Thursday 2/5 --
12:00 -- Madeline Smith Gibbs -- Mike Hanas, Susan Kincaid
3:15 -- Philip Mayer -- Bryce Little, Robert Bittle
Friday 2/6 --
7:30 -- Samantha Strom -- Mike Hanas, Matthew Whelan
12:00 -- Hannah Strom -- Sherri Moore-Mott, Matthew Whelan
3:15 -- Susannah Butters -- Mike Hanas, Eric Downing
Monday 2/9 --
12:00 -- Georgia Valentine -- Jon Lepofsky, Nancy Daukas
3:15 -- Siobhan McGowan -- Jon Lepofsky, Nancy Daukas
Tuesday 2/10 --
9:00 -- Will Warasila -- Rob Lavelle, Lynn York
Wednesday 2/11 --
7:30 -- Dru Marion -- Mike Hanas, Annie Dwyer
10:30 -- Tristan Green -- Matt Drake, John McGowan
12:00 -- Erin Matchinske-Brehmer -- Bob Druhan, Megan Matchinske
Thursday 2/12 --
12:00 -- Ben Harris -- Mike Hanas, Bill Nicholson
3:15 -- Kirsten Bahnson -- Renee Prillaman, Jon Lepofsky
Monday, January 26, 2009
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Homework for Friday 1/23
So, for Friday, please read the following article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/us/19prop8.html?_r=1&ref=us
For background on Prop 8 go to:
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm
If you really don't know anything about Prop 8, please use the web and look it up in a bit of detail as well.
Try to think of ALL of the public/private questions this article (and Prop 8 itself) raise. Should we be allowed to donate private money to a public cause? (This one has campaign finance implications too). Should we expect the public to conform to our beliefs? And so on.... this article raises so many more. This will be the focus of our conversation, but the rest of this is important too.
Now, read this:
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/opinion/08brooks.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=david%20brooks%20private%20public&st=cse
This article was written in the winter of 2007-- what was happening in the country? (the troop surge in Iraq was being debated in the House and Senate during the weeks preceding this article).
I'd like to talk about the assertions that Brooks makes about politics and to connect these to our current government and structures of power. Less than two years later, some of this seems outdated, does Brooks' argument change given what you know to be the outcome of the Election of 2008 (Brooks for those of you who don't know is a known conservative author)? Please think about the situation of public/private both in the context that this was written and in the implications it might have for today.
And lastly, please just read this one:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/opinion/30brooks.html?scp=4&sq=david%20brooks%20private%20public&st=cse
(This one is from 10/30/07) What do you think about this "happiness gap"? Given the events of the past year, is any of this still relevant? Does our definition of the boundary between the public and the private shift as the political situation changes? Should it?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/
For background on Prop 8 go to:
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.
If you really don't know anything about Prop 8, please use the web and look it up in a bit of detail as well.
Try to think of ALL of the public/private questions this article (and Prop 8 itself) raise. Should we be allowed to donate private money to a public cause? (This one has campaign finance implications too). Should we expect the public to conform to our beliefs? And so on.... this article raises so many more. This will be the focus of our conversation, but the rest of this is important too.
Now, read this:
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/opinion/08brooks.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=david%20brooks%20private%20public&st=cse
This article was written in the winter of 2007-- what was happening in the country? (the troop surge in Iraq was being debated in the House and Senate during the weeks preceding this article).
I'd like to talk about the assertions that Brooks makes about politics and to connect these to our current government and structures of power. Less than two years later, some of this seems outdated, does Brooks' argument change given what you know to be the outcome of the Election of 2008 (Brooks for those of you who don't know is a known conservative author)? Please think about the situation of public/private both in the context that this was written and in the implications it might have for today.
And lastly, please just read this one:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/opinion/30brooks.html?scp=4&sq=david%20brooks%20private%20public&st=cse
(This one is from 10/30/07) What do you think about this "happiness gap"? Given the events of the past year, is any of this still relevant? Does our definition of the boundary between the public and the private shift as the political situation changes? Should it?
Monday, January 19, 2009
I plan on keeping my private, thank you very much.
I agree more with Sartre’s philosophy of the formation of the individual than I do with Foucault’s conceptions on this subject. Foucault’s philosophy is based on the idea that an individual’s subjectivity is defined not by the individual himself, but by the relationships that the individual is a part of. Within this philosophy, each individual is not merely subject to discourse within a public network, but each individual as a subject is produced based on the relationships that the individual participates in within that public realm. It is through these relationships that an individual forms a unique identity – an idea not unlike Hegel’s concept of sublation. Foucault believes that throughout an individual’s life, their formation of their own identity is brought about by the relationships that are the most meaningful, make the most sense, or are most important. John Wilkes Booth is not defined as an individual based on his relationship to his local grocer, but instead is recognized for killing one of the most influential presidents in American History simply because of the natures of both relationships.
Sartre’s philosophy, however, is deeply rooted in the ability of the individual to create an identity for him or herself. Whether or not an individual is conscious of the significance of his of her actions, each thing a person does is a choice that will ultimately help define that person as an individual. Some choices that we make impact our identity more than others, and although an identity would be useless without the existence of another to contrast it with, an individual’s identity can never exist in a state where it cannot be altered by the will of the individual alone.
Sartre’s philosophy empowers the private abilities of an individual, enabling a person to form their own identity, their own subjectivity, their own self. However, the identity means nothing without the recognition of another. In this way, Sartre’s philosophy leaves not just room for a public realm, but a necessary role to be played by other individuals within a society. Foucault, however, seems to have generated a philosophy that utilizes the relationships of the public, while minimizing the role of the private into nonexistence. Individuals in Foucault’s philosophy of subjectivity have no use for a private sphere, and in philosophy, what use is something that has no purpose? The private realm is a very real thing that has, does, and needs to exist, and for this reason, I like Sartre.
Sartre’s philosophy, however, is deeply rooted in the ability of the individual to create an identity for him or herself. Whether or not an individual is conscious of the significance of his of her actions, each thing a person does is a choice that will ultimately help define that person as an individual. Some choices that we make impact our identity more than others, and although an identity would be useless without the existence of another to contrast it with, an individual’s identity can never exist in a state where it cannot be altered by the will of the individual alone.
Sartre’s philosophy empowers the private abilities of an individual, enabling a person to form their own identity, their own subjectivity, their own self. However, the identity means nothing without the recognition of another. In this way, Sartre’s philosophy leaves not just room for a public realm, but a necessary role to be played by other individuals within a society. Foucault, however, seems to have generated a philosophy that utilizes the relationships of the public, while minimizing the role of the private into nonexistence. Individuals in Foucault’s philosophy of subjectivity have no use for a private sphere, and in philosophy, what use is something that has no purpose? The private realm is a very real thing that has, does, and needs to exist, and for this reason, I like Sartre.
Foucault, fo' sho
“Humanity will reach maturity when it is no longer required to obey,” (Foucault, 132P) Foucault paraphrases Kant. While Kant seemed to mean this literally (i.e. when humanity no longer blindly follows authority), Foucault may have seen this as the even less achievable goal of breaking out of the social institutions that, to a large extent, define us. Foucault saw himself as a historian of ideas and social structure; like Marx, he saw the individual as product of his time and place, emphasizing the role of the public in private lives.
Jean-Paul Sartre, in contrast, believed that humans are “condemned to be free”. As long as we are alive, he would argue, we are choosing. The anti-Semite makes the choice to “live on the plane of passion” (Sartre, Anti-Semite and Jew, 18) instead of using his reason. Is hate really such a conscious choice? I believe that hate’s object and intensity is dependent on its environment. My views on subjectivity more closely align with Foucault’s.
In Care of the Self, Foucault gives the example of how attitudes towards sexuality have changed with the rise of Christianity. He cites a “movement of ideas … that opposed current laxity” (Foucault, Care of Self, 40). Whether this movement was caused by individuals or by external forces (as he goes on to discuss) is almost irrelevant. As the public views on sexuality changed, so did individuals’. A new norm was created and everyone was affected by it.
Even Foucault would agree that we have choices within our social structure. However, we do not have the limitless array of choices suggested by Sartre. Do you really think that someone growing up in Nazi Germany, surrounded anti-Semites, could have the same chance of liking Jewish people as anyone else?
Jean-Paul Sartre, in contrast, believed that humans are “condemned to be free”. As long as we are alive, he would argue, we are choosing. The anti-Semite makes the choice to “live on the plane of passion” (Sartre, Anti-Semite and Jew, 18) instead of using his reason. Is hate really such a conscious choice? I believe that hate’s object and intensity is dependent on its environment. My views on subjectivity more closely align with Foucault’s.
In Care of the Self, Foucault gives the example of how attitudes towards sexuality have changed with the rise of Christianity. He cites a “movement of ideas … that opposed current laxity” (Foucault, Care of Self, 40). Whether this movement was caused by individuals or by external forces (as he goes on to discuss) is almost irrelevant. As the public views on sexuality changed, so did individuals’. A new norm was created and everyone was affected by it.
Even Foucault would agree that we have choices within our social structure. However, we do not have the limitless array of choices suggested by Sartre. Do you really think that someone growing up in Nazi Germany, surrounded anti-Semites, could have the same chance of liking Jewish people as anyone else?
Sartre and Foucault
Foucault thought that anything you believed, any opinion that you had, was taking a stand. To him there was no idle opinion, everything that you said created your subjectivity. Sartre believed that there are two kinds of men, the ones that sought for truth, and those such as the Anti-Semite, who took the easy way out and stuck to the herd. He believed that it was a choice to see the world as an Anti-Semite, a choice to not be free and not to learn. Sartre’s description of Anti-Semites painted them as objective beings, they hid in the masses and clung to safe opinions. To him to be subjective was to be a man of truth, to have the ability to be open and uncertain about one’s opinions, to be constantly changing.
I agree with Sartre, one truly becomes their own person when one chooses to think for himself. When a child is young he repeats whatever he has been told, trusting blindly, and then he slowly begins to observe phenomenons for himself, and that it is when he develops into his own person. It is possible for a person to have an opinion that he does not own and does not truly mean, unlike Foucault’s theory. If a person’s mind is too primitive to wake up and understand what they are saying and how to think then what they say is not part of their subjectivity. If a person doesn’t have their own opinions then they are not even subjective.
Foucault believed that privacy emerged at a place and time. He discussed how in The Care of the Self in the first and second centuries an emphasis was placed on using modesty to separate oneself from the herd. The focus on the self created a realm of privacy and a separation from oneself from society. Foucault followed Marx’s theory that everyone should be seen through a historical lens, and by going all the way back to the first centuries, Foucault put a date on privacy that will be at least a starting point for future philosophers.
Sartre described the Anti-Semites as choosing to place themselves in a herd, giving away their private reason, and not contributing to a public sphere of knowledge. Without the true existences of their subjectivities they’re private realms were insignificant, there is not much about these men that is below the surface. Sartre puts public and private in a historical sense by showing the inner workings of the Anti-Semites, showing how they think and why they choose to hide themselves amongst a crowd. Sartre’s work does not just denounce or support these men, but instead enlightens the reader on the reasons behind their choice to give up their private sphere and subjectivity.
I agree with Sartre, one truly becomes their own person when one chooses to think for himself. When a child is young he repeats whatever he has been told, trusting blindly, and then he slowly begins to observe phenomenons for himself, and that it is when he develops into his own person. It is possible for a person to have an opinion that he does not own and does not truly mean, unlike Foucault’s theory. If a person’s mind is too primitive to wake up and understand what they are saying and how to think then what they say is not part of their subjectivity. If a person doesn’t have their own opinions then they are not even subjective.
Foucault believed that privacy emerged at a place and time. He discussed how in The Care of the Self in the first and second centuries an emphasis was placed on using modesty to separate oneself from the herd. The focus on the self created a realm of privacy and a separation from oneself from society. Foucault followed Marx’s theory that everyone should be seen through a historical lens, and by going all the way back to the first centuries, Foucault put a date on privacy that will be at least a starting point for future philosophers.
Sartre described the Anti-Semites as choosing to place themselves in a herd, giving away their private reason, and not contributing to a public sphere of knowledge. Without the true existences of their subjectivities they’re private realms were insignificant, there is not much about these men that is below the surface. Sartre puts public and private in a historical sense by showing the inner workings of the Anti-Semites, showing how they think and why they choose to hide themselves amongst a crowd. Sartre’s work does not just denounce or support these men, but instead enlightens the reader on the reasons behind their choice to give up their private sphere and subjectivity.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Blog Post for Tuesday 1/20
Considering the ideas of Foucault and Sartre, with whom do you agree regarding conceptions of subjectivity and why? How does the difference between these two thinkers impact the relationship between the private and the public?
-- We realize that several of you will be gone for inauguration. Each group is still responsible for one post to this assignment. Every student needs to read all three posts as we will shake up the content of the groups on Tuesday given who is in attendance. Be prepared to discuss all three responses to this assignment.
-- We realize that several of you will be gone for inauguration. Each group is still responsible for one post to this assignment. Every student needs to read all three posts as we will shake up the content of the groups on Tuesday given who is in attendance. Be prepared to discuss all three responses to this assignment.
Email addresses for panels (if you want them)
I have been asked for these enough that I thought I would make them more available. Feel free to ignore this email if your panelists have been set.
Eric Downing (@UNC -- Nietzsche class) -- edowning "at" email.unc.edu
John McGowan (@ UNC -- Arendt class) -- jpm "at" email.unc.edu
Nancy Daukas (@ Guilford -- Mill and Marx class) -- ndaukas "at" guilford.edu
Eric Downing (@UNC -- Nietzsche class) -- edowning "at" email.unc.edu
John McGowan (@ UNC -- Arendt class) -- jpm "at" email.unc.edu
Nancy Daukas (@ Guilford -- Mill and Marx class) -- ndaukas "at" guilford.edu
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)