Constants?

Good comment from Francis tonight in my Sociology class....
In order to achieve true equity, we need to remember that humans are NOT constant. The very fact that we have the ability to create makes this true. Unfortunately, a large number of sociological theoreticians hold humans constant and believe that it is the system that needs to be changed.
this is thought provoking, there seems to be a preponderance of those with left-wing tendencies to believe that instead of 'thinking inside the box' to transform the box, we need to think outside the box to recreate it. however, if human beings are held constant in this way of thinking and it is the social order and systems that are changed, aren't we just replacing the old box with a new one? it seems to me that we are. and as good as that may be, if we cannot change the humans who create said box, then we are inevitably going to end up with the same system and same social order again.
This is all presupposing that one holds the view that humans can be resocialized and that human nature is based upon this socialization of ourselves. or, in other terms, our biology only defines a very narrow, limited part of us. I am willing to believe that I can be socialized in a certain way, that I can learn to love, to become educated and sensitive to others', it may take awhile, but i think it can be done. if i cant believe that, and i believe that i am merely a biological creature, than i have no control and no power over myself, so the power comes from the system. i dont want to believe that.
Back to this constancy. Interesting, somehow this relates back to "we are a certain distance apart" maybe i am just being facetious when i relate these two, but there is a connection in my mind. If we make the assumption that we can all learn and be resocialized to be competent in diversity knowledge, than really, we are different, but only in a certain distance, its proximal.

Party like a Rockstar?

Interesting weekend.
Thursday night held prospect. Managed to get into the dance club with no big hassle, then after being there for an hour and a half, all of a sudden, there's a flashlight in my face. I think to myself, this is interesting, could this be my first kicking out of a club experience? I am not even drunk. So, I follow the insistent bouncer to the 'hallway of interrogation' and am confronted by two more bouncers. They ask for my ID. of course. I should have figured that out. This happens when you live in Victoria and look like you are 15. So, I hand it over and they investigate it and ask me various questions about my address and such. Finally, they are convinced I am of the appropriate age to be engaging in the activities of the club. I wandered back in, and thought to myself, interesting, never had this happen before.

Friday night.
Went on a date. He made me steak and potatoes and salad. Apparently this is an unusual thing to happen according to the girl that lives downstairs. I brought wine. It was classy. So as nice as all that was, and it was nice. and so is he. he's really nice. and he likes me, so thats nice too. I couldnt help but notice that even though I gave him plenty of time to converse and talk with me, I was still leading the conversation the whole time. There was plenty of silent spots as well. Perhaps it wasn't such a bad thing the tv was on.
After dinner his roomates returned to save us from the conversational abyss and the evening continued in a nice, comfortable sort of way with me killing them all at card games. I went home after a little bit of the comedy channel and it hit me.
I have nothing in common with this guy.
Too bad I was already committed to see him the next night for a party. I went to this party (brought a friend-good thinking on my part) dressed like a rockstar. After a few drinks, this supposed date of mine decides it is a good idea to try and put the moves on. Again, the realization struck me. He's Boring. So i called it quits, grabbed my slightly inebriated friend and made my way back to campus in a cab.
So here is my advice. Guys, try to talk to a girl, maybe engage in conversation before making any sort of move, inebriated or not.

Dear Plato,

I have a problem with you and your Republic. People have claimed you to be the father of western political individualism, but I am taking you to battle, man. First of all...your concept of the 'good' and how we should all forget about everything else we are doing and strive for the knowledge of this 'good'. How did you decide that there was a greater 'good', Plato? If some philosophic type happens to 'discover' this 'good', how would they know that they have discovered it. I know, you will tell me the cave analogy, where the blind guy leaves the fire to go into the light to see the brilliance of the sun, and then as his eyes adjust he learns the truth. Seems like a nice simplification to me. Hate to tell you this, but it is a little bit more complicated than that. If we are imperfect, fallible beings as you like to believe, then how can we ever achieve knowledge of this perfect form of good you claim is out there? It is simply not possible unless I take a leap of faith and just put all my trust in your idea of the 'good'. However, you don't want us to do that, do you? Because your not religious. It would almost be easier if you were, because then your 'good' could be seen as God. But you don't believe in God, do you? So, we can't use that, now can we?
Another problem I have with you Plato, is your focus on individualism, I know, you say that we can project that onto the definition of a 'good' city, but doesn't one need a community in order to achieve further knowledge? It is not just a matter of thinking really hard about things. You would just torture yourself. And why do you get to define what the greater good is, and that we should strive for it? who gave you that right? Last time I checked, you were human.
You know what else? I am tired of deconstructing. That is all you seem to focus on. If we can never really achieve this 'good' you speak of (how would we know that we have achieved it anyways? our senses, and our brain is fallible, so doesn't that preclude the fact that we are just going to continue to search forever in the dark?), then what is the point of looking for it anyways? sure, we can strive to acquire knowledge and better ourselves, but when can we get on with it and actually start reconstructing? Last time I checked, no one seemed to have conclusive answers as to what this 'good' actually was.
I'm not done yet. You have this 'hierarchy' of good political systems that we are supposed to strive for, but last time I looked, an aristocracy, where the 'knowledgeable' rule over the uneducated masses just collapsed into a tyranny, and very quickly. I know, you have your defenses to this, namely that those who were ruling weren't actually philosophers. But how do you tell who is a philosopher? With the exception of my prof, I can't think of a single person. On that line, how do you overthrow your oligarchy? I know that this oligarchic structure we have isnt perfect, but I have no idea how to convince a big, rich business person to suddenly develop morals, I can't convince myself to be perfectly moralistic, nevermind a stranger. Let's be realistic here Plato.

(I can't wait for this class to be over)