Awesome lecture series

;

Amour propre

I don’t know what I find more fascinating, Rousseau’s life or his philosophy.  I’ve recently been listening to the audiobook of “Rousseau in 90 minutes” by Paul Strathern (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rousseau-90-Minutes-Paul-Strathern/dp/1566634369), it’s excellent.  So far I’ve listened to his take on Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas and now Rousseau and they’ve all been very good.

Setting aside his life story, the part of Rousseau’s work that interests me the most is his theory of man’s evolving psychology, the movement from self-love “amour de soi” (the basic instinct for self-preservation) to love of self “amour propre” (seeing ourselves through other’s eyes and therefore changing our more “natural” behaviour).

His argument is that our psychology was different in a time when man was free i.e. before people entered into society, but I would argue that man never really existed outside society.  Man was born from man, we were never truly alone.  Where do people get this image of a free man being one alone in the wilderness?  Man has never really been like this, we are born out of another.

However, his theory of “amour propre” (rather than the transition to it but the state itself) I feel is quite a true reflection of how we live our lives. We live in constant judgement of ourselves through the eyes of others (or at least our projections of our own judgements onto them).   We can never be free from judgement, it is everywhere – it is within us.  Psychotherapists say our behaviour or our biased judgement of ourselves (or “faulty thinking”) stems from our “conditions of worth”.  This is the influence of our parents and attitudes of others at the time of our upbringing which influence our values, only they’re not our values, they are theirs.  For example, someone may feel totally unfulfilled because they failed to get into law school because all they ever wanted to do was to become a lawyer just because their parent’s wanted them to become a lawyer.  But their parents’ views and theirs become so intertwined that the person doesn’t actually know what they really want – they can only see what other people think of them – but it’s not even what people think of them, it’s really a projection of what they think of themselves.   I must stop there before I jump into my thoughts on existentialism which we’ll come onto next term.

I’ll finish by disagreeing with Rousseau’s theory of “General Will” which I’ve run out of steam to discuss.

Tune in next time for thoughts on Bentham and Mill.

Hobbes and Locke - Term 2, Lecture 2

This week we discussed Hobbes and Locke.  We looked at their views on human nature and the control of the state.

Hobbes believed that humans are self-interested and as such if left to their own devices would lead to chaos and anarchy due to the conflicts that this self-interest gives rise to.  People are driven only by pride and fear and that conflict arises either from competition, mistrust or glory.  For this reason society must be regulated through an absolute authority who serves as the ruler and protector of society.  Whilst the people form a contract to give up their rights for this protection and leadership, the ruler remains outside the contract but Hobbes feels this is necessary.

Locke’s views of human nature were less extreme, people have rights and the existence of a government only arises through the agreement of its members (the contract is between the people and therefore the government’s power is limited and more democratic as the people can have their say – a majority/democratic rule).  Although Locke also viewed humans as self-interested and the state of nature doesn’t necessarily promote stability, it is not as disastrous a view of the Hobbesian perspective.

Locke also believed people have natural rights, everyone owns themselves, their labour and the fruits of their labour, although he does outline restrictions to these.

Term 2 - lecture 1

So, term 2 started with a look towards the beginning of modern philosophy.  Throughout this term, instead of completing a philosophical diary, I intend on giving a presentation around a relevant topic.  Because of this, I’ll be trying to think of interesting topics or questions arising from each week’s work that I may be able to use as my focus.  Any thoughts on this would be incredibly welcome.

During this first lecture we discussed Machiavelli.  Machiavelli (1469-1527) was an Italian philosopher (in fact, the founder of political science), humanist and writer.  He did not however, consider himself a philosopher, which got me thinking about what actually defines a philosopher?  I guess this isn’t actually a philosophical question but it’s one I’m really interested in.  Rousseau who we’ll be discussing later in the term was also a writer, as are Dostoyevsky, Camus and Sartre who we’ll be covering in term 3.  I’ll put that question aside for now.

The ideas put forward by Machiavelli demonstrate a significant move away from looking at the types of “ideal” scenarios put forward by the ancient Greek philosophers and offer a far more realistic, if not more cynical, look at the world.

Machiavelli believed that power was our ultimate end goal, although not everyone, only those in a position to understand this, would lust after this.  There was a clear divide between the aristocracy and more learned people who should realise this and seek power and authority, and the “drones” or common people who should be autocratically led by such a person in power.  How does ambition relate to this?

Power and authority to Machiavelli had no moral reference point, and is totally independent of any greater good or virtue.  Leading a good and virtuous life would not necessarily lead to power, in fact there’s a definite undertone of “nice guys finish last” in his work The Prince.  To Machiavelli a ruler should ensure behavioural obedience from his subjects and be willing to obtain this through fear.  Rulers must be pragmatic and be willing to make the hard decisions (even the morally wrong decisions) in order to maintain their power.  Does ruling through fear work?

Lecture 7: 01/12/2010 - Laziness and the laissez-faire life

The Stoics believed in a deterministic universe where everything follows a set course and as such, to live a good, right and proper life is to live in accord with Nature, God and the Universe (which to them were synonymous), by accepting one’s fate.  In doing this you would become calm and harmonious with Nature rather than resisting what cannot be changed and thus risking disappointment or anger at your lack of control (“like a dog tied to a cart, and compelled to go wherever it goes” Cleanthes).  Instead one should accept that external situations are out of our control, the only thing we can change is our internal response to these external influences so we should seek self-control through reason, understanding and acceptance of fate.

It is easy to think that this would lead to lazy behaviour, because if everything is predestined, why bother doing anything at all, but the Stoics did not believe in non‑action, merely that our actions were preordained so what we choose to do has already been laid out for us by nature or God.

What would be the political implications of these views on the state?  The Stoics could be considered as natural followers so this characteristic would be well suited to a tyranny where one leader rules over the masses (so long as the tyrant in question wasn’t also a Stoic, which would be unlikely as Stoics did not hold ambition in high regard and thus would not follow along this political path).  However, in a democracy where leadership is voted on and directed by the masses, would society reach an impasse?  Who would the Stoics follow?  One may say, they would follow the majority view, or would their apathetic nature mean that they would abstain from voting all together?  In a world dominated by Stoicism, would nothing change, just like the laissez-faire era?

When can apathy be regarded as a good quality?  In modern society, we consider apathy and laziness as one and the same, but Stoics did not believe themselves lazy, they were passive through reason, not ignorance or carelessness, so the meaning of apathy has changed somewhat.  If we are truly apathetic and free from emotion through acceptance, i.e. “comfortably numb”, is this really the way to achieve a good life?  This view may well lead to a form of contentment once people have acceptance of their circumstances as they will be free of the frustrations, anger or sadness that may come from feeling a lack of control or wronged in some way, but is contentment and happiness really the same thing?  The Stoics didn’t aim to reach pleasure through hedonistic means which may give rise to ephemeral “happiness”, to them this was not the indulgent state they were aiming for.  Perhaps contentment, if not as gratifying as an “indulgent happiness”, is more long lasting, i.e. if you allow yourself to be led by your emotions you may have short periods of excessive happiness followed by periods of not being happy at all (negativity or pain) and life would be an undulation between the various states of happiness or sadness (pleasure or pain), whereas if one steers towards a reasoned, acceptive lifestyle such as the Stoics, one would maintain a feeling of unwavering contentment throughout life.  The question is, which is really better?

Lecture 6: 24/11/2010 - Aristotelian slaves and society

Aristotle defended slavery in his writings on politics by inferring that some people are naturally slaves and if they were not allowed to perform this function for which they were “marked out” forthey would not be able to attain true happiness (achieve eudaimonia).  A life given to slavery was their telos (end purpose) and to deny them this would be unnatural and would prevent them from obtaining the happiness that all humans sought after through achieving their highest purpose or end reason.  Aristotle did not believe that slavery should be enforced on people by subjugation through strength or warfare, or because of the subject’s ethnicity, but in his view, mental capacity should be the deciding factor.  He states:

“The body is the inferior, and where it rules we are slaves.  Where the soul is dominant we are masters.”

However, is this just a narcistic view of the world, where Artistotle can be seen to value the skills that he has above those of other people, stating that those who are stronger should not just take others as their slaves because they are physically weaker, instead those of higher intellect should rule those of lower intellect?  What would he have thought if he were a physically stronger man, would his views then be the same?  Take his student Alexander the Great, despite Aristotle’s teachings did he not believe that he should rule over others and expand his rule indefinitely just because he and his army were strong and capable, not because of his superiority of soul but of body?

Where would Aristotle draw the line in today’s society and how do these opinions tie in with his theories on education?  Aristotle believed that education was central and the fulfilled person was an educated person.  He also valued a balanced development of physical, musical, science, debate and philosophy and yet despite this he excluded subordinated groups such as slaves and women from the benefits of education even though he stated that “man is a rational animal” and the functions that set us apart from animals are there for a reason (“nature does nothing in vain”).  As women, children and slaves also have these human characteristics that set us apart from animals and allow us to reason and therefore learn, why then were they excluded from education and why was it only the practical wisdom of men that was developed to rule over women, children and slaves?  Aristotle also stated that a citizen of the state was one who is able to participate in the deliberative and judicial areas of government and yet he chose that it should only be men and boys who were to be educated to do so.  He was therefore an elitist, opining that the purpose of the state is to educate the people and make them virtuous and yet it was really to cultivate people into the roles in which he sought fit to keep society running.  This was not too dissimilar to the way in which Plato divided his ideal state into the roles of the rational (philosopher-rulers), the spirited (guardians of the state) and the appetitive (the “drones”, everyday workers or peasants), as here the slaves, women and children would take the role of the “appetites”.

In today’s society especially with its current financial problems, what would Aristotle’s solution be?  We currently have staff shortages in lower skill-based jobs because in our society some people believe themselves too good for certain jobs including domestic work.  We have seen an increase in numbers of students who enter higher education but similarly have seen an increase in courses in more vocational areas (so-called “Micky Mouse” degrees or “soft-subjects” which do not lead to functional jobs in society (for instance, degrees in surf science at the University of Plymouth, which do not contribute to society) but lead to people with degrees who then feel over qualified to perform certain roles in society.  What would Aristotle think of these courses or the government initiatives such as Every Child Matters?  Would Aristotle mark people out to not continue in education but to sweep the streets, empty the bins and clean the toilets, while only those who show distinct academic ability from an early age could continue in education to become future scientists, politicians and business managers?  Did Aristotle believe intellect is inherent before it can be developed and with others it is totally absent so no amount of teaching or fostering will achieve enlightenment, and if so, how do we measure this?  Would people with lower academic ability really achieve their true eudaimonia through sweeping the streets?  Then again, would this approach be any more unfair than future practice where universities are about to start charging thousands of pounds for an education and once this happens, what is the difference between this and a oligarchy, where only the wealthy can afford to be educated to positions of rule?

Lecture 5: 17/11/2010 - Edifying eudaimonia

Aristotle believed that human life was purposive and has a final cause, or telos, i.e. an end reason behind it.  He felt that every human action or pursuit is to aim towards the good.  This could be achieved by “being good, or being good at it”.  For instance, either taking the higher purpose approach by being good (virtuous or just) in itself and for the sake of itself (the ultimate goal), or merely being good at one’s functions (i.e. performing your task within society well and fulfilling your role – Artistotle provides the examples of shipbuilding or making money).  In Aristotle’s Ethics, he also goes onto explain that the highest aim or purpose of life is distinguished as eudaimonia (attaining fulfilment, happiness or human flourishing).

The derivation of happiness from leading a just life, arises easily if we consider the opposite.  What is anger?  Anger arises from feeling wronged, as though we have been dealt an injustice.  Contrary to this then, we could assume that by being just or being treated justly would lead to us feeling happy.  But is it as clear cut as this?  For Artistotle, happiness arises from striving towards good and living a good life but he admits that “when it comes to saying in what happiness consist, opinions differ” (1095a) and view of happiness are supported by popular beliefs.  He states that the “generality of mankind”, “the masses” and the “most vulgar” (whom he describes as distinct from “the wise”) take happiness to be something obvious and familiar e.g. “pleasure or money or eminence”:

“The utter servility of the masses comes out in their preference for a bovine existence” (1095b).

Aristotle eludes that animals and children cannot be happy because they do not or have not yet developed the rational side to their soul or mind.  I would argue that perhaps the contrary is true, but it depends upon our definition of happiness.  Perhaps animals and children (and in fact the “bovine” masses) are not happy, they are just stupid (or too ignorant to know otherwise) – as they say, ignorance is bliss.

So, what is happiness?  In my opinion there is no such thing as long term happiness, it is a merely ephemeral state – a distraction from the real world and other feelings.  For the “bovine” population perhaps these distractions come more easily to them as general “quick win” pleasures suffice to distract them sufficiently.  However, I would argue that for the wise, distractions from the other aspects of life become harder to come by.  In the end people create their own distractions, these come in the form of religion, money, family, children, volunteering, or activities such as watching television, reading, or talking with friends – in fact anything to escape from the suffering of life (something Freud described as our primal death (or thanatos) drives which are part of our id.  We are all just trying to escape from our lives.  Artistotle believed that we all have a function to play, but perhaps he is just one of the many who found his form of distraction through a function where his function was philosophising, learning, and even teaching.  Performing this activity brought him a sense of purpose.  We create purpose for ourselves through our activities, for without a feeling of purpose and value we would not perform these activities.  Our purpose is merely to live, but with no aim and without distraction of some sort we would not continue for we would realise there is no point, end reason or telos.  Telos is a state of mind.