What are the views of the great western philosophers like Plato,
Aristotle, Bacon, Spinoza, Schopenhauer, Hume, Kant, Hegel and some of
the eastern philosophers (?) on the question of « justice » (Universal
and/or social appoach).

---

Request for Question Clarification by pafalafa-ga on 11 May 2005 12:05 PDT

You can get a pretty good overview of the western perspective on
Justice at this Encyclopedia of Philosoophy site:


http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-virtue/


which covers the concept from Plato and Aristotle through to Rawls and
other modern commentators on this topic.


But the entry is quite silent on Eastern thinkers.  How much of an
eastern perspective where you anticipating (and is the Encyclopedia
site adequate for your needs in terms of western thought?)

Let me know.

pafalafa-ga

---

Clarification of Question by zarick-ga on 11 May 2005 18:28 PDT

Hello, 
The article is very clear but a bit on the short side. I would need an
additional 2-3 western views and at least two, hopefully a bit
conflicting eastern thinkers. I don?t know any of the eastern
thinkers, so I cant help out in that sector, if there is no other way,
you could use the religious approaches used in Buddhism or
Confucianism for example.

I know I?m pushing it, but if you could give me you?re understanding
of each of those thinker in one phrase, that would be great. Kind of
an second opinion...
Thanks in advance,
Zarick

---

Clarification of Question by zarick-ga on 11 May 2005 18:32 PDT

For the western ones... what about Nietzsche, Voltaire and Spinoza. 
I would love to get the Voltaires view on justice.

---

Clarification of Question by zarick-ga on 11 May 2005 20:49 PDT

(Sorry for my English, but I?ll try to further clarify what kind of
information I?m looking for)
I want to use the information to underlie the behaviour of some
secondary characters (four children) in a screenplay I'm working on. I
tend to read quite a lot but I seem to be unable to get trough the
wealth of information that is out there on this topic. If you think
that you need more money to do the research say so... as long as I
don?t go broke, it's ok.
Zarick

"I want to use the information to underlie the behaviour of some
secondary characters (four children) in a screenplay I'm working on."

Isn't that delving a bit deep to ask also for eastern philosophers,
"hopefully a bit conflicting eastern thinkers"?
If you get the information, how are you going to use it in your screenplay?
If the kids respond entirely in accordance wiht - say - Confucian or
Buddhist ethics, and this is different (which I doubt) from your
(presumably western) audience's feeling for ethics/justice, the
audience is going to be left behind, question the veracity of the
action.
But maybe the kids are from an eastern culture ...
That did not come across as a possibility.

Hello Myoarin,  
>Isn't that delving a bit deep to ask also for eastern philosophers?
I do agree with you that I'm probably asking too much of the peoples
from Goggle, but I have seen some of they?re accomplishments and it is
stunning.

Is it to deep for the scope of my endeavour? I do not think so. The
oriental approaches tends to be top to bottom, where the western
approach goes from the bottom to the top (science is a good example of
this). So I do not think that it is unnecessarily deep to ask for the
eastern thinkers. I find it necessary to show views that represent
different visions of live, not just a technicality .

Eastern philosophers like "Nishi Aman" have rediscovered some of
they?re culture but tend to be a bit technical (but maybe its just me
not having understood what they had to say). Somehow I have the
impression that Chinese philosophy has been dumpling along.

>If you get the information, how are you going to use it in your screenplay?
I think that philosophy helps us to find our own way. It shall not be
understood as a recipe. Philosophy cant make the story but it can
enrich it.

>The audience is going to be left behind?
I hope not, I will create a lot of practical action on the first
level, put the philosophical views on the second and the message on
the third. This way some viewer can appreciate the excitement of the
action while others can debate the philosophical standpoints. The
first level of a story has to get resolved. As I do not want to impose
a phoney answer to this million years old question, I have to put it
on the second level. I only want to show some of the ideas that are
out there. It?s up to the viewer to take it further.

If you have a more interesting approach let me know.
Best to you, 
Zarick

Zarick,
Many thanks for your explanation.  I was underestimating the depth of
characterization on the basis of such varied philosphical ideas that
could be developed in the roles of secondary characters.
My apologies  - and respect!
Myoarin

LOL... thanks! 
I didn?t intend to be pompous. It's just my humble try to make
philosophy accessible.

I am impressed by the clarity of you're objection. You have perfectly
identified the problem of the evasive explanation I had given. So give
me the chance to get it right:

------------------------------
"Respire"
------------------------------

Long Play of around 100 minutes
2 main characters, 7 secondary characters

Main theme: Justice

Point of view: Justice is relative 
(Oh, I can already hear the philosopher mumbling that this is a
simplistic view not in line with rigorous thought. But one should
understand that I do not want to answer the question but give peoples
a chance to debate, adding some variety to the existing arguments.)

Story: First level
An old man escapes from prison and hides in an old house nearby the see. 
The authorities are more then willing to go the extra mile to find
him, but a bunch of children help him to survive for a few days.
Ultimately, deaf represents freedom not found in this world.

So all in all, an upbeat and action based play, really...
I will try to use a treatment that is as human as possible, without
rhetoric and theories.

The main characters: 
- The first character is a 12-year-old girl, with the thoughts of the
young line of feminine thinkers
- The second character is a 70-year-old man, with the thoughts of the
old line of eastern thinkers.

Secondary characters:
- Tree boys, 12 years of age, representing the western thinkers.
- A dwarf, living in Marseilles underground (Greek heritage) is
presenting more esoteric views.
- A butcher, a shopkeeper and a policeman are representing the more
common, legal interpretations of justice.
- Some bystanders will also be colored in accordance to the theme. 



Story: Second level
- The old man evolves, as he starts to understand the true meaning of
his believes.
- The young girl evolves, as she enlarges her limited view of the world.

Now, this is a starting point. It will most certainly be refined.
(Hopefully with some help from ?Google Answers?, but maybe I scared
them of by now).

(B.T.W. This may look like a very mechanical approach. But I do
believe that throughout the writhing process one has the obligation to
play god, defining rigorously the theme, the point of view, the
characters the setting and the unfolding of the story. The spectator
perceives only a fraction of the construct and will have the
impression of free will. If one fails to build a good construct, the
viewer will feel the discontinuities within the story and discard it
as being wobbly. But hey, this is my view.)

So now I have given you all you need to be objecting in you?re most
delightful way.

Regards, 
Zarick

Zarick,
It's your question, and you know what's behind it  - no being pompous.
 Being of lighter metal, I imagined that "secondary characters" 12 y/o
would just be doing whatever they do, pretty much more involved with
themselves than higher philosophical matters (like me - multi-post
teen. I should finally read "Sophie's World.)
It sound very intriguing and interesting, and thanks for the insight.  
If I ever wrote fiction, it would start from some scene and just
develop, 'cause I can't plan, though probably  - more like "maybe" - I
would learn to guide the story rather than just following whatever my
characters  (all "alter egos" of me, of course) happened to say.

While reading your resume of "Respire", two references to play-writing
occurred to me:
Lessing's "Hamburgische Dramaturgie", and a remark by Ibsen: that his
characters became acquaintances with the first revision and friends
with the second one. But I seriously doubt that you need any input
from north of the Alps, on the contrary:
"The spectator perceives only a fraction of the construct and will
have the impression of free will."  That sounds like Lessing.

But I delighted at the "freudian typo":  "...throughout the writhing
process one ..."                                                      
 --------
writhe: 1) to twist the body about as in pain, violent effort; 2) to
shrink mentally, as in acute discomfort ..."  (Webster's)

Yes, indeed. Thanks for sharing, and best wishes for the piece.
Myoarin