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.

Lecture 4: 10/11/10 - Democracy: What would happen if we were truly free?

Through Socrates’ dialogue in the Republic(555b to 562a), Plato outlines his detest for democracy opining that it leads to poor leadership since leaders are dependent upon the masses and are steered by the popular opinion rather than truth, justice and right (or good).  The freedom that comes with democracy may promote variety and diversity but it also leads to anarchy where everyone puts their own interests first and do as they like (557e).  This is Plato’s extreme view of democracy and he rebutted democracy by promoting his ideal state, however, we currently live in a democracy and the people are free but within limitations and constraints (social, legal and moral) which ensure that the vast majority do not turn to anarchy.  People in our current democracy do not always do as they wish and disregard all laws because they take into consideration other facets of their lives – for example, they work (even though they may not want to) to earn money to buy food and other necessities to continue to live in comfort, they do not break laws for fear of having to face the consequences, they do not harm and steal from each other because they empathise with other people and respect each other to a degree.  So in our current democracy we are not truly free – you may be unable to see the chains that tie us, but they are apparent in our morals, our fears and pressure from our peers.  But, would we want to be absolutely free?

As suggested by Plato, freedom without conditions is nothing of the kind.  He said this in a social and political context, however as individuals this statement may also ring true.  As Camus stated in The Fall :

 “I didn’t know that freedom is not a reward or a decoration that is celebrated with champagne.  Nor yet a gift, a box of dainties designed to make you lick your chops.  Oh, no!  It’s a chore, on the contrary, and a long-distance race, quite solitary and very exhausting[...]. Alone in a forbidding room, alone in the prisoner’s box before the judges, and alone to decide in face of oneself or in the face of others’ judgement.  At the end of all freedom is a court sentence; that’s why freedom is too heavy to bear[...].  for anyone who is alone, without God and without a master, the weight of days is dreadful.  Hence one much choose a master.”

Once we are without restrictions and are truly free in the eyes of the state, this means that we are responsible as individuals to make our own decisions, but is this really what we would want?  Responsibility breeds pressure to perform, but in whose eyes?  Who will judge us for our actions when we are free.  If we are free, why do anything and how can we justify anything we do anyway and who would we justify it to?  True freedom brings with it discomfort and this in itself can lead to apathy or an impasse; we don’t know what to do so we do nothing.  So we must choose a master, and in the case of Plato, we are to choose his ideal state for it is the structure provided by this state (and the philosophers who rule) which provides everyone with a role to play thus leading to harmony.

Lecture 3: 03/11/10 - Justice: What is justice?

To me, to be just is to do right and by right I mean to make an active choice to do the correct thing, or to conduct yourself in the morally correct way given the circumstances.  But how is correct or right action judged or measured?  Is being right “to act in the socially proper and acceptable or appropriate manner as judged by our peers”?  If so right or justice are merely socially relative measures and will differ from culture to culture and again appear to be subjective terms with no universally true meaning.  Is there some other more innate meaning to justice that goes beyond this superficial societal one?  Like Glaucon in Plato’s Book I of the Republic (357-361), I would argue that our morals are derived from our society and peers.  We have discovered our knowledge and perception of right and wrong from our environment and upbringing, it has been taught to us and we carry these taught principles around with us and act with them in mind throughout our lives.  Although I do not agree with Glaucon’s argument that should we be left with no laws to enforce right and wrong, we would all become unjust to try and get ahead and to gain advantage.  I feel that this may be true for some but for others, the understanding of their own morals (and possibly their self-induced constraints) would cause their own consciences to disregard any wrongdoing purely because the behaviour is wrong to them and goes against their learned values (rather than any innate or natural values inherent at birth) by bringing some sort of harm or inconvenience to others.  I believe that people’s values are broader than just looking after their own interests and some choose to put other people first or to look after the interests of others, and this in turn can provide them with satisfaction and reward.

I believe that the morals we are taught by upbringing and society are such that we are unable to see beyond this – we cannot undo our learning.  I cannot decide what I would do differently now if there were no laws or social pressures keeping me from acting “appropriately” because my knowledge of right and wrong has already been taught to me.  I would prefer to ask the question, what would a person do and how would they act if they had not been taught right from wrong?  For an answer to this we could look for examples in nature, for instance, wild (undomesticated) animals, have not been taught right or wrong (as we know it) and here we see clear examples of survival of the fittest (this is evolution in the making); the strongest, fittest animals will fight back the weaker to gain more food to eat for example and so will live longer and pass on their genes.  Is this a scenario which supports Glaucon’s claims that the injust do better, gain more and are more successful?  Is there an animal etiquette to be found?  Are animals just?  What makes us different, is it only that we have been taught how to act or be just?

Lecture 2: 27/10/2010 Senses, perceptions and illusions: How the “Way of Opinion” led the way

Parmenides believed that all that exists already existed and that nothing can come from nothing.  He believed that change is purely illusory and our senses are misleading.  He outlined these thoughts in his poem, The Proem which is divided into two parts, the Way of the Truth and the Way of Opinion, fragments of which have been preserved and quoted by various sources.  Parmenides believed that reality and our perceptions of reality are different and this influenced Plato which is clear from his Simile of the Cave.  Since the pre-Socratic era, the notion of reality and perceptions has been visited time and time again by philosophers and examples include the “brain-in-a-vat” analogy by Putnam (a theory even explored in the 1999 film, the Matrix), Locke’s theories of Human Understanding, and works by Descartes and Berkeley, to name but a few examples.  Permenides may have begun by wondering about the nature of the world and arrived at a conclusion of distrust and questioning of human perceptions, but modern philosophers maintained this questioning while exploring themselves and what it is to be an individual.

Even as a child I remember asking myself and others the simple question “how do I know that the colour red that I see, is the same red as you see?”.  This question outlines the very basics of the problem of perceptions and trusting our senses.  Even if we could see through the eyes of another, how do we know that what humans perceive is the absolute truth?  There is no answer to this, but as scientists we can test hypotheses and look for reproducibility in our experiments to gain trust in their results and accept them as the truth and as fact: However if we cannot trust our senses, even if we obtained a perfectly repeatable results, how would we know if this is the truth?  What is the truth?  The truth appears to be only something we can perceive.  If there are no absolute facts for sure, then truth is merely subjective and leads us to believe that everything is relative, as the sophist Protagoras stated “man is the measure of all things” and if this is true we must question everything as we can be sure of nothing, but we will never have any answers for sure, just more questions.

Lecture 1: 20/10/2010 Nature, society and the individual

What brought me to do a course in philosophy was a recent period of self-questioning and an exploration of my own existence and beliefs.  I began my personal philosophical journey by asking myself about my purpose and what it was to exist with no purpose in a world without reason.  Our course would cover nature, society and the individual which led me to think about the parallels between these topics and my own journey so far.  Several months ago I started by philosophizing about myself as an individual, realizing that I felt purposeless and felt a lack of meaning to the world.  I then went on to consider society and whether I could bring meaning to my world and life by creating a purpose for myself through society and my interactions with it.  I did this by asking the questions, how can I benefit society and by doing this would I be creating value for myself as an individual?  I am yet to fully answer these questions but still consider myself to be questing after a clearer understanding.  I originally thought that my personal philosophizing neglected the topic of nature, perhaps because we are taught about nature from young through our parents, our experiences with the world and throughout our education.  As a trained scientist I have questioned the world and how it works for many years perhaps without realizing that this is a type of philosophy itself.  So maybe my journey did begin with questioning nature before questioning myself as an individual and then in turn exploring my role in society.  However, is there a link between nature and the individual like I have drawn between the individual and society?  There is the obvious interaction between the individual and nature, but can nature determine the way we think, act and exist as an individual?  Our thoughts are controlled by nature in that they are merely a result of different chemicals, nervous reactions and hormones travelling through our nervous system and around our brain.  We have seen through medicine how one can change behaviours through drugs, chemicals and even surgery, so are we merely a consequence of a bunch of randomly arranged chemicals and a fluke of evolutionary genetics?  Are any of our decisions, questions and thoughts actually our own or are they all predetermined by our molecular makeup?  How influenced by nature are we, are we actually in control?  What does it mean to think, and when I am happy or when I am sad, when I act wisely or otherwise, am I determining this or is it my genetic and chemical consistency?  This is becoming an increasingly asked question as modern medicine enables scientists to identify more of our genes and attribute certain of our behaviours to them, but is this just an excuse for us to alleviate ourselves from any responsibility?  Blame our genes.  Blame nature.  Blame not the individual, for we know not what we do.

Welcome to my Philosophy Blog

This blog is a consequence of starting an evening course in philosophy last October.  In the first term we were set the assignment of completing a "Philosopher's Diary" and this is something I added to week after week as a reflection of each particular week's lesson content.

Well, I was thinking - the day of the diary has past and I should finally bring my studies into the 21st century by using a little more web 2.0 technology in my learning.

So this term, instead of a "Philosopher's Diary" I'll be completing a philosopher's blog (or at least a wannabe philosopher!).

The word Blog comes from the shortening of the term "web log" and as such I've named my page the "Phlog" as it's my attempt at a "philosopher's log".

If nothing else, this blog may provide me with a way of reflecting on the content of this term and coming up with some ideas for this term's assignment - to deliver a 10 minute presentation using multimedia technology in week 9 of the course.

Any feedback or comments would be welcomed - I'm new at blogging and new at philosophy so please bear with me!

I'll start by posting my reflections of last term's learning before I begin with this term.