Will Gietema's Video

Search For My Values - Will Gietema / Rhodes College from Will Gietema on Vimeo.

Video Fun

I think that this week has definitely been my favorite week of search.  I don't mean that for just this semester.  Out of all three semesters, this has been my favorite part. It has been really cool to see how other people haave put together their own projects.  I think that it has been fun to see other peoples perspectives and their visions for their own projects.  We've seen everything from animations, to documentaries, to sitcoms.  Its just been really fun. I am glad that I have been able to give positive feedback to others for their work.  Watching each project gave me some ideas for how i can do future projects.  Its also cool to see how different each project is and how they fit the personalities.  You can clearly see that we have put a lot of work into our projects and they reflect the values that we have learned throughout the three semesters.  I like how some of them were abstract and not just the average commentary, which was what I chose to do. One thing that I wish or would like to do is the animations because watching them was fun and I never would have thought of some of the ideas that our classmates came up with. so that was neat. Also watching the comedies and mockumentaries was entertaining.  I think that everyone's project was unique in its own way.  All of my thoughts are positive.
I really enjoyed working on this project. It definitely allowed me to go back and reflect upon everything that I have learned and put it together.  I like making videos. So this was definitely fun for me. I have learned an infinte amount of things.  We have had so many dynamique discussions.  I am glad that I decided to take SEARCH and I would recommend it to any incoming freshmen.  No offense to LIFE, i've just never taken it. I think that I will also be able to take everything that we have learned and apply it to the real world.  I have enjoyed this semester with professor johnson and everything  that we have done.  It has definitely been an amazing semester.
So what is the meaning of this journey supposed to be? I am still trying to figure it out.  I have definitely had the chances to question different ideas.  I have had the chance to analyze the world from different perspectives and read many different texts. I don't really know if I can pinpoint a definite meaning of what everything means.  I think that as a thinking being, SEARCH has taught me to continue to expand my own ideas and think beyond myself.  I am supposed to carry on.  I am supposed to form my own theories about the world. I can take the viewpoints and thoughts of others and apply them to myself.  I can take the thoughts of Nietzche and Descartes and form my own ideas regardless of if I agree with these individuals.  SEARCH has taught me to continue to recognize the essence of myself and my own value. Thus I think that I will continue to use the values that I've learned later on in life.  I don't know what my fate is.  But I do know that I can choose my own values and what I believe.  I can also decide what actions I choose to take.  Hence I choose to take what I've learned and use it to achieve a greater cause.  It has definitely been a fantastic experience.  I will carry on and live a good life. I will never forget this course.  I'm thankful for the amazing journey and I'm sure that it will continue.

"Katie Searches for Values"

MySearch (Will Murphy)

Pheonix

David Pettiette's Search for Values Project

Final Project - Andrea Tedesco

Flow of Searchiousness

Responsibility in Modern Society

          Over the course of this last week, we have discussed the ins and outs of human responsibility. We attempted to give an objective definition, and then followed up by describing how far it extends. Although we weren't able to give an outright definition of responsibility, I believe that the best way to define responsibility is to describe its bounds. Of course, like most subjective matters, establishing concrete boundaries where responsibility ends is almost impossible. 

          I believe that although we can spread the word "blame" or "responsibility" around with a fair amount of ease (despite not being the exact same thing), the impact of the associating the blame with persons can only be a result of direct involvement. That is, we cannot punish someone who did not commit a crime merely because they may have been influential. The clearest examples are those involving the law. When someone breaks a law, consequences are dealt based solely upon claims that can be backed up by evidence. We do not punish someone for possible influence on the person who committed the crime.  Of course, that does not mean that a person who pays someone to commit a crime goes free. Although there is admittedly a great deal of gray area in reality, how are we to punish those that did not have a concrete role in the crime? However, often the bounds of blame reach farther than may be realized.

A picture that Seung-Hui Cho sent to NBC news before the shooting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ChoSh.jpg

One example in reality of this would be the Virginia Tech shooting. The person who was taken to jail was punished because he (and only he) could be convicted of physically committing a crime. (The shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, is shown in the image to the right). Yes, you may say that the school environment did not give enough support, or that the students around him were not aware enough, or that his parents gave him a wrongful upbringing. However, how are we possibly able to say that the school, the students, or his parents were to blame. Simply enough, we can't. Even if we were to say that we, though not directly involved, were responsible, or to blame, what difference would this claim make in society? None, whatsoever. The impacts of our claims to responsibility only extend as far as reality allows. 

          In this way, we have defined what responsibility is. We have shown that responsibility (not blame) is defined by the means of impact it has in reality. I do not believe that we were all partially responsible for the Virginia Tech shooting. Nor do I believe I am responsible for the murders constantly occurring in Memphis, nor the failure of the school systems or government. This is because, firstly, there is no possible way that I could spread my time or efforts enough to solve all of those "responsibilities" of mine. Secondly, we cannot be concretely defined as responsible for the actions.

Power Benefits Us and Confines Us

This week in class we covered Foucault and we also talked about the Fiero reading on Tuesday.
Foucault's views about power are very interesting.  He emphasizes that power is every where.  In society we live under a society that has a system of laws and are controlled by a higher system of power, which is the government. We mentioned this in class when we talked about the domain of the state and the domain of the individual. First of all, the domain of the state is a higher source of power.  The state controls everything in society. The state is in control of the laws that are set into place. The state is in control of things like taxes and punishment for crimes and other things.  As individuals, we are subject to the power of the state.  We have to oxide by the principles set in place by it.  Foucoult emphasizes the ideal that power is all around us.  We are individuals and we have the right to make choices and govern ourselves.  However when it comes to society as a whole we essentially have to conform to the power of the state.  In class we talked about this when we addressed things that are considered to be abnormal.  We kind of talked about how their is a majority rule when it comes to things.  For example we talked about criminals and how their behavior is unacceptable.  We also talked about our choices and how we are coerced by a system of power.  We used our decision to come to Rhodes and follow the curriculum requirements as an example.  We talked about how the system uses positive incentives to encourage people to follow its rules or principles because they will actually want to follow the rules.

I personally think that Foucaults ideas of power are unique.  I think that I would agree with many of his viewpoints about power.  There is definitely a lot of force behind it.  As individuals, we are forced to do certain things for reasons. For example, we have to abide by laws because if we don't do so, there are negative consequences.  We also perform certain actions because of our beliefs and thoughts. In class we talked about the decision to go to college.  I talked about how, for me, the decision not to go to college was not an option.  For me, this was because of how I had been raised by my parents. Thus, I think that power is something that binds individuals in a way because it forces us to conform to certain standards. We are limited in our actions.

 I think that having a structured system is a positive thing in certain ways. Think about it.  How do people define social values and what is acceptable? We define these things because we live under a system with structure. Structure gives people guidelines for how to live our lives and what choices we make.  I think that it allows us to make decisions easier because we have an organized system set in place and we can make observations based on these things. I think that structure also helps to define the social norms that we create.  On the other hand, the system and force can  be negative because it can limit how we think.  It kind of places us in a box.  If we are used to abiding by certain standards, we may be closed minded when it comes to new ideas of what is acceptable.  Thus the system can cripple us in certain ways.

I would like to read other people's point of view on this post.  There are certainly more questions and ideas that can be addressed about Foucault's views and what I written.  Thanks for reading!

The blame game

This week in class we discussed how the best way to have power over someone is for them to think you do not have power over them at all and that they are making a decision all for themselves. We also learned about how when someone does something “bad” or “crazy” responsibility of the action can be shared amongst someone other than to doer of the action. We used the example of the Virginia Tech shootings to further think about the second point. In class we stated that that responsibility could be held on the people that Seung-Hui Cho reached out to and did nothing about. Since they knew about his tendency for violence and he never got this court appointed treatment for being mentally ill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/06/AR2007050601403.html), why where these people in authority never put on the stand for letting this in a sense happen. If you know someone is dangerous why let him or her walk the streets without treatment? That is basically asking for trouble. I would normally say if someone did something that broke a law all blame should be placed on that person. But in a situation like this where someone is clearly mentally ill and he was supposed to receive treatment for it and he never got it, I feel like not only the doer of the action should be held responsible but also the people who sat by and basically waited for this ticking time-bomb to go off.  Someone was not doing his or her job and someone should have been punished for not giving him the help he needed. Granted, treatment may not have completely helped him or even prevented this from happening, but there was still a chance that this disaster could have been avoided if he got the help he had needed. 

The Atlas in Each of Us

I have little doubt that many blogs will be written on the topic that I've chosen to discuss today--the endlessly equivocal, durably debatable matter of human responsibility. It's a question personalized by modernists, socialized by postmodernists, and philosophized about in classes like ours: can the responsibility for the actions of an individual be placed on his community? And conversely, to what extent are individuals responsible for the ailments of society?
The issue of personal responsibility is something I consider often, actually, less in the realm of my ability on society as a whole, but rather my how my actions in the community will affect individuals. I frequently find myself imagining all the scenarios that could result from one of my actions--how something I've done (or didn't do) could potentially affect the life of another. For example, say that while driving, I threw an empty soda can into the street. Later, a small child playing in his front yard sees the shiny can glinting in the sunlight and decides to go investigate, toddling out into the street. He is subsequently run over by a car. Now, who's to blame? The driver, for not seeing him in time? The child, for walking onto the road? The parent chaperoning him, for not keeping a better eye on him? Or could one perhaps trace the blame back to me, the litterbug who carelessly tossed my waste into the street? I may not have hit the child myself, and I may not have been responsible for  the child's actions, but it was my action that set this other event into motion. Forgive me for the morbid example, but hey, maybe you'll think twice about littering now?
 Admittedly, this way of  thinking of responsibility is less philosophical and more neurotic, but it still poses an interesting thought: who can rightfully shoulder the blame for a problem? When something bad happens, is the responsible party always as obvious as it seems?
In class we discussed whether the Virginia Tech community could be held partially responsible for the shooting spree of Seung-Hui Cho. There was an actual lawsuit against the college for not warning the campus early enough after the first attack, in which two people were shot (source). But could the blame stretch even further, to the people that knew him, for not noticing that something was seriously wrong? Each of us does not live in a vacuum; we are all affected by the actions of others, whether consciously or not. In turn, we all affect others, both as individuals and as part of the community. Andrea brought up in class how this theme of community responsibility is expressed in The Laramie Project. Despite the objections of citizens of Laramie that hate crimes like what happened to Matthew Shepard weren't a product of their society, that "stuff like that doesn't happen here," the fact remains that it did happen there. Matthew Shepard's killers may have acted alone, but the community cannot efface itself of all blame. It was a conservative town, that probably unknowingly nurtured a lot of homophobic sentiment. The responsibility for combatting crimes like these lies with society at large: we must eradicate the problem at its source by promoting rights and equality above hate.

Diffusion of Responsibility

On Thursday, our discussion of Foucault lead to a deeper conversation of responsibility. Foucault's belief is that everything is everyone's responsibility because it is your community. This lead to a discussion of whether starvation in Africa is our responsibility because we are aware of it. This was interesting because our discussion turned to defending why we are not responsible for these situations. I thought that one of the most interesting questions that was brought up was why we are more invested on showing why we are not responsible than why we are. As said in class, I think it is because people to not want to have to feel blame or guilt if something goes wrong in what they have taken responsibility for if they are in a group setting. However, if one is alone and something goes wrong, they are more willing to take responsibility because it is obvious that they are the only ones who can fix the situation. This "diffusion of responsibility" concept reminded me of videos that I had seen in psychology. In the video, psychologists set up two different cases of smoke coming through a door. In one case they had one individual witness the smoke while they were taking a test, and in the other a group of individuals witnessed the smoke. It was interesting because in most cases the individual would respond by getting help, but in the cases with a group of individuals, they would all occasionally look around at the others to see if they were reacting to the smoke and no one would respond. I think that this study says a lot about how humans react differently to responsibility in communities. 

Power of Knowledge and Cults

     Today in class we discussed Foucault's notion of the power of knowledge. The discussion seemed to center on how the most powerful form the power of knowledge can take is in the production of docile subjects. A docile subject in this context is basically someone who is persuaded to believe a truth without actually being aware of the inherent persuasion. I think that in addition to being the most powerful form of knowledge it can be extremely dangerous and often times abused. Once an individual has mastered the ability to make docile subjects they can spread their ideas to other people and truly make them their subjects. This type of persuasion is often found in cults or extremist groups in which a leader is able to create a rhetoric or system of thinking that lends itself to the members so they feel like they are genuinely having the same original thoughts as the leader. I think being able to understand these types of interactions will help society further their understanding of cults and extremist organizations so that they can be prevented and defused more easily. This is important because in the last half century there have been multiple examples from the Nazis to Charles Manson and his "family"to terrorist organizations . With these examples there is a notion of fear and violence that is accompanied with their mention and their actions. The simple truth though is that they are only possible through the power of knowledge and the leaders ability to create docile subjects that will not only completely believe in the leaders ideas but follow them as if they where their own. I think that this is another way to look at Foucault's idea of the power of knowledge and how it can be applied to the physical world.

The San Diego Effect

          I imagined a good number of papers would be called "What is _____," so I figured I would title this something more energetic.  A wonderful series of questions have been examined by Kant and Foucault in our text, so let us suppose another.  If individuals are pondering existence, and France has posed the question of "what is meaning," and individuals have thus begun studying the same existence as their peers, then a new culture of self-evaluation must be in development.  I just watched the first season of Game of Thrones, based around an imagined medieval kingdom, and the most valuable lesson therein is that our community values have shifted from the land of valor.  I observe a culture based off of a search for personal value sets, wherein each individual defines the values most essential to their self.
          There is another moral pursuit in Game of Thrones, where the lover chases dreams rather than duty.  I take this as a modern construction of a culture that was not quite so prevalent in times of arranged marriage and universally tragic breathe.  We do not pursue valor as in the past, but rather opportunity for escape from the reigns of society.  The Enlightenment is a primitive example, the civil rights achievements in the last century are a full execution of what has been on minds for centuries.  When Veronica Corningstone in Anchorman achieves her aspirations to be an anchorwoman, she has overcome the barrier that society has placed, barriers that are quickly coming down in this increasingly tolerant society.  In Game of Thrones, a peasant could never sit on on the Iron Throne.
          This is what I call the San Diego Effect, after Veronica's achievement and because I wrote this overlooking the beautiful blue expanses beyond San Diego.  Take this developing culture of achievable aspiration, and try to explain it as anything other than a culture.  People pursue opportunity differently than in the past.  We can actually choose to do what we want to do! Government imposed freedom has a wonderful effect- tactical use of the expression free country to watch football rather than mow the yard, and a simultaneous impression that dreams may indeed be pursued and are likewise achievable.  Freedom feels like sunshine, but responsibility weighs like a sack of bricks, we are free to carry as many as we want.  We have a human nature to enjoy the freedom of aspiration that we have earned from three hundred and more years of pondering, but how can we judge what happens when too much responsibility takes its tole on the overambitious? Maybe these are the corrupt politicians that we hear about, or people who turn Batman into a battlefield.  Or Ron Burgundy talking to a dog with night braces and matching pj's.  To make it clear, I am not posing an argument, or asking "what is questioning?" but rather "what effects does questioning have?"

Who's Responsible?

In class yesterday we discussed responsibility and what our specific responsibilities are as rational autonomous agents in this world.  We got hung up on this point for a while because it is hard to view something as your responsibility unless you were an acting agent upon the situation.  This seemed fairly logical to me because I have mostly used the policy that if I wasn’t there then it was not my responsibility.  For example, if I was over at a friend’s house and my sister was home then it was obviously her responsibility to walk our dog.  This has always made sense to me and I have never really questioned otherwise until now.  This is due to Sartre’s idea of responsibility that one is responsible for everything in the world.  It is hard to fathom this idea that I have a responsible hand in everything that happens in the world, and in class at first we all struggled with this notion.  Personally, I think this might have been a result of a fear of having to be responsible for everything because then we would in a way feel at fault for all of the bad things that happen in the world.  Not to confuse fault with responsibility or anything, so maybe instead of fault we would in some way feel that we had more of a hand in everything and had some sort of influence.  I still am not sure how it is possible to have such a universal sense of responsibility, but maybe what Sartre is trying to get at can be explained through the example used in class about the Virginia Tech shooter.  I do not think Sartre is saying one is responsible for not seeing the signs of the shooter’s insanity and were not responsible enough to notice or report the behavior of the shooter.  But perhaps it is that we are a part of the community that in the end produced his actions.  All humans are interconnected and we all influence the world we are in.  So, maybe it’s this influence and the environment it has created that we are responsible for.  Thus, we created the community the shooter was in and we all had the influence on him directly or indirectly and therefore we are in a way responsible for his actions.  But keep in mind this new sense of responsibility is not only bad because if it is universal then we all also have a hand in all of the good things the happen in the world.

To Online Date or Not to Online Date: That Is the Question

The internet has created new norms. In class we discussed some of the new norms such as “Facebook friends” vs. friend friends, cyber-bullying, hacking, and online education. We also briefly discussed the new norm of online dating. Just two decades ago, online dating did not exist but it has grown into a billion dollar industry. Online dating has become popular because of its ease and convenience. In class we discussed that one of the negative aspects about the internet is that it allows society to be lazy. We have replaced several activities and began simply Googling, Binging, Yahooing, or Youtubing everything! The internet has eliminated face-to-face socializing and given us cyber socializing. Studies show that although online dating is more convenient, it is not and will not ever be most effective. Thousands of websites like eHarmony.com, match.com, ZOOSK.COM, ChristiansMingle.com, and OurTime.com claim to be able to match soul mates based on certain algorithms. I researched several scientific experiments about online dating and they all basically said the same the same thing: there is not scientific proof that the algorithms online dating websites use actually work. The algorithms they claim to have are faulty. If they do have them and if they do work, the majority of people on online dating websites are not truthfully answering the survey questions on the online dating websites. This is another topic that came up in our class discussion. We concluded that most people pretend to be someone they are not on the internet. This is not surprising to me because I believe that when someone is trying to date, they are never completely themselves. They are trying to put their best foot forward. However, the internet does make it easier to do so. Perhaps this is the “convenience” singles keep talking about regarding online dating. Online dating gives you more time and control to decided what someone sees, knows, and learns about you. The internet gives the person behind the computer, cell phone, and tablet screen more control than they would have in person. Although the convenience may seem to be helping those seeking companionship, it is harming them in the long run. Online dating gives companionship seekers an abundance of lying opportunities, it concentrates on cyber interaction/affection, and brainwashes singles to think they are met for each other based on a silly test. The internet has given society both beneficial and negative norms. In my opinion, online dating falls into the negative category.

Is Who I Am Defined By Who I've Been?

        To begin, Thursday's class was by far my favorite of the semester, and I really appreciated how we applied Sarte's work to today's social issues. We talked about how the recent revolution of social networking has had global ramifications. Social networking sites such as Facebook reiterate Sarte's believes that humans are essentially free, and from this we do what we want, when we want to. There have been many days when I have wondered if God has every single move planned out, and we are just following one big itinerary  The more I think about it, the more I don't think that it this is true. In terms of Facebook, I believe that God could predict the actions on everyone's news feed, but why would he want to? According to the Bible, wasn't one of the reasons we were created was to make decisions for ourselves? I think social networking is a perfect example of this. We see what everybody is thinking and doing, and we see the decisions they are making for themselves, and I can't help but think that free choice reigns supreme. 

        However, my favorite part about class on Thursday's was class was some people were much different on the internet than they were in real life, thus making the method of defining who you are very interesting. Sarte believes that you define yourself through your actions. So which person is really you? Should you be defined as the person who people see you in the real world and how you interact with people in real life?  Or should you be seen as the person that your profile says you are? Ideally, you should be the same person in the cyber world as you are in the real world, but I understand that some people find their comfort zone in the internet. However, as was mentioned during class that people tend to say the most ruthless and hurtful things under the disguise of a pseudonym. Defining who you are as a person can be a very tricky thing, because I feel as humans we are constantly searching for who we are. One of the worst feelings in the world is not knowing who we are, because we are supposed to have complete control over our own lives are't we? In closing, I think defining who you are isn't controlled by what you do on the internet, or what we Say we do on the internet. Rather I believe that who you are can be defined in those specific moments when you take a step back and see yourself for what you are. The only thing I can hope for is that I like what I see.

Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Last class we spoke about the effects of the ability to freely transfer information on the world as we know it. During the information age, technological advances lead to innovations that allowed individuals to have access to information at any time. Eventually, devices were developed that allowed us to access any information we want at any time. Suddenly, everyday tasks that were once difficult became extremely simple. People could contact each other at any time, find the exact location of their destination, and entertain themselves at any moment. This ease of access has made mankind reliant on their technology. For instance, when one’s cell phone dies, things become a lot harder to accomplish. Our discussion was focused on this information accessibility and if it has benefited mankind more than it has hurt us. With this “hyper-visibility,” the world has become very “small.” At the same time, everyone became completely exposed, but also anonymous. Online “personas” developed that had to be tended to. Also, the economy began to change much more rapidly once the stock market was made readily available to anyone at any time. Society became characteristically impatient due to the speed of information.

In my opinion, the information age and the ability to access information has benefited us more than it has hurt us. The world has become a very innovative and competitive place. With the ability to know anything, I think it is expected that humans in general should be more intelligent and knowledgeable. It is true that technology has led to a lot of negative things. People are taken advantage of and social interactions have become a lot less personal. These problems, however, existed in their own way well before technology as we know it came to be. Major issues can be resolved much faster with the use of technology. Even things like small donations to third-world countries have led to improved living conditions and a lot of lives saved. Natural disasters can be predicted and people can be warned before they even happen. Also, recovery efforts are much more efficient and many more lives are saved. I believe one of the worst drawbacks of this information has to be the rapidly changing economy. With the ability to check stocks at any time, people can ruin the economy. This rapid economy is a serious issue today and has been a major topic during the election. However, despite the problems that come with immediate information, I believe the positives far outweigh the negatives. Overall, I believe the information age and all its developments have created a much better world.

Sartre and the Interwebz

How exactly do we to determine whether existence precedes our essence? After all; I am a product of both essences my parents. Further still, how am I completely free to take on projects for myself when I am defined before I have any real control over myself?

We seem to be following an argument which cannot be proved or disproved. C’est la vie, I guess. But still, it is interesting to ponder whether I really do have any choice in the acting as myself through myself. I would have loved to see a debate between Sartre and Nietzsche because of this conflict.  

According to Sartre, existence precedes essence, but how are we not just playing the roles given to us? How am I to determine whether it is indeed true that I have infinite potential (within reason) and am completely free?

I really do not think we are free at all. I think we all have roles to play within our society and we are condemned to play those roles until we die. I guess that is why the internet is so freaking awesome, it frees us of that oppression. As a kid, most of my free time was spent in front of a screen of some sort. For better or worse, I learned that the internet was what humanity wanted to be at its core. I believe that the advent of the internet disproves Sartre’s claim in his essay Existentialism is a Humanism.

On the surface, (Facebook, Tumblr, LinkedIn, MySpace, Twitter etc.) are the most fake and base of human interactions. People go on these sites to pretend to maintain contacts and business relations. These sites exist to show people that you have friends, relationships, and ideas, all of which are completely fake. I would analogize this as the Sartre level of our identity as we take on projects to appear as the ideal versions of ourselves.

Deeper down we have the semi anonymous media sites (Reddit, 9gag, eBaum’s world etc.) where some pretty dirty things are said and done but nothing unforgivable and utterly revolting. Despite this, we really can see the best and worst of our society because people can do most anything without any real repercussions. People can somewhat be themselves. I believe this is where most internet users hide out because their need for anonymity is met. But it is still somewhat Sartrean as people take on projects and appear to be somewhat sociable.

One more level down and we have pretty much the scum of the earth. The deep web is a prime example of society’s outliers and social rejects. Those whom do not play by Sartre’s existentialist rules reside in the deep web. Sadly, a lot of horrible things go on here and there is not much anybody can do about it. There is absolutely nothing that would resemble a Sartrean world.

guess the internet is prime example of how we are not solely described by Sartre’s existentialism.  The advent of the internet I think sheds light on a completely different view on humanity. 

An Existential Internet?

     Reading Sartre, the biggest takeaways I got from his writings were as follows:
-Humans are essentially free beings.
-We freely take projects upon ourselves in order to create the life we believe we want.
-Our material precedes our essence, thus, we create our essence through our actions and projects.

     I've been thinking about our discussion yesterday about the internet and the amazingly terrifying thing that it can be. We have more information literally at our fingertips than most humans have previously ever had before. When I started applying this thought to Sartre, I was curious. What sort of existential projects do we as humans take on through the medium of the internet? I think the biggest impact these internet projects have on are: our culpability, our presence, and our relationships.

   We discussed briefly the question of culpability on the internet. I believe Dr. J said something along the lines of, "If you want to see the dreadful side of society, just spend some time in a comments section when people can be anonymous." This public anonymity is something people could not have easily foreseen. The idea of this clash of the public versus private self is very uniquely shown in the internet. I think it's interesting to see that the internet allows people to take on multiple projects of self. If someone has the project of being a trustful person, he or she must spend time continually being worthy of trust. However, people encountered in person can know nothing of what friends do online. We've brought up public/private self before (such as in the TV show Dexter, his public self is virtuous whereas his private self is a serial killer) however, the internet almost gives people a venue to be vicious and cruel without having to accept those terms in their public life.

   The internet also has an interesting impact on our sense of self or presence. The idea of a person having almost an entire cyber identity was mentioned yesterday, and this is reflected in almost everything we do online: from the movies we choose to say are our favorites on Facebook, to a linkedin online resume for job applications. I'm curious if this is sort of an artificial project. If someone wants to be outgoing, they could pretend to be online, but not actually be outgoing in person. One can succeed in online projects while failing in their day to day projects. (It is much easier to press a send button versus actually trying to approach someone to talk).

    I'm not entirely sure what Sartre's view of relationships is. I know that when two people are in a longterm relationship, their projects will suddenly conflate and interact with one another. What is marriage if not a project two people take upon themselves. The problems can arise when two people have different views of what that project is. I think the internet has influenced how relationship projects work. How many times has someone uttered the phrase, "Well... are you facebook official?" This is a new way people can see dual projects and perceive how serious two people are with one another.

I don't know what Sartre would think about the freedom the internet gives us. It seems that it can be used for good projects, but as any good thing can do, the internet can be used for evil.

Female Species

Nora in the mode of being a doll

Why is it that sexism and racism are the two prejudices particularly looked down upon? It is because those who practice sexism and racism have power over the victims. If they all had the same power and rights, even if one side holds prejudices against the other; it would not amount to anything too harmful.

Proletariats revolted, black Americans revolted, the next was the women. Did they develop the “species conscience” like the other revolutionary forerunners? Looking at expressions from feminist artists such as Mapplethorpe and Judy Chicago, surely they notice the difference between them and others – men. De Beauvoir argues it is hard for women to organize themselves or to form a common enemy. They always stand by their husbands so that they have nothing much in common: A higher-class wife does not have any contact with middle or lower-class wives, or anything in common. It seems women need men, and it sounds ridiculous for some women to make men the common enemy.

Consequently, the feminist revolution was much less noticed than the civil rights movement. There has not yet been a woman Martin Luther King and definitely not a woman Malcolm X. Can you imagine, women binding together to form a new religion of the females and take up arms against the males? Nature has made it impossible.
One may not even notice how women were suppressed during the post-war era, where a higher-class wife appeared to be as well off as a higher-class husband. However, as Ibsen’s A Doll's House reminds us, women were not in the higher-class with the same reason men were. They were there because men took them in as dolls. I don’t think it is any more of a problem for wealthy men to take in doll women than for wealthy women to take in doll men; it would be a problem when taking in doll women was the normalized practice of the society and anything goes against the norm is criticized or deemed distasteful.  Unfortunately the latter was true. In the post-war west, feminists sat forth to expose and eliminate socially accepted gender norms, to exorcise the idea of a female essence: women should be able to freely choose to be who they will to be. Art is a passive aggressive method in this effort, but we can’t deny its success in nudging us to look at reality in the eyes. Feminist artists were the precursors of wider feminst movements.

I do have a question in mind: after gaining voting rights for women, what is the next step for feminism? Is an androgynous utopia as described in some feminist novels really the ideal?  

Playing at Being an Existentialist

Our discussion of existentialism this week is an incarnation of a debate that has been recurring for decades under different names. Essence vs. Existence? Nature vs. Nurture? Are we born who we are or can we truly be whoever we want? According to Sartre, the latter is true: your actions determine who you are, not the other way around. There is no preceding idea of who we are that legitimizes the things we do. From this claim sprung the question, then, of what it is to be human: unlike animals, we are not defined solely by our facticity, the simple, objective truths of our being--we have freedom, to think and plan for ourselves, and that defines us more than our "facts." While this train of thought lead to a very interesting discussion of whether humanity as a whole has a collective "essence," what rather disturbed me about Sartre was his ideas about "playing at" being who we are--the issue of "bad faith." 

His example of the waiter particularly hit home for me as a former waitress, making me wonder if I also had been "playing at" who I was; how many times did I greet a group of patrons with a plastered-on smile, my voice pitched a bit higher, given an extra pinch of a southern lilt? How many times did I say, "we'll get that right out for ya," as I perkily pivoted away from their table in an imitation of waitresses I'd seen on T.V. or at other restaurants?  I did these things because I thought that was what good waitresses were, and good waitresses got good tips, and good tips got me gas money. In order to be successful, I had to play the part of "waitress." 

But could this metaphor extend to other parts of my life? The facts about me are these: I am 19 year old student at a small liberal arts college in the South. Do I do the things I do as an attempt to fit this mold, because I think that it is who I am? Am I denying my freedom to transcend the facts of my existence? Or couldn't it be that the "essence" of who I am is what lead me to be a liberal arts college student in the South, so it's only natural that I would behave like one? Of course, this thinking would be in defiance of existentialism, but I never claimed to be an existentialist. But if I did, wouldn't I be attempting to define myself, which is something that an existentialist must never do? Playing-at-being something rather than simply doing what you want? Does anyone else find this concept as perplexing as I do?

Humans vs. Objects

Our discussion in class on Tuesday was very interesting. We talked about how existence precedes essences in existentialism as a humanism. On page 22 of Sartre's book, the definition of this is explained.  He say that this means that. "man first exists: he materializes the world, encounters himself, and only afterward defines himself."I think that I agree with Sartre's point of view to a degree.  As humans, we acknowledge our own presence on earth, but we do not know what our destiny or fate is.  We live through each day and make a way for ourselves. We are aware of our actions.  After we become conscious of what our own characteristics as a human being we realize what we need to do to change who we are.
As humans we can choose to acknowledge our flaws or we can run from them.  We talked about certain things in class like being a waiter and doing your job well or being a student.  We each have a role in society and we have to decide how we will fulfill that role.  We can either perform our duties well or we can choose to be passive.  We have the right to make up our minds and decide who we want to be ultimately.  I think that ultimately our choices decide our fate and consequences.
Additionally in class we talked about the difference between the essence of an object and the essence of humans.  An object is what it is.  A chair is a chair and a television is a television and a car is a car.  None of these can be otherwise.  It like the old saying that goes, "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, acts like a duck, it is a duck. In class we said that objects are defined by facticity.  This means that they are definite and have unique properties that define them. I think that the properties of an object are aspects that influences our perspectives and our senses as humans.  For example when we make observations about objects, we use our logic and define its qualities.  If I were to admire a piece of wooden furniture, I would look at its finish, is design, the quality of the wood, the craftsmanship. These are things that help to define the object and how I perceive it.
On the other hand, humans are built differently than objects. We have brains and we have a soul.  Thus we have the ability to do for ourselves.  This means that we have determinism.  We can choose to do what we want to occupy our time.  We can set goals for ourselves and acknowledge who we are.  I think that our freedoms are present in our everyday lives.  For example, I decide what my own sequence of actions will be and these actions have consequences.  I can go to class everyday.  I can get my homework down in a timely fashion.  I can do chores and get errands taken care.  These actions have consequences in the long run.  If I go to class, I can pursue my education and get a degree.  If I get my homework done, I can be prepared for class and make better grades. If I get chores and errands done, I can be better organized.  However, the opposite of doing these things is not doing them. In class we talked about humans fleeing from themselves.  I have the freedom to choose not to do something. This is a part of are freedom as human beings.  I can say no to anything.  I can choose not to do the actions mentioned earlier. I can choose not to take drugs and alcohol.  Ultimately, the freedom to not do things can lead to positive or negative ends.  If i choose to go to class, this action would lead to a positive end because I am getting my education and I am not being counted as absent.  I can choose to say no to drugs and alcohol.  This choice would be positive because I can prevent myself from becoming addicted and dependent upon a substance and risking my health as well as my future.  In the end our decisions define who we are and lead us down a certain path.
In conclusion,  humans and objects both exist in the natural world.  Object are definite and cannot change.  Humans ultimatelty use objects and make observations about them.  However, humans existence will always remain separate from objects because human have the ability to make choices.  Humans can set their own goals and influence their own outcomes.  In the end we are responsible for who we are. I think that later on we come to realize the reason for our existence. From our experiences we have the power to influence who we will become in the future.

Human being is a freedom

In class this week we read and discussed Sarte in his work Existentialism is a Humanism.  The title of this work means man creates his own destiny, and it is not predetermined for him by his faith or God.  Thus a man is responsible for his own actions and the consequences rather than believing the road he has taken was determined already and relying on God to lead him in the right direction.  Christians are very critical of this philosophy and thought it to be extremely pessimistic, but Christians are actually just fearful of this out look because if it were true then they would be in despair because they would not know how to act if their lives were solely based on action and not their faith.  Furthermore existentialism is viewed as pessimistic because for any action one makes people can blame that action with the typical saying that it’s only human, and Sarte many times seems almost naturalistic throughout this work and portrays humans as ugly and vulgar.  In this negative view of humans I do no think Sarte is illustrating pessimism, but rather he is actually being optimistic and hopeful that men would take hold of this philosophy of his in the cruel and vulgar human world and take responsibility for their actions.       Furthermore Sarte not only believes in existence before essence, but also believes a human being is a freedom.  What he means by this is that the essence of a human is freedom.  This makes me think about the example we discussed in class of being a vegetable and if person is indeed still a hum.  Clearly they do not have any freedom left if they are brain dead and never have the chance of waking up.  But I still struggle to say that a person in a coma is not a human.  I do believe in this notion that a human being’s essence is freedom, and therefor I believe that a vegetable has some freedom that we cannot perceive. Maybe it is the freedom of their soul or something, but I cannot bring myself to believe that this person in a coma is not free.  Ever human being will never have an instance in which they are not free, and even though I cannot tell what it is for a vegetable I believe there is some freedom deep down that still makes them a human.