Ranciere's Question

Throughout the semester, we have read many essays by different philosophers that detail everything about human rights. In his essay Who is the Subject of the Rights of Man?, Jacques Ranciere discusses essays written by numerous philosophers that allow him to come to a conclusion about the subject of “Rights of Man”.

Ranciere begins his article by describing life after movements in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe; there was a “new landscape of humanity” (1) filled with violence, danger, etc. He states that the “Rights of Man turned out to be the rights of the rightless” (1), because of all the horrible things that were going on in the world. People were being driven away from their homes, their lands and were constantly threatened by forces.

Because of the state of the world at the time, a suspicion arose, which was that the ‘man’ of ‘Rights of Man’ was only an idea because the only real rights were rights of citizens who belonged to communities. Ranciere discusses how Arendt talked about this suspicion in her work Perplexities of the Rights of Man. Ranciere deduces that the “abstract life” talked about in Arendt’s work meant a life away from politics, or a private life. Thus, by critiquing abstract rights, or rights of a person in the private sphere, she was also critiquing democracy.

Ranciere believes it is critical to reset the question “Who is the subject of the Rights of Man?” onto the subject itself, which includes politics. This would in turn set the definition of politics on a different ground. He dismisses Arendt, and says, “The Rights of Man are the rights of those who have not the rights that they have and have the rights that they have not”. Rights of Man cannot be the rights of a single subject that is simultaneously the source and bearer of rights.

Ranciere gives a great example of his statement about the subject of the rights of man. Olympe de Gouges was one of many feminists during the French Revolution. She led a campaign that argued that women were treated equally in both spheres of their life (in the political sphere and their bare life). Women were supposed to only care about and participate in their own private lives. Although women could not vote or be elected because they “did not fit the purity of political life”, they could be sentenced to death, thus bringing them (and their bare life) into the political sphere. These women demonstrated that they were deprived of rights they had, but they were given rights that the Constitution denied them.

None of Us are Human

Butler's Indefinite Detention asks what makes humans unqualified for human rights. She specifically brings up the detainees in Guantanamo Bay. They were denied practically every right, such as the right to legal counsel and even the right to have a trial. How can the U.S. government mandate this? Law was suspended in the name of a national emergency. This suspension allows for a new form of sovereignty to arise.

Governmentality is the way political power manages the population, and has become the main way state power is vitalized. It functions through state and non state institutions. Traditionally, sovereignty is known as providing legitimacy for the rule of law. Butler argues that the emergence of governmentality doesn't necessarily always weaken sovereignty.

"Whereas the suspension of law can clearly be read as a tactic of governmentality, it has to be seen in this context as also making room for the resurgence of sovereignty, and in this way both operations work together" (55). Here, sovereignty means protecting one’s own territory. The detainees in Guantanamo were not considered human. They were people deemed dangerous, dangerous not being a term with specific qualifications. After 9/11, this was based mainly on ethnicity. This ignorance towards particular populations helped support the claims of sovereignty, which in turn advanced it to being accountable to no law. People made assumptions about others with no justification, but nevertheless, after 9/11, the public culture of the United States didn’t trust some groups of people, like Muslims. Vicious or criminal acts weren’t necessary to prove their dangerous nature.

Many of the people in Guantanamo were detained without any evidence against them. Only the high-ranking officials, with a good amount of data supporting their guilt, are allowed trials. What is the worth of those peoples' lives that were not entitled to certain rights guaranteed by laws that have been in the U.S. for a long time, as well as international laws on human rights? They are presumed guilty and denied due process, by a lawless power that indefinitely detained them. Those who determined which detainees were dangerous exercised sovereign power. "Sovereignty extends its power in excess of the law and defies international accords; for if the detention is indefinite, then the lawless exercise of state sovereignty becomes indefinite as well" (64). The U.S government invoked its own sovereignty by attempting to justify the war in Iraq, claiming our self preservation was at stake. Thus, the state was acting in a way not grounded in law, but with other forms of judgment in mind. The government also justifies indefinite detention by comparing the people in Guantanamo Bay to people hospitalized for mental illness. They are detained without any particular criminal charge, but on the basis of the threat that they may pose to themselves and others. This assumes that the detainees lack normal mental functioning. Secretary Rumsfeld explained the detainment on the prisoners by saying if not restrained, they would kill again, and therefore implying that restraint is what keeps them from doing so. They must be killing machines, without cognitive functions, and thus, not human. If they’re not human, they are undeserving of rights reserved for humans.

Department of Defense General Counsel Haynes says that the Guantanamo prisoners pose dangers that can’t be resolved in courts and set right with punishment. Even if they couldn’t be convicted and proved guilty, the captives were held for “a specific reason,” and just because they weren’t tied to a particular crime, doesn’t mean they didn’t need to be there, according to Haynes. If they proved to no longer fit the criteria that brought them in, they would be released. However, this criteria is never specified.

Butler thinks that government policy should follow the established laws, however she recognizes a problem with the law, because it can be changed. In the Geneva convention, universal rights weren’t extended to everyone—only to the imprisoned combatants whose nations were already a part of the convention. The others, who essentially needed help the most, lacked the Geneva protection. Another issue Butler has is that we use a limited cultural frame to understand what is human. We are bias, and often use how we as a nation act as the basis for what constitutes a human. There is not a single definition for “human”. Human rights laws have yet to recognize this. The problem with Guantanamo was that they were asking who should be treated humanely, when they had yet to understand who should be counted as human. She worries that the indefinite detainment of prisoners on Guantanamo will become a model for the way the world acts, making rights not guaranteed. The detainees were held because they were enemies of the U.S. based on the war of terror. However, a war on terror can never end, and based on Haynes’ logic, people therefore can be indefinitely detained. If sovereignty, ie, lawless and illegitimate power, takes place, violence will revitalize and global cooperation on who should be treated humanely. “We have yet to become human, it seems, and now that prospect seems even more radically imperiled, if not, for the time being, indefinitely foreclosed” (100).

Losing their human rights brings people into the condition of savage

For Hannah Arendt the declaration of human rights is a sign of the emancipation of man. The human equality was not sure before God anymore. In the past people were sure of their social and human rights because they were protected by “social, spiritual and religious forces” (291). In addition to that the human rights did not need to be established by a government since because all other laws were supposed to be based on human rights. Arendt gives the example that if a tribal doesn’t respect human rights it didn’t reach the “stage of civilization” (291) yet, and must live under suppression of foreigners. Only an emancipated population is able to follow and respect the rights of a human being. A certain number of people started to realize that their rights were not protected by any government and wanted to establish human rights. Minorities were convinced that losing your national right (as it often happened in European countries) is the same as losing your human right.
Hannah Arendt states that the authors of the human rights were mostly international jurists, lacking political experience, and “professional philanthropists”. These authors made it that no politician believed in the declaration of human rights or incorporated it into their program. In the nineteenth century protectors used the human rights to defend the “unprivileged” (293), suffering because of the industrial revolution. Every being was protected by the civil law of their country and incorporated the human rights into their system by legislations or revolutions. In Arendts’ view it was hard to establish a new bill of human rights since no person knows what their human rights are, they don’t know the difference from rights of the citizen.
Arendt uses minorities as an example and shows that the first loss of their human rights was to lose their homes and not being able to settle down in other countries without restrictions. Arendt continues explaining that when the human rights were first declared they were based on history and later on nature. This would not be valid for the modern times anymore since “the right to have rights, or the right of every individual to belong to humanity, should be guaranteed by humanity itself” (298). Arendt adds that even a “word government” (298) which protects human rights cannot be efficient because totalitarian like Hitler justify not respecting human rights of certain groups, by doing the best in the populations interest. The author Burke is cited by Arendt explaining that no divine authority or natural law are needed to establish human rights, it is all established through man. Burke uses survivors of concentration camps as examples to show that human beings need to hold on to their nationalities, since this is the sign of being civilized and part of a community. In a community human rights make every person equal, since we are not born equal , but “become equal as member of a group” (301). Arendt also defines a person who loses his human rights as a person losing all his significance. The major danger for Arendt is that a rising amount of people lose their human rights, which threatens “our political life” (302) and bring people into the situation of savage.

Arendt on the issue of human rights.

Throughout our philosophy course, we have challenged the very principles of human nature that educators have vainly taught us, the principles that dictate the nature of human, born equal and have rights to freedom and property. We have discussed that rights are not universal, but rather, before the laws (as discussed in the UNDHR.) It comes to no surprise that in The perplexities of the Rights of Man, once again challenge our previous beliefs.

As Arendt states, the turning point of our history was the Declaration of the Rights of Man. It is by this act that the source of law depends upon Man. (Arendt 290) However, this act lays a complication. As both the American version (American Revolution) and the French version (French Revolution) indicates, that human rights are ““inalienable” irreducible to and undeducible from other rights or laws.” (Arendt 291) And most importantly, human rights are claimed to be universal, regardless of nationality, races, etc. However, there was no authority on such proclamation. As we have seen in the US’s Declaration of Independence, where it is asserted that these truths are “self-evident”, Man is both the mean and the end to himself. It seems to be that “no one seems to be able to define with any assurance what these general human rights, as distinguished from the rights of citizens, really are.” (Arendt 293) This creates problems and debates on the subject of human rights.

Although rights of the citizens are suppose to be a form of the Rights of Man, it is assumed that if these rights of citizens do not reflect this form, the citizen are expected to modify them via various means. (Arendt 293) However, such assumption cannot work for people who do not hold citizenships to any political community. They’re essentially people who are stateless. And to these stateless populations, as Arendt asserts, the Rights of Mans, “supposedly inalienable”, proved to be unenforceable.” (Arendt 293). For that, they suffered two losses, of their homes and of government protection. These losses are usually unrecoverable where we currently live in “One World”, where there is no longer any uncivilized spot on Earth. The result of these losses is the expulsion from humanity together. (Arendt 297)

One might ask, how so? As we have discussed in the UNDHR, human rights are before the law. To these stateless people, no laws exist for them. By deprivation of homes and government protection, it has created a condition of complete rightlessness (Arendt 296). As shown by the examples given, Jewish people during the Nazi regime experienced a series of deprivation of their rights. It is only up to the point that they have been stripped of every right that their right to live is threatened. “The fundamental deprivation of human rights is manifested… in the deprivation of a place in the world which makes opinions significant and actions effective.” (Arendt 296) As Arendt further asserts, “we are not born equal; we become equal as members of a group on the strength of our decision to guarantee ourselves mutually equal rights.” (Arendt 301)

The power of Dogma

It is fascinating that the economical and political system that started as Marx’s and Engels’ ideas, came out to be a reality that changed the course of history and the world as we knew it. In his “On the Jewish question” Marx analyses Bauer’s studies and expresses his views on Jews’ emancipation, capitalism, religion, and politics. Even at the beginning of the essay we can sense anti-Semitic mood when Marx talks about Jews as chosen people in almost an ironic way. And we shall not forget that Marx was of Jewish origin.
Marx’s essay states the issue: Jews are seeking emancipation. And in order to emancipate them they need to be deprived of their religion. But Jews’ religion is their nature, it defines them who they are. Bauer expresses his views as follows; they declare by their separation from the rest of people and it isolates them from non-Jews. Jews obtain a supreme, true nature and it prevails over their human nature. (Marx, 40) Their chemical nationality, Marx explains, is the nationality of trader and financier. (Marx, 51)
But he still tries to provide the grounds for political emancipation through the “division of man into the public person and the private person” (Marx, 35). He states that the reasons why the Jews cannot be fully emancipated is because the state cannot emancipate them. There is a “conflict between the general interest and private interest, the schism between political state and civil society…”, hence the Jews are not to be politically emancipated.
Here, Marx reveals his views on religion that he calls “imperfect politics” and as a result, we have Soviet Union as an atheist state for over 50 years. Marx sees the state as religion itself, that doesn’t need any religious involvement, “the democratic state, the real state, doesn’t need religion for its political consummation.” (Marx, 37) Marx as well as Bauer has a problem with submitting to the authority of scripture, that takes away from the dedication to state. Marx re-states Bauer’s discontent with the German- Christian state, because in that state the religion is an “economic matter”. He says that the political state, “in relation to civil society is just as spiritual as heaven in relation to earth.” (Marx, 34)
He separates state and religion by assigning the state rights and functions that religion has, and proclaims that “it [religion] is no longer the essence of community, but the essence is differentiation” and alienation. (Marx, 35). Which makes sense, because according to the Christian doctrine, in order to be a true follower of Christ, one has to alienate himself from corruptness of the secular world. A Christian is unlike all others, so it is a premise of a form of inequality in the society. As a Hegelian, he agreed on Christianity being a from purely ethical point of view, but on the contrary, he hypothesizes that the existence of religion is existence of defect in making a conclusion that a state should be religion-free in order to govern people.
It gets more interesting, when Marx calls for radical measures to stop Jewish demand for emancipation. He is basically building a foundation for the new communist society- in response to Jews’ desire to be emancipated, he prescribes state’s intervention as a crucial necessity to maintain the state. The state must proclaim its authority through revolution.
In his essay Marx nitpicks the “Declaration of the rights of man and of the citizen” and pinpoints the contradictions in it, such as the one of liberty, and private property. He brings examples from it, but doesn’t agree with its core principle of human rights: that we are born free and equal, hence possess birth-given rights. He sees human rights not as a birth-given privileges, but as the “results of culture, and only he can possess them who has merited and earned them.” (Marx, 40)
He criticized any form of social order that contains egoism, and inequality, such as feudalism, and capitalism. He outlines the failures of the feudalist system as, “The man was not liberated from religion, he received religious liberty. He was not liberated from property; he received the liberty to own property. He was not liberated from the egoism of business; he received the liberty to engage in business.” (Marx, 45) Is that bad?
Furthermore, he claims that the real, or “everyday Jew’s” worldly god is money, his nature is egoism, and his cult is huckstering (Marx, 48) He traces presence of capitalism elements in Judaist nature. Marx says that there is something more to this world than chase after money, concern with making more money than your neighbor, and stock exchange. Greed is what defines capitalism, and Marx calls for finding a new social order that will make all men equal. He states that “Judaism could not create a new world.” (Marx, 51) Jews’ economic power and striving in the west seemed to really concern Marx, Judaism meant commerce in Germany, and he traces the symbiosis of commerce with Christian society in the West, he, in fact, states that it [Christianity] has been “re-absorbed into Judaism.” (Marx 52). So according to Marx, the Jews are guilty of “worshiping” a god [money] of practical need and self interest. He blames money with, “abasing all the gods of mankind and changing them into commodities.” And he blames the Jews for overtaking the world with their “religion”, “the god of the Jews has been secularized and has become the god of this world.” (Marx, 50)
Human beings have always been, are, and will be egoistic, it’s a fact. Adam Smith, for example, turned that trait of human nature into a successful theory of an Invisible Hand, when the economy benefits as a whole as each individual pursues his own interests. Whereas Marx believed that “egoism should be punished as a crime.” (Marx, 43) As well as the existence of classes, there will always be inequalities, but Marx wanted to end it, he complained, that “it is a man as bourgeois and not a man as a citizen who is considered the true and authentic man.” (Marx, 43) The concept of everybody’s equality looks good in theory but not in reality.
Marx quotes Rousseau, trying to prove the supremacy of the state in a citizen’s life. But I think that in the line “part of something greater than himself from which is a sense, he derives his life and his being” (Marx, 46), Rousseau, with his deistic view of religion, referred to God, not the state.
Marx concludes that “the social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism,” that has rooted itself in the heart of commerce, and in the equilibrium of supply and demand in the capitalist society. (Marx, 52)

The Jewish Problem: New Religious Criticisms

To set the stage for the Jewish problem: Bruno Bauer’s “Young Hegelians” represent a period of time in which the Berlin circle was led by the nation’s “most important” character, Bauer (Bauer 127). Hegelianism, a predominant way of reasoning during this time, made way to a community of Hegelians, a group of young intelligent individuals headed by Bauer. Bauer’s leadership role in this ideological group placed him at a position of questioning both the Church and the State (Bauer 127). Hegelians, like Bauer, believed that “Individual self-consciousness discovered itself to be infinite in nature,” ultimately viewing God as the Critic (Bauer 176). The Young Hegelians held the theory to be applicable to any state backed by any religion. All laws were ultimately based on religious tenets. As such, their plan to undermine what they felt was the corrupt and despotic state apparatus was to attack the philosophical basis of religion.

Throughout “The Jewish Problem,” Bauer highlights “liberty, human rights, and emancipation” as the three central freedoms. During this period of time, Jews and Judaism were experiencing new criticisms as privileges of “unchangability, immunity, and irresponsibility” were being granted to the emergence of the religion. (Bauer 188) Jews were excluded from political parties undergoing humanity progression because they were not viewed as advocates of such. According to Bauer, the Christian state instilled prejudices in the hearts of its people, in turn suffering great agony, where as the Jews were not to be affiliated with either of these behaviors (Bauer 188).
The solution being sought for the Jewish problem is complicated. The crossover from the Natural State to the new world marks the fuzzy logic behind the basis of treatment for Jews in the Christian state of newly delegated powers and stereotypes and discrimination. In accordance to class discussion, this conflict cannot not exist without self pride; as this situation illustrates, the pride and nationalism that stems from religious alliances feuding against “the enemy” prevails in the new world. (Bauer 188).

Can the Jewish problem be solved in nations such as France, Spain and Poland where intolerance and oppression weigh heavily upon societal views? Had the Jews remained in Spain, one can only question whether or not they would have aided the nation’s liberation, or whether the nation was solely reliant upon Christianity and the Catholic government (Bauer 191). In terms of Poland, people can easily point fingers at the Jews when delegating a group to blame for the downfall of the nation. Bauer believes “Poland is itself to blame for its fate,” where as historical patterns depict that nations such as these target Judaism for internal problems. (Bauer 191) A common theme that can also be applied to Nazi Germany, although not exemplified in this reading.

In conclusion, the Jewish problem is ultimately tied to the problem of the general public. Discrimination prevents minority groups from being granted civil freedoms from dominant powers. Parallel to the theme of Hegelians enlightenment lies the connection of religion to law. So long as the Jews exist as minorities in Christian states, states backed by religion will oppose Jewish emancipation, thus ridding Jews from liberty and basic human rights. In a perfect Marxist society, the Jews would ultimately rise up in revolt and overthrow the powers that control them. We will have to see Marx’ take on this matter during our next class reading; Stay tuned!

Marx' Response To Bauer

The article “On the Jewish Question” was Karl Marx' reply to counter the claims that Bruno Bauer believes in his article “The Jewish Problem.” Marx immediately wrote his article the same year Bauer published his. In Bauer's article he stated that the Jews will have to relinquish their particular religious faith in order for them to attain their desire for political emancipation.

Marx presented two separate arguments against Bauer’s idea. His first argument states, that “the existence of religion is not at all opposed to the perfection of the state” (31). He takes the case of North America, despite the widespread of religion it does not have a “state religion” and it completely separates the state from any religion. His second argument discusses the connection of political emancipation and human emancipation. Marx claims that for the Jews “to be politically emancipated without emancipating yourselves humanly, the incompleteness and contradiction lies not only in you but in the essence and category of political emancipation” (40). In contrary to Bauer’s demands, Marx believes that political emancipation does not require for the Jews to renounce their religious faith. In relation to this, Marx claims that, “the political elevation of man above religion shares the weaknesses and merits of all such political measures” (33.) From this he tried to make a comparison between the right to private property and the right to one’s own religion and concluded that both are not significant to human emancipation (33).Marx was never clear on the definition of human emancipation, though it can be assumed that it is related to man and his work.

Reply to Rousseau-Inequality of Man

Rousseau differentiates between two kinds of inequalities: that of the natural or physical aspect of man and of the moral or political. He speaks about there being no point in asking whether the people in power and from wealth are stronger in mind and body as well as wisdom and virtue. One point that he raised perplexed me. He said, “Perhaps this is a good question for slaves to discuss within earshot of their masters, but it is not suitable for reasonable and free men who seek the truth” (p.16). Why is it not suitable for free men who are seeking the truth to question this as well? He keeps comparing a civilized human to a savage one. Because a savage human does not act upon reason but instinct provided by natural law, just like an animal would, he is incapable of acting upon vice or virtue because these are concepts that do not touch him. In Rousseau’s opinion, this makes the savage more equal among each other, because no one has the sense to rule over someone else as if they are totally aloof from their fellow savage. They have no perception of death so therefore it cannot impact their thoughts or actions that take place during their lives. But, I do not believe that civilized people are incapable of possessing the potential to be equal as well. The ability to reason that we are granted is both a gift and a curse and it all depends on how each person wants to use it. I feel it is our duty as reasoning and logical beings that have such a leg up on all the other creatures on earth to constantly question our actions. Therefore, I believe that it is false that it is not suitable for a free man seeking the truth to question our modes and behavior within power.

Rousseau on How We Ended Up in Such a Peril!!!!

According to Rousseau the true originator of civil society was the first man to enclose a piece of land and called it his own, i.e. the birth of property ownership. There were in any event many changes that occurred between that first step towards “society” and the savage man that Rousseau first describes. The progress towards civil inequality was a result of many different events throughout our anthropological history.
With the growth of the brain man had advanced rapidly and in many ways. Physical attributes weakened as a result of gathering together in small groups, language developed, at the same time the family was born. Gender roles were instituted making women subservient to men, different sentiments grew, love jealously, respect, power, authority, pride etc, all as a result of gathering together and recognizing similarities between each other. Rousseau believes this was the first step towards vice (49) which leads to unhappiness and the loss of innocence.
There were a series of “revolution” or pivotal point in man’s developmental history, the first being as a result of the invention and the use of tools. Technological development led to psychological and behavior changes i.e. the development of sentiments of pride, power, and authority to name a few. The reason for human interaction had changed, instead of interaction out of pity; interaction became forced because of these new sentiments.
Eventually man realized there were benefits in working in groups in contrast to working alone. This was a significant realization; Rousseau refers to this as the second revolution that was as a result of metallurgy and agriculture. “It is iron and wheat that have civilized men and ruined the human race”. (51) It is from the division of land for agriculture that Justice was born to delegate what belongs to whom. It is agriculture and metallurgy that allowed natural inequality to fuel civil inequality (53).
Governments were formed reflecting the state of the individuals in a particular area. If one individual was “eminent in power, virtue, wealth or prestige” a monarch was formed. If several individuals shared in prestige an aristocracy was formed. A less disproportionate group, who, had “least departed from the state of nature, kept the supreme administration and formed a democracy.” (64)
In summary Rousseau believes that there is very little inequality in nature. Inequality is a result of the development of man’s “faculties and the progress of the human mind,” as a result inequality becomes legitimatized by the invention of “property and laws.” (71)

The Desire for Perfection Leads to Destruction: A Continuation of Rousseau's Discourse

Nature gives all creatures of our known world certain commandments. Animals abide by these rules, and man’s intellect is what makes him rebellious when considering these rules. Free will separates humans from nature. Therefore, they are deemed as non-equals. This may be explained further by Rousseau’s own account of “perfectability”. He believes the act of trying to perfect oneself results in the evolvement of man, whereas the animal (savage man included in this sense) can remain the same for thousands of years due to the lack of this ability. Rousseau states the savage man finds nature familiar and comfortable. Perhaps this is Rousseau’s way of stating these men and women were not “enlightened”. This may be implied from the following quote: “How many centuries have perhaps gone by before men were in a position to see any fire other than that of the heavens?”(27) Rousseau then continues to ponder the thought that man had evolved from savage when nature no longer satisfied their desires. Perhaps this may tie into his idea of perfectibility among men. It then may be implied the desire to perfect himself drew the savage man away from the mindset of animals.

Rousseau’s criticism of language may be tied into this as well. For Rousseau feels there is no need for words, and it further alienates the domesticated human from the rest of creation. The origin of language was established solely on the platform of enlightenment thought and not by nature. He believes the only natural form is the cry, or “cry of nature”(31), if you will. Everything else is dubbed as a “conventional sign.” Animals, according to Rousseau, will not have the power to evolve as long as they do not possess the ability to process general ideas with these conventional signs. Without language and the ability to perfect itself, an animal’s life and heritage will remain constant. Rousseau then leaves his readers with the question of whether society was built for language, or if a pre-existing language was responsible for the creation of a civilized society.

“Which is more at peace? Civil or Moral Life?” (34) This is a question presented by Rousseau. It is then followed by a conclusion that a savage man or one with a natural life does not have the ability to do evil since he does not have the mental capacity to decipher what it means to be “good”. Within the early pages of Part Two of the Discourse, Rousseau explains the beginning of a civil society was the very first time a man declared a plot of land to be his. This is opposed to the life of a savage who appeared to be nomadic.

In the following pages of Rousseau’s Discourse, he then contemplates a human’s natural pity, passion, and sensibility in relation to reason. He states ideas and sentiments coincide with one another, and are therefore the ingredients for a lasting relationship. Because of this feeling of the heart provoked by an idea, humans began to loiter together to further evolve domestic interaction. After time passes within these groups of “tightened bonds” (49), opinions of others began to develop within the minds of each and every individual. It may be implied that because a human desires the company of another particular individual, reason is provoked by passion. It may also be implied after reading this statement that this observation may lead to a human caring for how he or she alone is viewed by society as well. As a result of these relationships and feelings, opinions of others have been formed. This ultimately leads to the extinction of innocence.

When reading page 53, Rousseau’s audience is able to understand how the newly opinionated and civilized man’s desire for perfection instigated the progression of culture and the arts. For it does not stop! We are constantly seeking ways to develop language, talent, and the abuse of wealth. Rousseau undoubtedly believes that as a result of this, the ability to be something and appear as something was possible for man. With caring how one views him or herself, a human then develops jealous and wicked tendencies. This leads to “competition and rivalry” (54), and further developing the notion of what it means to be non-equal.

After all this, does the desired perfection by humans indeed have an end? According to Rousseau…yes. Different opinions of others may lead to prejudices, a disunity of men, and an overall disorder which will be responsible for the destruction of all men have worked towards in order to be individuals. For we will all be “tyrants” (68), and moral principles and sentiments will disappear. The inequalities would disappear, but to the other extreme. Rousseau believes this is naturally bound to happen, and philosophers will not be able to come to the rescue. If we remained one with nature as a “savage”, our lives would be tranquil as opposed to “running to our death” (70). We would live for ourselves as opposed to living for the approval or on the judgment of others. The spirit of society remains in existence when life is based on appearance. According to Rousseau, this is certainly not man’s original state. ~ Angela Pokorny

Discourse of Inequality part 1

For Part One of Rousseau’s Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau mainly focuses on and, “digs at the roots”, of man’s beginning to show that this beginning has less influence on the social development and the inequality of man than many writers claim. Rousseau examines early man compared to the modern day man of his time. He calls early man “savage man” and modern man “civil man”. Savage man and civil man can be compared to a wild animal and a domestic animal. A house cat is extremely different than a cat in the wild. Savage man is the wild cat and civil man is the domestic. Savage man acts out of instinct. Civil man acts out of free will. According to Rousseau, savage man has no free will. He is no different than an animal. Savage man has all his needs and does not need other human beings. Because of this, nature has done little to bring man together and make him sociable. This was the best time for man since the self- preservation of one did not conflict with the self-preservation of another. Also, pity is evident in all animals, hence evident in savage man, further proving Rousseau’s claim. Rousseau continues his argument by adding that differences in man are from habit and different lifestyles. These aspects of life instituted inequality, not nature. These things were not part of life in the beginning of man since living was much more simple. Man did not need to be social and was not. Once man became sociable, after he developed out of the savage state, then inequality arouse.

Rousseau - Inequality of Man

Rousseau wanted to find out how Inequality in Man came about. Not so much of natural inequality as in having a difference in age, or health, or strength but of the moral and political inequalities found among men. It is the type where we would say that certain men who are richer or more powerful, in a social or political sense, than others.
It is through our nature that these inequalities would surface.
Rousseau points out that us as human beings have ideas. In that regard, we are no different from any other animal. Our senses grant us the ability to have ideas. We are only so different when taking all these different ideas and reconstructing and mixing them all together.
Men are more different among their own kind when mixing all the ideas together than are they different from other animals. Also, us as humans have the ability to freely will our actions that Nature may direct of us. We also have the ability to have knowledge of this freedom and it is through our knowledge of our wills that are souls would become evident.
Our awareness of our wills would then give us the ability to reason. But a person who is considered to be a savage would not. Those who are savage would not be capable of reasoning. They act on pure instinct such as any other animal. They are not granted the knowledge that would allow them to have any sort of interest beyond their physical needs and desires.
Savage men would therefore, be more prone to violent acts. But it would only be in the case of self-preservation. But the savage would not be considered evil. Because they do not know what it is to be considered good. They have no knowledge of any type of vices that would make them considered to be evil. Rousseau concludes that the savage are not evil because of their ignorance of vice (36).
If there is any virtue that is most natural and that is universal in man and other animals, it would be the virtue of pity. Every animal can show signs of pity, especially at the sight of death. Rousseau gives mention of Bernard Mandeville, who is the author of The Fable of the Bees, and that he gives us an image of compassion and pity in man.
The image is of a man who is imprisoned in a cell and sees outside his window, a terrifying scene. The scene is that of an animal forcing a child from its mother and clawing and ripping the child to death. The man is left helpless to become of any assistance to the child that he is left with tears. The tears display the man’s pity and compassion at full extent.
Rousseau concludes that our tears, given to us by Nature, grant us as humans the ability to have the softest hearts (37).

Passions of the Soul

Descartes initially wants to understand the functions of the soul as well as the functions of the body, so that he can classify the purpose of each. He also states that “a passion of the soul is usually an action of the body,”( Descartes 298) Henceforth, the rule that he establishes is, “all that we experience as being in us, and what we see can exist in wholly inanimate bodies, must be attributed to our bodies alone…all that is in us which we cannot in any way conceive possibly pertaining to a body must be attributed to our soul.” (Descartes 298) Since we know the body does not think, but only acts in accordance with the soul, the soul must be the primary source of knowledge. Descartes then examines the body, and believes that the heat inside us is relevant to the body. Descartes uses an example of a dead body, which would not have heat and does not move, and it is because the soul is not present that makes the body limb. “it was believed that our natural heat and all the movements of our body depends on the soul,” (Descartes 299) Descartes is stating that the body and soul are connected to each other, and the body does not work without a soul. Descartes continues to describe the different parts of the body and their functions. He also concludes that there are animal spirits that enter the brain, that allow our nervous system and muscles to function. These spirits can make our limbs and muscles act in accordance with our senses. He gives an example of how if someone were to place their hand in front of your eye in an aggressive manner, we will close our eyes naturally, “against our will” (Descartes 302).
Descartes continues to study the soul, and concludes that the only thing that our soul controls in our body is our thoughts. He also continues to describe perception “for it is certain that we cannot will anything without by the same means perceiving that we will it” (Descartes 304). Therefore perception and will can be the same.
Descartes then defines the passions of the soul by saying that “the soul differ from all its other thoughts…sensations or excitations of the soul which we relate especially to it, and which are caused..by some movement of the spirits” (Descartes 306). However the soul can overpower the passions.
He continues to say that a gland is where the spirits enter the body, and this takes place in the brain. Passions are a result of the spirits in the brain.
In conclusion Descartes states that “the strength of the soul is not sufficient without the knowledge of the truth,”(Descartes 314). He refers to the confirmation of the truth while the soul is still in the body.

Reclaiming our sense perceptions

Previously to the Meditation Six, Descartes proved the existence of God and came to the conclusion that he was a thinking thing. Meditation Six brings a very important new conclusion, that is the thinking thing that he is is actually "tightly joined" (136) to the body and together with it "constitute one single thing" (136).
The way Descartes explains this is by saying if the mind and the body were not one single thing then the sensations that are experienced by the body would not be perceived by the mind. If we recall Descartes disregarded sense perceptions for the fact that they are not reliable and can deceive us, thus the first step was for him to doubt in all senses. Here however Descartes gives the sense perceptions some more credibility "as reliable rules for immediately discerning what is the essence of bodies located outside us," (137) however admittedly he thinks that they do it "obscurely and confusedly" (137). The way it works is first to establish that corporeal things exists, as the sense perceptions come from corporeal things and can be perceived by the mind without any work on the mind's part. They could be false since the mind can be deceived, but God was proven not to be a deceiver then the conclusion can only be one - corporeal things do exist. However Descartes also recognizes that the sense perceptions are not always correct, not entirely false but rather misleading in some cases, for example a square tower seen from afar might appear round.
Moreover Descartes identifies the connection between the mind and the body to be the brain, or rather "just one small part of the brain" (139). However the sensations are transmitted to the mind through this brain, but if two different sets of things can produce the same movement in the brain then the mind would still get the same information as if they were the same and only one. This is the main reason why the sense perceptions can be so unreliable.
Nevertheless Descartes reaches the conclusion that even though unreliable the senses through the body parts can be generally trusted and we are not merely thinking things anymore but thinking things contained within bodies. This sounds definitely better than having to doubt all sense perceptions and regard the world around as an illusion.

Existence Beyond Our Thought

In Meditation Five, Descartes focuses on the existence of things separate from our thought of them, and applies the same argument to further his case for the existence of God. He starts by recalling that fact that there exist things in the world which we perceive, however, our perception of them does not warrant their existence. He uses the fact that a triangle exists, whether or not he is thinking of it. A triangle has certain properties at all times, independent of the mind and "a certain determinate nature, essence, or form which is unchangeable and eternal" (64), which is similar to God. The “essence” of a triangle always is. God, similar to a triangle, exists, regardless if God is being thought of; God, too, is independent of thought. Although we cannot think of them at all times, both God and a triangle exist at all times. We can think of them if we wish to; we can recall the memory of the demonstration of a thing, removing doubt as to whether or not a thing exists (69). The “essence” of a thing is its ability to exist, whether or not we are thinking of the thing.

In revisiting his argument for the existence of God, Descartes “cannot think of God except as existing” and “it follows that existence is inseparable from God, and that for this reason he really exists” (67). He seems to claim that he thinks of existence because God exists, just as thinking of a mountain with a valley is the result of a mountain and valley existing. He focuses on the relationship of existence and God. Existence and God are necessarily dependent on one another, just as a mountain is to a valley (67).

The Truth Within Existence

Descartes’ strategy is to prove the existence of God that will then affirm the truth of his perceptions and ultimately find the source of the idea of God. He describes knowing God as being “a substance that is infinite, eternal, immutable, independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful, and which created both [himself] and everything else.” (118) With this claim he realizes that there is more reality in an infinite substance like God than a finite one like himself. His argument explains that all he knows for certain is that he exists and that he is a “thinking thing.” (109) These facts are known to him through “clear and distinct perception,” and he infers that with this method of understanding all of his perceptions are vulnerable to truth. (113) However, he must prove God’s existence in order to confirm the truth of clear and distinct perceptions.

Descartes is able to doubt the existence of some things, but he cannot deny God’s existence because of understanding of God as being perfect and endless. This idea has infinite reality and must be true when compared to other ideas. Given that he exists, then there must be a cause of his existence. If his existence was derived from himself, then he should not have any reason to doubt and desire. Also if he had always existed, then there would be no reason he should continue to exist without a specific force that sustains him. Considering the idea of God, Descartes concludes that God must be the cause of this idea and as a result must exist. (121)

With his conclusion of the existence of God, Descartes questions how he received the idea of God and where the idea originated from. While searching for the answer, he proposes that there are different types of ideas such as innate, fabricated, and adventitious. (115) Innate ideas have always been found within us, invented ideas stem from our imagination, and adventitious ideas come from life experiences. He argues that the idea of God is placed in him by God. Thus, the idea of God is innate, and he was created by God with the idea already within him. Also, since all deception depends on some kind of flaw, Descartes clearly and distinctly perceives that God is no deceiver because He is perfect with no defects.

Perceptions of the Mind

The idea that we do not exist, the question What am I?, imagination and the mind are the main points that Descartes reasons in the second meditation. He wonders if his existence is real and enters a journey of omitting doubt from his thoughts. After realizing that he does exist he wonders what he is.

While searching for the truth about his existence, Descartes starts out by eliminating everything that creates any doubt in his mind. He desires to stay in this path until he has found something certain (108). As his thoughts expand, the idea that God presented him with the thoughts that he had came about. He quickly realized that he must be the author of those thoughts and that if he had the power to think he must exist, "thought exists; it alone cannot be separated from me. I am; I exist ..." (109), he comes to the conclusion that his mind thinks, he is capable of thought therefore he exists. So if he exists what is he?, he ponders "But I do not yet understand sufficiently what I am ..." (108). Coming to the realization that he believes he exists he wants to search for his meaning. The function of thinking makes him question the idea that because he thinks he is but what if he stops thinking? He says "... if I were to cease all thinking I would then utterly cease to exist" (109). With this thought he comes to the conclusion that he is nothing but a thinking thing (109).

Descartes also gives us an example on when perceiving what something is, imagination is not what is being used. The wax that he explains he melts and the shape of the wax changes because of the heat does not change its meaning of wax because its in liquid form or because the color is different. It continues to be wax. Then he wonders, how is it that we perceive wax? Is it through our senses of touch, smell and sight? or our imagination gives us the qualifications for wax? He goes on to say "... I do not grasp what this wax is through the imagination; rather, I perceive it through the mind alone" (111). When the wax changes states our senses tell us that is a different object but that is not the case. Our mind is the one that makes us understand what the object is and this is done through intellect alone (112) and not through the perception of our senses.

Uncertainty of Descartes

It seems to me that in the first part of this writing and the excerpts before it that Descartes says that people should only study things that one can be certain about.(4). By this he meant that it is a waste of time to study things that you will not be able to come to a certain conclusion about. The problem with this is as he states there are very few things that can be studied without certainty, namely arithmetic and geometry. He claims that these two forms of math are so free from doubt because the concept is based on something that cannot be interpreted in any other way as things in nature can be. Because there are so few examples of these types of sciences he says that the only things one can know with certainty are things that can be intuited or deduced; In other words things so obvious that they would be impossible to misconstrue if the people discussing it had any sort of scientific mind.

One of the problems with this is as he claims later that we use our senses to take in all information in the world and we use this information to make our judgments about the sciences. He goes on to say that the sense that is produced doesn’t necessarily have to have any resemblance to the thing that produced it (31) and this can create a problem because the human mind automatically associates one feeling with another, in fact he states “It is the custom of people, whenever they notice any similarity between two things, to attribute to both of them…whatever they have found to be true of either one” (2)

So the mind alters things for the body unconsciously so they can have a better understanding of them so it seems that it would be hard to know anything for certain.

This seems to limit the things available to study down to almost nothing including religion because there is a lot of uncertainty involved that is put down to faith. Later in one of the passages he retracts his claim that the senses are always deceiving, in fact he claims that they are almost always able to tell correctly what is happening, except in two cases, things that are small or distant (104) so this slight correction does nothing to change the fact that religion would be one of the things that is uncertain.

He does however, say that we should not be prevented from believing in divine matters because that is a matter of will and faith and they should be able to be deduced correctly. (7) I was surprised that he wrote this though because that reasoning seems to be so outside of what he was preaching about knowing things for certain and the scientific method. I think his views seem to differ between topics because he does not want to go against religion and say that it shouldn’t be studied despite the fact that it seems in accordance with other things that he says should not be studied.

Follow up to Post: Critical Thinking and Electronic Texts: Distraction

Drum roll please.... I present the partial solution to our inattentive eReading problem. Now you have the ability to mark up pages, lend books to friends, and navigate in full color.

Spinoza and the Religious Fallacy

For philosophers such as Plato, Augustine and Albo, philosophy and theology often were contemplated together. Benedict De Spinoza dismisses this concept, as he believes theology to be rooted in pure faith, and philosophy to be reason based. As reason is not used to prove theological elements, there is no equitable way to compare the two, especially when the faithful have such an ingrained bias. (6) Such biases are a target of great scorn by Spinoza, as he attacks the very element of religion that is faith, considering “Faith has become a mere compound of credulity and prejudices…which degrade man from rational being to beast.” (7) Such degradation of the rationality of man prevents true perception of true and false, ultimately skewing his judgment. Such lack of judgment leads to superstition, an ugly manifestation caused by fear. Superstition, in short, is the exact opposite of everything wisdom stands for. It is the anti-reason. Superstition is a main cause for many quarrels and wars throughout the world, as there is no rational continuity among man. (5) This view on religion differs greatly from Al Farabi’s, who believes it is a means of promoting good within a community, regardless of factual truth.

Why is it that these two philosophers believe similarly on the (potential) ‘factual’ fallacy of religion, but differ so drastically on the practical implications?

The difference lies in the synthesis of religion, and the nature of belief. Al Farabi is concerned mainly with how religion is used within a community towards good, coming after philosophy. (Book of Letters, 2) He states that philosophy is first, but does not articulate the importance of the separation between theology and philosophy. To him, the two are parallel thought processes, while to Spinoza, theology without reason is parasitic to philosophy. Due to this lack of reason he believes to be caused by ‘blind faith,’ there can be no ‘real’ proving of religion. Not only does faith prevent reason, differences in personal faith prevents unification - “As men’s habits of mind differ, so that some more readily embrace one form of faith…[another] scoffs.” (10) In order to banish the misinformation that arises from the superstitious nature of religion, we must prioritize reason. In doing so, we can realize that there is little reasoning behind religion. As we concern ourselves with superstition, we are binding ourselves to temporal gains and disregarding wisdom - the eternal. Moving towards reason and the eternal is the goal of Spinoza, as it allows for the most rational behavior to occur.

Critical Thinking and Electronic Texts: Distraction

I am including below a link to a blog on the NYTimes with a debate, of sorts, between a number of literacy and technology experts on the topic of electronic reading. This is something that has fascinated me for a while, because I am something of a bibliophile. I think I am finally at the point where I could narrate what I take to be an interesting account of learning how to read. Obviously, by the latter I don't simply mean the interpretation of the words on the screen or on the page, but the active engagement with a text, which is really what reading is all about.

The debate on electronic versus paper reading would seem to be a simple, at first glance: do people have a more difficult or an easier time in reading from a screen? But in fact there are a number of related questions about the process of reading--the comprehension and "active engagement," as I put it above, with the text, which are affected by the difference in medium. In particular, these experts seem agreed that there is a tendency to distraction and a dramatically shortened attention span that attends reading from a screen. This is partially an effect of our experience of reading hypertext, on sites like the NY Times or Wikipedia or whatnot, which in knowledge is always produced in small, quickly consumable segments. But a novel or a book of philosophy requires something quite different.

Check it out:
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/does-the-brain-like-e-books/

I would be curious to hear your opinions, particularly since probably most of you have grown up in this digital environment ...

The Delineation of Societies’ Laws

A law enforces the principles and edicts established in a community by some jurisdiction and applicable to its people – this is the cardinal statement that has been made by Joseph Albo in The Book of Principles. He expounds on the basic teachings of Judaism with its accent on superiority of the divine law. The essence of Albo’s philosophy is the affinity between divine revelation in both reward and punishment for human deeds. The supremacy of the divine law is revealed in the context of Albo’s work, when cultivating optimal individual traits. Albo contrasts the nomic and divine laws, demonstrating a bias to the divine law. He emphasizes the binding factor of divine Law which proves to be the most perfect kind of law, as it is intended for man's “true happiness.”(248)

Albo begins to explore the aspects of laws that govern the human race by differentiating three principal laws, which are natural, nomic and divine law. He compares nomic law to divine law, while explaining the meaning of natural law as a universal law which equally applies to all the people always and everywhere. The laws are intended to promote justice and manage (even eradicate) injustice; however, they are divergent in their rationale. Nomic law is not regarded as completely fair due to its ambiguity, while divine law gives precise and specific guidelines. Divine law intends to guide individuals in obtaining true happiness and at the same time it teaches society to refrain from abstract happiness so they do not accrue false hope.

The author argues no man’s intellect is adequate to differentiate correctly between “fair and despicable.”(242) He asserts the primary reason for which the nomic law fails to be equal to divine law is because of nomic law’s enduring focus on merely what is fair and what is not fair. The overriding advantage of divine law is its ability to “embrace perfection in moral qualities and doctrines, which are the two parts upon which the perfection of the soul depends.” (244) Restoration of the soul is the final outcome in the process of human perfection that comes as a result of divine law.

From the onset of the excerpt the author provides the reader with a meticulous defense of the ideas dealing with divine law. In turn, Albo exhibits superiority of the divine law over the nomic law. The ideas are supported by a steady stream of arguments that are presented to the reader in a straightforward manner. Albo illustrates the failure of nomic law to differentiate between the “fair and despicable” (244). As I see it, Albo addresses profound problems of human existence that are often marked by the conflict of choice between the divine and nomic laws. In addition, Albo questions human intellect. So, do we really have to live by nomic law or divine law? Or maybe both?

Stanley Fish on Philosophy and the Law

I think it would be fair to call Stanley Fish is a professor of "critical thinking". The below link connects to a blog that he writes for the New York Times. In this blog posting, he writes about a new book examining the practice of "academic abstention", which denotes the ways in which universities are exempt from oversight of the law.

Although Fish doesn't purport to take up Al-Farabi's concerns about philosophy in relation to religion or law, his account of the relation between academic institutions and judicial oversight bears a clear resemblance to it.

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/the-rise-and-fall-of-academic-abstinence/

What makes both philosophy and the academy "select", such that they are not/were not held to judgment by the law? Has that principle changed?

The Superiority of Philosophy

According to Al-Farabi in The Book of Letters in society, theology comes out of the religion and religion comes out of philosophy (1). Al-Farabi goes on to explain the natural progression in a society. Firstly, he says that out of the multitude in society, philosophers are the only ones that are select because everyone else is only similar to them but they all originate from the philosophers (4) maintaining their importance in society. Then Al-Farabi goes back at starts from the beginning of the development in society to discuss how the multitude comes first, followed by language, and expressions and such (4-9). At this point, Society then turns to art (16). The five arts are rhetoric, poetry, capacity to memorize/recite, linguistics, and writing. As people master the arts, they begin to look for explanations of things around them (17) and then philosophy is born. As more things are perfected, society continues to evolve and then these arts are taught to people (19). Following teaching is lawgiving, meaning that the multitude are taught “theoretical intelligible” (19) through these representations because they are unable to understand in any other way. Then a group may start that wants to look more closely at religion. If the founder of the religion explains the bases of it’s philosophy than the group has nothing left to discuss (20). If the founder of religion is not upfront with the philosophy then theology develops as a way to interpret what the founder meant. When this occurs, so does the opportunity for false opinions of that religion. Those who follow this religion “will be unaware of it’s corruption” (21). When this corruption takes place, religion and philosophy become completely opposed (22). Nations may inherit religions or create them but the problem is that if the religion is based on false philosophy and the nation incorporates it into the law then philosophy will be forbidden “because the religion that the lawgiver has given them was a corrupt and ignorant” (23) one. Therefore, nations should not forbid philosophy because since philosophy precedes religion it is the way to discover the corruption and untrue about religion.
Philosophy is superior to theology because theology only studies these corrupt religions while philosophy studies the ideas behind the religions. Theology also has the capability of being corrupt while philosophy does not because it would not fall victim to the false philosophies as religion and therefore theology has.
-Heather Lothrop

Best Website-For Bibliographies

http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/easywriter3e/docsource/1d.asp

I found this on blackboard. If you haven't seen it and you bibliography is bad, use this website its the best I've ever used. Sorry if this is to late :D

A STRESS RELIEF AFTER A HARD ESSAY

Human Life As Seen in the City of God

Book XIX of Augustine’s Political Writings explores ideas pertaining to both “supreme good” and “happiness” through the city of God. Notably, these ideas all relate to Augustine’s virtues of justice, prudence, courage, and temperance, in any way, shape or form.

In looking at the premises, Augustine’s intuitive outlook explicitly states, “true virtues cannot exist except in those who possess true piety” (146). Furthermore, “well-being,” which will be found in the future world, directly relates to happiness. By and far, happiness is acquired through patience and hope, primarily because “we are among evils … until we arrive at those goods” (147). Therefore, live necessarily involves many evils, which pose problems. However, Augustine illustrates the idea of the “supreme good” in the context through peace as opposed to war. For instance, “peace is such a great good that even with respect to earthly and mortal things, nothing is heard with greater pleasure” (150). Thus, Augustine states “that the end of this city … is either ‘peace in eternal life’ or ‘eternal life in peace” (150). On the other hand, Augustine explicitly refers to the Republic of Cicero, where he states that the Romans never really were a people. Augustine argues that the Romans did not possess the virtue of justice, which fairly unites men through a consensus concerning right. Therefore, the city of God is notably the only “true city” because justice exists. Justice exists in the city of God when the “one and supreme God rules his obedient city according to his grace” (162). Consequently, a fellowship of people in the city of God lives by faith, which works through love. Book XX closely follows the question of the last judgment, where Christ will come from heaven to judge the living and the dead.

Both Books XIX and XX provide reasonable explicit accounts where both God and virtues are centerpieces of society. Both these significant pieces are keys to attaining “happiness,” “well-being,” and the “supreme good.” Therefore, is Augustine’s argument viable? Also, should Augustine’s argument, along with the premises outlined, be recognized in its entirety by society?

The defining moment of reason for the conception of original sin

Synopsis:
On Free Choice of the Will: Book Two by Augustine, explores the reasoning (logic) behind our universal attainability of knowledge. This particular book is written through a Socratic Dialogue between Augustine and Evodius, eventually giving way to the culmination of insight that is God’s unmistakable power to provide us with all knowledge of which, using our free choice of will, can be attainable through our omnipresent faith in the deity.

Premises:
1) Evil in the world is the foundation of sin, at the same time, “wisdom, [is] the sweetest light of a purified mind” (61). Explicit

2) Sin (evil’s accomplice) is the inevitable result of a lack knowledge provided to us by the all-truthful, sinless wisdom of God. “But truth and wisdom are common to all, and all who are wise and happy become so by cleaving to truth and wisdom”(68). Explicit

3) “But every good thing comes from God, so there is no nature that does not come from God. On the other hand, every defect comes from nothing, and that movement of turning away, which we admit is sin, is a defective movement” (69). All of those whom do not follow God and his divine wisdom are considered sinners, simply promulgating a “defective movement,” a changeful and corruptive pursuit of nothingness, unable to attain knowledge through the wisdom of God. Implicit

Conclusion:
C) Sin (evil) equates to dynamic nothingness, a pliable globule if you will, providing the world with no imminent sustainable value and evidently lacking discernible reasoning. Further, sin is resultant of a mere defect that is not provided to us by nature, but by that of man’s (the sinner's) own impiously willed contrivances.

Question(s):
Q. A) Although, God inculcates us with the ability to chose faith in order to reason or attain knowledge as result of God’s all-truthful wisdom, are we in-fact destined to faith as a part of God’s master (void the obvious paradox) plan which eventually converts to death, life fulfilled with knowledge, or life lacking-in knowledge or reason? In other words, despite the conception of Free Will, does God in-fact determine our ability to pursue the wisdom of God through individual faith, permitting us to bear the fruits of God’s wisdom (knowledge or ability to reason), while we metaphorically skip down the yellow brick road?

Q. B) As sin is neither a piece of the eidos, nor a function provided to us by the most superior unchangeable entity that provides us with holistic truth (God), does sin in-fact exist? According to Augustine, nothingness is a euphemism for sin, thus can sin be demarcated with its own conception? Considering its figurative vivisection, can sin be discovered through any concurrence of epistemological validity?

Humans & Their Free Choice of the Will

In On Free Choice of the Will, we look at the different views that both Augustine and Evodius have about "why God gave human beings free choice of the will" (29). In this passage they are asking why would God give humans the ability to sin if it is not just? It is believed that God only gives good gifts. Evodius continually tries to question free will and why God gave humans the ability to create evil acts in the world. Augustine then justifies his belief as to why we can also use free will to sin, “but we should not therefore believe that God gave them free will so that they would be able to sin” (30). This is a very interesting point that Evodius does not seem to grasp onto. One who chooses to sin cannot justify his actions by using his God given ability as an excuse; as God only expects good in people and those who choose to do otherwise are punished for their sins. Augustine and Evodius believe that their faith is what gives them their knowledge to believe in these things in God’s existence. So if one chooses to act in an evil manner, it is still their free choice of will?

God is seen as the highest power and it is believed that he would never give humans the right to do wrong. Augustine begins to question Evodius about existence and whether or not God really does exist and why. This is where Evodius explains “there are these three things: existence, life, and understand” (33). If humans contain those characteristics even if they just contain one of those then they are considered to be in existence. Is this really the way to validate that things exist? How are we so sure that God exists? Evodius is certain that “God should not have given us free choice of the will because whoever sins does so by free choice” (64). So therefore, that makes God only a creator of good and not evil?