Clouds VI [redux]

Title Fight: Just Speech Vs. Unjust Speech

Now the two speeches bicker back and forth: “someday you will realize the mistakes you’re making,” “you’re shamefully squalid,” “you have been debased,” “the wise ones understand they should take on the new ways and get with the times.” They eventually almost come to blows. Notice here that it’s Just Speech that threatens violence; he doesn’t have any more for replies and so he will win by force. At this point the clouds have to intervene to let the two speeches display themselves. Unjust Speech lets Just Speech go first (wouldn’t you do the same in a debate?). There may actually be no choice in the order here as the old ways are always displayed first and the new ways always come after.

Just Speech is going to defend the old ways in part by arguing that with moderation the problems of injustice are lessened. If you have a moderate desire for money or sex you do not first think of cheating, nor do you wake up wondering what happened last night. In the good old days, we were orderly, we did the old songs the old ways, but now look at the remakes and covers – you can think here of Jimi Hendrix’s Star-Spangled Banner. According to the traditional way, it was needful for the young to cover-up. There is temptation around and the answer was to have the young behave moderately. With moderation comes a sense of shame, which is a powerful support for morality; most of the shameful things happen when you’re in Thailand or New York or Las Vegas, that is, on vacation when no one knows you – think here of the Hangover movies. Constant lawsuits and court cases are another sign of an immoderate society. Just Speech asks Pheidippides to compare the two lifestyles. And truth be told, there’s something attractive about Just Speech’s depiction of the healthy lifestyles; there’s a reason antidrug commercials will often contrast the healthy kids who are out climbing mountains with those who descend into the basement to go and smoke dope.

In response to Just Speech, Unjust Speech will try to revalue all values. He will make the contrast between the stud and the prude. Today, we’re no longer supposed to really argue on behalf of moderation by engaging in things like slut shaming. Once upon a time, the question used to be “you don’t want to be a slut do you?” Now more often its “you don’t want to be a prude do you?” Which of these two is worse? Which one is going to keep you from having an enjoyable social life? Which one is going to impede your happiness more?

And we should notice that the clouds do not have a clue just how easy it’s going to be for Unjust Speech to overthrow Just Speech. Unjust Speech says that Just Speech blames warm bathes—he didn’t—but he brings up the example of the baths of Heracles. What do you do when the sons of gods and heroes do not act rightly themselves? It’s easy to dismiss the gods, but very difficult or nearly impossible to resurrect them as a viable authority—same goes for Santa or the elf on the shelf.

So, we go from the gods to the heroes, but there are problems with the heroes: if they’re still alive, they could go bad; if they are dead, the kids need to be able to relate and one must beware the historical revision of them to show their faults. Think here of the Founding Farthers.

Unjust Speech asks, who ever got anything good from being moderate? And it’s a tough question to answer, because maybe moderation keeps things from happening to you, for instance hangovers, but then again maybe nothing bad happens either. If you take moderation seriously you will not get a lot of things most of them pleasurable, the ones that are fun, associated with partying. Unjust Speech councils just going with the flow, doing what feels good. If you think that nothing is shameful you can do whatever you feel like, you can simply follow your nature. And if you have the weaker speech, you can argue your way out of any situation. But is there any limit? Do you come to a point where you pausing think maybe I need to slow down? What you say if you wake up in the morning with used condoms all over not remembering a thing? “Must have had fun last night?” At what point is the limit reached? Is there a limit? If everyone’s buggered, then no one remains to answer on behalf of Just Speech.

Now Strepsiades has just witnessed this rout and he doesn’t see a problem. Pheidippides on the other hand says, “I think that you’ll regret these things” (1114).

It’s only at this point that Socrates comes back. Thus, it’s clear to us as the audience that it’s Aristophanes that makes the weaker speech the stronger. So, was Aristophanes the corrupter? What kind of comebacks do we have to Unjust Speech? Just Speech thinks that the difference in physical appearance of the two lifestyles will be enough: a handsome man who is healthy versus a decrepit old man who’s degenerating. But speech is able to persuade beyond looks. Just Speech couldn’t rely on the gods because the gods were not just. Moreover, the appeal to the divine only works if you believe, if you have faith; if you don’t have faith this cannot be a ground for justice. When you lose your faith it’s almost impossible to reclaim, but it’s also impossible to impose.

Ultimately, the only firm ground for justice is if it is somehow connected with happiness, that is, if there is something about justice that is required for personal satisfaction and making the most of yourself and your potential. We do tend to feel guilty, to feel shame, when we don’t live up to our potential. This is why when your parents or your mentors say they are disappointed in you, it hurts emotionally.

Given the frailty of Just Speech, given the fact that no tradition is perfectly just, and thus that all tradition can rightly be criticized, and that once overthrown it’s nearly impossible to prop back up, should the young be allowed to hear both speeches? Or should we be more mindful of to what they are exposed?