You can't change the system from within, the system changes you!

This point addressed in class on Tuesday stuck with me. It seems that if one wishes to change a system (at least radically) then one must create a whole new system. This is only because if one tries to change a system from within, then they start to adapt to the system and then won't be making change. The banker example that professor Silliman used to show how one must adapt to survive seems to be a good example, for if you don't make decisions like a banker you won't be one for very long. Does this mean that change is impossible? For instance, it surely seems like any way of trying to change capitalism will not come about by the way of the people, but only if society completely fails as a whole. This happened to the Romans; they got too big and then collapsed. Will it happen to the good old USA? Probably, and not just the U.S. but the world over. The only way to make change seems to focus on an individual that can create a new system that people would follow (and relatively quickly at the way the world's environment seems to be degrading). Perhaps this is where technology can save us. The internet seems to be a tool that could connect millions, even billions, of people instantaneously. Do you think it is possible to change a system then or will it always stay in a relatively similar parameters with rather miniscule fluctuations in terms of its mechanics?

Flexibility of the Law

When I was reading Dworkin I was really able to connect with his ideas. As an actor being flexible (not just physically, but mentally too) is a very good, but I would argue a needed, quality as it involves taking into consideration direction, character motivation, and reacting to various stimuli when in performance. Flexibility then seemed to be a very strong attribute of Dworkin's Law as Interpretation. His idea of interpretation can then be seen as when he discusses how judges need to react to various cases. They need to interpret the law, when needed, such as in hard cases. When I say flexibility I do not mean that one can do whatever one pleases as that would pragmatism which  Dworkin was against, but rather a way of making logical and rational decisions.
Aristotle discusses in his poetics that thought, the third most important aspect of tragedy, has very little to do with poetry but has very much to do with the actor. Thus, we can view that the actor can be a judge in his own sense as both are a kind of interpreter. The other two aspects of tragedy that rank higher according to Aristotle are plot and character. Plot can be seen as the case or trial, so it would follow that a case which is not a 'hard case' would not have need of interpreting and would then follow a predicted path of action. For example, most stories follow a similar pattern. Avatar for instance is no more than a hyped up version of Pocahontas. This is just one example but many more can be seen if one looks closely enough, especially in religious stories. Hopefully this kind of makes sense because what is trial but an analysis of a modern day tragedy (the magnitude of the tragedy depending on the action of the case itself or whether it is a town or the Supreme court).
Another way I was thinking about Dworkin was comparing his idea of law to the idea of a tree. Each new growth of a limb will effect the next branch and twig, which relates to how judges must interpret previous cases and the whole of the law (the tree) itself. In terms of a goal within law of interpretation, we can bring into account Plato and find that the law (the tree) is trying to reach towards goodness (the Sun) as Wacks had written on Dworkin, "It [law] adopts a constructive approach in that it seeks to improve our lives and our community." So to me, law of interpretation is the most organic sense of law (at least from what I've read so far) as it is able to grow freely by what is best for the community and the citizen. This would be compared to legal positivism, which if it was a tree would die probably quickly because if a big gust of wind came by it would snap it due to it having no flexibility. Maybe law doesn't necessarily work like that . . but maybe it does! Regardless, I feel flexibility is a needed trait in the law for it to arise to new and ever changing conditions of the material world.

Inequality in America?

As we were comparing the differences of the United States and Switzerland, I thought this article would be a good way to highlight some of these very drastic inequalities in our own country.

The Extremist Cult of Capitalism

Introduction

Hello!

My name is Tom Leidenfrost and this is my last semester at MCLA. I am an FPA: Theater Concentration who has a strong interest in both performance and life. My yearning to understand came about through theater which I started participating in around 10th grade. Further along in high school I was introduced to philosophical principles and ideas during my senior year. Since then I've been trying to understand why I act and what it can do to benefit people by investigating and converging various aspects of life. This is why I am happy to have had a liberal arts education as it allowed me to connect ideas that I would not have thought were possible. To me theater and philosophy are almost one and the same for both are in the pursuit of truth. Thus the art of questioning and thinking are fundamental to both fields. This is why I decided to get a philosophy minor and why I am in the course. It will be interesting to see what connections I can draw into my future work from the knowledge gained in this class.