Clytemnestra

If Kierkegaard does not specify what the Absolute is, could one take that as any deity that they believe in? In that case, a person could have Satan as the Absolute. They could use him to kill people and cause havoc. Would it still be ethical for if the person did not try to justify his action? I just do not get how a person can follow the Absolute and kill someone and it is ethical. He uses Agamemnon killing Iphigenia as a tragic hero and being ethical. He sacrificed her as repentance for offending a goddess, and he also did it to regain her favor in the upcoming war. If that was ethical and made Agamemnon a tragic hero, does that make Clytemnestra, his wife, a Knight of Faith? Clytemnestra did not justify her reasons for killing her husband and Cassandra, his lover. So does that make her murders somehow less bad?

class synopsis March 30, 2011

We began March 30^th’s class by talking about Kierkegaard’s second stage of life which is the ETHICAL. Going from the aesthetic to the ethical requires a big leap. This leap is characterized by two basic things: accepting moral standards and recognizing duty over pleasure. For Kierkegaard the ethical stage is an either or stage. By this, he means that you cannot behave aesthetically while also being ethical. We gave the example of the homeless man. For the aesthetic person a homeless man is whatever, they are not worried about him they just keep going with the flow as if nothing happened. We can take the same homeless man and have someone spit on him. If a person is truly aesthetic they will not care and keep on with their lives but as soon as that person recognizes that it is wrong to spit on a homeless man then he or she is making a judgment and therefore making the leap between the aesthetic and the ethical person. Being ethical is mainly about making judgments. Once you make a judgment you run the risk of indentifying with a belief. Then we identified heroes to be ethical human beings. Yes, they might always be heroes but they are missing out. They are so committed to duty that they sacrifice their very own pleasure or rewards. They recognize that the duty they perform is greater than their own happiness. Just like with the aesthetic stage the ethical stage has its difficulties. These difficulties are inability to obey the rules or laws (inability to be consistently oneself), one recognizes imperfection, and conflicts within LAW.

We then proceeded to talk about the last stage which is the RELIGIOUS stage. The religious stage makes the distinction of society (the universal) or God. This is when we talked about the dark knight. His actions are not universal; in fact, most people view him as a tyrant. But he is so committed to his duty that he puts it over everything. We also determined that decisions come from a purity of heart not because the ends will be rewarding. We do not make decisions based on ethical or based on following the law but we make decisions because our heart is pure and it will the one thing. A religious person is a fanatic of sorts. He or she will do things that are not necessarily universal and things that society does not agree with. Then we started talking about the leap of faith. We talked about this talking about examples like 2 people in love. When a couple is in love there is no reasonable reason to their love. They simply love each other. If it is love then it is absurd, it is something unjustifiable and a must. Another example is the person who believes in God. The belief in God is something that cannot be justified, mediated or quantified this makes it impossible for it to be universal. The leap of faith however has to compromise your identity it cannot just be that you believe that a desk is or is not there.

We ended the class by talking about the lovers’ example. When a boy loves a girl and the cant be together people in the different stages will react differently. The aesthetic person will keep going with their life it will not be a big deal for them that he cannot be with the one he loves. There will always be others. The ethical person would not give up on love but would be resigned to the fact that they cannot be together in this world or in this life. Finally, the religious person is the same as ethical but he would insist regardless of the absurdity that they would not be together in this life, in this world. The religious person would push and push for the relationship to happen.

Safe Faith??

Outsiders often see people of faith as ignorant or ridiculous. And people of faith are often to hung up on their own mindset to see the world from a different set of eyes. In class we talked about faith and doubt, and how in order to have true faith one must doubt. But for those who think faith in a God is absurd, doubt comes naturally and freely. I believe that the harder task is having true faith in something and being strong enough to state the doubts or questions you have in relation to that faith. So often "believers" want to believe so badly they act as if their ideas on faith are the only tried and true ones, and in these instances I would say their faith is lacking. Is it because they are so unsure about their faith they have to convince themselves that is fail safe? The real way to grow in faith is to ask questions, let your faith be tested, allow yourself to hear your own doubts and the doubts of others. You may never win a conversation with a non-believer, but the more begin to understand what your faith means in your life, the more real it will become to you. In the end choosing to believe in something is much riskier than choosing not to believe at all, but if you ask questions and look for answers, your eyes could possibly be open to something much bigger than yourself.

Aesthetic, society vs. the absolute

In class on Wednesday we discussed about the Aesthetic which means there is no good or bad. These people flee judgment. Slimy people do not have identity, and usually are uncommitted. Some examples of aesthetics are Hedonist, and Intellectual. Hedonist means life is pleasure and Intellectual means life is thought. Some difficulties that aesthetics face are internal contradictions between immediacy and living for future possibilities, neurosis of who am I, and Boredom results. The main point about aesthetic difficulties is people have to be willing to change their identity and way of life if one desires change. Later on in class we discussed the ethical. Ethical is a leap of choosing to accept moral standards. An example gave in class of this was a homeless guy being spit on. One who sees this has a choice to either defend this homeless person or to just walk away. During this time one has the ought or duty to help the homeless and take that risk, and despair. When we discussed this it made me think about when I stand up for someone or do a favor for them. I asked myself whether I did this out of ought or duty, despair, or just self-choice because I know it’s the right thing to do. Ethical people usually end up being the Knight of Resignation which means people are always going to be in despair for doing a just thing. People know what is expected of them in society, and most of the time we do not live up to those standards and think we have failed. Mill says “Customs where made from Customary” which mean some actions may seem unethical but one knows deep down that it truly is ethical. At the end of class we started to talk about society vs. the absolute and how there is not a commitment to the ethical to law but a purity of heart to will one thing vs. a universal.

Aesthetic to Ethical and possible flaws

I came across a popular blog recently that I think described the behavior of going between Aesthetic and Ethical pretty well. It shows why people might revert back to the Aesthetic after a period of being an Ethical type person.

http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/06/this-is-why-ill-never-be-adult.html

Listening about the Religious type not through Kierkegaard's insane babble still left my face contorted. I certainly follow him and agree about Aesthetic and Ethical type people, but this whole third Religious category just seems Non Sequitor to me. Then again I don't understand it very much so I'm not in a position to be taken seriously when I'm critical of Kierkegard.

At the same time his reasons for explaining why Abraham is definitively of Religious (the silence) doesn't sit well with me. What difference does it make?

Let's say someone blows up an abortion clinic (with out mumbling a word) due to thinking this was God's way, what difference does it make if he was silent or yelling? Well, it's simple really, that terrorist who blew up the abortion clinic, he wasn't really a Religious type, he was really just an Aesthetic or Ethical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

A simpler explanation , defined by Tvtropes.org: "No True Scotsman is a intentional logical fallacy which involves the act of setting up standards for a particular scenario, then redefining those same standards in order to exclude a particular outcome." Which I think hits the nail on the head of how Kierkegaard writes away these other religious fanatics.

3/28 Class Synopsis paper

In today’s class we were introduced to Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard. While in school, he couldn’t find a major; in fact, philosophy dissatisfied him because he found it to be too abstract. Today, he is known as the father of existentialism, meaning that he prioritizes existence and living over abstract thinking. Existentialism focuses on living the authentic life and being responsible for decision-making. Additionally, Kierkegaard wrote in pseudonyms, taking on different characters in his writings. He did this in order to leave the reader “alone” with the work, so the audience won’t read his writings as a type of confession or autobiography, rather they are co-authors of them.

Furthermore, existentialism centers around living your own truth; committing for what ceases you, and living by it. This, in Kierkegaard’s eyes, gives one’s life meaning and allows one to live authentically. Truth, therefore, is subjective to each person. One man’s truth may not coincide with another’s.

Finally, Kierkegaard identifies the stages of life’s way into three categories, which all individuals fall under: aesthetic, ethical, and religious. What identifies each level is how one determines “what is the good life?” These spheres exist as modes of being, language games, or patterns of belief or practice. Movement from one level to another requires a movement of the will or a leap, which cannot be explained or supported by human reason.

The aesthetic stage of life’s way, for example, is not necessarily connected to the arts or being sensible, but more so living in the immediate. In the aesthetic stage, the individual is essentially uncommitted, detached, and an on-looker of life. The aesthetic avoids life via the simple immediacy, which means they do not preclude highly reflective forms of life, and they are pre-ethical and a-moral. Notions of right and wrong, good and evil, or virtue and vice, play no role in the aesthetic evaluation of life.

Class synopsis 3/25/2011

Class synopsis

3/25/2011

Today’s class we had a quiz and watched a film that reviewed Karl Marx Marx and his ideas of the Bourgeois vs. the Proletariate. The quiz covered questions from the specific measures called for the Communist party. We talked about the abolition of private property in land to public purposes. This raised the conversation of privacy, Could someone just walk into your home and act as though it is everyones property. WE then went to talk about the two classes, the bourgeois and the proletariate differ. The bourgeois use the proletariate to fuel their capitalist, materialistic, and upper class society with their hard working labor products. The Proletariate are a working class reduced by the bourgeois to just producers that have no relationship with their products.He believes that the history of the world has been a history of class struggles between the producers and consumers. The only purpose for the Proletariate was for monetary value, making the proletariate make product to survive, not for the point of making product. The movie we watched was an summary of Marxism. Using the illustration of old cartoons, it showed exactly how the bourgeois are dominating society with their capitalistic ideas and how slowly the bourgeois tactics spread through out the world in other countries for the means of monetary value. It showed the epidemic of overgrowth of production int he bourgeois society. The Proletariate class was slowly forced out from the production part of society by machinery, making the proletariate class almost usless. This moved on to the proletariat forming a union, “Workers of the world, Unite!”. What is good in Communism is that it will not make the rich richer; rather it would eliminate the bourgeois and proletariate class making an almost equal balance in society between the rich and poor. It would make it so that there is no one ultimately poor, while there would be no one who is very rich. In the end society would no longer be compatible with the bourgeois because the it is “unfit to rule society with its incompetence to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery.”(1002) After the video of the cartoon illustration of the Manifestation of communism, we watched a short clip of Glenn Beck who had a guess speaker, Sam Webb, the leader of the Communist party in the US. From the amount of the video we saw, It was interesting and slightly amusing to see how Glenn Beck cut off Sam any time he tried to explain anything about Marxism or communism.

Class Synopsis- March 28th, 2011

Subject 1: Søren Kierkegaard

Monday’s class began with the introduction of philosopher Søren Kierkegaard. As a student, the Danish writer had a Peter Pan-esque attitude toward life. He had difficulty even choosing a major in school, even finding philosophy dissatisfying as he was not interested in the abstract. These conundrums ultimately lead to the central theme of his work. Kierkegaard prioritized living over abstract thinking, affording him the title of “Father of Existentialism”, which promotes the importance of decision and decisiveness. Kierkegaard valued his anonymity, using many pseudonyms, or characters, as personae in his work. In his work Either/Or, Kierkegaard uses five different pseudonyms as personae. These characters voice different opinions so that the soul of the author is not considered as part of the work but seen as part of the character. Kierkegaard believed that the reader should be left alone with the work rather than in a dialogue with the author, thus allowing the point of view to speak for itself. He goes on to deny the intention of a religious telos in his working, attributing it to some divine providence. Kierkegaard believed that there is no authorial privilege, so the intention of the author does not matter and is not the meaning of the text. Dr.Layne used the example of her painting as intending to paint an apple, yet whatever is on the canvas is not her idea but is separate from her since the viewer adds meaning by what is extracted from it.

Subject 2: Existentialism

In Existentialism, Kierkegaard teaches the importance of giving life meaning and living “authentically”. The authentic life focuses on emotions such as guilt, boredom, and anxiety. Kierkegaard believes anxiety is the telos of being human as everyone has some form of anxiety stemming from our incompleteness or sinfulness. What matter is not the general or universal truth but the truth that is true for a person specifically and seizes their life; the subjective truth. Dr.Layne told us how she was seized by love for her husband before even knowing it. This truth led her to where she is today and shows that she is indeed living authentically. Chris then pointed out that Kierkegaard’s view of the truth points out a problem with divorce.

Subject 3: The Stages of Life’s Way

Kierkegaard’s Stages of Life’s Way has 3 levels of the aesthetic, ethical, and religious. All individuals fall into one of these forms. Dr. Layne explained that one cannot choose a sphere, but can sometimes move between them by a movement of the will. Each level is defined by how one answers the question, “What is the good life?”

Subject 4: Aesthetic

In Kierkegaard’s first stage, the aesthetic, one lives in the immediate. The individual is a detached on looker, avoiding life via immediacy which does not require reflective thought. Pre-ethical, right and wrong play no part in the aesthetic view of life. Kierkegaard argues that there is no authentic self in the aesthetic stage as everything is relative and there are no real matters in life. Commitment and either/or decisions are avoided. If one chooses one path, others are cut off. A student posed the question “How is a decision made if decision is not involved at all in paths (aesthetic, ethical, or religious)?” Dr. Layne explained that there is never an option, only the severed self from other possibilities, which are not actual options. The aesthetic person lives in the moment, only experiencing a series of “nows”. Chris asked, “Is this placing judgment because these claims are only made within the realm of the ethical?” Dr.Layne refuted that this doesn’t matter in the aesthetic since, once again, everything is relative. Kierkegaard claims that those of the aesthetic stage do not know who they are, leading to the despair of the unwillingness to be oneself.

Philosophy vs. Theology

So I spent much of Monday pondering how psychology, theology, and philosophy intertwine; a question that was first posed while learning about Kierkegaard’s notion of the “leap of faith” and later addressed in my World Religion class as we studied Taoism and Confucianism, two belief systems that seriously blur the lines between philosophical and religious beliefs, in Eastern Asia. The way I see it is the philosophy attempts to define how people think and the reasons people do the things that they do, while theology studies what it is people believe and how these beliefs fuel lifestyle choices.

Both of these practices are simply two different ways of studying the human mind, which would make them both, in some manner, smaller branches within the broad topic of psychology. However, neither theology nor philosophy fit into the scientific aspects of psychology, thus why they must be considered distinctly, as to leave a standard of credibility to the actual practice of psychology.

Many philosophers considered themselves above religions, but the practice of philosophy is a no less subjective study of the same topics that theology attempts to explain, except that philosophers claim credibility through “logic”, which is still as man-made a concept as any religious text can even be accused of being and thus open to the same flaws, particularly that man lack omniscience, or even any sort of truly known awareness beyond, what, 120 years, at most? That is also the most inherent flaw in both philosophy and theology, the fact that they both attempt to set such blanket terms on people across an innumerable set of times and places.

Class Summary, March 28

Monday's class began with a wrap-up on Marx and the Manifesto. Dr. Layne brought up the way capital was valued above all else in the world. She used our own families as a collective example. Each of us has family members who wish for our major in college to be practical, i.e. profitable, rather than what we really want.

This talk about majors segues nicely for the main topic of class, Kierkegaard. Like many college students, Kierkegaard couldn't find a major in school. Even the abstract nature of philosophy turned him off. The writer from Copenhagen prioritized living over abstract thinking, and based much of his work on the importance of the decision (Miami Heat Bandwagoner). Kierkegaard used many pseudonyms in his work, and the pseudonyms spoke from the first person perspective. In his work Either/Or Kierkegaard uses five different pseudonyms as personae. He sought to leave the reader alone with the work, implying that the intention of the author is not the meaning of the text. These works focused on living and decisiveness earned Kierkegaard the title of "Father of Existentialism."

In existentialism, existence comes first. Kierkegaard stressed the importance of giving life meaning and living an authentic life. He focused on emotions such as anxiety and despair, which were genuinely human feelings that pushed us to make decisions. Kierkegaard cared not for universal truths, but for subjective truths. That is a truth that a person lives by and bases his or her life on. We learned that Dr. Layne loves Tyler and wants to maaarrrryyy him. (And did)

Dr. Layne then explained Kierkegaard's Three Stages on Life's Way, which are the aesthetic, the ethical and the religious. We all fall into one of these three categories. A move from one sphere to another is a movement of the will, simplified by Kierkegaard as a "leap." Human reason cannot explain or support these leaps. The litmus test for each level is a person's answer to the question, "What is the good life?"

For the aesthete, life is focused on the present. An aesthete is essentially a detached on-looker in life. He/she focuses on the immediate and worries not of reflective thought. Also, everything is amoral in this worldview. The aesthete does not see past or present, and only views life as a series of disconnected "nows." Kierkegaard, who was once an aesthete, criticizes this worldview for its lack of authenticity. He says that aesthetes have no authentic selves and do not know who they are. He says they will feel the despair or the "unwillingness to be oneself." In this, they would be guilty of double ignorance in refusing to pursue the ethical life when they know it is better.

Then class ended because it was 1:22.

Why do I do things?

I have no idea what we did in the last class, but that did not prevent me from wondering, "Why do I do some of the things I do?". I really hate doing some of the stuff I do but still, I do it anyways. Some of the reasons are obvious, doing school work to get a grade, doing my laundry so I have clean clothes in the morning or working out so I don't get fat and lose my delicious beach body. And there are harder ones, hanging out with people to gain social acceptance, putting up with things you don't like because other people think it's okay or even giving up things for some sort of random religious significance. All together I wish I could just do whatever I want, but unfortunately to live as I would like too it is necessary to act in a certain way to appease others.

Kierkegaard Contradcitions?

Kierkegaard went through a lot of pain when he gave up his fiancée. He thought he was not suit to the life of a husband and a pastor. Although giving up the life of a pastor was easier than giving up his fiancée, it seems he really did not want to give up his fiancée at all. The readings say he was surprised when she became engaged to another man. It seems he believed God would give her back to him like Abraham was given back his son. It was as though despite what he wanted, he always though that she would be given back to him through divine means. I guess I'm not understanding what he really wanted. He did not think he was suit to the life of being a husband, but he was upset when she was engaged to another man and this contradiction confuses me. I suppose my question is what did he really want?

Communism

After this weeks lectures I began weighing the values of Communism against the capitalism of America. The idea of communism seems more liberal to me because equality is one of the big points. Communism ensures great equality, but if America were to try and switch to Communism, it would most likely fail because Capitalists thrive on incentives money. If we switched to Communism, nobody would be as productive or even work because their is no incentive to be the very best. The Communistic mentality of pleasure in your job is not valid in a capitalistically based society. The type of government is an integral part of the infrastructure of a nation and it is unlikely that anything less than a revolution would fail to convert government.

meaning versus effect

A very important fact Karl Marx missed when writing Communist Manifesto is that people have an innate aspect of their personality, which causes one to help him/herself before others. It is much easier to look out for yourself before helping others, which is probably why helping others and caring for their needs over your own is viewed more honorable than being selfish. The failing aspect of Socialism or Communism is that not one person can make everyone's life perfect, or at least fair. He can try, but (as seen in a democracy) he needs the help of the men and women around him, who's lives he strives to help. A government, nor and other form of authority, can make an entire nations people happy. It takes each person to pitch in for the benefit of others to crate a happy environment. The pursuit of happiness is promised in America, and that is just it; the 'pursuit', not the actual happiness. One has the opportunity and will to become happy, but it is up to him to make that happen. A mother can spoil her child, but cannot ensure his or her happiness.

Push for Capital, Cause of Disaster?

In Karl Marx’s, “Communist Manifestoon,” Marx discusses the path moving from using raw indigenous materials to using materials from the “remotest zones.” While the narrator is reading that from the Manifesto, the screen flashes a film of the Flintstones using dinosaurs to lift rocks, and when it comes to the using materials from the remotest zones, it shows a fountain spewing oil instead of water. While over time, those raw materials have changed; the basic concept of this has not.

I thought the text and the depiction given in the cartoon brought this part of the Communist Manifesto together. For centuries each country has been relying on their own material resources, commonly known as fossil fuel. Since the U.S. does not have the means at hand to develop our most used fossil fuel, we outsource to the “remotest zones,” of the Gulf of Mexico, the Middle East, and else where to obtain our “need” for oil. The way that I interpreted this part of the text was that instead of relying on ourselves to produce the means that we deem necessary, we go else where, taking others land, and making it our own.

A perfect example of the rampant run of the capitalist society would be the recent BP Gulf Oil Spill. Going to the remotest of zones to pull up oil for our country to run off of. Due to the “need” for remote resources being pulled, and the company’s push to gain capital, the oil spill was caused.

Round about, if there wasn’t a constant push for monetary gain in a capitalistic society, could such man-made disasters as the BP Oil Spill could possibly be prevented?

Class Synopsis March 25, 2011

On Friday we began class with a quiz based off of Karl Marx’s “Communist Manifesto”. The quiz covered questions ranging from “Workers of the World Unite,” to the ten short-term demands to the spectre of communism that was haunting Europe. We discussed Marx’s comment that the bourgeois only allow men to relate through “naked self-interest, payment in cash.” By this, Marx was saying that no longer are things necessarily done for the betterment of society, but rather solely for self and for monetary value. In return, the bourgeois is strictly using the proletariats to develop a product. We then discussed how the two classes; the bourgeois and the proletariats differ. The bourgeois are of an “upper class” with typical focus on materialistic values, while the proletariats are generally the laborers, producing most materials. Because the bourgeois focuses so heavily on the production of materials, it leaves no relationship to the producers of those materials, the capitalist society only produces so that it can gain monetary value.
After the quiz we watch a video with a voice over from Marx’s “Communist Manifesto,” with popular cartoons depicting what exactly his manifesto represented. In the movie, while Marx discusses the need of a constantly expanding network of expanding products, showing the stretch of the bourgeois across the entire globe, and showing how rather then using indigenous materials, the bourgeois is now using raw material from the “remotest zones,” such as oil. Marx then goes on to say that the ideology of the bourgeois is spreading, leading other countries to become bourgeois themselves – showing the distribution of wealth into only a few people’s hands. The video then discusses the growth of production and agriculture, which he explains as the “epidemic of over production.” He explains these “crises” as being handled by war, or colonization of new land for more producing. He then discusses the placement of proletariats, saying that they are soon to be replaced by the over production of machinery, because of this growth in machinery, wages are being reduced. Due to the lack in work for the proletariats, the class unites and forms a union. The spread of this sense of “revolution” through the proletariat class is developed through modern day communication. Marx then explains the ridding property of personal ownership, which is “alleged to be the ground work of all personal freedom, activity and independence.” He then continues to explain that if you are to remove the “petty property” of the peasant and artisans, there is no need because the spread of industrialization and lack of work left for people has already taken that property away. Marx explains that in capitalist society, most people (9/10) do not actually have any property, rather are renting or borrowing because the 10% of property owners hold all of the wealth in the population. He then goes on to explain how communism doesn’t guarantee everyone wealth, but rather restrict the action of exploiting the work of others. Finally, communism will differ from the class structure of the bourgeois and proletariat because there will be no class difference. Marx claims that with class difference comes oppression, claiming that the “free development of each, is the free development of all,” leaving the proletariats to only gain from this communist revolution.
In the final video, we watched Glenn Beck interview Sam Webb, the USA Chairman of the Communist Party. While we did not get to watch the entire movie, enough was seen to note that Glenn Beck rather did not let Sam Webb speak about anything, and instead immediately shut down his commentary.

What would Mill say to Marx?

I think Mill and Marx would have a very compelling argument..I mean, discussion. I wouldn't think they would agree at all. Mill is very individualistic and while Marx wants what's best for the individual, he thinks the way to achieve that is through coming together as a society. I can already hear Mill screaming "What is right for the individuals is not right for the whole GROUP!"

If Mill were around now I think he would subscribe to a libertarian style of government. A very free and open type of control where individuals are free to live how THEY want to live and find other with the same wants to achieve their goals. Mill would be all about Ron Paul.

If Marx were around he's probably be a little angry at the stigma that the word "communist" has on it. I personally feel like if we didn't demonize the world communist a lot more people would be open to that style of government. I personally wouldn't, but I think people don't fully understand it enough.

George Orwell once said "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." I believe that this statement is true, because everyone is born with certain advantages or comes across unique opportunities in life. This is the exact problem that socialism and communism try to fix, as they strive to achieve exact equality for all people. This points out the problem with Communism and Socialism- that the government strives for uniformity while nature works in the opposite direction, towards chaos and variation. In this way, communism will never result in perfect consistency, but just place the power somewhere else- in many cases to government officials. In this way, perfect communism can never be reached.

Damn Commies

I like to call things "effing hipsters." It's a great way to be jokingly accusatory. The only thing I like more than that is calling people or things communist. Anytime somebody disagrees with me or doesn't go to a party I'm at, they're immediately part of the Red Guard. It's obviously for comedic effect, and I beat the shtick over the head. I take much pleasure in being a faux-McCarthyist, and I'll find a way to link someone to communism through circular and irrational logic.

That being said, this communism talk has me feeling nostalgic. At one point in life I considered myself a communist and/or socialist. Hell, I am the proud owner of not one, not two, but THREE Che Guevara tee shirts. I still wear them sparingly, as he was a great anti-imperialist and Latin American thinker, but not with the same zeal I once did. I truly believed an entire of people could work together in an ideal state where the right to starve was eradicated. However, my switch to free market ideals was tied in with my cynicism about humanity. Upon seeing the failures of communism across the world and feeling less inspired by people's attitudes, I formed the notion that capitalism was the most perfect imperfection for an economy. (I'm sure it wasn't a year spent in business school that convinced me otherwise. Positive.)

I am actually a registered member of the Socialist Party. I may be a proponent of the free market, but I still thought Mr. Obama was the man for the job. Now, this would normally just be a political belief and nothing more. However, when you go to Catholic school is South Louisiana Obama becomes the black harbinger of Muslim abortion clinics on every collectivized farm. All I heard at my school, from authority figures and students alike, was their ardent support of McCain and how Obama was an idiot socialist. I could not vote in the presidential election, but there was a table to register to vote at the end of the year. With the same accusations swirling in my head as I signed up, I happily told the nice old lady (who'd said she was pro-McCain pre-election) that I wanted to register with the Communist Party. Taken aback a bit, she said, "Louisiana doesn't recognize the Communist Party." She offered me solace, though, in the Socialist Party. Thus, I signed up with them to laugh at the zealous right-wingers at school, using irony to make a statement about society defining someone by their politics. Wait, that sounds like something done by a...no, I can't be! DAMMIT!

What would Marx say today

Communism shares with the American democracy the idea that men are equal. Our democracy however says people are only equal in their individual voice to govern our country and not equal in respects to their economic worth. Like Marx wants, our society allows people to do what they most desire, but it leaves it up to them to acquire the knowledge and skill to complete their desired task. It is the people who have chosen to not always do what they most desire because of either how mush skill it takes to be good at it and therefore paid to do it or because what they want to do does not pay what they want to receive. Marx has said that as long as life’s basic needs are met people will do what they most enjoy, yet the many American’s have shown that even with our government supplementing capitalism with a minimum wage, subsidized housing, and food and medical care for low income workers, millions of people decide to not do any form of work. This shows that most people will only work as hard as necessary to receive their set amount of pay. If there is no incentive to acquiring more skills and working harder people all over the world in all forms of government have proven that they will only do what is required for them to receive their pay.

Marx also says that it is the Bourgeoisie that suppresses the proletariat, yet it should be understood that in our society it is the Bourgeoisie that makes the proletariat stronger. Any worker can join the capital holding class, this gives incentive to the workers to work harder and take more risks in order to make this move. If what Marx said about people that are doing what they love is true then, in our society you will inevitably get paid more than any other for doing what they want because of how good they are at doing it. Marx’s failed to understand that oppression of the majority and laziness are natural to humankind, maybe not to all but most definitely too many. His “Communism” sounds great but because humans are last I checked still human, it is now and forever will be an impossibility.

Socialism

This past week we talked a lot about Marx, communism, socialism, etc. I have a very difficult time with this debate because I see both sides so clearly and understand each perspective quite well. I think the real issue isn't so much "which way of life is better" according to the government, but it should be according to the people that would be living under those conditions. So often we find ourselves analyzing what way of life is better for others. Who are we to debate, when we are not even in the picture? I feel like I cannot say yes or no to socialism/communism since I have never lived it. I can speak on capitalism and give my opinion about this, but that's all I feel I can do. I cannot compare.

The free laborer

When it comes to freedom of one's own labor freedom comes with a cost. Freedom has said to be "freedom from the means of production" and freedom to sell one's own labor power. A free laborer will sell his labor for "equal" exchange to meet his or her basic needs. An example of this is a man will work his whole life off shore on oil rigs. He rarely sees his family maybe once every three months. However, because of his hard work on the oil rig he always supports his family with enough money for food, clothing, and shelter. The equality is understood as ignoring qualitative difference and making quantitative sameness. This is the conflict of Marx idea of let freedom pay.

class secretary humans as producers

Humans’ beings master nature to meet needs, primarily material. Human beings are producers and everything we are involved in we do to better ourselves. We satisfy needs by approaching nature and producing commodities to be consumed. Everything we do is resolved around a need/a want. “Men must be in a position to live in order to be able to make history”. At the end of the day everyone wants to make history in some way shape or form. People feel a need to important and they will go up and beyond to do so.

Human beings compete against each other in order to make their place in life and hard work is the determining factor. “A commodity is an object outside of us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference”. Human work first for the basic needs such as shelter and food. Then Second materialistic things such as nice cars, jewelry, and clothes.

Human relationships can either be productive or alienated. In order to make the most out of life and meet the common needs having good relationships with people is important. When people get along and like each other things get done a lot easier and a lot faster.

Differences between socialism and capitalism: Socialism takes care of some everyday worries such as going to doctor which may be nice. In Capitalism human beings have to work for certain things and i like that because it makes me feel I have a responsibility and I don’t want everything dumped on my plate and given to me. I want to work hard for everything I have and have it because I earned it.

Communism

Essentially, Communism is a political ideology for a utopian society. Very much in the same fashion as democracy.It should be pointed out that it is impossible to ever obtain these societies. However, one must choose the one who flows best as an imperfect entity. Several questions are raised, is the idea of freedom better than the guarantee? Should the citizens have a say in the distribution of resources, or should it be equal regardless? It seems now people would much rather have the feeling of egalitarianism versus true freedom, mainly by the manipulation of the media. The media splits up many the two groups and makes the middle class feel rich and the poor a mysterious group who are responsible for their inevitable downfall. The majority of major news anchors are millionaires, so one must ask how can they effectively relate to me? Even more freighting is the incomparable number of wealthy politicians. The masses are constantly deceived by the rhetoric of the rich.

Too much thinking

I asked a friend from South America how he felt about socialism, just to get a different perspective on the matter. Quickly we got into a debate about people destroying the world, pros and cons of religions, etc. It seemed like with everything we talked about, he had a pessimistic attitude regarding the world around us, while I had a more optimistic one. It was evident that he had thought about all of this before because his arguments were fast, almost prerecorded. He brought the conversation to a halt because he was getting really upset.

This is an aspect of philosophy that I just don’t like. It makes people question everything and some people just get depressed because they don’t like any of the conclusions they reach. He literally asked me “what is good and lasting in life?” After having cheered him up, I decided I should probably not ask him about philosophical questions anymore. And now I wonder how many other people become upset like him.

Those damn cute elephant&monkey paintings

We’ve seen them, the interesting little article online showing some ADORABLE elephant with his trunk wrapped around a paintbrush, paintings broad, quick strokes on a canvas..

Most of the vendors that sell these animal paintings donate a portion of the proceeds to the zoo or animal rights groups. Strangely, these paintings don’t look half bad. In my opinion, they are nearly indistinguishable from an abstract artist’s work. But are they art?

As many would say, the one thing that separates humans from the animals is art. We are smarter, have more complex brains, and have produced amazing inventions. Zookeepers merely give the animals a paintbrush and an empty canvas. They have no concept of art history; they cannot be inspired by the works of Michelangelo or Rodin or Kandinsky.

Is it any different depending on the animal? Along with elephants, monkeys (chimpanzees in particular) also participate in these zoo animal painting classes. ‘Monkey paintings’ as they are known, were a fad in the 60’s in many famous modern art museums. We humans undoubtedly can relate more to chimps than to elephants. Does this mean what they do is art? Their work is aesthetically pleasing and could easily be confused with a human’s.

I believe that this cannot be considered art. It is limited to human beings with higher thought. Just because a monkey can hold a paintbrush and makes nice-looking strokes does not make the piece art.

Does desire solely drive behavior?

The week before Mardi Gras break, we were actively discussing Hume and his work titled: From Rationalism to Empiricism. Hume held that desires and emotions ultimately govern human behavior, not reason. Coming to think of it, I don’t necessarily agree with Hume’s claim. Because I, for one, know for a fact that I don’t complete my school work out of pure desire. I complete my assignments simply because they are mandatory and required in order to pass and ultimately achieve academic success. I reason with myself that if I don’t complete my work; I will have to face consequences. Now I know the example I provided is a very basic one, but unless I’m completely misinterpreting Hume, I’ve made my point. And I believe there are many other simplistic examples that contradict Hume’s viewpoint. Now all of this begs to question just how Hume exactly defines desire.

Beck vs. Webb

Last week, we mostly discussed Karl Marx and his ideology towards human development and production/labor. But during Friday’s class, when Dr. Layne played us a brief segment of Glenn Beck’s interview with national chair of the Communist Party, Sam Webb, I couldn’t help but relate the material back to English philosopher, John Stuart Mill. Mill’s philosophy stresses that the person who has spoken and heard all opinions has more right to hold their own opinions. In other words, if we simply take the time to listen to others, regardless if their opinions are contradictory to ours, our own opinions are then tested and justified. From the very start of the interview, Beck is on the offensive; rudely interrupting Webb and blatantly mocking his ideals. Now although I don't agree with Webb's political agenda, I still found the interview downright ridiculous. If Beck didn’t want to listen to what Webb had to say (which is clearly the case), then why’d he ask in the first place? Webb is defenseless. Beck, in my honest opinion, displays ignorance and a biased demeanor to the highest capacity.

Check out the full interview below:

Buffy and Alienation

Although it may seem like a simple equation to be born a vampire slayer, and to fulfill your role by slaying vampires, several different bodies appear Buffy with different ideas about the meaning of the slayer's role.

The most unnerving of these is known as the Initiative, operating out of a secret facility below Sunnydale. The Initiative is a secret government organization formed to capture, study, and kill demons and vampires. Formed under the impression that the slayer is a myth, those in power in the Initiative have a hard time reconciling Buffy's self-determination with their tightly-regimented operation. Distrustful of Buffy's autonomy, the head official at the Initiative eventually attempts (unsuccessfully) to have Buffy killed.

The attempts made by the Initiative to enlist Buffy, but only on their own terms, reflect Marx's portrayal of the bourgeoisie. In the same way that Buffy has skills that are useful to the Initiative, the work and skills of the proletariat are useful to the bourgeois. However, as in Buffy's case, the bourgeois are operating in their own interest, and those who work for them are seen as mere automatons. Where Marx calls out religion as the opiate of the masses, the Initiative in fact drugs their soldiers to avoid questions and rebellion regarding the end goal their labor contributes to. Although the soldiers in the Initiative are not under any more pressure than any other member of the proletariat to work for wages, they are alienated from their labor by the extra measure of the unspoken goals of their superiors. These goals alienate the soldiers, and seek to alienate Buffy, from the labor of protecting the populace. This work becomes a commodity produced for wages and advances in wages, rather than an ethical imperative with inherent rewards.

Buffy, as a free agent, is a threat to the Initiative's leaders in the same way Marx sees communism as a threat to capitalism. She works fro herself, and the satisfaction she finds in her work is for those whose lives she saves, and for herself. Throughout the show, she shirks impositions from others on how her work should she be done, seeking instead an identity defined by doing her work well and finding personal growth and fulfillment through it.

Inheritance

Friday in class we briefly discussed Marx's idea of inheritance. Well, I like it. I mean for the middle class his idea of completely eliminating it is not all that great, but for the rich people this works. Is it truly fair that people like Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie to just get everything handed to them? I mean Paris went to jail for a day when she should have been in there for three weeks and found God! It's all for publicity and to make sure people know that she has a Dad that is wealthy and will be leaving her a huge inheritance. It's not right. College kids, like a few of us I believe, are working three jobs while going to school full time. How does that make sense? Young adults who actually do something to benefit the world are struggling to make ends meet, but stupid rich kids who sit around tanning are alright? Dr. Layne commented how in the Europeans, the government taxes inheritances. Well, why do we do that?

Run by Production

One of the topics we discussed was the idea that Marx believes that the whole world was essentially created out of production. Essentially claiming humans are what we produce, through material things and what we make of our relationships with others. I found this not to be a completely true thought. That humans can only contribute to the world, their surroundings, by what they produce? I think that concept completely ignores the emotional side of human life, only focuses on how the world goes round, not what goes on IN the world. For example, what if a man is very successful, creates a product that doesn't represent his personality, who he is as a person, in any way. The product sells, is very popular, boosts the economy in a very healthy way. But on the inside the man is a very low shallow unhappy person. All of his personal relationships are a mess and he thinks of himself very lowly, pretty much is a waste of space that contributes nothing to anyone personal to him emotional. So yes technically speaking his productions helped the world move, the economy be stable but when he dies did he REALLY help anyone close to him? Did he lead a happy life? Is he content with helping strangers his whole life with his product that has no real value just material value?

Capitalism vs. Marx

I had always been under the impression that the reason communism failed was that they did not create incentives to keep their economy competitive because people were wasting too much time doing things that were not productive. This week while we were going over Marxism I realized that even in capitalist societies we waste a lot of time and that in fact it actually takes very few of our total resources to maintain the basics for our entire population. While our history books say that in the battle between the two economic systems that capitalism came out as the victor but maybe that is only because they were the more aggressive in a dog eat dog struggle that ended up corrupting the true values of communism. In the end you just have to look at the roots of the words capitalism and communism. What makes you happier? Community or money?

noumena

Lately we have been talking about Karl marx and his views and published works. I really agree with Marx's idea o noumena and how what is real right now is reality. For many other philosophers they talk about the greater picture, how quite frankly each one of us by ourselves are insignificant, questioning everything, asking why is the color blue called blue, but the it doesn't matter why, who, and with what reason the name blue was decided because blue in universally understood as the color blue. What we feel see and go through everyday is real, because that is what we are living through with right now, its what we have to address and live with right now and for our own future. The feelings we have are real, the people we care for, and the desires we have are all things that make us feel good about ourselves and those are things we strive to achieve.

Marx: Class Synopsis: March 28, 2011

In class we discussed Marx and watched a film, we talked about alienated labor, which states that the more the worker produces the more he falls under the power of his products. A worker becomes alienated from his product when he devotes all of his time to it. The object then does not belong to the man it belongs to itself because it now has all of the workers time. Marx gives many example of how his theory is put into play, one of his examples are that if a workers work has intelligence put into it, then the worker is witless. (988)

Marx also talks about the struggles between the Bourgeois and the Proletarians in the Manifesto of the Communist Party. A bourgeois is a class of modern capitals and in order for them to keep control they must keep revolutionizing instruments for production. The idea of revolutionizing the instruments for production has caused the Proletarians, the class of modern wage laborers, to have to fight to give their labor to obtain money. Bourgeois have not only been diminishing the amount of labor opportunities for workers but it has also turned family relations into money relations. The proletarians live only so long as they find work and who find work only so long as their labor increases capital.

Marx’s’ other views include that the difference in age and sex have no social validity for the working class. He states that they are all instruments of labor, more or less expensive depending or their age or sex. Because of the machinery that is being built there is less need for laborers and when there is a need for labor the amount of money credited for the labor is lower. Workingmen of all countries UNITE!

“History of society is a history of class struggles”

I agree with this statement. In today's world I sense an underlying tension between classes and races. It is not with words that are said or specific actions but there is a vibe given off. For example, if someone cuts you off in traffic your assumptions about that person are not that he or she is similar to you. Elevators are another example where there can be a very uncomfortable tension.

Communism: A Love Story

Over the last several decades many nations have attempted to have a communist country, none of which have succeeded. On the contrary, those who have had communism as a political system have caused so much pain and hardship. North Korea, The People's Republic of China, Cuba, Vietnam, Former U.S.S.R. and Laos. These countries of course are not exactly what Marx intended, however these countries must be brought up because they have tried to use "ideals" of communism to control the masses. In China today many people are forced to work in only certain fields of work. For instance as much as you might want (the freedom) to work as a pastry chef, the government wants you to be a butcher. What many people do not realize in Cuba is how very difficult it was (or is) to leave the country. In a personal story, the father of a friend of mine was born and raised in Cuba. However he was tired of being oppressed by Castro's regime, you cannot just get on a plan to go move to a different country. He had to disguise himself in order to get on a boat to go to the U.S.A.

On a separate note, China over the last decade has slowly drifted away from a communistic economy and has slowly embraced a more capitalistic economy. Ever since then, the economy of China has gone up. The U.S.A. on the other hand, trying to become more socialistic has obviously gone down in the economy.

There is a BIG difference between communism and socialism CLEARLY. But these facts must not be ignored for the obvious reasons. One may not pay for school, health care, food, in a socialistic or communistic state, but what exactly do you get? The idea of BASIC healthcare comes into play. Well what is basic healthcare? Does it cover plastic surgeries, heart transplants, dialysis, flu, etc. What is BASIC food? You very well may only get a loaf of bread (former USSR) They promise food of course, but how much? what's the quality?

Of course Capitalism is not perfect, no political system has been in the existence of human kind. But would humans want to lead or be herded?

What many people say about communism is how it is perfect. On paper, Communism sounds very appealing, but as we all know from other countries it leads to exploitation of the proletariat, starvation of many (China, USSR), and lose of any personal freedoms.

A book that really struct the nerve with me was Anthem by Ayn Rand

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/books/rand/anthem/index.html