Kant was of the opinion that things which make people happy and satisfy do not have to be "good" acts, and that the most "evil" things can bring people happiness. This reigns true throughout modern society as people commit heinous crime - not knowing why - but they know that a particular "evil" act makes them happy. But the argument goes much deeper than that as society itself manipulates concepts of "good and "evil", and to go further more, it could be argued that morals change across the globe i.e. in the media at the moment there are many reports of so-called "Honour Killings" in countries such as Turkey, where some feel it is right to kill woman who they believe have brought shame upon the family. Paradoxically, if such events were to occur in the UK there were be major uproar and answers would be demanded.
Furthermore, he argues that characteristics which are usually perceived as positive traits such as intelligence and courage can all be used for "evil" and are thus evil. This can be seen in any war throughout the ages, as to achieve a goal which a particular nation sees as essential for their own survival, people from opposing nations must be killed thus this act of courage is inherently evil.
Kant employed the word "good" to represent "good will" and duty, and he was adamant that by using reason one would discover their duty and then "good will". I divulge in opinion here, and I would have to agree with the likes of Hume on this topic. Hume's philosophy was that morality was more felt than judged with any kind of reason. For Hume, morality is a matter of feelings and impulses of sympathy, which are carried out by rules.
Kant differed a lot from other philosophers in that he believed that there had to be an afterlife because without an afterlife there would be no point in any morality. He was of the opinion that if everything was predetermined in life than morality would have no place in any society. I cannot fully agree with him here as although I am no religious man I do feel that life is definitely not predetermined, however I can agree that in a hypothetical world of predetermined activity, that morality holds no weight.
Despite Kant's estranged views on good and evil, to say he was in anyway a nihilist, or indeed an anarchist, would be entirely incorrect. He was of the opinion that humans must live by laws to give any action that anyone acts out a sense of worth in the world. He agreed in a society where laws and rules can be applied prior to one's own existence. Conversely, just when I thought I could agree with Kant he had to stray with MY "moral" beliefs; Kant said that rational people create the laws that they live by. I feel that this can be interpreted in two ways: firstly he is implying that ratioanlity is the way to live, as if one is rational then the right way to live will surely follow, which is a positive way to live. However, to me it feels like if everyone saw themselves as rational and made their own laws then a common morality cannot exist as everyone's morals would vary astronomically.
Tuesday, 23 February 2010
Sunday, 21 February 2010
Thus Spoke Jon
In the Biblical parody of “thus Spoke Zarathustra’, the rhetorical narrative is so well crafted that this masterpiece really does stand out as one of the greatest philosophical books ever, and really acts as a tribute to greatness of both Neitzche’s philosphopihalc and lexical talent.
The book is steeped heavily in irony with the text resembling the nature of the Bible to induce biting resentment. The book itself acts firmly as an attack on the juade-christian beliefs of good and evil; the belief that the world is a battle between two different sets of forces.
Neitchze’s take on Zarathustra urges us to get over the diacotmy of Good and Evil, which Zarathustra himself introuded. ZarathustraUrges us to forget ideals of “the other worldly”, and strongly projects neitcheze’s philosophy that there is only the world we are in now and nothing more.
This book, despite having few themes, does contain some continuing themes as can be seen in earlier works such as “the gay science”. The book reaffirms the philosophy of ‘God is Dead’, as the protagonist notes to himself after encountering a hermit, “'DEAD ARE ALL THE GODS: NOW DO WE DESIRE THE OVERMAN TO LIVE.'” This quote brings me nicely onto talking about another theme in the work, the theme of the overman. Nietzsche makes a point that the overman is not the true end for a person, but more the journey of self-discovery and knowing.
The book is steeped heavily in irony with the text resembling the nature of the Bible to induce biting resentment. The book itself acts firmly as an attack on the juade-christian beliefs of good and evil; the belief that the world is a battle between two different sets of forces.
Neitchze’s take on Zarathustra urges us to get over the diacotmy of Good and Evil, which Zarathustra himself introuded. ZarathustraUrges us to forget ideals of “the other worldly”, and strongly projects neitcheze’s philosophy that there is only the world we are in now and nothing more.
This book, despite having few themes, does contain some continuing themes as can be seen in earlier works such as “the gay science”. The book reaffirms the philosophy of ‘God is Dead’, as the protagonist notes to himself after encountering a hermit, “'DEAD ARE ALL THE GODS: NOW DO WE DESIRE THE OVERMAN TO LIVE.'” This quote brings me nicely onto talking about another theme in the work, the theme of the overman. Nietzsche makes a point that the overman is not the true end for a person, but more the journey of self-discovery and knowing.
Monday, 15 February 2010
Hegel: The Best Yet?
As far as philosphers go, I am enjoying the works of Hegel.
Hegel believes that reality is a matter of a process of change and understanding objects as processes of change.
He argues, when you contemplate something, the thought is a process of change in itself. One cannot separate the act of thinking about something from the nature of that something you are thinking about.
Contemplation of things is stimulates change. When you have concluded your thought then the object in topic is believed to have then changed… there is no certainty. The only certainty is that the subject has tried to understand it; this concept is commonly known as the Geist.
Hegel philosophy is that history has a goal of freedom and no alienation in the sense of the Geist knowing itself.
Hegel shared Kantian dialectic views, with the ideas of thesis and antithesis. This theory shows that all propositions have their own negatives. For anything to occur there must be opposites i.e. the analogy could be weather, if there was no rain or sunny days then there would be no concept of weather.
No thesis can exist without an antithesis i.e. an EXISTENCE is a THESIS and NON-EXISTENCE is a ANTITHESIS, thus creating history, which is a SYNTHESIS. After this, history becomes the new thesis and then the process continues.
Hegel believes that reality is a matter of a process of change and understanding objects as processes of change.
He argues, when you contemplate something, the thought is a process of change in itself. One cannot separate the act of thinking about something from the nature of that something you are thinking about.
Contemplation of things is stimulates change. When you have concluded your thought then the object in topic is believed to have then changed… there is no certainty. The only certainty is that the subject has tried to understand it; this concept is commonly known as the Geist.
Hegel philosophy is that history has a goal of freedom and no alienation in the sense of the Geist knowing itself.
Hegel shared Kantian dialectic views, with the ideas of thesis and antithesis. This theory shows that all propositions have their own negatives. For anything to occur there must be opposites i.e. the analogy could be weather, if there was no rain or sunny days then there would be no concept of weather.
No thesis can exist without an antithesis i.e. an EXISTENCE is a THESIS and NON-EXISTENCE is a ANTITHESIS, thus creating history, which is a SYNTHESIS. After this, history becomes the new thesis and then the process continues.
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
Jean-Paul Sartre does not translate in our Modern World
Sartre is clearly the existentialism master. His bleak views of humanity have shaped the ways in which aesthetic existentialists view the world.
The quote below represent, quite aptly, his philosophical outlook.
"Existence is prior to essence. Man is nothing at birth and throughout his life he is no more than the sum of his past commitments. To believe in anything outside his own will is to be guilty of 'bad Faith.' Existentialist despair and anguish is the acknowledgement that man is condemned to freedom. There is no God, so man must rely upon his own fallible will and moral insight. He cannot escape choosing."
Although-as this quotation would imply-the individual's actions and choices are key to his own existence, most cannot agree with the ways this existence is personified through the eye's of the existentialist. I for one will not agree with the philosophies of Sartre, his peers, or those in the arts influenced by existentialism. I am of the opinion that the concept of existentialism is a theory which has been embraced to try and portray life as a constant, isolated struggle, and to some extent I feel that it has been glamorised through literature as humanity's "will to power".
In "Being and Nothingness" (a rather appropriate title, which conveys the existentialist persuasion), Sartre said, "There is no ultimate meaning or purpose inherent in human life; in this sense life is absurd". Life is anything but absurd. It has great meaning and poignancy; both in a psychological and reproductive sense. It is madness for Sartre to rebuke the value of life. Life and the interaction in life only furthers humanity's moral greatness and makes for a more comfortable and enjoyable life, and for one to be existential in the modern world is to deny what is all and good within society.
A further aspect which I would like to pick up on as far as Sartre's philosophy goes, is he rejection of basic Freudian concepts, concepts of which one could only perceive as common place and obvious in modern society. Freud argued that who a person becomes is often related abck to the individual's past i.e. childhood, when the ego is installed. However Sartre argues that an individual has the abitly to reshape it's own values. Although in some sense Sartre is correct as people's values are often changed; they are usually changed by others via interaction, and furthermore to argue that we are not driven by our past is madness.
The quote below represent, quite aptly, his philosophical outlook.
"Existence is prior to essence. Man is nothing at birth and throughout his life he is no more than the sum of his past commitments. To believe in anything outside his own will is to be guilty of 'bad Faith.' Existentialist despair and anguish is the acknowledgement that man is condemned to freedom. There is no God, so man must rely upon his own fallible will and moral insight. He cannot escape choosing."
Although-as this quotation would imply-the individual's actions and choices are key to his own existence, most cannot agree with the ways this existence is personified through the eye's of the existentialist. I for one will not agree with the philosophies of Sartre, his peers, or those in the arts influenced by existentialism. I am of the opinion that the concept of existentialism is a theory which has been embraced to try and portray life as a constant, isolated struggle, and to some extent I feel that it has been glamorised through literature as humanity's "will to power".
In "Being and Nothingness" (a rather appropriate title, which conveys the existentialist persuasion), Sartre said, "There is no ultimate meaning or purpose inherent in human life; in this sense life is absurd". Life is anything but absurd. It has great meaning and poignancy; both in a psychological and reproductive sense. It is madness for Sartre to rebuke the value of life. Life and the interaction in life only furthers humanity's moral greatness and makes for a more comfortable and enjoyable life, and for one to be existential in the modern world is to deny what is all and good within society.
A further aspect which I would like to pick up on as far as Sartre's philosophy goes, is he rejection of basic Freudian concepts, concepts of which one could only perceive as common place and obvious in modern society. Freud argued that who a person becomes is often related abck to the individual's past i.e. childhood, when the ego is installed. However Sartre argues that an individual has the abitly to reshape it's own values. Although in some sense Sartre is correct as people's values are often changed; they are usually changed by others via interaction, and furthermore to argue that we are not driven by our past is madness.
Wednesday, 27 January 2010
Existentialism
The existential movement draw upon some interesting concepts of the self, however these outlooks seem very alien as far as I am concerned. Sure, living for the now and just by current, sensory impulses seems like an unashamed way to live a life (somewhat embracing Freud’s theory of the id), but to me this ethos seems like a reckless way to experience a life; a life which encounters constant contradictions, never accomplishing any sort of decent existence.
Claiming to be an existentialist comes across as very selfish and unfulfilling, and though they believe to be independent, I believe living, as an existentialist is lonely; or am I just influenced too heavily by my ego?
Existentialists believe you are what you make yourself through your own experiences, but in doing this one rebukes moral responsibility. In their pursuit for certainty via experience, an existentialist does not care about personal responsibility, which really gives them no place in society e.g. when Camus’s protagonist (in “The Outsider) Meursault kills without remorse.
To be a traditional existentialist one must rely on no one and remain in solitude. The existentialist’s search for truth is very lonely, and without sharing experiences, the individual’s search for truth is surely slowed down. More modern existentisalists (who have noted the fact that social interaction is necessary) take a different stance but still an equally bleak outlook, which can be seen for example in Jean-Paul Sartre’s perceptions that relationships are solely established by people's attraction not towards one another but rather how that person makes them feel about themselves by how they look at them. Existentialism is essentially selfish and despite an existentialist’s belief that they are more honest as an individual, they are far more deluded than the worst of philosophers.
Claiming to be an existentialist comes across as very selfish and unfulfilling, and though they believe to be independent, I believe living, as an existentialist is lonely; or am I just influenced too heavily by my ego?
Existentialists believe you are what you make yourself through your own experiences, but in doing this one rebukes moral responsibility. In their pursuit for certainty via experience, an existentialist does not care about personal responsibility, which really gives them no place in society e.g. when Camus’s protagonist (in “The Outsider) Meursault kills without remorse.
To be a traditional existentialist one must rely on no one and remain in solitude. The existentialist’s search for truth is very lonely, and without sharing experiences, the individual’s search for truth is surely slowed down. More modern existentisalists (who have noted the fact that social interaction is necessary) take a different stance but still an equally bleak outlook, which can be seen for example in Jean-Paul Sartre’s perceptions that relationships are solely established by people's attraction not towards one another but rather how that person makes them feel about themselves by how they look at them. Existentialism is essentially selfish and despite an existentialist’s belief that they are more honest as an individual, they are far more deluded than the worst of philosophers.
What's the time Mr Wolfe?
Time to begin semester 2!
First on the old reading list is Tom Wolfe's From Bauhaus to Our House.
The main theme which occurs in this book is that of Architectures are being stubborn in believing that they know what is best for the human condition, which is hidden in a specific style but often leaves a real sense of alienation; he believes people are being badly subjected to the work of very few.
Wolfe enjoys the intricacy of unique buildings and rebukes the "international style" of modern architecture founded by those such as Walter Gropius, who spawned modern architecture, and was the founder of the Bauhaus school. He believed that the people often associated with the buildings they worked in or went to were never appreciated. Furthermore, Wolfe was highly critical of conformism. He believes that architecture has become so international that origin and identity is often lost ("edge of sensory deprivation").
To me, his comments seem ill-informed and lack depth. Though his ideas appear strong and striking in emphasis, the lack of detail on the structures of which he speaks proves very unconvincing and personally comes across as failed propaganda. He comes across as narrow-minded as the movement he hates.
I can agree with him to some extent about how structure's beauty are compromised in favour of function but he doesn't put his point across well at all, and furthermore, for him to try and bundle half a century's worth of architecture into a flimsy, meagre book, and have nothing positive to say does not lie favourably with me.
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
The New God Is Dead (Chris Horrie quote)
Don't blame me I'm wired wrong! Agree with this concept or not, Tom Wolfe's essay "Hooking Up" presents a lot of food for thought. He presents the idea of how the id and ego creates a new God.
Wolfe discusses how educated people no longer need a God (as Nietzsche said) and how Nietzsche somewhat prophesied the history of the next two hundred years.
He predicted that the twentieth century would be a century of devastation and astronomical war, as people would no longer have a god to turn to, to rid them of their guilt. However they would still remain very guilty, as guilt is natural, and begin to hate themselves. With the absence of God in their lives, humans would inevitably form barbaric brotherhoods to give a sense of direction and purpose. Clearly there are very blatant parallels between groups, which appeared across Europe during the early 20th Century; most obviously Nazism, which was somewhat of a national barbaric brotherhood.
There is an agreement with neuro-scientists of the 20th Century, both believing that guilt is predetermined at birth, and that those who don't feel guilt are wired genetically incorrectly and cause crime. This is an interesting concept but I strongly disagree as although some humans may very well be born with different perceptions of both right and wrong, inevitably it is an individual's surroundings and outside influence which is the most prominent factor when determining whether a person feels guilt or not.
The essay states that mankind will come out of the end of the 20th Century barely upholding religious moral ethos, but the 21st Century would experience revaluation of moral beliefs and consequently fail due the fact that morals need a God to uphold them. Again there are parallels with Nazi Germany, as although Hitler was at the forefront of barbaric brotherhood. He was trying to establish himself as god-like, and many German’s reveled in this. Were the Germans looking for a new God? Is this a continual circle? Brain imaging?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)