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?