The key point of our disagreement is semantic: about what it means to be loyal to your country. I still prefer my own interpretation. And I don't think that that's through failing to understand your point, however many times, or however many different ways, you reiterate it. I think we just disagree. — Sapientia

I will concede to that mostly because you are right in that your interpretation is certainly more easily understood, and because I appreciate that you are one of very few who see the form of justice in a broader context and as it should be rather than from an egocentric benefitism.

For one thing, I think that my meaning is more easily understood, as demonstrated with my example of Nazi Germany. Whether you focus on government, people, or culture, all three of these key aspects which are taken to represent a country predominantly conformed with Nazism, which is not something worthy of loyalty. Hence, if asked the question of whether or not I am loyal to my country, in that context, it would make more sense in my mind to answer no. — Sapientia

When it comes to this conformism, however, as I expressed earlier is a failure to understand loyalty genuinely or authentically. So continuing the previous thought experiment, the man incorrectly applying loyalty gives it to a woman because she represents the perfect object for his image and social position, indifferent to the principles she upholds as long as she is attractive. He only loves this object if she complies to the image he requests for his social standing and after a length of time he forms a habitual cycle that he becomes dependent on the object and thus fixed in his ignorance that the idea of changing would mean to completely change his entire lifestyle and everyone in it, which is just too difficult. He is so afraid that the idea of awakening him to his delusions - that is separating himself from society toward individualism - would be viewed as an act of aggression from an enemy. A genuinely loyal man would give his love and loyalty to a woman herself and not to the object she represents, for who she is and the principles she upholds despite the effect it will have to his own image or social standing.

Erich Fromm wrote about this in the Fear of Freedom, what he distinguishes with freedom from' and 'freedom to' - unlike me who uses authentic/genuine with the unauthentic/false - whereby they sense a destructive moral isolation where the individual adheres to Nazism or escapes to authoritarianism to avoid their own individuation. As Nazism is both static but also dynamic in its adaptation of society, it provides a class structure that strengthens into a habit - or automaton conformity - where people retreat to a sado-masochistic dependence and the idea of anything different becomes so threatening that it is viewed fearfully as the 'enemy'. They are unable to separate concepts like justice because of this and so they are considered ignorant. Only a genuine individual can remove themselves or their ego from the concept and see Nazism vis-a-vis Justice with the former thus defying all that justice stands for.

Makes perfectly good sense to me.

There are numerous examples of patriots raking their country over the coals, being scathingly critical. And there are situations where people acted treasonously against their country, in its best interests (the plots to kill Hitler, for example, or Germans who did what they could to contribute to Germany's defeat--most of them were executed).

Several Americans have performed acts many considered treasonous: Snowden, Daniel Ellsberg (the Pentagon Papers), Deep draft dodgers and deserters in the Vietnam War, and all sorts of people who become antibodies in a sick body politic. — Bitter Crank

As you say, that's going against their country, but in its best interests. I'm loyal to the best interests of my country, but not loyal to my country - insofar as it is not itself in accordance with, or is against, those best interests.

That I'm loyal to the best interests of my country entails that I'm not entirely loyal to my country, since my country isn't entirely in accordance with, or working towards, those best interests.

I'm not sure whether you meant to agree with me or raise a point against me in your reply, because I'm not sure what exactly you were referring to when you said "Makes perfectly good sense to me". (By one interpretation, you could have been disputing the last sentence in that quote of mine). If the latter, then I don't think that you have in fact raised a point which goes against what I said, because of the distinction I've highlighted in the two paragraphs above.

Plato had absolutely no notion of social contracts. Furthermore, Greeks didn't have a developed notion of individuality to begin with... These are just being read back into Plato. — Agustino

The fact that you are asking this only proves that you know little of Plato and having me 'prove' this to you despite the adequacy of the link to enable your own effective investigation into the subject only proves that ignorance appears to be a choice since you clearly have the aptitude to look it up yourself. The social contract theory is a representation of the nature of justice and the obligations individuals agree too; the individual compliance to laws is exemplified in Crito and whether or not our modern understanding of freedom and individuality has been fed back into our interpretation of the dialogues, I hardly think that his individual choice to drink hemlock as part of his decision to comply with the jurisprudential expectations of his time is anything but. In addition to this are opposing views of freedom that nevertheless illustrates a key role in his thoughts on justice such as that of Glaucon and the Ring of Gyges in the Republic.

Maybe but it also demonstrates that you're not being intellectually honest with regards to what other philosophers have actually thought and will manipulate their thoughts to fit your own end — Agustino

It is not my fault that you know little of Plato and if you want to project your own inadequacies by purporting my intellectual dishonesty, so be it. It is no different at you screaming and defending tooth and nail that the sky is purple after I have said that it is blue. Good luck with that.

LOL!! You are free to take my jokey comment seriously if that's what you think is the right thing to do, however it would be somewhat silly to assume that the comments someone makes half-jokingly in a thread that had already been sliding off topic actually means anything with regards to how they are as people. That would be like assuming that I'm an idiot because I posted that Rakesh video to Heister LOL! Everyone has an outer and an inner personality, it's silly to judge someone by what they say when they're just joking or not talking seriously. — Agustino

I have no time for childish boys who are so afraid of facing their intellectual and emotional failures by pretending once exposed that 'they were just joking'. You can shove your LOL's where it hurts.

I was writing in support of you when I said, "Makes perfectly good sense to me."

I disagree with the sentiment "my country, right or wrong" because I don't think the idea of "country above all else" deserves that kind of fealty. "Nations" and the elites that run them pursue various goals. Some of the goals are in the interest of the the nation as a whole: public health measures, sound currency, navigable rivers and ports, and so on. Some are not: failure to regulate commerce, for instance--banking, mining, slaughterhouses, and so on. A failure to monitor international affairs and defend the country against real enemies would be against the national interest. Engaging in corrupt financial dealings by members of the government (or anybody else, for that matter) is against the best interests of the country.

There are contradictions, of course. What I may think are improper national policies may be somebody else's idea of criminal acts (like revealing the existence of massive CIA spying on domestic communication). Inflation is very bad for some people, great for others. For whom should inflation be managed? Etc.

Haven't you done just that when the joke has been about something you disapprove of, like abortion? Or, do you no longer have a gripe with the likes of Amy Schumer? — Sapientia

Well there's a few things here. First of all, I'm not a public person - an educator by virtue of the number of people I reach and who imitate me - the way Amy is. Second of all, Amy isn't just joking, she actually does adopt those pro-abortion positions. So the problem is that she's using jokes as a way to educate others to think like her - it's a means of persuasion. That's what I disagree with. Now in my case none of those two conditions apply.

having me 'prove' — TimeLine

I never asked you to prove anything. I just asked you to show me where Plato approves of social contract theory.

the adequacy of the link — TimeLine

I don't think that link is adequate. I myself have read Plato, and have studied Plato scholarship, including anthropological resources about Ancient Greece (Eric Voegelin's Order and History for example). Now I understand that the Greeks didn't have the conception of individuality that we have today, hence theories which are possible today, would have been unthinkable for them.

In addition to this are opposing views of freedom that nevertheless illustrates a key role in his thoughts on justice such as that of Glaucon and the Ring of Gyges in the Republic. — TimeLine

Glaucon actually advocates a view which is similar but not identical to social contract, namely that people associate under law, and accept the law, because without being bounded by the law (what Hobbes would call the state of nature) is worse than accepting the limitations of the law (the Leviathan state in Hobbes's parlance). Now Plato argues decisively AGAINST this conception of justice. Justice is an end in itself, not chosen based on utilitarian consideration as in social contract theory.

I have no time for childish boys who are so afraid of facing their intellectual and emotional failures by pretending once exposed that 'they were just joking'. You can shove your LOL's where it hurts. — TimeLine

Okay, well obviously you are taking it seriously, and it has caused you upset as otherwise you wouldn't bring an irrelevant comment from a different thread in discussion over here, nor would you throw these invectives my way. Now while I am sorry for upsetting you, I have to ask what exactly has caused you upset?

If you said, for example, "most men are brutish idiots" I wouldn't be upset, because I don't identify as "most men". So why do I get accused of gender bias for making an observation? In fact, if you are rational you'll see that my comments entail no position on women whatsoever. I simply made an observation. This observation could have a thousand and one explanations, including, for example, that most women aren't permitted to develop their intellectual side in society because of oppression... but since you rush through with judgements you will of course miss all those possibilities.

As for me being "exposed" you're talking as if you took out some "secret video" of myself saying something terrible and bringing it out in public - exposing me. But you did no such thing - I freely said what I said in public - there is no "running away" when exposed, because I exposed myself to begin with. There's no being scared of talking about what I said... I'm willing to talk about it if you want. However what you're doing is much alike what some people would do when they hear me talk to a close friend and calling him, for example, "a retarded idiot" - he doesn't mind it, because he knows I don't mean it seriously. It would be preposterous if someone came to me and said "Oh how vulgar you are, how dare you talk to your best friend so and so" bullshit. Then they will take words I have used, and give them a completely different intention than I actually gave them. They'll just be good politicians, but nothing more. Even close people for example - say my girlfriend - called me idiot and stupid frequently - not as insults, but in a joking way, that we both laughed and enjoyed. I don't see what's wrong with this, but if you do, then please enlighten this "childish boy" O:)

Glaucon actually advocates a view which is similar but not identical to social contract, namely that people associate under law, and accept the law, because without being bounded by the law (what Hobbes would call the state of nature) is worse than accepting the limitations of the law (the Leviathan state in Hobbes's parlance). Now Plato argues decisively AGAINST this conception of justice. Justice is an end in itself, not chosen based on utilitarian consideration as in social contract theory. — Agustino

This makes no sense and you certainly need to clarify your position vis-a-vis Hobbes. Our state of nature - which according to Hobbes is famously solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short - is neither just nor unjust [13.13], which is why he believes that the passions should be channelled by the fear of an authority that would ultimate control them. If Plato argues decisively against 'this conception of justice' as you have put it, how exactly is that wrong? And why have you brought in the concept of utilitarianism?

I am not sure whether you are versed in political philosophy.

However what you're doing is much alike what some people would do when they hear me talk to a close friend and calling him, for example, "a retarded idiot" - he doesn't mind it, because he knows I don't mean it seriously. — Agustino

I choose to keep company with those fearless enough to genuinely admit to their errors, confident that I am rational enough to respect - and even admire - such an honourable gesture. We all make mistakes, but what makes a rational agent is one who works towards and adheres to the values he expects in others. I have encountered some pretty vicious men but never once have I said that 'all men are vicious' not even 'all the men I have met' because I am respectful enough to know the fallacy with such hasty generalisations; but to go as far as mocking their 'almond sized brains' and other clearly sexist remarks? Then, to add insult to injury you say:

I have to ask what exactly has caused you upset? — Agustino

Grow up.

This makes no sense and you certainly need to clarify your position vis-a-vis Hobbes. Our state of nature - which according to Hobbes is famously solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short - is neither just nor unjust [13.13], which is why he believes that the passions should be channelled by the fear of an authority that would ultimate control them. If Plato argues decisively against 'this conception of justice' as you have put it, how exactly is that wrong? And why have you brought in the concept of utilitarianism? — TimeLine

Yes the state of nature is brutish bla bla, correct. So people accept the limitation of the law, only because the state of nature is a greater evil - that's social contract. The social contract is essentially utilitarian - it asks what is the best thing for the greatest number of people? It sees the law as ultimately oppressive, but a necessary form of oppression.

Now according to Plato - accepting the law and justice occurs because these are goods in themselves, not as a means of escaping a greater evil - not as a utility, or a limitation undertaken because of fear of a greater evil.

Now seeing social contract in Plato is like seeing communism in Plato - both silly misinterpretations of the Republic happening when we inject our modern way of thinking and seeing into Plato.

I choose to keep company with those fearless enough to genuinely admit to their errors, confident that I am rational enough to respect - and even admire - such an honourable gesture. — TimeLine

Well I would admit my errors if there existed any. There are posts which are erroneous, but I don't consider that one to be one of those posts. If you find one which is erroneous, I will admit to it, as I have admitted many times in the past...

Now don't get me wrong, I would apologise if I thought I made a mistake - it's human to make mistakes and commit errors - but I just took that as a joke, never intended it to be taken as otherwise. I'm sorry to see that you took it in a different way though...

I have encountered some pretty vicious men but never once have I said that 'all men are vicious' not even 'all the men I have met' because I am respectful enough to know the fallacy with such hasty generalisations; but to go as far as mocking their 'almond sized brains' and other clearly sexist remarks? — TimeLine

Why is it a hasty generalization? I never said all women are so. I said "most", based on those I have met. Almond size brain is a joke - clearly. It obviously doesn't refer to the actual size of their brain, but a metaphor for lack of intelligence. The curious thing is why you don't interpret it as a joke. In addition in that comment I said that it isn't lack of intelligence which is most upsetting, but other character traits, which I doubt you'd consider virtuous.

And what's wrong with a hasty generalization in the kind of talk that was going on there? That wasn't serious philosophy, nor was I trying to make a point there... It was just playful conversation, not much thought goes into it precisely because it's not serious. Now if you take the non-serious as serious and therefore draw serious conclusions on it, who is making a mistake? This is exactly one of the problems of this kind of political correctness you advocate. A writer I like, Max Picard, once wrote that Communists aren't even human, despite their professed morality, because they don't even understand a joke - everything is so serious for them.