Thursday, March 20, 2008
Hegel
Sorry for my terribly inarticulate explanations of Hegel and Hegelian philosophy this afternoon. I'm fatigued! Here are a few sites that can help:
General:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/help/easy.htm
The idea of a dialectic, or the thesis-antithesis-synthesis relationship:
http://www.calvertonschool.org/waldspurger/pages/hegelian_dialectic.htm
Subjective idealism:
http://www.britannica.com/bps/topic/570743/subjective-idealism#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked%3E%2Fbps%2Ftopic%2F570743%2Fsubjective-idealism&title=subjective%20idealism%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-8108(190103)10%3A2%3C139%3ATN'ASI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D
Dialectical materialism, or Marxist uses of Hegel's dialectic:
http://www.marxist.com/Theory/study_guide1.html
Thoughts on politics, human nature, the state of nature:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/txt/mansour.htm
Relationship of the individual to nature, or the "mountain" in Dr. Kalter's feeble memory:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-41241/Georg-Wilhelm-Friedrich-Hegel
And from wikipedia, which has a clearer context for this same idea:
General:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/help/easy.htm
The idea of a dialectic, or the thesis-antithesis-synthesis relationship:
http://www.calvertonschool.org/waldspurger/pages/hegelian_dialectic.htm
Subjective idealism:
http://www.britannica.com/bps/topic/570743/subjective-idealism#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked%3E%2Fbps%2Ftopic%2F570743%2Fsubjective-idealism&title=subjective%20idealism%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-8108(190103)10%3A2%3C139%3ATN'ASI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D
Dialectical materialism, or Marxist uses of Hegel's dialectic:
http://www.marxist.com/Theory/study_guide1.html
Thoughts on politics, human nature, the state of nature:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/txt/mansour.htm
Relationship of the individual to nature, or the "mountain" in Dr. Kalter's feeble memory:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-41241/Georg-Wilhelm-Friedrich-Hegel
And from wikipedia, which has a clearer context for this same idea:
The concept of freedom through Hegel's method
Hegel's thinking can be understood as a constructive development within the broadly Platonic tradition that includes Aristotle and Kant. To this list one could add Proclus, Meister Eckhart, Leibniz, Bahlsen, Spinoza, Plotinus, Jakob Boehme, and Rousseau. What all these thinkers share, which distinguishes them from materialists like Epicurus, the Stoics, and Thomas Hobbes, and from empiricists like David Hume, is that they regard freedom or self-determination both as real and as having important ontological implications, for soul or mind or divinity. This focus on freedom is what generates Plato's notion (in the Phaedo, Republic, and Timaeus) of the "soul" as having a higher or fuller kind of reality than inanimate objects possess. While Aristotle criticizes Plato's "Forms," he preserves Plato's preoccupation with the ontological implications of self-determination, in his conceptions of ethical reasoning, the hierarchy of soul in nature, the order of the cosmos, and the prime mover. Kant, likewise, preserves this preoccupation of Plato's in his notions of moral and noumenal freedom, and God.
In his discussion of "Spirit" in his Encyclopedia, Hegel praises Aristotle's On the Soul as "by far the most admirable, perhaps even the sole, work of philosophical value on this topic" (par. 378). And in his Phenomenology of Spirit and his Science of Logic, Hegel's concern with Kantian topics such as freedom and morality, and with their ontological implications, is pervasive. Rather than simply rejecting Kant's dualism of freedom versus nature, Hegel aims to subsume it within "true infinity," the "Concept" (or "Notion": Begriff), "Spirit," and "ethical life" in such a way that the Kantian duality is rendered intelligible (as mentioned above), rather than remaining a brute "given."
...
The result of this argument is that finite and infinite—and, by extension, particular and universal, nature and freedom—don't face one another as two independent realities, but instead the latter (in each case) is the self-transcending of the former.[19] Thus rather than being merely "given," without explanation, the relationship between finite and infinite (and particular and universal, and nature and freedom) becomes intelligible. And a challenge is issued to reductive and eliminative programs like materialism and empiricism: What kind of "reality" do your fundamental entities or data possess?
Novelty in Art
I thought the discussion in class about whether or not human culture can ever come up with anything new under the sun was really cool.
The problem was, as best I can formulate it, this: if we implicitly accept that the universe and everything in it follows the determinist paradigm (that is to say, every event has a cause, which has a further cause and so on), it would follow that the only thoughts we can have are those that are caused by prior causes. This would mean that someone who wanted to have an entirely original thought (one never thought of before) would have to have it caused by cause(s) that no one had ever experienced before. The problem with this is that we all live in the same universe, and we all understand this universe subjectively, by virtue of the schemata given us by our elders and contemporaries. Thus we would all be affected by the same causes and in turn produce the same results. To escape this cycle of repetition, it would seem that one would have to keep out of human affairs entirely. But of course someone raised by wolves, as we might say, isn't going to have the first concept of how to communicate any novel ideas they do have to the rest of us. So human culture would seem to be stuck in a causal loop in which nothing novel could ever truly be generated; everything would be permutations of the same original material.
Not everyone sees a problem with this picture; but for those of us that do (I myself included), we are challenged to come up with a mechanism for the creation of novelty in human culture. The questions we can ask ourselves include, but are not limited to:
1. Where do novel causes come from?
2. How do we experience these causes?
3. How do we communicate their effect(s) to others?
4. How much of human thinking can be characterized as "novel" in the sense that no one has thought in that way before?
Tangential problems might include:
1. Is novelty necessary for human culture?
2. What is the purpose of novelty?
3. How do we explain our desire for novelty if it is not necessary and/or possible?
4. Do human beings themselves have any say in where and when they come up with novelty, or is it just something that happens to certain of us?
5. Can we ever actually think the same as anybody else? Might not everything we think be novel in some way? If so, does that realization devalue novelty?
Undoubtedly this is only a small sample of questions we might raise on this topic. But this was the gist of my big argument with professors on this topic that I had back when I was a freshman, and it proved really helpful to think along these lines. I have my own theories about each of these questions, but I won't even begin to pretend that they are at all convincing, so I won't espouse them here. I am interested, however, in hearing what other people have to say.
The problem was, as best I can formulate it, this: if we implicitly accept that the universe and everything in it follows the determinist paradigm (that is to say, every event has a cause, which has a further cause and so on), it would follow that the only thoughts we can have are those that are caused by prior causes. This would mean that someone who wanted to have an entirely original thought (one never thought of before) would have to have it caused by cause(s) that no one had ever experienced before. The problem with this is that we all live in the same universe, and we all understand this universe subjectively, by virtue of the schemata given us by our elders and contemporaries. Thus we would all be affected by the same causes and in turn produce the same results. To escape this cycle of repetition, it would seem that one would have to keep out of human affairs entirely. But of course someone raised by wolves, as we might say, isn't going to have the first concept of how to communicate any novel ideas they do have to the rest of us. So human culture would seem to be stuck in a causal loop in which nothing novel could ever truly be generated; everything would be permutations of the same original material.
Not everyone sees a problem with this picture; but for those of us that do (I myself included), we are challenged to come up with a mechanism for the creation of novelty in human culture. The questions we can ask ourselves include, but are not limited to:
1. Where do novel causes come from?
2. How do we experience these causes?
3. How do we communicate their effect(s) to others?
4. How much of human thinking can be characterized as "novel" in the sense that no one has thought in that way before?
Tangential problems might include:
1. Is novelty necessary for human culture?
2. What is the purpose of novelty?
3. How do we explain our desire for novelty if it is not necessary and/or possible?
4. Do human beings themselves have any say in where and when they come up with novelty, or is it just something that happens to certain of us?
5. Can we ever actually think the same as anybody else? Might not everything we think be novel in some way? If so, does that realization devalue novelty?
Undoubtedly this is only a small sample of questions we might raise on this topic. But this was the gist of my big argument with professors on this topic that I had back when I was a freshman, and it proved really helpful to think along these lines. I have my own theories about each of these questions, but I won't even begin to pretend that they are at all convincing, so I won't espouse them here. I am interested, however, in hearing what other people have to say.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Marxist Feelings on Exploitation
Alright. I was running on the treadmill today, trying to ignore Dr. Phil on the television--I specify the medium because he seems to be everywhere these days, perhaps even somewhere in your house--when I started thinking about my paper. This lead me to start drawing connections between our class readings and Invisible Man. I will admit at not knowing much about these Marxist tendencies that seem to run through our selected readings, so I will present my question to everyone in hope that someone can help me with this:
Those who are not familiar with Invisible Man should know that the "theme" of the novel is the search for identity. The nameless protagonist suffers all sorts of trials through his auto-narrated story, but the worst and final offense is that of ignorance - in the sense that everyone ignores him. In "Iron Man", the protagonist eventually emerges from his stupor (or hibernation) to lay waste to every enemy that has done him wrong in the past.
Here is the initial connection that I will build upon with my Marxist question; that is, a question regarding Marxism: Throughout Invisible Man, our hero is desensitized by the apathy toward his identity that is projected upon him. He travels underground to contemplate and come to terms with his invisibility. "Iron Man", I argue, is his reemergence into the world by means of extreme violence (more on this point will be explained in my paper). One identity is ignored (Invisible Man) while the other is exploited (Iron Man).
Now, this concept of exploitation came from an intersecting idea I had around my second mile. I thought back to the Fanon reading and regarded his writings on the necessity of violence in decolonization. This gave way to memories of the film Ethnic Notions, which documented the concept of racism in America as directed toward African-Americans. We are all at least slightly familiar with the resounding prejudice toward African-American violence during the first part of the twentieth century. They were perceived as a savage people, able to act violently at the drop of a hat. How would this prejudice (that of the violent-bred African-American male) play with the justified violence of Fanon's writings? Is inssurection an ambiguous way of playing into the popular racist notions of a dominating class?
Which brings me to my initial point.
Would a Marxist thinker be pulled more to the concept of the ignored minority or the exploited minority? In fewer words, which would they deem "better": ignored, or exploited?
Any sort of assistance with this question would be greatly appreciated. I hope everyone else is having a more exciting Spring Break than me. And watch out for Dr. Phil...
~Adam Johnson
Those who are not familiar with Invisible Man should know that the "theme" of the novel is the search for identity. The nameless protagonist suffers all sorts of trials through his auto-narrated story, but the worst and final offense is that of ignorance - in the sense that everyone ignores him. In "Iron Man", the protagonist eventually emerges from his stupor (or hibernation) to lay waste to every enemy that has done him wrong in the past.
Here is the initial connection that I will build upon with my Marxist question; that is, a question regarding Marxism: Throughout Invisible Man, our hero is desensitized by the apathy toward his identity that is projected upon him. He travels underground to contemplate and come to terms with his invisibility. "Iron Man", I argue, is his reemergence into the world by means of extreme violence (more on this point will be explained in my paper). One identity is ignored (Invisible Man) while the other is exploited (Iron Man).
Now, this concept of exploitation came from an intersecting idea I had around my second mile. I thought back to the Fanon reading and regarded his writings on the necessity of violence in decolonization. This gave way to memories of the film Ethnic Notions, which documented the concept of racism in America as directed toward African-Americans. We are all at least slightly familiar with the resounding prejudice toward African-American violence during the first part of the twentieth century. They were perceived as a savage people, able to act violently at the drop of a hat. How would this prejudice (that of the violent-bred African-American male) play with the justified violence of Fanon's writings? Is inssurection an ambiguous way of playing into the popular racist notions of a dominating class?
Which brings me to my initial point.
Would a Marxist thinker be pulled more to the concept of the ignored minority or the exploited minority? In fewer words, which would they deem "better": ignored, or exploited?
Any sort of assistance with this question would be greatly appreciated. I hope everyone else is having a more exciting Spring Break than me. And watch out for Dr. Phil...
~Adam Johnson
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Textual and Oral Communication
First of all, I apologize for any confusion or bad feelings during class.
I argued, or at least meant only to argue, that textual communication has advantages over oral communication. My tentative hypothesis was that texts were originally created to prolong the longevity of communications and also perhaps to improve the ability of communications to be disseminated. Now, if anyone would like to take issue with these claims, I would be more than happy to discuss them here, where I can take the time to more intelligently formulate my responses.
In anticipation of objections which I think may be voiced based on the discussion in class, let me offer an explanation for how I arrived at my position.
The first form of human communication that we can be sure of was oral OR physical communication (think sign language). We know that people were communicating orally at least as early as 67,000 B.C. - very probably earlier. We know this because the genetic and skeletal adaptations necessary for natural human language were all in place by this time. More convincingly, the number of individuals in groups - previously limited to around 25 to 30 - began increasing, which anthropologists think indicates people were beginning to use language to keep larger groups cohesive than could be accomplished via the physical method practiced by apes - social grooming.
Culture exploded. From the meager stone toolkits of Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis, early Homo sapiens expanded dramatically. Complex knife blades, hafted spears, but most importantly, art (cave paintings, stone carvings, etc) were all products of this particularly language-enabled species. This was the benefit of a strong oral tradition, which allowed larger groups and the dissemination of learned knowledge throughout the individuals of the tribe. For a long time, this sufficed.
But around 8,000 B.C., written language emerged. The question in class essentially boils down to "why?" Why do some of the ancient cultures create a written language? What advantage does it have over the oral tradition which everyone is already using? Why spend time and effort to learn a new way of communicating when the old way seems perfectly fine?
The answer may be found (I think so anyway) in what the first writers wrote about. The oldest written documents we know of come from Mesopotamia and are written in an ancient Sumerian script called cuneiform. The Sumerians wrote quite a bit, as is attested to by the thousands of clay writing tablet fragments found strewn amongst the ruins of their cities, but the chief topic appears to be clerical in nature. That is, Sumerians used writing to record information about their purchases and sales, their legal proceedings, and the like. Why would the ancient Sumerians feel the need to record such things in writing?
My guess would be that they couldn't remember it all in their heads and so needed to preserve the information in some other way. Therefore, the apparent reason for the invention of writing is to offer a better means of storage than the person who has recieved the same information orally. Thus one of the advantages of textual communication would appear to be an increased fidelity of message over time.
I welcome any refutations of this hypothesis, because I find the subject fascinating.
I argued, or at least meant only to argue, that textual communication has advantages over oral communication. My tentative hypothesis was that texts were originally created to prolong the longevity of communications and also perhaps to improve the ability of communications to be disseminated. Now, if anyone would like to take issue with these claims, I would be more than happy to discuss them here, where I can take the time to more intelligently formulate my responses.
In anticipation of objections which I think may be voiced based on the discussion in class, let me offer an explanation for how I arrived at my position.
The first form of human communication that we can be sure of was oral OR physical communication (think sign language). We know that people were communicating orally at least as early as 67,000 B.C. - very probably earlier. We know this because the genetic and skeletal adaptations necessary for natural human language were all in place by this time. More convincingly, the number of individuals in groups - previously limited to around 25 to 30 - began increasing, which anthropologists think indicates people were beginning to use language to keep larger groups cohesive than could be accomplished via the physical method practiced by apes - social grooming.
Culture exploded. From the meager stone toolkits of Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis, early Homo sapiens expanded dramatically. Complex knife blades, hafted spears, but most importantly, art (cave paintings, stone carvings, etc) were all products of this particularly language-enabled species. This was the benefit of a strong oral tradition, which allowed larger groups and the dissemination of learned knowledge throughout the individuals of the tribe. For a long time, this sufficed.
But around 8,000 B.C., written language emerged. The question in class essentially boils down to "why?" Why do some of the ancient cultures create a written language? What advantage does it have over the oral tradition which everyone is already using? Why spend time and effort to learn a new way of communicating when the old way seems perfectly fine?
The answer may be found (I think so anyway) in what the first writers wrote about. The oldest written documents we know of come from Mesopotamia and are written in an ancient Sumerian script called cuneiform. The Sumerians wrote quite a bit, as is attested to by the thousands of clay writing tablet fragments found strewn amongst the ruins of their cities, but the chief topic appears to be clerical in nature. That is, Sumerians used writing to record information about their purchases and sales, their legal proceedings, and the like. Why would the ancient Sumerians feel the need to record such things in writing?
My guess would be that they couldn't remember it all in their heads and so needed to preserve the information in some other way. Therefore, the apparent reason for the invention of writing is to offer a better means of storage than the person who has recieved the same information orally. Thus one of the advantages of textual communication would appear to be an increased fidelity of message over time.
I welcome any refutations of this hypothesis, because I find the subject fascinating.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)