PDA

View Full Version : Blair not a liar shock



k-punk
17-11-2004, 10:14 PM
The fruits of a brief but typically super-stimulating conversation with Infinite Thought and Alberto Toscano (a man badly in need of an alias).

We all know that Blair is a liar, right?

I'm not so sure.

What is certain is that Bush is a <i>poor</i> liar. But I suspect that Bush's failure to be a good liar is precisely what accounts for much of his appeal to the American electorate. (And <a href=http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/print/the_liberal_waterloo/>Zizek</a> is surely right: even gliberals cannot hide from the fact that the American public actually wanted Bush to lead them this time.) Far from being overlooked by the American voters, Bush's notorious linguistic slip-ups, incompetence and stiff lack of conviction as a public speaker actually play positively. Because it is easy to translate Bush's failings into a hostility to politics or politicians. Bush lacks the lawyer slickness that is the stock-in-trade of the postmodern politician. <i>How could they have voted for a bad politician</i>? seems to be much of the content of the liberal plaint.

And what is at stake here is the european middle class liberal's persistent faith in the institutions of 'democratic' power. (Such faith amounts to a vested interest, of course, so it need not surprise us).

Belief in party politics is a strangely middle class affair, after all. It's always faintly disconcerting to go into a middle class house around election time. You're left scratching your head, bemused. <i>They actually think this is important</i>? The vulgar, 'uneducated' working class view, of course, especially now that there is no effective working class representation whatsoever, is that 'they are all liars' and that it doesn't much matter which bunch of Oxbridge bourgeois lawyer fucks do their silly debating soc antics at our expense for the next five years. (Of course, though they'd never admit it, election coverage is the bourgeoisie's equivalent of Pop Idol or Big Brother.)

Being a politician and being a lawyer are effectively indistinguishable in postmodern liberalism. In this respect, as in many others, Bush remains conspicuously pre-postmodern. It's almost as if he hasn't seen the disastrous footage of Nixon sweating in the TV debate with Kennedy, as if he doesn't realise the importance of spin and soundbites and everything that is allegedly necessary to be successful in politics today. The hyper-vigilant Blair never gives that impression.

But it is because Blair is a consummate politician that he has no legitimacy whatsoever and his popularity is disintegrating all the time.

But it is worth questioning our default assumption that Blair's nauseating smarm is equivalent to dissimulation. That would be to miss what is darkly distinctive about the postmodern liberalism of which he is the most sinister exemplar.

The point is that Blair can't lie, because like every good postmodernist, he has dispensed with the concept of truth, or at least installed a strange kind of persepctivist-absolutist model of truth. 'What is truth?' you can imagine Blair asking, in tribute to the postmodernist's ultimate inspiration, Pilate. 'My truth is the need to run the country/ the world well.' This messianic properly Nietzschean Truth overrides the contingent or local truth of facts. All facts may count against the Truth of the Mission, but no matter... so much the worse for the facts.

Blair is that most dangerous of entities: a lawyer who absolutely believes in his own rectitude, who is unable to distinguish intellectual rigour from the imbecility of debate. We should expect no more, but Blair is the product of a bureaucratic PR class which literally finds doing anything unthinkable. For the Blairite, reality is just a distraction from PR. 'Winning', beating your public school/ Oxbridge rivals, is all. Hence again, the flatness of Kynikal-innocent kapital, Blairism and Nietzcheanism: in all of them there is a denial of the importance or indeed ontological validity of the distinction between appearance and reality ('How the true world became spin') alongside a hyper-pragmatic dismissal of ultimate truth in the name of expediency and will.

So, no, Tony can't lie.

Greg
18-11-2004, 07:17 AM
Blair is that most dangerous of entities: a lawyer who absolutely believes in his own rectitude, who is unable to distinguish intellectual rigour from the imbecility of debate. We should expect no more, but Blair is the product of a bureaucratic PR class which literally finds doing anything unthinkable. For the Blairite, reality is just a distraction from PR. 'Winning', beating your public school/ Oxbridge rivals, is all. Hence again, the flatness of Kynikal-innocent kapital, Blairism and Nietzcheanism: in all of them there is a denial of the importance or indeed ontological validity of the distinction between appearance and reality ('How the true world became spin') alongside a hyper-pragmatic dismissal of ultimate truth in the name of expediency and will.

So, no, Tony can't lie.

Nice work... but I still can't help to think that this "persepctivist-absolutist model" that Blair adopts is a convenient cynicism, to give the impression Tony believe's in the validity of his distortions. It could be taken that if this is a veneer, then it allows Blair to knowingly lie, safe in the comfort that a pragmatic front is enough.

I suspect the disintergration of trust may stem from the fact that spin has collapsed, and people simply don't believe in it. Are we not already one step ahead of this political mode of New Labour that Blair is hanging on to? I suspect that even the United States has advanced further down the road of this strange Mobius-strip of modern politiking than liberal Europe. Isn't George W Bush the logical step in a post-Blair (hence post-Clinton) progression? A man for whom belief is all - a post-postmodern (!!) politician.

btw bourgeois I am, and most my friends too... don't worry, we all think they are lying fucks. you don't need to be working class to hold this view.

luka
18-11-2004, 08:28 AM
my mum is a lawyer. that makes me as middle-class as its possible for a person to be. she does terrible things like, if a mother is injecting salt into her baby's bloodstream she saves the kids life. or finding homes for the victimes of child traffiking. lawyers are evil.

Woebot
18-11-2004, 08:50 AM
calling hospital trolleys beds. that's not a lie is it.

luka
18-11-2004, 09:04 AM
for what it's worth, after that defensive spasm, i don'#t think tony is an easy character to get a handle on. its his religous belief which complicates things. my take is that becase he beleives(genuinely)that he is Right, it doesn't matter so much about the truth. if someone believes (as many think tony does_) they are on a mission from god, things like lying aren't very important.

Rambler
18-11-2004, 09:31 AM
I think you're spot-on Mark with your analysis of why Europeans can't believe Bush won. But I'm less sure about "the european middle class liberal's persistent faith in the institutions of 'democratic' power". Actually, hasn't some recent experience - Bush, Le Pen, even bloody UKIP, or the BNP in Bolton - shown that too often it is the liberals who sit at home while the rest go out to vote? That was certainly the case with Le Pen - his support didn't come from liberal faith in democracy, it came from right-wing votes and liberal apathy. If only middle class liberals voted in the US, it would be Democrats all the way, surely? It seems to me that fear of right-wing government will get liberals out to vote, but it's always the right that motivates the electorate first.

Diggedy Derek
18-11-2004, 10:10 AM
Of course, though they'd never admit it, election coverage is the bourgeoisie's equivalent of Pop Idol or Big Brother

Ha. Spot on that.

k-punk
18-11-2004, 10:33 AM
Innocynicism -- that's the word I needed earlier....

Luke, I'm sure some lawyers are OK, but as ever your arguments are individualistic, inductive and subjectivized, whereas mine are structural.

As a general point, and this goes for the RCChurch of Satan defenders too: any 'argument' that begins 'My [insert family member, friend or shagpartner] is x' is no argument at all. So what? Either the conduct of such a person is defensible irrespective of their relationship to you or it is not. The fact there is some biological or social bond between you and someone else is a reason for distrusting your defence of them (i.e. vested interest).

Some lawyers are there to put right the evil that other lawyers allow, defend and make possible. There's no question that the Lawyer Plague of postmodernity functions to erode personal responsibility and shore up the big O, liability-metastasis goes alongside Blair's corporate (ir)responsibility, which means that no-one is responsible for anything (it's everything Nietzsche feared and abominated in BGE and GoM). The basic function of Law is to impede justice.... I'm definitely with Plato on lawyers.

luka
18-11-2004, 11:39 AM
mark, you're a clever boy but you say some stupid things.
if you say a is like this, and yet every example of a isn't anything like what you say it is, it s a shit argument. end of story.

luka
18-11-2004, 12:04 PM
you-what have the romans ever done for us?

me-well, theres the aqueducts

you-(grind teeth, pull out hair, fulminate)

luka
18-11-2004, 12:27 PM
its the standard intelllectuals misapprehension. to think that because an argument is internally consistant it must be valid regardless of any evidence to the contrary. its why the neo-cons are 'fucking crazies' and its why you sometimes put foward these weirdo ideas. its how you end up debating angels and pinheads.

its whyphilspophy is a dead subject.

luka
18-11-2004, 12:33 PM
i really dislike being patronised.
if you're defining your terms its easy to make a structurally sound argument, its a parlour game, so please don't make it out to be the height of human intelligence. its what the overeducated do to amuse themselves over roll-ups and half-pints of beer.

johneffay
18-11-2004, 04:08 PM
i really dislike being patronised.
if you're defining your terms its easy to make a structurally sound argument, its a parlour game, so please don't make it out to be the height of human intelligence. its what the overeducated do to amuse themselves over roll-ups and half-pints of beer.

His argument isn't structurally sound; you demonstrated that in your 12:39 post.

k-toe grrl
18-11-2004, 04:16 PM
I agree with greg, i think much of the explanation for Bush's popularity rests upon what greg terms "post-postmodern" politics. I heard lots of Bush supporters (and a few "undecideds", yes, they did exist) say things like"Bush is at least a real person, Kerry is such a...you know, politician." As for truth, it's Bush's own messianic version of truth that really sells, and that's because it's the only truth available now. People have learned that other stories about truth don't sell, possibly because of sloppy liberal relativism's stranglehold on education "Well, that's just my opinion, it's true for me, i guess." "That's just your opinion" or worse, what i often hear from students "Didn't (insert any philosopher's name here) say that there's no such thing, as, like, truth?". People have also learned that anything that comes out of a politician's mouth is a lie, (Nixon, Watergate, Monicagate) It seems the only truth anyone is willing to take seriously is religious truth, and that's the snake oil Bush has been selling all along. (I say snake oil, but i suppose Blair is the snake oil salesman here, Bush actually believes in it). There is no possibility of lying with religious truth. And with this kind of truth, you can be a bumbling idiot/holy fool and it still is the kind of truth people want to hear. Because it sounds profound yet has no content, so people can't argue with it or be put in a position of having to defend it. And that makes people feel 1) they are in on a profound secret 2) warm and safe 3) apathetic and complacent, and justifiably so.

Greg
18-11-2004, 08:53 PM
its the standard intelllectuals misapprehension. to think that because an argument is internally consistant it must be valid regardless of any evidence to the contrary. its why the neo-cons are 'fucking crazies' and its why you sometimes put foward these weirdo ideas. its how you end up debating angels and pinheads.

its whyphilspophy is a dead subject.

Philosophy isn't a dead subject, as k-punk has shown its structural discourse is a good way to approach these type of arguments. as for validity... well you cant make the assumption that it is valid by default. I don't understand who would though.

Greg
18-11-2004, 09:07 PM
I agree with greg, i think much of the explanation for Bush's popularity rests upon what greg terms "post-postmodern" politics. I heard lots of Bush supporters (and a few "undecideds", yes, they did exist) say things like"Bush is at least a real person, Kerry is such a...you know, politician." As for truth, it's Bush's own messianic version of truth that really sells, and that's because it's the only truth available now. People have learned that other stories about truth don't sell, possibly because of sloppy liberal relativism's stranglehold on education "Well, that's just my opinion, it's true for me, i guess." "That's just your opinion" or worse, what i often hear from students "Didn't (insert any philosopher's name here) say that there's no such thing, as, like, truth?". People have also learned that anything that comes out of a politician's mouth is a lie, (Nixon, Watergate, Monicagate) It seems the only truth anyone is willing to take seriously is religious truth, and that's the snake oil Bush has been selling all along. (I say snake oil, but i suppose Blair is the snake oil salesman here, Bush actually believes in it). There is no possibility of lying with religious truth. And with this kind of truth, you can be a bumbling idiot/holy fool and it still is the kind of truth people want to hear. Because it sounds profound yet has no content, so people can't argue with it or be put in a position of having to defend it. And that makes people feel 1) they are in on a profound secret 2) warm and safe 3) apathetic and complacent, and justifiably so.

more questions arise!

a) did moral relativism (and as a result political relativism) in the United States die on the 11th of September 2001?

b) is Bush a dupe? there is the possibility that he does not in fact represent a new political order, but a subtle continuation of the old. I understand this to be possible if you fall in line with conspiracy theory - that Bush is a puppet playing in the hands of the real political leaders (Wolfowitz, Cheney etc - real politicians in the trad sense).

Greg
18-11-2004, 09:17 PM
ah... there go my theories...

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20041118/capt.arrf12711182200.clinton_library_arrf127.jpg

mind_philip
18-11-2004, 09:31 PM
The idea that Bush might be a dupe is comforting, but empty. I was in the US for five weeks leading up to the election, and from what I saw, Bush convincingly stands for issues that Americans really do care about, in large numbers. The outrage over Janet Jackson wasn't fictitious, millions of people were shocked. The non-profound conservatism of many states really can't be over-estimated. A whole host of little signifiers of probably larger prejudices abound, couples who hold hands in the streets as if they are trying to stay as far apart as possible, no gay couples at all. This mantra of nebulous 'values' and respect for a cherished but undefined way of life won at the election because that is all a lot of people care about. As long as they can go about their lives without having Janet Jackson's nipple flashed at them or having to deal with the sight of two men kissing in the street, they are happy. Bush promised security of a kind that these people understood, while Kerry promised nothing of the sort.

MBM
18-11-2004, 09:51 PM
Either the conduct of such a person is defensible irrespective of their relationship to you or it is not.

And a truth is that most people do not wake up in the morning, wring their hands, cackle manically and plan what evil they will wright on the benighted earth.

Goerge W Bush included.

I know many flawed, selfish people (including me) but few genuinely evil ones.

The "evil" we perpetrate is systemic. So how do we get rid of the “Lawyer Plague” – do we Kill ‘Em All? Or do we look at the bonds of trust between ourselves>

Because most legal activity takes place in the civil sphere and is a replacement for trust not justice. Altho the two are interlinked.

And do I think Blair is a liar? No. Sadly I don't. I couldn't tell you what he believes.

k-punk
18-11-2004, 10:03 PM
His argument isn't structurally sound; you demonstrated that in your 12:39 post.

No he didn't.

He missed the point of it, and his subjectivist huffs and puffs and further ad hominen nonsense rather confirmed my analysis.

But I suppose if you're not into rationality, anything goes.

Lawyers are _structurally_ evil. The fact that some lawyers are good is not because they are lawyers; on the contrary, it is in spite of the fact that they are lawyers, i.e. because they have ethical principles which they will stick to despite the logic of their profession which is intrinsically and of its nature amoral. Law is precisely the emptiest of empty parlour games, the raising of idiot debate and winning to the highest principle. In other words rhetoric, rather than argument. Philosophy, by contrast, is about argument and rationality. I know these terms are anathema to the dominant Teen-Nietzsche Ontology of hey everything's relative man, let's just talk nonsense cos everything's as valid as anything else -- but if you are engaging in argument you simply have to present valid reasons for your conclusions. This is why rationality is impersonal; it doesn't matter who or what is making the argument and why outraged offence - 'my feelings have been upset by', 'one of my best friends is....' is not an argument, it is a substitute for an argument.

Of course, philosophy is 'dead' in the commonsense, everyday world - but then who would want to live in that? (But then of course irrelevant appeal to popularity is yet another fallacy... but, natch, you only think there are fallacies if you're not a committed irrationalist....)

A good lawyer is like a good soldier. It would be better if we didn't need either wouldn't it?

MBM
18-11-2004, 10:12 PM
Good. So now we've established that lawyers are evil what do we about it?

luka
18-11-2004, 10:14 PM
you might like to explain why i'm wrong instead of calling me names.

luka
18-11-2004, 10:26 PM
what i'm advocating is the scientific method. have a look at the evidence before coming up with a theory. evidence which doesn't fit the theory casts doubt on the theory. this is somehow irrational? in what sense are you using these words mark? please start having a look at the world before making these grandiloquent pronouncements about it.

johneffay
18-11-2004, 10:37 PM
but if you are engaging in argument you simply have to present valid reasons for your conclusions.

Exactly. Sweeping generalisations fail to convince anybody.


The fact that some lawyers are good is not because they are lawyers; on the contrary, it is in spite of the fact that they are lawyers, i.e. because they have ethical principles which they will stick to despite the logic of their profession which is intrinsically and of its nature amoral.

Whereas it's a well known fact that most lawyers have no ethical principles, therefore they must by definition be amoral, right? Where is the empirical basis for this?

The fact that any [insert profession of choice] are good is more likely to be down to individuals' ethical principles rather than the profession they follow. I'd be interested if you could come up with an example of an ethically pure profession.

johneffay
18-11-2004, 11:02 PM
Sorry, I forgot something: How does the conclusion


Lawyers are _structurally_ evil.

Follow from the premise



logic of their profession which is intrinsically and of its nature amoral.

Melmoth
19-11-2004, 12:15 AM
A good lawyer is like a good soldier. It would be better if we didn't need either wouldn't it?

Yes, but if the death drive exists, as you have always argued, then to have a semblance of society they will always be with us. Like the poor.

Savonarola
19-11-2004, 02:54 PM
A pithy explanation to our conundrum from the much-maligned Herbert: "The commodity form becomes universal, while at the same time, with the disappearance of free competition, the 'inherent' quality of the merchandise ceases to be a decisive factor in its marketability. A President is sold like an automobile, and it seems hopelessly old-fashioned to judge his political statements in terms of their truth or falsehood - what validates them is their vote-getting quality. To be sure, the President must be able to perform the function for which he is bought: he must be able to assure business as usual." (Counterrevolution and Revolt, 1972) Of course, if you've been inundated, as I, with ever more detailed accounts of Diebold's self-hacking of central tabulation in Ohio and sundry other states (perfectly plausible stories, by the way) you may wonder if 'vote-getting' is anything to trouble ourselves with. 'One man, one vote' is more than obsolescent in the society of control, no? So what if they 'stole' the election again? The very idea that Gore winning in 2000 would have been a visitation of justice upon our graceless planet is an obscene crime perpetrated against anyone who has ever actually lived and/or died for an idea. Surely, as Monsieur K notes, the bearded Slovene is right in stating the obvious: for reasons too boring to enumerate, our 'liberal democracies', evacuated of any of the criteria that would make the act of voting in any sense political, are so beyond rescue that dispensing with this anal attachment to counting our freedom and agency would be a liberating prelude to the parturition of the quivering larvae of some actual thought, not to mention action. Doubtless, if the latter were ever to rear its faceless head, we would once again be confronted with the good old problem of how to separate 'persons' from their 'roles': from the sans culottes of the French Terror to the child armies of the Khmer Rouge, revolutionaries have always harboured an unfortunate obsession for the signs of one's role, one's participation in the machinations of Moloch, whether these be glasses, love handles, or what have you. But surely, if K's commendably fanatical formalism is to have a future, it must be based on the most thorough indifference to signs, properties and qualities. Ergo, the abolition of the role (its possibility, consequences, etc) is what is at stake, and any question of guilt ('why did you choose to be a lawyer?') or exception ('but I'm a nice lawyer') is quite irrelevant. Or, as the great agitator had it: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation." Gal. 6:15

be.jazz
19-11-2004, 07:32 PM
Law is precisely the emptiest of empty parlour games, the raising of idiot debate and winning to the highest principle. In other words rhetoric, rather than argument.
Really? Isn't that an extremely limited view? What about law's role in establishing rights, responsibilities, property, etc.?


This is why rationality is impersonal; it doesn't matter who or what is making the argument
Do you really believe in rationality as a universal, ahistorical, acultural constant? (BTW, before you say it, I'm still unconvinced by the 3-step "rationality is self-interest/collective action" plan)

k-punk
19-11-2004, 11:05 PM
Exactly. Sweeping generalisations fail to convince anybody.



Whereas it's a well known fact that most lawyers have no ethical principles, therefore they must by definition be amoral, right? Where is the empirical basis for this?

The fact that any [insert profession of choice] are good is more likely to be down to individuals' ethical principles rather than the profession they follow. I'd be interested if you could come up with an example of an ethically pure profession.

Where do I get off the bus with this one? I expect this kind of argument from clueless twentysomethings who have no concept of the structural or the systemic, but really....

I'll let another authority speak for me:

[1163] But when intemperance and diseases multiply in a State, halls of justice and medicine are always being opened; and the arts of the doctor and the lawyer give themselves airs, finding how keen is the interest which not only the slaves but the freemen of a city take about them.

[1164] Of course.

[1165] And yet what greater proof can there be of a bad and disgraceful state of education than this, that not only artisans and the meaner sort of people need the skill of first-rate physicians and judges, but also those who would profess to have had a liberal education? Is it not disgraceful, and a great sign of the want of good-breeding, that a man should have to go abroad for his law and physic because he has none of his own at home, and must therefore surrender himself into the hands of other men whom he makes lords and judges over him?

[1166] Of all things, he said, the most disgraceful.

[1167] Would you say "most," I replied, when you consider that there is a further stage of the evil in which a man is not only a life-long litigant, passing all his days in the courts, either as plaintiff or defendant, but is actually led by his bad taste to pride himself on his litigiousness; he imagines that he is a master in dishonesty; able to take every crooked turn, and wriggle into and out of every hole, bending like a withy and getting out of the way of justice: and all for what?--in order to gain small points not worth mentioning, he not knowing that so to order his life as to be able to do without a napping judge is a far higher and nobler sort of thing. Is not that still more disgraceful?

k-punk
19-11-2004, 11:12 PM
Really? Isn't that an extremely limited view? What about law's role in establishing rights, responsibilities, property, etc.?)

Yes, law's role in establishing property is definitely something that I'd forgotten about. I utterly recant.

As for rights, I assume you mean individual rights, which as a communist I of course don't believe in. There are collective rights or none at all.



Do you really believe in rationality as a universal, ahistorical, acultural constant? )

Yes, of course. Do you really believe in Nietzschean cultural relativism? (Of course you do, everyone does these days....ask any teenager....they'll tell you, it's all just a matter of opinion)


(BTW, before you say it, I'm still unconvinced by the 3-step "rationality is self-interest/collective action" plan)

Interesting personal anecdote. And what is your argument against it?

luka
19-11-2004, 11:41 PM
yeah, i'm a clueless twenty something... you need to fix up mark, you're way out of line.

luka
20-11-2004, 12:40 AM
in the last year you've held about 23 mutually exclusive positions, all presumably supported by structural systematic arguments, you've been a communist, an egoless space-cadet, a cold rationalist, you've subsumed yourself to Causes, to Reason, to Uttnall, you've praised something one week and denigrated it the next, you change gurus like most people change their underwear. its nietzsche then spinoza then zizek and badiou, you're a magpie, a mimic, it's all surface, shiny things which catch your eye... invoking rationality doesn't make you rational. your ego was most inflamed when you were talking about ego loss, now you're at your most irrational when singing the praises of rationality. what are you trying to acheive, you want to be the new marcello? is that the role you want? if you were a total prick i wouldn't even care, i'd just say, fuck it, let him embaress himself, let him make a prick out if himself, but when someone i like starts behaving like a cock towards me i take it personally. you need some deep breaths son, look back on what you've written cos you're riding an ego wave, think you're something all of a sudden, i've done it myself, let things go to my head and started acting arrogant, you think you're in control of yourself? emotions are carrying you, don't think i can't see, you're transparent, i can see right through you. i know everything that goes on, stop running your mouth, its time to take stock. you want to know why you get depressed? it's a direct result of what you're doing right now, letting your ego get so inflated that you got nowhere else to go but down. as soon as you become aware of the gap between how you see yourself and how others see you it's going to be the same old shit. its not sustainable. i might regret writing this in the morning but fuck, it needs to be said, don't fall down that stupid hole again, cultivate some self-awareness.

be.jazz
21-11-2004, 03:15 PM
As for rights, I assume you mean individual rights, which as a communist I of course don't believe in. There are collective rights or none at all.
Could you give some examples of collective rights that eliminate the need or existence of individual rights?


Yes, of course. Do you really believe in Nietzschean cultural relativism? (Of course you do, everyone does these days....ask any teenager....they'll tell you, it's all just a matter of opinion)
I don't know if it's Nietzschean, but I don't see rationality as a substitute for God (maybe you were being sarcastic?). Apart maybe from very abstract levels of rationality, but on lower levels, I don't see rationality as a constant. Which is not to say that choices between them can't be made. In practice they are, every day. A month or so ago a vice-Prime Minister here stated that "some cultures are inferior to others, such as one in which women are not allowed to get education." The workings of power in the real world ensure that choices are made.


Interesting personal anecdote. And what is your argument against it?
It just seems full of leaps (rationality=self-interest, for one, especially if you're going to end up at collectivism), but your frame of reference is rather impenetrable to me.

Woebot
22-11-2004, 09:15 AM
[1163] But when intemperance and diseases multiply in a State, halls of justice and medicine are always being opened; and the arts of the doctor and the lawyer give themselves airs, finding how keen is the interest which not only the slaves but the freemen of a city take about them.


i take it this is plato? that's quite a fascinating perspective (i hope i'm reading it correctly). it appears to lay quite a lot of responsibility on the individual to take responsiblity for themselves. seems to suggest that people should take care of their own health (through a better diet exercise and less self-abuse (call me mr motivator)) and practise their own law (picture of positive anarchism?) is this correct?

on the other hand i suppose the law is now a positively ancient institution, and although it might appear quite involuted and twisted to the "clear-headed", in lieu of other channels, im sure many believe the ends justify the means. again with doctors, im sure one could take an evolutionary approach to disease (quite coldly seductive in many ways) but helping people get better, again dealing with a fucked status quo, but what else can society do?