Q&A#4 Question 2

 Would it be possible for all the people of the world to fall into the idea of internationalism? The idea that everyone is a citizen of the world which they should protect and promote allegiance to. 

        This question is extremely difficult to answer in terms of realistically approaching the situation. Assuming you were able to get away from the problem of having everyone agree on something in the first place I feel this ideology would really have to start with the idea of education. As I may have mentioned in some of my other blogs, assimilation is how people think and act how they do. I feel pretty confident in this idea because how is one perspective more valid than another when you really get down to it? But anyway, onto education. If we taught people a better and more optimal way of living and perceiving it would initially have to start at a young age. This is not in all cases, but in most for they are easily persuaded into opinion and thought. It is also much harder to change the perspective of an adult who is already a firm believer in what it is they are assimilated in. 

What now maybe you are asking would be a optimal way of living and perceiving the world? I would say one that is obviously open to new ideas and not focused on the self, but of helping others (establishing community). A lot of these ideas stem out of Aldous Huxley’s novel Island which inspired my idea of how society should be. One of these notions is living here and now, which is a phrase that pragmatic empiricism is fond of. He goes and demonstrates ideas of personality within animal fables that were told to children, which has a more notions of just straight up morality. The book explains that it shows how all people are part of a system, suggesting interdependency and having a sense of where we come from in terms of the environment. Thus, the idea of a citizen of the world, internationalism, is more or less produced for we are all apart of the giant system embedded on Earth. 

They also taught ideas that explain the idea of experience at a young age. Saying that we describe our experiences based on symbols (words) that we can all take from. In that sense, every experience is different from one another’s, and in turn showing that every human is unique, demonstrating the preciousness of human life. The specific example would be that everyone experiences a pinch differently, so today their would be 6 billion unique interpretations of pinch. Another idea is that “All gods are homemade, and it is we who pull their strings, and so, give them the power to pull ours.” To prove this point, the society in the book, makes scarecrows that resemble various deities and gods. It is then that the children in the fields protecting the harvest understand how the ideas of Gods and supernatural entities work. 

Q&A#4 Question 1

Gratitude, in deflated patriotism, is one of the biggest factors of this definition of patriotism. Can gratitude, however, be skewed to irrational forms of thought that could lead to a stronger sense of patriotism?

If accepting the idea of patriotism, the notion of how exactly a citizen of a particular country should act will variate to many different degrees. In the less extreme version of patriotism, the one coined deflated patriotism, it shows how gratitude is a large factor in a particular citizen’s allegiance towards a country. This is because by this reasoning for this kind of patriotism, we are indebted to the country. A citizen should have a sense of gratitude towards his or her country because he was allowed to be born and raised there, learn their values, live there, and in some regard be able to acknowledge that all other aspects of life, in this citizen’s life, were possible due to this place of origin. 

Now this is more or less true, but the real question would be does this gratitude achieve anything? If so, does this gratitude enable a sense of bonding between an individual and their alleged country? Taking into account Socrates, he was more then willing to die for what he believed in. He believed that he was bound to do what is right, and in so doing what was right, he had to achieve just actions. This sense of justice  through action, then would be to obey the law, which is exactly what Socrates does in the dialogue Crito. From this though, we see that even the most legendary philosopher had some sense of gratitude towards his country. 

Is this gratitude dangerous or beneficial then? If this gratitude is complying with laws and justice wouldn’t it surely be good like Socrates? I would say that it could be good if the laws were impartial, but this definitely isn’t always the case, especially today. Loopholes, a great lawyer, and other strange measures can get people around laws and such. In that way, I could not find that laws in our country are particularly impartial because not everyone always get the same punishment. The more money the less punishment is often the case. This then brings me to my next point.

If the laws are not impartial is any good being done? Can any good be done within the confines of unjust or impartial laws? It would seem quite obviously that this could not be so. Our country is formed on the belief that there is equality and justice for all, thus translating that the law and system of America is being impartial. I have come to the decision though, from the last section, that punishment is not always the same based on the crime (especially when the punished has more money). Therefore, our country’s laws and system is not impartial.

If the majority has gratitude towards impartial laws is this beneficial for the country? The beginning of this question I will assume to be true if a citizen were to have a sense of patriotism and gratitude for their country (and for the sake of shortening this blog). It is then that the person, agreeing with what their country is promoting, becomes real. So for Americans, saying that we are a land that gives justice and equality to all is already proven, from my previous statements, to not be true. It becomes dangerous because progress seems to halt and retrogress due to their idea of reality. For instance, if we say we have freedom then we do not. This is because the idea of freedom is constantly changing based on the circumstances surrounding it. Three decades ago, the idea of freedom of information would not seem like something worth fighting for, besides copy right laws and such. Today however, the internet is starting new debates on how information should be regulated and controlled. This can prove though that freedom is not a concrete idea, but something that morphs to its situation. 

By these conclusions it is shown that gratitude may not be beneficial in terms of the greater good of a country. I think Socrates was trying to prove that. He had to die or he would have looked like a hypocrite, instead of a tragic figure. He had to succumb to the injustice of the law in hopes of changing it in the future. Gratitude for one’s country is good, but only in so far as it is able to do good and not bad, as I have hopefully explained. (Unfortunately I feel I have left out other points that could have strengthened this blog post, but I did so in the sake of not writing a novel . . so to speak).