I think there is something more to be said on the subject of indulgence which I had not followed through with in class.
The scene with the tea and sugar seems to point at a certain amount of indulgence in Father Flynn's character. Three lumps of sugar and long fingernails (which may or may not be a sign of effeminacy, but displays a sign of being both clean and more so a small sort of vanity). Not being Catholic I can only generalize about the accepted behavior of members of the clergy, and it would seem that any sort of indulgence would be unacceptable, or at least there would be a strong attempt to do everything in moderation in order to curb indulgence, even when it comes to something so simple as sugar. It just seems that if Father Flynn lacks that sort of decorum, lacks the reservation and self-control in even the smaller aspects of his life, whether it be in his consumption of sweets or in minor narcissistic tendencies, then he would not hesitate to indulge in other more serious ways.
It seems as if he is also very presumptuous and takes liberties, such as when he sat down in the chair behind Sister Aloysius' desk during the chair scene. He's very sure of him self to the point of being very rude and self-important, marking his place as the superior in the scene and even seeming to disregard Sister Aloysius' own position of power. And upon leaving the scene he does not opt to talk to the monsignor about the situation and settle it in that manner, but instead states that he will suggest that Sister Aloysius take a break from her job. Seems as if there are some power plays going on in Doubt, mostly Father Flynn making a play for power over Sister Aloysius and she in turn trying to circumvent a structured church hierarchy that is will not support her, right or wrong, in order to do what she thinks is right. In one of the last scenes Father Flynn also instigates a private meeting with Sister Aloysius, which is clearly against the rules, and granted I could appreciate a private conversation in order to resolve a conflict betweeen two people, but if he was innocent and had nothing to hide he shouldn't have had a problem with there being a third party present. If we could arguably see all of these as indicators of an abuse of power, then to what extent could Father Flynn take that abuse of power, especially over those who are most vulnerable to his influence?
At first I was like Sister James during the tea scene, relieved that there was a logical explaination for what had happened and quick to accept it. There seemed to be evidence to the contrary later on in the story, especially in regards to Mr. McGinn. Father Flynn said that it was Mr. McGinn who had caught Donald Muller with the wine, but it was later reveiled that Mr. McGinn had known that the boy had been drinking, but had not caught him in the act nor did he know the exact circumstances as to how he had acquired the wine. So this doesn't do anything to prove Father Flynn's innocence. While I agree that Sister Aloysius is a hard-ass and had taken some great liberties and stepped out of bounds in order to weasel him out, I don't feel that she was entirely out of line, she did what she had to do and that meant breaking some of the rules of the church and general social rules. As far as I'm concerned she called his bluff, if he was trully innocent he wouldn't have accepted to leave so readily faced with the knowledge (which was a lie) that Sister Aloysius knew something about his past, had confirmed it with other nuns at other parishes, which was breaking the rules, but while he pointed his finger at that he broke rather quickly. No, Sister Aloysius was unable to really stop him in the end and he moved on to become pastor at another parish, but she got him out of her school and away from those children which was her immediate concern. If faced with the choice it is better to damage his reputation in order to protect the children. But remember, it never really got out and she never managed to question his reputation to a wider audience. He wound up safe.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Doubt 1
I'd have to say that the character I sympathize the most with is Sister James. She seems so innocent and trusting and, yes, naive. The reason I sympathize with her the most is because she seems to be a good teacher, someone I would like to learn from because she is so invested in her teaching and her students and seems like she would be a fun teacher. But it is because of her naivity that makes her so succeptable to the lies of others, she can't think anything but but good of anybody and she will willfully fool herself into believing Father Flynn, so long as it could erase a terrible situation and provide a logical explanation she can preserve her illusion of reallity. Or at least the illusion that within the church there is an immunity to such horrible things.
I think the gender roles in the play are interesting, and the ways in which the hierarchy within the church is very gendered and how that hinders Sister Aloysius in her crusade.
I don't know who I really admired, it seems like a combination of sister Aloysius and Sister James. I liked Sister James for reasons stated above, she is sweet and loving. I disliked Sister Aloysius, but had a grudging respect for her. Though she was cold and distant she wasn't unfeeling, she cared about the welfare of those around her and refused to just let things be. Next two questions, not really sure.
And last but not least, I believe to doubt can only make the realization of truth of faith all the more stronger, and shows a healthy individual character who refuses to accept anything at first glance. This, however may not be the true meaning of Tillich's statement.
I think the gender roles in the play are interesting, and the ways in which the hierarchy within the church is very gendered and how that hinders Sister Aloysius in her crusade.
I don't know who I really admired, it seems like a combination of sister Aloysius and Sister James. I liked Sister James for reasons stated above, she is sweet and loving. I disliked Sister Aloysius, but had a grudging respect for her. Though she was cold and distant she wasn't unfeeling, she cared about the welfare of those around her and refused to just let things be. Next two questions, not really sure.
And last but not least, I believe to doubt can only make the realization of truth of faith all the more stronger, and shows a healthy individual character who refuses to accept anything at first glance. This, however may not be the true meaning of Tillich's statement.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Abortion
This is a severly tough subject to tackle, even for someone who has a decided opinion on the topic. I'm going to come right out and say that I am pro-choice (which is not what many call pro-abortion, which is a misnomer, and a terrible misconception of the idea). No one, not even pro-choicers are okay with the idea of an abortion. It is under what conditions is it acceptable is the issue, not whether it is good or bad.
My personal feelings stand on the basis of the rights of the mother. It seems that many have lost sight of the fact that the mother is also a living being, with her own rights to her body and her life. There are some on the pro-life side who say that even in the eventuality that the mother will die it is still not acceptable to have an abortion. So much for being pro-life, especially since in many of these cases the baby will most likely die with the mother. I'm going to use the case of one of my cousins for example, who has some sort of unusual condition that makes being pregnant poisonous to her body and therefore unable to carry a baby to full term and also running the risk of killing herself. Would it be wrong for her to have an abortion then, if it were to save her life? I'm going to use various examples from my family because they seem to have a lot of trouble with fertility and childbirth. My mother, when I was in elementary school, had what is called an ectopic pregnancy (or tubal pregnancy) when the feritlized egg implanted itself in the fallopian tubes (tubes leading from the ovaries) instead of in the uteran wall. This condition, if the fetus is left to grow instead of being removed, is fatal to the mother at a very early stage in the pregnancy, and therefore to the baby as well. Only option here is an abortion.
My grandmother was faced with life/death situation in which the doctors told her she would most likely not survive giving birth to her third child. My mother was her second child and when going into labor she suffered something called placenta praevia, when the placenta attaches itself in a certain way to the uteran wall, and when the water breaks it tears open the blood vessels in the uterus and results in severe hemmoraging (the same thing happened to my mother when she gave birth to my brother). My grandmother did die giving birth to my mother, but they were able to bring her back and she was told not to have any more children, because next time they may not have been able to save her. And of course, by a freak accident, she became pregnant and they advised her to have an abortion, which she refused so my grandparents where sent back to America (grandpa was in the navy, and they were stationed in Scotland) so that grandma could say good-bye to her family in the event that she did die. All of these stories have a happy ending, for those of you who are reading this and possibly feeling sad. My grandmother gave birth to my uncle with no problems other than he was a very big baby, my brother was born safely (though my mother almost hemmoraged to death because several doctors and nurses left her sitting in the hallway of the hospital). Mom ended up having an abortion for the ectopic pregnancy, and my cousin, the one with the condition that made pregnancy poisonous to her body, has successfully given birth to two children the first was premature (which was expected given her condition) but she gave him up for adoption which she regrets, and the second she managed to carry to full term without any complications and who just turned 2 years old this week.
Of course none of these really illustrates the im/morality of abortion, other than these are legitimate life/death situations in which having an abortion is/would be morally acceptable. To disregard a woman's reproductive rights in any instance is wrong, and to say that protecting her own life by getting an abortion is wrong is thereby disregarding her status as a human being with a right to life. Historically a woman's body and health were not treated seriously. She has been a possession, a vessal for the continuation of a family line, it was her husband who controlled her life and reproductive capablities. Women's health has also been very misunderstood, even during times of medical advancement, such as in Victorian England, where doctors where beginning to make breakthroughs in medicine, but they were only allowed to examine a woman only where her skin was exposed, which was difficult because victorian dress women were covered from throat to feet, with only her face and hands being exposed. Nore were they allowed to perform autopsies on women, so they knew very little about how a woman's body functioned compared to that of a man's. To cut a long story short, my defense of pro-life is on a woman's right as a living entity to her own life and body. And it's not just the term of pregnancy we are talking about, it's literally the rest of her life, or at least until the child reaches adulthood. I wouldn't suffer a rape victim to not only carry and give birth to her rapist's child, but to be forced to raise that child. It would be an extraordinary woman to do that without hatred and resentment, what kind of environment is that for either mother or child? And the physical damage it does to the body, often disfiguring, let alone the emotional/hormonal stress and the physical stress it places on the body. A pregnant woman is supporting two bodies and the baby gets what it needs first, even at the harm of the mother. I know of a woman who lost all of her teeth because the baby had drained calcium from some of her bones.
I guess what I'm getting at is less philosophical than what the authors have been getting at, but I feel rather strongly about Thomson's essay. The analogy of the violinist with the bad kidneys was good. Under what circumstances would I myself have an abortion? I can't claim definite answers to any situation, I can't know how I'll choose if ever faced with the situation. If I were raped, I think most definitly yes, for reasons I stated above. If I were to become pregnant now, before I've finished my education, I don't know. I'm not in a position to be able to care for a baby, I can't support it well without a career and being tens of thousands of dollars in debt, but I feel that if I did have an abortion I would regret it for the rest of my life, because I did kill my own child. What about adoption you say? I wouldn't suffer any child to be in the American adoption system, I've heard too many horror stories to subject any child to a life of parentlessness and a feeling of being unwanted, to foster or adoptive homes where they could most likely suffer horrible abuse, or the rare eventuallity that they end up in a home with loving parents who decided not to adopt from asia.
I'm done for the night.
My personal feelings stand on the basis of the rights of the mother. It seems that many have lost sight of the fact that the mother is also a living being, with her own rights to her body and her life. There are some on the pro-life side who say that even in the eventuality that the mother will die it is still not acceptable to have an abortion. So much for being pro-life, especially since in many of these cases the baby will most likely die with the mother. I'm going to use the case of one of my cousins for example, who has some sort of unusual condition that makes being pregnant poisonous to her body and therefore unable to carry a baby to full term and also running the risk of killing herself. Would it be wrong for her to have an abortion then, if it were to save her life? I'm going to use various examples from my family because they seem to have a lot of trouble with fertility and childbirth. My mother, when I was in elementary school, had what is called an ectopic pregnancy (or tubal pregnancy) when the feritlized egg implanted itself in the fallopian tubes (tubes leading from the ovaries) instead of in the uteran wall. This condition, if the fetus is left to grow instead of being removed, is fatal to the mother at a very early stage in the pregnancy, and therefore to the baby as well. Only option here is an abortion.
My grandmother was faced with life/death situation in which the doctors told her she would most likely not survive giving birth to her third child. My mother was her second child and when going into labor she suffered something called placenta praevia, when the placenta attaches itself in a certain way to the uteran wall, and when the water breaks it tears open the blood vessels in the uterus and results in severe hemmoraging (the same thing happened to my mother when she gave birth to my brother). My grandmother did die giving birth to my mother, but they were able to bring her back and she was told not to have any more children, because next time they may not have been able to save her. And of course, by a freak accident, she became pregnant and they advised her to have an abortion, which she refused so my grandparents where sent back to America (grandpa was in the navy, and they were stationed in Scotland) so that grandma could say good-bye to her family in the event that she did die. All of these stories have a happy ending, for those of you who are reading this and possibly feeling sad. My grandmother gave birth to my uncle with no problems other than he was a very big baby, my brother was born safely (though my mother almost hemmoraged to death because several doctors and nurses left her sitting in the hallway of the hospital). Mom ended up having an abortion for the ectopic pregnancy, and my cousin, the one with the condition that made pregnancy poisonous to her body, has successfully given birth to two children the first was premature (which was expected given her condition) but she gave him up for adoption which she regrets, and the second she managed to carry to full term without any complications and who just turned 2 years old this week.
Of course none of these really illustrates the im/morality of abortion, other than these are legitimate life/death situations in which having an abortion is/would be morally acceptable. To disregard a woman's reproductive rights in any instance is wrong, and to say that protecting her own life by getting an abortion is wrong is thereby disregarding her status as a human being with a right to life. Historically a woman's body and health were not treated seriously. She has been a possession, a vessal for the continuation of a family line, it was her husband who controlled her life and reproductive capablities. Women's health has also been very misunderstood, even during times of medical advancement, such as in Victorian England, where doctors where beginning to make breakthroughs in medicine, but they were only allowed to examine a woman only where her skin was exposed, which was difficult because victorian dress women were covered from throat to feet, with only her face and hands being exposed. Nore were they allowed to perform autopsies on women, so they knew very little about how a woman's body functioned compared to that of a man's. To cut a long story short, my defense of pro-life is on a woman's right as a living entity to her own life and body. And it's not just the term of pregnancy we are talking about, it's literally the rest of her life, or at least until the child reaches adulthood. I wouldn't suffer a rape victim to not only carry and give birth to her rapist's child, but to be forced to raise that child. It would be an extraordinary woman to do that without hatred and resentment, what kind of environment is that for either mother or child? And the physical damage it does to the body, often disfiguring, let alone the emotional/hormonal stress and the physical stress it places on the body. A pregnant woman is supporting two bodies and the baby gets what it needs first, even at the harm of the mother. I know of a woman who lost all of her teeth because the baby had drained calcium from some of her bones.
I guess what I'm getting at is less philosophical than what the authors have been getting at, but I feel rather strongly about Thomson's essay. The analogy of the violinist with the bad kidneys was good. Under what circumstances would I myself have an abortion? I can't claim definite answers to any situation, I can't know how I'll choose if ever faced with the situation. If I were raped, I think most definitly yes, for reasons I stated above. If I were to become pregnant now, before I've finished my education, I don't know. I'm not in a position to be able to care for a baby, I can't support it well without a career and being tens of thousands of dollars in debt, but I feel that if I did have an abortion I would regret it for the rest of my life, because I did kill my own child. What about adoption you say? I wouldn't suffer any child to be in the American adoption system, I've heard too many horror stories to subject any child to a life of parentlessness and a feeling of being unwanted, to foster or adoptive homes where they could most likely suffer horrible abuse, or the rare eventuallity that they end up in a home with loving parents who decided not to adopt from asia.
I'm done for the night.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Mill: Utilitarianism Part 2 and On Liberty 1
It would seem that the main argument against utilitarianism is on the grouds of justice, though it doesn't seem immediately clear as to what the objection is. So I'm going to speculate a bit and say that some would argue that a doctrine that is based on happiness and on the practical means of obtaining happiness for both individuals and a group would be antithetical to the idea of justice because if everyone were constantly seeking would make them happy then there would be a lot of selfish and greed and, by extention, unjust behavior, and that, in short, what is best for the individual isn't necessarily best for the whole group. I think my speculation may be a bit flawed, but I will continue.
I really like the way Mill describes the origin or justice, not as Hume would describe it as an artificial virtue, but as something that is a natural instinct that arises from natural inclinations of right and wrong, or harm fight or flight. If one person takes it to harm them, and it would be universally understood by each individual of the group, or accepted, that they too would consider it a harm towards them, then it is then unjust. Justice is then exacted when the group exacts vengence against the wrongdoer in order to protect or defend those individual members of the group that have been harmed, because (as we saw with the lions and the waterbuffalo) if you hurt one of them you have harmed them all and they will do anything to protect one another.
Yay for individuality! Personally I don't want to be a lemming, zombie, whatever, though I can understand that it is difficult for a society to balance between what is best for the individual and what is best for the society as a whole. I am complete (but never static) and unto myself, though every single one of us, no matter how strong of an individual, has been guilty of following the crowd at some point or other, it's whether or not we find the strength to overcome the peer pressure that's important. And I'm stubborn and outspoken enough that if I had been born a couple of centuries earlier I probably would have been burned at the stake. That's where many outspoken people ended up, because they were obviously in league with the devil. Medieval scare tactics are pretty amusing. I somewhat disagree with Mill on this point, ages such as these really did suppress the individual and those who displayed individuality (at least of those who were not in power) were severly punished. It was when such individuality eventually did flourish that we have such times as the Renaissance, which began when Johannes Gutenburg invented the printing press, when art flourished (under the patronage of the Church and other powerful patrons, think Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel and the Meddici's). But some did run into trouble, like Galileo who's ideas (as I learned in my Astronomy class) weren't what infuriated the church but his satire The Dialogue Concerning the Two Cheif World Systems in which he made a mockery of the Church and their outmoded conception of geocentricity. Even Michelangelo got into trouble, his David was actually very unpopular when it was first made and his fresco of the last judgement in the sistine chapel? (painted many years after he completed the ceiling) made a lot of people angry. I think it was the nudity that was deemed inappropriate, something about angels, saints and martyrs should be clothed. Okay, enough with the art history lesson.
Now for my favorite quote from Mill: "In proportion to the developement of his individuality, each person becomes more valuable to himself, and is therefore capable of being more valuable to others." A perfect statement to illustrate the necessity of individuals in a society, especially those strong independent individuals. Many might say that those people are outspoken or dangerous because they don't always follow the norm, and normality, or mediocrity, is societies security blanket and uppity individuals threaten that security. But as we have seen it is those strong creative individuals who help shape history and can benefit others. Mill's line reminds me of something I read in a book on chakra healing, dealing with the heart chakra, that you can't fully love another person until you have learned to love yourself. A strong individual has integrity and self-respect, and therefore loves themself, and people tend to gravitate towards the strong and that attitude has a tendency to rub off on other people and they become the better for it, it is a person whose strength and self-love (not narcissistic) who has a greater capacity to love other individuals who is the most beneficial and useful to society, and who is more likely to be actively interested in their community.
I would like to make two more points concerning this, and they are going to be more like critisisms. First Mill also pointed out that many strong individuals are also very intelligent individuals (I don't think that intelligence and integrity necessarily go hand in hand, it doesn't take a genius or even someone of mediocre intelligence to make a good moral decision, there are many people out there who we may call unintelligent who stick to their guns in the face of opposition and take an active stance in the wellfare of their community) though many of those individuals are deemed eccentric. Some eccentric people can be fun, some are weird and some are downright strange and people try to avoid them (like Van Gogh). In this instance people would not gravitate towards them no matter how genius they are. Some eccentric people really aren't all that scary, their just offbeat and that makes them more interesting.
Secondly Mill also points out that many strong willed individuals can also be extremly dangerous and bad. And I would say that the difference between the good strong willed individual and the bad one is the point of self-love. It may be a little difficult to make this point so bear with me. As stated before, the person who respects and loves themself has a greater capacity to love others. If this is a true statement than it would only seem to be that those who are strong willed but bad and hurtful to others does not love others and therefore does not really love themselves. Now for examples, and I know that this one has been overused but I'm going to utilize Hitler. Hitler obviously didn't have a lot of love for anyone (definitely not a utilitarian) but I believe that this arises from a lack of self-love. I believe that Hitler was a very self-hating individual, and such individuals can lash out at others who they see as representative of themselves, in this instance the Jews (It is rumored that Hitler had some Jewish heritage) so why kill off your own people? It was a part of himself that he wanted to destroy; then he goes on to idolize physical ethnic attribute by building the Aerean race, blonde hair and blue eyes, which Hitler did not have. (I've read recently that the whole "ethnic cleansing" was Hindler's idea and that Hitler wasn't quite on board with it, but obviously he didn't stop it and definitely propogated it.) Another example comes from a movie Rebel Without a Cause when the character known as Plato who is introduced at the beginning of the movie in a police station having been taken into custody for shooting to death a litter of puppies. I watched this film for my Masculinities in Film class so we analysed his character quite a bit. Plato was from a wealthy family, his parents were never around and he was in the care of a nanny. He is a highschool student who is small and gets picked on a lot and has violent spurts of anger periodically throughout the film and he is slightly effeminate (I thought he was more timid and quiet than really effeminate) but it is pointed out that he may very well be homosexual (there are signifiers in the movie that point to this, and at the time this movie was made there were laws applied to the cinema that banned depictions or references to homosexuality). In short Plato was insecure, angry, and for the most part, helpless and innocent, like the puppies. So why would he take out his anger so violently on creatures that were powerless to defend themselves? It seems to me that he killed them because he saw them as being like himself, it was a way to try and kill that helpless aspect within himself and to take control and dominate those insecurities. In the end of the movie those insecurities get the best of him and he snapps, which leads to his death (sorry to spoil the movie).
Okay I think that is enough for tonight, long story short strong self-loving person is good, strong self-hating person is bad, and as for the eccentrics, there good weird and there is bad weird. And don't kill puppies!
I really like the way Mill describes the origin or justice, not as Hume would describe it as an artificial virtue, but as something that is a natural instinct that arises from natural inclinations of right and wrong, or harm fight or flight. If one person takes it to harm them, and it would be universally understood by each individual of the group, or accepted, that they too would consider it a harm towards them, then it is then unjust. Justice is then exacted when the group exacts vengence against the wrongdoer in order to protect or defend those individual members of the group that have been harmed, because (as we saw with the lions and the waterbuffalo) if you hurt one of them you have harmed them all and they will do anything to protect one another.
Yay for individuality! Personally I don't want to be a lemming, zombie, whatever, though I can understand that it is difficult for a society to balance between what is best for the individual and what is best for the society as a whole. I am complete (but never static) and unto myself, though every single one of us, no matter how strong of an individual, has been guilty of following the crowd at some point or other, it's whether or not we find the strength to overcome the peer pressure that's important. And I'm stubborn and outspoken enough that if I had been born a couple of centuries earlier I probably would have been burned at the stake. That's where many outspoken people ended up, because they were obviously in league with the devil. Medieval scare tactics are pretty amusing. I somewhat disagree with Mill on this point, ages such as these really did suppress the individual and those who displayed individuality (at least of those who were not in power) were severly punished. It was when such individuality eventually did flourish that we have such times as the Renaissance, which began when Johannes Gutenburg invented the printing press, when art flourished (under the patronage of the Church and other powerful patrons, think Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel and the Meddici's). But some did run into trouble, like Galileo who's ideas (as I learned in my Astronomy class) weren't what infuriated the church but his satire The Dialogue Concerning the Two Cheif World Systems in which he made a mockery of the Church and their outmoded conception of geocentricity. Even Michelangelo got into trouble, his David was actually very unpopular when it was first made and his fresco of the last judgement in the sistine chapel? (painted many years after he completed the ceiling) made a lot of people angry. I think it was the nudity that was deemed inappropriate, something about angels, saints and martyrs should be clothed. Okay, enough with the art history lesson.
Now for my favorite quote from Mill: "In proportion to the developement of his individuality, each person becomes more valuable to himself, and is therefore capable of being more valuable to others." A perfect statement to illustrate the necessity of individuals in a society, especially those strong independent individuals. Many might say that those people are outspoken or dangerous because they don't always follow the norm, and normality, or mediocrity, is societies security blanket and uppity individuals threaten that security. But as we have seen it is those strong creative individuals who help shape history and can benefit others. Mill's line reminds me of something I read in a book on chakra healing, dealing with the heart chakra, that you can't fully love another person until you have learned to love yourself. A strong individual has integrity and self-respect, and therefore loves themself, and people tend to gravitate towards the strong and that attitude has a tendency to rub off on other people and they become the better for it, it is a person whose strength and self-love (not narcissistic) who has a greater capacity to love other individuals who is the most beneficial and useful to society, and who is more likely to be actively interested in their community.
I would like to make two more points concerning this, and they are going to be more like critisisms. First Mill also pointed out that many strong individuals are also very intelligent individuals (I don't think that intelligence and integrity necessarily go hand in hand, it doesn't take a genius or even someone of mediocre intelligence to make a good moral decision, there are many people out there who we may call unintelligent who stick to their guns in the face of opposition and take an active stance in the wellfare of their community) though many of those individuals are deemed eccentric. Some eccentric people can be fun, some are weird and some are downright strange and people try to avoid them (like Van Gogh). In this instance people would not gravitate towards them no matter how genius they are. Some eccentric people really aren't all that scary, their just offbeat and that makes them more interesting.
Secondly Mill also points out that many strong willed individuals can also be extremly dangerous and bad. And I would say that the difference between the good strong willed individual and the bad one is the point of self-love. It may be a little difficult to make this point so bear with me. As stated before, the person who respects and loves themself has a greater capacity to love others. If this is a true statement than it would only seem to be that those who are strong willed but bad and hurtful to others does not love others and therefore does not really love themselves. Now for examples, and I know that this one has been overused but I'm going to utilize Hitler. Hitler obviously didn't have a lot of love for anyone (definitely not a utilitarian) but I believe that this arises from a lack of self-love. I believe that Hitler was a very self-hating individual, and such individuals can lash out at others who they see as representative of themselves, in this instance the Jews (It is rumored that Hitler had some Jewish heritage) so why kill off your own people? It was a part of himself that he wanted to destroy; then he goes on to idolize physical ethnic attribute by building the Aerean race, blonde hair and blue eyes, which Hitler did not have. (I've read recently that the whole "ethnic cleansing" was Hindler's idea and that Hitler wasn't quite on board with it, but obviously he didn't stop it and definitely propogated it.) Another example comes from a movie Rebel Without a Cause when the character known as Plato who is introduced at the beginning of the movie in a police station having been taken into custody for shooting to death a litter of puppies. I watched this film for my Masculinities in Film class so we analysed his character quite a bit. Plato was from a wealthy family, his parents were never around and he was in the care of a nanny. He is a highschool student who is small and gets picked on a lot and has violent spurts of anger periodically throughout the film and he is slightly effeminate (I thought he was more timid and quiet than really effeminate) but it is pointed out that he may very well be homosexual (there are signifiers in the movie that point to this, and at the time this movie was made there were laws applied to the cinema that banned depictions or references to homosexuality). In short Plato was insecure, angry, and for the most part, helpless and innocent, like the puppies. So why would he take out his anger so violently on creatures that were powerless to defend themselves? It seems to me that he killed them because he saw them as being like himself, it was a way to try and kill that helpless aspect within himself and to take control and dominate those insecurities. In the end of the movie those insecurities get the best of him and he snapps, which leads to his death (sorry to spoil the movie).
Okay I think that is enough for tonight, long story short strong self-loving person is good, strong self-hating person is bad, and as for the eccentrics, there good weird and there is bad weird. And don't kill puppies!
Response to Reading list
To JMc: the series by Piers Anthony that you mentioned is called The Magic of Xanth, which did get pretty silly after a while, and there are far too many of them for them to not get silly (I think I found book 24 of the series in a used bookstore once). The Incarnations of Immortatlity are different than the Xanth novels. It is a collection of only seven books that form an intricately woven story, each book is a different perspective of the same plot, which all cumulate in the the last book. Each one is the story of one of the main characters who are human beings that stepped up to fill the office of the beings that control our world, Death, Time, Fate, Nature, War, Good, and Evil. Throughout the first five books the incarnation of evil (Satan) is the antagonist and you will spend most of the series believing he's a complete asshole, until you get to For Love of Evil, which is his story and you find out why he is doing the things that he does and he will become your favorite character. These books challenge the widely accepted Christian moral doctrine, though the author tends to use outlandish and make believe situations to make his point.
Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged was a great book I really liked the ideas behind it though I can't say that I agree with everything. Everytime we learn something new in this class I always relate back to it in my mind, though the memory of what happened in the book is no longer fresh in my mind, so I'm not going to make a serious attempt to relate it back to Utilitarianism, well maybe, but not yet.
Memnoch the Devil is very religious in nature, the basic plot being that the Devil has been stalking Lestat and wants him to be his right hand man. Memnoch takes Lestat through time to witness the Creation, the Fall, and the Passion and then to Heaven and Hell. It's interesting points are that like Piers Anthony's books, it challenges Catholocism and raises interesting questions about such issues as Creationism v. Evolutionism, fear and death, gender and God, and what it means to be human (that last part is a little vague)
To Nick: I don't know those other books, so I am sorry to dissappoint. Secondly, Ayn Rand is considered one of the most influential philosophical minds of the 20th century, her area is called Objectivism. Richard Bach is also well known, though it is for Illusions but his previous work, Jonathan Livingston Seagull, which is also read within an academic setting, though I'm not sure that he is given much thought outside of the highschool level. And I don't think that having a degree in philosophy is all that important when it comes to writing philosophy. Great minds don't always come out of an academic setting, and it doesn't take years of intense study to be able to seriously contemplate the world around us. The very first philosophers weren't schooled in philosophy, it takes thoughtfulness, inquisitiveness, and a mind for abstract thought.
Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged was a great book I really liked the ideas behind it though I can't say that I agree with everything. Everytime we learn something new in this class I always relate back to it in my mind, though the memory of what happened in the book is no longer fresh in my mind, so I'm not going to make a serious attempt to relate it back to Utilitarianism, well maybe, but not yet.
Memnoch the Devil is very religious in nature, the basic plot being that the Devil has been stalking Lestat and wants him to be his right hand man. Memnoch takes Lestat through time to witness the Creation, the Fall, and the Passion and then to Heaven and Hell. It's interesting points are that like Piers Anthony's books, it challenges Catholocism and raises interesting questions about such issues as Creationism v. Evolutionism, fear and death, gender and God, and what it means to be human (that last part is a little vague)
To Nick: I don't know those other books, so I am sorry to dissappoint. Secondly, Ayn Rand is considered one of the most influential philosophical minds of the 20th century, her area is called Objectivism. Richard Bach is also well known, though it is for Illusions but his previous work, Jonathan Livingston Seagull, which is also read within an academic setting, though I'm not sure that he is given much thought outside of the highschool level. And I don't think that having a degree in philosophy is all that important when it comes to writing philosophy. Great minds don't always come out of an academic setting, and it doesn't take years of intense study to be able to seriously contemplate the world around us. The very first philosophers weren't schooled in philosophy, it takes thoughtfulness, inquisitiveness, and a mind for abstract thought.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Diane's Suggested Reading List
For those of you who are interested.
I mentioned a book in my last blog, buried somewhere towards the bottom of one of the paragraphs, so I thought I would compile a list of books that I have read which I think are relevant to ethics and morality and even spirituality (since religion and morality have a tendency to go hand in hand). These are mostly novels, which to me is the best way to read philosophical ideas, in story form, it's much more interesting and usually makes more sense (for me at least)
1. Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah by Richard Bach
2. Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
3. Memnoch the Devil by Anne Rice
4. The Incarnations of Immortality Series by Piers Anthony (especially On a Pale Horse, For Love of Evil, & And Eternity)
I mentioned a book in my last blog, buried somewhere towards the bottom of one of the paragraphs, so I thought I would compile a list of books that I have read which I think are relevant to ethics and morality and even spirituality (since religion and morality have a tendency to go hand in hand). These are mostly novels, which to me is the best way to read philosophical ideas, in story form, it's much more interesting and usually makes more sense (for me at least)
1. Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah by Richard Bach
2. Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
3. Memnoch the Devil by Anne Rice
4. The Incarnations of Immortality Series by Piers Anthony (especially On a Pale Horse, For Love of Evil, & And Eternity)
Utilitarianism 1
I think I like this book, it takes some concentration but it is a little easier to follow and Mill gets to the point in fewer pages, which is something many philosophers have trouble with. Many of them are far too wordy (I hate you, Descartes...) so their point gets lost and confused. Or Hume, I liked Hume's ideas but I wanted to take the Treatise and throw it against a wall.
Anyway, as of now Utilitariansim makes sense to me (but I don't pretend to have a full understanding of it). Basically Utilitarianism is the logical or reasonable decisions which produce the most amount of good or the least amount of bad for the most people. I take the word utility to mean useful or practical. To use the WWII example from class the other day, if we applied utility to that situation allowing the Germans to bomb the English village in order retain the knowledge of how to crack the german's secret code would have been not the right thing to do but the appropriate thing to do. It would save far more people in the long run. It may seem cold, and I think it is safe to assume that anyone would assume the person who would make the decision to allow the village to be bombed would have made said decision heartlessly. Even I am guilty of this thought. But on second thought I would say that the decision would be very difficult and painful to make and would have haunted that person for the rest of their life.
As for those people who argue against Utilitarianism, saying that happiness is an unreasonable and unachievable goal for human beings I say whatever. As Mill pointed out those things which we find most desirable in life are those things that make us happy. "-if human nature is so constituted as to desire nothing which is not either a part of happiness or a means of happiness, we can have no other proof, and we require no other, that these are the only things desirable. If so, happiness is the sole end of human action, and the promotion of it the test by which to judge of all human conduct; from whence it necessarily follows that it must be the criterion of morality, since a part is included in the whole." (p.213:9) I like this, a practical ethical system that is based on not only on what is needed for our society to function as a group but that happiness is the goal for both the group and the individual.
Another interesting claim against Utilitarianism is that it is a godless philosophy. I like how Mill counters this as well. "If it be a true belief that God desires, above all things, the happiness of his creatures, and this was his purpose in their creation, utility is not only not a godless doctrine, but more profoundly religious than any other." (198:22) It was the first part of this sentence that struck me in particular to the rest, because it reminded me of one of my favorite books (and probably one of the greatest books ever written), Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah by Richard Bach. If anyone is reading this blog, please read this book, and if you decide not to read the whole thing (it's barely 100 pages) at least read the first chapter, which is what I referring to, but I won't explain further because I don't want to spoil it.
There was something in Mill's writing which I found a little puzzling or more intriguing. When he was talking about education or intelligence and basically said that those with greater intellectual faculties have a more acute sense of what happiness and pain are than say a fool, and therefore experience happiness to a greater degree and seek to attain more because it takes more to make them happy, and on the same turn experience pain more acutely than others. Maybe I am misunderstanding the point he is making, and he makes his argument well but I can't say that I totally agree with it.
Anyway, as of now Utilitariansim makes sense to me (but I don't pretend to have a full understanding of it). Basically Utilitarianism is the logical or reasonable decisions which produce the most amount of good or the least amount of bad for the most people. I take the word utility to mean useful or practical. To use the WWII example from class the other day, if we applied utility to that situation allowing the Germans to bomb the English village in order retain the knowledge of how to crack the german's secret code would have been not the right thing to do but the appropriate thing to do. It would save far more people in the long run. It may seem cold, and I think it is safe to assume that anyone would assume the person who would make the decision to allow the village to be bombed would have made said decision heartlessly. Even I am guilty of this thought. But on second thought I would say that the decision would be very difficult and painful to make and would have haunted that person for the rest of their life.
As for those people who argue against Utilitarianism, saying that happiness is an unreasonable and unachievable goal for human beings I say whatever. As Mill pointed out those things which we find most desirable in life are those things that make us happy. "-if human nature is so constituted as to desire nothing which is not either a part of happiness or a means of happiness, we can have no other proof, and we require no other, that these are the only things desirable. If so, happiness is the sole end of human action, and the promotion of it the test by which to judge of all human conduct; from whence it necessarily follows that it must be the criterion of morality, since a part is included in the whole." (p.213:9) I like this, a practical ethical system that is based on not only on what is needed for our society to function as a group but that happiness is the goal for both the group and the individual.
Another interesting claim against Utilitarianism is that it is a godless philosophy. I like how Mill counters this as well. "If it be a true belief that God desires, above all things, the happiness of his creatures, and this was his purpose in their creation, utility is not only not a godless doctrine, but more profoundly religious than any other." (198:22) It was the first part of this sentence that struck me in particular to the rest, because it reminded me of one of my favorite books (and probably one of the greatest books ever written), Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah by Richard Bach. If anyone is reading this blog, please read this book, and if you decide not to read the whole thing (it's barely 100 pages) at least read the first chapter, which is what I referring to, but I won't explain further because I don't want to spoil it.
There was something in Mill's writing which I found a little puzzling or more intriguing. When he was talking about education or intelligence and basically said that those with greater intellectual faculties have a more acute sense of what happiness and pain are than say a fool, and therefore experience happiness to a greater degree and seek to attain more because it takes more to make them happy, and on the same turn experience pain more acutely than others. Maybe I am misunderstanding the point he is making, and he makes his argument well but I can't say that I totally agree with it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
