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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)