Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Monday, September 29, 2014
Sunday, September 28, 2014
David Hume's "Of the Origin of Ideas"
David Hume’s “Of the Origin of Ideas”
In his “Of the Origin of Ideas,” David Hume, an empiricist philosopher, explores the fundamental differences between impressions and ideas, in other words perceptions and reflections of perceptions. According to Hume, an impression is “when we hear, or see, or feel, or love, or hate, or desire, or will,” while an idea is merely “when we reflect on any [impression]” (Furman 203). Hume further distinguishes between impressions and ideas by stating that impressions are “strong and vivid,” while ideas do not begin to encompass the sensory experience of impressions (205). Hume argues that human ideas stem directly from impressions, meaning that, in general, humans are incapable of original thought. He does, however, provide an example of a possible situation in which a human might be able to create an idea without an impression; theoretically, someone looking at multiple shades of a color could conjure a shade that had been purposely left out. Although Hume acknowledges the possibility of such a circumstance, he makes it clear that, most often, humans mistake the melding of separate ideas and genuine creativity (by combining ideas, you can make something new, but it is not truly original). Hume also raises the point that, when questioning an idea, we must ask what impression caused said idea to form.
By and large, Hume argues that humans cannot understand what they have not experienced. In order to test this concept, we discussed how to explain what snow and ice are to someone who had never experienced snow or ice because of their climate. While we were able to generate analogies and words to describe snow and ice, we found that none of our examples gave a true representation of the experience of snow or ice. This exercise illuminated that language is essential in communicating ideas of impressions, as Hume had said. While discussing the inevitable barriers of language, we concluded that, as individuals, we attach meaning to words based on our own experiences (for example: one person’s definition of love varies from another person’s based on how deeply each of the people loved another person/thing).
Talking about language and the difficulties encountered when communicating with others reminded me of Francesco DiCaprio’s (’13) senior speech, in which he discussed how he could not possibly convey his emotional attachments/reactions to words to other people, mirroring the concepts that Hume’s philosophy brought forward in our discussion. Besides being a very eloquently written and delivered speech, Francesco captured language’s true inability to communicate impressions with other people.
I really enjoyed Hume’s empiricist philosophy; it aligns with my personal beliefs of how humans acquire knowledge. Although it is a little depressing to think that humans are incapable of producing truly creative and original thoughts (except in small, inconsequential scenarios), Hume’s ideas seem accurate. Most modern inventions merely build off of what has come before, keeping them from being original. Even innovations such as the first iPhone came from Steve Jobs manipulating a phone to possess the aesthetically pleasing look that he had found in calligraphy. Hume’s philosophy made me re-appreciate the beauty of the Harkness tables at SPA, because, as we said in class, the point of Harkness discussions is to try to learn from other people’s impressions. While such a task is taxing and probably impossible, it is an exercise worth undertaking in order to gain more knowledge and perspectives. Hume’s ideas are important, because they highlight humans’ ineptitude at possessing original thought and communicating experiences with other people, both of which are viewed as fundamentally important aspects of our modern society.
Here is a link to Francesco’s speech:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1XvsKDlELs&list=PLDECED15C93F92E91&index=4
Friday, September 26, 2014
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Rene Descartes "Meditations on First Philosophy"
René Descartes’ “Meditations on First Philosophy”
What is our reality and how do our perceptions of that reality align with its “true” nature? Through his Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes aims to analyze and further understand the “true” properties and characteristics of the world we live in. Utilizing rationalist thought, Descartes asserts the unreliability of our physical senses such as sight, sound, and touch, while explaining that all that makes humans significant lies in their innate ability to think, question, and analyze. Descartes desires to discover what is false in his perceptions of the world, and decides to reject all former opinion which has “some grounds for doubt” (Furman 194). He brings forth the idea that perhaps our entire reality in itself is an illusion, questioning whether or not everything experienced is, in the end, all just a dream. Under this doubt towards the reliability of our senses in regards to our reality, Descartes also establishes two possible versions of our reality: one without the influence of god, and another which god establishes.
Descartes personally asserts his belief that god does in fact exist, however he also views god though a different lens than some religions. Believing that god creates all the laws of the universe, in which science can expand in order to understand, god becomes more of a “force” than a “personal god” regardless of the assumed “benevolence” trait that Descartes attaches to his version of god. Descartes expresses how human rationalism is given to people through the force of god, and this rational capability is what powers humanity. The senses are unreliable, so humans must turn to their innate ability for cognition to perceive and explain the world. And although not specifically stated within the Meditations, Descartes still expresses his views following in “cogito ergo sum” (I think therefore I am). The human rationale fuels our ability to comprehend the world, and that thought also establishes our existences as well.
Descartes ideas are undoubtedly difficult to follow, yet compelling none the less. Descartes addresses numerous angles towards the topic of existence and perception and I found it difficult to completely tie together the ideas cohesively while still maintaining clarity. Our discussing covered most of the ideas that Descartes wrote about and I explained above, Interesting question arose about Descartes beliefs and how they tie to our world now. What is the god Descartes refers to? Is there anything to be accomplished by distrusting all our senses? If our reality is only a dream, is it really relevant to ourselves? And how can a newer understanding of reality alter our lives? While all these questions were not fully answered and remained ambiguous in solution, they generated productive thought, and engaging analysis.
I personally really like Descartes ideas. While I do believe that our perceptions succeed in perceiving the world correctly, I also believe that we must establish a point of reference for what we refer to as our reality and what it is relative to in regards to dimensions and our universe. I know my world exists, because I can perceive it, and although my perceptions may be unreliable, there is undoubtedly some form of existence, as one cannot perceive nothing. I also greatly align my views with Descartes views on god. I do not believe in a religious god of sorts, but the idea that some form of higher existence or force, far beyond our comprehension and completely irrelevant to our lives, may have established the laws of the universe or existence in general does not escape possibility in my mind. Existence does not necessarily mean “life” in our connotation of the world, yet laws exist on a plane of our universe, so can we not say that laws reign over our reality as god would?
For many, Descartes ideas resonate with us through popular media and movies such as Inception and The Matrix. I, however, draw connections between Descartes ideas and a show called Ghost in the Shell. The context of the show lies within the development of human brain transfer into robotic bodies, where the gap between humans and machine slowly closes. The “ghost” refers to the human consciousness that lies within the robotic “shell”. The show addresses the questions how reality is perceived through the eyes and processing of a machine, and stresses the value of thought, consciousness and individuality. As viruses and brain hacking runs rampant, reality becomes distorted by the vulnerability of the mechanic shells that humans live as. And in the end, one’s own awareness of oneself is the only indicator that one exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Monday, September 22, 2014
Plato "Allegory of the Cave"
“How can I have knowledge?” is the new overarching question of this unit. In Plato’s “The Allegory of the Cave”, he writes about Platonic Epistemology. Plato states that knowledge of Platonic ideas is innate and when one learn these ideas he/she is simply “recalling” them. No one ever sees these ideas, they see the physical representation. What does that mean for us? All these years of schooling and studying yet all we have learned are simple physical representations of ideas which we thought we had mastered. Many believe they have mastered Algebra, Chemistry, or Grammar. However Plato refutes this and explains that a philosopher is one “… who has a taste for every sort of knowledge and who is curious to learn and is never satisfied,” (Furman 189). No one has ever mastered any form of knowledge and if they believe so they are simply ignorant and in “the shade of the cave”.
To better explain his argument, Plato creates a metaphor, “… humans being housed in an underground cave, which has a long entrance open towards the light and as wide as the interior od the cave; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained, so that they cannot move and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning around their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prison there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets,” (190). Personally, I found the metaphor depressing but an extremely accurate portrayal of the ignorance of human beings. When we learn about triangles and how there are different types, have three sides, and etc, we assume after a certain point that we have mastered the idea of a triangle. However what we do not understand that this is just the physical representation of the true form of a Triangle. We learned the about the “shadow” of triangle. We only have a shadowy glimpse of the truth, the tip of the iceberg.
How do we attain true knowledge? Metaphorically, Plato states that we must break the chains on our legs and necks and turn our heads around. Instead of staring at the shadows we must look at the objects themselves. This may confuse us and make us uncomfortable, causing us to take refuge in our old, altered reality. Our reality is not the vase, the table, or the book in front of us but rather ideas like Justice, Triangles, or Beauty. They exist whether humans do or do not. To attain true knowledge we must explore and ask questions and explore more. We must be thirsty for knowledge but with all of this we need to be humble. Plato explains that the first step to attaining true knowledge is to understand that we know very little in a world where there is an infinite amount of knowledge.
In class many people struggled to understand what true knowledge was and how we knew it even existed. Some argues that ideas were created by humans such as 2+2=4. However we discovered that believing these ideas were human ideas and only existed because of humans was ignorant to believe. Humans try to learn and understand these ideas however we do not create these ideas. They already existed; even when there were dinosaurs 2+2 still equaled 4. The class also struggled to grasp the idea of true Beauty, many believed that beauty laid in the eyes of the beholder. However B-Dan and the text explained beauty may exist but it isn’t the true form. The class also discussed ignorance surrounding many topics because people tend to live in their own bubbles.
Living in America, where the media constantly feeds us stories and news, we are subject to “shadowy” glimpses into situations occurring near and far from where we live. These glimpses are controlled by what the media chooses to show and even manipulate. An example of this is the media coverage on ISIS, an extremist group located in Syria/Iraq. Almost all news outlets continue to report this group as an Islamic group however they don’t represent any accurate teachings of Islam. Now a minority of people actually realize this because they possess knowledge of the situation from other factual sources. To equate ISIS to Islam is the equivalent of saying the KKK and Westboro Baptist Church represent the core teachings of Christianity.
Here is a satirical critique on the Media’s coverage of ISIS:
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Simone de Beauvoir "The Second Sex"
“The Second Sex” by Simone Beauvoir
For
300+ years, the feminist movement has been fighting for equal rights between
the sexes, a “good cause” agreed on by most Americans. But women remain the
minority statistic in elected officials and CEOs. Why have they failed to
accomplish total equality? Beauvoir explores this in her work “The Second Sex”. She blames the failure
of the feminist movement on two things; the prehistoric oppression of women and
a lack of a unified front.
Women and men have never existed as equals. There is no
start date of the inferior view of women; “The division of the sexes is a
biological fact not an event in history” (Furman 56). And with division comes inequality. Since
biblical times, women have been portrayed as nothing more than a product of men
to serve men; Eve was, literally, created from Adam’s rib, and their
descendents based their entire lives around the prejudice against women set up
by their ancestors. Around 350 BCE Aristotle suggested that “we should regard the
female nature as afflicted with a natural defectiveness.” Beauvoir, in the
mid-1900s, illustrates the relationship between genders using the terms “the
One”, representing the male, and “the Other”, representing the female. The
“One” represents the original and superior being, the “Other” represents a
derivative from the original. But it is not the “Other” that defines itself as
so, it is the “One” who defines itself as the “One” that, in turn, defines the
“Other” as the “Other”. In summary,
females are inferior because men deemed themselves superior. Sadly enough,
women then and women now buy into it.
Why is it harder
to achieve equal rights for women than it is for African-Americans? Beauvoir
attempts to answer this question in her philosophical work “The Second Sex”. What differences exist between the civil rights
movement and the feminist movement that could account for the difficulty of the
feminist movement? The answer is simple; gender, alone, cannot unite a
movement. Females come from all different cultures, backgrounds and locations.
Therefore they are unable to unite under a common subject of “we”. We cannot
claim that “we” do not have opportunities in the workplace, because some of us
do. We cannot complain that “we” do not have access to education, because some
of us do. Not only can women not unite under a common term, but women cannot eradicate
their oppressors because they are integrated among them. It is not moral or
practical to kill of all men to redeem the status of woman. The feminist
movement is not so much in the hands of the females, but the males: ““They have
gained only what men have been willing to grant; they have taken nothing, they
have only received” (56). In closing, Beauvoir asks us to consider “how can
independence be recovered in a state of dependency?” (61). The answer remains
unknown.
In
our discussion of Beauvoir’s “The Second Sex”, we covered a variety of issues
facing women in the modern day. Women are incessantly reminded of their
inferior status in every facet of society; language, music, media, cultural
norms and traditions. Commonly used words in the English language, such as
woMAN, perSON, feMALE, and freshMAN casually remind women that they are nothing
but an “Other” to a the “One”. The rap industry practically revolves around the
objectification of women by both male and female artists. Advertising agencies
use the motto “sex sells” as a default to sell items such as microwaves and
hamburgers. High heels and form fitting clothing remind women that their
greatest assets are their bodies. Common and respected traditions, such as
giving a bride away or changing her last name to that of her husband, emphasize
the lack of freedom and value of women in our society. Each of these common
occurrences are forms of microagressions and when added up become simply a
large aggression that women are not valued for anything but their ability to
produce and nurture life.
Personally,
I was disgusted by the conclusions drawn from the discussion. Most of the
issues we covered did not even register as issues to me. I was participating
and perpetuating the microagressions that limit my own freedom as a human being
and I did not even realize. All my life I thought I was aspiring to marriage
and motherhood, wearing makeup and tight pants because I thought I wanted to.
Now I realize it is because I have been told that is what I should want to do:
I was internally oppressed. Immediately after class I began to examine myself
and my actions under a new lens. It is tedious work to question oneself and
ambitions with such scrutiny, but it had to be done. I cannot knowingly
participate in actions that contribute to the inferiority of my gender.
Recently
at the VMAs, Beyonce brought major national attention to feminism. Her surprise
album featured many empowering songs regarding female expectations with music
videos featuring overly sexualized choreography. As modern day philosophers, I
challenge you to ask yourself “Is Beyonce really a feminist?” The article below
bounces between YES and NO answers to that question.
All Hail the Queen?
Monday, September 15, 2014
Jean-Paul Sartre "No Exit"
Jean-Paul Sartre’s “No Exit”
This reading, unlike the others so
far this year, had its meaning slightly more hidden within the text simply
based on the way in which it is written. Jean-Paul Sartre wrote this piece in
the form of a play. All of the writing is character dialogue by Estelle, Inez,
Cradeau, and the boy. The scene takes place with all the characters living in
hell. Sartre writes his piece in this way, I believe, to provide examples of
how we as humans create our own personal hells. Estelle’s hell is that she does
not have any mirrors to look at herself in, meaning she needs Inez to tell her
what she looks like. Inez’s happiness comes from Estelle’s happiness, but Estelle
cannot achieve this unless she can win over Cradeau’s approval, which probably
is not going to happen. Cradeau’s hell is that he is stuck with these two
people for all of eternity. Jean-Paul Sartre is an existentialist, meaning he
believes humans are morally free, and any rules or boundaries we set for
ourselves limit that. An “act of bad faith” would be to restrict choices to fit
a particular stereotype. He believes that is a waste of our freedom. For
example, Estelle limits her freedom by defining herself by her beauty;
therefore she creates her own unhappiness.
In class we played with this idea
of being completely in control of our lives. Existentialists would say that if
we are having a bad day, it is up to us to choose to have a better one. The
only thing that makes us unhappy is the act of choosing to be unhappy. That’s
not to say that we can control what happens in our lives, but Sartre’s point is
that we have the ability to choose how we respond to the events, good and bad, that
we experience. Arguments were made on both sides of this idea, but we came to
the conclusion that this logic can be both empowering and rather saddening. It
is empowering to think that we have the ability to control everything in our
lives. Everything that we think was made for us; really we created ourselves,
everything down to our souls that we have defined. On the flip-side though, we
realized that based on existentialist logic, humans are their own torturers,
just like in “No Exit.” At the end of the day, if we are unhappy that is
“completely on us.” We create relationships with people that we think make us
happy to give meaning to our lives. As we near the end of life, we realize that
we are totally alone and everything we have done was to fill this sense of
being alone. Our acts define us as people, and nothing else does. Existentialists
also believe that we have no sub-conscience, but that it is something humans
created as an excuse for our actions. By this logic we are entirely in control
of everything in our lives.
I agree with our conclusion that
existentialism is both kind of a sad concept, as well a powerful one. I like
the idea that we have the power to change how we react to situations and make
our days better. This does not mean it is easy, because it isn’t, but rather,
it gives us a responsibility that I think we often take for granted. It is hard
for me to think that basically everything in our lives we created, because as a
Christian I like to believe that there is something more powerful than us, or
something that has created some sort of meaning in our lives for us. Although existentialism
may be a hard concept to grasp, I’m not completely sure I disagree with it, as
hard as that is to say. In class we watched a music video by George Michael which
was his way of coming out of the closet. George Michael is an existentialist and
in the song he talks about how he is re-defining himself and his image by
coming out and therefore choosing to fully embrace who he is.
Friday, September 12, 2014
Susan Wolf's "Sanity and the Metaphysics of Responsibility"
Susan Wolf’s “Sanity and Metaphysics of Responsibility”
Susan Wolf writes
from a compatibilist (or soft-determinist) perspective about the responsibility
of the members of our society based on our free will. Susan Wolf argues that
our actions are controlled by our desires, and that our first-order desires are
controlled by our second-order desires, which make up the “deeper-self” and are
inherent. First-order desires are the yearning to do or have certain things, and
second-order desires are the desires one wants to have, which is essentially
the values of the person. In Wolf’s philosophy, there are three different ways
the deep-self, the will to act, and the actions themselves interact. The first
is that the will to act is intact, and the individual can revise their actions
based on the desires of their deep-self. The second is that the will to act is
severed, and the individual cannot control their actions based on their
deep-self desires. Examples of this are kleptomaniacs or people who have been
brainwashed, because instead of having the deep-self control actions, an
external force does. The third is that the will to act has no disconnections,
but that the deep-self itself is bad (according to society’s norms) because it
has been created in a flawed way. Examples of this are people who were brought
up in abusive households.
A specific example
that Wolf provided of the bad deep-self is Jojo, the son of the evil dictator
Jo. Jojo grows up looking up to and loving his father, and the two of them
engage in activities together that pervert Jojo’s deep-self to the point that
Jojo cannot see any wrong in torturing and murdering other human beings. At
that point Jojo has an “insane deep-self” because he truly wants to be the
person he is. Jojo is not responsible for his actions because his flawed deep-self
was a result of his heredity and environment. However, those with a “sane
deep-self” (meaning nothing in their heredity or environment has created their
deep-self in such a flawed way that they want to want bad things) are fully
responsible for their actions. Our ability to revise our actions based on our
values allows us to hold ourselves responsible while excusing the actions of
those who grew up in such awful conditions that their environment made it
impossible for them to be good by societal standards, like Jojo.
Our discussion of
this topic focused on how people who have bad deep-selves should be treated.
Wolf’s argument implies that those with a flawed deep self cannot be a part of
our society, which many students had a problem with. Whether those with a bad
deep-self should be rehabilitated to change the will to act to the point they
could exist in society remained a topic of conversation throughout. Because the
deep-self could not change and only the will to act could be rehabilitated, the
confidence in the programs was low. Another debated topic was what the
punishment of individuals who have a severed will to act should be if they
violate the laws of our society. The example given was that an individual with
a condition that inhibited their control of their actions murdered someone. The
class discussed the punishment and rehabilitation the individual should receive
in terms of our society, and was divided on whether the individual should go to
jail, receive treatment, or some combination of the two.
An example of the
revision of one’s actions by their deep-self to align with their true values is
the change Cady (from Mean Girls) makes in her life when she realizes she is
not the person she wants to be. She had allowed her first-degree desires to
misalign from her deep-self, and after recognizing that, she changes her
actions. That revision to improve based on the desires of the deep-self is the
theory that Wolf examines in her essay Sanity
and the Metaphysics of Responsibility.
Here is a link to the clips from
Mean Girls that encompass that change in Cady. Start watching at 3:40.
Thursday, September 11, 2014
Charles Arthur Campbell's "Free Will"
Free
Will
By: Charles Arthur Campbell
Charles Arthur Campbell
begins Free Will by stating “In the
case of the free will problem I think there is a rather special need of careful
formulation. For there are many sports of human freedom; and it can easily
happen that one wastes a great deal of labor in proving or disproving a freedom
which has almost nothing to do with the freedom which is at issue in the
traditional problem of free will” (Furman 23). By starting out with this
statement Campbell shows that he is a believer in free will, but at the same
time he is willing to expect determinism, because he believes the determinism
doesn’t disagree with the correct free will, which is moral free will. Campbell believes
everyone has moral free will in the form of moral effort. For example if you
lived a terrible life, grew up with abusive parents, and never received proper
education Campbell argues that when faced with a moral decision, like to steal
or not, the person can put in moral
effort and not steal. He believes that your moral effort can change decisions
that you make strictly from your inner experiences. 54f
The class was most
interested in discussing whether or not humans have a moral dial inside them
that they are able to turn using moral effort, as stated by Campbell. The class
was split on this idea. Some people believed that no matter your inner
experiences are you have the ability to turn your own moral dial and make a
decision. Others stated that even if this were true you would be turning the
dial based on your environment, heredity, training, and temperament. So even
with the existence of a moral dial and moral effort determinism still holds to
be true.
Personally I don’t
agree with Campbell for two main reasons. First, Campbell never explained where
or how people develop morals. If somebody grows up thinking stealing is ok, and
part of life, nothing inside of him will encourage him to stop. He won’t put in
moral effort, not necessarily because he’s not trying, but he just doesn’t know
it’s bad. How can somebody change if they don’t know what they are doing is
wrong? Second, I believe in Blatchford’s thinking that every decision that you
make is based on your environment, heredity, temperament, and training. This is
what makes the most sense, because you can’t make a decision without outside
influences. For example if you are about to steal something you think about
what people would think if you were caught. This shows that there are outside
influences when you make decisions.
Campbell's idea of free
will reminds me of Oedipus in Oedipus Rex. In Oedipus
Rex Oedipus appears to exercise free will
when he voluntarily decides to run away from Corinth. When he is faced with
situation of staying for fleeing, he decides that he is morally obligated to
leave, so he does.
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Friday, September 5, 2014
Robert Blatchford's "Delusion of Free Will"
The Delusion of Free Will by Robert Blatchford (Sam S.)
In The Delusion of Free Will, Robert Blatchford states that every decision or thought that anyone has ever made is the product of their environment, heredity, temperament, and training. He states that man does not wish anything, because there is a cause for every wish, and the cause comes from the heredity or from the environment the man is in. Blatchford goes on to state that in every action, the stronger motive of the two or more motivates, and the strength is a product of the four things listed above. Blatchford goes on to give several examples including one of a man refraining from drinking, and the girl choosing between a concert with her lover and volunteering for the sick. Towards the end of the reading, he discusses belief, and how a man cannot believe a thing he is told to believe, he can only believe something that his reason tells him he can believe. In discussion we discussed how Blatchford essentially states that the human mind is a computer that is a product of environment, heredity, temperament, and training, and whether we believed that or not. We also talked about if people should be held accountable for their actions and decisions, even they were, according to Blatchford, influenced by their environment or training. We also explored the idea of if a man was raised in a culture where slaves were okay to own, and if the man would ever come to a realization that slavery was morally wrong. An interesting point that was made in discussion about the soul. Although we failed to explain exactly what the soul was, the idea of it led to more interesting discussion about how we would not even know what the word soul was if it was not for our training in language, and how in fact we are bound by our language by certain constraints.
After finishing this reading, I firmly believe that Blatchford is correct, however depressing his ideas may be to many people. I have not yet thought of any hole in his arguments, and like he says, if one is to think about why he or she is thinking something, his argument makes complete sense. In terms of when we talked about how if a man should be held accountable for his actions, I believe that it is not necessarily a matter of accountability, and that the man just needs a change of environment and more training to get him back on track. Changes of environment are key to changing how one thinks, and I believe that there is a way for the man who grew up in a culture of owning slaves to realize that slavery is morally wrong: make him change his environment by making him be a slave for an extended period of time. I strongly believe that the man would change his mind about slavery. As a not very spiritual person, I do not believe in the soul, and I believe that the soul is merely a part of the mind, which is influenced by the four things listed at the beginning.
This reading and discussion made me think about Harry Potter. Harry Potter would not have killed Voldemort and saved the world if not for his heredity (child of wizards), environment (being the “chosen one”), training (Hogwarts trained him), and temperament (he was a feisty one).
Preview YouTube video Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - Clip: You're a Wizard, Harry
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
Plato's "Apology" and "Crito"
Plato’s Apology and Crito (Eva P-G)
“PROMOTE A REVOLUTIONARY FLOOD AND TIDE IN ART. Promote living art, anti-art, PROMOTE NON ART REALITY to be grasped by all peoples, not only critics, dilettantes, and professionals,” reads the Fluxus manifesto. Fluxus refers to a broad, international coalition of artists who rejected high culture of the 60’s cold, refined, and archaic aesthetic for a minimalist, do-it –yourself, regenerative sensibility. But the Fluxus movement was about much more than who gets to define art and set the standard for value, beauty, and truth. It was- at its core-a wakeup call, a reaction to the arrogantly un-examining and un-questioning art world. After reading Plato’s Apology and Crito, I think Socrates would have approved of Fluxus!
Plato’s Apology is about the nature of the ideal and consummate Philosopher. It’s like a short play about the Philosopher in idealized abstraction with Socrates playing the lead role. The trial setting is of secondary importance-it just provides a reasonable excuse to explore the intellectual and ethical virtues of the Philosopher’s mind frame. So according to the Apology, what is the ideal Philosopher like? For one, he knows intuitively that the “unexamined life is not worth living.” His interactions and thoughts always take the shape of dialogues (the Philosopher’s educational weapon of choice). Socrates demonstrates the ideal Philosopher’s mental courage to examine life with his skeptical, critical disposition to Athens. His distinct method of inquiry within the Apology itself exemplifies the Philosopher’s signature cool reasoning and mental agility (I might add that many in class perceived this as arrogance).
According to the Apology, the ideal Philosopher is wise. But what does it mean to be wise in this text? Socrates would argue that the answer is not obvious (he had to consult an Oracle and interview myriad men before he could come to any conclusion!). According to Plato, a man is wise when he knows that his knowledge is worth little or nothing; that things are not how they seem; and that he shouldn’t take himself too seriously. The ideal Philosopher is firm in his pursuit of nothing less than the truth. And guess what? Socrates also passes this test! He could have appealed to his accusers with emotion. He could have run away. But Plato makes a rather dramatic (I’d argue unbelievable) point of the fact that Socrates did not do any of the above. I think Plato thought quite highly of his teacher Socrates. By the end of the Apology, he’s made his argument plain: the Philosopher is Hero.
While most can sympathize with Socrates’ apology, his reasoning in Crito is harder to swallow. For all its linear and logical reasoning, one can’t help but feel that somewhere, buried in the Critos’ dialogue, there’s a major faulty premise upon which Socrates’ death made sense. I personally ran into trouble when Socrates distinguished the Laws of Athens from their enforcers and described the relationship between the State and himself as analogous to that between a father and a son. In separating his accusers from the Law under which he’s been indicted, Socrates exonerates those responsible for his unjust execution. Many in class argued that Socrates died for what he believed in-that his death was the ultimate symbol of rebellion. I disagree. If you read very carefully, Socrates chooses to die not because he wants to stick it to his accusers, but because he’s come to the conclusion that it’s the only moral thing to do. He actually thinks he should die! That’s an idea I can’t wrap my head around. Ultimately, the major philosophical questions posed in Crito are 1) What/Who is the State? 2) What exactly is implied in the tacit agreement between the State and the individual? Not surprisingly, we’re still asking these questions today. Where there’s power, there’s conflict.
Here’s a work of art inspired by Fluxus ideas (which are rooted in the spirit of hyper self-examination championed by Socrates). Notice how un-pretentious it is materially (it’s a matchbox) and conceptually (it is saying-basically- ‘let’s burn down the barriers separating art from the masses’).
http://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2011/fluxus_editions/works/total-art-matchbox-from-flux-year-box-2/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)