Some Nietzsche

    I think I'm not alone in feeling that I'm missing some things about Nietzsche's philosophy. Much as I enjoy the way he writes, I often have a little trouble following his train of thought. That said, it might be helpful to others if I try to review his ideas and give my own impression of him.
   During class discussion Thursday I found myself wondering how much of what we read applied to the genealogy of morals and how much was relevant to his personal philosophy. If his words about, for example, Christian morality (such as the "turn the other cheek" stuff) are taken in a historical perspective, then we see why modern values might reflect past events such as the slave revolt Nietzsche repeatedly references. In such a context one might agree or disagree based on his interpretation of history. However, I find it easy to view his historical and cultural insight as personal philosophy when he implies that, for example, it being ridiculous for birds of prey to not use their strength to eat lambs being analogous to humans with power not using it. Examples that he uses such as this one seem to hold additional implications, more so than just stating a historical observation about changing morality over time; this example implies that strength should be used if possessed, which is itself a judgement of values and morality for humankind. If this is indeed what Nietzsche is saying, I disagree somewhat- I would argue that the problem of the birds and lambs analogy is that natural law needs not apply to humans necessarily, and that it is subjective whether the situation of a strong person not using strength is ridiculous. Thus I would agree with him that our cultural expectation that a strong person hold back or that a person ought to "turn the other cheek" is an invented and not objective expectation, but if Nietzsche is saying strength ought to be used if held, then I disagree with that because it is also an invented quality of humanity. How did you all interpret Nietzsche? Is it just a genealogy of morals or does Nietzsche bring his own biases and judgement into his work?

Jesus, Nietzche, or Somewhere In Between?

                Reading Nietzsche’s explanation of the origin of Western moral code was difficult, funny, and at times a little offensive. In all honesty, I had a knee-jerk reaction to immediately disagree with all the thoughts that Nietzsche posits. Once I got over that and moved a little out of my philosophic comfort zone, however, I started to see that, while I may not agree with everything Nietzsche says, he does have some points that are thought-provoking at the very least.

                For instance, I can’t necessarily disagree with the fact that it is a little bit illogical that the most prevalent moral code in the Western World (that of the Judeo-Christian tradition) not only tolerates weakness, but glorifies it!

 “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.” – Matt. 5:5 NIV

“Blessed are those who are persecuted because of their righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” – Matt. 5:10 NIV

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.” – Matt. 5:38-41 NIV

These (and the many, many other examples that I didn’t include) all essentially are the exact opposite of the morality of ancient thinkers. Look at the great epic poems we’ve already read in Search. The Iliad, The Aeneid , The Epic of Gilgamesh. All of them glorify the strong, powerful heroes who essentially take what they want and express their strength to earn favor with the Gods.  My question is, though, has the world as a whole really experienced this complete 180 degree turn? Don’t we still glorify the strong? Athletes make millions of dollars for displaying their physical strength. Those who excel in war aren’t looked down upon as violent savages; we give them medals and call them heroes. The beautiful star in movies and display their looks in magazines all over the world. On a smaller scale, we still glorify the beautiful. A study conducted by Christian Pfeifer found a positive correlation between those who were perceived as better looking and higher wages. So I’m sure several of us disagreed and were a bit shocked at Nietzsche’s ideas, having been brought up in a world that is undoubtedly heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian values, I don’t think that we can look at the world and say that he’s completely wrong because while we as a society to help the poor and sick, we also glorify the strong. Perhaps what our modern societal values have come to is a Hegelian synthesis between Jesus and Neitzsche?

Or maybe that’s a bit much, but actually, thoughts on where you think our society falls between those two extremes?

Here's the link to the study I referenced:

http://www.leuphana.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Forschungseinrichtungen/ifvwl/WorkingPapers/wp_201_Upload.pdf

The Revolution of the Proletariat: is it Possible?

Proletarier aller Länder, vereinigt euch!
(Communist Manifesto, 1848)

In the last few classes, we've discussed Marx's opinion that history forms into epochs defined by class struggle, and that our capitalist phase could quite possible convert to a communist phase in the near future, given that class struggle is particularly violent under capitalism.  We know that under capitalism, conditions of workers become more and more wretched as the rich become richer and the poor become poorer, until the proletariat experience class consciousness and rebel against the bourgeoisie.  

How likely is it, then, that America will experience such a revolution of the proletariat?  

We've seen in the past various small-scale rebellions; blacks and women rebelled for equal rights, indians reappeared, defiant, young people stand up against their own limitations, and working people went on strike...

I'd argue that given the US's size, governmental power, and the strength of the middle class, it would take a lot for the rebellion of the 99% to occur.  There are certain "buffers" who are given small rewards by the elite as well as the government to keep the system going, including police officers, soldiers, teachers, ministers, administrators, social workers, doctors, lawyers, etc.  If those middle class workers recognize that they are expendable in the eyes of the elite, perhaps they will recognize what they have in common with the poorer/more oppressed proletariat, that is, that they are all sharers of leftovers in a very wealthy country.  

Do you think this revolution will ever occur? Do you think that the upper middle class workers recognize that they are being used within the system of capitalism? Or do you think our democratic ideals and the processes of a representative democracy will save us from such a revolution?

Hmmm...

Alright everyone, after having not completely understanding the reading, I'm going to do my best in blogging about it. From what I understand, it is normal for our society to base our moral goodness on Noble Morality, i.e. beauty, power, and strength. But, when the weak develop their moral system, they base moral goodness on how beloved by God one is. According to this Slave Morality, people are what they are, whether that is weak or strong, intellectually or physically. But, according to this same morality system, those who are strong are accountable and responsible for being strong, even though they simply are strong. Those who are strong are also evil and not beloved by God, and therefore must act as though they are not strong in order to be less evil only because the weak cannot act or be strong, whereas the strong can choose to be weak. This seems a little wrong to me, because people cannot help what attributes and qualities they have over others- people simply are what they are. So why is it fair for the weak to say that the strong are evil, when even in the Noble Morality the strong do not say that the weak are evil, only that the strong are better? It is true that even the Noble Morality has its flaw, but it seems a little less biased and vengeful. Any thoughts on this? I hope I’m not totally off track here.

Also, what about the nonexistent difference between the action and the subject? Is Nietzsche saying that with each experience, the action and the subject are the same thing? How? Only lightning flashes but everyone yawns and sneezes and sleeps, etc. So how can there be no difference in an experience between the subject and the action? Sometimes it seemed as though there was a difference when discussing it during class discussion, and other times it seemed as though no difference existed and that the experience did not at all imply that different subjects can experience the same action. Or maybe it seemed that they were but they were not experiencing the subject performing action, which doesn’t make sense to me either because different subjects can perform the same action. I’m sorry if all of this is wrong- this me just trying to understand and reason out what in the hell Nietzsche is saying. What do you think?

Impossible REALLY?

So it came up in class (as I am pretty sure it does in the process of EVERY conversation about communism EVER) that communism seems so unlikely and maybe even impossible because “people just wouldn’t do it.”  One way to look at any existing or possible economic system differently, though, is to see it as a part of the human construct.  This of course does not mean that economic systems are not real and do not have very real effects on people’s lives, but it means that the system does not ONLY work on individuals because individuals ALSO work on (form) the system.  So from a sociological standpoint, we (that is, people) create economic systems (like capitalism) and social values (like individualism) which might disallow a communist society from existing.  But what that means is that the power to CREATE those things is ours—it is not “innate” or “destined” or “natural” for people to live with the particular systems or values that we live with.  So I believe that a communist society is completely possible but only as far as people believe it is too, because to consciously shape the systems of one’s society, one must first become aware that he or she plays a role in shaping them.

Also…

The idea that humans are innately flawed or evil or selfish is a commonly held one, I think, and we experience things that seem to point to the legitimacy of that idea for sure.  But what about that idea that there’s some good in everyone, too?  I further think that such a community would actually be possible because I think that people ARE actually “good” in general.  I read an article called "Why Are People "Irrationally" Generous to Strangers?" that talks about a study addressing people’s tendencies to reach out and help people even when they don’t know them.  The study essentially finds that people have actually evolved to be kind and outreaching, which seemingly conflicts with Darwin’s longstanding view that evolution (much like capitalism) is driven by competition and always champions the most fit over the least (the elite bourgeausie over the working proletariat).  But it turns out that people ready to cooperate with others have a better chance of benefiting from any relationships that might result, meaning that cooperation is a trait of humans that evolution favors—a trait that wins when compared to “defecting” social interractions (refusing to cooperate).  The author, Ronald Bailey even says that “being nice is a winning strategy when it comes to economics and evolution.”

So knowing that we create our economic system just as thoroughly as it creates us AND knowing that generosity (community-minded perhaps?) gives an evolutionary advantage to people, do you agree that communism could be possible (even if only on a small-ish scale and not in the near future)?  Is there any hope or chance that we will enter Marx’s last epoch of history??

In yesterday’s class we broke down capitalism for what it really is. The narrative of capitalism is “you get what you earned,” however this is far from the truth and that creates the contradiction within capitalism itself. The profit made by an industry is not allocated proportionally; the workers’ labor is exploited and it will continue to be exploited to subsistence levels. Marx tells us that this will only continue so long until the revolution of the proletariat and the following dictatorship of the proletariat. After this dictatorship, there will be a classless society, which Marx believes will be a utopian society. However, points were also brought up in class that would make this utopian society improbable and impractical.

Class is determined by property; there are the haves and have not’s. So, in this classless society, there are no individual property rights and everything is made public. If everything is made public, then everyone will own the same thing, but if everyone owns it, nobody owns it. The fact that we were born in a capitalist society makes communism hard to comprehend. We know that if incentive is taken out of the picture, then no one will work for their share if what they need is just given to them. The public good will never be the sole purpose of the individual, because it would take every individual to think this way. This is highly impractical, because not all people will have what’s best in mind for everyone. Is it possible to have a communist society that is wholly utopian? In history we have seen that communism ultimately fails in practice, but does that mean it is impossible to create a functioning communist society that isn’t corrupt?

                However, what are the possibilities of there actually being a revolution of the proletariat? I couldn’t imagine our society reaching this breaking point. Is it possible for something to change the relationship between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat before revolution happens? Through production by estranged labor, we have profit, and it is not allocated proportionally to every ones’ work. Not only are workers not being paid for the work they’ve done, but estranged labor alienates us from everything in our nature. Is it possible to change this relationship between the workers and owners of production? 

"Haves" and "Have Nots" and the Common Good

In regard to the class division discussed by Marx in his "Estranged Labor" argument, I identify his point of the distinction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat centrally as an identification of "haves" and "have nots". But what about those in the middle? The current presidential election has been lending a lot of attention to the middle class. Marx does not acknowledge the existence of a middle class, and I believe that his idea of two classes can be more realistically observed in the society of today than in years prior in the United States. It is true that the rich are becoming richer and fewer, and that the poor are becoming poorer and more numerous in our country today. Yet, even as the socioeconomic gap widens, a middle class does remain in tact in today's U.S. So, how can Marx's description of capitalism be reconciled with the contemporary example of the U.S.? Marx's four types of alienation are reasonable, in that they ultimately lead to increased competition between individuals. As we know, competition is a staple of our capitalist society. It could be said that as Marx's alienation occurs within a capitalist system, it is the resultant attitude of competition that drives the widening of the class gap between "haves" and "have nots". Those who work hard and compete relentlessly, we can observe within the U.S., are the ones who typically attain the most wealth and the highest social station. Those who do not necessarily earn their "subsistence means" are generally lacking. In the U.S. there are unique socialist programs such as Welfare and Social Security that help people who cannot necessarily compete in the same ways as others, due to physical handicaps, etc. Due to these social programs, our social system can in no way be described as complementary to Communism. Yet, capitalism's intention (even within Communism), generally speaking, is to promote the welfare of the common good (defined as balanced social and economic systems), via a collective will to strive toward progress and a spirit of individual competition. My question is this: If it is capitalism's goal to strive toward the common good of the nation, what should this common good look like? Is Marx's idea of a two-class division promotional of a "balanced" system? Or, does a middle class drive the balance of the common good?

No Form of Government or Lack of Government is Everlasting

Would it be possible for a large communistic community to maintain itself after the proletariat revolution?

Looking back at Russia and parts of Eastern Europe, most communist states were unstable at best, largely due in part to political instability. However, even though these countries were communist states, they were premature and did not achieve the Marxist idea of a pure communist state. Therefore, their failures should not be held in bias to Marx’s argument, but only as references to failed states. I recognize that my opinions on this topic are influenced, my having been raised in a capitalistic society. However, I would nonetheless like to attempt to discuss this topic with minimal bias. Taking this into account, I postulate that fluctuations of political and economic instability make it impossible for a large-scale communist society to sustain itself over an extended period of time.

Before I begin, I would like to be rid of a certain stigma that is associated with communism. In any system of government there are always those that would take advantage of the system and undermine it to a certain degree. These individuals would affect the state to some extent but not significantly, given the fact that these persons are irregularities and therefor do not largely affect the whole. Accordingly, we will dismiss them for the sake of the argument.

If we consider a communist state formed in a time of prosperity, the likelihood of its survival becomes significantly more plausible. I say this because, as we have seen in recent history, when a communistic state is formed out of desperation or poverty it is doomed to fail. The people of the community do not truly and naturally agree with the terms of government, but are coerced through circumstance. This situation can be circumvented by the presence of a strong, central form of government, such as in the case of North Korea; however, that is no longer communism. That is a dictatorship.

However, even if it were formed on the solid foundation of prosperity, the establishment would still fail. The creation of this society would inevitably result in its regression and dissolution. Even if all citizens were to completely comply with every aspect of a purely communistic community, the economy—or lack of economy—would lead to its ruin. Due to the lack of any significant surplus value, the community would earn no profit. There would be no monetary system. There would be no excess. It would be secluded from the global sphere, stifling it not just economically but culturally as well. However, the primary problem is that there would be little to no defense against an economic downturn. When there is an overwhelming amount of poverty and unhappiness amongst the populace, it is inevitable that some great change will occur.

 Thus, everything is cyclical. The ultimate end of a proletariat revolution is not an end, but only another piece in an indeterminate cycle. I say indeterminate, because there is no guarantee that the next form of government will uphold any particular form of government. A state could completely dissolve. It could become a monarchy. It could become a republic. It could become totalitarian. It could even become some form of government that has not yet been contrived. And then at some point it might return to being a communist state. To return to my point, I would maintain that pure communism is not the ultimate end of government. Additionally, I would like to take it one step further to reason that no form of government is permanent.

What is your opinion? Do you think that a communistic form of government could last? Do you think that any form of government could last? Are we moving towards some ultimate form of government or are we simply moving?

Also, thought you guys would think this is funny, even if it is a bit off:

Kant’s Right to Lie From Altruistic Motives: The Murderer at the Door

After our discussion of Kant’s ideas concerning the moral right to lie, we were all left with a lingering feeling of discomfort; according to Kant, we should all lead a murderer to a friend, no matter the later consequences.  It is very difficult for me to justify following an ideal moral code (i.e., telling the truth in any situation) when the almost sure consequence of my action would be the death of my friend. So, do we need special principles for dealing with evil?

We are told that lying, generally speaking, is considered a wrong action.  Lying is a violation of a perfect duty to oneself, and moreover, a liar can be held legally and ethically responsible for his actions.  We also must remember that lies are only successful in achieving their purpose because they act to deceive.  But if they were universally practiced, they would not deceive.  Lies, though, are deceptive because most people do not engage in them, and they can only be performed by someone who makes an exception of himself.

As we apply this immoral action to the case of the murderer at the door, we could also consider that even before the main subject is faced with the decision to deceive or not to deceive, deception has already occurred.  Murderers do not standardly knock on doors proclaiming, “I wish to murder your friend. Is he in the house?”. Most murderers, I would assume, suppose that a person does not know 1. who he is, and 2. what he has in mind.  The murderer, or the deceiver, has placed himself in an immoral position.  If these are the circumstances, could there be a universal practice of lying to a deceiver? Is it allowed to lie to deceivers in order to counteract the intended results of their deception? 

If everything I just said is completely convoluted, here’s more food for thought: What else could a person do, if they follow Kant’s laws and tell the truth? Hypothetically, would they have a moral obligation to follow the murderer and, if he attempts to murder his friend, to stop him by using force? Or would this be just as immoral?

Why the Honor Code is Not Coercive

    This seemed a hot discussion premise last class, so I shall put my two cents in.
    For the Honor Code to be coercive it would have to limit or restrict our freedoms in some way. Signing it does not invoke some magical force that constantly represses you, so obviously there is no physical coercion. Nor does it necessarily threaten through punishment, for were one to, say, steal a laptop and get caught, I would expect that most colleges would expel or condemn that student and legal action to be taken, regardless of whether an honor code were signed or not. And even including the repercussions (going before the honor council), students still have the same freedoms to lie, cheat, and steal as they did pre-signing, now they merely have new repercussions to consider.
    I do, however, acknowledge the argument that freedom can be hindered on a social and psychological level; the act of signing a contract is regarded as binding despite physically being no more than putting an ink pattern on paper, and our society has emphasized  this action (with contracts, credit cards, etc.) to the extent that a signature seems to have taken on connotations both of trust and of identity. Trust is a necessary component, since if everyone were willing to violate signed contracts, the action would lose its meaning (we have legal repercussions in place to discourage such). Identity too is a factor because it is one's name presented in one's own style, and thus requires a degree of personal involvement with social consequences for violation. Thus, even if one were certain to not be caught violating the code, a student may choose not to due to psychological, cultural, and social baggage within that students own mind, and thus be limited in free-will and choice.
     Now, to determine whether these non-physical factors are truly sufficiently influential to be considered coercive requires answering a myriad of philosophical questions: How closely are freedom and identity interrelated?  Is objective restriction necessary to limit freedom or do subjective influences suffice? If one can unconsciously or unwittingly violate a restriction, does this make him free, or do actions have to stem from conscious, intentionally choices to be considered freely-made actions? What is the optimal semantic approach to the word freedom?
     Returning to my own opinion, I think the honor code is not coercive because I think we have the choice to consciously, intentionally break the code whenever we want, but we consciously choose not to break it due to having an understanding of the consequences and benefits of such actions. To me this is sufficient to make us free in this context.
    Undoubtedly there are people who disagree with me. What do you all think?

Is there an end to knowledge? What do you think about the ideal confrontation?

In class we discussed the sublimation of parts of opposing arguments in order to arrive at a synthesis, or a compromising solution that both negates both arguments but also blends the other parts of both arguments. But, what happens when everything has been synthesized, and there is no longer an antithesis for anything? Of course, ultimate knowledge and wisdom will be reached. But if one reached ultimate truth, what would that mean for the human race? Humans naturally seek knowledge so that one day we can answer any questions still unanswered. But, if we can one day reach that point where nothing ever need be synthesized or questioned, how would humans fill their time? So many jobs depend on learning and not knowing that it would be destructive for the world if humans were to know everything there is to know. Is it possible that there will never be a way to synthesize everything? I would hope so, because otherwise the world will one day be full of knowledge, and yet there would be nothing else to look forward to in terms of knew knowledge to discover and new theories to explore. Unless Hegel is talking about strictly philosophy, where there would still be knowledge to explore scientifically. But, in terms of synthesizing all knowledge, I find Hegel’s theory to be true and yet completely detrimental to the progress of humanity which coincides with our inherent desire to seek knowledge. Thoughts?

I also wonder about Hegel’s “ideal” situation in which two opposing free beings acknowledge one another mutually and freely. In the case where Dr. Johnson and Karissa confront each other, wouldn’t Dr. Johnson still have to go around Karissa, or Karissa move out of the way, so that Dr. Johnson can fulfill her goal of walking to the wall? One would still be submissive to the other, whereas, ideally, neither one would have to be submissive to the other and both could fulfill her goal of not moving and walking to the wall. Is there ever a winner in these situations?

However, I do find the idea of not wanting to be submissive extremely true in everyday situations, unless submissiveness is acknowledged. For example: when I move out of the way of someone, I wish for him or her to say “Excuse me” or “Thank you.” When someone doesn’t say this when I’ve gone out of my way in order to simply stay out of his or hers, I find it extremely irksome, and wouldn’t mind fighting about it, as Hegel suggests.  Does anyone else find this as important as I do? Or am I too expecting of others?

Society's Adaptation of Kantian Ethics

            I’m sure most of you remember my rather long-winded struggle in class on Tuesday to come to grips with Kant’s essay “On the Supposed Right to Lie for Philanthropic Reasons.” In the example given by Constant, I cannot in good conscience say that I would not lie to protect my friend in the closet. Even after the class discussions, I cannot in good conscience say that I would tell the truth if it were a complete stranger in my closet, or even if it were someone that I actively dislike hiding in my closet. I thought about trying to argue Kant’s point using his own ethics (something about how the lie told to the murderer at the door was not necessarily immoral in the Kantian sense since Kant advocates advancing the means of others only if those means are morally permissible, which murder is certainly not), but I didn’t think I’d be too successful with that method either. People much smarter and more well-versed in philosophy than me have written pages and pages on the subject. Instead, I’m going to attempt to answer Kant with Hegel. I’ll start by quoting from Karissa’s earlier post, “Universal and Unusable,” where she asks us, “How is one to conduct him/herself as based on a universal law or as one would in a “merely possible kingdom of ends” when he/she is in a completely singular situation in a flawed, messy world?”.  I would say, quite frankly, that we can’t. Humans just are not pure rational beings, as much as some of us may like to be. Emotions, feelings, and the like all come into play for the majority of us when weighing a moral dilemma such as the murderer at the door. While Kant tells us that we must be truthful to the murderer, I think that every normal reader today instinctually finds that action to be immoral. Instead, I think that, whether we realize it or not, we all synthesize these opposing theses about lying and other moral quandaries every time we face a moral dilemma. After all, if one could just apply a moral law without thought to every situation, it would hardly be considered a dilemma. For instance, in Constant’s example, we have Kant’s thesis:

Lying is never morally permissible. 

Naturally, the antithesis to that would be:

Lying is always morally permissible.

The synthesis, then, would read:

Lying is sometimes morally permissible (e.g. to protect a loved one’s life).

This type of synthesis can be and is applied to numerous other moral absolutes the world over, such as killing (Killing is always acceptable + Killing is never acceptable = Killing is sometimes acceptable, such as in a case of self-defense).  That is not to say that there cannot be a universal moral code, just that it cannot be as absolute as Kant’s and still be practically applicable to our “flawed, messy world.” That said, I am no closer to discovering that universal code than I was in August. Any ideas on whether it can or cannot exist? If it can exist, does it have to be absolute, or can there be qualifications? For example, in our society, killing an innocent person is deemed “murder” but killing a person who is about to kill you is deemed “self-defense”. In either case, killing as occurred, but the situation is different. However, is it still universal in that killing an innocent person is always deemed wrong? Do those specifications destroy the universality of the laws?