| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Highway to Health - Last Tea Party Protest of the Year | ||||
| ||||
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Come and get the tripe while it's hot, kids!
Yes, that's right, Laura Ingraham paraphrases "with all due respect" Martin Niemueller's poem regarding the Nazi regime and the Holocaust, replacing all of the downtrodden disenfranchised disaffected groups named in that poem with the white, privileged, wealthy American conservative minority that is anti-health care for kids.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
I feel like this relates to what we've learned this semester. You can use it to de-stress after our exam. Enjoy
"One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."
MLK, Letter from Birmingham Jail
"The only way to learn is to question" (15).
Sartre, Existentialism is a Humanism
I thought of these two quotes as I read this article. Although the teachers in this article are breaking laws, the laws that they are breaking are not unjust. Therefore, they are not expressing any respect for law. I like their enthusiasm for teaching their students, but there is a fine line between enthusiastic and psychotic.
I thought ya'll would find the article interesting...
"One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."
MLK, Letter from Birmingham Jail
"The only way to learn is to question" (15).
Sartre, Existentialism is a Humanism
I thought of these two quotes as I read this article. Although the teachers in this article are breaking laws, the laws that they are breaking are not unjust. Therefore, they are not expressing any respect for law. I like their enthusiasm for teaching their students, but there is a fine line between enthusiastic and psychotic.
I thought ya'll would find the article interesting...
late parrhesia
So I know this is my second post, and it's a little late, but one can only do so much when losing all sanity during finals. Here's a final thought I was thinking about last night...
I was thinking about free speech and parrhesia (which, funny side note, comes up in spell-check as "Parcheesi") and it occurred to me that in today's society, this free speech that has danger in its truth is not really accepted. It seems that many of the things that we as a society should know, and should talk about, are often put on the back-burner or repressed because either the government does not want the general public to find out or we are too uncomfortable to talk about it. We are so complacent in hearing what is easy, what is simple. No one wants the real truth anymore because it is in fact dangerous. Furthermore, people who actually search for this truth in things seem to be frequently labeled as "radicals" and "insane." I feel as if this is only getting worse too. Coupled with the media, there is a consistent downfall of actual truth. We are constantly fed headlines about such, such as today's on BBC.com, which read "Police have forced back hundreds of protesters who tried to break through a perimeter fence at the UN climate summit venue in Copenhagen." These protestors were arguing against the slow progress on the new climate deal as well as against the restrictions on access to the talks. These people are being held from knowing the truth concerning them. It does not make any sense to me why the information processed in the talks would not be made available to the public. If we could see exactly what goes on in hearings and discussions like this, would we not as a society be better fitted to deal with the issues at hand? I just feel like the truth is constantly being kept from us, in multiple ways.
I was thinking about free speech and parrhesia (which, funny side note, comes up in spell-check as "Parcheesi") and it occurred to me that in today's society, this free speech that has danger in its truth is not really accepted. It seems that many of the things that we as a society should know, and should talk about, are often put on the back-burner or repressed because either the government does not want the general public to find out or we are too uncomfortable to talk about it. We are so complacent in hearing what is easy, what is simple. No one wants the real truth anymore because it is in fact dangerous. Furthermore, people who actually search for this truth in things seem to be frequently labeled as "radicals" and "insane." I feel as if this is only getting worse too. Coupled with the media, there is a consistent downfall of actual truth. We are constantly fed headlines about such, such as today's on BBC.com, which read "Police have forced back hundreds of protesters who tried to break through a perimeter fence at the UN climate summit venue in Copenhagen." These protestors were arguing against the slow progress on the new climate deal as well as against the restrictions on access to the talks. These people are being held from knowing the truth concerning them. It does not make any sense to me why the information processed in the talks would not be made available to the public. If we could see exactly what goes on in hearings and discussions like this, would we not as a society be better fitted to deal with the issues at hand? I just feel like the truth is constantly being kept from us, in multiple ways.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Positive Law
As I was rereading MLK's Letter From Birmingham Jail for my paper, one line really jumped out on me.
"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal.""
When you think about this it is really something quite obvious, but I feel it is very easily overlooked. The fact that something so atrocious can be in fact "legal" has to make us rethink our view of positive law.
While I think it's quite clear we couldn't live without positive law, this shows us we must never rely on positive law alone. We must always consider natural law and that must come first if we are to ensure such tragedy does not happen again. In his letter, MLK goes on to say, "I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers." I think we all must have this view. While it is doubtful any of us will ever face a situation of the same magnitude, the fact remains the same - if injustice is taking place, we must stand up for our beliefs even in the face of positive law.
That being said, we should still never forget the principles our country was founded on.
"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal.""
When you think about this it is really something quite obvious, but I feel it is very easily overlooked. The fact that something so atrocious can be in fact "legal" has to make us rethink our view of positive law.
While I think it's quite clear we couldn't live without positive law, this shows us we must never rely on positive law alone. We must always consider natural law and that must come first if we are to ensure such tragedy does not happen again. In his letter, MLK goes on to say, "I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers." I think we all must have this view. While it is doubtful any of us will ever face a situation of the same magnitude, the fact remains the same - if injustice is taking place, we must stand up for our beliefs even in the face of positive law.
That being said, we should still never forget the principles our country was founded on.
Review Sessions and Such
All,
If you have not already done so, I recommend those of you who either were not at the review last night or left early chat with the folks that stuck around. Philosophy is not done in a vacuum: it will help the person who was present just as much to relay the material as it will the person hearing it. Talking things out helps you remember fissures in your reasoning so that you won't make the same mistakes on the final.
Cheers,
-W.
If you have not already done so, I recommend those of you who either were not at the review last night or left early chat with the folks that stuck around. Philosophy is not done in a vacuum: it will help the person who was present just as much to relay the material as it will the person hearing it. Talking things out helps you remember fissures in your reasoning so that you won't make the same mistakes on the final.
Cheers,
-W.
Deadlines Schmedlines
All,
I've decided to extend the arbitrary deadline until the exam itself. So get some extra points if you need them, or thrill us with your academic acumen if you don't.
You're welcome,
-W.
I've decided to extend the arbitrary deadline until the exam itself. So get some extra points if you need them, or thrill us with your academic acumen if you don't.
You're welcome,
-W.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Okay so I guess I’m late but I got confused by 12:01 on the 12th because apparently I can’t tell time so, since you explicitly deemed the deadline arbitrary…
During our reading of Eichmann and the contemporary articles, I was constantly reminded of Errol Morris’ film “Standard Operating Procedure,” which we’ve been viewing and discussing in my Aesthetics course as it relates to Walter Benjamin’s philosophy on the work of art in the age of technological reproducibility. The documentary deals with the controversies which occurred when U.S. Troops were put in charge of Abu Grab prison in Iraq. The issues made national headlines for weeks when photographs were leaked showing Sabrina Harmon, 20 years old at the time, posing with a thumbs up next to the body of an Iraqi prisoner who’d been beaten to death as well as several images of prisoner “torture,” including a now famous one of a hooded man standing atop a box in a shower with electrical wires attached to each of his hands. He was apparently told that if he fell from the box, he’d be electrocuted. In interviews with the troops involved, a few things became clear. First, the only way in which their actions differed from those of their superiors—often times the ones who ordered these activities—was in the photography of the events. Many of these individuals claim that the photographs were meant to be evidence of the conditions which existed, proof that things should be changed. Whether or not these were crocodile tears, the question remains: is there any way to stop military injustice like that here, during World War II, and with prisoners at Guantanamo Bay? I’m in no way justifying the actions of these individuals, it simply seems to me that those who claim to have made a conscious effort to change the injustice by allowing it to be publicly known are the only ones punished. I think it’s inarguable that these people within the military have a higher capacity to change things within the military, thus there’s a certain amount of compliance necessary to hold any sort of power to create capacity for change. So are these individual troops existentially responsible for these acts by choosing to participate in the military and, should they be punished for involvement if, in fact, it centered on a desire to change things? It also strikes me that their superiors have never been held legally responsible for their role in such a thing. Sabrina Harmon underwent trial for the photograph of her posing with the dead man, though she also carefully documented evidence that he had not, as she was told, died of a heart attack but rather accidentally at the hands of higher ups during a round of “interrogation” when she was somewhere else entirely. Are we blaming the right people for the injustices that we see? If we allow people to become scapegoats, we consciously sweep the issues under the rug, allowing, and even condoning them being continued. Therefore, are we, as a public, more, less, or equally responsible for these atrocities by allowing them to continue while patting ourselves on the back for our misplaced feelings of horror?
During our reading of Eichmann and the contemporary articles, I was constantly reminded of Errol Morris’ film “Standard Operating Procedure,” which we’ve been viewing and discussing in my Aesthetics course as it relates to Walter Benjamin’s philosophy on the work of art in the age of technological reproducibility. The documentary deals with the controversies which occurred when U.S. Troops were put in charge of Abu Grab prison in Iraq. The issues made national headlines for weeks when photographs were leaked showing Sabrina Harmon, 20 years old at the time, posing with a thumbs up next to the body of an Iraqi prisoner who’d been beaten to death as well as several images of prisoner “torture,” including a now famous one of a hooded man standing atop a box in a shower with electrical wires attached to each of his hands. He was apparently told that if he fell from the box, he’d be electrocuted. In interviews with the troops involved, a few things became clear. First, the only way in which their actions differed from those of their superiors—often times the ones who ordered these activities—was in the photography of the events. Many of these individuals claim that the photographs were meant to be evidence of the conditions which existed, proof that things should be changed. Whether or not these were crocodile tears, the question remains: is there any way to stop military injustice like that here, during World War II, and with prisoners at Guantanamo Bay? I’m in no way justifying the actions of these individuals, it simply seems to me that those who claim to have made a conscious effort to change the injustice by allowing it to be publicly known are the only ones punished. I think it’s inarguable that these people within the military have a higher capacity to change things within the military, thus there’s a certain amount of compliance necessary to hold any sort of power to create capacity for change. So are these individual troops existentially responsible for these acts by choosing to participate in the military and, should they be punished for involvement if, in fact, it centered on a desire to change things? It also strikes me that their superiors have never been held legally responsible for their role in such a thing. Sabrina Harmon underwent trial for the photograph of her posing with the dead man, though she also carefully documented evidence that he had not, as she was told, died of a heart attack but rather accidentally at the hands of higher ups during a round of “interrogation” when she was somewhere else entirely. Are we blaming the right people for the injustices that we see? If we allow people to become scapegoats, we consciously sweep the issues under the rug, allowing, and even condoning them being continued. Therefore, are we, as a public, more, less, or equally responsible for these atrocities by allowing them to continue while patting ourselves on the back for our misplaced feelings of horror?
Groupthink. Platonism/Existentialism.
Hey guys.
So I actually wasn't planning on making a post about this, but it had me thinking a little bit too much, so I wound up wanting to see some discussion on this matter.
I was talking with a friend of mine one evening, 1am-ish as per my usual, and we got talking about Existentialism with relation to the phenomenon of Groupthink. (Don't ask how we got there, honestly. It was some long-winded conversation that ranged from talking about Lucifer and God, to the creation of fiction, to anthropology, to psychology, to responsibility, etc. I don't even know, it was late and a long discussion.)
But yes, as I said, we wound up talking about Groupthink, in which my friend was talking about his problem with existentialism was that it didn't much account for phenomenons like Groupthink. [Quick definition, Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. Thank you, wikipedia. Basically, going with the crowd, not thinking about your decisions, in order to avoid making waves.] He had problems with Existentialism claiming it left out Groupthink, while my immediate response was "Not really."
Existentialism I feel very clearly can relate to Groupthink, especially when you migrate past Nietzsche and into Sartre, Foucault, Thoreau, etc. I more so understand Groupthink as being a product of Platonism, and one that is more or less knocked down by Existentialism. Part of me almost is inclined to view the 'group' as a sort of Commonwealth by Platonistic definitions - in which the rights of the individual are shoved aside in the name of keeping things calm, tranquil, peaceful, and functional.
But one aspect I couldn't get out of my head was that to me this screamed Foucault, Thoreau, MLK, and the idea of parrhesia on the part of the individual. In that, the individual participating in Groupthink, staying quiet for the sake of not rocking the boat, more so are the "White Moderates" MLK spoke about. They are potentially aware that their views may cause controversy, and instead they stay quiet in the name of "This isn't my fight."
Another thing he quickly brought up was what about in a case where the individual agrees with the group, that the group simply sways them. Really my only argument to this was that if they legitimately agree with the group or come to agree with the group, then it isn't Groupthink by definition. It instead them agreeing with the majority, rather than staying quiet for the sake of not causing problems.
I suppose all in all, my general understanding of Groupthink led me to it existing as a remainder of Platonism while being criticized or knocked down by Existentialism. I wanted to post this in order to maybe get a bit more discussion on it - see how you guys viewed Groupthink in relation to the things we've read, or how it as a phenomenon can exist, if it isn't a product of the Platonistic idea of an objective truth (that would presumably be found in the Group's reasoning).
So yes. Thoughts? Apologies if this is a bit rambly, my thoughts were a bit disjointed on the matter, but I tried to string them together decently.
So I actually wasn't planning on making a post about this, but it had me thinking a little bit too much, so I wound up wanting to see some discussion on this matter.
I was talking with a friend of mine one evening, 1am-ish as per my usual, and we got talking about Existentialism with relation to the phenomenon of Groupthink. (Don't ask how we got there, honestly. It was some long-winded conversation that ranged from talking about Lucifer and God, to the creation of fiction, to anthropology, to psychology, to responsibility, etc. I don't even know, it was late and a long discussion.)
But yes, as I said, we wound up talking about Groupthink, in which my friend was talking about his problem with existentialism was that it didn't much account for phenomenons like Groupthink. [Quick definition, Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. Thank you, wikipedia. Basically, going with the crowd, not thinking about your decisions, in order to avoid making waves.] He had problems with Existentialism claiming it left out Groupthink, while my immediate response was "Not really."
Existentialism I feel very clearly can relate to Groupthink, especially when you migrate past Nietzsche and into Sartre, Foucault, Thoreau, etc. I more so understand Groupthink as being a product of Platonism, and one that is more or less knocked down by Existentialism. Part of me almost is inclined to view the 'group' as a sort of Commonwealth by Platonistic definitions - in which the rights of the individual are shoved aside in the name of keeping things calm, tranquil, peaceful, and functional.
But one aspect I couldn't get out of my head was that to me this screamed Foucault, Thoreau, MLK, and the idea of parrhesia on the part of the individual. In that, the individual participating in Groupthink, staying quiet for the sake of not rocking the boat, more so are the "White Moderates" MLK spoke about. They are potentially aware that their views may cause controversy, and instead they stay quiet in the name of "This isn't my fight."
Another thing he quickly brought up was what about in a case where the individual agrees with the group, that the group simply sways them. Really my only argument to this was that if they legitimately agree with the group or come to agree with the group, then it isn't Groupthink by definition. It instead them agreeing with the majority, rather than staying quiet for the sake of not causing problems.
I suppose all in all, my general understanding of Groupthink led me to it existing as a remainder of Platonism while being criticized or knocked down by Existentialism. I wanted to post this in order to maybe get a bit more discussion on it - see how you guys viewed Groupthink in relation to the things we've read, or how it as a phenomenon can exist, if it isn't a product of the Platonistic idea of an objective truth (that would presumably be found in the Group's reasoning).
So yes. Thoughts? Apologies if this is a bit rambly, my thoughts were a bit disjointed on the matter, but I tried to string them together decently.
A few things..
Okay so this post is a bit unorthodox, but it got me thinking about this class and all we have learned this semester.
I listen to the radio coming back to campus late at night and there's this talk show that's always on that I listen to and it actually gives some interesting information as well as starting some discussions that spark some interesting debates about different duties.. So here are some interesting pieces of information that I learned/discussion points that might even help review the different philosophies we've learned.
1) Diamonds - this was brought up because around the Christmas season lots of diamonds are being purchased and there is growing concern about not purchasing conflict diamonds. There was a researcher on the show who gave some alternatives to buying conflict diamonds such as purchasing vintage diamonds (she said those mined from the early 1800s to 1930s are definitely clean), or opting to buy a different stone such as sapphires (which are popular forms of engagement rings in Europe and cited Princess Diana as having one). But she said if someone is set on buying a diamond there are ways to purchase non conflict diamonds such as buying those mined in Canada. You can also ask the stores up front their policy on conflict diamonds - although she did not say this I believe that if enough people were to refuse buying conflict diamonds and told stores that, eventually these huge stores would realize people care and would make changes. I just thought this was interesting because Professor Harwood has brought this up in class a few times.
2) Duty to country or family? - One of the stories brought up on the show was about a woman who had an infant child, but was also a cook for the army and was recently said she was going to be deployed for Iraq. Because she was single and her mother could not take care of her child as she was in a nursing home, she was told she would have to put her child in foster care, which she did not want to do. Thus, she went missing for a period of 10 days and missed her deployment and is now in jail. People were then asked their thoughts on this and many people said it was unfair, that the woman has a duty to her child first since there was no one else to take care of him. Others couldn't believe that there weren't any other options from the army other than foster care and some said she shouldn't have gone AWOL because now she's committed a crime. What would any of the philosophers say about this situation? Granted, she probably could have handled the situation differently than running away, such as asking for a leave of absence for an extreme situation, but the fundamental point of this is does one have a duty to one's country or family first?
3) Duty to spouse or child? - This last story was about a man who got a call from his wife saying she and her son had wrecked their car and gone of the road into a river and by the time the husband arrived at the scene the car was so far under water that he could only save one person and had to make the decision between his wife and his son. When I first heard this last story I thought oh that's kind of dumb but then started to think about it more in relation to duties as people began calling in their answers. People did really seem to have strong feelings about one or the other such as - you and your spouse made vows to each other and now have a duty to each other. Others though said those vows could be broken by the spouse, but your child will always be your child no matter what. If you think about it yes, you would be doing good by saving one person, but at the same time you're willing the death of the other. I know that's an extreme situation, but I'm sure each person has their own strong opinion for it and each philosopher would as well.
Anyways I just thought those would be some interesting things to think about as we think back over all the philosophies we've read this semester.. I didn't really have any specific questions about them, but feel free to put anything you found interesting or relate one of the examples to a philosopher we've read!
Friday, December 11, 2009
(Un)Important Things
All,
I know that some of you like to hear this otherwise useless information, so I thought I would post it. I did some accounting as to that which has been recorded up until this point in the semester, and came up with the following results:
The class average is a B. The breakdown is as follows:
A - 4
B - 6
C - 3
D - 2
Remember that a good portion (50%, I believe) of your grade is still outstanding with the final paper and the final exam. So... Whatever that means.
-W.
I know that some of you like to hear this otherwise useless information, so I thought I would post it. I did some accounting as to that which has been recorded up until this point in the semester, and came up with the following results:
The class average is a B. The breakdown is as follows:
A - 4
B - 6
C - 3
D - 2
Remember that a good portion (50%, I believe) of your grade is still outstanding with the final paper and the final exam. So... Whatever that means.
-W.
Final Thoughts (Pun Intended)
All,
Make sure you bring a BlueBook or two on the day of your final. You will need to write and stuff.
There will be a review session. The most appropriate night would seem to be two days prior to the exam, or December 14th. Details remain the same: show around 7, bring a copy of the review sheet, bring blankets and sleeping bags and coffee and such, outside pub (with occasional breaks inside to warm extremities and to get coffee), and I even spoke with physical plant about getting them to turn the fire on inside. Yes, I am teh awesomes.
Regarding other things, Please email me your papers on the same day (December 14th) by 5 PM. Remember to paste the text into the body of the email to avoid attachment issues. Send it five times if you like. Just make sure there are no problems.
Also, remember that the National Civil Rights Museum was a part of the course materials. Many of you have expressed to me your desire to write about duty and responsibility as the thing that has changed for you in the course of the Search program. I imagine that, if this is you, the Civil Rights Museum may have had something to do with it. Depending on how you use it, it could serve as a "source" text from this semester, though most likely it would serve as a footnote or aside. But the point to remember is that if you are trying to fulfill a quota of texts, cf. one of my favorite lolcat memes:
However, if in the process of writing your paper you organically think of a number of different things that we studied, and you include them as observations along the way toward the changes in your thinking, then this is good.
In other news, a buddy of mine actually saw this in DC. I obviously believe in education (as I am an educator), but at times I seriously consider just giving up.
I think this guy definitely ranks as competition with Mr Ahmadinejad for the "I'm Taking Crazy Pills" award. Holy crap.
Good luck on your other less important finals.
-W.
Raising the Bar for Batshit Crazy
All,
As mentioned in class, there are times when profanity is appropriate. This is one of those times. Impressive.
Enjoy,
-W.
The Nazi War Criminals
After reading Eichmann and about the Nuremberg trials, I found Eichmann’s excuse during his trial very interesting. Like many of those who were tried in Nuremburg, Eichmann gave the excuse he was just following orders. But like many others, he was still put to death. So my question is at what point does one become responsible for the atrocities committed by his or her country?
The connection with Eichmann is simple. He continued to plan human transportation for his country even after he knew that most of these people would be put to death. But on the other end, every Nazi soldier is indirectly related to the Holocaust for they defended their country while these crimes took place.
So two major differences existed between Eichmann and the average German soldier. The first being Eichmann took a planning roll in the incident while the soldier had not. And the second being that although a soldier might have known that people were being deported, the soldier did not know their final fate.
So let’s assume Eichmann worked as a transportation expert but his knowledge of the situation was more limited and his knowledge started at where people entered they trains and ended where the exited. If he had no idea what happen after they got off and was fine with that, would his ignorance protect him from guilt or does he have a responsibility to figure out these people’s fate before he works?
Now let’s look at the other example. Had a soldier (who unlike Eichmann has no planning role) become aware of what was going on in these camps, would he then be responsible if he kept fighting for his country?
These are just two examples but there are obviously no black and white answers. Different philosophers would view the situation differently. For example, in the first hypothetical example Kant would say that Eichmann would have a perfect duty to reason what his planning led to and should have figure out that the mass exporting of people against their will cannot be universalized. Furthermore, Eichmann would have the imperfect duty to find out these people’s fate.
For the second example, Kant’s logic would state that the soldier has a perfect duty to stop fighting when the soldier finds out about the extermination camps. (Although it would probably be argued that the soldier already has a perfect duty to not fight as war cannot be universalized).
If you were in charge of deciding who to convict after Germany’s unconditional surrender whose logic would you follow?
The connection with Eichmann is simple. He continued to plan human transportation for his country even after he knew that most of these people would be put to death. But on the other end, every Nazi soldier is indirectly related to the Holocaust for they defended their country while these crimes took place.
So two major differences existed between Eichmann and the average German soldier. The first being Eichmann took a planning roll in the incident while the soldier had not. And the second being that although a soldier might have known that people were being deported, the soldier did not know their final fate.
So let’s assume Eichmann worked as a transportation expert but his knowledge of the situation was more limited and his knowledge started at where people entered they trains and ended where the exited. If he had no idea what happen after they got off and was fine with that, would his ignorance protect him from guilt or does he have a responsibility to figure out these people’s fate before he works?
Now let’s look at the other example. Had a soldier (who unlike Eichmann has no planning role) become aware of what was going on in these camps, would he then be responsible if he kept fighting for his country?
These are just two examples but there are obviously no black and white answers. Different philosophers would view the situation differently. For example, in the first hypothetical example Kant would say that Eichmann would have a perfect duty to reason what his planning led to and should have figure out that the mass exporting of people against their will cannot be universalized. Furthermore, Eichmann would have the imperfect duty to find out these people’s fate.
For the second example, Kant’s logic would state that the soldier has a perfect duty to stop fighting when the soldier finds out about the extermination camps. (Although it would probably be argued that the soldier already has a perfect duty to not fight as war cannot be universalized).
If you were in charge of deciding who to convict after Germany’s unconditional surrender whose logic would you follow?
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
'Tis the Season...
So this is the time of year wherein people experience a sense of good cheer, of the joy of giving, where people are nicer, friendlier, have a spring in their step, say "How do!" on the street, and generally just drip warmth and kindness from their every pore. According to a USA TODAY poll, to this list we must apparently add seasonal-onset rabies.
I don't know which is more alarming: the fact that my immediate thought was "if people were more honest and had less shame, this percentage would be higher," or the fact that they chose to print their terrifying pie-graph on such a cute little stuffed animal. But I must admit, when I saw this (courtesy of the Colbert Report; I don't read USA Today), I got an image of Messrs Locke and Smith in a WalMart bludgeoning each other with whatever is handy for this teddy bear while Marx wept and Rousseau laughed his ass off. (Thoreau was on his way to Lawn & Garden, looking for a rubber hose to beat the both of them.)
-W.
I don't know which is more alarming: the fact that my immediate thought was "if people were more honest and had less shame, this percentage would be higher," or the fact that they chose to print their terrifying pie-graph on such a cute little stuffed animal. But I must admit, when I saw this (courtesy of the Colbert Report; I don't read USA Today), I got an image of Messrs Locke and Smith in a WalMart bludgeoning each other with whatever is handy for this teddy bear while Marx wept and Rousseau laughed his ass off. (Thoreau was on his way to Lawn & Garden, looking for a rubber hose to beat the both of them.)
-W.
Too Perfect
You know, sometimes it angers me how Johnny seems to predict what I am going to teach and do it better.
Pay attention to Aasif Manvdi's reasoning regarding India's justification for invading the United States. Sound crazy?
-W.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Scary Plotter | ||||
| ||||
Pay attention to Aasif Manvdi's reasoning regarding India's justification for invading the United States. Sound crazy?
-W.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Just some thoughts on Guantanamo (Wah last blog post!)
I realize I’m jumping the gun a little, being that we haven’t talked about the Guantanamo readings yet but hopefully you’ve at least read the articles by now. This morning in my Philosophy of Law class we were talking about crime and punishment, which I thought was pretty ironic in light our current readings. More often than not we assume crime and punishment go together, with the idea that whoever commits a crime deserves a punishment. But this morning we asked what the point of punishment even was. Some, like Utilitarians, understand punishment as helpful to the good of the community, in that it deters further crime (this can be thought of as forward looking). Retributivism is backward looking in that it deems punishment necessary to those who deserve it, and the punishment must fit the crime. Basically, there were many different theories on how to justify punishment, and it must be justified because in punishing someone, you are infringing upon their human rights. I obviously began to think about the articles I had read last night in relation to the class’s discussion. Could the punishment of solitary confinement at Guantanamo Bay honestly be justified for a teenage boy?
Looking at it through a utilitarian perspective, one could argue that action should be taken when a teenager throws a grenade at military men, because it is only hurting the community’s welfare. However, this still doesn’t imply that six years in solitary confinement is the appropriate action to promote the common good. The retributivism theory does agree that this teenager should be punished. However, the punishment should fit the crime. Being sent to Guantanamo for throwing a grenade as a twelve-year-old clearly does not fit the crime. I cannot possibly understand how imposing violence upon a boy during his formative years will help him be a model citizen and respect the United States upon being released from prison. As one of the more influential countries of the world, one would hope that our legal system would be able to distribute punishment appropriately and justly. However it seems that the military has abused the power of punishment as a result of their fear of terrorism. It is not just the action of one boy throwing a grenade that they want to put on trial. They want to put terrorism on trial. But like Eichmann we have to remember one person, especially a twelve-year-old, cannot be responsible for all of the evils of the world.
Ps. I saw this in the news today, you know in case you feel like reading more depressing articles on Guantanamo. I found it interesting. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/07/law-school-study-finds-ev_n_382085.html
pre-existentialism and post-existentialism notions of truth
This post is a little late, but I’ve been kicking around these ideas for a while. When reading Sartre, I really identified with the existentialist sense of radical freedom and radical responsibility. But when we read Foucault and I really started thinking about what this meant, I came up against some barriers. Like Nietzsche, who was doing a genealogy of morals, Foucault is doing a genealogy of truth. To me, the idea of doing such a genealogy of truth cannot make sense. I don’t understand how what is truth can change. For example, it could be legal to own slaves yesterday and illegal today, and as long as I free my slaves today, I can’t be held legally responsible for having owned them today. But just because I am not held legally responsible doesn’t mean that my being a slave owner yesterday was still wrong. Human perception of truth may have changed but Truth as such hasn’t. It has never actually been ok to own slaves; we have just decided as a society that it was ok. Social norms don’t determine what is true; they can only determine what people get punished for. This gets back to Aquinas’ argument against positive law as absolute.
But while Aquinas’ has an out (natural law is dictated by God), I don't think I can give myself that luxury. God hasn’t told me any natural laws and I am not ready to take anyone else’s word for it. So in a way I agree with Sartre in that we are responsible for figuring out our own choices. But I don’t see how I could possibly make that choice. Sartre says that a system that promotes freedom for others is a correct one, but it seems like there are still many of those systems to choose from. Which one is true? To get back to Sartre’s example, his student (who is torn between staying home with his mother and going to war to revenge his brother’s death) still needs an answer even though Sartre is unwilling to give him one. Can both options be equally correct? I don’t understand how this could possibly be true. How can the student going to war and the student not going to war both be true? Doesn’t this go against the law of non-contradiction? If I am right and both options cannot both be right, one must be better than the other. If this is true, how is the student supposed to choose? How is anyone supposed to choose? How do I justify my actions over any of the others I could have taken?
But while Aquinas’ has an out (natural law is dictated by God), I don't think I can give myself that luxury. God hasn’t told me any natural laws and I am not ready to take anyone else’s word for it. So in a way I agree with Sartre in that we are responsible for figuring out our own choices. But I don’t see how I could possibly make that choice. Sartre says that a system that promotes freedom for others is a correct one, but it seems like there are still many of those systems to choose from. Which one is true? To get back to Sartre’s example, his student (who is torn between staying home with his mother and going to war to revenge his brother’s death) still needs an answer even though Sartre is unwilling to give him one. Can both options be equally correct? I don’t understand how this could possibly be true. How can the student going to war and the student not going to war both be true? Doesn’t this go against the law of non-contradiction? If I am right and both options cannot both be right, one must be better than the other. If this is true, how is the student supposed to choose? How is anyone supposed to choose? How do I justify my actions over any of the others I could have taken?
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Stories About Children and Rights Theory
(Guess which is which.)
All,
First, there was a good deal of interest in Steven's post regarding the intrepid and surprising young boy "standing up by sitting down" for gay rights. I think that Mr Stewart, with the help of former WWF champ and "Senior Asskicker" Mick Foley, have done an excellent job of putting the circumstances in perspective.
Second, the following piece is directly related to the readings regarding Gitmo (at least up until the part with Samantha Bee).
Enjoy.
-W.
All,
First, there was a good deal of interest in Steven's post regarding the intrepid and surprising young boy "standing up by sitting down" for gay rights. I think that Mr Stewart, with the help of former WWF champ and "Senior Asskicker" Mick Foley, have done an excellent job of putting the circumstances in perspective.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Gaywatch - Peter Vadala & William Phillips | ||||
| ||||
Second, the following piece is directly related to the readings regarding Gitmo (at least up until the part with Samantha Bee).
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Law & Order: KSM | ||||
| ||||
Enjoy.
-W.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Laurie
All,
Now that I have your attention (read: confusion), Laurie asked an odd question on Thursday as to the last day you can post/comment on the blog. I call this "odd" because you should remember your Luther: in this case, you students are playing the "good" Christians and I am playing God. Luther remarks that God is not so foolish as to be tricked by any attempt to assuage his wrath via deeds. I.e., he knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he recognizes when you are simply trying to get by on the requirements and will grade you accordingly.
Therefore, the prudent student would start posting immediately--especially if the prudent student had not yet posted, but even if the prudent student had. The blog is not about doing the bare minimum. The blog is about being engaged in an intellectual community which recognizes the claims of this course extend well beyond the classroom, infecting and affecting your daily lives and the choices you make.
Or, if all that sounds self-important and highfalutin, here's an arbitrary deadline: 12.01 AM on December 12th, 2009 CE.
Cheers,
-W.
Nota Bene--For Those With Outstanding Precis
All,
For those of you who still have yet to do a precis (either that on Tuesday or the final review sheet) please contact me as soon as possible. I'm planning on moving around your responsibilities, adding to the presenters on Tuesday and subtracting from the review sheet. Would each of you please send me an email so I can respond directly as to the nature of your assignment.
-W.
For those of you who still have yet to do a precis (either that on Tuesday or the final review sheet) please contact me as soon as possible. I'm planning on moving around your responsibilities, adding to the presenters on Tuesday and subtracting from the review sheet. Would each of you please send me an email so I can respond directly as to the nature of your assignment.
-W.
Light Reading
All,
You can find the readings regarding GitMo here, here, and here. This is an update on Mrs Gorman case: it seems that the DOJ continues to screw up. I also highly recommend you look up Lt Col Stephen Abraham (mentioned in Mrs Gorman's article), as he is the primary tribunalist-cum-advocate to shed light on the Combat Status Review Tribunals in which he himself took part. After repeatedly raising concerns, he eventually quit and even wrote an amicus brief on behalf of a detainee case being reviewed by the Supreme Court. As Mrs Gorman reports, the Supreme Court was so impressed, this is the first time in 60 years it overturned its decision whether or not to review a case. (Cf. here and here and here on Lt Col Abraham, although this is not required. I'm particularly infuriated at those pundits who would denigrate this 26 year veteran and intelligence officer for... what now? For ending his career because he could not in good conscience continue in a role which he believed to be unconstitutional? Parrhesia much?)
Back to required reading: On child detainees, the case of Mohammed Jawad from a factual perspective and an interest perspective, and an older piece that proves the duplicity of the government (e.g., it states that the US, in response to international outrage after it was revealed three children under 14 were at Gitmo, released them in 2004). As for what "normally" is done with child soldiers, cf. this brief report from 2008 stating UNICEF's concern that the US intends to ignore the United Nations Human Rights Commission and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (2002, et al)--even though we signed and ratified them.
Incidentally, I've been trolling to find a couple decent articles to give you all background on the specific individuals who are to receive trial, as well as general history regarding the prison. In my searching, I have come across a number of illegitimate sources (of course), as well as many legitimate ones. However, the ability to tell the difference is one of the primary purposes of a liberal arts education, insofar as it teaches you critical thinking. Indulge me as I show you an example.
Imagine two individuals chatting as they wait for the F/V line at the Lower East Side subway station. One is reading The New York Times. The other is reading The New York Daily News (apparently the most widely read newspaper in America). Both might assume that they are reading legitimate, objective news sources. The person reading the Times sees an article about the alleged terrorists being moved for trial to NYC. The person reading the Daily reads the following first line for their version of the news--please note, not the op/ed page, but news--article: "The diabolical monsters who plotted the mass slaughter of 9/11 are headed to New York City for the mother of all murder trials" (11.13.2009). Eek. By contrast, read (as part of the assignment) this op/ed from the Times. Yes, it is an op/ed. Nevertheless, this does not detract from its validity and soundness, insofar as it continuously cites official documents, their authors, their detractors, etc., to prove its point. Put another way, although this article may convince people of the author's view, it does so by using information rather than rhetoric. There is a difference. (I am assigning this as part of the reading. I am not interested in the author's statements regarding Iraq except insofar as they are relevant to our understanding of our nation's actions since 9.11. That is, we will not have a debate about the Iraq war in class, even if it is related. We will talk about our treatment of "those people" who allegedly had something to do with the organization that claimed responsibility for the attacks on 9.11.)
Finally, the Executive Order that officially called for the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay.
This may seem like a lot, but it really reads quite quickly. Just open each article into a new tab and read through them. There is some intention to the order of the articles.
Cheers,
-W.
Friday, December 4, 2009
The End Is Near
All,
The following shall serve as the guidelines for your final paper: 15 full pages, citations within the text (parenthetical acronym abbreviations of text names followed by page number or chapter and verse or whatever is appropriate, not footnotes or endnotes), regular rules apply (12-pt-font, Times New Roman, 1 inch margins, double spaced, no title page, nothing on first page but your name, title, and body of paper, etc.). Your topic is to write about something that has changed for you during the three semesters you have taken Search. On the one hand, you may use this opportunity to state your beliefs, insofar as the paper should begin with some statement of that which you believed and the nature of the change. The change itself may not be a radical change from one view to its opposite: even if you found affirmation and vocabulary for your beliefs, this involves a dialectical change such that the belief is no longer what it was originally. Briefly (about two pages) state the belief as it originated, that into which it changed, the process of the change, the primary originator of the original belief in its historical context, the history of the belief throughout the course texts, the primary catalyst of the change in the belief, and the consequences of the change insofar as they are seen in the course materials. You may write anecdotal and/or personal accounts, events, experiences, etc., insofar as these remain relevant. However, recognize that anything beyond immediately relevant examples falls into the realm of superfluous material. This is not inappropriate, but it does not add to your 15 page minimum. Ergo, if you write on rights theory and duty, you may include a three page personal example to illustrate Kant, but if you want to dwell beyond the relevance to this extent, you would most likely need to total somewhere between 16-18 pages. You should be able to discern the difference by now between illustrative material and filler.
If you are having trouble with a topic, come talk to me. More importantly, talk to each other. If you are uncertain as to whether you could capably represent the history of your chosen idea, the easiest way to tell is to explain it to someone. I will refrain from writing out potential examples, as I do not wish to influence your decision. The paper is meant to be a testimony of sorts regarding the history of a philosophical idea which has changed the way you will live your life. Don't try to write what you think I want you to, as you will inevitably fail; there is no answer to this question save one that comes from within. But don't misconstrue the assignment to be an opinion piece. Although the topic is your own, the history of the idea is fixed according to a specific trajectory in the same manner that facts are fixed.
Please note the first and final aspects of the paper. Just as the first few pages (give or take) should address the idea as you originally perceived it (and this includes relevant personal information and allusions, which do count towards the final page number), the final few pages (give or take) should address the manner in which the changed idea will conceivably affect your life (with relevant personal information and allusions, which do count towards the final page number). In other words, the history of the idea is the body of the paper. The beginning and end are about you. Part of what you are demonstrating is the fact that you have read the texts and understood them. But there is no such thing as passive philosophy. If you have read and if you have understood, then your lives are necessarily changed. Thus, illustrate that with scholarly reflection.
As for texts: I have been glib about the number of texts to be cited for a reason. I want you to write because you want to write, not because you are keeping score. I can't imagine a single topic for this paper which would not require reference to at least four texts from the first year and five from the present semester. Nevertheless, in each case the manner in which you use the texts will vary. Some will require little citation save as to illustrate the groundwork for an idea. Some will require extensive reference insofar as they are particularly poignant given your interest. You may want to cite many more than this, just as you may want to write a longer paper. Indeed, you will probably reference more than nine texts out of necessity, even if you only focus on four or five quintessential texts.
Due: December 14th.
You will have an in-class final. It will be of the format familiar to you by now. Bring BlueBooks.
We will have a review session two days before the final, time TBA.
When in doubt, come talk to me.
Cheers,
-W.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Eichmann and Kant
First off I should probably say that I don't want to frighten anyone off with the topic of Eichmann. I don't want this to be an off topic post which of course is something that I find is easy to do when thinking about Eichmann and the Nazis. I think that it with all the talk about Kant that it would be a good idea to try and explain why Eichmann misunderstands Kant. At the outset Kant should be absolved of any suggest that he might have in any way agreed with Eichmann. In actuality Kant would have been appalled to hear Eichmann claim to be motivated by his writings. Kant’s categorical imperative was twisted by Eichmann. The categorical imperative states that a person should act in such a way that the maxim of their actions could become a universal law. Eichmann stated that his understanding of the categorical imperative was that a person should act in such a way that the fuehrer knew of their actions that he would approve of them. This is a complete misunderstanding of Kant; the whole point of Kant’s categorical imperative is that people need to think for themselves. The basic idea of the categorical imperative is that we each need to decide if our actions could become a universal law. Obviously we can’t justify killing others because we ourselves would not wish to be killed. Eichmann instead of making this determination himself instead shifted all responsibility onto the Fuehrer Hitler. Instead of deciding for himself he instead has explicitly abrogated his ability to do that. This is ridiculous because the whole point of the categorical imperative is for people to think beyond their own personal wants and desires and think about the larger ramifications of their actions and the precedents that they are setting. When a person substitutes the wants and desires of another human for their own conscience they aren’t making any philosophical progress, they are instead just attempting to pin the effects of their own wants and desires onto someone else. I’m not sure if I’m making much sense with this but essentially the substitution of Hitler’s prerogatives for Eichmann’s, is not in any sense of the term a use of the categorical imperative. It’s just a substitution of one faulty judgment for another as opposed to any sort of real consideration of morals and ethics. The categorical imperative as Kant outlines it is supposed to make a person self reflective and thoughtful. The categorical imperative as Eichmann misunderstands merely denies the need for any thought and reflection at all. I realize that this is not a controversial post but I just felt that it was important to address specifically why Eichmann was flawed in his claim to have been following Kant's teachings.
Women and Saving the World - or something along those lines...
This post could also be known as: "My response drips with sarcasm." Take your pick of titles, no me importa.
For my Spanish class, we had to read a short article about the advancement of women. My professor was excited for us to read it, and even expressed that he was sure the women in the class would love it.
I read the article. And was immediately pissed off. I've decided to post the article here; I would like to add that it is indeed written by a man. (The original was written in Spanish, so I've given you as best a translation as I could, bear with me. The inherent problems of the article should be fairly obvious.)
What are Human Priorities for the Upcoming Decades?
Gabriel Garcia Marquez.
"The only advancement that could possibly save humanity in the 21st century is if women were to take hold of the wheel of the world. I don't believe there is a superior or inferior sex, I don't believe that one is below the other. I believe there are distinctions, with insurmountable biological differences, but masculine dominance has squandered opportunity for 10,000 years.
Someone once said: "If men could get pregnant, the right to abortion would be a sacrament." This brilliant aphorism completely brings to light a moral, and this moral is the thing that we have to invert and change. It would be, for the first time in history, an essential mutation of the human generation, that would allow a common ground to prevail between the sexes. But so far, men have despised and made a mockery of the name of "feminine intuition" - beyond reason - as a joke with which men have solidified and legitimized their ideologies, almost all of which are absurd or abominable.*
Humanity is condemned to disappear in the 21st century because of the degradation of the environment. Masculine power has demonstrated that they cannot stop it because of their inability to set aside their own interests. But with women, on the other hand, the preservation of the environment is a genetic vocation. And this is just one example. But if only for that, the inversion of power is a matter of life or death for humanity."
*This paragraph was difficult to translate - the grammar was very strange, but the basic point is that men have put down the idea of feminine intuition, called it crazy, and used that hysteria as a means of legitimizing their own ideologies.
Sounds all well and good, right? I mean, we see a bit of De Beauvoir in this - in that the author agrees that women are indeed the Other, agrees that men have indeed written the world as a man's world, even in philosophy, and that "feminine intuition" has been defined as 'hysteria' by men. The author laments this, says finds it wrong. Fine, that sounds fine.
BUT WAIT! Something doesn't sound right...
The problem with this text is mostly found in the part that I have bolded in the third paragraph. This article would sound very pro-women if you were merely perusing it - "Hey look, this guy wants women to take charge, we've been repressed, put down, we need to stand up, we need to redefine who we are rather than allow men to define us as they have so far." Right? RIGHT?
Wrong. Try again. Read that last paragraph one more time.
"The preservation of the environment is a genetic vocation" [for women].
Think about that statement for a second - this assumes that because of our [women's] feminine intuition, presumably that of "mothering" tendencies, we are genetically and essentially designed for giving care, creating life, and overall being, in the most literal sense possible, mothers of nature.
This article, specifically this paragraph, completely back tracks and plows over everything that the author has previously been talking about. It reinforces the definition that men have thus far given to women. Marquez laments that women have been put down by men and defined by men, and yet he himself has given us NOTHING. He has only given us once again the idea that what it means to be a woman is to be a mother, to be a care giver.
Ladies, the fate of the world is in our hands [apparently]. And gentlemen? Take a step back. You cannot care for this planet or our lives, as you lack and even mock feminine intuition because it does not fit your personal agenda. Not only are you bastards, but you are bastards who are incapable of taking care of anything. Get back and let the women do this. Or at least, so says Marquez... Kind of.
I found myself rather outraged at the article, and apparently very few people in the class sympathized. I think part of it was that I couldn't properly express my irritation in a foreign language. But al mismo tiempo part of me feels like this should have jumped out at a lot of people. The women in my class should have been enraged that - regardless of if they want children or not - the article was defining them COMPLETELY as mothering figures and reinforcing the idea that a woman's sole purpose (her JOB) in this world is her genetic predisposition to being a care-giver.
Ladies, forget power, forget equality. We don't need those things because according to this guy, we've already got this gig in the bag because we have ovaries and a functioning womb - and apparently (so says the man) that comes with an innate ability to care for and save the world. (God help infertile women - I suppose that they should never be in positions of power. They can't have babies, they wouldn't understand, god knows what could happen! It'd be like letting a GUY run things and the whole world would explode or something along those lines.)
The guys should have been offended too, because not only does this author say that you overexert your masculine power but that you take it even further by being selfish in the process. It wasn't enough to have written the definition of women and men and humanity, but you are so stuck to your masculine agenda that you will inevitably lead our species to destruction. We need a woman's touch here, boys, so for once, quit making 'women can't drive' jokes and let us take the wheel, so to speak.
Right? No, wait...
To this author, 'woman' is still the Other - capital-freaking-O. Regardless of whether or not he tries to write her in a positive light - he is still writing her, he still defines her. Sure, he says we're oppressed, we need to stand up, we need to take action, ladies. Sure. But at the end of the day (or in this case, the article) all Marquez has shown us is that women are still the Other to men (and maybe even that men should be made into the Other, as they could never possibly understand the reason and intuition of femininity).
Why do my ovaries make it so my primary and genetically-predetermined job is to be a care-giver. Why does a functional womb make me suitable for saving the environment? Matter of fact, why do testicles make men incapable of doing so? How do I even have a sense of feminine intuition when I have never known myself apart from what another has defined me as? In fact, the mere idea of the "feminine intuition" has been proposed by an individual (a man) who could never KNOW this intuition unless it were not solely limited to females - but if that be the case, it wouldn't be a 'feminine' intuition at all, it would be a 'human' intuition and none of this would be a problem.
This article's tendency to backtrack over its own logic would be hilarious if it weren't so audacious. Boys? You're selfish bastards who are going to destroy this planet cause you can't get over your own interests. And ladies? We can have babies, and that's what makes us "women", that's what gives us our sense of "feminine intuition", and as such, we're the only ones who are capable of caring for our planet and even SAVING OUR SPECIES.
WHAT?
Who else is annoyed? Guys? Girls? Any takers?
For my Spanish class, we had to read a short article about the advancement of women. My professor was excited for us to read it, and even expressed that he was sure the women in the class would love it.
I read the article. And was immediately pissed off. I've decided to post the article here; I would like to add that it is indeed written by a man. (The original was written in Spanish, so I've given you as best a translation as I could, bear with me. The inherent problems of the article should be fairly obvious.)
What are Human Priorities for the Upcoming Decades?
Gabriel Garcia Marquez.
"The only advancement that could possibly save humanity in the 21st century is if women were to take hold of the wheel of the world. I don't believe there is a superior or inferior sex, I don't believe that one is below the other. I believe there are distinctions, with insurmountable biological differences, but masculine dominance has squandered opportunity for 10,000 years.
Someone once said: "If men could get pregnant, the right to abortion would be a sacrament." This brilliant aphorism completely brings to light a moral, and this moral is the thing that we have to invert and change. It would be, for the first time in history, an essential mutation of the human generation, that would allow a common ground to prevail between the sexes. But so far, men have despised and made a mockery of the name of "feminine intuition" - beyond reason - as a joke with which men have solidified and legitimized their ideologies, almost all of which are absurd or abominable.*
Humanity is condemned to disappear in the 21st century because of the degradation of the environment. Masculine power has demonstrated that they cannot stop it because of their inability to set aside their own interests. But with women, on the other hand, the preservation of the environment is a genetic vocation. And this is just one example. But if only for that, the inversion of power is a matter of life or death for humanity."
*This paragraph was difficult to translate - the grammar was very strange, but the basic point is that men have put down the idea of feminine intuition, called it crazy, and used that hysteria as a means of legitimizing their own ideologies.
Sounds all well and good, right? I mean, we see a bit of De Beauvoir in this - in that the author agrees that women are indeed the Other, agrees that men have indeed written the world as a man's world, even in philosophy, and that "feminine intuition" has been defined as 'hysteria' by men. The author laments this, says finds it wrong. Fine, that sounds fine.
BUT WAIT! Something doesn't sound right...
The problem with this text is mostly found in the part that I have bolded in the third paragraph. This article would sound very pro-women if you were merely perusing it - "Hey look, this guy wants women to take charge, we've been repressed, put down, we need to stand up, we need to redefine who we are rather than allow men to define us as they have so far." Right? RIGHT?
Wrong. Try again. Read that last paragraph one more time.
"The preservation of the environment is a genetic vocation" [for women].
Think about that statement for a second - this assumes that because of our [women's] feminine intuition, presumably that of "mothering" tendencies, we are genetically and essentially designed for giving care, creating life, and overall being, in the most literal sense possible, mothers of nature.
This article, specifically this paragraph, completely back tracks and plows over everything that the author has previously been talking about. It reinforces the definition that men have thus far given to women. Marquez laments that women have been put down by men and defined by men, and yet he himself has given us NOTHING. He has only given us once again the idea that what it means to be a woman is to be a mother, to be a care giver.
Ladies, the fate of the world is in our hands [apparently]. And gentlemen? Take a step back. You cannot care for this planet or our lives, as you lack and even mock feminine intuition because it does not fit your personal agenda. Not only are you bastards, but you are bastards who are incapable of taking care of anything. Get back and let the women do this. Or at least, so says Marquez... Kind of.
I found myself rather outraged at the article, and apparently very few people in the class sympathized. I think part of it was that I couldn't properly express my irritation in a foreign language. But al mismo tiempo part of me feels like this should have jumped out at a lot of people. The women in my class should have been enraged that - regardless of if they want children or not - the article was defining them COMPLETELY as mothering figures and reinforcing the idea that a woman's sole purpose (her JOB) in this world is her genetic predisposition to being a care-giver.
Ladies, forget power, forget equality. We don't need those things because according to this guy, we've already got this gig in the bag because we have ovaries and a functioning womb - and apparently (so says the man) that comes with an innate ability to care for and save the world. (God help infertile women - I suppose that they should never be in positions of power. They can't have babies, they wouldn't understand, god knows what could happen! It'd be like letting a GUY run things and the whole world would explode or something along those lines.)
The guys should have been offended too, because not only does this author say that you overexert your masculine power but that you take it even further by being selfish in the process. It wasn't enough to have written the definition of women and men and humanity, but you are so stuck to your masculine agenda that you will inevitably lead our species to destruction. We need a woman's touch here, boys, so for once, quit making 'women can't drive' jokes and let us take the wheel, so to speak.
Right? No, wait...
To this author, 'woman' is still the Other - capital-freaking-O. Regardless of whether or not he tries to write her in a positive light - he is still writing her, he still defines her. Sure, he says we're oppressed, we need to stand up, we need to take action, ladies. Sure. But at the end of the day (or in this case, the article) all Marquez has shown us is that women are still the Other to men (and maybe even that men should be made into the Other, as they could never possibly understand the reason and intuition of femininity).
Why do my ovaries make it so my primary and genetically-predetermined job is to be a care-giver. Why does a functional womb make me suitable for saving the environment? Matter of fact, why do testicles make men incapable of doing so? How do I even have a sense of feminine intuition when I have never known myself apart from what another has defined me as? In fact, the mere idea of the "feminine intuition" has been proposed by an individual (a man) who could never KNOW this intuition unless it were not solely limited to females - but if that be the case, it wouldn't be a 'feminine' intuition at all, it would be a 'human' intuition and none of this would be a problem.
This article's tendency to backtrack over its own logic would be hilarious if it weren't so audacious. Boys? You're selfish bastards who are going to destroy this planet cause you can't get over your own interests. And ladies? We can have babies, and that's what makes us "women", that's what gives us our sense of "feminine intuition", and as such, we're the only ones who are capable of caring for our planet and even SAVING OUR SPECIES.
WHAT?
Who else is annoyed? Guys? Girls? Any takers?
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
There's tons of interesting (and relevant) stuff about the history of the Civil Rights movement in Memphis on www.crossroadstofreedom.org including first-hand accounts from important people and publications that all seem to relate to what we're talking about with MLK, etc. It's great, check it out. Also it's funded by Rhodes College and run by myself and 4 other students during the school year! Represent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)