Does a nuclear Iran pose an existential threat to Israel?

Israel has undergone tremendous progress both economically and militarily since its formation on May 14th 1948. For a young nation with a population of a mere 7.28 million, the military and financial might of Israel in the Middle East is unprecedented. However, progress has not been easy for this Jewish state; Israel has been in constant tensions with the neighboring Middle Eastern countries. Iran is one such country. And with Iran trying to establish their own nuclear program, it is very important to dwell upon this question - Does the acquisition of nuclear weapons or establishment of a fully functional nuclear facility pose an existential threat to Israel? And in light of this issue, how should USA and its allies respond to Iran’s quest to acquire nuclear weapons?
First of all, it might seem interesting to ponder why does Iran want nuclear weapons? Although Iranian Prime Minister Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed in his speech at Columbia University that acquisition of nuclear weapons was not the goal of Iran’s nuclear program (transcript, September 2007), repeated failures by the Ahmadinejad government to properly comply by UN’s nuclear inspections suggest otherwise. This trend is nothing new as Israel played the same cat and mouse game with the UN during the dawn of its nuclear program in the 60’s. Presently, Israel is one of the nine fully fledged nuclear powers. According to The Journal of Turkish Weekly, the International Institute of Strategic Studies estimates the number of warheads as being "up to 200"( AFP via IslamOnline.net & News Agencies, May 2006). Regarding Iran’s need for nuclear weapons, Simon Jenkins puts forth a clear picture –
“Iran is a proud country that sits between nuclear Pakistan and India to its east, a nuclear Russia to its north and a nuclear Israel to its west. Adjacent Afghanistan and Iraq are occupied at will by a nuclear America, which backed Saddam Hussein in his 1980 invasion of Iran. How can we say such a country has "no right" to nuclear defense?" (Jenkins, January 2006)
Plus, in recent times, the west’s critic on Iran and US involvement in Iraq further strengthens Iran’s case for nuclear weapons. But, the question is, how is acquirement of nuclear weapons by Iran a threat to Israel (a nuclear power itself)?
For being an existential threat to Israel, Iran must be prepared and ready to use its acquired nuclear weapons on the small Jewish state. Claims by Prime Minister Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regarding the “myth” of the holocaust and denial of Israel as a sovereign nation might be taken as the basis for the allegations claiming Iran’s desires to wipe Israel out from the face of the Earth. However, according to rational choice theory, the costs seem to heavily outweigh the benefits. If Iran launches even one nuclear warhead towards Israel, Israel will launch many more back, plus Israel’s sworn allies (especially the US) will obliterate Iran. Thus using the nuclear weapons against Israel does not seem to be a sensible option for Iran. One might argue that Iran might use the nuclear weapons as a way to gain leverage in the Middle East. This argument seems to be much more viable as this has been the case with Israel. Israel has been known to use its military force to dominate Middle East foreign policy. However, we can conclude that Iran does not pose an existential threat to Israel but does challenge Israeli dominance in the Middle East.
Now, moving on to the next question: How should USA and its allies respond to Iran’s quest to acquire nuclear weapons? Post World War II, US has been an avid supporter of Israel and Israel has been the chief US ally in the Middle East. The economical and military support provided by US to Israel is far more compared to any other country. Recently, President Bush signed into law a Continuing Resolution providing Israel with $2.38 billion in security assistance. In combination with the additional $170 million in aid to Israel approved earlier this year, the Jewish state will receive $2.55 billion in security assistance for fiscal year 2009 (AIPAC, October, 2008). This lump sum shows US commitment towards Israel and its well being. Where does this US commitment come from? Many attribute this to the strong Israeli American lobby the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Many believe that it was due to AIPAC’s push that US entered Iraq. The AIPAC definitely looks out for the benefit of Israel, but the Iraq strategy backfired and a new political adversary (Iran) raised its head amongst the turmoil. AIPAC’s position on Iran’s nuclear program is very negative. It supports heavy sanctions against Iran until they quit the nuclear program and also tried to pass a resolution proposing heavy sanctions on Iran (Glunts, October 2008). This resolution failed to pass as the resolution’s critics charged that some language in the resolution could be used to justify a blockade against Iran, an act of war under international law. In brief, AIPAC supports every action (even military) to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear warheads. This has shaped current US foreign policy which says no to negotiations with Iran without pre set conditions. Another American Jewish group, known as the J Street Project, has a completely different outlook on this issue. They seem to agree that acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran may pose a threat to Israeli dominance in the Middle East, but they believe that any military action will only worsen the issue as it has been with Iraq. They claim that any military action would only empower Iranian hardliners who believe the only way to safeguard their country would be to accelerate their pursuit of nuclear capability. According to their website, the best way to deal with the issue is to “try real engagement. If that doesn't work, get smart about containment”. The J Street Project (JCP) promotes talks with Iran and if that doesn’t work, they promote a policy of smarter and more effective containment coupled with strong, multilateral sanctions (Jstreet.org). The policy promoted by JCP seems much more practical and involving much less costs to America and its allies than the one proposed by AIPAC. Thus, we can say that the best way to deal with the issue of the acquisition of nuclear status by Iran is to arrange diplomatic negotiations and smart containment if need arises.
Thus we can see that the acquirement of nuclear weapons by Iran pose no existential threat to Israel. Iran does not seem to be violating any international laws by becoming a nuclear state. However, Iran might use the weapons as leverage over other Middle Eastern countries. According to Rational choice theory, the best way to deal with the issue is to try negotiation first and then if need arises, go with smart containment and sanction policies.


Bibliography
.
Agencies, AFP via IslamOnline.net & News. Israel Has Nearly 300 Atomic Warheads: Report. 10 5 2006. .
Borger, Julian and Ewen MacAskill. As protesters jeer, Ahmadinejad denies Iran wants nuclear weapons. 25 9 2007. .
Full transcript of Ahmadinejad Speech at Columbia University. 25 9 2007. .
Glunts, Ira. A Vote For Military Force Against Iran? AIPAC's House Resolution, H. Con. Res. 362. 01 08 2008. .
Jenkins, Simon. The west has picked a fight with Iran that it cannot win. 18 01 2006. .
Military action against Iran won’t work . .
What should we do about Iran? .

A brief analysis of Mccain vs. Obama acceptance speeches

Recently, Republican Presidential nominee John Mccain gave his acceptance speech at the National Republican convention in St. Paul, Minnesota. One of the themes of his political speech was ironically “change”; the term used so often to summarize his opponent Barack Obama’s campaign. This speech followed about a week after Barack Obama gave his speech accepting his presidential nomination. In many ways both speeches had a lot of points in common and it seemed like their basic idea about many issues was approximately same. Although there was not a major emphasis on policies by either candidate, there were subtle differences in views regarding the substantial issues of Tax-cuts, Energy crisis and Healthcare and Social security between the two Presidential hopefuls.
If we look carefully through the Mccain’s speech, he claims that – “we believe in low taxes, spending discipline, and open markets.” This has always been the ground principle of the Republican Party. He also says that he will make the Government work alongside US citizens and make sure that it does not come in their way to prosperity. Less Government involvement and free market system implies that the rich will become richer, and the poor would be left to eat dirt. His policy seems to be based on the hope that prosperity among the top 20% of the economic strata would trickle down to the bottom 80% and would lead to an economically prosperous nation. The same policy has not worked for the last 8 years under the Bush administration and the odds against it working for the next 4 are gargantuous. On the other hand, Obama’s Tax cut policy seems to fair much better for the lower 80% in US society’s economic strata. According to an article in by Martin Crutsinger in Star Tribune, Mccain’s tax cut policy brings down the taxes for the top 1% by $48,860, the middle 20% (the average middle class) by a measly $325 and the bottom 20% by a shocking $21. In contrast, Obama’s tax cut policy increases the tax for the upper 1% by $93,709 on average but decreases the taxes for middle class by $ 1,118 and for the lower 20% by $567. According to this piece of information, Obama’s tax cut plan seems much better in contrast to Mccain’s for the citizens in the bottom 80% of US economic strata. It also seems like Obama’s tax cut policy is also aimed at relocation of wealth among different economic classes of American society so that the gap between the rich and poor can decrease. Another critical aspect of John Mccain’s tax cut policy is that it will increase American national debt to around 13 trillion dollars by the end of the next decade, while Obama’s policy will increase it to around 11 trillion dollars. After all this information, the rational choice seems to be to go with Obama’s Tax cut policy. And despite all this, Presidential candidate John Mccain claims in his speech that – “I will keep taxes low and cut them where I can. My opponent would raise them.” It seems like he is articulating his policy to just the top 1% of US’ economic strata.
The energy crisis is another big issue and is supposed to play a major role in the outcome of the election by many experts. In his acceptance speech, Barack Obama states his energy plan as - “I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy - wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced.” In his speech, Barack Obama displays that he is ready to end US dependence on foreign oil and has an energy plan that emphasizes on Alternative fuel. Looking at the global issues of Global Warming and resource management, Obama’s plan seems to be pretty good in tackling these issues. John Mccain briefs on his energy plan in his speech and the only difference in his plan seems to be the project of offshore drilling which, according to him, would end US dependence on foreign oil and “will” bring down oil prices. According to an article in the website commondreams.org, offshore drilling is not a real solution to US energy crisis. It’s not even a short term solution. US possesses about 3% of world’s total oil reserves and has 25% worldwide consumption. At this rate, we will run out of resources pretty soon. And Mccain’s energy plan is exactly hinting at that catastrophic situation. Lack of resources mean a weak nation and if a nation is weak, national security (Mccain’s area of expertise) is a lost cause.
Another major issue that will play a big role in the upcoming Presidential elections is Healthcare and Social Security. Although Mccain does not articulate his exact healthcare plan, although he does hint that it would consist of minimum government involvement. Same goes for his Social Security plan. He seems to be leaving a lot on the free market to decide. Markets fluctuate, and it seems that taking a risk on Healthcare and Security is a bit rash. As Senator Obama responds to John Mccain’s Healthcare policy, he states – “No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps - even if you don't have boots. You're on your own.” In this quote, he summarizes John Mccain’s Healthcare and Social Security policy pretty accurately. If America goes by Mccain’s policy on Healthcare and Social Security, it would lead to public exploitation by corporations and because it was the government who made the policy, people’s trust in the American government will dip further.
Thus, after analyzing the two speeches and concentrating on the specific issues of Tax cuts, Energy dependence and Health Care and Social Security, we can conclude that Barack Obama has a better laid out plan than his political counterpart. Mccain’s plans are pretty similar to those being applied during the Bush administration and there is not even a hint of “change” he talks about anywhere in his propaganda.
 
Works Cited
"Barack Obama’s Acceptance Speech." 28 August 2008. Newyorktimes. .
Crutsinger, Martin. "Obama, McCain economic plans rely on tax cuts, but in sharply different ways." 8 September 2008. startribune. .
"Finding the Truth: A Response to President Bush’s June 18, 2008 Speech." 18 June 2008. commondreams. .
"John McCain’s Acceptance Speech." 4 September 2008. Newyorktimes. .

Has the Universe Bounced Beyond the Reach Of the Cosmological and Teleological Arguments for the Existence of God?

The existence of a prime mover or an intelligent designer has been under speculation among the intellectuals of the religious and scientific communities alike. In the past, the failure of astrophysicists to provide a convincing argument based on conclusive empirical evidence surrounding the time before the Big Bang has provided more weight to the Cosmological and the Teleological arguments for the existence of God. The speculation surrounding the time before the Big Bang has led to the advent of many religious as well as scientific explanations. The religious explanations are based on faith in an all powerful entity which created as well as designed our present universe. Based on faith in a higher power, the Cosmological and Teleological arguments provide the most viable explanations of the beginning of our universe and the existence of everything that is in it. The lack of a proper scientific model that could provide us with an explanation of the time before the Big Bang has been the most persistent hurdle facing current scientists. However, latest developments of the Loop Quantum Gravitational Model proposed by Dr. Martin Bojowald of Penn State Department of Physics features a “Big Bounce” model of the origins of the universe that breaks the shackles generated by Einstein’s cosmological implications of his General Relativity Theory concerning the Big Bang. This model promises a glimpse into the time before the Big Bang thereby ending any unempirical speculations surrounding this phenomenon.
Let’s start out by analyzing the Kalam version of the Cosmological argument laid out by William Lane Craig. Craig is currently a Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology and has authored or edited over thirty books, including The Kalam Cosmological Argument. The Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God has two basic premises – First, Whatever begins to exist has a cause (1). This first premise is rooted in the principle that ‘something cannot come out of nothing’. In his article, Craig points out certain objections that Humean philosophers might have to this basic claim and rejects them in light of pragmatic contradictions. He writes that “imaginability is in no way a reasonable guide to metaphysical possibility” (Craig 93). By this statement Craig implies that just because we can imagine some object to exist, it does not entail that the object exists in real life. Therefore, the existence of an object in reality entails a prime cause that is real. His second premise is that the universe began to exist (2). Here, Craig brings up the concept of a potential and an actual infinity. One might claim that the universe is a collection of infinite temporal series of past events and since we cannot count till infinity, we cannot claim a certain time when the universe came into existence. So, accordingly, the statement that the universe came into existence is absurd. Craig refutes the concept of an actual infinity and introduces the concept of a potential infinite series of events. He agrees that the concept of actual infinity is absurd and leads to absurd conclusions, however, if we view the series of temporal events following the start of the universe till the present state of it as a potential infinite series of events within a specific time frame, the absurdity surrounding the statement ‘the universe began to exist’ ceases to exist. This is analogous to the situation when one is asked to state the beginning of positive real numbers while one is positioned at 7. There is a potential infinite series of positive real numbers between 0 and 7; however, the positive real numbers begin to exist after 0. Thereby, a universe with an infinite series of temporal events leading up to the current state does have a beginning. Following from premises (1) and (2), the universe must have a cause. So far, the conclusion appears to be very sound based on the probability of the premises. Craig further brings two contemporary astrophysical phenomenons to strengthen the Kalam cosmological argument. The first phenomenon is the observed red-shift in light received from other galaxies. This red-shift indicates that in transit, the wavelength of light ‘stretches’ and thereby shifts towards the red-zone (larger wavelength) of the visible spectra (Rothstein). This further goes on to show that the universe is ‘stretching’. This ‘stretching’ is analogous to stretching an elastic fiber, where every molecule in the fiber occupies the same relative space; however, it is the space itself that is being altered. Craig goes on to refute other contemporary theories that give alternate explanations for the origin of the cosmos on the basis of literature by scientists who are apparently still working with Einstein’s General Relativity model. Later on, we will see why this rejection of other contemporary theories (especially the Oscillating Universe Theory and Hartle's and Hawking’s proposed Quantum Gravity Model) is problematic in light of recent studies. So, by accepting the Big Bang theory of origin of the universe and the singularity in our universe and discarding alternative explanations to the time before the Big Bang, Craig tries to strengthen his case for a prime mover that created this entire universe. The second physical phenomenon that Craig talks about in his article is the thermodynamic state of the universe. Again he refers to Einstein’s general relativity model and states that at the present state of ‘expansion’, the universe will run cold, the energy density would be almost zero and therefore, all we will be left with would be a cold universe with no possibility of life or any activity. This theory is consistent with his accepted theory for the start of the universe. Since the universe started with the big bang and there is no possibility (according to Einstein’s model) of an oscillatory universe, it makes sense that a potentially infinite expansion of the universe will stretch the fabric of space-time so much that the energy density of the universe will tend to zero and hence, what we would be left with will be a dead universe. Based on these two phenomenons, and the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God, Craig delves into the nature of this prime mover, God. He adds another premise to the conclusion ‘the universe has a cause’ (3) – “If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginingless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful” (Craig 107). From premises (3) and (4), he arrives at the conclusion that “an uncaused, personal creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginingless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful” (Craig 107). These properties of the creator do formulate the image of an almighty God, but it does not give us any insight into the creator’s properties of omniscience, omnibenevolence and omnipresence. This God (if we choose to call the prime mover so), does not have any basic properties of the ‘Christian’ God and given the vastness of the created universe, it is highly unlikely that human beings are any special for the creator than a speck of dust on some other planet. Thus, this cosmological creator does not have most of the qualities we attribute to the term ‘God’ and therefore it is not necessary that the Kalam cosmological argument entail a ‘Christian’ (omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent) God.
Another argument for the existence of God is presented by Robin Collins in his article ‘Design and the Many-Worlds Hypothesis’. Robin Collins is the current professor of philosophy at Messiah College in Grantham, Pennsylvania. His ‘fine tuning argument’ is one of the many versions of the teleological argument for the existence of God. He describes ‘fine tuning’ of the cosmos as “the claim that the fundamental parameters or constants of physics and the initial conditions of the universe are set just right for life to occur” (Collins 130). He gives examples of the strong and weak nuclear forces that bind the nuclei of atoms together. If the numerical values of the forces were any less or more, a stable nucleus would be impossible to exist and thus, the whole universe would be just a never ending chaos of sub atomic particles. Like Craig, he delves into other contemporary universe-origin theories beside the big bang. Firstly, he looks into the many universe theory which he calls as purely metaphysical with no empirical basis. However, he does go forth and state that even if such a system of multiple parallel universes was a possibility, it would just strengthen his ‘fine tuning’ argument as he states “even if a ‘many-universe generator’ exists it seems to need to be ‘well designed’ in order to produce life sustaining universes” (Collins 135). The astrophysical explanations given by Collins on the ‘inflation’ of space are again based on Einstein’s general relativity model. Collins briefly talks about the Oscillatory Universe Theory where a universe undergoes a ‘Big Crunch’ due to gravitational pull and then a new universe emerges from that ‘Crunch’. He states that –
“According to those who use this model to attempt to explain the fine tuning, during every cycle the parameters of physics and the initial conditions of the universe are set at random. Since this process of collapse, explosion, collapse and explosion is assumed to have going on for all eternity, eventually a fine tuned universe will occur, indeed infinitely many of them” (Collins 131).
From this particular passage, it seems as if empirical evidence and a better fitting gravitational model was provided for an oscillating universe, Collins would agree a ‘fine tuned’ universe might arise out of sheer probability. Collins further presents his case for design and comments on the simplicity of the physical laws and the sheer beauty of them. Here Collins seems to commit a fallacy by assuming the latest laws of physics are the definitive laws of the universe just because they are simplistic and beautiful. Physics has undergone groundbreaking changes since the 19th century and looking at the trend, it is more likely that these physical laws will undergo much change in the future. The past century was dominated by Newton’s classical physics and the laws were very simplistic and ‘beautiful’. However, Einstein brought in the concept of general relativity and the laws became a bit more complex, but they could explain more physical phenomenon on a more general scale. The current quantum theories involve much more complex set of rules and they explain a larger range of physical phenomenon compared to Einstein’s General relativity equations. Thus, it is more likely that further knowledge of the observable universe will lead to more complex and generalized set of physical laws. Judging the nature of design based on incomplete set of physical laws seems inherently flawed and thus the case for design based on the beauty and simplicity of physical laws fails. Thereby, Collin’s ‘fine tuning’ argument for an intelligent design falls apart if there is a high probability of random chance leading to the creation of physical laws that sustain life in our universe (in light of the oscillatory Universe Model).
After reviewing the above two arguments for the existence of God and the astrophysical explanations and implications, lets delve into the problems with Einstein’s general relativity model relating to the Big Bang. Einstein tried to apply his General Theory of Relativity (GTR) to the current state of the universe and tried to collaborate it with the Doppler red-shift and the theory of the ‘expanding’ (or rather stretching) universe. The calculations on his model yielded absurd results near the time frame of the Big Bang and hence he was forced to involve a ‘fudge factor’ into his GTR model. However, later empirical evidence disproved of the existence of this ‘fudge factor’ and hence his cosmological theory intended on finding a causal effect for the big bang and getting a glimpse inside the time-frame before the Big Bang fell apart. The absurd calculations arose at time t nearing zero (the time of the Big Bang). Later physicists tried different models such as the Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation Model (first proposed by Edward Tyron in 1973) which claims that the universe was created from vacuum. For example, it is possible for matter and antimatter particles to originate from pure vacuum and exist for a brief flash of time quantum mechanically and then disappear into nothingness (Pandian). As Pandian, currently a postdoctoral fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy in Germany, states - “The main difficulty of this proposal is that the probability that a 13.7 billion year old universe could arise from this mechanism is extremely small” (Pandian). Later, Alexander Vilenkin took the concept of quantum tunneling and proposed that the universe started in a totally empty space and then through quantum tunneling made a transition to a non-empty state, which through the concept of space-time inflation came to its current size. The problem with most contemporary theories regarding the time before the origin of the cosmos is at times of the order of 10-43 seconds, the approximation of a classical description of space and time breaks down completely and thus all we are left with are absurd formulations. However, there is a new cosmological theory about the origin of our universe that escapes these hurdles faced by Einstein’s GTR and other theories based on the Big Bang model. Developed by Martin Bojowald, assistant professor of physics at Penn State, the new ‘Big Bounce’ model of the universe utilizes developments in the Loop Quantum Gravitational theory to propose a universe that originated from the collapse of a previous universe. In an interview with Penn State live, the University’s official news source, Bojowald explained “Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity does not include the quantum physics that you must have in order to describe the extremely high energies that dominated our universe during its very early evolution… but now we have Loop Quantum Gravity that does include the necessary quantum physics” (Kennedy). Scientists using the Loop Quantum Gravitational theory have calculated that if we trace our universe backward in time, the minimum volume is not zero and the energy density is not infinite. Thereby, the universe bounces from its collapse at a time and from a volume greater than zero (not from absolute vacuum). The reason for this ‘bounce’ is the tearing of the space-time fabric under extreme conditions and high energy densities as time tends to zero. So, instead of vanishing, the universe rebounds and thus leads to the formation of a new universe. According to Bojowald, this theory reveals a contracting universe before the ‘Big Bounce’, with space time geometry that was otherwise similar to our present universe (Kennedy). Further research is in progress based on the statement made by Bojowald in his article The Role of Space time structure in effective theory and cosmology “[Loop Quantum Gravity] is still to be applied to different regimes, with cosmological ones currently being explored as the starting point” (145), the cosmological application of the Loop Quantum activity is just a preview of further glimpses into the unknown. Bojowald’s theory has been further developed by physicists Alejandro Corichi from Universidad Autónoma de México and Parampreet Singh from the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario to develop a simplified Loop Quantum Gravity model that gives us an interesting answer – The previous universe looked a lot like ours (Zyga). Bojowald’s model does give us a detailed mathematical model of the quantum bounce, but it does not provide with any indication of the nature of this previous universe. According to their article The Quantum nature of the Big Bang, the researchers show that the relative fluctuations of volume and momentum in the pre-bounce universe are conserved across the bounce. Upon being interviewed by Physorg, a leading science and technology website, Singh said “the twin universes will have the same laws of physics and, in particular, the same notion of time as in ours… [The previous universe] will look identical to its twin when seen from afar; one could not distinguish them” (Zyga). However Singh also emphasizes that having an identical twin universe does not necessitate that every single feature of both the universes would be the same. Further research on this model is under progress right now. Thus, we see that the Quantum “Big Bounce” model gets rid of many hurdles faced by Einstein’s GTR and is a viable theory for the origin of this universe.
Based on the “Big Bounce” and “Identical Twin” models of the universe, we can now evaluate the merits and demerits of Craig’s Kalam cosmological argument and Collin’s ‘fine tuning’ argument. As mentioned before, Craig refutes the oscillatory universe theory on the basis that every real world oscillation loses energy and henceforth, an oscillatory model of the universe would be unstable. However, if the universe is singular and nothing exists outside it, the universe cannot lose any of its energy and thereby acts an isolated system. Thus, since the energy of the universe is conserved, there is no reason why the oscillatory motion of the universe cannot go on for eternity. Plus, new cosmological models based on Loop Quantum Gravity provide us with an equal if not more possible speculation regarding the origin of the universe. There is still a possibility for a prime mover in this Oscillatory Universe model, but, the qualities of a ‘Christian’ god seem to fade away as we move further from the origin of our universe. With recent discoveries and scientific models allowing us to delve more into the history of our universe, our search for the truth or Hegel’s Geist should continue on. Plus, as talked about earlier, the formulation of a viable Oscillatory Universe model weakens Collin’s ‘fine tuning’ argument several degrees and with eternal cosmic ‘bounces’ probable, the ‘fine tuning’ argument does not necessitate an intelligent designer or a God at all.
In conclusion, the cosmological argument seems like the strongest argument for the existence of a prime mover. However, the nurturing and caring nature of this prime mover is more unlikely than likely. The ‘fine tuning’ argument provided by Collins has its merits; but it falls apart when we propose a viable universe undergoing eternal oscillations. The Loop Quantum Gravitational theory does help up consider the viability of alternate Big Bang theories, but still, it does not disprove the existence of an almighty prime mover. As of now, all we can do is delve deeper and deeper into universe’s mysteries and hope that someday the truth reveals itself to us.




Works Cited
Bojowald, Martin. "The Role of Space-time structure in effective theory and cosmology." American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings, Vol. 917, Issue 1 (2007): 138-146.
Collins, Robin. "Design and The Many Worlds Hypothesis ." Craig, William Lane. Philosophy of Religion - A reader and Guide. Edinburg: Edinburg University Press Ltd., 2002. 130-148.
Craig, William Lane. "The Kalam Cosmological Arguement." Craig, William Lane. Philosophy of Religion - A Reader and Guide. Edinburgh: Edinburg University Press Ltd., 2002. 92-113.
Kennedy, Barbara. Physicist explores what happened before the Big Bang. 29 June 2007. 16 April 2009 .
Pandiyan, Jagadheep D. Where did the universe come from? June 2003. 16 April 2009 .
Rothstein, Dave. What is the Universe Expanding into? April 2003. 16 April 2009 .
Zyga, Lisa. Before the Big Bang: A Twin Universe? 9 April 2008. 16 April 2009 .

Locked and Loaded: Taking Aim at the Rationalists

John Locke, considered by many as the father of British empiricism, was one of the most influential philosophers of the Enlightenment. Contrary to the ongoing rationalist flow of ideas, Locke came up with an empirical perspective of an idea itself. In his epistemological stance, Locke suggests that the rationalists start their quest for knowledge at the wrong end of the epistemological spectrum. His view of knowledge based on experiences is quite contrary to the rationalist viewpoint which suggests that knowledge can only be attained through pure reason. Locke’s arguments against rationalism and his epistemological system are both compelling and practical in contrast to some of his rationalist counterparts (e.g. Spinoza, Leibniz) who tend to be overtly on some issues.
A significant amount of rationalist philosophy of the Enlightenment was influenced by Descartes and his philosophy, especially his epistemological outtake. Although other Enlightenment era rationalists have critically analyzed Descartes work and formulated their own opinions, the basic axioms of Descartes’ rationalism did not go through major alterations. Similar to the Christian theology, Descartes embarked on the concept of “Innate Ideas”. Innate ideas are ideas that we are born with. According to Scruton, Descartes had argued that “the principles of rational argument, and ideas like those of God, thought and extension which we perceive clearly and distinctly and which provide the rational foundations of our knowledge, are innate, implanted in us by God without the help of any sensory experience” (87). Contrary to Descartes, Locke compares the infant brain to a Tabula Rasa (blank slate). He argues that one has no awareness of ideas or rational principles (like formal logic, as was argued by Descartes) until real world experiences imprint the ideas on the blank state. He further goes on to say that Descartes confuses potential with inborn ideas. Locke accepts that one is born with a certain potential or ability, but it is only through real life experiences one is able to achieve that potential. As Locke points out – “it is trivial to assert the existence of innate ideas if we mean only that the child is born with the power to acquire those ideas which are later displayed in him” (Scruton, 87). Thus, Locke claims that hailing the concept of “Innate Ideas” as the basis for epistemology is fundamentally flawed and there needs to be another approach to begin the study of knowledge.
At this point Locke comes up with his “Theory of Ideas” where he describes two forms of experience through which ideas are acquired – Sensation and Reflection (Scruton, 89). Locke further describes Sensation as being a ‘simple (or primary) idea’ which is based upon our perception of the world through our five senses. For example, when we see an apple, what we perceive is an imperfect spherical shape which is red in color (provided the incident light is white). The imperfect spherical shape and the red color are examples of simple ideas which we acquire through our senses. The Reflection part of the “Theory of Ideas” deals with the cognitive recognition of the apple by our mind. The Reflection is through a series of ‘complex ideas’ (all ideas that are not simple) which enable us to put together the sensory responses and form a comprehensible image of the red apple in our mind. Locke further delves into the concept of ‘abstract ideas’ which aid our ability to form general notions (Scruton, 90). This was the rationalist’s start point and an empiricist’s final destination. As Scruton explains in his book, abstraction is a process where we form complex ideas by separating ideas in such a way as to generate what is common to all of them (91). For example, one might have many ideas of particular dogs. Some might be scrawny or big, white or black, cute or scary. However, the abstract idea is the idea of a dog that is formed by the removal of the superfluous details and can be considered as a general notion. Locke’s final step, the explanation of the general from the particular, seems much less idealistic than the rationalist’s explanation of the particular from the general.
Although Locke’s “theory of Ideas” and epistemology provide us with a more pragmatic perspective, it has its flaws too. We know that sense perceptions can be deceiving. Provided negligible surface reflection, a red apple will appear black under blue light. Thus, we see that just relying on sense perceptions do not necessarily provide us with an assessment of the true nature of things. The flaw of our bodily senses was the prime flaw rationalists saw in empiricism. Relying on our senses do not necessitate the truth, at the same time, not relying on them and basing our beliefs in reason alone leave us with bizarre implications. Towards the end of enlightenment, this dilemma was resolved by Emmanuel Kant who combined the two contrasting viewpoints and came up with a much developed system of epistemology.



Work Cited
Scruton, Roger. A Short History of Modern Philosophy. New York: Routledge, 2002.

Mill: Is there a right to smoke publicly?

In his work “On Liberty”, John Stuart Mill proposes a form of libertarianism which involves minimal government involvement in individual tastes or fancies. According to Mill, one should be allowed to hold his opinion and act upon it at his own cost, as long as he is not hurting other members of the society he is a part of. During the formulation of his work (1850s), tobacco was considered a mild stimulant with supposedly little or negligible side affects to anyone other than the smoker himself. The act of smoking tobacco was considered a mere preference of taste just like preferring whiskey over beer. According to Mill’s maxims, justifying the smoking of tobacco on grounds of sustaining the essence of freedom in the long run was quite reasonable given the presumptions regarding smoking in public. However, in light of recent medical evidence, a libertarian justification of smoking in public comes under serious scrutiny.
First of all, let’s investigate the harm done by tobacco smoke. A common myth is that smoke generated due to lighting up a cigarette is much harmful than smoke generated through pipes or hookahs. A leading heath website in UK claims that – “The truth is that smoking of any kind is bad for your health. There is no such thing as a safe tobacco product” (“NHS Choices”). Nowadays, it is a universally acknowledged fact that smoking has ill-effects on the health of a smoker. Unfortunately, the debate regarding the ill-effects of second hand smoke is still an area contested among the general public. It can be safely assumed that every educated individual in the United States has a basic idea that cigarette smoke is harmful to the innocent bystander, but it the extent of this harm that most smokers are unaware of. The National cancer institute defines secondhand smoke as “the combination of side stream smoke (the smoke given off by the burning end of a tobacco product) and mainstream smoke (the smoke exhaled by the smoker)” (“Secondhand Smoke”). The article also states that secondhand smoke does cause cancer and is classified by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) under Class-A Carcinogens. It claims that “Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke. The Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent” (“Secondhand Smoke”). All this data shows that secondhand smoke causes significant harm to non-smokers sometimes referred to by anti-smoking organizations as “the innocent bystanders”.
I would not commit the fallacy of pre-assuming that Mill’s harm principle gives the right for smokers to smoke, even if they do it in a way that does not harm anyone else particularly. Given the widely acclaimed and proven ill-effects of first hand smoke, one might consider the act of smoking as an act of slow suicide. And as Mill claims that the society has the right to intervene in a suicide as by committing suicide, the individual is forgoing his freedom and future decision making and thus the only loss to be considered is that to the society (in terms of the individual’s family, economy’s manpower etc.). However, this argument might end up as being a slippery slope as many other small human actions (like eating too much fatty food) might lead to a similar conclusion. In this paper, I will primarily discuss the shortcomings of (involuntary) secondhand smoking. In a public place, the members of the society have every right to practice their tastes without harming others. As Mill states “If the acts of an individual maybe hurtful to others… [t]he offender may just be punished by opinion, though not by law” (Wootton 630). For example, if someone wears clothes that might seem indecent or distasteful for someone in public, according to Mill, one has the right to have a negative impression regarding the tastes of the concerned individual, however, the law should not have the right to punish the individual just in accordance with customary distastes within a society. However, as shown in the previous paragraph, second hand smoke is not just a matter of public distaste. Consumption of second hand smoke increases the risk of fatal diseases like cancer, thus causing direct harm to the other members of the society. Thus, smoking in public places should be banned; for the greater good of the public (borrowing from Utilitarianism). But however, if we concede the right of private smoking with the ‘no damage to “innocent bystanders”’ clause to an individual, should smoking in privately owned public places (like bars and restaurants) be banned too? Also, given the aforementioned right, is taxing tobacco products justifiable?
Some states like North Dakota, Florida and California have some degree of legalized bans on public smoking in bars and restaurants. But, is a government issued ban in a privately owned place justified? According to Mill, if we punish public smoking (outside privately owned places) by law, it is not the act of smoking that we punish, but rather the harm done to the other members of the society who have equal rights in a publicly owned place. However, when it comes to private ownership, Mill would state any excess government involvement as paternalism. Privately owned bars or restaurants should have the right to allow smoking in their premises. Being a fan of the free trade doctrine, Mill would probably claim that if there is major public opinion against second hand smoke, bars and restaurants would be forced to disallow smoking as it would be bad for business. Thus, it seems as if Mill would agree that the issue of banning smoking in privately owned places should be left up to the owners; regardless of the owner’s choice, it must be imperative that he puts some kind of sign outside the premises which let the general public know of the place’s policies, thus not putting the “innocent bystanders” at any risk due to uninformed consent.
The issue of taxation of tobacco products is another aspect of this debate. Recently, President Barack Obama signed a bill which resulted in greater taxation on tobacco and tobacco related products in the upper Mid-West. An article on Fox Business claimed that this move is intended to decrease the use of tobacco, especially among high school teenagers (“No April Fooling”). According to Mill “To tax stimulants for the sole purpose of making them more difficult to be obtained, is a measure differing only in degree from their entire prohibition; and would be justifiable only if that were justifiable” (Wootton 643). Mills stance on taxing stimulants in “On Liberty” suggest that taxing tobacco or tobacco products for the sole purpose of decreasing its use would be justifiable only if the ban on tobacco or tobacco products were justifiable. However, as discussed earlier, smoking or using other tobacco products without any harm to other members of the society in a private location might be punished by opinion, but not by law. Since a complete ban on tobacco would not be justifiable, thus, according to Mill, increasing taxes on these would not be justifiable either. This stance seems contradicting to a more basic form of Utilitarianism which is synonymous with Consequentialism, where end (the greater good according to Utilitarianism) justifies the mean. Thus, solely based on “On Liberty”, Mill would seemingly disapprove of taxing tobacco or tobacco products for the sole purpose of discouraging their use.
The above mentioned views on smoking in public and some privately owned places seem consistent with Mill’s general libertarian perspective. According to Mill’s philosophy as apparent in his work “On Liberty”, banning smoking in public places seems like a good government intervention for the greater good of the people without violating any comparable private freedom. However, banning smoking in bars and restaurants seem like a paternalistic move and the effect of its consequences on the essence of freedom in the long run is debatable.



Works Cited
Is it safer to smoke pipes and cigars than cigarettes? 4 April 2008. 6 April 2009 .
Mill, John Stuart. "On Liberty." Wootton, David. Modern Political Thought - Readings from Machiavelli to Nietzsche (Second Edition). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2008. 592-651.
No April Fooling: Higher Taxes On Tobacco Really Do Reduce Smoking, Says American Lung Association of Upper Midwest. 31 March 2009. 7 April 2009 .
Secondhand Smoke: Questions and Answers. 1 August 2007. 7 April 2009 .

Spinoza - The Yogi

Benedict de (Baruch) Spinoza was one of the leading rationalists during the Enlightenment. Following Descartes, Spinoza’s metaphysics and epistemology intended upon stretching the rationalist point of view to the extreme. Despite having a similar system of enquiry as Descartes, Spinoza rejected his theory of dualism (mind & body) and established “substance” as the basic essence of everything that exists. At this point, Spinoza’s “substance” started gaining resemblance to Shankara’s version of “Brahman” (Ultimate Reality). As we dwell further within the realms of Spinoza’s metaphysics, the striking resemblance to the Eastern religions like Hinduism and to some extent Buddhism become apparent.
Spinoza describes “substance” as something “’in itself and conceived through itself’” or “’that the conception of which depend upon the conception of another thing from which it must be formed’” (Scruton 52). From this’ statement, “substance” can be interpreted as something that has an independent existence. The argument for this conjecture goes something like this – A. No two substances can share the same essence (attributes). B. There is a substance with infinite attributes (God). From these two premises, the conclusion arises that since God has all the attributes, there can be no other “substance”. Like Descartes before him, Spinoza had to rely on God for the validity of his argument. Later on, Spinoza extended his theory to explain real life situations and came up with a logical, if somewhat odd, description. According to his Dual Aspect theory, the mind and the body, both having a select few attributes of the “Substance”, work isochronously without any apparent causation. Being made out of the same “substance”, the “idea” (mind) and the “Extension” (body) do not interact with each other at any time. According to Scruton’s interpretation of Spinoza, “while we can assert in the abstract that they [the mind and the body] are identical, we can never explain a physical process in terms of a mental one, or a mental process in terms of a physical on” (55); the two processes here are analogous to two parallel lines which never intersect. For Spinoza, the causation for everything appears to be the divine plan of God which we, being mere mortals, are too inferior to perceive. All we have is just an intuitive knowledge of God. Thus, Spinoza’s metaphysics leaves no place for free will. This renders all study of ethics or morality useless as without the notion of free will, no one can be held accountable for anything. Although logically valid, we can see that Spinoza’s metaphysics leads to more queries than solutions.
Moving to Hinduism, the same disagreement regarding dualism ensues between the Vedantins. Vedantins practiced Vedanta which according to Knott is “a philosophical system in which scholars have focused upon the study of Vedic texts concerning ultimate reality (Brahman)” (31). There were 3 eminent Vedantins – Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva. Among these 3, Shankara’s idea about the “Brahman” resembles that of Spinoza’s “Substance”. Shankara founded the concept of Advaita which means “non-duality” in Sanskrit. To Shankara, “Brahman” and “Atman” (self) were the same things and one of his prime challenges was to identify the reasons why people failed to realize this. Like Spinoza and Descartes, Shankara accounted for the fact that our senses can be fooled. These incorrect sense perceptions give us the feeling that we have a self (Atman), but in reality, Atman and Brahman are the same things. In his book, Knott mentions “[For Shankara] Liberation was achieved by removing ignorance, learning to discriminate between what was eternal and what only masqueraded as such, and then acquiring knowledge of the self identity with Brahman” (32). Shankara’s metaphysics was influenced by the rising religious threat posed by contemporary Buddhism. This explains why the path to attain liberation (Moksha) is somewhat similar to Buddhist Nirvana. Shankara’s way of liberation was again synonymous with Spinoza’s idea of tranquility in a deterministic world. Spinoza claimed that the only way to attain tranquility is through knowledge and the acceptance of divine determinism. In short, accepting the world as it is given to us would free your ‘self’ (Atman) of stress or worries and thus you would achieve tranquility or according to Shankara, attain “Moksha”. Shankara’s non-dualist perspective does not leave any room for free-will either. One can only acknowledge the hand of God behind everything which would in turn free their ‘self’. Looking at all these similarities, one can well call Shankara ‘The Spinoza of the East’.
Thus, we can see that the philosophy of Spinoza resembles to a large extent that of Hindu philosopher Shankara. They seem to agree on metaphysical questions of non-duality and determinism. Both rely on God for the validity or soundness of their arguments. If not for the lack of a proper information channel between the East and the West during Spinoza’s era, Spinoza might be charged guilty of plagiarism.



Works Cited
Knott, Kim. Hinduism: A Very Short Introduction. New York : Oxford University Press (UK), 1998.
Scruton, Roger. A Short History of Modern Philosophy. New York: Routledge, 2002.

Is Ignorance Really Bliss?

With evolving media and technology, there is an abundance of information available. With news around the world varying from heinous terrorist attacks to devastating natural disasters, it is often considered acceptable and even advisable to adopt a non-concerned attitude and concentrate on individualistic issues. In such cases, ignorance of suffering which does not concern an individual directly is supposed to protect him/her from this information overload, or in some cases emotional stress. But, does ignorance really lead to a blissful existence? Detailed study of the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism suggest otherwise.
First Let us try to understand the role of ignorance and its implications in the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism as worded by Keown- a) Duhkha - all existence is suffering; b) Samudaya – suffering is caused by craving; c) Nirodha – suffering can have an end; c) Marga – the way to the end of suffering is the noble eight fold path (Keown 4). The acknowledgement and application of these four truths helps an individual break the cycle of worldly existence and thus break the vicious karmic cycle of suffering and thereby attain Nirvana. The acceptance of the first noble truth is essential for the understanding of the other three truths. Ignorance towards this truth can be characterized as the foundational hindrance in the path of Nirvana. The first truth might be hard to deny, as it is evident from our daily lives that suffering does exist. However, it is difficult to grasp the true nature of suffering as understood in Buddhist philosophy. As Siderits mentions in his book, “…Buddhists claim this [first] truth, properly understood, is among the hardest for most people to acknowledge” (Siderits 19). Siderits claims there are three different layers within the realm of suffering – suffering arising due to pain, impermanence and conditions. Most of the suffering perceived by our basic understanding is that due to pain; physical or emotional. Ignorance of the other two layers is what keeps one from truly understanding the first noble truth. Ignorance regarding impermanence would be discussed in detail while examining the second truth. ‘Conditions’ essentially mean “the factors that are said to be responsible for rebirth” (Siderits 20). Now, the question arises – does rebirth inherently entail suffering? If we look into the concept of rebirth, we realize that re-birth essentially entails re-death. This implies that by being reborn, we are merely continuing our existence in the vicious karmic cycle and encountering impermanence, the same impermanence we wish to escape. Since ignorance of the concept of ‘conditions’ hampers one’s efforts to acknowledge true suffering, it also hampers one’s efforts to end true suffering. Thus, ignorance of the three layers of suffering is what ensures prolonged Duhkha and hence a much delayed escape from the vicious karmic cycle and attainment of Nirvana.
After accepting the first truth “all existence is suffering”, one needs to concentrate on the cause of this suffering. Only by knowing the cause of suffering, one can strive towards eliminating it. This is what brings us to the second noble truth, according to which “suffering is caused by craving”. The main cause of ‘craving’ is ignorance of impermanence and non-self. Impermanence is the idea that nothing in this world lasts for eternity. So, all worldly attachments are non-permanent and hence only by getting rid of these attachments one can proceed towards Nirvana. Note that early Buddhism does not necessarily endorse getting rid of the object that one is attached to, but rather getting rid of the spiritual attachment to that particular object. It is attachment to worldly possessions that cause anxiety and thereby more Duhkha. Thus, attachment to worldly possessions and ignorance of the impermanence associated with these objects lead to suffering. The concept of non-self is also very important in order to understand the origins of Duhkha. According to Siderits, Buddha defines every person to be made up of five skandhas – rupa (anything physical), feeling (sensations of pleasure, pain and indifference), perception (mental events that help one grasp the particularities of a perceptible object), volition (the mental forces responsible for corporeal or psychological activities) and consciousness (the awareness of the physical and mental states) (Siderits 35-36). Here, Buddha argues that since all the Skandhas are impermanent, the “self” which is completely made up of these five skandhas is impermanent too. From these premises, the conclusion arises that there is no permanent “self”. True understanding of this non-permanent “self” or non-self concept helps one escape one’s ego and encourages the cultivation of virtues; a person who understands the concept of non-self sees other’s interests similar to his/hers and thus is always parsimonious and egalitarian in his/hers approach. Ignorance of non-self leads to vices like greed, sexual depravity and other self-pleasing attributes in humans where one tries to benefit one’s self over others. Thus ignorance of the concepts of impermanence and non-self causes attachment to worldly possessions and the cultivation of vices within an impermanent “self” , thereby perpetrating more Duhkha.
After educating oneself about the origins of suffering, one needs to know whether this suffering can be ended, or in other words, if it is possible to escape this vicious karmic cycle and thereby attain Nirvana. The third noble truth gives us hope in the form of an affirmative answer to the above mentioned question. In his book, Siderits mentions “Ignorance is a remediable condition” (Siderits 24); however, if one understands the first two truths but declares it impossible to escape this suffering, more suffering arises from this hopelessness. Thus, ignorance of the third noble truth also leads to more suffering. The fourth truth shows the pathway to escape Duhkha by following the eight-fold path. These eight precepts could be divided into three major sections – insight, morality and meditation (Keown 5). ‘Insight’ leads one to understand the true form of Nirvana, ‘morality’ or rules for right conduct leads to proper actions and ‘meditation’ helps control one’s mental state. These three factors mutually reinforce each other and the true mastery of this eight-fold path leads to the attainment of Nirvana. Again, ignorance of the true concept of the three sections of the eight fold path causes further suffering.
So far we see that ignorance of the four noble truths and the basic ideas of non-self and impermanence lead to suffering in the world. One might argue that ignorance of the concept of non-self, the Four Noble Truths, the karmic cycle and impermanence might lead to temporary happiness or blissful existence for the impermanent association of the five skandhas. However, through this temporary bliss true liberation is never achieved. Egoistic actions arising from ignorance leading to the temporary benefit of a set of skandhas might harm other set/sets of skandhas and thereby overall suffering is not minimized. Therefore, the argument fails if we look into the bigger picture and embrace the egalitarian concept on non-self.
Thus, we can conclude that ignorance does not lead to a blissful existence, but rather it helps generate more Duhkha. And since elimination of Duhkha can be the only condition for blissful existence, one needs to find a remedy for one’s ignorance. And according to Buddhist philosophy, this arduous task can only be accomplished by truly understanding the Four Noble Truths and following the eight-fold path to spiritual redemption and attaining Nirvana.

Works Cited
Keown, Damien. Buddhist Ethics - A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2005.
Siderits, Mark. Buddhism As Philosophy - An Introduction. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2007.

Representative Democracy – The Only Viable Form of Democracy

According to Roskin, there is probably no single word with more meaning than ‘Democracy’. The absolute form of democracy, practiced in the Athenian society around 500 BCE, has drawn criticism from many ancient and contemporary philosophers. Plato criticized it staunchly in his “Republic”. Critics claim that absolute democracy leads to anarchy and paves way for the much feared tyranny. At the same time, Plato’s “Philosopher King” idea is deemed to be Utopian in nature and is condemned by many realists. Taking into account the objections against absolute democracy and tyrannical governments, representative or liberal democracy is the most viable form of governmental structure.
First of all, what does the term ‘absolute democracy’ really mean? Philosopher’s and Political Scientists seem to agree on a few basic properties that describe an absolute democracy. One of these prime properties involves full individual participation in the government and political decision making process. Another notable property is free access to administrative office. Plato, in his “Republic” criticizes democracy as an inept governing system. Both Plato and Socrates are against the notion that all human beings have the ability to make sound political judgments. This is evident from this excerpt from the Republic –
“How a city can engage in philosophy without being destroyed, for all great things are prone to fall, and, as the saying goes, fine things are really hard to achieve… If anything prevents us from doing it won’t be lack of willingness but lack of ability. (Rep. 497 e)”
Here, ‘fine things’ are intellectual capabilities that a person requires to make an informed political decision, and according to Plato, not everyone has the ability to practice it. Later in Republic, Plato strengthens his case by mentioning that the worker class, which made a substantial majority in the Athenian society, had no interest in politics and if given the reign will only plot against the upper class and will take decisions based on inferior ‘goods’. Plus, he also adds that such a form of government will give unprecedented freedom to the people and the majority (the ‘beast’) will work towards satisfying its own hunger and in the process might downplay the well being of the minority. Thus, giving everyone a say in governmental policies would be a mistake. Later Plato makes the claim that the best governance can only come through a ‘Philosopher King’; one who undergoes rigorous training and once selected, works ruthlessly for the well being of the state. All of Plato’s objections against democracy (rather absolute democracy) seem reasonable and legitimate. Without an authoritative power at the top, such systems have known to crumble and lead to total anarchy which further leads to tyranny, derived from the Latin ‘tyrannus’ meaning “illegitimate ruler”, under which a single ruler exercises power for the benefit of self. However, if we dwell realistically, Plato’s “Philosopher King” is not the viable alternative either.
One great phrase in Politics is “Power Corrupts”; and in a realistic sense, this seems to be the problem with “Philosopher Kings”. For example, when we look back at the ancient Roman Civilization, Julius Caesar was trained in all spheres and was elected as one of the two Consuls for the empire. But, he got power hungry and started a quest to gain monopoly over Rome’s governing body. Plato might say that he was not trained the right way, but still, human beings are corruptible and without any check to his power, a philosopher king might well turn into a tyrant. Another argument against the “Philosopher King” ideology is what the political scientists call the “Elite Theory”, where the person in power loses all touch with his/her subjects and stops truly representing the state. This argument was used recently against President Elect Barack Obama by the Republican Party. Plus, Plato also makes a case that the prime concern of the ruler should be the welfare of the state, if it means suppressing some of the needs of the subjects, so be it. At this point, Plato’s “Philosopher King” seems more like a tyrant than a capable monarch. Under such a system where calls of the subjects are frequently unheard and a strict discipline is maintained, rebellion occurs and this further leads to some form of democracy. Thus, we can see that Plato’s “Philosopher King” is not the right alternative for stable and efficient government either.
Now, the question arises – what political system is the most realistically efficient? It must be the one that answers the objections laid out against absolute democracy and “Philosopher Kings”. Representative or liberal democracy seems to overcome all these objections. In a representative democracy, a multi-party (at least two competent political parties) system is endorsed which makes sure that there is no monopoly over the government. A legitimate written Constitution is a major part of such a governance system. Suitable candidates are chosen through regular elections which involve public participation, who in turn tries his/her hand in decision making. This system makes sure that if a ruler (more like a public servant) gets power hungry, another one can be elected by the people. Individual liberties are limited unlike an absolute democracy where people have unlimited freedom. This also limits public participation in a way that people with low moral capabilities (like the felons or mentally challenged individuals) or illegitimate voters (non-citizens) cannot take part in the election process. This kind of Democracy is big on interest groups where minorities can make their own political groups and challenge impositions by the majority in a court of law (like the Supreme Court) which adheres to the constitution. The formation of interest groups creates a balance between minority and majority rights and thus, the majority has limited power. Limited power for both the ruler as well as subjects is the essence of this kind of government.
Present day United States of America is a prime example of such a government. One might argue that despite the form of a representative democracy, US still has economic and foreign relation issues that seem to have stemmed out of the system. A political answer to this question would be the organized power of special interest groups in America. There are minority groups such as AIPAC, NRA, AARP and several others that seem to have a great influence on US politics and an intent for the welfare of state is sometimes hard to find. They seem to yield more power than such a group should possess in a liberal democracy, but the only reason for this is the US election funding process and the lack of awareness among the general public. Since most elections are privately funded by select few, the US government seems to lean towards authoritarianism rather than representative democracy. This problem can be fixed by setting up a proper election process and generating more awareness among the public. In this case, the system is not at fault, but the few clogs that have been put subtlety there. These can be removed after an unbiased scrutiny and after that, the US example of Representative democracy would be a viable form of an efficient governing structure.
Thus, we can see that absolute democracy and “Philosopher Kings” are two ends of the political spectra. Representative democracy falls somewhere in between, and if we go by Aristotle’s “Doctrine of the Mean”, it is the right place to be if one is in need of a viable form of governing system.

Socrates vs. Barone: Gadfly as gift or “covert enemy”

Wikipedia describes Gadfly as “a term for people who upset the status quo by posing upsetting or novel questions, or attempt to stimulate innovation by proving an irritant.” According to this definition, it can be argued that Gadfly can be both a gift or according to Barone, “a covert enemy”, based on the intentions the upsetting or novel questions are asked with. The first part of the conclusion (Gadfly as a gift) can be argued based on Socratic philosophy, and the second part (Gadfly as a “covert enemy”) can be argued based on both Socratic philosophy as derived from Plato’s “Apology” and “Crito” as well as Barone’s stance in the article ““Our covert enemies”.

Socrates’ philosophy is based upon his ideal that the unexamined life is not worth living and the role of philosophy is to help one lead a fulfilling life. Challenging traditional faiths and beliefs can be considered part of the Socratic Method. Although, from Plato’s records, Socrates seems to have faith in the existence of Greek Gods, he still seems to challenge accepted ideas and superstitions through the process of inquiry. When Socrates is tried in court for charges of corrupting the youth by his philosophizing, Socrates states that he, Socrates, is an invaluable gift from the Gods to the Athenians because his constant questioning forces the Athenians to engage in the most fundamental question, namely, what it means to be a good life. This seems to hint at our commitment to something greater than the human law. However, Socrates also refuses to escape from prison, stating that it would be unjust to the people and the city of Athens, and as a citizen of Athens, he has some commitments and duties to abide by the city laws or accept the punishment. Although Socrates defends his philosophizing in court, he also agrees that exposing people to philosophy can be harmful and destructive.

“I don’t suppose that it has escaped your notice that, when young people get their first taste of arguments, they misuse it by treating it as a kind of game of contradiction. They imitate those who’ve refuted them by refuting others themselves, and like puppies, they enjoy dragging and tearing those around them with their arguments . . . . Then, when they’ve refuted many and been refuted by them in turn, they forcefully and quickly fall into disbelieving what they believed before. And, as a result, they themselves and the whole of philosophy are discredited in the eyes of others” (Rep. 539a-c).”

This quotation seems to indicate that while following the method of inquisition, the intention is very important. Since Socrates’ whole philosophy is with a fulfilling life as the intended end, being a Gadfly would be a gift according to Socrates, but only if the intention of the Gadfly is noble, not just breaking the opponent’s article and making a weak argument strong. However, if the Gadfly’s questioning leads to civil unrest (although unintentional), and if the polis thinks he is accountable according to law, one must be ready to take the punishment too. Although one might say that accepting punishment for something that one considers “unjust” is wrong, one must keep in mind that the Gadfly was aware of what he was doing (responding to his higher beliefs or moral code) and must be ready to accept the consequences of his actions. Thus, if the intent is right and if the Gadfly is able to persuade the polis to side with him, he can really bring change in a stagnant society and prove to be a gift.

However at the same time, if the intent is wrong, a gadfly can be classified as a “covert enemy”. Barone defines “covert enemy” as someone who does not consciously harms the society, but questions traditions and established systems to undermine faith in one’s society and confidence in its goodness. He claims that most of these covert enemies are “elites” who think they know more than the masses. Although Barone does not necessarily give a clear cut definition of the term “elite” in his article, but it is evident that these are the people who question established beliefs and try to push new ideas in just because they think that their ideas are superior to the existing ones. According to Barone, this kind of attack on a society’s beliefs and ideals undermines people’s faith in the working of the system and leads to civil unrest. Barone might agree with the claim that such kind of questioning creates a false sense of insecurity in the mind of the masses and weakens the foundations of a society. So, keeping Barone’s views in mind, it seems as if Barone would see a Gadfly as a “covert enemy”. From the above paragraph, we can see that even Socrates considers people who use the Socratic method of inquiry to just make weak arguments strong and try to humiliate one’s opponent as disgrace to philosophy. But, again intention in this case matters. Earlier, it was showed that a Gadfly can be a gift, but given the wrong intentions, a Gadfly can be a “covert enemy”. For example, if in court the congress tries to pass a bill, but one lobby does not like the bill, not because the bill is unjust, they just don’t like it. One Gadfly questions the legitimacy of the bill and stalls the bill and thus halting the progress of the society. Here, the action was not intended for a just end. Although the method used was clever and innovative, but achieving a wrong end through a right action does not make the end right. Thus, we can say that given the intentions are flawed, a Gadfly can be a “covert enemy”

Finally, it seems like it all comes down to one’s intentions. A Gadfly can be a gift if he has a noble intention for the betterment of society, but at the same time should be ready to accept the consequences if something goes wrong. This action can be classified under fighting the system from within, a lot less messy than its opposite number. At the same time, given the intentions are immoral, a Gadfly can be a “covert enemy” and parasitic to a society.
Works Cited

Barone, Michael. "Our Covert enemies." 21 August 2006. www.townhall.com.