I'm sure we're all relieved.

Hey guys, I know that we were all slightly concerned today about not having Professor Harwood around to guide us in class, but I know that we all were so relieved when just as we were about to start the Precis, Harwood waltzed in for class! And here we thought you were leaving us, golly, Professor, it was nice to have you with us today! :)

Class Tomorrow

All,

Here is the plan for class tomorrow. First, Steven and Lindsay will lead everyone through their joint precis. Second, I want the discussion to center around the list of terms I provided in my previous blog post. Third, I want you to be prepared with a class consensus on the meanings and importance of the terms insofar as Nietzsche uses them. Therefore, before you begin discussing them please elect a person to act as secretary for the discussion. There are obviously more and less important terms in that list, as well as some we have covered. So although I expect lively discussion (it is Nietzsche, after all), don't get bogged down with minutiae. The purpose of the exercise is to get you to be fluent with this text's technical vocabulary, which in part entails recognizing the relative purchase of any given term for the ideas presented overall.

On Tuesday we will finish Nietzsche, although make sure you get through the Solomon section on the calendar. I will be out of touch for most of the weekend, so don't be surprised if I don't respond to emails and whatnot in that time.

Cheers,

-W.

Words, Words, Words...

All,

It is easy to get lost in Nietzsche's prose, so in this post I am going to provide a list of terms you should notice as you read him. Even if you have already read him, I guarantee that these are basic to having anything like a working understanding of this text. So please make sure that you understand them insofar as he describes, defines and/or utilizes them. The alternative is


Genealogy
Value(s) and Moral(s, ity)
Good and Evil v. Good and Bad
Noble and Slave
"Jews" v. Judaism (e.g., for FN, Jesus is the highest and most natural expression of Judaism...)
ressentiment
Creativity v. passivity
Promises and Forgetfulness
Bad Conscience: Guilt (Schuld) and Debt (Schulden)
Justice and punishment
"Pregnant with a future"
Ascetic Ideals and Ascetic Priest (most impressive creation ever!)
Kant (Nietzsche's characterization)
Pity and Meaning of Suffering
Platonism = Christianity
Value of Truth Itself...

These should constitute signposts more than anything else. Sometimes it is hard to see what is important given such a short period of time, and such a text. Thus, my purpose here is not to scare or burden you, but to provide a useful guide of important moments in the process of thought that is the Genealogy. Again, avoid Sparknotes, Wiki, etc. on Nietzsche like the plague. The form and the content are united insofar as this is a process of thought rather than something which admits to summarization. In other words, love him or hate him, you have to read through it to get it. Otherwise, again,


One other thing: If you aren't paying attention, you may think that Nietzsche is an anti-Semite. If you came away with this impression, you need to read it again. Nietzsche actually considers the Jews the most creative and "willful" people in the history of the world, so it would be the grossest of contradictions for him to denigrate them. In short, it would be about as smart as this guy (and I really hope this picture is undoctored, and I believe it is genuine given the stupidity of the statement even if the spelling were correct...)


Cheers,

-W.

Thursday's Class

All,

First, correct me if I am wrong, but Steven and Lindsay have been assigned to do their precis on Tuesday and Thursday, respectively, on Nietzsche. I am going to make a change to this schedule. Since I will not be here on Thursday (as I have to go to a conference in DC), I am going to ask that each of you work together on Thursday's precis. This means that you will both write it (you will still divide the sections as previously stated; i.e., Steven will take everything up through Essay II, and Lindsay will take Essays II and III), and that you will both be prepared to lead class as normally expected in such circumstances. However, I want you both to collaborate in two ways: First, I want you both to contribute to the summary of Tuesday's class, to ensure that you clearly and adequately summarize the discussion; Second, I want you both to collaborate on your sections of the precis, in order to make sure you are on the same page. In other words, although I will expect the same amount of work from each of you as if these were separate isolated days, nevertheless I want you to work together in order to produce a cohesive product.

Please contact me as soon as possible if you have any questions about this. The basic logistical result is that there will be no precis for Tuesday (so if lightning strikes me you will have to fend for yourselves). Further, it means that you all need to read, and read thoroughly, and read the whole assignment. Nietzsche does not come easily, and you can't take him in slices, and you certainly can't get what you need from a precis (no matter how erudite and brilliant our two presenters may be).

Cheers,

-W.

Philosophizing With A Hammer

All,

Time to start reading Freddy. Your assignment for Tuesday is the entire Genealogy (including the Introduction and Preface, not the Appendix of Aphorisms). However, the precis assignment is everything up to the Second Essay. The precis for Thursday will be the Second and Third Essays. Regardless, you should be prepared to discuss the text in its entirety. It is a cohesive whole, in spite of the essays' appearance of discrete and separable theses.

Get started early. It is not a long reading assignment, but Nietzsche is not easy either.

Enjoy.

-W.

majors/minors meeting

Hey, sorry for the short notice, but the philosophy department majors/minors meeting is tonight at 6 in clough 302. Each of the philosophy teachers will be giving a brief overview of the courses they are teaching next semester. You don't have to be a philosophy major or minor to attend. there will be pizza and drinks.

"All The News That's Fit For Class"

All,

A couple of news stories that I thought might interest you. The first two are just hilarious. The third is of interest to our discussion of Marx (or for anyone who thinks that economics is sexy).

First, for those of you who might have been totally disturbed by the new liberal changes taking place in your local Anglican Diocese, the new See has offered you an out. As long as accepting gays and female priests infuriates you enough to disregard the entire philosophical and religious heritage of the Reformation, the Vatican assures you--in a move it swears is neither a power grab nor opportunistic in any way--that it will make concessions to ease your admission into the Communion. Sound too good to be true? Enjoy.

Second, there are already concerns amongst those who study the Church that this could cause problems. After all, one of the concessions is that if you are an Anglican priest, but you are married, no problem! Just bring your wife and we'll confirm your ordination as a Catholic priest (though you can't be a bishop for some reason). Some are concerned that this could lead to resentment or confusion amongst those of the Cloth, as it seems to disregard the ideological basis in favor of a practical opportunity as much as anything else. (NB: The ideological basis which at first required priests to marry, then condoned marriage, was only transformed into mandatory celibacy in the 11th century--interestingly enough, in favor of practical considerations as much as anything else.) So what now?

Third, American Public Media's show Marketplace had an interesting report on a new system for measuring poverty in the united states. It argues that the old system is antiquated and anachronistic, as it was developed over four decades ago and has not undergone any significant change in spite of obvious differences between today's marketplace and that of yesteryear. The interview should interest economists and readers of Marx's Gotha Program alike, as it is directly relevant to his critiques.

Cheers,

-W.

Helpful Quote

All,

I just read something regarding Aristotle's Ethics that is relevant and helpful for our discussion of Kant. Joe Sachs, quite possibly the most talented reader of ancient Greek alive, says of Aristotle's account of virtue that it is misunderstood and misrepresented by some as an artificial or "second" nature that we superimpose over our actual or primary nature. This is false, for "it is only in the moral virtues that we possess our primary nature, that in which all our capacities can have their full development. Moral virtue does not constrain a human being but completes us as a roof completes a house. The sign of what is natural, for Aristotle, is pleasure, but we have to know how to read the signs. Things pleasant by nature, he says, have no opposite pain and no excess, because they set us free to act simply as what we are " (Nicomachean Ethics, xv). This is an excellent way to describe both Aristotle and Kant's conception of their respective works (and helps explain why Kant discusses pleasure and happiness at the beginning of his work: he is completing Aristotle's work by correcting the locus of concern, not entirely divorcing himself from it). Regardless of whether Aristotle espouses virtue ethics or Kant his deontology, they both consider an individual's characteristic activity as a human being to be enacted or activated rather than spontaneously occurring. Put another way, they both would agree to a certain extent with Rousseau that we are incapable of acting freely (or, in Aristotle's terminology, as truly "human") if we are unreflective about our actions, as we then don't even know if our actions stem from external influences (for Kant and Aristotle, the inclinations or desires; for Rousseau, society). The point is that even if you think you are acting freely, if you have not explored your own self and your influences, if you have not done the work of moral philosophy, then you can't even tell the difference. However, if you do this work first--regardless of the results--then "once the earliest habits are neutralized, our desires are disentangled from the pressure for immediate gratification [read: to our inclinations or society's ingrained dictates], we are calm enough to think, and most important, we can see what is in front of us in all its possibility" (xix).

To act without reflection is by definition to be a slave, as you literally can only make a decision if it is a choice between known alternatives. Otherwise it is not a choice. In other words, even if you disagree with Kant or Rousseau, the validity of your disagreement is based upon your ability to articulate a justification of your actions--thereby proving that you to some extent, in principle, actually agree with them. (Of course, if your disagreement is invalid and is based solely on inclinations, e.g., "I don't agree with Kant because I like my life and I think his life would be boring or hateful or isn't borne out in experience or people are naturally selfish and duplicitous, etc.," then you are again proving them right by providing an unreflective disagreement which is based on external influences and betrays your sense of freedom of choice. This is not to say that they are absolutely, objectively "right." It is to say that in order to disagree with them you must understand their ideas sufficiently first--otherwise you may unwittingly provide an example which proves their points.)

Hope that helps.

-W.

American Public Opinion: Down the Rabbit Hole

All,

According to a poll at CNN, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just ranked the most popular person in the Executive Branch of government. Remember her? Next to Mr Limbaugh, the most polarizing public figure in America? At 65% or 2/3 approval ratings, she even beat the First Lady.

-W>

True Genius in Action

All,

I mentioned this to some of you previously. It is simply sublime. I highly recommend you have a look.

kthxbai.

-W.

UPDATE: Paipers ritn, n hole or n part, n LOL-translayshun, wil noe be exepted. Ceiling Cat sez DO NOT WANT noe exepshuns. Srsly.

Marx Reading and Calendar Updates

All,

Your reading can be found here. It is a short piece entitled the Critique of the Gotha Program. I have taught a number of different pieces by Marx over the years, but never this one. I chose it partially on the basis of it being a relatively quick read, so make sure you read are caught up and ready to discuss by Thursday.

I have decided to excise Darwin from our reading. Therefore, we will begin Nietzsche on Tuesday.

Hope you are enjoying your break.

-W.

Reminder: Hegel and Marx

All,

This is a reminder to make sure that you read Hegel before next class. In spite of what you may think due to prior classes, propagandist misconceptions, conservative pundits, etc., Marx is just like any other thinker we have read this semester insofar as his political theory and economy is based upon an entire metaphysical conception of the world. Marx's ideas stem directly from Hegel, particularly the Lordship and Bondage passage (which we read). In other words, Marx does not make much sense without Hegel. We will have to move quickly through Marx so that we don't fall further behind. Therefore I will have to assume familiarity with the Hegel and Marx readings for discussion on Thursday.

I will send the link for the reading from Marx shortly. It will be relatively short. Solomon provides an adequate summary of what is going on in Marx, so I'm hoping that by limiting the source materials everyone will come to class prepared.

Cheers,

-W.

(Uncle Karl would be more convincing with a cat in his beard, no?)

GitMo Update: Pontius Pilate

NB: Whenever I write something on Gitmo or include a link in a post, please note that this is part of the course materials. Admittedly, we aren't going to talk about these things until the end of the semester, so you need not read them immediately. Nevertheless, do not ignore them.

All,

On Thursday the House passed the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, which contained language regarding Mr Obama's pledge to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay and to deal with the prisoners there. This comes after weeks of opposition from the GOP (all but one Republican voted against the bill) and many Democrats, as they feared that detainees would be brought to US soil to face trial, that they would be moved to US maximum security prisons, or that they might even be released in the United States. I'm going to skip the details as to why these fears are variously unfounded, ridiculous, or patently unconstitutional, and reproduce below the language within the bill that deals with detainees. I'd like you to pay attention to the wording, and to think about the implications which it enshrines into law.

BEGIN TEXT

Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility: 1) Prohibits current detainees from being released into the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, DC, or any U.S. territory. 2) Prohibits current detainees from being transferred to the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, DC, or any U.S. territory, except to be prosecuted and only after Congress receives a plan detailing: risks involved and a plan for mitigating such risk; cost of the transfer; legal rationale and court demands; and a copy of the notification provided to the Governor of the receiving state 14 days before a transfer with a certification by the Attorney General that the individual poses little or no security risk. 3) Current detainees cannot be transferred or released to another country (including freely associated states) unless the President submits to Congress 15 days prior to such transfer: the name of the individual and the country the individual will be transferred to; an assessment of risks posed and actions taken to mitigate such risks; and the terms of the transfer agreement with the other country, including any financial assistance. 4) Requires the President to submit a report to Congress describing the disposition of each current detainee before the facility can be closed. 5) Bars the use of funds to provide any immigration benefits to GTMO detainees other than to allow them to be brought to the U.S. for prosecution. 6) Mandates the inclusion of all GTMO detainees on the TSA No Fly List.

END TEXT


Think about this for a moment. When the United States wrongfully accuses someone of a crime, arrests them, detains them, imprisons them, etc., the United States has a moral and legal responsibility to those wrongfully treated both to repair the damage done to their lives and to clear their names of the taint which has been laid unjustly upon them (to give a couple of examples of wrongful imprisonment suits in the last few months: a man in SF just won $7.5 million, one in Texas $5 million, one in Chicago $21 million). In this case, Congress has agreed to allow these folks to be tried, but only on the stipulation that they may not be released into the US, they may not fly in or over US airspace (which all but bars them from entering the US), and not a single US dollar can be used to fly them away from the US or in any other way related to them. In other words, if found innocent, they will either be flown in a military plane to some (as yet undefined) location, dropped off on non-US soil, and left to their own devices. (Incidentally, this has been going on, quietly, for years. Of the total number of Gitmo detainees, somewhere over 750 according to the DoD, only 250 remain. Some of those recognized to be not guilty have been flown out of the camp literally in the middle of the night, and dropped off across the world from where they were picked up without any money, contacts, or idea where they are.) Or some charitable country/organization/individual will have to pay for them to be flown to some specific place. (Some who the DoD admits are innocent, e.g., cases of mistaken identity, are still at Gitmo because no country has agreed to take them.)

In other words, the bill says: If found innocent, the US completely washes its hands of the last X number of days/weeks/years they have spent in prison, of any responsibility it has to rectify the lost time, to do anything to repair their lives, etc. If found guilty of some crime, the US has so little faith in its own correctional facilities (the only ones being considered are maximum security, reserved for the nation's worst) that it refuses to house them anywhere in the US.

Let's just take one simple aspect of this and think about it for a moment: imagine the government imprisoned you for no reason, held you for years, then found you innocent via a trial, then flies you not back to your home but to Algeria, then tells you that you still can't ever fly on an American plane because... because why? Because your proven innocence is a potential threat to US national security? Or because Congress is afraid of its own constituents thinking that they are "soft on terror"--even though you have been exonerated of any relationship with terror? Or because Congress is afraid that after spending several years in a legal limbo without rights/trial/evidence/charges, without access to family/lawyers/outside world, etc., etc., that--although you didn't want to kill Americans before--you might want to now?


(NB: This political cartoon has the audacity to parody MLK Jr's "Dream" speech to imply that everyone at Gitmo is guilty without trial, and that Obama is knowingly releasing terrorists. Stunning.)

-W.

Midterm Essay - Part 1/3

This is the First Post of the Midterm Assignment; make sure you read all three before you start writing anything.

In the next two posts you will find two different questions. Please choose ONE of them. Write your response in a word document. When you have finished, copy and paste it into the body of an email AND attach the document to the email. Please have your responses completed by 12.30 PM on WEDNESDAY. (I took an extra day to get the question to you, so I gave you an extra day. I do believe in procedural justice.)

New or old to philosophy and to my class, please read the following brief points which pertain to philosophy writing generally AND to this assignment particularly: (1) These are both big questions. Be thorough, but realistic: don't try to be exhaustive. Write what is relevant, skip what is not. Avoid florid prose and get to the point. (2) You need not worry about backing up your points with the texts; so long as your analysis is sound and your point clear, you may summarize the course materials as you would for an in-class test. I.e., you are not required to provide the same textual evidence you would need in a formal paper, though you may feel free to use the texts if you wish. It certainly cannot hurt. (3) Philosophy is not opinion. Strawmen are not philosophers. Make sure that you are dealing with the thinkers and their systems according to their texts, not your thoughts on their systems according to your prejudices. This isn't about what you thinkfeelbelieve, but about your ability to digest philosophical systems such that you can apply them to entirely foreign examples. (4) Don't freak out. The questions look bigger than they are, and I have provided ridiculously extensive guidelines. Enjoy your topic rather than fretting about it, and I guarantee your grade will reflect your enthusiasm. After all, people are always saying that philosophy isn't relevant or useful, that it is removed from life. Prove them wrong.

Have a good break. Bring me back some home-cooked foodz.

-W.

Midterm Essay - Part 2/3

This is the Second Post of the Midterm Assignment; make sure you read all three before you start writing anything.

Duties and Rights: The Screams of Kitty Genovese

(Yes, I know that I brought this up. However, I was inspired by your discussions.)

In the following, I will first present the relevant facts of the case. (This is all that will be considered. Regardless of whether you know more about the case, regardless of whether you have studied the case in other classes or heard that the case has been “mythologized” beyond the actual occurrence, etc., the situation should be discussed as I describe it. In other words, please do not bother with disputations regarding whether or not she was able to yell after the initial or the second attack, how many people actually hear, etc. Not only are these points irrelevant to the question at hand, they also have no bearing on the horror of the event.) I will then ask you to respond in two parts to the incident. Pay attention to the wording of each part of the question. Note that the witnesses are the subject of the question, not Ms Genovese or her attacker.

A little after 3 AM, Ms Genovese drove home from work. She parked about a hundred feet from her apartment building door, and headed home. A man named Winston Moseley approached her, attacked her with a knife, and stabbed her several times in the back. After she screamed repeatedly (including such things as “Oh My God!” “He stabbed me!” and “Help me!”) a man in a nearby apartment yelled at the attacker to leave her be. Mr Moseley ran away, and Ms Genovese staggered to her building. However, she was unable to enter (due to a locked door and/or her physical state). The attacker returned around ten minutes later, stabbed her repeatedly, then raped her. She continued to resist and yell, according to witnesses and forensic reports. She was still alive when he left, over thirty minutes after the initial attack. Several minutes later, a man called the police to report that a woman had been attacked in front of his building. By the time police showed up and she was put in an ambulence, a full hour had passed since the initial attack. The knife wounds had punctured her lungs, however; over the course of the hour they slowly filled with blood. She died en route of asphyxiation.

Accounts vary as to how many individuals witnessed the attack, but at some time thirty-eight people admitted to observing (visually and/or aurally) a woman screaming for help and defending herself against a man attacking her with a knife. Regardless of how many people actually witnessed the incident (when one considers shame, one readily imagines that many more witnessed the event but would not admit it), given the close proximity of the residents in the Queens neighborhood, the late hour, and the protracted nature of the attack, one can say quite literally that it occurred within a few yards of a large number of individuals who did virtually nothing to help the woman. That is, not only did they make no physical or personal attempt to save her, but they also did not bother to call the authorities until after the noise had stopped. (Again, police records are unclear at best: it appears someone called, but said he thought it was a lovers' quarrel; another that he thought he saw a woman attacked, but the man was gone and she was walking away so it might be nothing, etc.)

The incident caused a national debate in socio-psychological as well as legal circles regarding (to use philosophical terms) positive and natural law. The question, which proceeds in two parts, is whether and how our four most recent philosophers would think about the case.

First, what would Kant and Hobbes have to say about the moral and legal concept of “duty to rescue.” In the United States, the idea that an individual (pace certain voluntary classifications, e.g., first responders) has a legal responsibility to attempt to rescue another individual from perceived or actual threats--up to and including death--has been repeatedly rejected by the courts. This was true at the time of the attack and is still true today. With this in mind, what would Kant and Hobbes say about those who witnessed the attacks? Did they have a duty--legal and/or moral, as citizens and/or as humans--to help Ms Genovese, either in their own person or by contacting the authorities? If the law were changed, i.e., if the legislature created and the judiciary upheld a duty to rescue, would Kant or Hobbes change their positions? Finally, would Kant and Hobbes agree with the absence of such a law? Would they agree with the implementation of such a law?

Second, given our nation's philosophical and political pedigree as the progeny of Locke and Rousseau, how can we see the witnesses' (lack of) response as a confirmation of both their philosophies? Using their own systems, show how Locke's justification for, and Rousseau's critique of, society could result in such a socio-psychological “diffusion of responsibility.” Although both thinkers describe societies which could lead to such an incident, would or could either thinker encourage or prescribe social-political changes that would preclude such an incident from recurring? I.e., do their systems condemn us to such a result, or does either thinker provide a justification and means by which this would not be an inevitability? (It is worth noting that ten years later a woman was beaten to death in an apartment on the same block, and again neighbors heard the entire affair but did not respond.)

Midterm Essay - Part 3/3

This is the Third Post of the Midterm Assignment; make sure you read all three before you start writing anything.

Looting in Katrina

Although I do not have exact figures on this (as far as I can tell from my research, no one does), it is generally believed that the looting which occurred during the catastrophe of Katrina was conducted primarily by individuals of the following one or more social groups: minorities, economically disadvantaged (lower class to abject poverty), and less (or un)educated. As for what was taken by the looters, we can break it roughly into two categories: perishables (e.g., produce) and non-perishables (e.g., electronics). However, the breakdown is not so simple, as natural disasters turn the latter into the former; i.e., necklaces and tvs are not considered perishable until flooding washes the former away and destroys the latter beyond repair. A number of opinions have been expressed on the blog regarding the looters, ranging from (presumably unintentional) racist/classist/elitist condemnation to academic sympathy. I would like to ask you all for an in-depth analysis of how our last four thinkers would regard this incident.

For the sake of clarity, I will reduce the vast number of different possible scenarios by the following criteria:

First, assume for the sake of argument that the looters were members of one or more of the above three categories. That is, although rich white PhDs may have stolen from abandoned stores, that would be a different discussion for a different question.

Second, assume for the sake of argument that the looters acted in the absence of law enforcement. That is, although the laws themselves regarding theft were never officially revoked, you should consider those who would enforce such laws as essentially non-existent. (In this regard, remember that the state of nature is never possible, but rather an abstract theoretical model for those thinkers who utilize it. Thus, those in New Orleans were never in the state of nature, though they were in particularly close proximity to it.)

Third, assume for the sake of argument that the looters stole both of the above types of property: perishables (both foodstuffs and commodities which would have been lost or destroyed due to the natural disaster) and non-perishables (both foodstuffs and commodities which would potentially have survived, but which were abandoned by their owners). To be very clear: we are NOT considering the third option: the looting of houses or businesses outside of the actual or perceived circumference of the disaster. There was no widespread looting around the country by diaspora New Orleaners, so in the event that something like this occurred it would be separate from the social phenomenon of the Katrina looting--and would not even be called looting. Therefore, we are ONLY considering those homes or businesses that were abandoned by their owners for the reason that those owners assumed that their property was no longer safe and would (potentially) be destroyed in the disaster. (Regardless of an individual's hope--or her indignance after the fact--people don't tend to abandon their homes or business unless they assume that all is lost.)

With these things in mind, answer the following questions:

(1) Were the looters legally wrong for stealing both categories of property? Were they morally wrong for stealing both categories of property? Consider the responses of Hobbes, Locke, and Kant.

(2) Regardless of your answer in (1), should one hold them legally or morally responsible for their actions? If not, who is legally or morally responsible for what occurred? Consider the responses of Hobbes and Locke.

(3) What could be done to preclude such an incident in the future? What should be done? Can anything be done, or is this simply inevitable given the circumstances? Consider the responses of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau.

NB: PAY ATTENTION to the three criteria, as the questions are likely more complicated than they may appear, and the criteria are essential to answering them. Three examples: For (1), Locke both says that stealing is bad and that spoil is just as bad. For (3), while I have limited the looters to the aforementioned three categories, these three philosophers may not regard their socio-economic status as relevant or applicable to their actions. However, given that those responsible were so disproportionately represented by these groups, how would the philosophers account for it? For (1-3), before search and rescue operations were considered complete, almost the entire law enforcement presence in New Orleans (over 1500 officers) were ordered to stop search and rescue in order to go after looters. What would the different philosophers say of the Commonwealth when the Sovereign's priorities shift from an individual's life to an individual's property.

Real Worlds, Ideal Worlds, "Our World"

All,

I feel the need to interject in the conversation swirling around Kant. There seems to be a disconnect between what Kant is describing--which is "our" "real" world--and the way in which he is being portrayed on the blog as "Kant's" world. Just two quick notes for consideration. First, Kant's world is the world of rationality. He's not saying that we are perfect rational beings. We are not. He's not saying that in an ideal world we would be. That wouldn't even make sense to him. What he is saying is that he has found the rational metaphysical basis (or conditions for the possibility) of morality and freedom. And from this he can tell us, for example, that when we act on the basis of our inclinations we are very definitely not acting freely but enslaving ourselves to forces outside of ourselves. Or, for example, when we use other people we are actually validating and justifying them to use us, to enslave us, to treat us like objects or tools or whatever, and saying that this is not only ok but we encourage it (because we actively pursue it). But if I use someone or lie to them or whatever then I am saying that they can do this to me, but then lying and using wouldn't work because if I knew the person was lying or using then I wouldn't believe it or go along with it. Put another way, you have to regard other human beings as not human--as subhuman, as another species, as animals, etc.--in order to lie to them or use them, as you cannot possibly consider them to be your equals (Kant's "respect for the moral law within them") because if they were they wouldn't be duped, because you are the one duping them... Do you get it? Either they are subhuman (i.e., you are a god), or you are saying that everybody can do this to everybody, but then it would never work because nobody would fall for it...

I'm rambling intentionally, as Kant is trying to show us the circularity of a world without a rational moral substructure. But this is OUR world--we all implicitly agree with the categorical imperative, as we consider ourselves to be essentially rational, and we say all the time that something is "wrong" or "unfair" or "just" or "good..." We just haven't really figured out how these two fit together. The fantastic irony is that we all implicitly recognize that our immoral actions should not work if others are our equals--we just don't think of them as equals when we dupe them, which is why we are capable of duping them in the first place. Otherwise we wouldn't.

This doesn't mean you hate your grandmother when you tell a white lie. It does mean that you are putting yourself first, before any concern for her or respect for her as an autonomous rational being capable of dealing with whatever it is that you are hiding from her. Otherwise why and how would you ever do such a thing? But if she IS your equal (i.e., she can put herself first), then she can do the same thing to you, so she should be able to recognize when you do it or at least wary of your capability to do it. Otherwise she is genuinely less than you in a biological/neurological way. Note that everyone generally regards both of these scenarios--that I am a god amongst lessers, or that everyone should and does always put themselves first in a way that makes trust completely irrational and makes the trusting person retarded--as scenarios wherein anything like morality, community, rationality, etc. have been completely jettisoned. So Kant attempts to provide an alternative which--with all irony--does not SEEM to mesh with our experience and desires and beliefs and conceptions of freedom, yet DOES mesh with our experience and desires and beliefs and conceptions of freedom. In sum, "Kant's world" IS our world, and we always kind of knew that, but we've been waiting for someone to come along and explain how it works to us, yet now that Kant has done so we wish he hadn't because it is uncomfortable to recognize how willfully ignorant and hypocritical we have been prior to hearing why and how our world actually works (even though we always implicitly knew...etc.).

Let me know if this helps or if it just confuses you more. And skip the sarcasm on this particular thread: I'm genuinely trying to determine if Kant is sinking in.

-W.

I Have A Cat In My Beard. Your Argument Is Invalid.

Some of you may have heard (either from me or elsewhere) the term "Strawman" in reference to argument or debate. It is worth relating, as it is a common issue in philosophy. Imagine military weapons training with something like a sword. You might learn to thrust and slash on a dummy made of straw prior to sparring with a live opponent. The former is obviously a facsimile of the latter: made in the latter's image, but without any of its true characteristics. It would be much easier to defeat your strawman opponent than to fight against that which it represents.

This is the meaning of a strawman argument. Instead of going after the thinker, you present a doppleganger of the thinker and then take that apart. This works very well for politicians, pundits, and in many other venues, and makes a person seem (and feel) like they know what they are talking about. However, it is anathema to philosophy.

-W.

Kant's pefect and non-validating society

I wanted to go back to a comment I made earlier concerning Kant’s world. The discussion last night got me thinking about living in a society where no one lies to each other, and I wondered what that would really be like. And just to get this out of the way – I am in no way constituting lying – I’m just theorizing.

I feel like humanity as a whole can’t handle the truth. Everyone has these egos that are continuously inflated through deception of some sort (whether intentionally or not). It is so common in society for people to need validation, and to need to be told that they are this or that. It seems to me that much of the time, this validation comes from people telling un-truths just to appease the other person, telling them what they want to hear. For example, if a girl is going out with her friends, when she finally pick out an outfit after seventeen tries and lots of frustration, she’ll ask her best friend “How does this look?” This girl is not usually asking for the truth. She doesn’t want to hear “Well actually those jeans make your legs look real short” or “That top makes you look fat.” What she wants is validation that she looks good. While friends may try to be up front and honest with each other, there is always a little of this that will be going on, as is the nature of humans.

Furthermore, if we were to live in this Kantian society where lies are not told, I feel like on a positive note we could trust everyone, sure, but it could either go one of two ways. For one, it could create the ultimate trusting society, in which we all were happily able to know anything about anyone or anything whenever we wanted.

On the other hand, I think this complete honesty would cause sort of a social rift. If people need validation through lying, then without lying, no one would ask anyone anything they didn’t want to know the truth about. This makes me think that self-consciousness and self-doubt would run rampant. People would constantly hate each other for telling them the truth.

To end, I’m again not supporting lies, I just think that a Kantian society like this would have many social problems, and would be a difficult world to live in.

Kant and a guinea pig

At first, I absolutely hated Kant (I even have hateful doodles in my notebook to prove it). I think this was because I didn't really understand what the hell he was talking about the majority of the time. His big words and paragraph-long sentences scared me. But after our class discussions and reviewing the text, I've decided that he's not the antichrist. I actually like (never thought I'd say that) his ideas. I am especially fond of his philosophy on lying. According to Kant, lying results in the loss of trust and failure of language. Through truthfulness we show respect to one another. There would be no reason to commit crimes because you wouldn't steal, for example, from someone you respect.

While a Kantian world wouldn't necessarily be "fun" to live in, I think it would be a more just and peaceful place to live than the worlds described in the other texts we have read. Think about the first part of the categorical imperative - act in such a way so that the maxim of your actions can be made into a universal law. If followed, this one statement could be so helpful in today's world. How can it cultivate anything other than peace?

So, question... Think of all the worlds described in the texts we've read. In which one would you want to live if you had to choose? Deep, I know.

On another note, Professor Harwood is obviously fond of singing/dancing kitties. I'm a fan of guinea pigs, so I thought I'd introduce a new species to the blog. Enjoy.

Spurred by a lovely 2 hour long conversation about Kant. Oh boy!

So. It's 2:17 in the morning, and my brain is running because I have just barely concluded a roughly 2 hour long conversation with a friend of mine regarding Kant and the Categorical Imperative.

What's rather funny is that this conversation was spurred somewhat random. She and I were discussing the characters in a story that she is writing. I read the newest part for her, proofed it, beta'd, whatever. And she wanted to know what my thoughts were on the characters and their actions thus far. I think that for some reason, with my brain still stuck in "AHHHHH!FILSOFEE" mode, I immediately took a look back at the characters and began to debate their actions and the maxims of those actions in relation to Kant and the Categorical Imperative. Call me a dweeb, I'm not sure how I feel about myself anymore after this. Haha.

What really, really interested me wasn't even so much that I could look at the actions of the characters and say "Yeah, by Kant's definition, this is DEFINITELY an immoral action, wow, nifty." But rather that I could look as these actions, know their intentions, know by the categorical imperative that there was NO way these actions could ever be considered moral, and yet I could still understand the character's reasoning/rationale behind those actions. And it brought up this huge dichotomy in my head of a Kantian world and our world.

For those that are curious about the story and the characters, the actions of the characters I'm referring to are essentially revolve around using others as a means to ones own end [of pleasure or self destruction, either and both in the case of these characters, but that's a different topic]. In which case, I can not only say that these actions are immoral based on the first part of the Categorical Imperative, but the second part as well.

For the first part, if the maxims of these actions [using and breaking another human being for your own relief or ultimate destruction] were to be made a universal law, could the world we know still make sense? No... absolutely not, no way. If everyone were to act in such a manner, all trust between individuals would dissipate, all bonds and civility would fly right out the window, and society itself would even fall. Because if everyone on earth were to use other human beings as a means of their own release or happiness or destruction, then the preservation of the self BECOMES using people to stay alive or to die. One person is using you as their means, and in order to preserve the self, you would ergo use them in return. The world could never make sense. [Yes, I know, sadly that might all seem kind of ramble-y, it's almost 2:30 in the morning, cut me some slack. Let me know if it doesn't make sense and I'll do my best to explain it/work through it better.] -> This leads to the second part of the Categorical Imperative, obviously.

For the second part: The actions are completely immoral, as the second part of the Categorical Imperative emphasizes that we can only use another person as a means so an end so long as we respect them as an end in and of themselves. The actions of the characters in my friend's story do NOT live up to such a qualification, in such that their actions use the other person as a means to their own benefit with absolutely NO regard to the other's end [in essence, they take away the other person's choice of an end]. And as my friend was talking this out with me, she quickly stated "But... but Jeff isn't thinking about HER. He doesn't care... so how does that apply?" [Jeff being the user, the girl being his means to an end] That statement only reinforces the idea that he using the girl as a sole means to HIS end with NO regard to the girl's end. As my friend put it, he isn't even thinking of her end.

I don't know why this interested me so much. I got very into it and excited about it [yay, Kant?], and I feel I have typed SO much in the past 2.5 hours that my fingers might fall off soon. However, I found this huge, interesting dichotomy:

As I was reading and thinking about these characters and their actions, I knew that by the Categorical Imperative, neither of the characters' actions could be held as moral actions. I knew that - I recognized the latent immorality of them. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I sat there thinking to myself "But... But I can understand why these characters are acting this way, immoral or not..."

I'm not exactly sure what that means. Maybe it's just late. I'm not sure. But I think for me it's just a situation in my own life in which I'm beginning to see the difference between Kant's ideal world regarding the Categorical Imperative [in which, if we were in Kant's world, the actions of these characters never would have happened to begin with] and the reality of our world, in which case I understand the conditions that make these actions moral or immoral, and yet I still can sympathize and follow the characters' reasoning for their actions.



Hm. Little does my friend know, I think she indirectly helped me study for the midterm. Yay. On the other hand, am I could be completely off on some of this... Questions, comments, concerns, funny pictures? I take all.

Kant's World

Kant’s moral philosophy is definitely a groundbreaking work and holds true in many areas, but would we really be better off in a Kantian world. The short answer is no. Let us take a look why. Kant’s categorical imperative asks one to consider what if everyone acted in the manner you do and what outcome would come from that. His classic example is lying. If everyone lied, communication would become worthless. Now this is certainly a good concept but Kant writes it without exception meaning one can never lie for any reason. Today in class we talked about the example of sheltering Jews in Nazi Germany. Now Kant tells us never to lie. In addition to the categorical imperative, Kant also says we can never know the ends of our actions so lying couldn’t actually help. But this is false. While we never know the exact ends but we could take a pretty good guess. Kant is obviously not a fan of statistics. And I’m sure statistics would show those who lied were most successful. But those who argue say that if we followed Kant there would be no Nazi Germany. While this is true our world would be much different, and in what I could only describe as worse. We would also have no freedoms, at least of how we think of them today. Kant defines freedom as lack of interference from the outside world, a very different concept than what one might find if they look up freedom in any modern dictionary. Kant then goes on to call out many actions we do today as immoral. For example, not giving to charity if you can is immoral and not making the most of a talent is immoral. And just being lazy is immoral. And this is just the beginning. So basically Kant is trying to spell out what we should and shouldn’t do to an extreme extent. While others have tried to tell us how to behave, Kant’s agreements, especially considering they are without exceptions, are overly extreme. Therefore, I could not agree with Kant on his view about not lying to the Nazis because it relies on so much else which I cannot agree with. As humans we were born to explore and make our own ideas. Kant does recognize our rational thought but then tells us how to act.

Review Session(s)

All,

I will be at the pub tomorrow evening for the official unofficial study session prior to the midterm. Although I do not necessarily want to encourage late night whathaveyou the day before a test, I will not be able to be there prior to 7 PM. Please come with questions, with a copy of the review sheet (already read), and prepared to discuss the material. I will not simply be answering questions that you should know, although my bounty be endless as the sea. Rather, I will referee the discussion between yourselves and your compatriots.

I will not be on campus this evening, contrary to my prior statements. However, I do encourage you to join the philosophy club in their screening of Doubt. It is an excellent movie, and I imagine there will be some discussion after the film regarding its content.

kthxbai.

-W.

Nobel Peace Prize

As the title of this post might suggest, I wanted to take some time to discuss something that happened this past Friday. As you all should know by now (and if you don't I am shocked) that President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. Many, if not a majority of people, believe that this award has been given prematurely, and that Obama has not done work that deserves to compare him to the likes of Mother Teresa, Rigoberta Menchu, or Martin Luther King Jr. That much may be true, but this does not diminish the significance of the award. Comparing Obam to this monumental peace promoters would be like comparing a rookie in the NBA to LeBron James, of course he doesn't match up yet. Furthermore, it also became known that final nominations for the ballot were due in by February 1st of this year, meaning Obama was in office for only 12 days at the most. Something important to remember is that this is an international award, that is highly respected by the world, and this says that foreign views of our president are extremely well looked upon by outside nations, a fact that is extremely important when dealing with foreign diplomacy. Another thing to know is that the Nobel Peace Prize is also awarded for aspirations of peace, not just actions. It can then give Obama a stronger impact allowing him to enact some of his ideas, but it can also weigh him down if he fails to accomplish his goals. If he does fail, which nobody should wish for (it would be Un-American to desire something like that upon our president) there would be a firestorm of criticism raining down on him about how he is a disgrace to the title. Other critics (Glenn Beck, who suggested it should have gone to the Tea Baggers, which is as good as a self nomination) have suggested that Obama should have turned down the award, but that would have been an extremely foolhardy thing to do. It would be like slapping the rest of the world and the committee in the face saying their expectations are stupid and inexperienced. I feel that it was prematurely awarded, but that it should be used as a tool in any case to achieve peace and thereby earn the title that he was given.

I bring up this topic not to slam Obama or to praise him, but rather to stimulate a civil discussion about the issue.

To tie it more closely to our studies in class, what do you guys think that the philosophers we have read from would say about the idea of rewarding somebody who promotes peace? Would they support the idea or say that trying to put your faith in something like peace is futile?

You Muss Not Know Bout Me.

Harwood

Harwood, I accept your challenge and I say bring it on.... (well don't bring it on too much because I do not quite understand this stuff as well as you obviously)

Johannes de Silencio

All,

According to Mary, my comments--which have one and all been intended to help the discussion along, save when I make fun of Elise (which is simply done for fun)--are intimidating people. Therefore, I will refrain from making any further comments on the blog.

Until Mary tells me that it is ok.

Cheers,

-W.

P.S. For the record, I am quite impressed with the discussion. The quality of posts and comments vastly exceeds my previous attempts at online discussions/blogs. No one should be intimidated (except, of course, Elise) by my comments, but rather take them as encouragement. After all, I only respond if your discussion interests me sufficiently to merit them.

Not Encouraging Anything...

Late Semester Topic-Cum-Contemporary Reading

All,

The following article is related to our late semester readings, which will deal with the country's reactions to the attacks on 9.11. Specifically, we will be discussing the arguments for suspending what has hitherto been regarded as fundamental human rights, e.g., habeas corpus. Mr Obama has pledged to close GitMo by January of next year, although some in the administration (including Defense Secretary Robert Gates) have stated that this was an ambitious, unrealistic goal. Regardless, you may want to start following the discussion given that the issue is changing literally daily. (As of October 4th, the Republicans were blocking Mr Obama's attempts to close the base. As the attached article illustrates, by October 8th they already had come to a deal regarding the detainee trials, transfers, etc.)

Cheers,

-W.

FYI

Your compatriots state in their review sheet that Kant "begins with the end of happiness."

Tell us how you really feel.

-W.

Franz Liszt Improvising at the Piano, Danhauser, 1840

Rousseau on Art

Okay, I'm tearin' up the blog today because I accidentally got kind of into it (GEEK). So even though I already posted, I wanted to pose a question that came to mind during our discussion of Rousseau. We talked about his assessment of morality as compromised by an excess of concentration on societal influences to the point that the real artist, or the ones who are genius, are the ones who diverge radically from the norm. My question is how a concept like that comes into play in the art world. There are two basic schools of considering contemporary art as "good." One is contextual, wherein the validity of an artwork is based on what came before it, and the other is intrinsic, wherein specific pieces and styles have qualities that distinguish them as good art. Ideally, both of theses factors should go into the judgement of contemporary art, but in general contextualism is king. Thus what is judged as new and radically different is judged as good, even when it intrinsically is not. Therefore, the status quo for contemporary art has become extreme divergences from the norm. Therefore, does Rousseau's philosophy presume to judge an artist who paints trite landscapes like Bob Ross or Thomas Kinkade to be more morally sound (since they paint things completely different than what the art world considers genius) than an artist like Jean-Michel Basquiat who does something radically different than the norm (since such a practice has become the status quo)?

Kinkade (SHUDDER):
Basquiat:

Hobbes and Fight Club/Project Mayhem

I'm glad to see there was another post going back to Hobbes, because I've been meaning to do the same. This whole thought-process honestly just started out in one of our class discussions; a comment was made regarding Hobbes and how essentially he was telling us to grow up and to realize that we are not all the unique little snowflakes we want to think we are. Where does my brain go? Of course, it goes to Fight Club.

"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everyone else, and we are all part of the same compost pile." - Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club, Chapter 17.

This connection got me thinking in the middle of that discussion about potentially viewing Fight Club, and more specifically Project Mayhem, as a Hobbesian organization. *Note, I say 'organization' and not 'novel' or 'movie'. The novel and the movie ultimately are quite the opposite of Hobbes. Ironically [given the structure of the Fight Club itself and Project Mayhem], the novel runs very contrary to Hobbes in the sense that it actually displays an ultimate breach of the social contracts. However, that is not what I am here to discuss.

Instead, I wanted to point out a few of the different ways in which I began to view the actual structure of the Fight Club and Project Mayhem as Hobbesian - the organization seems to be in and of itself, its own microcosmic Commonwealth.

- All members work for and are loyal to their sovereign:
"Only in death are we no longer part of Project Mayhem."
- Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club, Chapter 28.
*Note: I will address the identity of that sovereign in a later point when I get to the point about the body of the Leviathan.

- Fight Club and Project Mayhem both exhibit a sense of radical equality within the organization, as each man is equal to another. They are all in the same, grimey, rock-bottom organization, and they are neither greater than nor less than their fellow members.

- The organization eliminates the idea of individuality (which also promotes the equality of all the members). By the time of Project Mayhem, the members have lost their individual looks (by styling them equally - clothing, hairstyle, etc), and they have even lost their names.

- Now comes the question of who would exactly be the Leviathan.

First I feel like I should outline the body of this Leviathan. It lies in the Commonwealth of Project Mayhem, in the sense that each individual under it works for the Leviathan, for the members of the Commonwealth. It is yet another miniature social contract. They work to build Fight Club, they work to build Project Mayhem. Each individual's work is a method of 'economy' that keeps the body of Project Mayhem functioning. But of whom are they the authors?

Who could be the Fight Club/Project Mayhem Commonwealth Sovereign?

My first thoughts went to Tyler Durden, of course; he was their leader, their instructor, he taught them their ways, gave them their assignments, made their rules and regulations, and ultimately protected them from the other Commonwealths [In this case, the other Commonwealths would be the world outside of Project Mayhem/Fight Club]. However, this doesn't seem right, because by the end of it, the Tyler we knew has disappeared and has been replaced by a 'new' Tyler. [Sadly, for those who have not read the book or seen the movie, this will probably not make any sense.] By the end of the entire ordeal, the Tyler we knew has lost control, has betrayed his subjects [has gotten Bob killed, is acting destructive towards them], and our narrator, whose assumed name is Jack, has taken over. Yes - Tyler and the Narrator are the same person. But personalities differ, and ergo, the sovereign power lies with only one side of them. Jack overthrows Tyler - in which I quickly realize that Tyler could never have been the sovereign to begin with, instead, the Sovereign becomes the narrator Jack. Tyler was only the sovereign in so far as Jack had allowed him to be the Sovereign. Once overthrown, Tyler is out of view as sovereign, and all that is left is Jack, the overthrow-er.

This is still subject to debate though, but to me Jack as the sovereign makes sense. Counter me on this if you'd like. :)

Now, again, I want to state, the novel in and of itself is in no way Hobbesian. In fact, part of me feels like, at the very least, specific parts of Fight Club would be Hobbes' worst nightmare. [In the sense that much of Project Mayhem revolves around completely defiling the social contract and reverting everyone back into a state of nature - "If you erase the debt record, everyone goes back to zero." - in which case, utter chaos would ensue.]

The book honestly does not emphasize our radical equality - that's not the ultimate point of reverting us back to zero. The ultimate point is to reinforce the idea that it's only once we've hit the bottom that we can realize our true potential. This... this is honestly very un-Hobbesian in the sense that Hobbes wants to show that we're already at the bottom and that is where we're going to live.

There are a lot more nuances to the novel that I could go into, but I'm hoping with this I've at least decently made my point. I find it interestingly ironic that such a novel - somewhat based in reinforcing our own individualism [that can't be found through "our jobs, how much money we have in the bank, the cars we drive, the contents of our wallets, or our fucking khakis"] - exhibits an organization that is so basely and structurally Hobbesian.

Comments? I'm quite interested for other opinions on this. Plus, I love finding people who have not only seen the movie, but also read the book. :) Huzzah, reading.