Media: Working Against Feminist Ideals

During class, Dr. Layne spent a great deal of time explaining the feminist ideals of French philosopher, Simone de Beauvoir. One aspect that I believe wasn’t entirely stressed/exploited was the media’s role in propagating demeaning stereotypical characteristics on women. You obviously don’t have to go far to see what I’m talking about; simply turn on your television and you will find ample superficial portrayals of women through commercials, films, and/or reality T.V. shows. Here are a few examples: the perfect housewife in an advertisement for a household cleaning product. And, of course, the perfect woman with the perfect body, hair, and face found in just about every commercial. Will the media ever portray the way woman really are or is the phrase “sex sells” the only explanation for this? The exploitation of women in the media has become so common that most people don’t even notice or care anymore. In a society where the media promotes women as eye candy, valued for little more than their desirability and eagerness, how can feminist possibly win? In my opinion, until the media develops a new-found respect for women, the struggles Beauvoir once fought against will continue forever.

Burden of responsibility

Last week, we discussed “Existentialism is a Humanism” by French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre. I found Sartre’s work extremely interesting and definitely easier to comprehend than previous philosophical texts; simply because of his use of in-depth explanations and specific examples. I particularly enjoyed his take on the role of responsibility in our lives. Sartre writes “Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself”. We have choice, we have subjectivity, and we choose what we will try to make ourselves out to be; we are entirely responsible for our existence. Sartre’s idea that human existence is characterized by transcendence also explains why he writes “if existence really does precede essence, [then] man is responsible for what he is.” Personally, I see Sartre’s philosophy serves as a motivational tool to make something out of existence. For let's face it, at the end of the day, your ideals aren’t what matter; what matters is what you actually did.

Differentiating between "The Knight of Faith" and "Tragic Hero"

In “Fear and Trembling”, Kierkegaard develops two figures to help his readers ultimately understand Abraham’s decision to sacrifice his son, Isaac: “The Knight of Faith” and the “Tragic Hero”. On Friday’s pop quiz, I mixed up the two; so I figured I would dedicate this week’s blog post to clarifying the distinction between the two. Kierkegaard describes Abraham as a Knight of Faith through his actions which “transgressed the ethical altogether and had a higher telos [end] outside it.” Abraham had to have known it was wrong to comply with killing his son, but the act was sent to him by God (the Absolute) to be carried out. Consequentially, because Abraham agreed to kill Isaac he must be understood differently. His relationship to the Absolute is the only justification for killing his son. “The Knight of Faith” is thus “higher than the universal”, and stands in a direct “relationship to the absolute.” Kierkegaard introduces the” Tragic Hero” in order to show what Abraham cannot be. He says the Tragic Hero always “stays within the ethical”, meaning, any act committed by the hero is always in a relationship to the universal ethical code. Therefore, in the ethical, Abraham is a murderer. During Friday’s class, Dr. Layne differentiated the two in a concise manner; “The Knight of Faith” cannot be understood nor universalized, while the “Tragic Hero” can be understood.

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:

Do we have the power to let power go?

This week’s assignment consisted of reading Plato’s The Republic: Book II. During the text, Socrates’ companion, Glaucon, invokes the legend of the ring of Gyges to provoke a so-called “thought experiment”. I decided to do a little of my own research and further delve into the interesting tale of Gyges. Gyges was a shepherd in the service of the king of Lydia. One day while he was tending his flock, an earthquake struck and a massive whole opened in the ground nearby. Gyges was amazed at what had just happened and out of curiosity decided to descend into the opening. Upon descending, Gyges realized that he was in a tomb that contained a bronze horse that held a corpse. The dead body had nothing on but a golden ring that held the power of invisibility. Gyges kept the ring for himself. Shortly after, he crafted a plan and proceeded to get himself appointed emissary to the king. When he arrived at the king's palace, Gyges unjustly used the ring to seduce the queen, and with her help murder the king, consequentially becoming the king of Lydia himself. The legend of Gyges remains important to us today because it concerns what we can expect humans to do with power over others. For example, in politics, we give power to others, hoping that they will do what is right. If the meaning behind the ring of Gyges is correct, then we had better watch out. According to Socrates, anyone who gains power without accountability is liable to use it unjustly. Now imagine for a moment that you were in possession of such a ring. How would you use it?

Enter the World of the Dream

During Friday’s class, Dr. Layne covered Descartes’ First Meditation. I found Descartes’ philosophy that the senses constantly deceive us about the nature of reality quite fascinating; especially when applied to the world of the dream. His argument makes perfect sense when one realizes that even in dreams there is an eerie likeness of real things (e.g. the world, space, color, and math). In order to show that science rested on foundations that lay in the mind and not the senses, Descartes began by asserting the importance of doubt; the foundation of knowing. I found Descartes’ claim extremely relatable (more so than “The Matrix”) to Christopher Nolan's movie “Inception” which deals with the fictional science of shared dreaming. The characters enter others' minds, to steal ideas, or plant them while the target is unaware they are dreaming. In the movie, characters can distinguish a dream from reality by using totems. In the end, the film leaves open the question of whether the protagonist (Cobb) is himself dreaming. The entire point of the architect character (Ariadne) is to meticulously design a world to deceive the subject’s ability to distinguish what’s real and what is not. "Inception" conveys Descartian philosophy.

First Cause: “What/Who started it all?”

Last week, Dr. Layne explained the various procedures and questioning once taken by ancient (Plato & Aristotle) and medieval (Anselm & Aquinas) philosophers to analyze cosmological arguments. I’ve always found the concept incredibly fascinating. How did the Universe come into existence? Surely everything that has a beginning must have a cause, right? The existence of First Cause is often used as an argument for the existence of an "unconditioned" or "supreme" being: God. Or is the Big Bang theory responsible? The Universe and its structure clearly demand a cause. Obviously, these questions are highly subjective and downright unfathomable. When you put aside all the philosophical questioning though, I believe it comes down to one thing and one thing only: faith. I was surprised “faith” wasn’t written down anywhere in my notes. Religion should play a major role in the outcome of cosmological arguments (And if it already does, I'm just confused here). I adamantly believe philosophy or science will never be able to prove the origins of the Universe or the existence of God. But as a firm Catholic, I believe in God and the seven days of creation. And no matter what monkey wrench philosophy throws, my First Cause will always be God.

Rational & Irrational Decisions

During Friday’s class, Dr. Layne covered the reasoning behind rational and irrational decisions; specifically how the rational part of the soul (reason) and the irrational part (desire) must harmoniously be in accordance so that an action can be considered virtuous. Now that I’ve had time to think of it, I believe we all are motivated by various reasoning to take a certain course of action. But then again, can’t we rationalize virtually any decision? It still doesn't make that decision "right". So the next question would be who determines what’s right and what's wrong? Can’t a person live by their own set of moral principles and standards? Throughout my questioning, I couldn’t help but relate these thoughts to the great film: “The Dark Knight”. What Batman does is clearly against the law. What exactly separates him from a vigilante? Yes, he helps people and he has very honorable reasons that motivate him, but yet if he is caught; he will be prosecuted. Does that mean he should discontinue his mission? Only he can answer that. Did Batman make the right decision at the end of the film to take the blame for the murders committed by Harvey Dent? Who knows? What’s safe to say is that he remained true to himself and his principles making a decision that will have a ripple effect on Gotham City and numerous of individuals both directly and indirectly for years to come. Human history is made up of countless choices by people for all kind of reasons which has lead us up to the present time. In the end, you just hope that things work out for the best for everyone.