Homework for the week of 12/10

Read Nietzsche, Essay #2 from the Genealogy of Morals. Focus on sections: 2, 10, 12, 16-18 For Monday, 12/17 -- Please read Hannah Arendt, "Civil Disobedience"

Questions and Homework

Please feel free to comment on this post with answers to any of these questions: 1. What is the jump from value to "use value"? Why can't value be determined at the moment of transaction based on the commodity's use-value to the buyer? It seems that Marx is trying to set up the introduction of money as a constant-value commodity. Is this an accurage assumption to make? 2. Does Marx address inflation/currency changing value? This seems like it would change the whole system. 3. Is communism Marx's answer to 'bad' capitalism? Is the M=C=M cycle bad? 4. How are the special use value and formal use value related? How do they compare to actual use value? 5. You keep talking about how Marx would not necessarily agree with our current interpretations of communism. What are those differences between how he views it and we do? 6. Marx describes the overthrowing of the bourgeoise as violent and a veiled civil war. Is that the only effective way to get rid of bourgeoisie? 7. How would Marx characterize the ideal revolution? 8. If the bourgeoisie become unnecessary and are eventually ousted by the proletariats what system will come next? Will this be a better economic system or a more even and fair system? 9. Where do societies come from? Is there any kind of living beyond the societal and economic ways we live? 10. What would Marx think about the massive communies that were created in Soviet Russia? Although they were created for the benefit of the people, they seem eerily similar to a capitalist factory. 11. How do the lumpenproletariat effect the system if the system falls apart with the impoverishment of the proletariat? HOMEWORK: READ MARX, "ON THE JEWISH QUESTION" FOR MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26th (AND HAPPY THANKSGIVING BREAK)

Paper Assignment

Due: Monday, December 3 Length: 6ish pages Please construct a substantial re-write of the first paper of the year. You may use aspects of your first paper, but this paper ought to be vastly different. The questions are: How do we create individuality? How do we make personal sacrifice for collective gain? To what extent do we construct our own identities and to what extent are the constructed by society? What’s being represented when societies interact with each other? You MUST cite: Plato, Kant, Hegel and Marx in your response. You may cite any other philosophy from the terms.

Hegel and Freud

On the surface Hegel and Freud do not seem to have much in common, one being a classically trained and very traditional philosopher in every sense of the word, while the other is a progressive psychoanalyst trained in medicine, leading and creating a field of therapy. And indeed the goals of each in his writing come from and are focused towards very different ends. However beyond these obvious differences, are congruencies that make each an interesting tool to have in examining the other.

            Hegel believes that we create our perception and self-consciousness through the process of sublation, or in German aufheben. The idea being that we gain meaning from the world through our creation of a synthesis between what we know to be us, and what we know to be other, our sublation of these two creates something that is both a negation of the two as well as a combination of the two. We create self consciousness through the sublation of another sentient being, by realizing that another person is both not our selves and is also a self-conscious being we view ourselves through the lens of another, allowing us to create our identity as a self conscious being. Hegel says that “Each is the mediating term to the other, through which each mediates and unites itself with itself; and each is to itself and to the other an immediate self-existing reality, which, at the same time, exists thus for itself only through this mediation.” (231) The self-consciousness of one is created by the recognition of itself by the other, and of the other by itself. This constant sublation with others creates our identities as self-conscious beings. However while simple recognition is enough to create our identities as “people”, it is only through a “life-and-death struggle” that an individual can be recognized as an independent self-consciousness. This creates a relationship of the master to the bondsman. In which one of the individual’s existences relies completely on that of the other. However the original ability of each to recognize each other as independent being breaks down, because one (the bondsman) has no consciousness not created by the master. The bondsman eventually becomes the only one of the two able to undergo the sublation to create his identity because he is the only one exposed to a consciousness that is not created by his own.

            Freud starts from a very different base and in his essay on “Civilizations and it’s discontents” yet reaches conclusions, while markedly different in form, seem not to far gone from the general thoughts of Hegel. Freud believes that the life of a man is focused on acquiring that which brings him pleasure, and that the highest level of pleasure is a sexual pleasure. His desire, his Id, pushes on his mind constantly to do what will make him the happiest. He believes that above all else our goal in life as human beings is to achieve happiness. This then leads to the creation of relationships with others that will allow us to gain happiness or to minimize or mask unhappiness.  “Life, as we find it, is too hard for us;” he writes “it brings us too many pains, disappointments and impossible tasks. In order to bear it we cannot dispense with palliative measures... There are perhaps three such measures: powerful deflections, which cause us to make light of our misery; substitutive satisfactions, which diminish it; and intoxicating substances, which make us insensible to it.” (14) He writes that as we grow and develop we are shaped by our failures and sadness whether consciously or not.

            In these ways we can see both differences and similarities between Hegel and Freud. I believe that in terms of our relationships with other people both Hegel and Freud seem to believe that the existence and action of others towards ourselves creates our identities. Hegel however believes in recognition of the other through negation and sublation to create self-conscious identity. Freud on the other hand views our relationships with others as a way for us to achieve happiness or as a vehicle of sadness. This sadness and happiness, being our drive for life, create our Id and therefore the driving force behind both our thoughts and our actions.

for Tuesday (11/6)

Please read Marx, "The Communist Manifesto" (Part I), in dropbox for Tuesday's class. Please step it up on the blog-ness.

Group Three: Hegel vs. Freud

Hegel and Freud have differing views on inter-personal relationships, though both view them as a means to a specific end. Hegel believes that they can be used in conjunction with personal risk to help an individual self-actualize. Freud sees them as a way to approach the pursuit of happiness.

Hegel sees inter-personal relationships as opportunities for self-actualization. It is only through interaction with others that an individual can go through the process of sublation. Additionally, Hegel believes that taking risks (specifically risking life) allows for the possibility of learning more about oneself. In Lordship and Bondage Hegel posits that, “the individual, who has not staked his life, may, no doubt, be recognized as a person; but he has not attained the truth of this recognition as an independent self-consciousness,” (Hegel 233). Attempting to combine these two beliefs that Hegel holds would result in an individual taking a big risk in an inter-personal relationship. believe that this is possible through a declaration of love.

Freud agrees with me, stating that, “He (man) made himself dependent in a most dangerous way on a portion of the external world, namely, his chosen love-object, and exposed himself to extreme suffering if he should be rejected by that object or should lose it through unfaithfulness or death,” (Freud 4496). For Hegel, taking a risk like a declaration of love would allow for the possibility of total enlightenment concerning the self. This self-understanding is, Hegel believes, the real value of inter-personal relationships.

Freud believes that inter-personal relationships are necessary for the pursuit of happiness. Specifically, the pathway to happiness requires risking the same love declaration that he himself believes is a dangerous risk to take.  The reason to take that risk is the pursuit of happiness. Freud believes that love (originally sexual love) is the grounding for all human happiness. “Man’s discovery that sexual (genital) love afforded him the strongest experiences of satisfaction, and in fact provided him with the prototype of all happiness,” (Freud 4496). If love is a risk worth taking, then happiness is very important. Therefore, the entire purpose of inter-personal relationships, according to Freud, is the pursuit of happiness.

Both Hegel's and Freud's ideas concerning inter-personal relationships are valid, and both are logical. Their views are different, but both reflect the practicality of using something as simple as relationships with others to one’s advantage.

Hegel v. Freud

In an attempt to examine a meaningful comparison, I considered the somewhat specific contrast between the significance of relationships on the distinction of self for Hegel and Freud.  In Lordship and Bondage, Hegel sees the relationship between two selves as the only means of achieving self-consciousness. In Civilization and Discontents, one of Freud’s (possibly less significant) claims is that only during relationships of true love do mature people allow the divide between ego and the outside world become blurred comfortably, therefore dissolving a consideration of otherness mature people otherwise maintain throughout their existence.

Hegel states “[Self-consciousness] is only by being acknowledged or “recognized”.” (p. 83) He is arguing that, during the sublation of the other, the self is simultaneously realizing that the other is an other but also considering that other to be unreal, or a reflection of the self. The two selves become a master and a bondsman, each of which is the same as the other but also opposite. Therefore, the bondsman, through being the opposite of a “consciousness repressed within itself” (p. 87) and also a dependent consciousness (such as the master), is actually an independent consciousness (I think, although I actually am pretty unsure that I actually understand). Regardless of whether or not I actually understand what Hegel is saying about how one becomes independently self-consciousness, it seems safe to say it requires some kind of relationship.

Freud’s maintains, conversely, that “the ego seems to maintain clear and sharp lines of demarcation. There is only one state - admittedly an unusual state, but not one that can be stigmatized as pathological - in which it does not do this. At the height of being in love the boundary between ego and object threatens to melt away. Against all the evidence of his senses, a man who is in love declares that ‘I’ and ‘you’ are one, and is prepared to behave as if it were a fact.” (p. 5) He continues that love isn't the only time we are concrete about the distinction between our selves and the outside world, or that “the feeling of our own ego is subject to disturbances and the boundaries of the ego are not constant,” (p. 5), but we are consensually allowing for the blur of independence while we are in love.

In conclusion, Hegel sees relationships as the only means of self-recognition, while Freud sees relationships as the only time we allow ourselves to abandon our sense of independence. 

homework and a new blog post

For Monday, please read Freud Civilization and Its Discontents chapters 1, 2, 4, and 8. (Hopefully, you have already read some of this). Also for Monday, one member of each group needs to respond to the following question: Compare and contrast what Hegel and Freud say about you and your relationships with others. Please cite the text. The rest of your group MUST COMMENT on this post and sustain the intellectual conversation.

homework for Friday

Please read Giorgio Agamben, from means without end

PAPER TOPIC #2

For Monday, October 22nd, please write a 4-5 page paper that addresses the following questions: In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." What is the "pursuit of happiness" and how should society be structured in order to maximize this goal? What is your obligation to the ensuring the happiness of anyone else? Your paper MUST CITE: Plato, Kant, and at least one of Locke, Hobbes, Rawls, Rousseau (and by cite, we mean quote!) This paper is due on paper, in your folders, in class.

homework for Tuesday

For tomorrow (Tuesday) please read Rawls, The Issue of Overlapping Consensus, to page 10.

Group 2: Kant-Ferriss

 Immanuel Kant would use Tim Ferriss as a prime example of how an individual should not behave in society. Ferriss' “overarching interest in gaming the system” directly violates Kant's categorical imperative, which states, “maxims must be chosen as if they were to hold as universal laws of nature.” If Ferriss' selfish and deceiving ways were the universal norm, there would be no progression towards enlightenment, for all individuals would be shaping their beliefs on false pretenses. For example, Ferriss would not want all travelers to take his advice of putting a pistol in their luggage, for then he would have no advantage. Kant would say that Ferriss' actions relate to the hypothetical imperative, for Ferris knows from experience that his strategy works in “diminishing or altogether eliminating the possibility” of losing luggage.

Kant encourages the sharing of ideas, and says that for enlightenment, “all that is needed is freedom,” of public knowledge, and the courage to spread personal beliefs in order to help others reach an enlightened state. However, he would say that Ferris is using his freedom in the wrong way. Kant says that “a man of learning may through his writings address a public in the truest sense of the word, he may indeed argue without harming the affairs in which he is employed.” While Ferris is not literally employed by the TSA, he is a workering member of a greater community, and by publicly advocating dishonesty, he is harming his “employer,” his colleagues and himself.

Furthermore, In Kant's system, a person is never to be treated as a means, but always as an end. Ferriss sees organizations and people as a means by which to gain an unfair and exclusive advantage. To Kant, “good action consists in mental disposition, not consequences.” Ferriss does not suffer any apparent consequences from his actions, but his mental disposition is selfish and corrupt, so his actions are bad. Ferriss is not unique is his actions. “Selfishness run amok is a national disease,” and Kant would say that this is due in part to immaturity and laziness. He would say to Ferriss and his converts, “have courage to use your own understanding!”

Kant vs Ferriss

       The vision of society Immanuel Kant constructed allowed for the challenge and discussion of each individual’s differing goodness.  More importantly, his society could only function with the use of the categorical imperative, or the “golden rule.”  Kant believed that each person should act in a way they would like to universalize, and treat others as an end, and not as a means: “For all rational beings stand under the law that each of them should treat himself and all others never merely as means but always at the same time as an end in himself.” (Kant 39)  By violating the categorical imperative, one would interfere with the autonomy and dignity of another.  Kant believed every action should be judged on the action itself, and not on what it accomplished, writing, “It is not concerned with the matter of the action and its intended result, but rather with the form of the action and the principle from which it follows...” (Kant 26)     

Tim Ferriss, a best-selling author and instructor on how to be an asshole, has made his “globs of money” by rejecting Kant’s philosophy.  Ferriss preaches at the church of entitlement.  He scams, he cheats, and his actions are justified by their end.  Ferriss seems to be living his life with the belief that someone else will screw him over if he doesn’t do it first, whether it be an airport security personnel or the government.  “His overarching interest in gaming the system at hand is mirrored in other Americans’ behavior. So is his emphasis on personal advantage over the public good, which would be undermined if every traveler did as he counseled.” (Bruni)  

Kant wouldn’t know where to begin.  Ferriss interferes with others’ autonomy by lying, he instructs others on how to do the same, and takes advantage of others’ belief that they live in a society where honestly and integrity are valued.  If Ferriss’s actions were universalized, our system would fall apart.  Everyone would be attempting to take short cuts and cheat, and our systems established on honesty wouldn’t be able to function.  Though Ferriss’s actions accomplish whatever he is aiming for, without causing excessive harm to others, each action is intrinsically wrong.  His actions take away one’s ability to make informed decisions, and ultimately he shortchanges all those around him.              

Group 1 Oct. 4

Immanuel Kant and Timothy Ferriss agree on one major concept, that every individual lives with a sense of freedom.  To both, freedom is an inherent quality that every man and woman is graced with at birth.  The two differ, however, in their beliefs on how that inherent freedom is expressed.  There are two basic ways an individual can act out his/her freedom, the first being in a moral way, and the other in an immoral way.  In Kantian terminology, this choice between acting morally or immorally is found manifest in Kant’s idea of the categorical imperative, or in other words, A Priori.  If every individual of Kant’s ideal state lives in moral A Priori, Kant believes the state can function in a status of near perfection.

In contrast to moral A Priori is its inverse, immoral A Priori.  To Kant, what constitutes as immoral is any individual acting in a way that takes away from the granted autonomy and dignity of every citizen.  And to make sure this ideal is respected, Kant believes it is the responsibility of every individual and of the state “to stop anyone forcibly hindering others from working as best they can to define and promote their salvation” (What is Enlightenment 58). 

Kant’s beliefs make it easy to see the vast difference between him and the ideals held by Ferriss.  Contrary to Kant, Ferriss believes that “personal advantage over the public good” (Individualism in Overdrive) is how every individual is entitled to act.  A prime example showed in the article is his idea to bring unloaded firearms in your luggage, so that you won’t have to worry about losing it.  The outcome of this is that “It’s extra work and fretting for them (security administration) but, hey, you get peace of mind. Isn’t that what counts?” (Individualism in Overdrive).   

In an idealistic, prefect state, Kant believes there must be peace between citizens. What this entails is mutual respect between citizens, but more than just that the respect to the laws of conduct within the state.  Those being, “Act always according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will” (Metaphysics of Morals 437), and, “Act according to maxims which can at the same time have for their object themselves as universal laws of nature.  In this way there is provided the formula for an absolutely good will” (Metaphysics of Morals 437).  If every citizen acts under these rules than the state will be successful, but if individuals such as Timothy Ferriss become part of the state then that success will be no more, for there will be an impediment on the other citizens.  That being that their right to autonomy and dignity would not be respected.  Kant would despise Ferris as part of any society because of the ideals and actions he embodies.

   

also...

If you are looking for more explanation of the a priori or the nature of empirical reason, please check dropbox for Kant's Introduction to the Critique of Pure Reason. It's not too long, but it might help you to understand a bit more of what we're talking about here.

Next blog assignment and homework for Friday

For Friday, one member of each group needs to respond to the following question. All members of the group (writer and commenters) need to read the article in the attached link. What would Kant think about Ferris or this philosophy of life? Be specific. Quote the readings. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/opinion/bruni-individualism-in-overdrive.html?hp For Friday, please read Kant's Perpetual Peace (in dropbox).

Group 2

In his Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke argues that a social contract is a, “society of men constituted only for the procuring, preserving, and advancing of their own civil interests.” (Locke, 1) Men agree to come together under a ruling power in order to increase their lands and prosperity, and for that reason give the government,  “the force and strength of all his subjects, in order to the punishment of those that violate any other man's rights.” (Locke, 1) The government was created to protect each man’s estate, meaning that its, “jurisdiction reaches only to these civil concernments.” Locke argues that a government’s, “power consists only in outward force” (1) and since no man, “can be compelled to the belief of anything by outward force,” (1) that when a ruling power oversteps its bounds and tries to force an agenda or certain beliefs upon its subjects, it creates a division between the public and the private of the self. A government cannot force a man to believe anything, so it should keep from attempting to influence its citizens beliefs in any way, instead it should focus on what it was created for: the protection of its subjects and their material possessions.

            Hobbes, on the other hand, believes that men enter social contracts not to increase their estate, but rather to achieve a secure and peaceful state. He argues that while men are in a natural state they have unlimited freedom, but “as long as every man holdeth this right, of doing anything he liketh; so long are all men in the condition of war.” (Hobbes, 7) Since man’s primary motivation is self-preservation, he will enter into a social contract and, “lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself,” (Hobbes, 7) in order to be granted safety and security. Since difference in ideals and beliefs can cause conflict and endanger the subjects of a ruling power, it should enforce a certain values in the interest of safety.

            Plato sees things differently. If one decides to remain in a society where the government forces certain beliefs or ideals upon its subjects, all the while having the “liberty to leave” (Crito, 9) and never arguing that its, “covenants appeared to you to be unfair,” (Crito 9), then one cannot break, “the covenants and agreements which you made at your leisure, not in any haste or under any compulsion or deception,” the moment he is found to be in violation of the social contract. Plato believes that if one voluntarily decides to enter into a social contract and then lives under this social contract, he should not, “run away and forsake his agreements,” (Crito, 9), but instead face the consequences of his actions.

           

           

 Sorry, I had internet problems for a while