.

The women’s movement in the United States and Europe has helped to reinforce the values placed on gender. The feminist movement has taken women and assimilated them into the “masculine norm”. For example, women have started wearing pants, which was previously a masculine form of dress, and cut their hair short in order to appear less feminine. While it is important that the women’s movement has enabled women to develop independence, femininity is still of less value than masculinity. For instance, it is socially unacceptable for a male to wear a dress, because the dress is associated with the feminine. However, it is socially acceptable for a woman to wear pants, which is associated with masculine. Here is another example: It is socially unacceptable for a man to wear makeup, for makeup is what women wear. However, it is socially acceptable for a woman not to wear makeup, for men do not wear makeup and represent the norm. Women are simply trying to identify themselves with what is acceptable, in order to avoid the pain and frustration of being outside the norm.

What the women’s movement and liberal power are saying about gender is that it is perfectly malleable. Femininity is typically associated with females, and masculinity is typically associated with males. However, norms would not exist if females were typically feminine and Males were typically masculine. These norms are put in place because people, in general, tend to stray from these feminine and masculine constructs. Liberal power acknowledges that males and females do not necessarily fit into categories, but in order to gain control, these categories are needed. This is also evident in the women’s movement, which has encouraged women to become more masculine. Women are manipulating their gender in order to fit the norm.

Gender norms prove to be confining and uncomfortable to many. Fortunately, Foucault has produced a form of resistance, although originally for homosexuals, which challenges the norm. This form of resistance is applicable to gender.

First, a breakdown of Foucault’s concept of resistance is needed in order to show how it can be applied to gender. Foucault believes that the best way to resist the norm is to create a self or an activity that challenges the norm, but is never embraced as the norm itself. The act of creation in order to challenge the norm should never end. When one activity shows signs of becoming the norm, one should move on and create a new activity. Halperin explains Foucault’s concept of resistance as, “That sometimes dizzyingly scary, and obviously risky, but also exhilarating personal experiment, performed on ourselves by ourselves, is what ultimately defined for Foucault—as it still defines for many lesbian and gay people today—the transformative practice of queer politics.” (Halperin 106)

Since masculinity is considered the norm, femininity is what needs to be played with in order to shake-up gender norms. Femininity defines masculinity (as mentioned before). So, by embracing femininity and creating new ways of relating and expressing femininity, the definition of masculinity will also change. Breast-feeding, giving birth, menstruation, and menopause are all specifically feminine activities. Although all females do not have to participate in breast-feeding or giving birth, they do (for the most part) have to participate in menstruation, and menopause, which should not be seen in a negative light. Otherwise a woman would have difficulties being comfortable within her own body. These feminine activities need new ways to be expressed, so that they are not seen in a negative light. A possible example of a new form of expression would be menstruating festivals, where all women involved must be menstruating, and the menstruating is celebrated. Men could also be involved so long as they were in some way celebrating menstruation. However, if menstruating festivals started becoming a usual activity, then a new festival or activity needs to be created to challenge the norm. Foucault also speaks of sculpting and creating a self that is purposefully contrary to the norm. In the same way women could sculpt a self that embraces aspects of femininity. For example one could mark the self, literally, to indicate that she is menopausal, by wearing a certain style of clothing, or partaking in an ancient rituals that celebrates menopause. But one must be constantly changing the self in opposition to the norm. These examples attempt to see femininity in a new and different light, and escape the negativity liberal power has dumped on femininity.
Foucault’s concept of liberal power has allowed a new way of thinking about power, not only in terms of homosexuality, but in terms of femininity as well. By understanding how liberal power controls society’s actions through normalizing, one can understand why homosexuality, as well as femininity, is negatively valued. Foucault indirectly has provided a way for women and men who do not fit the gender norms within society, to challenge these norms by adopting queer politics. Women menstruate, and experience menopause. There is no way of changing this, and there no logical reason why these things should be devalued. Embracing these feminine activities challenges the normal view of femininity by giving them a positive value, leaving the norm unsettled.




Works Cited
Halperin, David. Saint Foucault. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Knight, Robert. “How Domestic Partnerships and ‘Gay Marriage’ Threaten the Family.”
Same Sex: Debating the Ethics, Science, and Culture of Homosexuality. John Corvino. Lanham. MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999.

Aristotle vs. Callicles

I have often wondered how Aristotle would respond to Callicles’s argument in Plato’s Gorgias. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics provides an outline explaining how and why one should lead a virtuous life. In doing so, Nicomachean Ethics brings to light Aristotle’s understanding of morals. Plato’s Gorgias also explores morals in regards to oratory. Callicles, the third person whom Socrates engages in conversation, provides Socrates with a strong counterpoint against his argument that doing wrong is worse than suffering wrong. I will first summarize Callicles’ argument, and then provide Aristotle’s counterpoint to Callicles’ argument, based on the Nicomachean Ethics. Lastly I will discus where Aristotle’s argument needed to be strengthened, and where his points fit well with Callicles’ argument.

Callicles defends the argument that suffering wrong is worse than doing wrong by, first, stating what is more base is more evil. Callicles briefly states, “In the natural sense anything that is a greater evil is also baser - in this case suffering wrong; but conventionally doing wrong is the baser of the two.” (Plato v. 483, 78) Here Callicles believes one should look at the words evil and base in a natural sense rather than a conventional sense, as the natural sense takes human nature into consideration, and convention does not. Callicles states why he does not what to speak of evil and base in terms of conventions,
“Conventions, on the other hand, are made, in my opinion, by the weaklings who form the majority of mankind . . . , and in an endeavour to frighten those who are stronger and capable of getting the upper hand they say that ambition is base and wrong, and that wrong-doing consists in trying to gain an advantage over others.” (Plato v.483, 78)
Thus, the conventional usage of evil and base is dependent upon society and does not take human nature into consideration. With the natural sense of the words evil and base in mind, Callicles believes that suffering wrong is base and, therefore, the greater evil. So, suffering the consequences of a “bad” action is worse than participating in the “bad” act.

Callicles further supports the separation of nature and convention by saying that the strong naturally preside over the weak, and since this is natural, it is also right. He states that, “possession of those who are weaker and inferior belong to the man who is better and superior.” (Plato 483, 78) Callicles believes that those who are superior are naturally superior and, therefore, have the right to be superior over others. This means that the superior can take from the weak, yet still justify his actions, as the superior are naturally right in whatever they do, thus doing wrong is right, in the case of the superior. Callicles’ final argument equates good and pleasurable as the same. The purpose of equating good and pleasurable is to show that suffering good is better than doing good, which is the positive side to the argument, suffering wrong is worse than doing wrong. He states that, “Luxury and excess and license, provided that they can obtain sufficient backing, are virtue and happiness.” (Plato 491, 91) To be more specific, Callicles believes that aiming to satisfy all wants and desires is naturally right and good, thus humans desire pleasure. Callicles furthers his point by stating that one cannot be good if one does not have wants or desires. So, it is naturally wrong to suffer, as it is naturally right to partake in pleasurable activities. Doing good would be seen as a selfless act, which disregards one’s desire for pleasure and pleasures another (for good and pleasure are the same). One who does good, in Callicles’ point of view, would be similar to a slave, as the purpose of a slave is to please his or her master. Therefore, suffering good is better than doing good.

Aristotle, from his viewpoint in the Nicomachean Ethics, would not agree with Callicles’ argument for several reasons; the first reason being that evil and base should be viewed from a conventional sense. The Nicomachean Ethics is believed to be written for Aristotle’s son, Nicomachus. If this were the case, then Aristotle would have written in the context of how one should act within society, specifically, how his son should act within society. Therefore, the Nicomachean Ethics would be written in terms of conventional sense. With this said, Aristotle would agree with Callicles that, “ . . . conventionally doing wrong is the baser of the two.” (Plato 483, 78) He would not agree with Callicles’ argument, in the natural sense, that what is more base is more evil. Aristotle would say that one might suffer wrong for reasons beyond one’s control, which is not bad as one can find a way to deal with the suffering appropriately. Aristotle expresses this viewpoint when he says, “And yet, even here what is fine shines through, whenever someone bears many severe misfortunes with good temper, not because he feels no distress, but because he is noble and magnanimous.” (Aristotle 1100b130) Therefore, it is not the suffering that is bad, rather it is how one suffers wrong that makes suffering bad, base, or evil.

Aristotle would also disagree with Callicles’ argument that the superior are naturally right in their actions. Again, this argument brings up what is naturally right, meaning right from the view of natural law. Since Aristotle disagrees with using morality in the context of natural sense, he would disagree on this matter as well. Putting natural and conventional senses behind, Aristotle would say that a superior person who takes, or possesses, an advantage over the weak would be considered ungenerous. He would agree that ungenerosity is not acceptable, as it is the deficiency of generosity, and that virtue is a matter of a balance between two extremes. Aristotle explains virtue in this passage, “Virtue, then, is a mean, insofar as it aims at what is intermediate.” (Aristotle 1106b28) The superior person is superior in that he obtains more than the inferior, thus a superior person who takes from the inferior person is taking more than he needs; therefore, this person is ungenerous. Aristotle explains, “Ungenerosity is always ascribed to those who take wealth more seriously than is right.” (Aristotle 1119b30) Aristotle believes that those who strive for goals beyond what is intermediate are wrong, thus doing wrong is worse than suffering wrong.

Aristotle spends a large majority of time, in his Nicomachean Ethics, explaining what is good or virtuous, and would certainly disagree with Callicles’ statement that good is equivalent to pleasure. Aristotle states that, “Virtue is about pleasures and pains; the actions that are its sources also increase it or, if they are done badly, ruin it; and its activity is about the same actions as those that are its sources.” (Aristotle 1105a15) So, virtue, or what is good, is one’s ability to accept the intermediate between pleasure and pain. Aristotle says that, “In pleasures and pains - though not in all types, and in pains less than in pleasures – the mean is temperance and the excess intemperance.” (Aristotle 1107b5) At one point in the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle does seem to equate good with pleasure, “ . . . actions in accord with the virtues are pleasant in their own right. Moreover, these actions are good and fine as well as pleasant . . .” (Aristotle 1099a21) He is saying that virtuous acts can be seen as both good and pleasurable. However, he is not stating that what is pleasurable is good, as previous and later arguments show that what is virtuous is the intermediate between two extremes. Therefore, Aristotle would say that good is not equivalent to pleasure, as good is dependent upon judging the mean that is appropriate to specific situations.

Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics provides are relatively descent rebuttal against Callicles’ argument; however, one problem with Aristotle’s argument is that it is strictly from a conventional sense rather than a natural sense. Since Callicles bases his argument upon the natural sense that what is more base is more evil, it is hard to compare Aristotle’s argument with Callicles’. The Nicomachean Ethics do not directly address the issue of natural law verses convention, but the fact that Aristotle wrote in the context of convention is a good indicator that he thought morals should be used in the context of convention. What Aristotle needed was a straightforward argument that explained his reasoning for writing from a conventional point of view. Perhaps Aristotle would have argued that morals were created to help a person prosper within a society; therefore, moral ideas would have to be written in the context of convention. Callicles provides a pretty clear reason why he is not speaking in a conventional sense. Aristotle’s argument would have benefited more if he had included in his Nicomachean Ethics why he was writing from a conventional perspective.

Another problem with Aristotle’s argument is he never states why the intermediate is always good. He gives plenty of examples of particular cases where the intermediate is good, but he does not state why the intermediate is always good. If Aristotle is saying that we should always aim for what is intermediate, then there must be an abstract reason, which is separate from the situations he explains. Otherwise, Aristotle’s argument would be based on situations, and one cannot predict all situations. Perhaps the gods deemed the intermediate good. Although this would not be a plausible reason, it does explain why the intermediate is good separately from situations. Callicles’ argument possesses the same fault. In his case, he never states why natural law is good. One possible argument against natural law is this: just because something is done out of instinct does not mean it is right. Morals, and the use of the words right and wrong, were created to help one get along appropriately within a society. Natural law assumes there is no society; therefore, discussion about morals would be irrelevant to natural law. Both Aristotle and Callicles could strengthen their arguments if they defined why what they claim to be good is actually good.

Exploring Aristotle’s argument against Callicles shows the similarities between Plato and Aristotle, and shows where they have gone wrong with their arguments. Socrates states that doing wrong is worse than suffering wrong because suffering wrong can relieve one of feelings of guilt; therefore, one would rather suffer wrong that feel the guilt of doing wrong. Aristotle gives a different point of view, although he still agrees with Plato’s position that doing wrong is worse than suffering wrong.

Works Cited
Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 1999.

Plato. Gorgias. England: Penguin Books, 1960.