almostincognito's Xanga

Monday, January 12, 2009

Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:34:15 GMT

Jackie, a friend of mine who I work with at the Newman Center, asked me to write a reflection for Lent.. I thought I'd post it here too. It's not finished, I think, but I just sat down and let my fingers do what they would after having read the passage a few times. Here's the initial result.

Matthew 6:1-6, 16-18

"Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them; for then you have no reward from your Father in heaven.

"So whenever you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be praised by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be done in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

"And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

"And whenever you fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces so as to show others that they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that your fasting may be seen not by others but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

This reading from Matthew is apt for the Lenten season we are about to enter into. Ash Wednesday is the day when we receive ashes upon our heads as an outward reflection of our inner beliefs and of our repentance. This reading reminds us that true piety is shown not in practicing one’s religion for all to see, but in the quiet reflection which is done behind closed doors, done silently in the car, or a quick prayer for strength whispered just before an exam. Though we receive ashes upon our heads, it is not the ashes which procure us our reward in Heaven, but the beliefs which they symbolize and the repentance which earned them. Our silent relationship with God is reflected through our actions and relationships with each other, in giving ourselves and in our attempt to follow in the footsteps of Jesus Christ. This reading tells us that the glory of Christ does not shine through those who proclaim their own piety, but in those who humble themselves before the Lord and live according to His word. The literal meaning of the reading is that God does not reward us double for our actions. If we seek a worldly reward for our charity and our belief in God, then we shall receive it, however if we give praise and humble ourselves quietly before the Lord, with no concern for worldly acclaim and our minds on the life and the world to come, He shall reward us in Heaven. We only get one reward for our actions, whether it is in this life or the next depends on us.

Shake a spear

Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:29:51 GMT

Wrote this for my English survey course. Sonnet 20, not sure what it's actually about, but here we go.

The Design of Sonnet 20

Shakespearian sonnets are one of the most recognized forms of poetry today. His collection of sonnets has influenced poets from the time of their publication and they serve as the penultimate model for romantic poetry. William Shakespeare’s Sonnet 20 is a great example of his poetic ingenuity because it serves as a turning point in the direction of his sonnets. They all express a certain ambiguity within them about their meaning which is directed by the structure of the poem itself, and sonnet 20 is a particularly interesting example because the entire poem is written out of form with the rest of them. The Shakespearian sonnet consists of three quatrains followed by a couplet most of which are in iambic pentameter. Sonnet 20 follows the basic structure; however it has one extra syllable in each of its lines breaking the form of iambic pentameter. The break in poetic form is usually a sign to the reader that this particular line is important or significant in some way or that the meaning text is not what is on the surface, but it is hidden in a double meaning. The fact that the entirety of sonnet 20 is one syllable over meter points out that it is a fundamentally important sonnet to the meaning and overall context for the rest of the collection.

Sonnet 20’s unique derivation from the regular form of the Shakespearian sonnet indicates that William Shakespeare intended this particular poem to stand out in the reader’s mind, it is intended to carry crucial information which influences the meanings of nearly all the other sonnets in this collection. Sonnet 20 is also quite interesting because throughout the poem there is a theme of binary pairs. The male and female, true and false, passion/pleasure and love, these pairs are highlighted in the poem, standing in opposition to one another yet expressed all within the same person. Shakespeare addresses the sexuality of his subject as well as the nature of his desire for his subject in this sonnet and the structure of the rhyme, meter, and even the interior composition of each line influences its meaning.

Sonnet 20 has a normal rhyme scheme of a Shakespearian sonnet consisting of 3 sets of quatrains followed by a couplet. Each quatrain consists of four lines with an alternating rhyme scheme of A-B-A-B. The rhyming pattern in sonnet 20 does not break from this structure, however within the normal scheme there is still room for placement of profound meaning. They rhyming pattern of the sonnet creates a medium for the poet to express a double meaning in his words. The use of certain words instead of others and the modification of normal words to fit a rhyme scheme allude to the importance of these words and require extra attention.

The third quatrain of this sonnet uses a particularly interesting rhyme, which although the words are spelled with the same lettering they don’t necessarily rhyme when pronounced. Lines 10 and 12 of the sonnet end with the words ‘created’ and ‘defeated’, which to the eye seem like they should rhyme, but when said aloud, one must alter the pronunciation of ‘defeated’ to ‘de-fated’ which contains in itself another meaning. The meaning of this slant rhyme is pretty clear taken from the context of the literal verse. The addition of the idea of defeat is added to by the concept of fate, which is prevalent in much of Shakespeare’s works, such as Romeo and Juliet, Othello, Richard III and others. The incorporation of fate into this work brings about the idea that it was fated that the poet should love the young man, but never be able to consummate this love because it was against the will of nature. The word choice in sonnet 20 alludes to the anger which the poet feels towards this ill fate. Yet at the same time he accepts his inability to physically have his desires satisfied because of the inevitability of fate thus necessarily modifying the nature of his love.

The couplet at the end of a sonnet is intended to carry or solidify an overarching meaning established by the preceding sets of quatrains. The couplet consists of two lines which normally rhyme and they serve as a way to neatly wrap up the sonnet and tie up the end of the rhyme. The couplet of this sonnet carries no less significance than the rest because it too is one syllable over meter. The intention of this dissonance with the normal iambic scheme indicates that what he is saying is either very important and that it could be that he is either stressing the meaning of his words or it is possible that the poet is telling us that there is another meaning to be found.

Shakespeare chooses terms in this sonnet which present binary opposition in many of the lines contrasting often between male and female, light and dark, and true and false. The association of the subject of his poem is to both sides of the binary, making the young man who is spoken about a mediator between the two and as such an object of desire for the poet. The man is a ‘master mistress’ which in the context of the sonnet is read that he is both the master and the lady of the house which is the poet’s passion, but read more closely implies that the youth is a master at keeping their sexual passions a secret, much like a female mistress must do. The word choice added to the structural composition of this sonnet, which implies that there’s more than meets the eye, allows for various interpretations upon these details and gives a certain ambiguity to Shakespeare’s intent.

It could have easily been that Shakespeare made the last line of the sonnet within iambic pentameter by removing the word ‘be’ and retaining the overall meaning of the sentence, but it is there causing the extra syllable. Much like any of the other lines, there is an obvious intent in causing the entire sonnet to break the iambic pentameter scheme and as to what this intent is I believe that it signifies that the poet is saying more than what the words are presenting. By using the binary opposition of the male-female roles and gendered words the poet portrays the young man he speaks of as if he were a woman, and despite his physical gender, the poet regards him as his ‘mistress’.

Negation and affirmation in the sonnet are used as powerful tools to create added meaning to the individual lines as well as the overall context of the poem. In lines 3 and 4 the poet is describing his lover’s heart as being ‘gentle’ like a woman’s but more temperate than a normal “false woman’s fashion”. The use of the negation in line four has a double meaning because of the ambiguity of its subject. The falsehood of the subject is on the surface meaning that women who are unfaithful have a certain way of acting, but the hidden meaning implies that there is a certain way that false women (meaning a man playing a feminine role) normally behave. The implication here is that the men who play feminine roles in life or sexual relationships are inconstant in the expression of this role. The “false women’s” hearts are subject to a “shifting change” and may deny the fact that they are playing the part of a woman at all. The use of negation in this line adds a compound meaning to the sentence and makes it incredibly clear that not only is his subject more honest than a woman, but he is even more honest than a normal male lover.

The sonnet is divided into two parts, both of which deal with describing the object of the poet’s desire. The first describes the power of his love’s appeal in his appearance and in his demeanor. The second deals with the poet’s disappointment and acceptance of the impossibility of the consummation of his love. The language of the first part is full of adjectives which describe the man as gentle in his heart, yet powerful in and by the beauty of his appearance. The man has a “gentle heart” and bright eyes, “less false in rolling”, meaning that he is caring, intelligent, and honest. The power of his appearance is expressed in the beauty which is attributed to him. The man has a “woman’s face” which is naturally beautiful, untouched by cosmetics. His beauty is the “master [and] mistress” of the poet’s passion. The poet’s description of his subject alludes to the presence which they possess, in lines 7 and 8 the poet describes him as a “man in hue, all hues in his controlling”, meaning that not only is he a man in form or silhouette, but he has the ability to take on any form he chooses and has control over all of them. When this person enters the room all people take notice, he “steals men’s eyes” not only because of his physical beauty but because of this aura about him.

The second half of the sonnet is devoted to the personal feelings which the poet has towards this man. Sonnet 20 is rife with sexually explicit language from reference to the male genitals to eroticism of homosexuality. Lines 9 through 14 are almost entirely devoted to expressing the poet’s disappointment at his subject having been born with a penis and that this fact makes it impossible that he should take the expression of his love to its greatest length. There are words and phrases laden with double meaning all alluding to a phallus and the fact that it defeats the poet’s desires. The adjectives used to describe the way nature has created the man are used in such a way to not only describe the actual action of creation, but also allude to the parts which are made. The obvious connotation behind the word “pricked” in line 13 alluding to his penis being chosen for “women’s pleasure” prevents him from being a sexual partner in the conventional sense of a heterosexual relationship as well as the literal meaning being that the man was chosen to suit women’s desires. The poet in line 14 however, accepts the physical reality of the man he desires and accepts that though he cannot possess a truly fulfilling physical relationship, the poet may still be a lover in spirit and the man may yet satisfy women in a physical nature.

Sonnet 20 of William Shakespeare’s collection of over 150 poems is a pivotal point in the collection because it is an expression of physical and emotional desire for this young man as well as a self-realization that the poet was defeated from the beginning by nature and it is not in his fate to be able to have his passions fulfilled. The sonnet is constructed in such a way that multiple layers of meaning are made available and through the use of altered meter, subtle choice of language, and rhyme the poet conveys his dual meaning. The passions of the poet’s words are enhanced through the duality of his language while his physical lust and ultimate disappointment is hidden under a layer of apparent ambiguity.

Line

1 A woman’s face with Nature’s own hand painted

2 Hast thou, the master mistress of my passion;

3 A woman’s gentle heart but not acquainted

4 With shifting change as is false women’s fashion:

5 An eye more bright than theirs, less false in rolling,

6 Gilding the object whereupon it gazeth;

7 A man in hue all hues in his controlling,

8 Which steals men’s eyes and women’s souls amazeth.

9 And for a woman wert thou first created,

10 Till Nature as she wrought thee fell a-doting,

11 And by addition me of thee defeated,

12 By adding one thing to my purpose nothing.

13 But since she pricked thee out for women’s pleasure,

14 Mine be thy love, and thy love’s use their treasure.

Three Musketeers

Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:26:15 GMT

So I originally started out this paper writing about the Ninja Turtles, because they're friggin sweet, but my teacher thought that might have been a little low brow which scared me into going towards culture. It got a B, but somehow I got an A in the class.

The patterns which are ascribed to heroes by Raglan[1] may in many ways be applied to groups of heroes or heroic teams such as the Ninja Turtles, the Fantastic Four, or the Three Musketeers. The traits of a hero outlined in Raglan’s Quest of the Hero are applicable to these groups because they are all centralized around a commonality among the heroes who comprise the membership of the group. The ways in which they acquire their heroic status, as well as the challenges which they face are almost exclusively shared among all of them, and in this way they function as a singular unit. To analyze the dynamics presented by a group of heroes I will focus upon the characters of Dumas’ Three Musketeers[2].

Because of the nature of the group each of the members may individually meet Raglans specifications, but the group as a whole misses the mark entirely. The dynamic of the social element presented in a group of heroes alters the basic concept of a hero from the idea of the individual finding his place in the world, to not only that, but how once he has found his place, how this position fits into the broader existence of the global society and in many cases into a universal order. Through analyzing the dynamics of heroic groups we can see how they reflect the struggle of the individual to find their place in their own immediate social network, as well as their attempt at understanding how their family, community, or society fits into context of the world at large. The definition of a hero in the context of a social group makes it apparent that whenever there is a need for heroic action, someone will step up to the challenge, especially if they have the social network to provide support. In this way the individual members of a group of heroes are not necessarily heroic by their own right, but they are made heroic by their membership to the group.

I will attempt to show how the patterns of a hero outlined by Raglan apply to the group as well as one of the individuals who comprise it and through this it will be apparent how the dynamics of a group acting as heroes in some ways adhere to this pattern and others are in conflict with it. A new pattern arises from the group of heroes because it seems that alone each of the members are not heroic in their own right, it is only through the group that each of them may be considered to have heroic status.

The Musketeers are the personal body guards of the king of France, and in the film they are in danger of being disbanded so that the Cardinal Richelieu may over-throw the monarchy. d’Artagnon the main hero of the story is from a noble family in Glascon (1), he leaves his home in Glascon to become a Musketeer (7/10), upon his arrival in Paris, he is assaulted and loses nearly all his possessions (6), after meeting with Athos, Porthos, and Aramis and fighting for their cause (11) he is enlisted as a Musketeer (13). D’Artagnon by himself scores merely 6. These aspects of the character d’Artagnon are only vaguely in accordance with the pattern outlined by Raglan.

The story of the Musketeers as a whole is somewhat interesting when the heroic patterns are applied because it seems to fall in reverse order in places. The Musketeers are created as the personal body guards to the king of France (2), they remain honored in their post for years (14), but soon the Cardinal Richelieu conspires against the king and in doing so disbands them (16/17). The pattern then reverts to the beginning of the pattern, because although there is an attempt to destroy them (6), Porthos, Aramis, and Athos rebel and keep safe in hiding (7). Upon meeting d’Artagnon they are presented with an opportunity for redemption and return to Paris to protect the king (11), whereupon they are reinstated as the official body guards (13). Again however the pattern only scores 8.

The most interesting component of the heroic group is that each of the members maintains their humanity while still being part of something superhuman. They each may follow their personal pursuits so long as those goals conform to the overall goal of the group. In the Three Musketeers, d’Artagnon’s primary goal was to become a member of the Musketeers, in following this goal of his he achieved the goals of the group as a whole, which at the time was survival and protection of the state. The ability for each member of the group to remain an individual while at the same time achieve a heroic status as a whole is significant because normal heroes must give up their individual lives and make sacrifices because of their heroic status. Whether this sacrifice of self is voluntary or not, it seems that it is necessary for the hero to have a flaw in either their being or in their personal life. This flaw is created in the process by which they become a hero. This aspect of the hero is not present in the heroic group because as a group, each individual member is in and of themselves wholly replaceable. The individual is of no great significance to the definition of the whole. Each individual is important to the success of the group, but so far as the direction or goal of the group, each individual member is secondary.

The heroic pattern created by Raglan assumes that each hero is immutable and that all those who rise to heroic status encounter their challenges alone. This assumption is clearly false because there is rarely ever a time when any person takes on a challenge, personal or public, alone. The inclusion of others into the struggle of the individual for a greater cause has been a theme in mythologies which often times revolve around social conflict. This theme is present whenever there is a threat of political change or social disorder. The story of The Three Musketeers was formed by an author who lived immediately following the French Revolution and personally witnessed the upheavals and consequences of this action. His heroes exhibit the qualities and characteristics of normal people whose livelihood is threatened by a force greater than them and they must unite to fight it or die individually.

Often times the revolutionary group or society manifests itself in the form of a single hero. The hero who exemplifies the qualities which are valued by the group and move the group to action are displayed in this central figure to the story, but these qualities do not necessarily make that figure a hero. The heroic element still remains with the group as a whole, because it is within the group that the ideal of the movement lies, and it is through the action of the group that the goal is ultimately achieved. In the case of The Three Musketeers, the three remaining Musketeers would not have had their opportunity to avenge themselves had d’Artagnon not displayed the brazen, even foolhardy, determination that he did. D’Artagnon displays several of the qualities of a man upheld by the Musketeers, and these qualities are those things which at first get him in trouble, but in the end they are what enable and evoke Porthos, Aramis, and Athos into action against the treasonous Cardinal. Alone d’Artagnon’s headstrong nature and borderline foolhardy courage would get him into trouble, as it did in the beginning of the film when he accepts challenges from three different men in one day. Had the fight not been interrupted he surely would have been killed or wounded and therefore unable to join the Musketeers to become the hero who he was meant to be. The characteristics which make a hero, often times may bring him close to causing his own destruction.

Because of the nature of groups and social orders, the gender of the individuals which comprise the groups often times does not matter. The members of the Musketeers are all men, however this is just one group among many others. The Argonauts had Medea, the X-Men, the Justice League and even the knights of Arthur’s court accepted female members or leadership (as in the case of Guenevere). The group of heroes, as I have stated earlier, often times reflects the society as it transitions from one political system to another or as it evolves across time. By its very nature then it seems essential to have some feminine and masculine components represented in the heroes which come out of these times. Sometimes the way in which the issue of gender of the social order is addressed by the way the group of individuals interacts with the opposite sex. In the case of the group of prisoners in Cool Hand Luke with Paul Newman, the idealization of women and the interaction between Luke and his mother portrays the characteristics which are valued by the group and therefore representative of the society as a whole.

The idea of a heroic group taken from Wendy Doniger’s view of “Pre and Postmodern Narrative Recycling”[3] reveals greater insight into what might motivate the individuals to join with the group and what makes them heroic in the first place. The idea that a person must wear a mask or pretend to be someone else impersonating themselves to truly become who they are shows what makes it appealing for an individual to join with a group of like-minded people for a greater good. The ability to imitate someone else who we believe to be imitating us[4] makes it easier to reveal the inner self. It removes the self from the equation entirely and makes it easier to express the views which are closest to the heart, the views or beliefs which are most fragile and damaging to the self may be revealed and even exalted when backed by the group.

This self fulfillment through group involvement is common throughout all of the groups which have been mentioned. Each of the members of the group seeks to find out who they are or seeks to achieve some personal goal through involvement of the group. d’Artagnon wishes to become a Musketeer by joining with the remaining three, Batman seeks protection for Gotham through joining the Justice League, each member of the Fantastic Four seeks a normal life through the support of each other. The individuals who join these heroic groups or movements are all in it for personal reasons, yet at the same time the fulfillment of their personal goals often result from the fulfillment of the group as a whole. D’Artagnon becomes a Musketeer by helping them to be reinstated, Batman saves Gotham by helping the Justice League save Earth, and the soldiers of Sparta save their home by defending all of Greece. Through achieving the goals of the group as a whole, the personal goals of the individual hero are also met.

Through joining with something that the individual sees as a representation of themselves they are empowered to act according to their internal desires and are released from having to place up a front to hide behind. The group allows them to use the characteristics which they have been endowed with to provoke the group to action and to fulfillment of its overall goals so that the individual may achieve their personal goals with the support of others. This acceptance into a social group is the primary driving force behind much of what a person does.

Often times individuals in the stories would not have risen to the heroic status had they not been driven there from external forces. They might contain the characteristics of a hero within themselves, but without the motivating force of others they might not have realized their potential. “Individuals are often driven to self-impersonation through the pressure of public expectations.”[5] The self-impression which Doniger is referring to is the impression which the individual is expected to adhere to. D’Artagnon, having gotten himself involved in three duels in one day is expected to just as brashly go headlong into the fight against the Cardinal without a moments thought. He is pushed not by his companions, but by himself because of the way he thinks others must perceive him as a prospective Musketeer.

The social dynamics presented by the introduction of a group in the notion of a hero completely rewrite what it means to be a hero. It makes it possible for any individual to become a hero so long as they find a group which will promote them to act as well as a group within which they may achieve their personal goals. The characteristics of a hero become blurred because there is no concrete definition of what a hero is. The heroic group acts as a representation of a transitory time within each of the members of the group as well as the society as a whole.

[1] Raglan, In Quest of the Hero, 138

[2] as they were portrayed in the film directed by Stephen Herek

[3] Wendy Doniger, The Woman Who Pretended to be Who She Was, Oxford Press 2005

[4] Ibid, at 10

[5] Ibid, at 12

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:49:06 GMT

I wrote this paper on Leibniz a few weeks ago, I'm not really satisfied with it, and I haven't even read the comments from my professor yet, but it got a B. I'm not too thrilled about that because yeah...B's suck. but hey, whatever.

In the Discourse on Metaphysics Leibniz gives an account of substance which is more than peculiar. Substances, being a temporal expression of the infinite, contain a complete concept of themselves wholly independent from all other substances. This complete concept of substance involves his notion of truth, as well as his take on the nature of substance. Leibniz states in the New System of Nature that “God originally created the soul (or any other perfect unity) in such a way that everything must arise for it from its own depths … having a perfect spontaneity relative to itself” (AG, pg143). The idea that a substance might contain all of its causes within itself is at the same time supportive of the idea of human freedom as well as destructive. The basis for human freedom in Leibniz’s system of the Metaphysics is entirely dependent upon the possibility of other creations and this still is problematic for him.

The definition of necessity and truth given by Leibniz is that a thing is only necessary if its negation does not imply a contradiction. The statement “a star is a ball of burning gas” is true because the idea of “a ball of burning gas” is implied by the word ‘star’, and to state the opposite, that “a star is not a ball of burning gas” implies a contradiction and is therefore false. The same is true for substances. Every predicate that may be said of a given substance is contained within the very notion of the substance. This means that given the idea of any substance, every predicate which is true of this substance is already contained within it. The idea that all true predicates of a substance are already contained within its complete concept is problematic because this includes any predicates which have yet to occur in temporal reality. The statement “I will eat dinner at 5:30 tonight” is either already contained within my complete concept or it isn’t based upon the contingency of God’s will. This may appear to be a problem for some because it implies that these statements are already true despite what we would choose and it impedes upon the idea of human free will. The truth of these statements contained within the complete concept of a substance is not knowable to anyone aside from God, and he knows even a priori the condition of these statements (AG, pg41). Leibniz attempts to show that despite the truth of these statements already having been determined, we are still free agents in that there is the possibility of other existences wherein these statements differ (AG, Part 13). He also goes so far as to say that were these truths altered in the slightest we would cease to be who we are, because it is these very predicates which make up the identity of a substance. Also, it would necessitate the altering of this very existence were any of these statements altered because of the idea that each substance is a temporal expression of all things in existence (AG, pg41-42). The complete concept of each individual substance, then, contains all statements which may be said of it. Whether they pertain to what we might perceive as past, present or future is irrelevant because the substance is by nature infinite.

Leibniz differentiates between hypothetical and absolute necessity when writing to Arnould as well as in part 13 of the Discourse on Metaphysics. He explains that there is an absolute necessity in mathematical or geometrical truths, such as the necessity that all points of a circle are equidistant from its center, because its negation would result in a contradiction, but in hypothetical necessity the statement may be negated without issue. “..Nothing is necessary whose contrary is possible” (AG, pg46). The negation of the statement “I will eat dinner at 5:30 tonight” does not necessarily result in a contradiction; it is contingent upon whether or not this statement is true for my complete concept. The existence of other possible worlds or existences makes it apparent that the necessity of all things is contingent upon which world God has chosen to create. All things in this world then are contingent so long as God had the ability to choose another world to make instead of this one. The logical question to ask here then is, did God actually choose this world or was he forced by his nature to create it? If God necessarily created this world as opposed to another, then there is no contingency and therefore no freedom.

Leibniz discusses the nature of God in the first parts of the discourse. He attributes God to be “an absolutely perfect being” and that though “there are several entirely different perfections in nature … God possesses all of them … in the highest degree” (AG, pg 35). Leibniz claims that through God’s perfections, he must have created a world which is the best of all possible worlds. This best of all possible worlds according to Leibniz must have been created as opposed to another because of the attributes of God. It is unclear then, if God must have created the best of all possible worlds by his own nature, how he would then have the ability to choose one existence over another. If God’s own attributes necessitate him to will into existence one world rather than another, there is no contingency at play.

An important feature of substance in Leibniz’s Discourse is that each substance is an expression of the universe and contains within it an expression or reflection of all other substances within it. This is not to say that every substance is contained with all others, or that they reflect God or the universe perfectly, “each one expresses in its own way, somewhat as the same city is variously represented depending upon the different positions from which it is viewed” (AG, pg42). Because each substance contains within itself a complete concept which has all the true predicates about that substance as well as all causal relationships to which it belongs, it then must contain within its complete concept an image of all other substances. This then seems to indicate that it is necessary that there be more than one substance outside of just God and one other substance. Each substance, in a sense, necessitates the existence of all other substances. The notion that a finite substance might necessitate the existence of another seems to be in opposition to the idea that finite substances are not causally related. If a substance necessitates the existence of another then it must in some way cause that other to exist. This problem might be defeated by Leibniz in the idea that when God creates the universe he creates all substances simultaneously as they can only exist by ‘creation’. Substances are not made up of divisible components, or rather, that which makes up a substance is not divisible. Therefore, for any substance to exist its constituent parts were created with the universe and all substances although seemingly necessitating the existence of each other, it is only a consequence of their existence in this universe which God has placed them in. It relates to the idea of contingency and identity, if the substance were changed in any way, it would necessitate that all other substances in the universe were altered accordingly. The existence of this universe requires that substance to be what it is and as it is impossible that there are two substances which only differ in number (AG, pg41-42) the existence of that substance is contingent upon the decisions which God had made at the time of creation.

The concepts of necessity and contingency as presented by Leibniz rely entirely on the point that God freely chose to create the world. The fact that Leibniz states that God through his perfect nature must choose to create the best possible world defeats his argument that God chose to do so freely. There is then no chance that there is freedom or even contingency in any existence because the negation of any given statement would then negate the fact that God must have acted as He did. If God is caused by necessity then all things which follow must also be necessary, what was once a contingent truth has become a necessary truth by virtue that God is the transcendent cause of all things. The necessity of the existence of this universe is apparent through Leibniz’s own arguments. Because God must have created this universe as opposed to something different, through his perfection and his reason, he must have chosen this one by necessity, therefore destroying the contingent existence of this world. The only possibility to save the contingency of all things is to argue that God could have chosen not to create anything. Because God did not create by necessity, the idea of the contingency of substance is preserved. It is not that God chose to create this world that our existence is contingent, it is in the fact that God has chosen to create.

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:46:28 GMT

I wrote this paper in a blind fury of panic and confusion for my English 241 class. Since I am not really a literary scholar and philosophy is more of my area I wasn't sure what to write on so I just started and this is what came out. Got an A-.

Sir Gawain the Coward

The story of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is centralized around a theme of façade. Everything and everyone in the story has a front which is established to disguise its true nature. Sir Gawain exhibits on many occasions that he is in a situation that he does not wish to be in, and that he had initially tried to avoid by being clever, or so he thought. Every major character of the story puts up a front of what is socially expected of them, when in reality there is evidence that their character underneath is the exact opposite. Through Gawain’s actions in Arthur’s court and his dealings with the Lord and Lady of the castle in the days before he must face the Green Knight, Gawain proves himself a coward. He is a peevish man who wishes to please and is also a social outcast of his society, who mocks him and pushes him into this challenge, where he must prove himself and be socially accepted, or fail and die.

The proof that Gawain is a coward, and that he is playing the part of a brave knight, is apparent in the fact that through his volunteering and accepting the challenge, he hopes at first to avoid having to receive a similar blow by killing the Green Knight outright. Instead of delivering a blow which any man might survive, so that one year later he would receive the same blow, he hopes to remain unharmed by trying to kill the Green Knight by beheading him, thus ending the deal right there. Gawain acts, in full knowledge, that he shall receive the same blow that he deals decides to remove the head of the Green Knight. This might initially be received to be a brave thing, but when you consider the fact that it is the Green Knight himself who is supposed to return the blow, it seems as though it is a very cowardly thing to do. If the Green Knight has no head, how can he possibly return the injury? The Green Knight even offers Gawain the idea in his speech where he states “when I have taken your knock, and if you have handily hit, you shall hear straightway of my house and my home and my name” (p. 170). In this circumstance, Gawain might figure that if he completely chops his head off, there is no way the Green Knight could even tell him where to go. “There were many in the court that quailed” (p. 171) at the knight’s headless body moving about, this court which is renowned for its brave knights.

Throughout the introduction, the description of the Christmas feast, there is neither mention of the bravery nor the strength of the knights. They are described as “gentle knights” who celebrate for 15 days with ladies and dancing and endless feasting (p. 163-165). This does not seem to be the company of brave men which the Green Knight points out in stating they have not shown their arrogance and valor, they “cower and quake, [with] no cut felt” (p. 169). This is a breeding ground for the cowardice displayed by Gawain and it is also another area where there might be a front which is put up around the characters of the story. The members of Arthur’s court, in all their merry celebration, have forgotten their roles as brave knights and in the presence of the Green Knight they are not prepared for the challenge and cower in fear. Gawain, being that he is a coward, is always mindful of this fact, and he is always ready to disprove it as is expected of this society of chivalry and ‘bravery’. He jumps at the opportunity for a challenge without knowing what it is, cowardice may lead a man to do nothing, or it might, in trying to disprove it, lead him into great stupidity.

In part three of the story, Gawain arrives at a castle which in all ways appears to be something of a story book, it is as “a castle cut of paper for a king’s feast” (p. 179). The host of the castle, the Green Knight in disguise (yet another façade), greets Gawain and invites him to stay until he must meet his challenge. During his stay the wife of the host attempts to seduce Gawain in three separate occasions and although she fails at sexually tempting him, despite her having literally thrown herself at him, she persuades him to break his covenant with the host, and go against his code of honor. Despite having remained true to his chivalric code, he has broken his deal with the host in trade for his life. A true knight would maintain his honor by remaining true to his promises no matter the cost.

When Gawain leaves to face the knight he goes to confession and reveals all his sins, however he receives no penitence, nor action of repentance. If he does there is no mention of it, and usually if you confess something of a theft or a lie, you must recant and admit it or return the stolen item (p. 200). The fact that Gawain retains his life-saving belt shows that he either sees it as no sin or does not genuinely confess. He does not see any wrong in concealing the gift given him, so long as it will save his life.

On the large part, during Gawain’s meeting with the Green Knight there is a multitude of evidence that he is afraid for his life, despite having received this belt which he believes will preserve him. When the knight takes his first swing, Gawain flinches. During the second he stands firm, but is enraged when it is apparent he is being toyed with, and during the third, which makes contact, Gawain (even somewhat comically) “sprang near a spear’s length with feet spread wide” (p. 209). This is direct evidence, from the words of the narrator, of Gawain’s true nature in that he is a coward. It is apparent here that the reader is not intended to have any pity nor respect for Sir Gawain, because he is brought down from the ideal figure which he is made out to be and appears a comical parody of the valiant knight. The other characters of the story describe him as an infallible representation of man and as “polished as a pearl” (p. 210) and that “his equal on this earth can hardly be found” (p. 176), but it might be that they are mocking him and are aware of his cowardice. They are goading him and pressing him into proving himself in this brotherhood of cowardly knights. In Arthur’s court, as in many school playgrounds, it seems that anyone who steps up to a challenge or boasts of their ability instantly becomes the subject of ridicule and sarcasm.

Throughout the story, there are many characters who are seemingly enthralled with Gawain and his prowess as a knight, when in fact he states that it is his unworthy nature which makes him best suited to accept this challenge from the Green Knight. Gawain admits that he is the weakest and “of wit feeblest; and the loss of [his] life would be least of any” (p. 169). I do not think here that this is understatement on his part, because there are many places in the story where he is afraid and he is merely putting on airs to try and impress the people around him. The Lady of the castle in part three is constantly buffing his ego and stating that he, if he were denied by a woman, is “stout enough to constrain with strength … were any so ungracious to grudge you” (p. 193). The woman here is tempting Gawain with something that he must not easily attain, because she is throwing not only herself at him, but also saying that he could take any woman he wanted if he so wished. Gawain also in the last seduction scene of part 3 refuses her first gifts, but upon hearing that one might save his life he almost happily accepts. This is odd, because he refuses the lady’s ring for its high value, but accepts the girdle because it will save his life, but what is more valuable than life? He is no longer concerned with monetary value when his life might be saved and with this he gives in to his greed and his cowardice to save his own skin. The Green Knight also seems to give Gawain some lip-service while he is taunting him at the second meeting. The fact that the knight intentionally misses his first swing of the ax, knowing that Gawain will flinch, shows that he has no respect for him as a fellow knight. The Green Knight verbally and physically disrespects Gawain, which is the true shame of the encounter. The fact that Gawain was not dealt a similar blow shows that the Green Knight, and vicariously Morgan Le Faye, shows that she does not respect him or his knightly oath. He is not worthy of a similar blow and is allowed to live with the shame of his dishonoring his own oath through his cowardice.

The story of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is a story about appearances. This story reflects the time when a person was expected to act in a certain way, despite what their true feelings and motivations might be. Each of the characters fulfilled a role of which is not their choosing. Gawain felt it was necessary for him to face the Green Knight because of his lack of worth, the lady of the castle seduced Gawain because it was her role in the scheme, the Green Knight himself only acted as he had under the bidding of Morgan Le Faye. Of all the people of the story, Le Faye is the only one who acts of their own accord but even she puts of a mask so as to hide the truth from Gawain. This story is a criticism of the lifestyle all these people of the Middle Ages had to live, because it forced them into roles and into actions of which they neither had a role in designing nor had a desire to be part of. Sir Gawain is the greatest example of this dysfunctional society because he is the one who is pushed into the circumstances where he must first face a dilemma where if he does not perform adequately in bravery and mental fortitude he will be socially ridiculed, and if he does succeed in both of those, he believes he will die. He wants neither of those, but is forced to by believing himself to be the least value to the society and this can only be because he has been placed in his position of inferiority through the hierarchy which is inherent in a feudal society.

Woohoo

Thu, 15 May 2008 05:50:25 GMT

Plato - B
Kant - A
English - A
Spinoza - A
German - A

I win.

Identifying Hume

Thu, 08 May 2008 14:30:41 GMT

I just finished rewriting a paper for one of my classes. Here it is in all it's glory. I got a B the first time around, hopefully it's A-worthy now. I think it's still a little shaky in the middle, but it's getting a little too long. I'm already a page over the limit.

The idea of identity is that which comes from a continued and unchanging existence of a given impression (Treatise 1.1.5). The impression received before the mind whether through the senses or produced through the faculties of the mind possesses an identity if it is uninterrupted and unchanged in that the impression is constantly before the mind and never changes in intensity or form. The way in which the mind perceives the identity of objects separate from itself is through these individual impressions. The identity of the cup on my desk is recognized as a single identity because I am continually under the impression of the cup. If I were to leave the room and come back then I would have a second and distinct impression of the cup therefore having a separate and distinct identity to attribute to it. The reason we generally attribute the same identity to the cup in this case is because the imagination allows us to fill in the gap between the impressions and through this we may infer that the cup has existed although my mind did not have an immediate perception of it. Identity of objects before the mind is understandable under Hume’s definitions, but the ideas of personal identity are complicated in that it is difficult for us to pinpoint what it is that might fit the requirements of identity outlined by Hume. The impression of personal identity, or identity of the self, is complicated by the fact that the mind can only experience itself through the perceptions it has, and I will attempt to reconcile this fact with Hume’s conception of identity.

The conception of identity which Hume wishes to refute is the idea that there is a continued self. Locke had proposed that the mind is something like a blank sheet upon which the impressions of experience are placed, which is where we get the idea of tabula rasa. The idea of a continued existence of the self is a common belief because many people have no issue in saying that there exists something separate from their impressions and ideas which acts as a sort of container or processor, which they call the self. Self-identity in this manner is what Hume has set his sights on, and he does not grant that there might exist anything within the mind other than the impressions of experience and their corresponding ideas.

Hume states that when he turns his attention inward he perceives nothing other than some immediate sensation or impression of heat, cold, love, hatred, or otherwise. There is within him no perception or ideas of some impression which he may call his identity. Hume does not have a positive account of personal identity; he does however give a descriptive account of why people attribute themselves with personal identity. The various perceptions which are before the mind, and always in fluctuation, he calls a “bundle of perceptions” (Treatise 1.4.6). The memory, according to Hume, serves as a basis for the mind to discover its “identity” through the resemblance of its immediate perceptions to previous ones as well as a causal connection between them. Hume posits this as the reason which causes people to attribute identity to their selves. Hume does not account for the idea that it would appear that there must be a thing separate from this bundle of perceptions which does the perceiving. What is it which perceives these impressions if it is not the self to which most people would attribute personal identity?

Even though it would seem that there is this other entity which is necessary in order to have perceptions, the idea of this entity could not exist without the preceding perceptions or impressions. The concept of the self or mind would not exist without the perceptions and this is perhaps one reason Hume does not conceive of a self separate from the “bundle of perceptions”.

Identity is the uninterrupted and unchanging existence of a given impression. This conception of identity seems to be lacking something in that it does not posit the actual existence of the objects to which identity is being attributed. It appears that Hume is stating that identity of given objects only exists within the mind which perceives them and that the objects themselves neither exist necessarily nor have an identity unto themselves. Hume cannot definitively say whether or not these objects actually exist.

The existence of objects separate from us is an admittedly unknowable existence due to the mere nature of our perceptions. There is no way in which a person might perceive the world other than through the nature of the senses and as such, we cannot perceive the objects of the world otherwise. Therefore the continued and unchanging existence of objects separate from ourselves can never be known as a definite existence because there is no other way in which we might perceive the world. The concept of the identity of an object as the uninterrupted and unchanging existence of an impression inherently posits that there is some mind perceiving that object. If there were no perception of the object, there would necessarily be no existing impression of the object and therefore it would have no identity. I cannot tell if this is problematic for the actual existence of the object, because existence does not seem to require identity. An object which has never been perceived by any mind, might exist somewhere in space. Because no mind has ever perceived it, it has never produced any impressions and therefore possesses no identity. The identity of the object does not cause it to exist; the independent existence of the object makes possible its identification.

Hume argues that the account that people give for personal identity rests upon an illusion. The illusion of a personal identity springs from a problem which he had addressed earlier in the Treatise concerning causation and inference. The idea that the future will resemble the past or that each event has a cause is an illusion that is caused because of perceived connection between the immediate impressions which is created by the imagination. In the same way there seems to be a connection created in the mind between the perceptions through resemblance and causation through the memory and the imagination which makes people mistakenly attribute a single continued identity to these various perceptions.

In Hume’s conception of the mind and the impressions which it perceives the mind is an entirely passive being. The mind does not actively think nor rationalize any of the impressions nor does it create any new ideas through imagining or reason. Each impression and new idea which is formed within the mind is completely passive having sprung into being from an initial sense impression, the origin of which is unknowable, or they come to be from the combination of previous ideas and impressions already existing in the mind. Even the combinations and the elaborations which Hume claims the mind is capable of making is somewhat confusing, because if the mind is as passive as he makes it out to be, how then, does it perform these actions or what is it, that directs the thoughts to combine the impressions which exist therein. It would appear that there must be some end towards which the perceptions of the mind aim. The impression that my mind receives of the cup on my desk causes ideas of what is contained within the cup and through previous experience and memories of impressions I infer, incorrectly or confusedly according to Hume, that the liquid contained within will aid in prolonging my life. A mind which is entirely passive would have no more desire to survive than the mind of a tree or rock. Spinoza argues that each individual thing in nature has a ‘conatus’ or desire to preserve it’s being.[1] If humans desire to preserve their being they must be active in this pursuit and therefore the mind must have some capacity of action or desire. Even in Spinoza’s system however the mind is passive insofar as the desires which arise within it are not within the control of the person, however, the person may reduce the effects of negative emotions and desires through understanding and thereby increase their own power of action.[2] The perceptions of the mind, therefore, must serve some purpose towards which the mind is striving. A passive mind would not be able to give any bearing to these perceptions and the perceptions themselves would become meaningless.

For there to be some meaning attributed to the motivations and existence of the impressions of the mind, there must be some thing which is perceiving and directing the thoughts of the mind toward some end. This direction of the thoughts could be a collection of impressions itself which influence the motivations of the mind to perform certain actions, in a perfectly deterministic sense, the mind is motivated by its prior impressions and ideas. This seems to be the argument which Hume sets forth. A mind which is completely disinterested in its own thoughts, however, seems not to be much of a mind. If the mind cannot direct its own thoughts and creatively conjoin them through imagination or reasoning without motivation from previous experience, how then can we account for invention or even moral justification?

I have issue with Hume’s representation of the self, because if there is a mind in which these impressions and ideas might exist, why can we not say that it is the mind itself which perceives these ideas and impressions which is the self? This might be a simple limitation of language whereby Hume has no other option than to call that “bundle of perceptions” a collection of objects before some mind, about which we may know nothing. This is true because we cannot perceive our own mind directly except through its affects. Hume points out that there is no single impression within the mind which is continued and unchanging. I agree that there is no single perception which fits these criteria, but there is the mind itself, which is continuous throughout, and it is unchanging insofar as it always perceives some impression or another. The continual existence of the mind however, seems to depend upon the continued perceptions within the mind and therefore it might be argued that the existence of the mind is impossible without some sort of perception. Because all perceptions, according to Hume, are produced either by sense impressions or some combination of prior experiences, there is no perception before the mind which is entirely founded a priori. Therefore, it seems that there is no way of proving that the mind is a separate entity from the perceptions which it has, and in this way there is no proof which I can see that the mind is itself a foundation for personal identity if we take it that the mind cannot produce ideas a priori.

There is no initial problem with the argument which Hume presents for us in that there is no possible impression or idea which we have of our own personal identity, but to posit its non-existence based upon its imperceptibility is a fallacy. Because there is no way in which the human mind is capable of understanding itself as a single identity does not mean that there is not some underlying object which unifies it. Whether this be the mind which perceives the bundle of ever changing perceptions, or whether it is the drive or purpose towards which the perceptions are created in the first place are perhaps the real questions. There is in fact a personal identity of the human mind, but what nature it might take is unknowable to itself.

[1] Baruch Spinoza, The Essential Spinoza (Ed. Michael L. Morgan) - Ethics Parts III, IV. Hackett 2006

[2] Baruch Spinoza, The Essential Spinoza (Ed. Michael L. Morgan) - Ethics Parts IV, V. Hackett 2006

Good and Evil in a Spinozistic Universe

Mon, 05 May 2008 06:59:02 GMT

I wrote a paper for my Spinoza class. I thought it was pretty clever, but then I made the mistake of reading further in the book and he apparently addressed this issue. Sad day for me, but I kept writing about it anyway and tried to apply it to our own society in a Kantian perspective about how there has to be some sort of reasoning behind how we might hold people morally responsible and the like. Anyway, here it is, I think it might need more work, but I'm too tired.

In Spinoza’s Ethics he outlines a system in which a person who lives according to reason does not know evil and through understanding perceives everything as good. In the definitions outlined at the beginning of part IV he explicitly defines things which are good and bad as those things which “we certainly know to be useful to us…[or] that which is a definite obstacle to our attainment of some good” (Definitions 1 and 2). The knowledge of good and evil on the other hand is related to things which are beneficial or detrimental insofar as the knowledge of good and evil are an emotion of pleasure or pain related to those objects (P8, IV). There is an issue however with this conception of good and evil because there is no way to be certain in what is actual good or evil, so there can be no knowledge of what is truly beneficial or harmful to ourselves. Through the understanding and reasoning, a person may decrease the effect of pain arising from some perceived evil but they cannot have definite knowledge as to whether something is truly good or bad. The reasoning which determines a person to call something good or bad is merely a perception which they have towards that object in the moment. There are certain things which might appear useful to us, but in actuality they are a definite harm. The way in which Spinoza defines good and bad seems to allow for too much subjectivity in this matter, and also that by defining good and bad as something of which we have definite knowledge makes it an impossibility to know the good from the bad.

Spinoza accounts for differential conceptions of good and evil in that good and evil are only those things which are beneficial or detrimental to the conatus. The problem arises for the man of reason because there is no real way to have definite knowledge of what is an advantage to the conatus and what will cause harm. There are things of which we may be certain, like smoking is a definite harm, but in other cases there is room for uncertainty. This uncertainty is caused because the man of reason, although always desiring the good, can never know that what he is doing in the present will continue to be a good in the future. The events of today, although they appear to be advantageous, may tomorrow result in an absolute evil. This concept may be found in Oscar Wilde’s The Critic as Artist, that “if we lived long enough to see the results of our actions, it may be that those who call themselves good would be sickened with a dull remorse, and those whom the world calls evil stirred by a noble joy.”[1] People cannot possibly know the outcomes of their actions and because of this it is a paralyzing force for the man of reason, who always desires the good. However, it would appear that Spinoza does allow that the man of reason will not be affected by this uncertainty because of his understanding. Through understanding the situation and the necessity of the events he will not regard it as an evil, but the fact remains that a negative came from a well intentioned action. If a negative outcome may result from a well intentioned action, as it so often does, how can Spinoza’s man of reason reconcile this?

Although it might be impossible for the free mind to perceive the true goodness of all its actions or decisions, it seems as though its ignorance is irrelevant. Insofar as the mind of reason regards and understands all things which affect the body and all things which are potential evils to itself and the body as necessary events the mind does not view them as evil (from an emotion of pain). As they are understood to be necessary events, they are understood by the mind of reason to exist from the necessary essence of God, and therefore they are accompanied by a feeling of pleasure, so no matter the outcome of an action or an event upon the body of a free person, they will regard this event with pleasure insofar as they understand that it is a manifestation of the necessary existence of God.

The free man may only in retrospect regard the happenings of the universe and their affections upon his body. Due to the nature of human perception we are blind to the events which are regarded as future to ourselves. Spinoza does account for the emotions which arise from future events, but this still is a matter of perception and not one of actuality. Though again, this seems to be that within the system of emotions which Spinoza presents to us, the perception of the emotions is all that matters, the actual state of affairs is of no concern to the man of reason. This is the case simply because it is outside the realm of human understanding and therefore has no bearing or effects upon the decisions which a person might make. The man of reason is not paralyzed by the uncertainties of the outcome of his own actions because it is “no less absurd than if a man, not believing I that he can sustain his body on good food forever, were to decide to glut himself on poisons and deadly fare” (P41, V Schol).

Underlying this whole argument of our understanding of good and evil, is the idea of moral responsibility. If the concepts of good and evil are merely relative to those things which are increases or decreases to our individual power of action, how then can we hold people morally responsible for their actions? Spinoza argues that we have the right to remove that which “we deem evil, that is, capable of hindering us from being able to exist and to enjoy a rational life…” (IV – 8, Appendix). By what standard should we hold people whereby we can judge them to be acting properly within a society or to be considered an “evil”? I believe that Spinoza’s Ethics is a model which may be used for the rehabilitation of those who are often incarcerated in our own society. The people who are deemed unsuitable for public life by our current justice system in America would be much more effective, I believe, if they were more focused towards a rehabilitation system, instead of the penal system which they have established. Many people are capable of being conditioned to understand their emotions and to control them to the extent to where they may be a productive member of society, contributing to the overall conatus of the community, but the current penal system in the United States is a self-defeating system in which prisoners are made to hate the establishment of rules and self-worth is destroyed.

If the standard by which people are to be considered unsuitable for public life is reorganized to suit the rehabilitation of the individual instead of their removal, we would find fewer people to be “evil” and that they are capable of contributing to the society of reason. The only people who should be removed from our societies should be those who are beyond rehabilitation. In Spinoza’s system this would be a very small number of the population, and could very well be limited to those people who are currently on “death row” or who are incarcerated for life. This point is beyond the purpose of the paper, but I believe it would be a practical application of the ideas within. The moral responsibility of each individual in a society must be able to be quantified or at the very least compared to some standard by which they might be deemed suitable members of that society. Perhaps one method by which a person is measured would be their ability to control their own inner states and emotions through reason. I don’t know if Spinoza believes that man might be taught to reason, or that it is within the nature of being human that the part of the mind in the attribute of thought innately contains this faculty of reason, but if a man is to be punished and removed from the society as something which is considered an evil to that society they must be deemed incapable of reason and incapable of rehabilitation. This point relies entirely upon the idea of a standard of certain good or an objective good by which people might be deemed as a certain evil.

In the Emendation of the Intellect, which by chance curiosity I have happened to read, Spinoza answers the very question of this essay, whether there is a universal or objective good. He recognizes the subjectivity of good and evil within his own system and attempts to give the best response possible. Spinoza answers that there is no true good (as I have been attempting to find), only that which might be known or understood as a “certain good” or rather, that which we know will certainly be an increase to our conatus and beneficial to our understanding. Spinoza uses this term of the “certain good” in the personal sense, in that the good which we desire is not to concern the good or welfare of others, but at the same time the certain good which he prescribes is that we should desire others to join us in our pursuit of greater perfection. He states that the only certain good is “the knowledge of the union which the mind has with the whole of Nature”[2]

Although we cannot know the outcome of our actions it appears that there really is no place of good or evil within Spinoza’s Ethics. The things which a person perceives as evil, and even good for that matter, are merely a perception. The understanding, which belongs to the third kind of knowledge, unveils the events from the disguises and the biases of the labels of good and evil and brings to bear the necessity of the events due to the nature and existence of God. Spinoza’s man of reason is just as blind to the realities of his singular actions, but his individual power of action is not affected by those future evils which might come from his present actions. The collective conatus of the society or even the human species may be affected, but as a nation or species of reason, it is possible that there can be an understanding of the necessity of the outcomes and therefore the evil will be circumvented altogether. This places, admittedly, lofty expectations of those who must suffer the potential evils caused by our actions today, but we are no less plagued by the repercussions of our own ancestors, and as a society of reason, we can lessen the impact which those evils might have. The prescription is the same, and the method is no different for the society from the individual, and given that an individual might with effort overcome the evils and stumbling blocks to their own power of action, so might an entire society.

[1] Wilde, Oscar. The Critic as Artist http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/E800003-007/ pg. 129

[2] Spinoza, Baruch Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect, Part 13

Thoughts on Culture

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:22:01 GMT

During class today we had a discussion on culture, well, because that's what the course material was dealing with for the past two weeks. As it is during most discussion sections I get an idea and start writing and don't stop writing until the end of the period. Today I think I had some pretty good thoughts so I am going to put them here and see if I can inspire some discussion.

So, one of the ideas which I wrote down but didn't get to was an idea about how putting a definition on a culture in some way might be
limiting that culture or even killing it. Culture seems to be this type of thing which is always changing because the individuals that ascribe to any given culture are all unique and they all create the culture as they are living it, so therefore the culture itself is alive. To attribute a definite idea or form to the culture is to put a limit on it and it seems like this is what is happening with what you were saying about the commercialization of culture. If an industry packages and sells an aspect of their own or another culture they are defining what it means to be a part of that culture and they limit the growing identity of that culture, in a way stunting it's growth or in some cases all together killing it. I don't know if this is present in anything we've been reading, quite honestly I haven't been able to read all of everything we were supposed to have, but I think I can see how authors like Said, Davis, and maybe Ngugi might have something similar to this idea, because they each have some conception of how "culture" or in the case of Davis, normality, is defined by people who take a part of the culture and compartmentalize it into something which can be analyzed.
I had another thought about this same thing, that whether or not it might be built into the use of language that it is unavoidable that culture should be limited like this. I'm not sure it is possible that people, especially for people who are outside of a given culture, can understand a culture unless they put this sort of limitation upon it.

Talk amongst yerselves.

meaningless art

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:58:47 GMT

got an A on this paper, no comments from the TA yet, she's making us all come in to her office hours to talk about the papers, I have a feeling she was just as depressed by my paper as everyone else who read it.

Art is the creative process in which both Kant and Arnold say we should have a “free play of the mind”. This free play of the mind during the creation of art is the only method through which the self can be expressed because in all other contexts the true self must be suppressed so as to appear socially acceptable. This suppression of the self is caused by social restrictions which are placed upon every individual during adolescence no matter what society they are raised in. In a way, the suppression of the subconscious mind is a type of neurosis itself. The subconscious mind is that which gives rise to many of the desires which we would normally call intuitive or natural, and we have learned through socialization that many of those desires are not socially acceptable and have therefore suppressed our true desires. The creative process of free play of the mind allows the self to be expressed whether or not the mind of the person is conscious of this fact or not and even through this free play of the mind there is a limitation to the extent to which it may express it self and to which it’s intentions may be conveyed to other people.

The creative process which the self must be expressed through is limited in two ways. The first is the limitation of language, and contextual limitations are the second. The limitation of language to accurately convey meaning is universal because the words which we use to express meaning are chosen to correspond to a given idea or set of ideas and these words are chosen arbitrarily based upon a mutual agreement between people in a given society. Contextual limitations although not necessarily an immediate concern for the artist, they span across time and the original intent and meaning of a piece will be lost over time as the context in which the piece was originally created becomes more and more remote.

Wilde argues that it is the job of the critic to apply meaning to a work of art, and that the artist, being among the art, cannot see the meaning of their own work. It is more important for the critic to be cultured than for the artist because the creative process is seemingly an unmotivated action provoked by the unconscious mind of the artist. The critic must be able to interpret the work and find the meanings which were buried within the subconscious mind of the artist, much the same way which Freud says there is condensation in dreams and it is the job of the dream analyst to find the meanings which have been condensed into the images of the train or the tree.

The “free association” which Freud refers to is very similar to the free play of the mind which Kant says should be the creative force behind an artist’s works. For Freud however, the desires and motivations in the subconscious, and people can access these desires through this sort of free associations and it manifests itself in dreams. If a person then were to use the free play of the mind or the free association as a motivation for art, they would then be able to express their unconscious self through their works. The art would not be a literal representation of the desires and wants of the unconscious, but it would need to be, like dreams, interpreted by a third party.

A person cannot communicate with their own unconscious self, and therefore the productions of the unconscious mind must be interpreted by a different person, in the case of art the critic. Any creative process, whether it be writing, painting, or even thinking, if it is to be an original production must come from free association, though the term ‘free association’ is in a way itself an oxymoron. The associations which the mind is capable of making are limited to the ideas produced from previous experiences. The words and ideas which correspond to them are only in the mind because of the agreement between the word and the idea it signifies which has been built up and reinforced. The associations of the mind, if they are even capable of being wholly unique and spontaneous have no method, no means through which they are to convey themselves, except through the words and ideas which are already present in the mind, and as I have just shown, the words and ideas in the mind are only present because of socially accepted phonetic sounds and their corresponding ideas.

Nietzsche argues that the words which we use to communicate are in themselves meaningless and it is only through convenience and habit that we use them to indicate any significance at all. By his ‘leaf’ example it would seem that people are referring to a thing which is an ideal leaf, but there exists no such thing, only an infinite number of imperfect examples and copies which aspire to be like this ideal. The same is true for every other word that we have, the word signifies an ideal concept, but all examples which may be made of the word are varied and imperfect in that they cannot fully capture the idea which they are intended to signify.[1]

Because of the limitations of words and the limited ability of a person to accurately interpret language the limitations on meaning through art are significant. For an artist to convey an intended meaning through art they must limit their audience to the context within which the piece is composed. The ability of the critic to interpret the work is confined to a very limited space, and is forced to use the methods which Schleiermacher supported in that the reader must “rediscover the original relationship between the writer and his audience” (p 617). The meaning which the artist wishes to convey, if any at all, it is lost to the ever changing and arbitrary meanings and associations which people have made between the words and the ideas which they signify.

In the extreme case, if we take for instance the Lascaux cave paintings in France created about 15,000 years ago[2], they could mean what the experts tell us, that the people there used them in a hunting ritual, or they could just be the crazed paintings of a prehistoric opiate user who hated buffalo. The true meaning, true in the sense which Nietzsche uses, behind the paintings is lost to us and we are only able to infer meaning using the associations, signifiers, and signified ideas which we are aware of.

Though the limitations of language prevent absolute transfer of meaning in art, it is not to say that no meaning whatever is conveyed. The meaning received by the general audience especially that of the critic, could itself be included as a part of the creative process. Oscar Wilde stated that the critic is the true artist and perhaps this is true, because if ideas were able to be expressed without any loss of meaning, the people would have had to have the same exact associations for each signifying aspect of the art work. Because this is not the case, the critic is able to infer a variety of meaning from an art work and new ideas are formed because of this. The variance in each persons association to these signifiers causes them to create their own meaning which is unique to them and therefore expands the creative process beyond the original artist and his art.

The meanings which are signified by the devices which are used for communication be they words, images, or otherwise, are limited in that there is practically no way in which the same exact meaning is conveyed from one person to another. The individual experiences which each person has create the meanings which are associated to each individual signifier and these meanings are continually changing because of new experiences and within differing contextual situations. Because of this limitation, the creative self, the subconscious where all creative thought originates is silenced and although it appears it may communicate itself through free play and association, the basic limitation of language prevents it from being unveiled.

[1] Friedrich Nietzsche Of Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense p. 877

[2] http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/lascaux/en/