Thursday, October 18, 2012
Communism and Human Nature
In class today we were discussing Karl Marx's views on capitalism. One of the topics of discussion was that capitalism and the idea of private property is detrimental to society because it makes people greedy. This greed is something that Marx says promotes the bourgeoisie to create more and more surplus value by exploiting the proletariat more. This creates a class divide that will eventually lead to revolution that creates a communist society where people put in what they can and take out what they need. I personally do not believe that Marx is correct by thinking that this will continue to happen overtime with a completely free society. I think that the only way a communist society works on a large scale is through oppression through violence or the threat of violence. I think this is due to the fact that over time people would begin to put in less than they can and take out more. Humans are driven by survival so in a society where people can take what they need, the people do not have an incentive driven by survival to work. Once the strongest force driving people to work is eliminated, complacency emerges and people become lazy and live of the work of other people. In this system the society collapses unless there is a threat to the citizens survival which historically in most communist countries have come from the government in the form of violent oppression. Communism does succeed in creating a single class and eliminates the proletariat and bourgeoisie but it still creates an oppressed and an oppressor. In this way communism still does not eliminate a divide in the community.
The second aspect of communism that I do not agree with is the absence of private property. Private property and its acquisition is one of the driving forces in not only capitalism but throughout history. It is human nature to acquire property and I do not believe that it is something that has been pressured onto humanity as Marx says. People need to know that they have ownership of certain things especially those of which are vital to their survival for instance, a house or clothing. If a community is deprived of the right to private property there wont be a drive to obtain property that can better ensure survival. Although Marx's communist ideas work in theory I personally do not think that human nature aligns completely with his ideas and it is evident in history that communist countries fail and revert to capitalism like the Soviet Union, or can only perpetuate communism through strict and violent oppression like North Korea.
Friday, October 12, 2012
A Culmination of Ideas
This week we were focus on the reviewing for the midterm exam. So I feel like at this point we have addressed a variety of materials and in this post, I would just like to find a way to sum up the main ideas that we have covered and a culmination of our readings and discussions. Then I would like to address some of the ideas presented in Hegel since that was on the tail end before the test.
In my opinion most of the texts were centered around humans and our conscious decision making. For example, in Machiavelli's The Prince, Machiavelli writes about how the prince should rule the state and strive to protect his empire. He has to decide how he is going to lead and learn how to utilize his personal qualities to his advantage. Luther's text addresses the topic of free will and how humans choose to lead their lives. As humans we have the right to make choices, whether or not they are positive or negative. Nothing can hold us back. Additionally, Kant talks about his own existence and how he can use his imagination to prove the presence of God. I think that each text acknowledges the responsibilities of each human. We should strive to make the best decisions for ourselves and also to benefit others.
Also many of our texts are related to the human mind. For example, Kant often refers to the separate existence of the mind and the soul. He also uses his imagination to explain certain concepts. For example, he uses the idea of a rhombus inscribed in a circle to prove the existence of God. Further more, in class we discuss concepts that relate to knowledge. For example we talked about intrinsic qualities. We also talked about the idea of a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge. Thus, I think that our texts are centered upon how we evolve as humans and develop our intellect. We can do this in numerous ways. We can expand our moral viewpoints. We can seek to become less ignorant and expand our knowledge about things that we are indifferent to. We can learn things from life experiences. Even though I have not addressed all of the terms that we covered in class, I think that it is safe to say that many of them can be applied to our everyday life. We should seek to continue to foster them.
Now, I would like switch over to Hegel's viewpoints about the struggle for recognition. I believe that this text is meaningful because it relates to society today. Today we see different groups arising and striving to prove their points. For example their are issues regarding gay rights and women's rights today. There are also controversial religious issues that are being presented. Hegel's ideas support the notion that the need for competition and debate is inevitable. The essential thing that many groups and individuals try to attain is understanding to a certain extent even if they have opposing viewpoints towards another group. Everyone wants to get their point across and if they are successful at doing this, they have accomplished something.
I would love to gain more feed back about everything that we have covered in general. If you guys have any ideas about any broad topic that we have covered be sure to comment. I have not covered all of the main ideas about all of the books so I would love to hear what you have to say.
In my opinion most of the texts were centered around humans and our conscious decision making. For example, in Machiavelli's The Prince, Machiavelli writes about how the prince should rule the state and strive to protect his empire. He has to decide how he is going to lead and learn how to utilize his personal qualities to his advantage. Luther's text addresses the topic of free will and how humans choose to lead their lives. As humans we have the right to make choices, whether or not they are positive or negative. Nothing can hold us back. Additionally, Kant talks about his own existence and how he can use his imagination to prove the presence of God. I think that each text acknowledges the responsibilities of each human. We should strive to make the best decisions for ourselves and also to benefit others.
Also many of our texts are related to the human mind. For example, Kant often refers to the separate existence of the mind and the soul. He also uses his imagination to explain certain concepts. For example, he uses the idea of a rhombus inscribed in a circle to prove the existence of God. Further more, in class we discuss concepts that relate to knowledge. For example we talked about intrinsic qualities. We also talked about the idea of a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge. Thus, I think that our texts are centered upon how we evolve as humans and develop our intellect. We can do this in numerous ways. We can expand our moral viewpoints. We can seek to become less ignorant and expand our knowledge about things that we are indifferent to. We can learn things from life experiences. Even though I have not addressed all of the terms that we covered in class, I think that it is safe to say that many of them can be applied to our everyday life. We should seek to continue to foster them.
Now, I would like switch over to Hegel's viewpoints about the struggle for recognition. I believe that this text is meaningful because it relates to society today. Today we see different groups arising and striving to prove their points. For example their are issues regarding gay rights and women's rights today. There are also controversial religious issues that are being presented. Hegel's ideas support the notion that the need for competition and debate is inevitable. The essential thing that many groups and individuals try to attain is understanding to a certain extent even if they have opposing viewpoints towards another group. Everyone wants to get their point across and if they are successful at doing this, they have accomplished something.
I would love to gain more feed back about everything that we have covered in general. If you guys have any ideas about any broad topic that we have covered be sure to comment. I have not covered all of the main ideas about all of the books so I would love to hear what you have to say.
Friday, October 5, 2012
Doth unto God
In a bold attempt, I'd like to answer a question from Luke: what is the morality of things we do to God?
If God cannot be immoral, whatever he does to us cannot be immoral, then if we do the same thing to God, would our action be also moral?
Kant does not see God in a traditional sense, but as a moral ideal. As Dr. J points out in class the traditional God is omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omnipresent. However I do not find in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals a reference to God other than “the idea of moral perfection” (27).
This means, if God is rational, then His reason infallibly determines the will (31). Therefore, his action is “objectively necessary” and “subjectively necessary”. It is subjectively necessary because God has no choice but to produce a will that only follows His reason, completely a priori and completely good. This necessary good will cannot but produce the maxim on which He aught to act. A rational being’s will is a condition of her action. If God can have nothing but a good will, he can do nothing but a good action.
However, if this God Kant speaks of is the one described in the Old Testament, we see a possible contradiction. God does things as horrible as holocaust, on the basis of its aim for a greater good. This kind of action based on hypothetical imperative is the last thing Kant would call moral. We must either assume that Kant is talking about a different God than the Old Testament God, or assume that the good outcomes are not the motivation for God's superficially immoral actions. The former is a likelier case of the two; we can just say that Kant’s God is only an idea of the morally perfect and nothing else. For Kant, the Old Testament and all other accounts of God alike are only mythical tales (which is a notion widely held among the renaissance intellectuals).
If we have to say God, as a rational being, did things such as mass murder to humanity, and we accept that God’s actions to be good because they follow a priori objective principles, then we come into a situation where we cannot see God’s reason as the same as that of humans’, a position impossible in Kant’s moral framework. For Kant, all rational beings share the same kind of reason, which under no influence of material/experience can only produce objective principles that are valid for all rational beings (38).
If we say God is in deed rational in the same way rational humans are rational, his reason is independent of the condition of the object, and his holocaust necessarily follows an objective principle that is valid for all rational beings. Would this mean holocausts committed by humans unto other rational beings must follow an objective principle? No. The actions of holocaust only have moral import if the human subject conducts it from her will following strictly objective principles that she follows by obeying categorical imperative. This leads to a disturbing result: holocaust can have moral import when they are done following an objective principle (which is generalizable).
To finally answer the question, if a human does horrible things to God, let’s say blasphemy (which is the only one I can think of that is feasible), the bad words are moral under one condition, namely when she blasphemes against God solely out of duty to obey categorical imperative. Now we need to think if we would speak irreverently against other people in a kingdom of ends. Our reason alone (supposedly) tells us no.
Among the answers I present here concerning what Kant thinks of the actions God does to humans, the only one that does not lead to contradiction is the first proposed: God is only an idea for Kant and therefore he does not account for any action God does in the Old Testament. However what we humans do to God does have moral import if we do them out of respect for the objective principle. The moral import of what we do to God is not different from that of any action we do to any other rational being.
Here is my question: do humans have more freedom when the moral imports of their actions are in theory attainable by merit of their reason, though not likely in the real world, as Kant argues? In this sense, humans are less morally perfect than God only because they cannot escape from a material world filled with experiences and therefore have to follow categorical imperatives to be moral. How do you feel about the idea that without experiences of our material world, we will be the same as God?
If You Can't Beat 'Em, Join 'Em
"If you look upon the world rationally, then world looks rationally back." Is this statement true? During the class discussion on Thursday, I was asking myself this question. Why is rationality so highly valued amongst philosophers? The obvious answer is that rational thinking is responsible for nearly all human advancement. But what does it mean for the world to look rationally back upon you? I eventually came to the conclusion that if you look upon the world rationally, then things tend to make sense. There is no doubt that Hegel's "Lordship and Bondage" was incredibly difficult to read, but after Dr. J made sense of the conglomeration of words, I finally began to understand the dialectic. Dr. J explained that in a dialectic argument, you have a Thesis and an Antithesis that is met with a negation, and from that negation we are met with a synthesis and another antithesis which stems a negation from the original negation. This process continues until we reach an absolute. My question to this is that if this absolute is found using fool-proof rationality, is the reasoning of the "absolute" infallible? Moreover, is it possible for humans to be capable of infallible reasoning? Theoretically it is true, however failures of human reasoning make it unlikely. I believe with rational reasoning, the Dialectic's "absolute" is capable of being completely true.
However, what I found most interesting about Thursday's class was the idea of a "Contest for the will of recognition." This so called contest is one of those concepts that you never really realize, but we experience it nearly every day. Lars gave a good example of a good ole fashioned stare down, and the first to look away is the recessive personality, while the the other is the dominant. What is interesting about this so called battle is that, according to Hegel, it is a battle to the death, because if one does not recognize the other as a rational being, then they essentially go off and die. This consequence leads to the conclusion that mutual recognition is necessary, because without it, there is no starting point. So, from Hegel's perspective, the only way to win is to mutually recognize the other self consciousness, because if you don't, you die. So I guess if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
However, what I found most interesting about Thursday's class was the idea of a "Contest for the will of recognition." This so called contest is one of those concepts that you never really realize, but we experience it nearly every day. Lars gave a good example of a good ole fashioned stare down, and the first to look away is the recessive personality, while the the other is the dominant. What is interesting about this so called battle is that, according to Hegel, it is a battle to the death, because if one does not recognize the other as a rational being, then they essentially go off and die. This consequence leads to the conclusion that mutual recognition is necessary, because without it, there is no starting point. So, from Hegel's perspective, the only way to win is to mutually recognize the other self consciousness, because if you don't, you die. So I guess if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
Hegel with Relation to Foreign Policy
I find strange at how easily one could relate Hegel’s
philosophies on Lordship and Bondage to the many political policies and
strategies of the modern era. Though it may not be the case, it has always
seemed to me that much of history was consumed deciding the right course of
action in dealing with other foreign powers.
That being said, could Hegel’s thoughts
on Lordship and Bondage be accurately translated into the framework of a
foreign policy?
With the recent presidential debate droning on in the
background, it didn't take much for me to try to make a connection between
Hegel and politics. It is only fitting that I try to bring our class to discuss
what perhaps Hegel would say in regard to foreign policy.
Hegel relates one's consciousness and the outside world through a class warfare model. “The Lord” proves his own self-consciousness
through subjugating the “Bondsman” whose consciousness is denied. With regards
to Mr. Romney, would a modern Hegel deem it crazy to put some 2 trillion
dollars back into our defense budget when it protects the security of America and her future? In his website’s national security page Mitt vows he “will
safeguard America and secure our country’s interests and most cherished ideals”.
In order to protect our countries “consciousness” is it necessary to carry the
big stick?
Professor Johnson spoke during class of risking your life to
prove your own will and how if you die you gain nothing. It would follow that if
we have the means to do so, why should we not ensure our own independence and
success? In Romney’s political scheme, being Hegel’s “Lord” is a necessary role
to fill within our world. Romney’s strategy, I believe, would have the return
of authoritarianism and have us subjugating foreign powers to assert our own dominance.
It is my contention that President Obama’s foreign policy
almost fits this same structure but in an almost role reversal. Instead of
being the Lord, America’s foreign policy would grow to resemble the “Bondsman”
and his struggle for self-consciousness. Under Obama we would no longer have
the ability to assert our own independence through the negation of other
foreign powers. With no “Lord” in existence we would struggle to understand our
countries identity without the ability to manipulate others. Is this feasible
or is it just a dream? Is a Lord necessary for political stability along with
the dialectic method?
Can we analogize a countries foreign policy as a sort of self-consciousness?
Is Obama employing a foreign policy that extends beyond the
realm of Hegel?
An American Century | Mitt
Romney for President. (n.d.). Mitt
Romney for President | Mitt
Romney for President of the United States of
America in 2012. Retrieved October 4,
2012,
from http://www.mittromney.com/collection/foreign-policy
The Master Slave Relationship in Every Day Life
Yesterday we attempted to understand Hegel. With the guidance of Dr. J, the assigned reading of Lordship & Bondage made slightly more sense. We interact with one another in very different ways than how we interact with objects. Dr. J mentioned that we can find examples of Hegelian relationships everywhere and my blog post is going to attempt to explain some of those examples.
First, let's go over the master slave relationship. Hegel explains that when two people meet, there is a battle of recognition. What the subconscious wants, according to Hegel, is to be recognized as free by the other subconscious or will. He thinks this battle of recognition is a battle to the death because the way one can prove herself to be completely free is by freely choosing to die. After both free wills are in a situation where either will die, a type of paradox occurs where no matter what happens both people will lose (either they die, or the other person dies and the living person will not be recognized as free by anyone). Ultimately one person must choose to say, "Okay, you're free." In submitting to the other will, the person who realizes the lose/lose situation the two people are in becomes the 'slave' of sorts, while the person who did not realize the truth of the situation becomes the 'master' or person in power. This dynamic will be their entire relationship unless both people mutually recognize each others' freedom, only then can the dynamic not be that of the master/slave.
While I do not usually like pop culture references, I think we can try to actualize this master slave relationship by looking at popular couples in our media and seeing whether a reader or viewer would claim the couple mutually recognize each others' will and freedom:
Edward and Bella: The Twilight 'saga' in which a 100 year old vampire falls in love with a 17 year old almost character of a girl has been deemed on of our society's "best love stories" and a few critics have even tried to compare it to Romeo and Juliet. Let us attempt to see what sort of light Hegel sheds on their relationship. (Disclaimer: I have only read book 1, and it was years ago.) When Edward and Bella meet, Edward basically ignores Bella. As their relationship progresses, he is continually reminding her that without any exertion on his part he could kill her. Bella puts forth no real free identity towards him and does whatever he says. At many points, she restates that she cannot live without him. This is obviously a master slave relationship according to Hegel. Bella submits her will to Edward, recognizing him as the dominant and him as the free agent in their relationship. While Stephanie Meyer attempts to show Edward as just as submissive (by having him say things like, "my life was nothing without you") all of his actions suggest just the opposite: that he is the master of Bella.
Pam and Jim (from The Office): Pam and Jim are another pop culture couple that most viewers seem to not be able to see or discuss enough. I would argue that they do not mutually recognize each others' will until Jim professes his love for her in the end of Season 2. Before then, Pam was the master of Jim by not recognizing his freedom. Jim submits his will towards Pam and focuses most of his actions on her. When she rejects him in season 2, it gives him the motivation to act as a free willed agent.
So this could all be nonsense, but I was curious to see if I could apply Hegelian theory to pop culture.
First, let's go over the master slave relationship. Hegel explains that when two people meet, there is a battle of recognition. What the subconscious wants, according to Hegel, is to be recognized as free by the other subconscious or will. He thinks this battle of recognition is a battle to the death because the way one can prove herself to be completely free is by freely choosing to die. After both free wills are in a situation where either will die, a type of paradox occurs where no matter what happens both people will lose (either they die, or the other person dies and the living person will not be recognized as free by anyone). Ultimately one person must choose to say, "Okay, you're free." In submitting to the other will, the person who realizes the lose/lose situation the two people are in becomes the 'slave' of sorts, while the person who did not realize the truth of the situation becomes the 'master' or person in power. This dynamic will be their entire relationship unless both people mutually recognize each others' freedom, only then can the dynamic not be that of the master/slave.
While I do not usually like pop culture references, I think we can try to actualize this master slave relationship by looking at popular couples in our media and seeing whether a reader or viewer would claim the couple mutually recognize each others' will and freedom:
Edward and Bella: The Twilight 'saga' in which a 100 year old vampire falls in love with a 17 year old almost character of a girl has been deemed on of our society's "best love stories" and a few critics have even tried to compare it to Romeo and Juliet. Let us attempt to see what sort of light Hegel sheds on their relationship. (Disclaimer: I have only read book 1, and it was years ago.) When Edward and Bella meet, Edward basically ignores Bella. As their relationship progresses, he is continually reminding her that without any exertion on his part he could kill her. Bella puts forth no real free identity towards him and does whatever he says. At many points, she restates that she cannot live without him. This is obviously a master slave relationship according to Hegel. Bella submits her will to Edward, recognizing him as the dominant and him as the free agent in their relationship. While Stephanie Meyer attempts to show Edward as just as submissive (by having him say things like, "my life was nothing without you") all of his actions suggest just the opposite: that he is the master of Bella.
Pam and Jim (from The Office): Pam and Jim are another pop culture couple that most viewers seem to not be able to see or discuss enough. I would argue that they do not mutually recognize each others' will until Jim professes his love for her in the end of Season 2. Before then, Pam was the master of Jim by not recognizing his freedom. Jim submits his will towards Pam and focuses most of his actions on her. When she rejects him in season 2, it gives him the motivation to act as a free willed agent.
So this could all be nonsense, but I was curious to see if I could apply Hegelian theory to pop culture.
Understanding the M-S Dialectic
In
class on Thursday, we discussed Hegel’s Phenomenology
of the Spirit and the Hegelian dialectic. We discussed in depth Hegel’s Master-Slave Dialectic and attempted to
understand its complexity and real-world application. I found the material to
be a bit hard to grasp and exemplify. The dialectic can be an internal process
that develops the self-consciousness of a single entity or an external process
between two entities. In this dialectic, the two free consciousnesses meet and
realize the self as a foreign, or other, object. Before this moment, the
consciousness only encountered objects that did not resist its will. However,
each consciousness, one a thesis and the other an antithesis, has its own will
and wants to be certain of itself as a free agent. Immediately, both will that
they are free agents and a contest of wills for recognition as a free agent
ensues. This struggle is a matter of life and death because only a free agent
can freely chose to put its life on the line for freedom. However, if either consciousness
dies, there will be no one to recognize the other as a free agent. Finally, one,
the slave, concedes and recognizes the other, the master, as a free agent. In
this relationship, the slave does not freely recognize the master and the truth
of the master’s freedom lies within the slave.
In
this relationship, it is the slave who has the “power.” At first, the slave is
the unessential being and an object that constitutes the truth of the master’s
freedom. Therefore, the truth of the master’s freedom lies in the independent consciousness
of the slave. The slave believes the master to be its truth, but this is not
so. The master needs the slave because the slave is able to deal with
independent objects. The master is the dependent consciousness and the slave is
the independent consciousness. This independence comes from surrendering to the
master’s will. The slave, through the experience of the fear of death and the
concession of false recognition, has become being-for-self. Through work and
service, the slave will better understand the relationship of power. The slave
is able to creatively express himself by making things and, in this way, comes
to know his independence. This independence is not completely satisfying though
since the slave is still a subject to the master.
So,
each of us have a free consciousness that shares a relationship with the
consciousness we are aware of through the eyes of another. These “individuals”
struggle for recognition, but are dependent on one another. By mutually
recognizing one another, the realization of self-consciousness can be achieved.
That is, the awareness of another’s awareness of oneself. In achieving this, we
attain knowledge and develop. I could not think of an external relationship
that would exemplify this relationship clearly. If someone could provide one it
would be much appreciated
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)