Aristotle and Lynne Cheney walk into a bar

What could Aristotle and Lynne Cheney (former vice-president Dick Cheney's wife) have in common.  Well, it turns out they both feared the effect certain types of music had on youth.  While the music was obviously not the same, both seem to feel that music was especially powerful on young people. 

According to Jeffrey Walker's article,  Aristotle says young people "become habituated to the moods such music enacts, thus distorting their own souls into banausic and thetic vulgarity."  Walker continues to explain Aristotle words as "he says that only the "ethical" types of music, ta ethika, are ethical for kids to learn". 

Cheney's big issue centered around mostly the artist Eminem, whose lyrics portrayed violence against his wife among other things.  She said, "Eminem is not the first rapper to revel in violent misogyny, but he has taken hatred of women and depictions of degrading and violating them"  She feared that young people would be influenced by the violence in the lyrics.  She goes on to point out the Columbine high school murderers were fans of Marylin Manson. 

Aristotle point is about the type of music young people should learn to play, whereas Cheney railed against the type of music kids listen to.  This distinction between playing and listening does not disrupt the similarity of their message.  That young people are influenced in a negative way by certain types of music. 

I am not sure if I can agree with the direct correlation that Cheney presents with her Columbine point, but I do agree that music affects the young more than most.  How else could the popularity of Beiber fever be explained. 

Viual Analysis - re-edit

"Do not forget the US imperialist wolves"

This is an image I found by googling  'propaganda'.  I found this along with several other drawings at http://calitreview.com/875, but the original source is North Korea.   I see two audiences for this image: the original North Korean audience, and the subsequent American audience that views it on the calitreview website (this image is also part of a book of North Korean Propaganda art that can be found here).  The context for both parties is the aftermath of the Korean war, (a proxy war of cold war ideology with the North aligning with the Soviets and the South with the US and UN) and each side has a different memory of the war. The North Koreans likely remember the thousands dead at the hands of the foreign Americans and their South Korean allies.  While for Americans who are viewing it now, the context is a war that has been labeled "The Forgotten War"(according to Wikipedia), and a war against a country that is lead by a man (Kim Jong Il) with dubious credibility.

This image evokes several universal emotions. Horror that anyone could taunt a mother with a dangling baby. Disgust at the soldier's satisfied grin, and at the thought of him actually dropping the infant. And pity for the woman who despite all her effort, is powerless to save her child.  This image asks the Korean audience to feel all the emotions just listed and to channel them into anger, and vengeance at the baby-murdering American soldiers who would commit such a heinous act. 

Most likely an American audience would doubt the validity of the image because, it would be unsettling to imagine an US soldier doing that unsettling deed, and the manipulative reputation of  the N. Korean government has earned.  The American most likely feels the same emotions as above, but for different reasons.They feel horror at the way Americans are portrayed. disgust for the people who would spread such lies. and pity for the people of the North who were helplessly brainwashed with this propaganda.   It's hard to imagine a situation where a soldier would dangle a baby over a well.   Additionally, Americans are disinclined to think their soldiers would do this. 
 
The quote at the bottom says exactly the message the N. Koreans are trying to get at: "Do not forget the US imperialist wolves."  It portrays the Americans as heartless baby murderers, and asks 3 things of the Korean people.

First, since the Americans are committing an act so evil, that 'someone needs to do something.'  It might as well say 'If only we had a hero.'  It calls the young to protect the defenseless mothers and children of Korea, and therefore encourages joining or supporting the military.

Second, The poster would hope to inspire a deep hatred and fear of all things American and to possibly justify future retaliation against the US. 

Third, the expressionless face of the soldier holding the mother back, combined with gleeful face of the soldier dangling the baby asks the N. Koreans to see the Americans and their way of life as evil. This could have the secondary effect of demonizing their S. Korean neighbors.

While they are not expressly shown in this image, the American militarily relationship with the S. Koreans has existed from the Korean war, to this day. For the North Koreans the threat is so serious they have recently threatened "nuclear war" against both parties, because of a joint military exercise (see this story).   The lure of a wealthier 'Americanized' life to the south seems to be a constant fear of the Orwellian N. Korean leadership. The demonetization of American soldiers reinforces the idea of the threatening 'other' which is so vital to the North Korean government's ability to control their people

For me, as an American, It adds further proof to the news that have long been perpetrated by the dictatorship. I am sad for the people who are force fed these lies. The unintended US population who sees this would  be sobered by knowledge of the oppressive North Korean state, and most likely dismiss it as propaganda.  Old Men who served in the Korean war, would hate the way they are presented, but the senselessness of the image would undermine any incredulity. For most though, the over the top portrayal undermines whatever credibility Americans would find in such a poster.

But for N. Koreans, whether or not this event did occur, it still resonates because of the memories of other American acts of war.  Those most likely affected are young men who would passionately desire to defend the women and children, and possibly wish to contribute and join the army.  It would inspire elderly men and women who lived through the Korean/American war to tell stories of the war.  The N. Korean government could only hope that the impassioned stories of the veterans would further inspire the youth to action.

aristotle 2

As I read Aristotle, it feels like some of what he says is blatantly obvious.  And this reminds of something, someone once said about Nietzsche. To paraphrase:  that Nietzsche's philosophy changed the way people thought so dramatically, that his philosophy seemed obvious to the modern man .  But then I wonder if it seems obvious because his analysis is so blatantly correct, that all you have to do is think back onto your own experiences to know that is true.

Again while reading Aristotle I am reminded of the words of another.  Aristotle says: "all the vaulable qualities that youth and age divide between them are united in the prime of life.... the body is in its prime from thirty to thirty-five"(book II ch 14).  My brother (who, if he has read Aristotle, it has been decades)  said to me this year,  "your thirties are great.  Everyone respects you, you make more money, and life is generally easier".  I turn 30 this year so I really hope he and Aristotle are correct.  But was my brother influenced by Aristotle or was Aristotle just right?  I kind of think both.  My brother did benefit from educational systems influenced by Aristotle, but I also think that Aristotle was just an astute guy. 

So which is it, did Aristotle influence the world into becoming as he saw, or did he see the world as it truly is?  What do you think?

Simmer down Aristotle

Aristotle was angry. 

To be more precise he defined anger to be affected by the slightest of slights.  For example, "Forgetfulness ...causes anger, as when our own names are forgotten"(Ch 2 line 35). If Aristotle's version of anger were true today, then everyone would walk around to angry to see straight.  To be fair of what Aristotle says about anger is true, but if someone were to be angry at all of the anger inducing situations described then we would think he a psychopath or a megalomaniac.  He states that "those who listen to stories about us... this seems like either slighting us or hating us; for those who love us share in all our distresses and it must distress any one to keep looking at his own weaknesses" (Ch 2 line 22).  This seems like the prose of a paranoid schizophrenic.  If I became angry at a friend for simply listening to a story about me, then I would have no friends left. 

I am not trying to say that Aristotle was a paranoid schizophrenic megalomaniac. But, some of what he says are anger inducements would not be kosher in the modern world.  Anger seems to have mellowed out over the years.  Or maybe because the modern world is so slighting, we have had to mellow or else be angry all of the time.  Think of the internet and the biblical sized flood of vitriol that streams out of it everyday.  Do the recipients of all of these insults, respond with anger? Some do, but for the most part we either do not notice or just ignore them.  Has the internet desensitized us to anger?  I think so.  Would Aristotle be angry at the internet?  Well, I do not think he would enjoy reading a blog post by some student that called him a paranoid schizophrenic megalomaniac.