"The Century of The Self"

The following are from a BBC documentary called "The Century of the Self", which looks at the ways that those in power have used Freud's theories to try and control the dangerous crowd in an age of mass democracy.

Tragic views of property.

People are defined by things--- cards, systems. Everthing and everyone a commodity…ratings. I believe we as a society entitle ourselves to too much property these days. I find Locke’s views of property to be quite distinguished. The U.S. is a primary example of each person having too much property. We do not consider our body, as well as what we can use to be our sole property. Today, in our society, we are DEFINED by our property. We want as much of it as we can get. This I believe is a great tragedy, and according to Locke, almost an abomination.

Racism Part 3

Going along with Jon and Justin, I wanted to go back to Racism. Jon makes several valid arguments, one being that we need to focus on different ethnicities, not classifying people into certain categories such as “Asian or Mexican.” In today’s society, many people are against the great influx of immigrants into America. I’ve heard various “prophesies” that in several years, America will be a Hispanic nation. Lately, many people use the word “Mexican” in a derogatory fashion. They refer to Latinos, Spaniards, and Hispanics all as one: “Mexican.” First of all, disregarding a person’s ethnicity is not only inconsiderate, but many Hispanics or Latinos are offended to be called “Mexican,” for that robs them of their heritage and forces them into an incorrect category. I do find it strange that we are so worried about certain races becoming prominent in our society. For although no person wants his traditions or race to necessarily die out, America is supposedly a nation for all people. Why then are we so concerned with the influx of immigrants? In the last few years, the Hispanic population in Memphis has grown tremendously. The city itself is changing. I’ve always heard comments made about the number of people that live in a Hispanic household, referring to their economic status as being very poor. However, I believe this is a common misconception. Hispanics tend to have stronger family ties than most American families, thus the extended family lives in the house with the nuclear family in many cases. It is a part of their culture. Racism is tied to most of these misconceptions and derogatory terms. Thus what could be done to rid society of racism? According to the AAA (American Anthropological Association), race is not even biologically its own category. I would like to agree with Rousseau in that the self is a “good self, knowledgeable of society and “distinctively moral.” But when as Rousseau said does the “hero actually end up by cutting every throat till he finds himself, at last, sole master of the world?” As many agreed in class, we are inclined to look out for number one. For many people, that includes looking out for their own race and being thus recognized by it. We have more differences within our own race than between races….there’s really something wrong when we don’t care about the next human being.

Acting Upon One's Instincts

I feel like expressing some thoughts concerning a particular issue addressed on the 25^th of September. As you may recall, Professor Johnson asked the class what our human instinct would be if the people in our class were trapped in our classroom, with a limited food supply, and the only humans left in the world.  After a huge debate, it turned out that our class as a whole reacted in a way that labeled us “cynical” and that we “need to start the search for values again!”  In this blog, I hope bring up some new perspectives and hopefully make particular members in our class think things over so our professor won’t think that they’ll have to go through three semesters of search again at Rhodes College!

            I must start off by stating the difference between animal instinct and human instinct.  Common sense will tell you that if there were a group of six starving dogs, and only one piece of meat large enough to satisfy only one dog, the dogs’ instincts would be to fight for the meat.  An animal has the instinct to survive, even if that means fighting and ultimately killing for whatever is necessary for survival.  Humans, especially the students in Dr. Johnson’s class, on the other hand are rational beings.  If our class were trapped in our classroom starving with a very limited food supply, would we act like dogs?  A rationally minded person may have an initial instinct of doing whatever is possible to stay alive, but actually acting upon that instinct is another thing.  A rational person would recognize other people, their conditions, and help lend their hand those who are weaker given the circumstances and possible consequences.

            Whether or not a classmate lends their hand out to another person during an adverse time is not necessarily dependent on their character.  A rationally minded person should be able to take everything surrounding them into consideration before acting upon their instincts.  They should be able to view things from the perspective of the weak people in the classroom.  Someone who is rational would not take on such aggression to the point of letting someone else die—it is not the fault of a weak person that they are left on the earth and in their condition.  In our case, a rational minded person would divide the food so that everyone would have equal amount instead of bully others and fighting for all the food.

            Some may argue that according to what I’m saying, if a person who’s unable to swim falls in a lake and is drowning, a rational person who is an unskilled swimmer would “jump in” and save them.  This is not the case.  By any means, a rational person may have that instinct, but actually acting upon that instinct is a different story.  A rational person would try desperately to save the other person through other means, but they would know that because they are not a lifeguard and will probably drown (along with the one who is actually drowning), they wouldn’t jump in.  Overall, if someone is rational, it doesn’t mean that they are going to go out and try to save everyone.  Given the circumstances, a rational minded person would maximize the survival of themselves and others equally.

 

I hope I have expressed my thoughts clearly.  Please comment and ask me anything you may be confused about.

 

The strong move quiet, the weak start riots.

Here’s a scenario: eighteen students and one professor are sitting in Found class in 203 Palm Tree Hall at Roads College when bullets burst through the windows. There is nowhere to hide as the steady stream of bullets flows into the classroom, leaving each student (and professor) to try to protect themselves by diving behind bodies and placing others in front of the bullets.

Think this isn’t a feasible scenario? Ask Kinji Fukasaku, director of the movie Battle Royale, who worked in a munitions factory during World War II. His entire class was drafted when he was fifteen to work in the factory and one day they were caught in artillery fire. With nowhere to hide, his classmates dove under each other to shield themselves from harm.

This, my friends, is Rousseau’s view of the natural man in society: the self-serving and self-interested human always interested in survival and self-preservation. We argued recently about whether or not it was essential for humanity’s survival for humans to be co-dependent upon one another, and brought up several post-apocalyptic scenarios in which there could be a dichotomy of choices, namely whether or not to help those weaker than you or just leave them behind.

I offer this link to a fantastic movie that we previously viewed in the Philosophy Film Series last year: Battle Royale. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1225842003597524246

You can ignore the stuff in the intro about the adults fearing the children and all that stuff. It doesn’t make much sense. Just keep watching.

In this movie, a class of 9th graders is sent to an island and given weapons and a three day time limit in which they must kill all others on the island. If there is more than one person alive after three days are up, everyone dies. The question then, my fellow classmates, is whether or not we can kill each other to survive. The answer, as we quickly see, is yes. Factions quickly form within the class and there is a general lack of unity among the classmates as they almost all turn on each other and kill each other in an attempt to survive. One might argue that the reason factions form is due to humans’ need to interact and depend upon each other, but I offer this counterpoint: cold-hearted Kiriyama almost won the game and he operated entirely as a lone wolf. I argue that factions are alliances of convenience which often deteriorate when no external threat is present. Later in the movie, a group of girls that hide in a watchtower turn on each other as mutual suspicion rises and there is nothing to keep them united. This pattern is not new, as the girls’ inevitable betrayals echo the course of history. Take the alliance of the U.S. and U.S.S.R. against Nazi Germany, for example.

The other argument that one might derive from this movie is that in the end love conquers all, and since it is love between two people that allows them to both survive the game, it proves humanity’s co-dependence. To this I say that the two lovers are an anomaly in a system full of people that are overwhelmingly interested in serving themselves.

I encourage you all to watch this movie (it’s only an hour and 15 minutes) and reply to my questions:

1) Do you believe in Rousseau’s view of human nature? If not, why?
2) Do you believe that survival is the ultimate incentive for humans? Is it realistic for humans to consistently sacrifice themselves for others? We see two examples of this in the movie (The rogue Kawada, who won a previous game of Battle Royale through the grace of his love, and of course the two lover protagonists Shuya and Noriko.) Are these two examples glitches in the system? Or are they true representations of human nature? If they are, then what justifies the actions of the other players in the game?

She's not emotional, just hormonal.

Kant places too high a value on the human capacity to think rationally. Kant’s ideology speak to how humankind ought to act, and in doing so, speaks to the ideals upon which we strive to achieve but realistically fall short of doing. We are fallible beings with the capability to seek moral authority by way of acting rationally in a rational world. That being said, the Kantian human model turns humankind into something of a machine by discounting emotional influence on human action. As Solomon wrote of Hegel’s disillusionment with Kantian moral principles, such a character that abides by the categorical imperative would be utterly deplorable.

I find it fascinating that by divorcing emotion from rational, Kant’s ideal person is something of an outcast. We as human beings who function within a societal context and are fundamentally dependent upon interaction with each other do not discern emotion from rational judgment; indeed, emotions consistently guide rationale as a means upon which to make decisions. Though imperfect and certainly not absolute by way of its subjectivism, this system upon which we as humans decide how we go about deciding is, well, distinctly human. Perhaps Kant’s rigid moral structure would be more feasible if we view the achievement of a kingdom of ends as being achieved by a superhuman population. So long as Kant’s “ought” is an “ought,” Kant strives for humankind to achieve something above itself, something above its nature, something outside of its capabilities. Kant believes that it is perfectly feasible for human’s to act as such at this very moment by use of our rational minds; I believe that we will never sacrifice our propensity towards empathy or self-interest without losing our humanity with it.

Out of Curiosity...

I don't really remember how we ended up rationalizing that me committing a crime (probably a violent one, like committing a massacre while on PCP) makes it okay for everyone else to do so. In my PCP-induced madness, I clearly did not follow the supreme law of all morality, but does that really make it okay for everyone else to do likewise? Kant's laws are still in place, regardless of whether or not I follow them. Are you not held to the same moral laws?

Since I am irrational and immoral (whether this is due to PCP or if I just happened to be a psycho anyway), I am not willing my maxim of murder as universal law. There is no intent for my subjective principle to become an objective one, but since I am acting irrationally and on impulse I really would not be willing anything. I may be denying people their freedoms by denying their right to live, but if I am not doing this consciously, intentionally, or rationally, how am I breaking the maxim for EVERYONE? Just curious...