Living the Paradox

Shame before the Other

2005-11-28T21:06:00.000-08:00

Discuss the act of looking through a keyhole. What is the role of shame in this analysis?

Sartre uses the example of looking through a keyhole to argue that ‘shame’ is mostly related to the Other. When I look through a keyhole, this act is my act, that is, I am doing it solely for myself to attain my ends. I do not have the concept of shame at what I am doing because I am immersed in the world of the act of looking through the keyhole without the consciousness of the Other looking at me. In this act, my pre-reflective consciousness does not allow me to know myself because I am “absolutely nothing”. However, as soon as I realize someone is looking at me, the Look of the Other shames me. At that instant, “I see myself because somebody sees me.”

Shame realizes an intimate relation of myself to myself. Through shame I have discovered an aspect of my being. Yet, it is in its primary structure shame before somebody. .. I am ashamed of myself as I appear to the Other. (Sartre 303)

In the eyes of the Other, we become ‘objects.’ The Look of the Other gives us self-identity at the same time it takes away our freedom to shape our own. There is a constant struggle between the self and the Other, and yet we cannot exist authentically without the Other and without transcending the Look of the Other.

Boy, aren't we in a pickle.

Entry #5: Degrees of freedom

2005-11-28T20:16:00.000-08:00

Did De Beauvoir influence Sartre? Discuss her article on existentialism in relation to Sartre’s article on existentialism. Which do you prefer, and why?

It’s apparent in both Sartre and De Beauvior’s writings that one influenced another philosophically. In their respective articles on existentialism, both hold the same view that existentialism has to do with “existence before essence,” that is, the meaning of a person’s existence is not preordained; thus, “man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself” (Sartre 266). Furthermore, both of them believe that existence is not just about the individual self, existence is also about one’s relationship with others. However, while Sartre believes that our “freedom” of choice can transcend all obstacles imposed by the Other and our environments, De Beauvoir puts more emphasis on the constraints the Other puts on us:

Existentialism strives to hold both ends of the chain at the same time, surpassing [dépassant] the interior-exterior, subjective-objective opposition. It postulates the value of the individual as the source and reason for being [raison d'être] of all signification and all colors, yet it admits that the individual has reality only through his engagement in the world. It affirms that the will of free being is sufficient for the accomplishment of freedom, yet it also states that this will can posit itself only by struggling against the obstacles and the oppressions that limit the concrete possibilities of man. (De Beauvoir 325)

I think I prefer the more practical view held by De Beauvior, that is, despite the fact that we do have the freedom of choice in regard to our own existence, the oppression and constraints of our environments are far more powerful that Sartre seems to believe. People who were born into slavery or poverty have less freedom than the ones who are more privileged. Sometimes I wonder if there is something to the accusation that existentialism is a bourgeois philosophy. Angst, anxiety and despair of the kind that the existential philosophers talk about seem to be the privilege of those who have the luxury to think how meaningless their lives are. In theory, everyone is in control of his or her live, but I wonder how much freedom a starving child in Africa has? What about the aboriginals who were stripped of their land and their rights? Injustice, abuse and poverty have many serious consequences for those who are at the receiving end of them, and many children of abuse grow up to be ‘messed up.’ Are they solely responsible for their actions or how their lives turn out to be? According to Sartre, many problems that the Native population faced right now, such as alcoholism, unemployment and domestic violence, are the sole responsibility of the Native people themselves, regardless of the social conditions that have created these problems for them in the first place. I know that Sartre’s conception of freedom is more about personal choice and finding that source of freedom within oneself, yet he believes that we are defined only by our actions (Nietzsche too). De Beauvoir, on the other hand, seems to realize that life is full of ambiguities and that we are perhaps not as free as Sartre envisions. There are degrees of freedom in our choices.

Entry #4: My perspective

2005-10-24T19:33:00.000-07:00

What does Nietzsche mean by "perspectivism"? Would he say that all perspective of the world, or all interpretations, are of equal value? If so, why is he so critical of some, for example, religious perspectives? If not, what makes one perspective more valuable than another, for Nietzsche? What do you think? and why?

Perpectivism is the opposite of “positivism,” which hold that “these are only facts and nothing more.” For Nietzsche, objectivity is a myth because “all that exists consists of interpretations” (this statement of course is in itself an interpretation). Nietzsche defines perspectivism as thus:

To the extent to which knowledge has nay sense at all, the world is knowable: But it may be interpreted differently, it has not one sense behind it, but hundreds of senses – “Perspectivism.”

Furthermore, Nietzsche believes that it is our needs to interpret the world, to see things through our perspective that best fits our desire, which of course for Nietzsche is the will to power. Perspectivism is thus easily associated with moral relativism. In a way, Nietzsche is a moral relativist. He does not believe there are objective and universal moral values; morality is a “herd instinct” in that it serves to preserve the human species and thus can vary from culture to culture, one herd to another. However, not all perspectives are equally ‘good’ since not all perspectives are advantageous to the development of one’s will to power (which I believe to him is the same thing as the preservation of the human species). Nietzsche believes that religious perspective, especially Christian values, is longer useful to human beings (I am not sure if he thinks it was ever useful … he contradicts himself in different passages). Christianity encourages people to think about death rather than life and living; it attempts to impose a universal morality on different groups and claims that it is the only perspective that is TRUE. For Nietzsche, however, there are only useful and advantageous values, no true or right ones.

Do I agree with perspectivism? I agree with the concept but not how Nietzsche defines what is good or bad values. I believe values in themselves are subjective; there is no such thing as an objective value, and “reason” can only go so far. No matter how much we’d like to pretend that we are rational beings who are capable of seeing things from an objective point of view, the decisions we make are always influenced by our backgrounds and personal values. Therefore, insisting that one value is "objectively" right and a different one is wrong is simply an illusion, if not delusion. Furthermore, some people believe that without objective moral values (ordained by God mostly), people will run amock and the strong will take advantage of the weak, just as Nietzsche believes that morality is invented by the weak to restrict the strong. Yet, when I look around in today’s world, I see the strong using Christian morality as the means to their end, believing they are ridding the world of evil while at same time really serving themselves and their needs. Morality has become a dirty word. It has become simply another way of enslaving those who hold different views than the people who have power.

However, I do believe there should be some universal moral values, not those based on religions or cultures or Nietzsche’s “will to power” but those based on the simple fact that we are all human beings and share some common grounds. It might be the idealist in me, but I don’t want to believe that self-serving is all there is about human beings. Well, maybe mostly, but not all.

Of course it is only my perspective.

Entry #3: What is our instinct?

2005-10-24T18:03:00.000-07:00

How are humans related to other animals for Nietzsche? What is the role of instinct in humans? How does the Dionysian relate to the instinctual part of the human for Nietzsche? Do you agree?

In Nietzsche’s writing, he uses a myriad of animal tropes in relation to human beings, especially in talking about human nature and what he calls our “animal instinct.” For Nietzsche, other animals represent what human beings had once been and subconsciously still long to be. Nietzsche believes that our “natural inclinations” are not that far from those of “wild, free and roving” animals, that is, we desire “an unsafe and dangerous wilderness,” an adventure through which one struggles against impossible odds, suffers enormous pain and eventually becomes strong and ‘manly’ (or die trying anyway – the true believer in “the survival of the fittest”). The problem arises, however, when humans try to restrict or even get rid of this animal instinct; the incongruity of our “true nature” and the restraints imposed upon us either through herd morality or Christian values have created in human beings “bad conscience.” This “declaration of war against the old instincts” has produced in man “the suffering of man from man, from himself,” and for Nietzsche, that is the biggest sin, the Original Sin, so to speak.

The Dionysian, therefore, is related to humans’ animal nature in that it brings together once again the natural man and the man that man has become:

Under the charm of the Dionysian not only is the union between one person and another again established, but also estranged, hostile or subjugated nature again celebrates her reconciliation with her lost son, man.

Through the Dionysian “intoxication,” the slave (of social conditioning) becomes a free man, and the captive animal breaks free before “the mysterious Primordial Unity.” Man is elevated to “a work of art;” he becomes a god because he becomes one with his animal instinct (Nietzsche, however, holds a more pessimistic view on this later on).

Nietzsche’s idea of human instinct is interesting. I agree with him that many aspects of human nature have been suppressed or manipulated through the progression of human species. The idea that within each one of us there resides the desire for adventures, for challenges and extraordinary things is an intriguing concept, liberating even. By questioning our “instinct,” Nietzsche calls into questions what we don’t usually question or take for granted, that is, the nature of morality and what it means to be human beings. However, Nietzsche’s idea of human instinct is full of masculine biases. He talks of “the sickly effeminacy and moralization”, by means of which “the animal man is taught to feel ashamed at last of all his instincts.” Like Schopenhauer, Nietzsche’s ideal man is a man of war and struggle for power, and only through conflicts, can man grow and become powerful. His fascination with war, conflicts and power makes him dismiss the other aspects of human nature, that is, the desire for peace, for stability and for even kindness. A child who has never been taught what is right or wrong can have as easily kick a dog for no good reason as nurse a hurt animal back to health, also for no apparent good reason. So which one is our basic instinct? To hurt or to nurse? To gain power or to obtain love/affection and comfort? Maybe what we can appreciate Nietzsche is the fact that he points out human nature is more complicated than society leads us to believe, or the fact that just because we are taught one value is better than the other, it doesn't mean we act only one way. In the end, it is human hypocrisy that we should be aware of.

Entry #2 On the Styles of Kierkegaard and Hegel

2005-09-26T00:17:00.000-07:00

The writing styles of Kierkegaard and Hegel are distinctively different. Hegel writes like a proper philosopher in that he emphasizes logical reasoning and uses all kinds of terminology, some of which he simply invented himself. His writing style is immaculate, almost mechanical. He lays out his arguments step by step, which lead to a logical conclusion, much like a neat solution to a complicated mathematical problem. Not that most of his writing is intelligible, but his incomprehensibility only enhances the authority of his writing since if only a handful of people can understand him, he must be exceptionally bright. Kierkegaard, on the other hand, writes as if he’s giving out a sermon, but his writing is not preachy; rather, it's passionate. It is almost always ironic and sometimes humourous, especially when he mocks his contemporaries, the Hegelians and the “systematicians.” He also likes to use allegories and down-to-earth examples to demonstrate his points. For him, “philosophizing is not speaking fantastically to fantastical beings but speaking to existing individuals” (73). However, sometimes he does stray into using the mythical and fantastical language when he talks about the “knight of faith” and the story of Abraham. Unlike Hegel, his arguments are not clearly laid out like a math problem; instead, his writing is often circular, repetitious and not neceassrily logical. In the end, his writing style reflects his philosophy in that it is personal, passionate and sometimes contradictory. Hegel writes as if his philosophy is the objective truth, authoritative and universal, while Kierkegaard emphasizes the individual, the subjective and personal experience and the inconlusiveness of life. The style of Hegel puts a distance between the reader and the text in that the reader is supposed to read it with an objective eye and a logical mind. Kierkegaard's writing, however, appeals to the reader's passion and encourages the reader to experience his text on a personal level.

Entry #1: Connected?

2005-09-25T17:51:00.000-07:00

Life is full of paradoxes. The internet itself is a paradox. In this age of the wireless, we are all supposedly connected with each other through the medium of the World Wide Web. We all live in the "global village" in which, without leaving our rooms, we can "chat" with other people sitting in their rooms right across the globe. Yet, the fact that we are all wired to this giant metaphysical computer doesn't necessarily mean that we, as human beings, really connect with each other in any deep or meaningful level. It is the paradox of our time. We are connected virtually but not in actuality. We know more today and yet we care less. We can get the fastest and most comprehensive information at a click of the mouse on the disaster in New Orleans, the war in Iraq or the poverty in the Third War countries, but how many of us actually feel connected to the sufferings of our fellow “villagers”? How many of us, the more privileged, more technologically advanced, and more “civilized” (I use this word derisively), actually see the “individuals” instead of the statistics when we read the news or watch TV? I admit that my sympathy, outrage or whatever emotions I go through when I look at the wreckage of war or of natural disaster don’t usually go beyond a cynical sigh. Then I move on. I’m the product of our time, as Hegel would say, because I’ve been desensitized by the ready images of horror ‘elsewhere,’ alienated by technology and distracted by the capitalist obsession with material things. I’m part of the global community that is moving forward, with or without me; it is a force that is out of my control. Therefore, I hide behind my little machine happily diverted and blissfully ignoring (not necessarily ignorant of) the sufferings going on around me. I blog, I surf, I read, I watch tv, I philosophize, and then I look on with an objective and cynical eye at the world, and I forget that the world is made up of “individuals,” not factoids, stats, but real human faces. Maybe Kierkegaard would’ve liked the internet since he loved paradoxes, but I doubt he’d have approved of our obsession with “outwardness” and with “communicating” and expressing whatever is within us through blogging. Individuality, for Kierkegaard, is not an expression, and it’s not showy, not even understandable to others; it is pure reflection, internalized passion and connection with oneself. Contrary to the modern idea of the global village, as symbolized by the Web, Kierkegaard’s individuality is of a lone man on a deserted island. Inwardly, he is utterly alone, and yet he is content in his loneliness because he is connected to himself and constantly becoming more and more himself. For us, we live in a world where no one is supposed to be alone and everyone is connected, and yet we are more lonely and disconnected than ever. We are living the paradox, only without Kierkegaard's faith.