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.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
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)
Friday, November 20, 2009
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)
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)
Thursday, November 19, 2009
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!
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!
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
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.
Monday, November 16, 2009
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.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
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)
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)
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
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
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.
Friday, November 6, 2009
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).
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).
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)