Read the lecture and the readings, pursue a couple of the topics that you find most interesting and then post your blog with your well-considered thoughts about the theory and practice of politics.
CyberPolitics = “The politics of the internet that exists predominantly on the internet”.
eDemocracy = “The internet's intervention in and contribution to real world politics that exists predominantly off the internet”.
"Some apparently simple definitions of democracy continue to inform popular discussion: the rule of the many; the rule of the majority and; 'government of the people, by the people, for the people' are three common formulations."
http://rockcj.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
I would agree with these three popular definitions of democracy, however putting the theories into practise is not as simple and can be a completely different story. Firstly, the rule of the many is more or less the rule of the majority. If we look at this definition on a global scale it is undoubtedly the minority that control the world in terms of the power in decision making.
Within Australia I feel that the majority gets a real say, although only when the power of those who steer the country is compromised.Secondly, the government of the people, by the people, for the people is a tricky one to tackle. Yes we are the people and we vote accordingly for the limited selection that is presented before us, although is it really always for the people? I am highly sceptical. I find this is not the case in regards to both a world wide, and an Australian point of view. I am aware that there are many other forms of governmental rule used for running various globally powerful nations (Russia, China etc.); however the majority of the power is still in the hands of “democratic countries”. They retain power because they are merely looking out for number one, and that is fair enough too because everyone is trying to get a head in life. I am quite content here in a country such as Australia, living a comfortable and convenient lifestyle. However I am not willing to do so at the expense of the people who are the majority, and who live in places of the world that are plagued by poverty and inequality.
Even within so-called “Democratic countries” such as Australia and USA it has often been the case that the people of both countries have been suppressed in numerous ways for a countless amount of years. How is that "for" the people? How is it that we do not all truly have equal rights? How is it that women still get payed less in some jobs? And how is it that we still haven’t properly integrated indigenous Australians into the general society, even after countless years of on-going abuse? Controversial I know, although so are the various applied practises of Democracy.
“The Allegory of the Cave – Plato”
“Plato realizes that the general run of humankind can think, and speak, etc., without (so far as they acknowledge) any awareness of his realm of Forms. The allegory of the cave is supposed to explain this. In the allegory, Plato likens people untutored in the Theory of Forms to prisoners chained in a cave, unable to turn their heads. All they can see is the wall of the cave. Behind them burns a fire. Between the fire and the prisoners there is a parapet, along which puppeteers can walk. The puppeteers, who are behind the prisoners, hold up puppets that cast shadows on the wall of the cave. The prisoners are unable to see these puppets, the real objects, that pass behind them. What the prisoners see and hear are shadows and echoes cast by objects that they do not see. Here is an illustration of Plato’s Cave: Such prisoners would mistake appearance for reality. They would think the things they see on the wall (the shadows) were real; they would know nothing of the real causes of the shadows.So when the prisoners talk, what are they talking about? If an object (a book, let us say) is carried past behind them, and it casts a shadow on the wall, and a prisoner says “I see a book,” what is he talking about? He thinks he is talking about a book, but he is really talking about a shadow. But he uses the word “book.” What does that refer to? Plato gives his answer at line (515b2). The text here has puzzled many editors, and it has been frequently emended. The translation in Grube/Reeve gets the point correctly:”
“And if they could talk to one another, don’t you think they’d suppose that the names they used applied to the things they see passing before them?”
“Plato’s point is that the prisoners would be mistaken. For they would be taking the terms in their language to refer to the shadows that pass before their eyes, rather than (as is correct, in Plato’s view) to the real things that cast the shadows. If a prisoner says “That’s a book” he thinks that the word “book” refers to the very thing he is looking at. But he would be wrong. He’s only looking at a shadow. The real referent of the word “book” he cannot see. To see it, he would have to turn his head around. Plato’s point: the general terms of our language are not “names” of the physical objects that we can see. They are actually names of things that we cannot see, things that we can only grasp with the mind. When the prisoners are released, they can turn their heads and see the real objects. Then they realize their error. What can we do that is analogous to turning our heads and seeing the causes of the shadows? We can come to grasp the Forms with our minds. Plato’s aim in the Republic is to describe what is necessary for us to achieve this reflective understanding. But even without it, it remains true that our very ability to think and to speak depends on the Forms. For the terms of the language we use get their meaning by “naming” the Forms that the objects we perceive participate in. The prisoners may learn what a book is by their experience with shadows of books. But they would be mistaken if they thought that the word “book” refers to something that any of them has ever seen. Likewise, we may acquire concepts by our perceptual experience of physical objects. But we would be mistaken if we thought that the concepts that we grasp were on the same level as the things we perceive.”
http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm
Plato states that “in order for the prisoner to look at the real referent and not the shadow he would have to turn his head around”. My interpretation of this is that he is discussing enlightenment, gaining true knowledge of what the prisoner is referring to. In order for us to see the real person we would have to approach them, talk to them, and become friends with them to find out who they really are and what they are about. Just as the prisoners would have to turn their heads in order to see what object is really casting the shadow, thus becoming enlightened and gaining a new found insight and appreciation. Plato continues on to discuss “naming”: “For the terms of the language we use get their meaning by “naming” the Forms that the objects we perceive participate in”.
We use naming to identify objects in our language just as we use labels to quickly identify each other. Be it white, black, rapper, rocker, old, young, male, female etc. We name things because that is what we associate our perception to, however our perception can often give us a single dimensional view that can increase our ignorance and hinder our understanding. Plato was a deep, deep philosopher so my perception about what he is trying to convey in this theory may be incorrect due to my own ignorance. However in any great philosopher’s theories, all conclusions are never thought of by others as objective and are always subjective. Thus, nothing you or I say can truly be incorrect. Plato really was one of the great thinkers, however I wonder if he ever wrote something that was so deep that even he was bewildered? I would not be the least bit surprised and I am sure he has forgotten more life theories than most of us have ever read…
What do you think of the Australian Government's plans to censor the internet (the so-called "Clean Feed")?
"The Australian Federal Government is pushing forward with a plan to force Internet Service Providers [ISPs] to censor the Internet for all Australians. This plan will waste tens of millions of taxpayer dollars and slow down Internet access.
Despite being almost universally condemned by the public, ISPs, State Governments, Media and censorship experts, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is determined to force this filter into your home."
I personally believe that the "Clean Feed" may have the right intentions initially, however if we begin with something like this now then it may end up that what we see online will be as manipulated and controlling as what we read about in the newspapers and see on TV. Obviously we can still receive the same news, however the major difference between TV, Newspapers and the internet is that we have much more freedom online. We have more of a say about certain matters without worrying about someone editing it. I understand that we want to protect our children from harm although I feel that censorship will not be of much help. Invested time and good parenting on the other hand will. Censorship represses, it does not liberate. For example it may end up that one day I will not be allowed to voice my opinion about something due to worrying about being filtered.
"It is not the function of Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error."
- Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954), U.S. Judge.
http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens1.html
What place does censorship have in a democracy?
Well since democracy has an aim of achieving "good" for the majority then it must be taken into consideration the fact that if the majority want censorship and vote for it accordingly, then that's the way it is going to be (and vise versa). The decision and place of censorship should be securely in the hands of each individual within the country as to determine what truly is best for the majority. If we go about the matter in this way then we all have a fair say in determining whether or not we want to be censored. I know what my vote will be that's for sure: Hell No! Because I have no intention of letting censorship dictate my freedom. However if the majority votes "yes let the government censor us" then so be it. What can I do as the minority? we only have ourselves to blame if things take a turn for the worst down the track though. However if the people do not get a vote then how can we truly call the decision a democratic one?
"Is free speech a basic right? In Australia we don't have the constitutional right to free speech - that's an Americanism. Only recently did the High Court find that free political expression was implied by the constitution and that was at the behest of a TV station concerned that they would revenue if political advertising was banned. Rather we might view free speech as self-correcting mechanism - in using free speech people make democracy happen.
- John Gilmore
The Chaser on Fox News Part 2 (Taking the piss out of Censorship)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAVOJYYwMaA
P.S F#%K Bill O'reilly, mate you are one massive douchebag! Now could I have said this if we had censorship?...
(All websites viewed on 18th September 2009)
No comments:
Post a Comment