Due: Friday, December 19th (must be turned in with your entire folder) (if you are leaving early for vacation you must turn in this paper before you go) (remember that Friday is a half day)
Length: 4 - 6 pages
Must include: at least 3 philosophers from class
Must include: at least 3 topic-specific sources (if you are using the internet, these sources must be legitimate internet sources -- ie: they must have an author -- Wikipedia and other sources without documentation are not considered legitimate and may not be used)
Be sure to cite everything appropriately. If you aren't sure, ask in advance!
Topic:
Research a specific situation of the public and the private. Tie the foundations and manifestations of this topic to the readings we have done and the conversations we have had for class. Make this paper an ideological look at a particular situation. Be very clear how this paper topic ties to at least three of the different philosophers we have read. Cite these readings in a way that makes clear that you understand the concepts and thoughts related to each thinker.
Remember, you are examining your topic from the perspective of its relationship to freedom, identity, and enlightenment. What are the implications of your particularly argument to the balance between the public and the private?
Topics:
Hannah -- China's one child policy
Siobhan -- cloning
Samantha - genetic engineering for children
Tristan -- global health aid
Dru -- intellectual property rights
Kirsten -- the Human Genome Project
Susannah -- the Draft
Will -- suicide
Georgia -- public HIV testing
Philip -- politicians and their private lives
Madeline -- genetic engineering for food
Erin -- Doctor/Patient confidentiality (HIPPA)
Ben -- Megan's Law
Monday, December 15, 2008
Monday, December 8, 2008
To be a noble and free spirit
When Nietzsche categorizes art he splits it into that which is monological and that which is created before a witness. He includes God in this second category because the creator is using God as a witness for his art. One thing that can automatically be cut out of the discussion when looking at Nietzsche’s own writing practice is that he does not write with God as a witness. Nietzsche believes that the only thing that is undeniably true is one’s existence. He believes that everything else can not be proven without a doubt, and therefore there is no point in trying to find meaning to this world. I believe this belief of Nietzsche is solid evidence that he is not writing with God as a witness, seeing as he clearly doubts the existence of God. Now the split that Nietzsche’s writing faces is whether it is written with the world in mind, or is the world forgotten in his writing? The first impression that Nietzsche’s writing gives was that he practiced the latter, writing only for himself, but that only comes from the beginning of Nietzsche’s ideas. Nietzsche believes that it is better to be a “free and noble spirit” than to be part of a herd. He believes that when someone becomes part of the herd, he or she is brought down to the lowest common denominator, restraining his or her private sphere of life. This does promote “forgetting” the big picture, or the world, and living only in the private sphere of life but it is not the end of his writing. When Nietzsche talks about being free vs. being part of the herd he does not promote the benefit of this freedom as much as he dislikes the restraints that the herd brings. The conclusion that Nietzsche comes to is that one only becomes noble and free from absorbing the rules of society and advancing above society. In this way society, or the herd, is a witness of what Nietzsche wants to happen. He wants people to rise above the “herd” by absorbing the rules of the herd into their own personal beliefs. When someone has no need for his private self, because one’s private self is the same as one’s public self, one truly is a noble and free spirit. I believe that Nietzsche needed a witness to exist so he could justify that he was free. Even though Nietzsche believes that the only thing that is doubtlessly true is one’s own existence, the writing of Nietzsche we have focused on focus on what he thinks of one’s existence related to others. This makes me believe that Nietzsche thought that although the existence of others can be doubted, it is necessary for their existence in order for him to label himself as free, as well as it is necessary for the others to witness his freedom in order for him to believe that he is above the herd and is noble and free.
My writing is also “before a witness” because one of my beliefs is that meaning in life comes from making changes for the better in the public sphere. When change is made in the public sphere it is meaningful because it affects others and it lasts longer. When you do something that is larger than just you it makes your life meaningful.
My writing is also “before a witness” because one of my beliefs is that meaning in life comes from making changes for the better in the public sphere. When change is made in the public sphere it is meaningful because it affects others and it lasts longer. When you do something that is larger than just you it makes your life meaningful.
Forget it
Nietzsche's writing, along with the writing most philosophers, is a monological art. In order to tackle problems in philosophy, one must try to block out the audience, the “witnesses.” One must focus on the task at hand which is following an argument and its internal logical paths. This activity is self-centered. It does not require outside input or observation. And in particular for Nietzsche, a person derives meaning from this process. This is in contrast to a Christian philosophy in which the self should be dismissed in favor of some collective. For Nietzsche, authority can not be found in any outside text, such as scripture. Each person is his or her own authority, in the context of finding a person's own meaning.
If philosophy is seen as a monological art, then what does Nietzsche mean by “It is the music of forgetting.”? This would mean that he has to forget the past--about the philosophical work that has come before him and will come after him. He must also ignore the future, his “witnesses,”people who may read his work. From this, comes an obvious question, why then should he even write his ideas down? He must document his thoughts because he considers them valuable. He does not expect other people to read his work as “scripture,” but as information about his own thoughts. In this way, he might have read the works of earlier philosophers ,and he might have seen other works of art. When it was his turn to make art, he chose to forget his place in history, however, but this line of logic has some imitations. Nietzsche's philosophy, and even, his whole way of thinking, may have been different from other thinkers, but his work was really just built upon generations of philosophical thinking.
So, “forgetting” can not include the complete dismissal of everything that has occurred in the past nor can it ignore the future, that is, the audience. While writing, Nietzsche undeniably knew that his writing would be read by others. He wrote without regard for the reactions of his readers, even though he knew that people would be reading his work.
As a high school student, I would not consider my writing monological. I write in response to school assignments. If my writing can be considered art at all, it is clearly “art before witness.” Though I try and think independently and though like to think that do have some original thoughts, I often finding myself relying on the thoughts of authorities, such as philosophers and teachers. I struggle to “forget,” because I am constantly thinking about the “witnesses”--my teachers and peers, who will judge my work. I see Nietzsche's goal of forgetting and finding my own ideas and voice as worthy, but not yet obtainable.
Although this was posted by Ben, it was written by Will.
If philosophy is seen as a monological art, then what does Nietzsche mean by “It is the music of forgetting.”? This would mean that he has to forget the past--about the philosophical work that has come before him and will come after him. He must also ignore the future, his “witnesses,”people who may read his work. From this, comes an obvious question, why then should he even write his ideas down? He must document his thoughts because he considers them valuable. He does not expect other people to read his work as “scripture,” but as information about his own thoughts. In this way, he might have read the works of earlier philosophers ,and he might have seen other works of art. When it was his turn to make art, he chose to forget his place in history, however, but this line of logic has some imitations. Nietzsche's philosophy, and even, his whole way of thinking, may have been different from other thinkers, but his work was really just built upon generations of philosophical thinking.
So, “forgetting” can not include the complete dismissal of everything that has occurred in the past nor can it ignore the future, that is, the audience. While writing, Nietzsche undeniably knew that his writing would be read by others. He wrote without regard for the reactions of his readers, even though he knew that people would be reading his work.
As a high school student, I would not consider my writing monological. I write in response to school assignments. If my writing can be considered art at all, it is clearly “art before witness.” Though I try and think independently and though like to think that do have some original thoughts, I often finding myself relying on the thoughts of authorities, such as philosophers and teachers. I struggle to “forget,” because I am constantly thinking about the “witnesses”--my teachers and peers, who will judge my work. I see Nietzsche's goal of forgetting and finding my own ideas and voice as worthy, but not yet obtainable.
Although this was posted by Ben, it was written by Will.
Is Nietzsche Monological?
In aphorism # 367 in The Gay Science, Nietzsche states how art and writing can either be monological (for oneself) or art before witnesses (for others). He said that this was the most critical difference in art. While an artist before witnesses was essentially a slave for others, amonological artist worked and forgot the rest of the world.
Nietzsche included artists working for God in artists before witnesses. If an artist was working for God he was still seeking external approval. He said that monological art “was made only by us, the godless.” By including himself as the godless, his art had the potential to be monological. Was it monological? On examination of Nietzsche’s life and writing, it appears that he did not have many relationships with others, and his work was not widely received. His writing style was not teological and aphoristic; not easy to follow for a reader. Also most of his philosophy stressed being a noble spirit and being free of ressentiment, where a person is constantly comparing himself to others. My conclusion is that Nietzsche’s writing in monological, and was written simply for himself.
Nietzsche did not have a solid working relationship with the public. He was a private man with few connections. His books did not have a big audience, as they were not widely received in his lifetime. (Downing lecture, 12/05).
Nietzsche wrote in aphorisms, and snippets. He was not a teological philosopher. He contradicts himself many times. These are not characteristics of a philosopher writing for an audience. It was as if he wrote whatever came to his head at the time and published it. This does not make his work any less brilliant, on the contrary, because he did not have an end to his thinking, he could explore more openly than other philosophers. Nietzsche was free to be godless, and say the things that others are afraid to say. When he contradicted himself, both sides of the argument were true. This made him a unique philosopher, showing that being a monological artist can have its advantages.
A noble spirit for Nietzsche is someone who strays away from the herd. He is unique, and free. He pities the herd but is not envious of them, because they are lesser than him. Nietzsche believed that he was the only free spirit in Europe (Hysjulien lecture). If Nietzsche was a free spirit, then he would create for himself, in monological art, and not art before a witness.
Unfortunately, I would not say I’m as mature as Nietzsche in this. I would be kidding myself if I said that I was a purely monological artist. Although that is a goal for me, much of my drive to be good comes from external praise and the public. Currently I am thinking “wow, I hope the people in my group don’t read this and think I’m really stupid”, for me, the world has not fallen away.
It is debatable whether Nietzsche thinks people like me- part of the herd- can change. I hope that the answer is yes. I guess we’ll just have to wait until I grow up…
Nietzsche included artists working for God in artists before witnesses. If an artist was working for God he was still seeking external approval. He said that monological art “was made only by us, the godless.” By including himself as the godless, his art had the potential to be monological. Was it monological? On examination of Nietzsche’s life and writing, it appears that he did not have many relationships with others, and his work was not widely received. His writing style was not teological and aphoristic; not easy to follow for a reader. Also most of his philosophy stressed being a noble spirit and being free of ressentiment, where a person is constantly comparing himself to others. My conclusion is that Nietzsche’s writing in monological, and was written simply for himself.
Nietzsche did not have a solid working relationship with the public. He was a private man with few connections. His books did not have a big audience, as they were not widely received in his lifetime. (Downing lecture, 12/05).
Nietzsche wrote in aphorisms, and snippets. He was not a teological philosopher. He contradicts himself many times. These are not characteristics of a philosopher writing for an audience. It was as if he wrote whatever came to his head at the time and published it. This does not make his work any less brilliant, on the contrary, because he did not have an end to his thinking, he could explore more openly than other philosophers. Nietzsche was free to be godless, and say the things that others are afraid to say. When he contradicted himself, both sides of the argument were true. This made him a unique philosopher, showing that being a monological artist can have its advantages.
A noble spirit for Nietzsche is someone who strays away from the herd. He is unique, and free. He pities the herd but is not envious of them, because they are lesser than him. Nietzsche believed that he was the only free spirit in Europe (Hysjulien lecture). If Nietzsche was a free spirit, then he would create for himself, in monological art, and not art before a witness.
Unfortunately, I would not say I’m as mature as Nietzsche in this. I would be kidding myself if I said that I was a purely monological artist. Although that is a goal for me, much of my drive to be good comes from external praise and the public. Currently I am thinking “wow, I hope the people in my group don’t read this and think I’m really stupid”, for me, the world has not fallen away.
It is debatable whether Nietzsche thinks people like me- part of the herd- can change. I hope that the answer is yes. I guess we’ll just have to wait until I grow up…
Friday, December 5, 2008
Assignment #11
For everyone:
Read aphorism #367 from The Gay Science:
"The first distinction to be made regarding works of art --- All thought, poetry, painting, composition, even building and sculptures, belong either to monological art or to art before witnesses. In the second class we must include even the apparently monological art that involves faith in God, the whole lyricism of prayer. For the pious there is as yet no solitude; this invention was made only by us, the godless. I do not know of any more profound difference in the whole orientation of an artist than this, whether he looks at his work in progress (at "himself") from the point of view of the witness, or whether he "has forgotten the world," which is the essential feature of all monological art; it is based on forgetting, it is the music of forgetting.
The question:
What is closer to Nietzsche's own writing practice, monological art or art before witnesses? What is most characteristic of your own ideal of writing? Why?
Read aphorism #367 from The Gay Science:
"The first distinction to be made regarding works of art --- All thought, poetry, painting, composition, even building and sculptures, belong either to monological art or to art before witnesses. In the second class we must include even the apparently monological art that involves faith in God, the whole lyricism of prayer. For the pious there is as yet no solitude; this invention was made only by us, the godless. I do not know of any more profound difference in the whole orientation of an artist than this, whether he looks at his work in progress (at "himself") from the point of view of the witness, or whether he "has forgotten the world," which is the essential feature of all monological art; it is based on forgetting, it is the music of forgetting.
The question:
What is closer to Nietzsche's own writing practice, monological art or art before witnesses? What is most characteristic of your own ideal of writing? Why?
Monday, December 1, 2008
Balancing the Id and Superego
Freud classifies the psyche into three factions, the Id, the Superego and the Ego. The Id is the most inherent and least accessible of these three sections, symbolizing our drive and passion. If it existed unchecked, the Id would constantly seek selfish pleasures as a destructive force in society. An individual’s Id leads him to defy the rules of the social realm. The Superego exists paradoxically inhibiting the desires of the Id and adhering to the rules of society. The Superego advocates for the functionality of society. The Superego and the Id present contradictory desires; it is the goal of the Ego to rationalize these desires.
The Ego, the conscious part of the mind, is representative of rationality and logic. The Ego locates the fragile balance between the Id and the Superego. It allows for the expression of some of an individual’s desires while suppressing those that are the most harmful.
Although the suppression of these desires can be potentially harmful, the abundance of desires in the Id makes it impossible to be completely controlled by the Ego. The Id is never satisfied. The Ego must disregard some of an individual’s desires because they are simply unachievable. Freud uses the example of a son’s desire for his mother. His relationship with his mother is the first relationship from which he derives pleasure. This is a want that cannot be satisfied and must be suppressed. The suppression of this desire is harmful without the acknowledgement of the reason behind it. When an individual can recognize why the wants of the Id can be potentially harmful, he can rationally suppress them rather than letting them develop into traumas that can manifests in unrecognizable ways.
An individual should strive to recognize and rationalize his desires through his Ego. The Id and its irrational desires are ever-present; the fulfillment of one desire does not satisfy the Id but only presents a vacancy for a new desire to manifest. While adhering to the wishes of the Superego may often seem the most logical as a contrast, this would only lead to a 1984-esque dystopia. The Superego promotes the wants of the public realm without attention to an individual’s happiness. An individual’s Id is what makes him unique and must not be restrained without recognition. Even if a desire is unachievable it should be acknowledged. The irrational desires of the Id are fundamental to an individual.
An individual must monitor both his Superego and his Id. Neither of these are positive when left unchecked, the Superego would confine an individual to the rules of society while the Id is illogical and constantly unfulfilled. The Ego must rationally analyze both intents, acknowledging that they both simply desire to be satisfied in their own context. The Ego must choose which of the Superego’s objectives are necessities and which are simply conformist. It also must regulate the Id’s desires, deciding the ones that can be satisfied and rationally recognizing why others cannot. This recognition will prohibit the potentially harmful repression of these desires.
The Ego, the conscious part of the mind, is representative of rationality and logic. The Ego locates the fragile balance between the Id and the Superego. It allows for the expression of some of an individual’s desires while suppressing those that are the most harmful.
Although the suppression of these desires can be potentially harmful, the abundance of desires in the Id makes it impossible to be completely controlled by the Ego. The Id is never satisfied. The Ego must disregard some of an individual’s desires because they are simply unachievable. Freud uses the example of a son’s desire for his mother. His relationship with his mother is the first relationship from which he derives pleasure. This is a want that cannot be satisfied and must be suppressed. The suppression of this desire is harmful without the acknowledgement of the reason behind it. When an individual can recognize why the wants of the Id can be potentially harmful, he can rationally suppress them rather than letting them develop into traumas that can manifests in unrecognizable ways.
An individual should strive to recognize and rationalize his desires through his Ego. The Id and its irrational desires are ever-present; the fulfillment of one desire does not satisfy the Id but only presents a vacancy for a new desire to manifest. While adhering to the wishes of the Superego may often seem the most logical as a contrast, this would only lead to a 1984-esque dystopia. The Superego promotes the wants of the public realm without attention to an individual’s happiness. An individual’s Id is what makes him unique and must not be restrained without recognition. Even if a desire is unachievable it should be acknowledged. The irrational desires of the Id are fundamental to an individual.
An individual must monitor both his Superego and his Id. Neither of these are positive when left unchecked, the Superego would confine an individual to the rules of society while the Id is illogical and constantly unfulfilled. The Ego must rationally analyze both intents, acknowledging that they both simply desire to be satisfied in their own context. The Ego must choose which of the Superego’s objectives are necessities and which are simply conformist. It also must regulate the Id’s desires, deciding the ones that can be satisfied and rationally recognizing why others cannot. This recognition will prohibit the potentially harmful repression of these desires.
Superego? More like super awesome!
When Freud talks of the relationship between an individual’s public and private sphere of life, he clearly states that one’s id, his personal passions and desires, and ego, his individual sense of reason, needs to be mediated by the superego, his public conscience. Freud believes that if one were to live a life solely to follow the drive of the id, society would not function. Although individual indulgence creates pleasure, people need to have some sort of outside discipline in order to keep society under control. Freud’s superego constructs this mediation as inherently punitive—solely a means of punishment and restriction. His notion disregards the advantages to be gained from an individual’s interaction with society (the means by which one obtains a public conscience). In Civilization and its Discontents he talks about the relationship between love and society as oppositional: “On the one hand, love opposes the interests of culture; on the other, culture menaces love with grievous restrictions” (122). Freud views the public realm as a necessary way in which to keep individuals from existing as egotistical beings. Although his idea of the public realm (superego) as an essential to the private realm (id and ego) correctly positions the self as responsive to outside social pressures, he never recognizes the benefits that the superego offers (its positive and dialogic relationship to and with the private).
Individual and social interaction is much more advantageous than Freud assumes. The relationship between public and private not only joins society together as a whole, but it also allows individuals to become a better, more intelligent version of themselves. In contrast to Freud’s vision of the public realm, Hegel views the relationship between the “superego” (what he terms as the “other”) and the “id/ego” (what he calls “the individual”) as both innate and beneficial. His notion of mediation allows for a much greater possibility of gain. In Phenomenology of the Mind Hegel talks about how the individual can only discover his/her own self-consciousness through contact with the other. This double process of self-consciousness afford an equivalency that is non-restrictive: “Each sees the other do the same as itself: each itself does what it demands on the part of the other, and for that reason does what it does, only so far as the other does the same” (Phenomenology of the Mind 67). As opposed to Freud’s restricting vision of the mediation, Hegel’s notion allows one much more possibility for growth. If individuals only viewed the superego as a constraint to keep everyone’s id and ego under control, as Freud believes, then people would never truly care for the wellbeing of anyone but themselves. The mediation of the superego to the id and the ego should not simply be perceived as a way to manage things but as an intrinsic part of what it means to be human.
Individual and social interaction is much more advantageous than Freud assumes. The relationship between public and private not only joins society together as a whole, but it also allows individuals to become a better, more intelligent version of themselves. In contrast to Freud’s vision of the public realm, Hegel views the relationship between the “superego” (what he terms as the “other”) and the “id/ego” (what he calls “the individual”) as both innate and beneficial. His notion of mediation allows for a much greater possibility of gain. In Phenomenology of the Mind Hegel talks about how the individual can only discover his/her own self-consciousness through contact with the other. This double process of self-consciousness afford an equivalency that is non-restrictive: “Each sees the other do the same as itself: each itself does what it demands on the part of the other, and for that reason does what it does, only so far as the other does the same” (Phenomenology of the Mind 67). As opposed to Freud’s restricting vision of the mediation, Hegel’s notion allows one much more possibility for growth. If individuals only viewed the superego as a constraint to keep everyone’s id and ego under control, as Freud believes, then people would never truly care for the wellbeing of anyone but themselves. The mediation of the superego to the id and the ego should not simply be perceived as a way to manage things but as an intrinsic part of what it means to be human.
Accept Your Id!
Through concepts of the Id, Ego and Superego, Freud concludes that all individuals are caught in a state of constantly desiring more than they can realistically have. Due to the constant pressure from the societal and cultural institutions of the Superego, we are forced to suppress most innate drives of our Id, and this dynamic creates subconscious trauma that manifests itself in unrecognizable and sometimes harmful ways. We manage to reconcile the two opposing forces of the Id and the Superego in our Ego, the socially acceptable form of ourselves, yet we are constantly concealing, consciously and unconsciously, the drives that make up our most basic existence. So, as long as we accept the idea of these permanent drives and the existence of a repressive society, we live in an unhealthy Freudian paradox.
The most harmful component of this complex appears logically to be our personal trauma – the unconscious, repressed desires that find ways to emerge through sublimation or physical symptoms. These traumas also lead, according to Freud, to aggression and guilt towards the superego repressors. So, according to the Freudian definitions, it seems like in order to attain the best possible relationship between the Id, Ego, and Superego, we must overcome that trauma by recognizing and identifying it, therefore eliminating the harmful, unconscious manifestations in our psyche or physical self.
We cannot free our Id entirely; society would dissolve into chaos and violence. Yet, if we can internally learn to recognize our drives, even to then accept them as virtually impossible, we would be in a clearer and healthier mental state. It appears that if Freud were to imagine some sort of public enlightenment, it would be the collective recognition of our innate drives, our Id. If everyone can internally learn to accept their Id, than our overarching societal Superego would finally have the potential to publicly acknowledge the drives as well. The Superego institutions must still not actually permit acting on the drives, obviously, but it could become closely unified with the Ego, both recognizing the drives of the Id. The internal drives could potentially even become a subject of public discourse. Essentially, this shift in both the private and public perception of our Id means that the Superego would then only have to exist as a repressor of the actions of the drives, and not, as it does now, of the ideas of them. This potentially means that while civilizations could still function peacefully and effectively, individual would also be healthier and potentially better members of society.
So, ideally, both the Ego and Superego should become completely aware and accepting of the Id, yet the desires of the Id should still not be entirely fulfilled. The subconscious would be brought into consciousness, even, arguably, into the public. While before we could have privacy in our unfulfilled drives, that privacy would break out of our subconscious and become harmful to us. Now, in recognizing the likeness between all of our innate Ids, we could bring the destructive private out into the public arena and are finally work through it, internally and externally, in an accepting and healthy way.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Blog Post #10 and Paper Topic
For Monday (12/1): Please read the Nietzsche in the packet
For Tuesday (12/2): For the blog
What do you think should be the relationship between the Id, the Ego and the Superego?
Paper Topic:
Due: Friday, December 19th (must be turned in with your entire folder) (if you are leaving early for vacation you must turn in this paper before you go) (remember that Friday is a half day)
Length: 4 - 6 pages
Must include: at least 3 philosophers from class
Must include: at least 3 topic-specific sources (if you are using the internet, these sources must be legitimate internet sources -- ie: they must have an author -- Wikipedia and other sources without documentation are not considered legitimate and may not be used)
Be sure to cite everything appropriately. If you aren't sure, ask in advance!
Topic:
Research a specific situation of the public and the private. Tie the foundations and manifestations of this topic to the readings we have done and the conversations we have had for class. Make this paper an ideological look at a particular situation. Be very clear how this paper topic ties to at least three of the different philosophers we have read. Cite these readings in a way that makes clear that you understand the concepts and thoughts related to each thinker.
Remember, you are examining your topic from the perspective of its relationship to freedom, identity, and enlightenment. What are the implications of your particularly argument to the balance between the public and the private?
Topics:
Hannah -- China's one child policy
Siobhan -- cloning
Samantha - genetic engineering for children
Tristan -- global health aid
Dru -- intellectual property rights
Kirsten -- the Human Genome Project
Susannah -- the Draft
Will -- suicide
Georgia -- public HIV testing
Philip -- politicians and their private lives
Madeline -- genetic engineering for food
Erin -- Doctor/Patient confidentiality (HIPPA)
Ben -- Megan's Law
For Tuesday (12/2): For the blog
What do you think should be the relationship between the Id, the Ego and the Superego?
Paper Topic:
Due: Friday, December 19th (must be turned in with your entire folder) (if you are leaving early for vacation you must turn in this paper before you go) (remember that Friday is a half day)
Length: 4 - 6 pages
Must include: at least 3 philosophers from class
Must include: at least 3 topic-specific sources (if you are using the internet, these sources must be legitimate internet sources -- ie: they must have an author -- Wikipedia and other sources without documentation are not considered legitimate and may not be used)
Be sure to cite everything appropriately. If you aren't sure, ask in advance!
Topic:
Research a specific situation of the public and the private. Tie the foundations and manifestations of this topic to the readings we have done and the conversations we have had for class. Make this paper an ideological look at a particular situation. Be very clear how this paper topic ties to at least three of the different philosophers we have read. Cite these readings in a way that makes clear that you understand the concepts and thoughts related to each thinker.
Remember, you are examining your topic from the perspective of its relationship to freedom, identity, and enlightenment. What are the implications of your particularly argument to the balance between the public and the private?
Topics:
Hannah -- China's one child policy
Siobhan -- cloning
Samantha - genetic engineering for children
Tristan -- global health aid
Dru -- intellectual property rights
Kirsten -- the Human Genome Project
Susannah -- the Draft
Will -- suicide
Georgia -- public HIV testing
Philip -- politicians and their private lives
Madeline -- genetic engineering for food
Erin -- Doctor/Patient confidentiality (HIPPA)
Ben -- Megan's Law
Monday, November 24, 2008
Groups for Winter Term
Groups will be:
Ben, Georgia, Will, Erin
Siobhan, Kirsten, Samantha, Tristan, Susannah
Hannah, Dru, Philip, Madeline
Ben, Georgia, Will, Erin
Siobhan, Kirsten, Samantha, Tristan, Susannah
Hannah, Dru, Philip, Madeline
Monday, November 3, 2008
Dialog between Mill and Marx
John S. Mill and Karl Marx exit a sandwich shop. They are standing by respective cars and saying their goodbyes.
Mill : Thanks for getting lunch with me. Same time next week?
Marx : Of course. It’s been fun. Only next time we eat at my house, okay? I can’t believe that all three of the people behind me in line also got the same sandwich.
Mill : Happiness is the most important thing, and not about being individual, per sae. It’s personal. What does it matter what everyone else ordered if it made you happy and made them happy? I can never understand why you always get so worked up about these things.
Marx : It just irritates me, all of this pretending to have choice. Choosing between whole grain and white bread is hardly a real choice, in my book.
Mill : No one forced us to eat there. That was a choice even if you don’t feel like the menu was a sufficient means of making one, and that choice of where to eat was a way of us finding happiness, which is crucial.
Marx : That choice of where to eat was dictated by our understanding of capitalist, consumer-oriented society, and had nothing to do with any private decision. All of this “necessary happiness” through choice wouldn’t even be necessary if society wasn’t what it is. Plus I could barely even hear you, it was so loud in there. How could anyone sit down and fully appreciate another’s ideas, with so much commotion? Half the people in there were on their own, anyway. People pay money, surf the internet, talk on the phone, making sure that we can communicate in the most isolated way possible, all to buy into conformity. That’s the result of consumerism, and it just irritates me, that’s all.
Mill : Well like I said, if it made you happy and it made them happy, it makes so difference who ordered what. And how else are we to find our freedoms than by talking? You can’t begrudge others for talking. Freedoms are found through discussion, and where are we to discuss but with others, surrounded by others?
Marx : They weren’t talking, they were doing business. Thinking of everybody, we need to be able to express ideas, not be silenced by whoever talks the loudest in a sandwich shop without thinking about it…
Mill : And it is society’s responsibility as a whole to make those places conducive to hearing those ideas, agreed. And fine, we can eat at your place next week.
Mill : Thanks for getting lunch with me. Same time next week?
Marx : Of course. It’s been fun. Only next time we eat at my house, okay? I can’t believe that all three of the people behind me in line also got the same sandwich.
Mill : Happiness is the most important thing, and not about being individual, per sae. It’s personal. What does it matter what everyone else ordered if it made you happy and made them happy? I can never understand why you always get so worked up about these things.
Marx : It just irritates me, all of this pretending to have choice. Choosing between whole grain and white bread is hardly a real choice, in my book.
Mill : No one forced us to eat there. That was a choice even if you don’t feel like the menu was a sufficient means of making one, and that choice of where to eat was a way of us finding happiness, which is crucial.
Marx : That choice of where to eat was dictated by our understanding of capitalist, consumer-oriented society, and had nothing to do with any private decision. All of this “necessary happiness” through choice wouldn’t even be necessary if society wasn’t what it is. Plus I could barely even hear you, it was so loud in there. How could anyone sit down and fully appreciate another’s ideas, with so much commotion? Half the people in there were on their own, anyway. People pay money, surf the internet, talk on the phone, making sure that we can communicate in the most isolated way possible, all to buy into conformity. That’s the result of consumerism, and it just irritates me, that’s all.
Mill : Well like I said, if it made you happy and it made them happy, it makes so difference who ordered what. And how else are we to find our freedoms than by talking? You can’t begrudge others for talking. Freedoms are found through discussion, and where are we to discuss but with others, surrounded by others?
Marx : They weren’t talking, they were doing business. Thinking of everybody, we need to be able to express ideas, not be silenced by whoever talks the loudest in a sandwich shop without thinking about it…
Mill : And it is society’s responsibility as a whole to make those places conducive to hearing those ideas, agreed. And fine, we can eat at your place next week.
Marks and Mill
Standing in line at the polls, waiting to vote...
Mill: I've been looking around this line, and I've got to tell you, I don't think everyone here should be voting. The sad fact is that these people don't look very educated. Some of them are just listening to music. I see mechanics, Wal-mart workers, and very few of them are reading. With such a lousy education system in the United States, I just don't see how they can make an informed decision about what's best for them selfs and our country. Maybe we should require that everyone that votes has a college degree.
Marx: I can't believe that you think that education is the only thing that makes these people valuable in society. The work of each of these people is equally valuable. Unfortunately, they do live in a capitalist society, where money and commodities are the base of their existence. If you truly believe that they should not have the right to vote, you're just giving me a really good example of how in a capitalist society, there is a big divide between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
Mill: No, education is not a divider. It is a leveler. It brings everyone to the same level. If everyone has had the same education, then we can productively criticize each other to produce a better society.
Marx: So, everyone in line here should have a college education, huh? Next you'll tell me that everyone here should be happy.
Mill: Yes, isn't that the ultimate goal for society? By being good and expressing our truth, then we could all live in a society where there are no limitations.
Marx: I'm not sure I understand your idea of happiness. Since these people live in a capitalist society, I'm afraid that their concept of happiness is linked to their economic status. Come to think of it, they might even vote based on the pocket books --not concerned about the good of the country, but solely about their economic gain well-being.
Marx and Mill
The rain continued its steady drizzle as the man in a dark coat joined the line. A shout rang out from inside, “I’m not voting for that socialist!”
The man in the dark coat shook his head. “If only they knew”, he muttered to himself.
A man in front of him turned around, “you’re right, people these days are not as well educated as in the olden days. I knew more about voting when I was eight years old”.
The man in the dark coat was surprised to find that there was another person with a bit of intelligence in the middle of this propaganda believing, commodity fettishing, shopping addicts that stood in line before him. He decided that it would be a waste to pass up this opportunity to have a decent conversation, so he replied “All of these people are so sure that capitalism is the right way, the only way, that society has reached the end of its progress, simply because they happen to live in this day and age. They are so near sighted that they can’t even look back far enough to understand that all societies with such an extreme class distinctions were bound to end in revolution, in change. These people try to pin Barack Obama as a socialist, as if it is this terrible evil, and they sneer at the phrase ‘spread the wealth around’, when really he is just raising the taxes of the richest of the rich and in order to keep the lower class alive and happy. What is so horrible about that? If the rich continue to get richer and the poor poorer, then eventually the unions and the workers will rise up and the United States will fall.”
The man in front of him nodded respectfully, but had his own opinions. “I agree with you that many people today are uneducated, and have allowed themselves to fall into a rather pathetic pattern of life. Personally I think that the educated should have a larger say in who gets elected president, but I doubt that the U.S. would ever go for that. However, the government’s responsibility is to keep us safe, and in every other regard we should have as much liberty as possible. Successful business men should be able to keep their money, not be forced to give their hard earned income to those who have not tried to educate and better themselves. While I agree that Obama is not a socialist, his policies do limit our freedoms, and the smaller the government, the better.”
The man is the dark coat was surprised by his words, he was surprised because this was the first person he had met who came come up with an adequate argument against Obama, instead of just calling him a terrorist, Muslim, or Marxist (how ironic). “So you’ll be voting for McCain then?”
“Actually, I’m voting Libertarian.”
The man in the dark coat shook his head. “If only they knew”, he muttered to himself.
A man in front of him turned around, “you’re right, people these days are not as well educated as in the olden days. I knew more about voting when I was eight years old”.
The man in the dark coat was surprised to find that there was another person with a bit of intelligence in the middle of this propaganda believing, commodity fettishing, shopping addicts that stood in line before him. He decided that it would be a waste to pass up this opportunity to have a decent conversation, so he replied “All of these people are so sure that capitalism is the right way, the only way, that society has reached the end of its progress, simply because they happen to live in this day and age. They are so near sighted that they can’t even look back far enough to understand that all societies with such an extreme class distinctions were bound to end in revolution, in change. These people try to pin Barack Obama as a socialist, as if it is this terrible evil, and they sneer at the phrase ‘spread the wealth around’, when really he is just raising the taxes of the richest of the rich and in order to keep the lower class alive and happy. What is so horrible about that? If the rich continue to get richer and the poor poorer, then eventually the unions and the workers will rise up and the United States will fall.”
The man in front of him nodded respectfully, but had his own opinions. “I agree with you that many people today are uneducated, and have allowed themselves to fall into a rather pathetic pattern of life. Personally I think that the educated should have a larger say in who gets elected president, but I doubt that the U.S. would ever go for that. However, the government’s responsibility is to keep us safe, and in every other regard we should have as much liberty as possible. Successful business men should be able to keep their money, not be forced to give their hard earned income to those who have not tried to educate and better themselves. While I agree that Obama is not a socialist, his policies do limit our freedoms, and the smaller the government, the better.”
The man is the dark coat was surprised by his words, he was surprised because this was the first person he had met who came come up with an adequate argument against Obama, instead of just calling him a terrorist, Muslim, or Marxist (how ironic). “So you’ll be voting for McCain then?”
“Actually, I’m voting Libertarian.”
Marx and Mill
A cell phone rings. A man picks up his phone and looks at a text message, it reads :
Hey coffee today? - Marx
The man, Mill, texts back: Sure Starbucks at three. See you there.
Marx responds with: I hate Starbucks. Cup a Joe instead?
Marx never receives an answer so he is forced to have his cup of coffee at Starbucks.
Mill- Thanks for meeting me here. It’s the best cup of coffee in town.
Marx- Did you not get my text? I can’t stand it here.
Mill- Why not?
Marx- Look around. We are the only people actually sitting enjoying our drinks. Everyone else is in and out, hardly noticing anyone else around them.
Mill- Well they have places to be, and obligations to fulfill.
Marx- The only obligations they have in this day and age are to be complete consumers, focusing on their own lives and own happiness.
Mill- Okay Negative Nancy. What’s wrong with being happy anyway? Look at it this way. There was a man, who had an idea for a coffee shop. He wanted to supply his bean for the locals, in Seattle, and he named it Starbucks. Little did he know, everyone would love his coffee and soon it would be in supply everywhere. Out of this man’s happiness something wonderful to benefit society was created. This one man played his part in society but putting in his personal happiness. See everyone wins!
Marx- Fine. It was one man’s happiness, at some point. But now what is it? Does anyone in here feel original by ordering a frappuccino? Even by putting your own flavor shot into it, it is far from original. There is no sense of self or individualism in coffee anymore. It is just simply five things you can mix and match, over and over again, to make what might seem like a new creation. In fact it is an illusion that millions of people love to buy into.
Mill- Millions of people? Well, then that’s wonderful isn’t it? Starbucks is the best coffee for the greatest amount of people.
Marx- But that’s not the point. It’s just another example of consumerism and conformity.
Mill- I understand what you are saying, but if everyone is happy this way I don’t see why it has to change.
Marx- Agree to disagree? And meet somewhere else next time?
Mill- Sure.
(Written by Siobhan)
Hey coffee today? - Marx
The man, Mill, texts back: Sure Starbucks at three. See you there.
Marx responds with: I hate Starbucks. Cup a Joe instead?
Marx never receives an answer so he is forced to have his cup of coffee at Starbucks.
Mill- Thanks for meeting me here. It’s the best cup of coffee in town.
Marx- Did you not get my text? I can’t stand it here.
Mill- Why not?
Marx- Look around. We are the only people actually sitting enjoying our drinks. Everyone else is in and out, hardly noticing anyone else around them.
Mill- Well they have places to be, and obligations to fulfill.
Marx- The only obligations they have in this day and age are to be complete consumers, focusing on their own lives and own happiness.
Mill- Okay Negative Nancy. What’s wrong with being happy anyway? Look at it this way. There was a man, who had an idea for a coffee shop. He wanted to supply his bean for the locals, in Seattle, and he named it Starbucks. Little did he know, everyone would love his coffee and soon it would be in supply everywhere. Out of this man’s happiness something wonderful to benefit society was created. This one man played his part in society but putting in his personal happiness. See everyone wins!
Marx- Fine. It was one man’s happiness, at some point. But now what is it? Does anyone in here feel original by ordering a frappuccino? Even by putting your own flavor shot into it, it is far from original. There is no sense of self or individualism in coffee anymore. It is just simply five things you can mix and match, over and over again, to make what might seem like a new creation. In fact it is an illusion that millions of people love to buy into.
Mill- Millions of people? Well, then that’s wonderful isn’t it? Starbucks is the best coffee for the greatest amount of people.
Marx- But that’s not the point. It’s just another example of consumerism and conformity.
Mill- I understand what you are saying, but if everyone is happy this way I don’t see why it has to change.
Marx- Agree to disagree? And meet somewhere else next time?
Mill- Sure.
(Written by Siobhan)
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Assignment #9
For this blog post, please write the script of a conversation between Marx and Mill regarding the public and the private. You can use some of their words, but please make sure that their ideas about these subjects are very clear in your text. Do your best to take on the "voice" and "character" of each philosopher.
Reminder for everyone:
On Thursday, November 13, by the end of the day your last paper for the term will be due (by the end of the school day). For this paper you must revisit the questions of the summer reading assignment:
You must cite Plato, Kant, Hegel, and Marx. You may cite any other philosophers you choose.
You must turn in your entire folder with your paper. No folder = no credit for fall term.
Reminder for everyone:
On Thursday, November 13, by the end of the day your last paper for the term will be due (by the end of the school day). For this paper you must revisit the questions of the summer reading assignment:
How do we determine where our privacy ends and our obligations to society begin? To what extent does the public sphere inform our life in the private sphere? What is the connection between the political, the social, and the personal? To what extent do our beliefs inform our actions?
This paper should be about 5 pages long.You must cite Plato, Kant, Hegel, and Marx. You may cite any other philosophers you choose.
You must turn in your entire folder with your paper. No folder = no credit for fall term.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Kierkegaard
In Concluding Unscientific Postscript, Soren Kierkegaard is all about subjectivity. Kierkegaard argues that it is attaining subjectivity, not objectivity, which is the "highest task confronting a human being." He says that subjectivity is indeed quite difficult pursue and it takes art and skill to be subjective. Social networking websites such as Facebook or Twitter provide an outlet for just the type of subjectivity that Kierkegaard is talking about.
By creating Facebook profiles, a user may find himself figuring out exactly what he wants his friends to know about him. He is creating an objective portal through which others see the user. He boils all of his superfluous information down into one profile that gives views a sense of the person behind it. The user is creating a snapshot of himself, an objective lens in which others see him, and publishes it for the public. In the process of creating this objective snapshot, though, the user may find that he looks more subjectively at himself. Facebook enables users to not only learn more about the others around them, but also to learn about themselves.
While Facebook or Twitter profiles may help the user understand himself, it does very little to help the user know the people around him. Facebook and Twitter profiles portray an objective snapshot that is really not even real. After all, a snapshot is just that, a snapshot—a portal into someone's life at a specific time. It may seem obvious, but there is no way that a Facebook profile can provide a realistic, dynamic view of a person's life. The only subjectivity to be had is for the creator, not the viewer. The Facebook News Feed only adds to the observer's illusion that they know another user. To some degree, the News Feed keeps people informed about the objective truths in someone's life, which some may confuse with the dynamic, subjective truths of his life. Although an observer may know that Jim joined "Bears Against Colbert" or that Sally broke up with Johnny, what does he really understand? Without understanding the dynamic, essential details of a person's life, do you really know them or are they just ghosts?
Kierkegaard would seem to argue that by trying to live behind a virtual identity, a person is restricting himself to a life of continuing objectivity; it is the real relations with real people that count, not the online relations with virtual snapshots. It is intuitive: the more time that a person spends on weak and shallow ties, the more time he loses with real, deep, dynamic people—the very people that seem to promote subjectivity. It seems as though Kierkegaard would argue that the less time a person spends observing through objective portals, the better. It would seem that while Facebook and other social networking sites are sometimes useful, perhaps it would be better if we spent our time interacting with real, engaging, and genuine people, rather than just their profile or online persona.
If Kierkegaard had a facebook....
Kierkegaard believed that a man should view the world through his own lens. That is the only place a man will ever be, so that is the only place that is worth learning to be.
Every person who has a facebook puts himself in his own space. He can only view other’s spaces in this space, and other people can only see him in that space. It simulates the real world in that he can only see other people through his eyes, and they can only see what he presented to them. On the digital screen, it is slightly easier to recognize this phenomenon.
A person can only log into his own facebook account. From that account he can only make his own decisions. He can choose to write on someone else’s wall, that is the only control he has. He cannot command his friend to write on his wall. He can friend somebody, but they do not have to friend him back. He only has power over is account.
Although facebook can never be as genuine as real-life interactions, it is a sketch of what human life is like. It sounds foolish, but we can only control what we can control. Most people have heard this many times, it is Kierkegaard’s idea of striving to be subjective. It seems to trivial to “strive to become what one already is: who would take the pains to waste his time on such a task…but for this very reason alone it is a very difficult task…because every human being has a strong natural bent and passion to become something more and different” (Kierkegaard 116). People have a problem accepting that they cannot control everything. They waste their energy being frustrated or upset about things that cannot be changed.
So although Kierkegaard would probably have been perplexed to see a facebook page, he would have understood that through a facebook account a person only has one choice; subjectivity. It is a digital simulation of the real life boundaries that every human has. He is a subject, he cannot be an object. He cannot create a categorical imperative that controls all other beings. He can only control himself.
On facebook, less people will be frustrated with what they cannot control because it is not real life. On the other hand, it is a good reminder of the boundaries that one human has; the boundary of his subjectivity. That he can only control things on one end of the bargain, always. That will never change as long as he lives. The sooner he can accept that, the sooner he can move on to the more important question; how to live his life.
Every person who has a facebook puts himself in his own space. He can only view other’s spaces in this space, and other people can only see him in that space. It simulates the real world in that he can only see other people through his eyes, and they can only see what he presented to them. On the digital screen, it is slightly easier to recognize this phenomenon.
A person can only log into his own facebook account. From that account he can only make his own decisions. He can choose to write on someone else’s wall, that is the only control he has. He cannot command his friend to write on his wall. He can friend somebody, but they do not have to friend him back. He only has power over is account.
Although facebook can never be as genuine as real-life interactions, it is a sketch of what human life is like. It sounds foolish, but we can only control what we can control. Most people have heard this many times, it is Kierkegaard’s idea of striving to be subjective. It seems to trivial to “strive to become what one already is: who would take the pains to waste his time on such a task…but for this very reason alone it is a very difficult task…because every human being has a strong natural bent and passion to become something more and different” (Kierkegaard 116). People have a problem accepting that they cannot control everything. They waste their energy being frustrated or upset about things that cannot be changed.
So although Kierkegaard would probably have been perplexed to see a facebook page, he would have understood that through a facebook account a person only has one choice; subjectivity. It is a digital simulation of the real life boundaries that every human has. He is a subject, he cannot be an object. He cannot create a categorical imperative that controls all other beings. He can only control himself.
On facebook, less people will be frustrated with what they cannot control because it is not real life. On the other hand, it is a good reminder of the boundaries that one human has; the boundary of his subjectivity. That he can only control things on one end of the bargain, always. That will never change as long as he lives. The sooner he can accept that, the sooner he can move on to the more important question; how to live his life.
Reaching Subjectivity
Kierkegaard argues in Concluding Unscientific Postscript that our task as individuals is to learn how to be subjective and to understand our own subjectivity. We need to refrain from objectively, for we are not objects. Each person has a subjective self, an identity, which is deeper than our notion of truth in the metaphysical world. We need to nurture and encourage that self to live complete and enlightened lives.
To develop that self, we must find or create a realm of privacy. It is there, and not in the public sphere, that the subjective self can reach its full potential. Only individuals, all individuals, have subjectivity and it is only in the private realm that this subjectivity exists.
In an attempt to gain subjectivity we create a mask, our Facebook profiles or Twitter updates, to understand ourselves. To an individual this is an innocent attempt to define himself, but to the observer this is an objective illustration of that individual. “The objective tendency, which proposes to make everyone an observer, and in its maximum to transform him into so objective an observer that he becomes almost a ghost” (Kierkegaard 118). When one is only an objective observer and refrains from being subjective, he becomes vacant, lacking a true self. This also can be said for the silhouettes of our true selves that we create on the internet. A Facebook profile is an image the person is presenting to the public. The public then forms opinions on the person based on his favorite music, the picture he chose for his profile and the various groups he joined. This is not an accurate perception of a person and his true, inner, subjective self.
There exists an innate quality within each individual which leads them to define their own subjectivity and inner truths. “Every human being has a strong natural bent and passion to become something more and different” (Kierkegaard 116). In the broad scheme of the world, we look to the people around us for guidance. This can perhaps explain our fascination with online networking sites. Originally Facebook users contested the addition of the Facebook News Feed, “[y]et when they experienced this sort of omnipresent knowledge, they found it intriguing and addictive” (Thompson 2). We are easily drawn to objective truths to help us define ourselves, yet as Kierkegaard would claim, it is not through objectivity that we discover our inner selves. It requires a much more intimate process.
Our subjectivity and morality are incredibly private components of ourselves. Facebook and other online programs put us into the public realm, thus objectifying ourselves. While Facebook is a tool to present ourselves, compare ourselves and keep tabs on others, it does little more than create a façade that can sometimes be an obstacle on the way to achieving subjectivity.
To develop that self, we must find or create a realm of privacy. It is there, and not in the public sphere, that the subjective self can reach its full potential. Only individuals, all individuals, have subjectivity and it is only in the private realm that this subjectivity exists.
In an attempt to gain subjectivity we create a mask, our Facebook profiles or Twitter updates, to understand ourselves. To an individual this is an innocent attempt to define himself, but to the observer this is an objective illustration of that individual. “The objective tendency, which proposes to make everyone an observer, and in its maximum to transform him into so objective an observer that he becomes almost a ghost” (Kierkegaard 118). When one is only an objective observer and refrains from being subjective, he becomes vacant, lacking a true self. This also can be said for the silhouettes of our true selves that we create on the internet. A Facebook profile is an image the person is presenting to the public. The public then forms opinions on the person based on his favorite music, the picture he chose for his profile and the various groups he joined. This is not an accurate perception of a person and his true, inner, subjective self.
There exists an innate quality within each individual which leads them to define their own subjectivity and inner truths. “Every human being has a strong natural bent and passion to become something more and different” (Kierkegaard 116). In the broad scheme of the world, we look to the people around us for guidance. This can perhaps explain our fascination with online networking sites. Originally Facebook users contested the addition of the Facebook News Feed, “[y]et when they experienced this sort of omnipresent knowledge, they found it intriguing and addictive” (Thompson 2). We are easily drawn to objective truths to help us define ourselves, yet as Kierkegaard would claim, it is not through objectivity that we discover our inner selves. It requires a much more intimate process.
Our subjectivity and morality are incredibly private components of ourselves. Facebook and other online programs put us into the public realm, thus objectifying ourselves. While Facebook is a tool to present ourselves, compare ourselves and keep tabs on others, it does little more than create a façade that can sometimes be an obstacle on the way to achieving subjectivity.
Facebook and Subjectivity
"The act of stopping several times a day to observe what you're feeling or thinking can become, after weeks and weeks, a sort of philosophical act. It's like the Greek dictum to 'know thyself'," Clive Thompson comments near the end of his article. The concept he is hitting on is interesting: that somehow we can understand ourselves better when we are looking at ourselves objectivity, rather than when we are alone with the whirlwind of our thoughts.
We are all subjects, and we all have an innate desire to understand who exactly we are--to look at our subjective selves through an objective lens. In creating a Facebook profile, we put down to writing a ghost of our identity. Our list of favorite movies, our periodic status updates, the photos that we upload, even what our friends write on our wall--all serve to create a picture of who we are. It's a picture that we have almost complete control over, true, but even what we choose to display as our identity shows something about our identity. Maybe this is what is so appealing about Facebook and similar websites: that in some small way we are able to condense who we are and project it out to others in a way that we can all understand. Thompson suggests that by filling out and updating these kinds of sites, we are able to transition into looking at ourselves objectively.
One woman that Thompson interviewed claimed that posting daily to Twitter had made her happier and calmer because "the process of, say, describing a horrid morning at work forces her to look at it objectively." This, however, only works as far as you are able to accurately describe how you are feeling at a given moment. It's as though we are viewing our feelings and opinions second-hand; while it is easier to comprehend than the first-hand version straight from our heads, consideration must be given to how accurate the condensed information can possibly be.
If he lived in the twenty-first century, Kierkegaard would argue that the idea of trying to look at yourself through the lens of the outsider is ridiculous. Even in his own time, Kierkegaard disagreed with the Western tradition of trying to think objectively. He believed that the less we employ our own subjectivity, the more we become objects, merely observing the world around us. His thoughts on Christianity--that it has to be accepted subjectively, and cannot be thought about rationally--run parallel to the question of identity on Facebook. We cannot know every detail of our identity; it is too complicated and always in a state of change. The attempt to rationalize it by condensing it to words and media on a website, while tempting, requires oversimplifying ourselves and thus can never portray an accurate picture of who we are. Ultimately, as Kierkegaard would say, we just have to be.
We are all subjects, and we all have an innate desire to understand who exactly we are--to look at our subjective selves through an objective lens. In creating a Facebook profile, we put down to writing a ghost of our identity. Our list of favorite movies, our periodic status updates, the photos that we upload, even what our friends write on our wall--all serve to create a picture of who we are. It's a picture that we have almost complete control over, true, but even what we choose to display as our identity shows something about our identity. Maybe this is what is so appealing about Facebook and similar websites: that in some small way we are able to condense who we are and project it out to others in a way that we can all understand. Thompson suggests that by filling out and updating these kinds of sites, we are able to transition into looking at ourselves objectively.
One woman that Thompson interviewed claimed that posting daily to Twitter had made her happier and calmer because "the process of, say, describing a horrid morning at work forces her to look at it objectively." This, however, only works as far as you are able to accurately describe how you are feeling at a given moment. It's as though we are viewing our feelings and opinions second-hand; while it is easier to comprehend than the first-hand version straight from our heads, consideration must be given to how accurate the condensed information can possibly be.
If he lived in the twenty-first century, Kierkegaard would argue that the idea of trying to look at yourself through the lens of the outsider is ridiculous. Even in his own time, Kierkegaard disagreed with the Western tradition of trying to think objectively. He believed that the less we employ our own subjectivity, the more we become objects, merely observing the world around us. His thoughts on Christianity--that it has to be accepted subjectively, and cannot be thought about rationally--run parallel to the question of identity on Facebook. We cannot know every detail of our identity; it is too complicated and always in a state of change. The attempt to rationalize it by condensing it to words and media on a website, while tempting, requires oversimplifying ourselves and thus can never portray an accurate picture of who we are. Ultimately, as Kierkegaard would say, we just have to be.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Assignment #8
For everyone:
Read the following article --
How does facebook help you to define your own subjectivity? (Please use the Kierkegaard piece from your packet to support your answer).
Read the following article --
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07awareness-t.html
For the post:How does facebook help you to define your own subjectivity? (Please use the Kierkegaard piece from your packet to support your answer).
Monday, October 13, 2008
Lordship and Bondage ... Public and Private
Hegel’s famous Master/Slave dialectic presents an interesting scenario when paralleled to the relationships of the public and private spheres. This relationship between the ‘self’ and the ‘other’ centers around the fact that each person involved ultimately wants to obtain self-consciousness, Hegel’s form of personal enlightenment. Hegel makes the clear argument that self-consciousness can only be obtained through relationships with others, with respect to each individual as an individual, each individual as a necessary part of the relationship, and also each individual as a part of the other. In a relationship between two individuals, these private realizations occurring in both persons as developing self-consciousnesses represent the private, and their mutual exchange of recognition represents the public. Contrast the public and private of Hegel’s subjectivity model with the relationship between duty and freedom, and the Master/Slave dialectic from Lordship and Bondage becomes even more intriguing. Hannah Arendt’s theory that the freedoms of the private sphere exist for the purpose of the enlightenment of the public correspond well with the independent and dependent relationship of the Hegelian proposition at hand. It then becomes the responsibility of each individual to identify him/herself with the other in all ways necessary to become a self-conscious because it is his/her public obligation to do so. Although this recognition takes place within each separate private realm, the outcomes of these realizations are meant to be demonstrated in the public for the greater good of the people. In the following stage of the Master/Slave dialectic, the relationship must conclude with the sublation of one individual, for the purpose of obtaining a real identity as an individual. Hegel states that “they prove themselves and each other through a life-and-death struggle” (68), and that through staking their lives, they obtain true freedom until the struggle ends. This struggle in the Master/Slave dialectic accurately represents the conflicts and confusion that take place in almost every proposed relationship of the public and private spheres. In Hegel, each individual has a private responsibility to engage in the necessary processes of recognition within the relationship. Next, the individuals each contribute their private realizations to a shared (public) mutual understanding. Finally, each individual takes what they can from the public, and tries to privatize everything that belonged to the other in the final act of negation, which ultimately ends up as objectification of the other.
Hegel- Public and Private
In the manner that Hegel presents his philosophical reasoning in these sections, he opens few possibilities for places to distinguish or draw the line between public and private. The clearest way of attaching those words to Hegel’s ideas seems to be to see his contrast of ‘self’ and ‘other’ as synonymous to private and public. Examining the relationship between public and private through the lens of these definitions restricts many common associations that go with the private realm down to one person and expands the public associations into a space that includes everything but the unbroken sphere of one individual. While our private realm does play a role in our identity, even in the universal conception of self as the antithesis to God, it is irrelevant to the process of self-actualization and is only significant when brought into the public realm to be shared and enhanced. The ability to be private in this sense is therefore unattainable to us upon our entrance into the determinate world,
Freedom conventionally resides in the private realm, and so when Hegel’s conception of the self is brought into the public, or into the realm of ‘others’, we lose a certain ultimate, albeit irrelevant or insignificant, private freedom of the self. As soon as we burst our self-contained bubble in our natural desire to know ourselves and become conscious of our own consciousness, we sacrifice that brand of limitless freedom for something restrained and determinate, yet ultimately greater. Our private self, despite being infinitely free, is meaningless until it is recognized - at which point it becomes nonexistent.
There is the classic old saying that considers whether or not a tree falling in a forest with nobody around to hear it actually makes a sound; with a Hegelian perspective here, one could argue that the empty forest contains an infinite amount of possibility, yet, devoid of witness, it is essentially nothing. Granted, it is indeterminate, ‘free’ even; but in a sense, it isn’t real. Unlike the forest, our ability to be self-conscious of our own self-consciousness means that we can be our own witness. This ability, however, can only be derived through interaction, or sublation, with other people, and so to be our own witness we must enter into the public realm and sacrifice our realm of absolute freedom and privacy.
In the master/slave dialectic, the master is able to regain more of his freedom by defying that very process: he sees his selfish freedom to do what he wants as more desirable than attempting to find a sense of self and to realize his consciousness. By objectifying other autonomous beings, he is rejecting his own opportunity for self-actualization by his inability to see them as the same as him. The imbalanced condition is the result of the master’s attempt to retreat into disillusion (of seeing others as a means for his ends, their objectification), therefore retreating into the insignificance of the private realm as well.
The Best Relationship
The relationship between the public and private spheres of life is quite similar to the relationship between the self and the other that Hegel presents in Lordship and Bondage. Hegel believes that the goal of life is to gain a higher self awareness. To gain a higher self awareness you have to sublate other consciousnesses. This is like the public and private because, the private is your self awareness, and when you let others, the public, influence your private than your private becomes more meaningful. Thus, it is possible to say that the best way to live one’s life is to let the public sphere have more influence than the private sphere.
The relationship between public and private also can be looked on in a bigger picture that Hegel brings up. Hegel believes that the ultimate goal of everybody’s life is to help god become more self aware. He believes that people can do this by becoming more self aware themselves and therefore becoming more independent and becoming a self autonomous being that god can then sublate and become more self aware. Here the public sphere can be looked on as god and the private sphere is everyone’s individual self consciousnesses. The overarching meaning of life is to allow the public sphere to grow and people do this by acting as autonomous individuals. If everyone just acted on what they thought the society needed than the society would get better to a point and then stop. It would stop because the society is meant to serve the individual and when the individual serves the society the society has no use. This is why people have to have a balance of freedom and responsibility to society so that the society and the self can both grow.
It is better for every part of life if people have a both freedom and responsibilities. It is best when people have more responsibilities because then the greater good gains quickly but still serves the individual’s freedom. Having more responsibilities also is better for the individual because it allows the individual to value his or her freedom more and makes his or her freedom more meaningful. There are people with all different levels of freedoms and duties but the ones that are the greatest overall people have more responsibilities than freedoms. The greatest people allow the public sphere to influence more of their life than the private sphere.
The relationship between public and private also can be looked on in a bigger picture that Hegel brings up. Hegel believes that the ultimate goal of everybody’s life is to help god become more self aware. He believes that people can do this by becoming more self aware themselves and therefore becoming more independent and becoming a self autonomous being that god can then sublate and become more self aware. Here the public sphere can be looked on as god and the private sphere is everyone’s individual self consciousnesses. The overarching meaning of life is to allow the public sphere to grow and people do this by acting as autonomous individuals. If everyone just acted on what they thought the society needed than the society would get better to a point and then stop. It would stop because the society is meant to serve the individual and when the individual serves the society the society has no use. This is why people have to have a balance of freedom and responsibility to society so that the society and the self can both grow.
It is better for every part of life if people have a both freedom and responsibilities. It is best when people have more responsibilities because then the greater good gains quickly but still serves the individual’s freedom. Having more responsibilities also is better for the individual because it allows the individual to value his or her freedom more and makes his or her freedom more meaningful. There are people with all different levels of freedoms and duties but the ones that are the greatest overall people have more responsibilities than freedoms. The greatest people allow the public sphere to influence more of their life than the private sphere.
Hegel's Theory against Public and Private
Hegel’s idea of subjectivity and the other can be viewed in relation to public and private in two ways. One way is to view it on a small individual scale, and the other addresses the bigger picture. Each involves seeing the pre-self-conscious individual as an individual in private, and “the other” is found in public. On the smaller scale, there is a single individual who finds self-actualization through the public sphere; he uses the public to determine himself in private. On a larger scale, what determines the boundaries and extent of privacy and private life for any society must come from a relation or exchange with it’s “other,” which is the ultimate public: the government. His theory involves two “selves” that use each other to achieve self-consciousness, “the process is absolutely the double process of both self-consciousnesses. Each sees the other do the same as itself; each itself does what it demands on the part of the other, and for that reason does what it does, only so far as the other does the same” (67). Also in both cases and following Hegel’s theory, the individual and its other become conscious of themselves.
If a person were to live their life utterly secluded and engulfed by privacy, according to Hegel, he would never find true self-consciousness. A person must enter into the public sphere, and therefore step outside their private realm in order to become self-conscious. Self-consciousness or self-actualization is contingent on there being another person or “other” for the first person to sublate. This “other” being can exist as other individuals or as public society as a whole. In Hegel’s Phenomenology of Mind, he extensively discusses how an individual can use a relationship with another individual for self-consciousness, but his theory also is true to the relationship between an individual and society. In most cases, public society is almost a being in itself, and a person can shape society while society shapes that person. The word shape and the term “self-actualization” can be used interchangeably when addressing public and private. By viewing society as a public entity and an individual as a private being, one can see how a person is self-actualized by that society while at the same time, society sublates the individual and comes out of this process with a part of him in its composition.
In the large scale sense, the public is government. The people may create the government to start, but their privacy is found through a self-actualization process in which the government is also further defined. This is Hegel’s life and death struggle, and it benefits both the people and the government to engage in it, “they must enter into this struggle, for they must bring their certainty of themselves, the certainty of being for themselves, to the level of objective truth, and make this a fact both in the case of the other and in their own case as well” (68). Self-consciousness in terms of a government and the privacy of its people means discovering the boundaries of each. How much privacy the people are allowed depends on how the government views its people and how much control the government has. At the same time, the boundaries and control of the government depends on how its people view or wish to view it.
If a person were to live their life utterly secluded and engulfed by privacy, according to Hegel, he would never find true self-consciousness. A person must enter into the public sphere, and therefore step outside their private realm in order to become self-conscious. Self-consciousness or self-actualization is contingent on there being another person or “other” for the first person to sublate. This “other” being can exist as other individuals or as public society as a whole. In Hegel’s Phenomenology of Mind, he extensively discusses how an individual can use a relationship with another individual for self-consciousness, but his theory also is true to the relationship between an individual and society. In most cases, public society is almost a being in itself, and a person can shape society while society shapes that person. The word shape and the term “self-actualization” can be used interchangeably when addressing public and private. By viewing society as a public entity and an individual as a private being, one can see how a person is self-actualized by that society while at the same time, society sublates the individual and comes out of this process with a part of him in its composition.
In the large scale sense, the public is government. The people may create the government to start, but their privacy is found through a self-actualization process in which the government is also further defined. This is Hegel’s life and death struggle, and it benefits both the people and the government to engage in it, “they must enter into this struggle, for they must bring their certainty of themselves, the certainty of being for themselves, to the level of objective truth, and make this a fact both in the case of the other and in their own case as well” (68). Self-consciousness in terms of a government and the privacy of its people means discovering the boundaries of each. How much privacy the people are allowed depends on how the government views its people and how much control the government has. At the same time, the boundaries and control of the government depends on how its people view or wish to view it.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Assignment #7
For everyone:
Make sure you really understand what is going on in Hegel's "Lordship and Bondage".
For the post:
Create an argument that relates Hegel's ideas of subjectivity and the other in the Master/Slave dialectic to the issues of public and private.
Make sure you really understand what is going on in Hegel's "Lordship and Bondage".
For the post:
Create an argument that relates Hegel's ideas of subjectivity and the other in the Master/Slave dialectic to the issues of public and private.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Assignment #6
There is not a blog post assignment this week.
Work on your papers. They are due Wednesday (10/8) in class. Please remember to turn in your paper in your folder (with your first paper).
Work on your papers. They are due Wednesday (10/8) in class. Please remember to turn in your paper in your folder (with your first paper).
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
Thesis
Morality comes from the freedom to act on social responsibilities and therefore only exists in the public sphere because there are no responsibilities in the private sphere.
Freedom can only extend so far as choosing between a series of responsibilities, whether in a public atmosphere where rule dictates an individual’s rights or in a private sphere where we maintain responsibilities we must fulfill to ourselves, while there is room for more theoretical freedom in one’s private realm.
The political society which promotes privacy and requires the least responsibility of an individual to that society provides him with the most freedom to achieve his own personal desires; in turn he must act in accordance with his own moral compass to maintain the fluidity and stability of society while achieving his personal goals.
Man motivated by self-interest can never truly be free because his welfare is paradoxically dependent on other individuals, which entails a moral and practical imperative not to harm them. He must relinquish his personal freedom in exchange for the universal protection of others’ best interests, and therefore his own.
thesis
You have a duty to be a moral person in the public sphere, but you have the freedom to do what you want in the private sphere as long as it does not harm yourself or others.
private= your own property
public= anyone elses property
moral person= following Kants catagorical imperative
duty= responsability
and no- hannah and I did not do this together. go ahead and laugh.
private= your own property
public= anyone elses property
moral person= following Kants catagorical imperative
duty= responsability
and no- hannah and I did not do this together. go ahead and laugh.
Hannah's Thesis
In the public sphere (everywhere but your own property) one has a duty to abide by agreed upon societal laws, but in the private sphere (your own property) one has greater personal freedom, even to one's own detriment, provided no other is being harmed.
To gain ultimate freedom, individuals must temporarily refute their responsibilities, pushing these duties into either the private or public realm; however, because individuals live in communities with universal morals and laws, they are inevitably responsible, making it impossible to be completely free.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Assignment #5 and a Paper Topic
Paper Topic I:
What is the relationship between responsibility and freedom and how does that relate to the public and the private? Use the readings to support your argument.
You must cite at least three of the authors in the Senior Seminar reading packet. Feel free to also include Plato and/or Locke.
4 - 5 pages, due on Wednesday, October 8th in class (in your folders).For the blog post:
EVERYONE in each group must post a one sentence thesis statement for this paper to the blog by 9pm on Monday night (9/29).
Group discussion on Tuesday will center around your individual arguments and the paper topic in general.
Monday, September 22, 2008
More vs Machiavelli
During a time of conflict and turmoil in sixteenth-century Europe, both Niccolò Machiavelli and Sir Thomas More provided competing definitions of what constitutes the ideal individual. While Machiavelli emphasized the idea of the individual within the secrecies of the private domain, More leaned toward the notion of the individual as a part of the conforming mass of the public society.
Machiavelli assumes at base that people are not inherently good. For humans innately place their self-interests ahead of the benefit of the public. As a result of this assumption, Machiavelli dismisses the notion of an imaginary world and replaces it, in contrast, with things as they truly are. He writes, “For the gap between how people actually behave is so great that anyone who ignores everyday reality in order to live up to an ideal will soon discover he has been taught how to destroy himself, not how to preserve himself” (The Prince 48). Machiavelli takes a pragmatic view of the private individual. He is someone whose first priority is self-preservation and to maintain power at all cost. More, in contrast, sees the public individual as someone who must think of the good of the whole. Rather than recognizing one’s flaws as self-centered, More believes in an idealistic society where everyone is entirely good-natured. He seems to share this belief with Plato. He values the essence of a pure soul, where people learn things the hard way-- in true experience that benefits the public good. More talks of how the king, “had spent the rest of his life in the public service, learning wisdom the hard way, by having to cope with a long series of crises. And what one learns like that isn’t easily forgotten” (Utopia 43). He believes in the idea of a unified public, where the benefit of the whole is imperative among each individual.
In relation to More’s idea of the public individual, he also states his belief on the ideal individual, someone whom seeks peace and generosity for the good of humanity. He talks of the unfairness of personal benefit and the importance of maintaining a productive public interest. In More’s Utopia he speaks of war as the very antithesis of peace, a sort of tool that destroys the good of the society. When Raphael is talking to the Cardinal, he states, “I don’t see how it can possibly be in the public interest to prepare for a war, which you needn’t have unless you want to, by maintaining innumerable disturbers of the peace-- when peace is so indefinitely more important” (Utopia 46). More emphasizes the importance of preserving the public as opposed to the individual. He identifies self-interest as the chief means by which societies become dissolute. Thieves would not need to steal if resources were shared more equally. In stark contrast, Machiavelli talks of the idea of the individual as someone whose top priority is always personal well being, taking care of number one--before the well being of humanity. He believes that using force in order to maintain power and control is appropriate, even when society may not agree with one’s actions: “So we see a ruler cannot seek to benefit from a reputation as generous without harming himself. For, as time goes by, he will be thought of as growing ever more generous, for people will recognize that as a result of his parsimony he is able to live on his income, maintain an adequate army, and undertake new initiatives” (The Prince 49). Machiavelli places a large emphasis on private interest, with the notion that having the power to control society will in the long run benefit the whole of the public.
Machiavelli assumes at base that people are not inherently good. For humans innately place their self-interests ahead of the benefit of the public. As a result of this assumption, Machiavelli dismisses the notion of an imaginary world and replaces it, in contrast, with things as they truly are. He writes, “For the gap between how people actually behave is so great that anyone who ignores everyday reality in order to live up to an ideal will soon discover he has been taught how to destroy himself, not how to preserve himself” (The Prince 48). Machiavelli takes a pragmatic view of the private individual. He is someone whose first priority is self-preservation and to maintain power at all cost. More, in contrast, sees the public individual as someone who must think of the good of the whole. Rather than recognizing one’s flaws as self-centered, More believes in an idealistic society where everyone is entirely good-natured. He seems to share this belief with Plato. He values the essence of a pure soul, where people learn things the hard way-- in true experience that benefits the public good. More talks of how the king, “had spent the rest of his life in the public service, learning wisdom the hard way, by having to cope with a long series of crises. And what one learns like that isn’t easily forgotten” (Utopia 43). He believes in the idea of a unified public, where the benefit of the whole is imperative among each individual.
In relation to More’s idea of the public individual, he also states his belief on the ideal individual, someone whom seeks peace and generosity for the good of humanity. He talks of the unfairness of personal benefit and the importance of maintaining a productive public interest. In More’s Utopia he speaks of war as the very antithesis of peace, a sort of tool that destroys the good of the society. When Raphael is talking to the Cardinal, he states, “I don’t see how it can possibly be in the public interest to prepare for a war, which you needn’t have unless you want to, by maintaining innumerable disturbers of the peace-- when peace is so indefinitely more important” (Utopia 46). More emphasizes the importance of preserving the public as opposed to the individual. He identifies self-interest as the chief means by which societies become dissolute. Thieves would not need to steal if resources were shared more equally. In stark contrast, Machiavelli talks of the idea of the individual as someone whose top priority is always personal well being, taking care of number one--before the well being of humanity. He believes that using force in order to maintain power and control is appropriate, even when society may not agree with one’s actions: “So we see a ruler cannot seek to benefit from a reputation as generous without harming himself. For, as time goes by, he will be thought of as growing ever more generous, for people will recognize that as a result of his parsimony he is able to live on his income, maintain an adequate army, and undertake new initiatives” (The Prince 49). Machiavelli places a large emphasis on private interest, with the notion that having the power to control society will in the long run benefit the whole of the public.
The Ideals of Machiavelli and More
Machiavelli and More approach the task of evaluating and constructing man’s ideal with the guidance of vastly different philosophies in their respective works, The Prince and Utopia. The simple basis of Machiavelli and More’s views rest on fundamentally contradictory perspectives. Machiavelli dismisses Plato’s world of human ideals on the grounds that they are impossible to achieve. Instead, he insists that because we live in a real world, and thus plausible idealism cannot be founded on a world of the Gods or “ultimate truth”, we must base drive on the reality of man’s nature and past failures or successes. He stands by the notion that no formerly indicated sense of ideal, (defining ideal for the sake of this analysis as the pinnacle society towards which we ought to strive), is useful in the sense that they do not concur with “how things are in real life”, (p.48) and that we must create an ideal world with rationality in mind. More, on the other hand, advocates a naivety on the part of people, and their means of direction through necessity that frees them from blame for their actions.
Listing a number of virtues or behaviors that in past works had at that point been considered good and ideal for a leader to sustain, like honesty, gentleness, generosity, etc, Machiavelli argues that truly these traits are destructive to the general order of a society. He say that “the gap between how people actually behave and how they ought to behave is so great that anyone who ignores everyday reality in order to live up to an idea will soon discover he has been taught how to destroy himself”. (p. 48) This speaks widely to Machiavelli’s distrust of human instinct and it’s true righteousness. Furthermore, he makes the case that these amiable qualities are unsustainable, taking for instance the concept of generosity. “The more generous you are, the less you are able to be generous.” (p.50) Machiavelli claims that, while subjects may first be appreciative of a leader’s good will, this in turn becomes something that instigates hatred and subsequent disorder.
To Machiavelli, the common man’s realistic and less- than- favorable nature molds and corrupts society to the point where genuine purity of character in a leader is often detrimental to the society as a whole. He portrays the classic sense of ideals and goodness as folly to the ability of a culture to move forward with any strength. Instead, it is the appearance of these traits that furthers an individual, implying gullibility on the part of common and wholly self- interested citizens. “The common man accepts external appearances and judges by the outcome,” (p 55) and that “men judge more by sight than by touch” (p. 55), saying in many ways that to Machiavelli’s “common man” the notion that the ends justify the means, or rather the outcome has the power to blind people to the actions taken to achieve the final result, is generally accepted.
More has a further traditionally idealist approximation of the “common man”. He maintains that “goodness” is still something greater than a matter of appearances, measured by more than sustaining a position of power, and can be found in a society as the entity he paints it. Using the example of the thief, More realizes that thieves are made out of neglected necessity, not born of mal-intentions. He insists through the Cardinal in his story that man’s actions are not evaluative, and cannot inspire accurate judgment of his character, but more exactly of flaws in the unique system of government. In More’s writing he displays an affinity for and respect of those who demonstrate “wisdom and moral character”.
Machiavelli critiques society as something corrupt only to the point of profit, and as the product of it’s people who fully determine the path of the government. They make vital the use of deceit to instill overarching peace and order. Machiavelli holds that the people compose their government and society, and map out its course. More considers a different reasoning, having respect for idealistically admirable qualities in any person or body of people. He believes in the idea that people are purely a consequence, good or bad, or their surroundings, asserting that society and its faults push individuals to find and associate with the characteristics that we deem corrupt. Finally, he claims, people are most significantly a product of their civilization.
Listing a number of virtues or behaviors that in past works had at that point been considered good and ideal for a leader to sustain, like honesty, gentleness, generosity, etc, Machiavelli argues that truly these traits are destructive to the general order of a society. He say that “the gap between how people actually behave and how they ought to behave is so great that anyone who ignores everyday reality in order to live up to an idea will soon discover he has been taught how to destroy himself”. (p. 48) This speaks widely to Machiavelli’s distrust of human instinct and it’s true righteousness. Furthermore, he makes the case that these amiable qualities are unsustainable, taking for instance the concept of generosity. “The more generous you are, the less you are able to be generous.” (p.50) Machiavelli claims that, while subjects may first be appreciative of a leader’s good will, this in turn becomes something that instigates hatred and subsequent disorder.
To Machiavelli, the common man’s realistic and less- than- favorable nature molds and corrupts society to the point where genuine purity of character in a leader is often detrimental to the society as a whole. He portrays the classic sense of ideals and goodness as folly to the ability of a culture to move forward with any strength. Instead, it is the appearance of these traits that furthers an individual, implying gullibility on the part of common and wholly self- interested citizens. “The common man accepts external appearances and judges by the outcome,” (p 55) and that “men judge more by sight than by touch” (p. 55), saying in many ways that to Machiavelli’s “common man” the notion that the ends justify the means, or rather the outcome has the power to blind people to the actions taken to achieve the final result, is generally accepted.
More has a further traditionally idealist approximation of the “common man”. He maintains that “goodness” is still something greater than a matter of appearances, measured by more than sustaining a position of power, and can be found in a society as the entity he paints it. Using the example of the thief, More realizes that thieves are made out of neglected necessity, not born of mal-intentions. He insists through the Cardinal in his story that man’s actions are not evaluative, and cannot inspire accurate judgment of his character, but more exactly of flaws in the unique system of government. In More’s writing he displays an affinity for and respect of those who demonstrate “wisdom and moral character”.
Machiavelli critiques society as something corrupt only to the point of profit, and as the product of it’s people who fully determine the path of the government. They make vital the use of deceit to instill overarching peace and order. Machiavelli holds that the people compose their government and society, and map out its course. More considers a different reasoning, having respect for idealistically admirable qualities in any person or body of people. He believes in the idea that people are purely a consequence, good or bad, or their surroundings, asserting that society and its faults push individuals to find and associate with the characteristics that we deem corrupt. Finally, he claims, people are most significantly a product of their civilization.
Machiavelli vs. More
Machiavelli thinks of humans as naturally having corrupt impulses; that their number one concern is for themselves. He thinks that people will break bonds of love in order to protect their own interests; that people only care about their private lives. In contrast, More thinks that individuals want to be good at heart, and that they try to put the public good before their own. He thinks that people are not out to corrupt the public state, and they only resort do harm to society when it is necessary for survival.
Machiavelli came to the conclusion that it was better to be feared than to be loved, because men only support those who they are intimidated by, and the kind hearted can be easily used and then forgotten. He proves this by an assumption that men are bad and selfish, that nobody cares about making true friendships and being generous, they only care about personal gain. Machiavelli thinks that the kind men will end up being rejected and friendless because when times get rough they will be deserted, “since men are wicked, they break whenever their interests are at stake” (Machiavelli 52). He thinks that men always put themselves first over their society; and that makes them wicked because they do not care about true friendship, generosity, or the feelings of others, they only care about their private needs.
More thinks that individuals do not want to harm their society; they will only do harm out of necessity. More shows this through the problem of theft in many European countries; the government has thieves everywhere and kills them off as best they can, but it doesn’t deter the others or stop crime. More thinks that it would be a better approach to fix the social cause of the crime rather than killing off individuals. He thinks that people steal because there are not enough jobs, leaving starving homeless left with no choice but to steal for survival. He describes his solution simply; “instead of inflicting these horrible punishments, it would be far more to the point to provide everyone with some means of livelihood, so that nobody’s under the frightful necessity of becoming first a thief and then a corpse” (More 44). The lawyer who More is conversing with disagrees, “they could easily earn an honest living if they wanted to, but they deliberately choose to be criminals” (More 44). More rebuts this, showing that he doesn’t think people are naturally criminals who steal for pleasure or because it is easier than working, he thinks it is because they have to in order to survive. This disagrees with Machiavelli’s belief that all men are inherently wicked and that everyone would ditch their friends and the public good for his private needs. If More believed that he would agree with the lawyer and agree that all thieves deserved the death penalty and he would see the problem as each individual rather than the society as a whole. More’s view is that people don’t act according to their private needs unless it is a matter of life or death; that people don’t want to harm society.
Machiavelli came to the conclusion that it was better to be feared than to be loved, because men only support those who they are intimidated by, and the kind hearted can be easily used and then forgotten. He proves this by an assumption that men are bad and selfish, that nobody cares about making true friendships and being generous, they only care about personal gain. Machiavelli thinks that the kind men will end up being rejected and friendless because when times get rough they will be deserted, “since men are wicked, they break whenever their interests are at stake” (Machiavelli 52). He thinks that men always put themselves first over their society; and that makes them wicked because they do not care about true friendship, generosity, or the feelings of others, they only care about their private needs.
More thinks that individuals do not want to harm their society; they will only do harm out of necessity. More shows this through the problem of theft in many European countries; the government has thieves everywhere and kills them off as best they can, but it doesn’t deter the others or stop crime. More thinks that it would be a better approach to fix the social cause of the crime rather than killing off individuals. He thinks that people steal because there are not enough jobs, leaving starving homeless left with no choice but to steal for survival. He describes his solution simply; “instead of inflicting these horrible punishments, it would be far more to the point to provide everyone with some means of livelihood, so that nobody’s under the frightful necessity of becoming first a thief and then a corpse” (More 44). The lawyer who More is conversing with disagrees, “they could easily earn an honest living if they wanted to, but they deliberately choose to be criminals” (More 44). More rebuts this, showing that he doesn’t think people are naturally criminals who steal for pleasure or because it is easier than working, he thinks it is because they have to in order to survive. This disagrees with Machiavelli’s belief that all men are inherently wicked and that everyone would ditch their friends and the public good for his private needs. If More believed that he would agree with the lawyer and agree that all thieves deserved the death penalty and he would see the problem as each individual rather than the society as a whole. More’s view is that people don’t act according to their private needs unless it is a matter of life or death; that people don’t want to harm society.
Machiavelli & More
Contrary to the tendencies of many philosophers to describe ideals of what ‘ought to be’, Machiavelli sets out to present his own advice on leadership and citizenship through the lens of supposed reality. The Prince is written upon the foundation of perhaps Machiavelli’s most basic assumption of reality: essentially, that “men are wicked” and therefore are always inclined to act out of their own personal desires. This also means that acting purely good, politically or publicly, will not be beneficial for an individual who wishes to attain or sustain power.
Machiavelli subsequently contends that a ruler must be willing to harm individual citizens when necessary in order to ultimately help and preserve the state. Here, More seems to primarily differ from Machiavelli in his opinion of the duty of the state and the individual. More sees the state responsible for creating a system and a society that fulfills the needs of its citizens; in a sense, it’s the duty of the state to satisfy it’s subjects’ private realms. This also implies that unlike Machiavelli, More sees people as essentially good, and he is willing to trust them to do the right thing when granted a privilege. Machiavelli would likely reply that this system lacks a fear of authority, a component essential to preserving the state because people will only act out of their own private interests unless compelled by fear to do otherwise. Yet, even further, More’s example of the recurring theft problem insists that people will inevitably keep bringing their private desires into the public sphere if the need is strong enough.
Machiavelli also makes distinctions betweens the public and private responsibilities and personas of the rulers in his society. For example, Machiavelli argues that acting purely generous or compassionate will eventually cause a leader to be “hated and despised” by his subjects due to the long-term repercussions and consequent policies his actions will necessitate. A ruler must only actually possess these ‘favorable’ qualities in moderation, so that eventually, his actions will contribute to the preservation of a stable state. In order to stay in power, however, the ruler must appear to be in constant possession of these qualities and have a reputation for them, although he should not actually fully embody them.
Through this reasoning, Machiavelli seems to imply that the rulers have some kind of moral superiority over their subjects; they are able to see what will ultimately preserve the state and function to the peoples’ overall benefit even when the public itself cannot. Subsequently, this very inability of the general public means rulers must carefully manipulate their public reputation to satisfy their subjects and avoid rebellion. While More’s society may be able to organize itself around moral, commonly held ideals, Machiavelli sees the need for the ruler to address the realistic and pragmatic aspects of preserving a stable society and preventing chaos; while in More’s Utopia, the individual becomes part of a larger, conforming mass – and arguably loses some of their freedom due to their responsibilities to hold up the state – Machiavelli presents a society where citizens are forced to conform by their ruler.
More’s society presents a place where the private lives of individuals are meant to be kept private, in a place of necessity, and the state should facilitate an environment where this necessity should not have to be brought into the social realm. It is only then that problems arise, such as unemployment and theft. Conversely, Machiavelli attempts to demonstrate that the only functional possibility would be a more transparent society, where the state has more control over the private lives of the citizens, and the rulers remain behind a veil of secrecy.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Assignment #4
For all:
Review the details and impact of the USA PATRIOT ACT (yes, it is an acronym). Find information at the Library of Congress website:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03162:
To think about:
How does this vision/reality of national security relate to Machiavelli and ideas of privacy as articulated in Griswold among other places. What assumptions does the PATRIOT ACT make about government secrecy?
To write in the blog post:
Compare and contrast Machiavelli with More: What are they saying about the ideal of the individual? How does this vision of the individual relate to the balance between the public and the private?
Your group discussion should cover both of these topics.
Review the details and impact of the USA PATRIOT ACT (yes, it is an acronym). Find information at the Library of Congress website:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03162:
To think about:
How does this vision/reality of national security relate to Machiavelli and ideas of privacy as articulated in Griswold among other places. What assumptions does the PATRIOT ACT make about government secrecy?
To write in the blog post:
Compare and contrast Machiavelli with More: What are they saying about the ideal of the individual? How does this vision of the individual relate to the balance between the public and the private?
Your group discussion should cover both of these topics.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Eisenstadt v. Baird
William Baird, a professor at Boston University, was arrested and charged with distributing a contraceptive, specifically Emko Vaginal Foam, at the end of one of his lectures. Massachusetts law states that only licensed doctors can distribute contraceptives to married persons; only married persons may receive contraceptives. In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-1 to strike down the Massachusetts law. Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Stewart and Justice Marshall, wrote the Opinion of the Court, while Justice White (joined by Justice Blackmun) and Justice Douglas each offered concurring opinions. Chief Justice Burger was the lone dissenter and Justices Rehnquist and Powell took no part in the decision.
In a stark contrast to Griswold v. Connecticut, which was just seven years earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court seems to shrink away from the issue of privacy. While the Griswold case was full of broad and bold language about privacy rights, Eisenstadt v. Baird barely touches on it. In a case that can clearly be seen as an issue about our fundamental rights to privacy, the Justices seem to actually try and avoid the subject. There is no talk of “zones of privacy” or “constitutional guarantees” (Douglas, J. Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965, Opinion of the Court). Instead the Justices look to technicalities and lack of evidence to make their decision.
In the Opinion of the Court, Justice Brennan seems to intentionally not address the issue of privacy. Instead, he takes the low road and uses the Fourteenth Amendment and it’s “equal protection” clause. He argues that single and married persons deserve equal protection under the law. He doesn’t use phrases like “fundamental personal rights” or “personal liberties” (Goldberg, J. Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965, concurring). Instead, his argument is simple and pragmatic: “whatever the rights of the individual to access to contraceptives may be, the rights must be the same for the unmarried and the married alike” (Brennan, J. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972, Opinion of the Court). Brennan’s argument is a seemingly simple and easy way to get out of having to deal with the burden of the penumbra of privacy issues.
In the other opinions the justices also avoid the issue of privacy rights. Even in Chief Justice Burger’s dissenting opinion he makes it perfectly clear that he is not going to deal with privacy rights. He just flat out says: “To my mind, the validity of this restriction on dispensing medicinal substances is the only issue before the Court” (Burger, C.J. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972, dissenting). Justice Douglas, who offers a concurring opinion, goes into a tangent about Baird’s First Amendment rights and the difference between “speech” and “conduct.” He also seems to try to dismiss Baird’s act of handing out contraceptives as just the utilization of a visual aid.
Justice White perhaps comes the closest to taking on the issue of privacy rights, but he takes a different angle. He approaches Eisenstadt v. Baird as a case dealing with public health vs. constitutional right to use contraceptives. Even here, where Justice White might have been tempted to use bold language, he manages to keep his statements focused and specific, leaving hardly any room for interpretation. He simply states that while the case may be different if the contraceptive required a prescription or was proven harmful, the Massachusetts law is not valid, given that Emko Vaginal Foam was not proven dangerous. For just a brief second, Justice White uses language that is remotely similar to that of Griswold when he says that: “to sanction a medical restriction upon distribution of a contraceptive not proved hazardous to health would impair the exercise of [a] constitutional right” (White, J. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972, concurring). White does not continue this train of thought, however, and simply moves on with another argument that does not expand into grand notions of public and private.
In a stark contrast to Griswold v. Connecticut, which was just seven years earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court seems to shrink away from the issue of privacy. While the Griswold case was full of broad and bold language about privacy rights, Eisenstadt v. Baird barely touches on it. In a case that can clearly be seen as an issue about our fundamental rights to privacy, the Justices seem to actually try and avoid the subject. There is no talk of “zones of privacy” or “constitutional guarantees” (Douglas, J. Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965, Opinion of the Court). Instead the Justices look to technicalities and lack of evidence to make their decision.
In the Opinion of the Court, Justice Brennan seems to intentionally not address the issue of privacy. Instead, he takes the low road and uses the Fourteenth Amendment and it’s “equal protection” clause. He argues that single and married persons deserve equal protection under the law. He doesn’t use phrases like “fundamental personal rights” or “personal liberties” (Goldberg, J. Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965, concurring). Instead, his argument is simple and pragmatic: “whatever the rights of the individual to access to contraceptives may be, the rights must be the same for the unmarried and the married alike” (Brennan, J. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972, Opinion of the Court). Brennan’s argument is a seemingly simple and easy way to get out of having to deal with the burden of the penumbra of privacy issues.
In the other opinions the justices also avoid the issue of privacy rights. Even in Chief Justice Burger’s dissenting opinion he makes it perfectly clear that he is not going to deal with privacy rights. He just flat out says: “To my mind, the validity of this restriction on dispensing medicinal substances is the only issue before the Court” (Burger, C.J. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972, dissenting). Justice Douglas, who offers a concurring opinion, goes into a tangent about Baird’s First Amendment rights and the difference between “speech” and “conduct.” He also seems to try to dismiss Baird’s act of handing out contraceptives as just the utilization of a visual aid.
Justice White perhaps comes the closest to taking on the issue of privacy rights, but he takes a different angle. He approaches Eisenstadt v. Baird as a case dealing with public health vs. constitutional right to use contraceptives. Even here, where Justice White might have been tempted to use bold language, he manages to keep his statements focused and specific, leaving hardly any room for interpretation. He simply states that while the case may be different if the contraceptive required a prescription or was proven harmful, the Massachusetts law is not valid, given that Emko Vaginal Foam was not proven dangerous. For just a brief second, Justice White uses language that is remotely similar to that of Griswold when he says that: “to sanction a medical restriction upon distribution of a contraceptive not proved hazardous to health would impair the exercise of [a] constitutional right” (White, J. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972, concurring). White does not continue this train of thought, however, and simply moves on with another argument that does not expand into grand notions of public and private.
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
In the Lawrence v. Texas case in 2003, police enter the home of John Lawrence in response to a weapons disturbance. Upon entering the house, the police found Lawrence and another man, Garner, engaged in a sexual act. The two men were in violation of a Texas law forbidding sexual conduct between two people of the same sex. Lawrence and Garner were taken to jail to spend the night, and when released each had to pay a fine. The men challenged the Texas statute, saying that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protected their privacy. The Supreme Court was challenged to look back on the Bowers v. Hardwick case where it ruled that one’s sexual conduct privacy was not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Justice Kennedy delivered the Opinion of the Court, explaining that the “the petitioners were adults at the time of the alleged offense. Their conduct was private and consensual” (Lawrence v. Texas 2003, Kennedy, J. opinion of the court). The question then becomes whether the men are free to “engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution” (Lawrence v. Texas 2003, Kennedy, J. opinion of the court). This case didn’t just focus on the private rights of an individual because the law makers are ultimately complaining that sodomy is unnecessary because it is nonprocreative act. Two heterosexual people, however, even those who are married, can also engage in sexual acts with no intention of procreation. In his Opinion Kennedy notes that it is not fair for the government to dictate every aspect of the private sphere, making it no longer private, but public.
As argued in the Griswold Opinion of the Court, the Bill of Rights protects a person’s privacy in his/her own home. The police entered Lawrence’s private space and caught him with Garner. Not only is the act of sexual conduct private, but so is one’s sexual orientation. Justice Kennedy points out several times that there is a long history of laws against homosexual behavior, and never before, have the laws been enforced if the acts were consensual. In the end Kennedy notes that deciding the case based on the private/public realms becomes too difficult. He steps around the Griswold v. Connecticut case by basing his opinion in the right to liberty stated in the Constitution. He then argues the case on the basis of individual liberty. Do the men in this case have a right to the liberty and freedom to take part in a harmless act within the privacy of one’s own home? The Court states that it is unfair to create laws about a behavior just because the subject makes some people uncomfortable. They decide in favor of the men because the case involved two adults who gave full consent “their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government” (Lawrence v. Texas 2003, Kennedy, J. opinion of the court).
(Written by Siobhan... not Ben)
In the Lawrence v. Texas case in 2003, police enter the home of John Lawrence in response to a weapons disturbance. Upon entering the house, the police found Lawrence and another man, Garner, engaged in a sexual act. The two men were in violation of a Texas law forbidding sexual conduct between two people of the same sex. Lawrence and Garner were taken to jail to spend the night, and when released each had to pay a fine. The men challenged the Texas statute, saying that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protected their privacy. The Supreme Court was challenged to look back on the Bowers v. Hardwick case where it ruled that one’s sexual conduct privacy was not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Justice Kennedy delivered the Opinion of the Court, explaining that the “the petitioners were adults at the time of the alleged offense. Their conduct was private and consensual” (Lawrence v. Texas 2003, Kennedy, J. opinion of the court). The question then becomes whether the men are free to “engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution” (Lawrence v. Texas 2003, Kennedy, J. opinion of the court). This case didn’t just focus on the private rights of an individual because the law makers are ultimately complaining that sodomy is unnecessary because it is nonprocreative act. Two heterosexual people, however, even those who are married, can also engage in sexual acts with no intention of procreation. In his Opinion Kennedy notes that it is not fair for the government to dictate every aspect of the private sphere, making it no longer private, but public.
As argued in the Griswold Opinion of the Court, the Bill of Rights protects a person’s privacy in his/her own home. The police entered Lawrence’s private space and caught him with Garner. Not only is the act of sexual conduct private, but so is one’s sexual orientation. Justice Kennedy points out several times that there is a long history of laws against homosexual behavior, and never before, have the laws been enforced if the acts were consensual. In the end Kennedy notes that deciding the case based on the private/public realms becomes too difficult. He steps around the Griswold v. Connecticut case by basing his opinion in the right to liberty stated in the Constitution. He then argues the case on the basis of individual liberty. Do the men in this case have a right to the liberty and freedom to take part in a harmless act within the privacy of one’s own home? The Court states that it is unfair to create laws about a behavior just because the subject makes some people uncomfortable. They decide in favor of the men because the case involved two adults who gave full consent “their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government” (Lawrence v. Texas 2003, Kennedy, J. opinion of the court).
(Written by Siobhan... not Ben)
Privacy in Bowers v. Hardwick
Does the constitution give a fundamental right to homosexuals to engage in consensual sodomy, despite state laws against it? Who has the authority to decide what our fundamental rights are? To what extent do private acts effect the public sphere? These were among the many questions raised by the 1986 Supreme Court case Bowers v. Hardwick.
Michael Hardwick was charged in 1982 with violating a Georgia law that criminalized sodomy. After his claim was dismissed by the Federal District Court, he brought suit to the Court of Appeals. The court, citing the precedent of Griswold v. Connecticut and other Supreme Court cases, ruled that the Georgia statute infringed on Hardwick’s fundamental rights because his homosexual activity was a “private and intimate association that is beyond the reach of state regulation by reason of the Ninth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” (Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986, White, J, opinion of the court). Georgia’s Attorney General then appealed the case to the Supreme Court.
In a 5-4 ruling, the court decided that the right to privacy that previous Supreme Court cases had pulled from the constitution did not extend to homosexual sodomy, and therefore could be outlawed by states. As Justice White said in the opinion of the court, “None of the rights announced in those cases bears any resemblance to the claimed constitutional right of homosexuals to engage in acts of sodomy … No connection between family, marriage, or procreation, on the one hand, and homosexual activity, on the other, has been demonstrated, either by the Court of Appeals or by respondent. Moreover, any claim that these cases nevertheless stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable” (Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986, White, J, opinion of the court).
Justice White also stated that the judiciary should act to protect rights from the penumbra of rights only when those rights are “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” (Palko v. Connecticut) or “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” (Griswold v. Connecticut). The majority believed that sodomy did not meet either standard and that forbidding states to outlaw it would overstep their constitutional authority.
Hardwick argued that the law should be different when the homosexual conduct occurred in private. The court, however, ruled that the asserted right to sodomy did not have a similar grounding in the constitution, and that saying it was ok to do in private would open the door to arguments that adultery, incest, and other sexual crimes were justifiable if committed in private.
Georgia’s Attorney General stated that sodomy would have serious negative effects for the public, such as spreading disease or fostering other illegal activity. To strike down Georgia’s statute, he believed, would interfere with the right of the government to maintain a decent society. In contrast, Justice Blackmun wrote in his dissenting opinion that the “Petitioner and the court fail to see the difference between laws that protect public sensibilities and those that enforce private morality.” He went on to say that the fact that the sodomy occurred in private does affect the result, writing that “the same recognition that those decisions are intensely private which justifies protecting them from governmental interference can justify protection individuals from unwilling exposure to the sexual activities of others” (Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986, Blackmun, J, dissenting opinion).
Blackmun believed that the judiciary should protect Hardwick and other’s right to privacy because “individuals define themselves in a significant way through their intimate sexual relationships with others … the court claims that its decision today merely refuses to recognize a fundamental right to engages in homosexual sodomy; what the court really has refused to recognize is the fundamental interest all individuals have in controlling the nature of their intimate associations with others” (Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986, Blackmun, J, dissenting opinion).
Michael Hardwick was charged in 1982 with violating a Georgia law that criminalized sodomy. After his claim was dismissed by the Federal District Court, he brought suit to the Court of Appeals. The court, citing the precedent of Griswold v. Connecticut and other Supreme Court cases, ruled that the Georgia statute infringed on Hardwick’s fundamental rights because his homosexual activity was a “private and intimate association that is beyond the reach of state regulation by reason of the Ninth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” (Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986, White, J, opinion of the court). Georgia’s Attorney General then appealed the case to the Supreme Court.
In a 5-4 ruling, the court decided that the right to privacy that previous Supreme Court cases had pulled from the constitution did not extend to homosexual sodomy, and therefore could be outlawed by states. As Justice White said in the opinion of the court, “None of the rights announced in those cases bears any resemblance to the claimed constitutional right of homosexuals to engage in acts of sodomy … No connection between family, marriage, or procreation, on the one hand, and homosexual activity, on the other, has been demonstrated, either by the Court of Appeals or by respondent. Moreover, any claim that these cases nevertheless stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable” (Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986, White, J, opinion of the court).
Justice White also stated that the judiciary should act to protect rights from the penumbra of rights only when those rights are “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” (Palko v. Connecticut) or “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” (Griswold v. Connecticut). The majority believed that sodomy did not meet either standard and that forbidding states to outlaw it would overstep their constitutional authority.
Hardwick argued that the law should be different when the homosexual conduct occurred in private. The court, however, ruled that the asserted right to sodomy did not have a similar grounding in the constitution, and that saying it was ok to do in private would open the door to arguments that adultery, incest, and other sexual crimes were justifiable if committed in private.
Georgia’s Attorney General stated that sodomy would have serious negative effects for the public, such as spreading disease or fostering other illegal activity. To strike down Georgia’s statute, he believed, would interfere with the right of the government to maintain a decent society. In contrast, Justice Blackmun wrote in his dissenting opinion that the “Petitioner and the court fail to see the difference between laws that protect public sensibilities and those that enforce private morality.” He went on to say that the fact that the sodomy occurred in private does affect the result, writing that “the same recognition that those decisions are intensely private which justifies protecting them from governmental interference can justify protection individuals from unwilling exposure to the sexual activities of others” (Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986, Blackmun, J, dissenting opinion).
Blackmun believed that the judiciary should protect Hardwick and other’s right to privacy because “individuals define themselves in a significant way through their intimate sexual relationships with others … the court claims that its decision today merely refuses to recognize a fundamental right to engages in homosexual sodomy; what the court really has refused to recognize is the fundamental interest all individuals have in controlling the nature of their intimate associations with others” (Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986, Blackmun, J, dissenting opinion).
Roe v Wade extends Griswold
The case Roe v Wade is widely known through out the United States. It was this case that gave women the right to legal and safe abortion. In this case, the Supreme Court uses the Fourteenth Amendment to affirm these private rights.
The facts of the case were as follows: a single unmarried women, Jane Roe, sued the state of Texas. She was unable to obtain a legal abortion in state because her life was not threatened by the pregnancy and she didn't have any money to travel to a state where abortion was legal. She was joined in the case by a physician and a married couple, but the case's main concern was Roe, who sued “on behalf of herself and all other women”.
Writing for the Majority, in his opinion Justice Blackmun makes it clear that privacy is a central question in this case. From the beginning of the opinion, he states that privacy extends to a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy. The opinion says that her decision in a complicated matter, involving mental and physical heath, family, other children, and social stigma. This is a decision that is best determined by a women and her physician.
Next, Justice Blackmun examines the argument that a woman's privacy in this matter is absolute--that she should be able to terminate her pregnancy whenever, however, and for whatever reason she chooses. And further, the state has no right to interfere. He does not agree with this absolute position. The rest of his argument lays out the limitations of this policy. This limitations are put into place because a pregnant woman carries potential life. This potential life eventually passes from nothing more than a group of cells to become a human with his/her own private rights. It's this tension between the rights of the mother and the growing potential life that has stirred up all the controversy about abortion. In this controversy, the Court finds the middle ground: a women has the right of privacy, but this right is subject to some limitations. The State has some ability to impose medical restrictions and other standards protecting prenatal life. As a practical matter, this decision legalized abortion in the early stages of pregnancy and allowed states to impose limits on late term abortion. This is a balance of privacy between the mother and the right of the public to protect new life.
The Griswold case is cited in Roe v Wade as a basis for the decision. Specifically, Justice Blackmun notes the fundamental right to privacy involving activities related to marriage, procreation, and contraception. Griswold set up private rights extending to the sanctity of marriage. Roe v Wade takes this argument on step further. Not only is privacy protected within a family unit, but it is extended to pregnant women and protects their choices in early stages of pregnancy. In this way, Roe v Wade builds upon the penumbra of rights set out in Griswold.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Assignment #3
Each group is assigned a different landmark privacy case of the Supreme Court:
Dru, Susannah, Will -- Roe v. Wade (1973)
Georgia, Philip, Kirsten -- Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
Samantha, Madeline, Tristan -- Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
Hannah, Siobhan, Ben, Erin -- Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
Research your case. Go to www.oyez.org to find summaries of each case. When you are on the page for your case, click on the "Written Opinion" link (under media). At least read the Opinion of the Court.
The post (but others in each group should be thinking about their own answers to these questions as they read the case):
Comment on the specific details of your case. What assumptions about privacy are being made here? Where in your case does "privacy" become an issue? In what ways does your case build (or detract) from the penumbra of rights that create a zone of privacy as outlined in the Opinion of the Court in Griswold? (Or, does your case view privacy in a fashion more in line with a concurring or dissenting opinion from Griswold?)
Dru, Susannah, Will -- Roe v. Wade (1973)
Georgia, Philip, Kirsten -- Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
Samantha, Madeline, Tristan -- Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
Hannah, Siobhan, Ben, Erin -- Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
Research your case. Go to www.oyez.org to find summaries of each case. When you are on the page for your case, click on the "Written Opinion" link (under media). At least read the Opinion of the Court.
The post (but others in each group should be thinking about their own answers to these questions as they read the case):
Comment on the specific details of your case. What assumptions about privacy are being made here? Where in your case does "privacy" become an issue? In what ways does your case build (or detract) from the penumbra of rights that create a zone of privacy as outlined in the Opinion of the Court in Griswold? (Or, does your case view privacy in a fashion more in line with a concurring or dissenting opinion from Griswold?)
Monday, September 8, 2008
Plato and Locke's approaches to political society
Plato and John Locke represent diverse views on political society in their respective works, The Republic and The Second Treatise on Government. While Plato creates an ideal society in which individuals surrender their private rights to help the public good, Locke proposes the idea of government as an institution that maximizes private rights.
Locke theorizes that although men have often lived in a state of nature, without government, they are inclined to form societies and governments to supplement the needs and desires that they cannot achieve by themselves. “[W]e are naturally induced to seek communion and fellowship with others; this was the cause of men’s uniting themselves at first in politic societies” (Locke 7). From this, Locke introduces the idea of personal property, the foundation of his society. “The labour of his body and the work of his hands we may say are properly his” (Locke 13). By using his own labor, an individual removes something from the state of nature and makes it rightfully his own private property. Locke believes that the primary reason that men join governments is for the security of their own private property. In exchange for the protection of property from the government, individuals sacrifice some of their natural rights and are obligated to do their part to uphold the society. Individuals are inclined to join society to achieve the things that they cannot provide for themselves, mainly the preservation of private property.
Private property is a critical component to Locke’s ideal society. He does though place limits on the extent to which private property can be had. Locke opposes private property when it is allowed to spoil or when so much is attained that none is left for the common good. Locke creates a government with an eye towards maintaining and expanding the private sphere.
While Locke sees private property as a pivotal asset to maintaining society, Plato discourages privatization. Plato instead founds his ideal society in achieving the higher truth beyond our own reality. He articulates this in his passage describing the journey out of the cave in Book 7. Our soul is a fragile balance between reason and passion, some favoring reason over virtue or vice versa. Oftentimes individuals get caught up in their own passionate, private desires and cease to search for the higher truth. In Plato’s ideal society, individuals overcome their personal desires and work collectively to achieve the greater good.
Locke and Plato have different foundations for their societies. Locke favors private property while Plato focuses on the achievement of the higher truth. Locke minimizes the role of the public, expecting citizens to act with reason and integrity to maintain an effective society. Plato, in contrast to Locke, believes in the expansion of the public sphere under the reign of a just leader, a “philosopher-king”. There are many forms of government (i.e. tyranny) that both Locke and Plato don’t trust to rule their society. While the two authors have different final goals for their societies, they are both approaching society with a righteous mind and good intentions. To achieve these ultimate goals, in turn, the citizens are obligated to society to do their part to maintain a just society.
Locke theorizes that although men have often lived in a state of nature, without government, they are inclined to form societies and governments to supplement the needs and desires that they cannot achieve by themselves. “[W]e are naturally induced to seek communion and fellowship with others; this was the cause of men’s uniting themselves at first in politic societies” (Locke 7). From this, Locke introduces the idea of personal property, the foundation of his society. “The labour of his body and the work of his hands we may say are properly his” (Locke 13). By using his own labor, an individual removes something from the state of nature and makes it rightfully his own private property. Locke believes that the primary reason that men join governments is for the security of their own private property. In exchange for the protection of property from the government, individuals sacrifice some of their natural rights and are obligated to do their part to uphold the society. Individuals are inclined to join society to achieve the things that they cannot provide for themselves, mainly the preservation of private property.
Private property is a critical component to Locke’s ideal society. He does though place limits on the extent to which private property can be had. Locke opposes private property when it is allowed to spoil or when so much is attained that none is left for the common good. Locke creates a government with an eye towards maintaining and expanding the private sphere.
While Locke sees private property as a pivotal asset to maintaining society, Plato discourages privatization. Plato instead founds his ideal society in achieving the higher truth beyond our own reality. He articulates this in his passage describing the journey out of the cave in Book 7. Our soul is a fragile balance between reason and passion, some favoring reason over virtue or vice versa. Oftentimes individuals get caught up in their own passionate, private desires and cease to search for the higher truth. In Plato’s ideal society, individuals overcome their personal desires and work collectively to achieve the greater good.
Locke and Plato have different foundations for their societies. Locke favors private property while Plato focuses on the achievement of the higher truth. Locke minimizes the role of the public, expecting citizens to act with reason and integrity to maintain an effective society. Plato, in contrast to Locke, believes in the expansion of the public sphere under the reign of a just leader, a “philosopher-king”. There are many forms of government (i.e. tyranny) that both Locke and Plato don’t trust to rule their society. While the two authors have different final goals for their societies, they are both approaching society with a righteous mind and good intentions. To achieve these ultimate goals, in turn, the citizens are obligated to society to do their part to maintain a just society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)