The Clockwork Orange emphasizes the fundamental importance of moral choice. This was show en through the ultra-violence of Alex. After the movies release, copycat crimes were so rife in Britain, that Kubrick himself withdrew it from U.K. markets for over two decades. Kubrick fell victim for the usual moralistic condemnations for the way the film seemed to colorize Alex's rapacious taste for ultra-violence. This backlash was based on an incomplete understanding of the director's intentions.
I find A Clockwork Orange to be one of Stanley Kubrick's most life-affirming works. The final scene, where a chastened Prime Minister has an impressive sound system wheeled into Alex's hospital room, the chorale finale of the "Ode to Joy" booming in the background while Alex fantasizes about raping a young woman as a Victorian-era upper crust applauds in approval, is one of the most ambivalently exhilarating sequences in the history of cinema. Alex ends the film with with: "I was cured, all right!"
Alex was cured from was the effect of the Ludovico technique. His attempt to "snuff it" by jumping out a window had caused him sufficient trauma to the head. However, this trauma did not liberate him from the nightmarish conditioning process as most people who have seen the movie have interpreted. Alex was conditioned to to feel nausea whenever he was confronted by sex and violence. However, Alex, conditioned himself to tolerate the nausea using graphic sexually violent images to deter the nausea. He could then resume his old sadistic thoughts and condition himself to no longer become nauseated at the prospect of sex or violence, Alex was free to resume his old ways. In my view, Kubrick celebrates Alex's recovered freedom of choice here. No matter how monstrous Alex was, it was clear that the State attempted to rob Alex of his free will. After his suicide attempt, the state saw they had done wrong, that they revoked his free will by conditioning him to not have a choice.
Kubrick focused on this theme. In an interview with Stanly Kubrick in 1980 about the film, the question "how do you see your own film?" was asked. Kubrick replied that "The central idea of the film has to do with the question of free will". Do we lose our humanity if we are deprived of the choice between good and evil? Do we become, as the title suggests, A Clockwork Orange?" Kubrick answers "yes" to this question.
To reduce Alex to a collection of innate drives and claim that he did not have free will before the Ludovico treatment because his psychological makeup governed his behavior seems to miss the real point of the film. Alex, before the treatment was a free agent capable of moral choice and after the treatment, he was robed of making moral choices. In the novel, the chaplain asks Alex, as he considers whether to submit himself to the conditioning process, if it might not be better to choose evil willingly than to do good unwillingly. The answer to that question is that indeed it might.
At the end Kubrick has us identify with Alex not just as the embodiment of our repressed desires, but as an immensely dynamic force of life, albeit one put to evil ends. Kubrick stacks the deck early on by making Alex's victims as unsympathetic as possible (in chronological order, a sodden street bum, a gang about to rape someone, a rich bleeding heart liberal and his snooty wife, his own derelict droogs, and the bony old ptitsa with 100 cats), so we feel little for them when they are abused. In the end, we rejoice that Alex has recovered his will, though we expect him to return to his old, depraved ways, and this time as a protected member of the establishment.
It is comparatively easy to affirm human existence by depicting the triumph of good over evil. It is much more difficult to convincingly celebrate being in the world in the face of some of its greatest challenges. Tragedy, to my mind, is the most profound of theatrical genres precisely because of its ability to be life affirming despite the injustice of the fates of its protagonists. A Clockwork Orange celebrates human freedom, while showing some of its distasteful consequences. In A Clockwork Orange, Kubrick confronts us with the immoral monstrosity that is little Alex. For the Ode to Joy at the end tells us how to read the meaning of the sequence; it would be much worse for society to rob such an individual of the capacity to do evil than it is to be forced to continue to deal with the consequences of his choosing to do so.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
The Future of Man and Technology
I've been working on a paper for the last year and I'm hoping to succeed in publishing it this February. I can not post the entire paper, but here is the Abstract.
Abstract: Within the next forty years, humans will have the ability to create superhuman intelligence. After this accomplishment, the human era will end and be replaced by posthuman existence. The ethical issues concerning the future creation of superintelligent machines must be explored in order to rectify the possibility of any harmful ramifications these machines might have on humans once implemented. I will discuss some of the ethical issues in creating these superintelligent machines as well ways we could implement them in a manner in which their motivations and intellectual capacities accelerate human development without any negative or harmful consequences for human beings.
Abstract: Within the next forty years, humans will have the ability to create superhuman intelligence. After this accomplishment, the human era will end and be replaced by posthuman existence. The ethical issues concerning the future creation of superintelligent machines must be explored in order to rectify the possibility of any harmful ramifications these machines might have on humans once implemented. I will discuss some of the ethical issues in creating these superintelligent machines as well ways we could implement them in a manner in which their motivations and intellectual capacities accelerate human development without any negative or harmful consequences for human beings.
Retributive Justice
Can a system of punishment that takes the categorical imperative seriously really permit the death penalty?
Kant offers a pure statement of the retributive theory of punishment. The idea is that it is wrong to punish people for utilitarian reasons and therefore any sort of legal punishment must always be a response to guilt. If the only motive in punishing someone is to deter others, set an example or protect others or society in general, then the person who is punished is punished is punished wrongly. Thus punishment must always be in response to guilt. However, Kant goes deeper into this in so far as the guilty must be punished for justice and equality to be served. Equality is the principle that must be used in selecting a punishment. Kant uses a metaphor. He refers to the principle of equality as the one by which the pointer of the scale of justice is made to incline no more to one side than to the other.
One idea of Kant's theory on punishment is the familiar "an eye for an eye". Thus, the evil that a wrongdoer inflicts is the measure of how severely so/he should be punished. Kant's requirement is that the pain inflicted on the criminal should be equivalent to the pain inflicted on the victim. That is one part of the jus talionis -- the right of retaliation. Kant's second idea on punishment is found in the statement:
If you steal from another, you steal from yourself.
This statement infers that by stealing, criminals make property insecure in general. They act on a motive that, if it were universalized, would make their own property insecure and similarly, people who slander others make their own good names insecure in the sense that they operate from a maxim that, if it were made universal, would make it acceptable for anyone to slander anyone, themselves included.
The connection between this and the right of retaliation seems to be this: it shows that the wrong of stealing, for example, is the sort that the thief would suffer himself if his maxim were generalized. So the appropriate punishment for a robber should be that he is derived of his property. These two ideas link in a moral union between crime and punishment. What is less clear is how it leads to the conclusion that we must extract a punishment proportional to the crime. So again, if we don't punish the wrongdoer, something is out of balance; justice has not been served. When we come to the particular case of capital punishment, we see that Kant thinks it is both permissible and obligatory in the case of murder. The only thing that is proportional to the crime of killing another person is the execution of the murderer. Kant asserts that if a society were abut to dissolve itself, but it had murderers awaiting execution, "the last murder lying in prison ought to be executed" before the society dissolves itself. According to Kant, the two primary reason for this : "That everyone may realize the desert of his deeds". Kant goes further: "for otherwise they might all be regarded as participators in the murder as a public violation of justice."
But just exactly how far can the principle of retaliation go? If a murderer tortures his victim painfully before killing him, and if we take the jus talionis seriously, we would conclude that the murderer should be tortured before being executed. Torture is inhuman. Those who torture others are showing us their inhumanity. But if by doing as they do, even if its in retaliation, we sink to their immoral. We become morally polluted by the very evil that we respond to. Kant does touch slightly on this matter when we writes about the condemned person:
His death... must be kept free from all maltreatment that would make the humanity suffering in his person loathsome or abominable.
Kant is unclear here. The idea seems that even a person guilty of murder is to be treated with a certain sort of dignity, because even the murderer is still a person -- still an end in himself and therefore punishments that don't respect the humanity of the criminal are outside the pale of morality. They are not justice, they are pure, unadulterated revenge . Thus, it would be a mistake to confuse what Kant means by "retribution" with revenge. Revenge is a natural response, but so is stealing at times.We therefore must rise above our moral instincts. This rise is what makes it hard to be a virtuous person. And in the sphere of punishment, morality requires that we respect the humanity of the person we are punishing. In punishing a wrongdoer, we do respect their freedom: we take seriously the idea that she is responsible for what she did, and was free to do otherwise.So punishing a wrongdoer amounts to respecting his or her "rational will".
So on one hand, punishing a person may be a way of respecting his or her humanity. On the other hand, some forms of punishment violate the humanity of the person being punished, and in the process debase us. It is mostly universally accepted that punishing a torturer by torture is not an acceptable form of punishment. A wrongdoer who is tortured is a person who has, at least for the time being, had their humanity expunged. However, an opponent of capital punishment could ask: Isn't murder like torture in this respect? Doesn't a murderer rob his victim entirely of their humanity and by punishing a murder, we in return are robing him of his humanity? A counter response question could be, well if we execute murderers, might this not be one of those very cases, like torture, in which the jus talionis goes too far? Suppose a super inhumane criminal left his victims alive, but performed inhuman experiments on them that destroyed their mental capacities, leaving them catatonic state. Here, Kant would insist that it would not be appropriate to punish the wrongdoer by subjecting him to the same procedure. The fact that the criminal did not respect the humanity of his victims does not entitle us to rob him of his humanity. But if this is so, then one particular question arises: how could capital punishment be justified? When the state kills a murderer, the state take it upon itself to extract his humanity from him in the most final way. So in return, we must ask: can a system of punishment that takes the categorical imperative seriously really permit the death penalty? If torture and inhuman experiments are not acceptable forms of punishment, why is it that execution is an acceptable form of punishment?
Kant offers a pure statement of the retributive theory of punishment. The idea is that it is wrong to punish people for utilitarian reasons and therefore any sort of legal punishment must always be a response to guilt. If the only motive in punishing someone is to deter others, set an example or protect others or society in general, then the person who is punished is punished is punished wrongly. Thus punishment must always be in response to guilt. However, Kant goes deeper into this in so far as the guilty must be punished for justice and equality to be served. Equality is the principle that must be used in selecting a punishment. Kant uses a metaphor. He refers to the principle of equality as the one by which the pointer of the scale of justice is made to incline no more to one side than to the other.
One idea of Kant's theory on punishment is the familiar "an eye for an eye". Thus, the evil that a wrongdoer inflicts is the measure of how severely so/he should be punished. Kant's requirement is that the pain inflicted on the criminal should be equivalent to the pain inflicted on the victim. That is one part of the jus talionis -- the right of retaliation. Kant's second idea on punishment is found in the statement:
If you steal from another, you steal from yourself.
This statement infers that by stealing, criminals make property insecure in general. They act on a motive that, if it were universalized, would make their own property insecure and similarly, people who slander others make their own good names insecure in the sense that they operate from a maxim that, if it were made universal, would make it acceptable for anyone to slander anyone, themselves included.
The connection between this and the right of retaliation seems to be this: it shows that the wrong of stealing, for example, is the sort that the thief would suffer himself if his maxim were generalized. So the appropriate punishment for a robber should be that he is derived of his property. These two ideas link in a moral union between crime and punishment. What is less clear is how it leads to the conclusion that we must extract a punishment proportional to the crime. So again, if we don't punish the wrongdoer, something is out of balance; justice has not been served. When we come to the particular case of capital punishment, we see that Kant thinks it is both permissible and obligatory in the case of murder. The only thing that is proportional to the crime of killing another person is the execution of the murderer. Kant asserts that if a society were abut to dissolve itself, but it had murderers awaiting execution, "the last murder lying in prison ought to be executed" before the society dissolves itself. According to Kant, the two primary reason for this : "That everyone may realize the desert of his deeds". Kant goes further: "for otherwise they might all be regarded as participators in the murder as a public violation of justice."
But just exactly how far can the principle of retaliation go? If a murderer tortures his victim painfully before killing him, and if we take the jus talionis seriously, we would conclude that the murderer should be tortured before being executed. Torture is inhuman. Those who torture others are showing us their inhumanity. But if by doing as they do, even if its in retaliation, we sink to their immoral. We become morally polluted by the very evil that we respond to. Kant does touch slightly on this matter when we writes about the condemned person:
His death... must be kept free from all maltreatment that would make the humanity suffering in his person loathsome or abominable.
Kant is unclear here. The idea seems that even a person guilty of murder is to be treated with a certain sort of dignity, because even the murderer is still a person -- still an end in himself and therefore punishments that don't respect the humanity of the criminal are outside the pale of morality. They are not justice, they are pure, unadulterated revenge . Thus, it would be a mistake to confuse what Kant means by "retribution" with revenge. Revenge is a natural response, but so is stealing at times.We therefore must rise above our moral instincts. This rise is what makes it hard to be a virtuous person. And in the sphere of punishment, morality requires that we respect the humanity of the person we are punishing. In punishing a wrongdoer, we do respect their freedom: we take seriously the idea that she is responsible for what she did, and was free to do otherwise.So punishing a wrongdoer amounts to respecting his or her "rational will".
So on one hand, punishing a person may be a way of respecting his or her humanity. On the other hand, some forms of punishment violate the humanity of the person being punished, and in the process debase us. It is mostly universally accepted that punishing a torturer by torture is not an acceptable form of punishment. A wrongdoer who is tortured is a person who has, at least for the time being, had their humanity expunged. However, an opponent of capital punishment could ask: Isn't murder like torture in this respect? Doesn't a murderer rob his victim entirely of their humanity and by punishing a murder, we in return are robing him of his humanity? A counter response question could be, well if we execute murderers, might this not be one of those very cases, like torture, in which the jus talionis goes too far? Suppose a super inhumane criminal left his victims alive, but performed inhuman experiments on them that destroyed their mental capacities, leaving them catatonic state. Here, Kant would insist that it would not be appropriate to punish the wrongdoer by subjecting him to the same procedure. The fact that the criminal did not respect the humanity of his victims does not entitle us to rob him of his humanity. But if this is so, then one particular question arises: how could capital punishment be justified? When the state kills a murderer, the state take it upon itself to extract his humanity from him in the most final way. So in return, we must ask: can a system of punishment that takes the categorical imperative seriously really permit the death penalty? If torture and inhuman experiments are not acceptable forms of punishment, why is it that execution is an acceptable form of punishment?
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Philosophy of Art
A question revisited: What is Art?
Art, all art, has this characteristic, that it unites people. Every art causes those to whom the artist's feeling is transmitted to unite in soul with the artist and also with all who receive the same impression. (Tolstoy in Kennick 1974, p.17)
Every good painter paints what he is. (Jackson Pollock)
The importance of art is as great as significant as the importance of speech. Art can cross boundaries of time and space to bring the observer to a conscious awareness of what the artist experienced. The observer can become aware of pain and isolation that is reflected in the artists experience when creating the work of art. Art passes on feelings and concepts. It constantly evolves and awakens humanity so that humanity becomes aware of its goodness. Thus Tolstoy meant something similar when he wrote that "the more it fulfils this, the better the art". "The less it fulfils this purpose the poorer the art". "Art is communication in humanity and it unites and evolves". "Art, all art, has this characteristic, that it unites people". "Every art causes those to whom the artist's feeling is transmitted to unite in soul with the artist and also with all who receive the same impression". (Tolstoy in Kennick 1974, p.17). There is an interchange of thoughts, expressions, ideas and experiences from the artist to the observer. Art can cause variations of thought for the observer. One might learn something new about themselves when viewing a particular work of art. Thus art is a form of language between the artist and the observer.The language of art is very complex. It may be hard to express how to feel when observing a work of art. However, art utilizes its own language so one can experience sensation.The factor of colour, texture, mood is attributed to sensation and serves as a tool for ones own inspiration, understanding or self knowledge. Art can be a form of medication. It can heal as well as soothe. The surreal realism of art can evoke wild emotional states and these particular states can be the gateway to an idea, a truth, and understanding and serve as a positive treatment for the body. In other words, Art is a form of medication for the mind that has positive affects on the body. Art can have healing benefits on the mind and body. This is then calculated form one observer to the next and can have a universal impact. This impact generates influence across time and space. Thus, good art withstands time and space.
Schopenhauer's Aesthetics:
For Schopenhauer, the Will is an aimless desire that only annihilates itself. This desire contributes to the sadness and pain that exists in this world because each desire of the will leaves us empty or seeking a new dead end desire. Schopenhauer believed that this universal dilemma of the will causes universal conflict. The mind generates a world of representation which opposes the will; but the will is the source of life which competes with the representation and the will stands alone which then becomes the reason for universal conflict and suffering. His aesthetics serve as an alternative for pessimism. He believed that aesthetic experiences entail aesthetic appreciation which allows the observer to refrain from the desire of the will. The aesthetic experience temporarily emancipates the observer form the Will and lets the observer experience pure perception. Thus the artist was also less of a subject to the will. So anyone who less dominated by the will; concerns in life, politics, socialization, ect and are more aware and taken in by aesthetic value and appreciation serve as an example of the domination of the evil will.
Kant's Aesthetics:
Kant investigates the conditions of the validity of feeling that is conveyed to subjects, cognition and desire He denies objective existence to beauty. Aesthetic value for Kant is pleasure by an object of pure contemplation. This aesthetic satisfaction is free from all concern about the world . While beauty does not have objective validity he asserts that the woa has universal subjective validity. So an object pronounced beautiful will please. This stems from our aesthetic judgment which Kant states is always, an "individual" "or a singular one" of the form . He objects that one can attain a valid universal aesthetic judgment of the form. Kant thinks of nature of nature as an aesthetic pleasure which ranks high above art. Kant's main service to aesthetics consists in the critical determination of its objective or aim and its fundamental problems.
Is beauty a single quality in objects?
At the outset we are confronted with an old and almost baffling question: "Is beauty a single quality inherent in objects of perception like form or colour?" Common language certainly suggests that it is. Aesthetics, too, began its inquiry at the same point of view, and its history shows how much pains men have taken in trying to determine the nature of this attribute, as well as that of the faculty of the soul by which it is perceived. Yet a little examination of the facts suffices to show that the theory is beset with serious difficulties. Whatever beauty may be it is certainly not a quality of an object in the same way in which the colour or the form of it is a quality. These are physical qualities, known to us by specific modifications of our sensations.
Formalists and expressionists??
A Formalists is regarded as one who views beauty as formal or residing in form whereas others; the idealists or expressionists, view it "as residing in a content or expression". Unlike other theories who attempt to find a single principle of beauty, these theories can be criticized. A musical composition which exhibits beauty may be in form and expression simultaneously.
Three ultimate modes of beauty?
1. Sensuous beauty. 2. Beauty of form and 3. Beauty of meaning or expression. They are argued to not be reducible to any higher or more comprehensive principle.
Aesthetics and ethics??
woa-work of art.
Art has an influence on the social world, societies and cultures. This influence derives from aesthetic appreciation for the woa. This appreciation gives way to emotional experience where people collectively feel the various emotions and become self aware of these feelings which ultimately help unify any given environment via aesthetic enjoyment. The influence of the woa on humanity then creates questions about the woa.
Art, all art, has this characteristic, that it unites people. Every art causes those to whom the artist's feeling is transmitted to unite in soul with the artist and also with all who receive the same impression. (Tolstoy in Kennick 1974, p.17)
Every good painter paints what he is. (Jackson Pollock)
The importance of art is as great as significant as the importance of speech. Art can cross boundaries of time and space to bring the observer to a conscious awareness of what the artist experienced. The observer can become aware of pain and isolation that is reflected in the artists experience when creating the work of art. Art passes on feelings and concepts. It constantly evolves and awakens humanity so that humanity becomes aware of its goodness. Thus Tolstoy meant something similar when he wrote that "the more it fulfils this, the better the art". "The less it fulfils this purpose the poorer the art". "Art is communication in humanity and it unites and evolves". "Art, all art, has this characteristic, that it unites people". "Every art causes those to whom the artist's feeling is transmitted to unite in soul with the artist and also with all who receive the same impression". (Tolstoy in Kennick 1974, p.17). There is an interchange of thoughts, expressions, ideas and experiences from the artist to the observer. Art can cause variations of thought for the observer. One might learn something new about themselves when viewing a particular work of art. Thus art is a form of language between the artist and the observer.The language of art is very complex. It may be hard to express how to feel when observing a work of art. However, art utilizes its own language so one can experience sensation.The factor of colour, texture, mood is attributed to sensation and serves as a tool for ones own inspiration, understanding or self knowledge. Art can be a form of medication. It can heal as well as soothe. The surreal realism of art can evoke wild emotional states and these particular states can be the gateway to an idea, a truth, and understanding and serve as a positive treatment for the body. In other words, Art is a form of medication for the mind that has positive affects on the body. Art can have healing benefits on the mind and body. This is then calculated form one observer to the next and can have a universal impact. This impact generates influence across time and space. Thus, good art withstands time and space.
Schopenhauer's Aesthetics:
For Schopenhauer, the Will is an aimless desire that only annihilates itself. This desire contributes to the sadness and pain that exists in this world because each desire of the will leaves us empty or seeking a new dead end desire. Schopenhauer believed that this universal dilemma of the will causes universal conflict. The mind generates a world of representation which opposes the will; but the will is the source of life which competes with the representation and the will stands alone which then becomes the reason for universal conflict and suffering. His aesthetics serve as an alternative for pessimism. He believed that aesthetic experiences entail aesthetic appreciation which allows the observer to refrain from the desire of the will. The aesthetic experience temporarily emancipates the observer form the Will and lets the observer experience pure perception. Thus the artist was also less of a subject to the will. So anyone who less dominated by the will; concerns in life, politics, socialization, ect and are more aware and taken in by aesthetic value and appreciation serve as an example of the domination of the evil will.
Kant's Aesthetics:
Kant investigates the conditions of the validity of feeling that is conveyed to subjects, cognition and desire He denies objective existence to beauty. Aesthetic value for Kant is pleasure by an object of pure contemplation. This aesthetic satisfaction is free from all concern about the world . While beauty does not have objective validity he asserts that the woa has universal subjective validity. So an object pronounced beautiful will please. This stems from our aesthetic judgment which Kant states is always, an "individual" "or a singular one" of the form . He objects that one can attain a valid universal aesthetic judgment of the form. Kant thinks of nature of nature as an aesthetic pleasure which ranks high above art. Kant's main service to aesthetics consists in the critical determination of its objective or aim and its fundamental problems.
Is beauty a single quality in objects?
At the outset we are confronted with an old and almost baffling question: "Is beauty a single quality inherent in objects of perception like form or colour?" Common language certainly suggests that it is. Aesthetics, too, began its inquiry at the same point of view, and its history shows how much pains men have taken in trying to determine the nature of this attribute, as well as that of the faculty of the soul by which it is perceived. Yet a little examination of the facts suffices to show that the theory is beset with serious difficulties. Whatever beauty may be it is certainly not a quality of an object in the same way in which the colour or the form of it is a quality. These are physical qualities, known to us by specific modifications of our sensations.
Formalists and expressionists??
A Formalists is regarded as one who views beauty as formal or residing in form whereas others; the idealists or expressionists, view it "as residing in a content or expression". Unlike other theories who attempt to find a single principle of beauty, these theories can be criticized. A musical composition which exhibits beauty may be in form and expression simultaneously.
Three ultimate modes of beauty?
1. Sensuous beauty. 2. Beauty of form and 3. Beauty of meaning or expression. They are argued to not be reducible to any higher or more comprehensive principle.
Aesthetics and ethics??
woa-work of art.
Art has an influence on the social world, societies and cultures. This influence derives from aesthetic appreciation for the woa. This appreciation gives way to emotional experience where people collectively feel the various emotions and become self aware of these feelings which ultimately help unify any given environment via aesthetic enjoyment. The influence of the woa on humanity then creates questions about the woa.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Pessimism vs. Existentialism
A great essay! I did not write this but thought it would be a good post. Enjoy!
Pessimism vs. Existentialism By ROBERT C. SOLOMON
Pessimism is back. That will not surprise anyone who has been keeping track of the nation's pulse over the past several months - or perhaps the last several years. Jimmy Carter's "malaise" speech, which may have cost him a second term, would not be at all inappropriate today. Our famous American optimism faces a mortal threat in the combination of an unwinnable war, a collapsing dollar, a sagging economy for most people, trouble on the job front for graduating students, and lowered expectations generally. And that's aside from the recent scandals among our religious, corporate, and political leaders, and the pervasive suspicion that results.So opined Adam Cohen recently in the International Herald Tribune, and so, too, according to a recent book by Joshua Foa Dienstag, a political scientist at the University of California at Los Angeles, Pessimism: Philosophy, Ethic, Spirit (Princeton University Press, 2006). In his defense of pessimism as an appropriate and realistic philosophy, Dienstag points to the usual suspects: Arthur Schopenhauer, of course, the great 19th-century pessimist; but also Friedrich Nietzsche, and Albert Camus and the modern movement called existentialism.I do not disagree with the diagnosis, but I am disturbed by the continued reference to existentialism as a pessimistic, negative philosophy. It is often considered such. Only a few weeks ago I heard a radio commentator declare that the "nothing really matters" lyric from Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody" was truly "existential." And I still hear pundits and some of my university colleagues decry existentialism as the source of our nihilistic gloom, the reason why our students don't vote and why they experiment with dangerous drugs. I listen to such comments with a mix of amusement and horror because I like existentialism and I think that existentialism, not pessimism, is what America needs right now.Existentialism is said to be all about "the death of God," the meaninglessness of human life, and the anxiety those provoke. It is in the face of such anxiety that one needs the courage to make meanings, to be oneself. The theme gets dutifully traced back to Søren Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, and forward through Martin Heidegger, Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre, Paul Tillich, and Viktor Frankl, always with a touch of heroism but surrounded by the darkness of despair and ultimate meaninglessness.In the early years of existentialism in postwar Europe, the emphasis was indeed on gloom and hopelessness. The books and articles that made the biggest splash - William Barrett's Irrational Man, for instance - were those that bemoaned the death of God and the despair and meaninglessness that are implied by that cosmic absence. That was challenged in the 60s by the celebrations of hipness in the United States at the hands of Norman Mailer, in Advertisements for Myself, and some of the Beats. The heady optimism that ruled America in those years leavened the Old World gloom and turned meaninglessness into a challenge, recasting the death of God into a sense of liberation. Even in Europe, existentialism came to present itself as a positive philosophy, a philosophy of hope, in works like Camus's essay "The Rebel" and Sartre's lecture "Existentialism Is a Humanism."It is my contention that the whole movement has been misinterpreted, turned upside down by three generations of critics and commentators. Needless to say, the perception of existentialism as an atheistic philosophy has had a lot to do with that, since there have been a lot of people with a vested interest in the idea that a world without God could not possibly have meaning. But apart from that dubious contention, such interpretations display real ignorance of the fact that one of the leading existentialists, Kierkegaard, was a devout Christian, and many existentialists since - Karl Barth and Martin Buber, to pick just two - weren't atheists at all.Why does existentialism have so much trouble shaking its nihilistic and gloomy image? To be sure, its leading promoters are rarely pictured with happy faces, but then how many philosophers in history have ever been depicted as smiling?Yet few philosophers have displayed such unmitigated joy in their writing as Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. The latter wrote: "At long last our ships may venture out again, venture out to face any danger; all the daring of the lover of knowledge is permitted again; the sea, our sea, lies open again. Perhaps there has never been such an 'open sea.'"Even Sartre, not only in his plays and novels but even in his heaviest philosophy, seems to be thoroughly enjoying himself. But when it comes to understanding the content of what they are doing, interpretations of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche seem utterly wedded to the thinkers' supposedly intimate concern with despair and nihilism. A perennial question (students love it for both term papers and doctoral theses) is whether Nietzsche was a nihilist or not.The answer is a straightforward no. Nietzsche warned Europe of the encroachment of nihilism, which he associated with the Christian denial of life. Nevertheless, the association of Nietzsche and nihilism lingers, despite the fact that his whole philosophical effort is to provide an alternative to nihilistic thinking.Kierkegaard - dutifully cited as author of The Concept of Dread - is often considered the modern inventor of the Absurd - a century before Camus. However, the ultimate indeterminacy of human existence and the need to make genuine choices (including the decision to believe in God, Kierkegaard's famous "leap of faith") lay at the heart of his whole philosophy, and those concepts were anything but negative. "Christianity is certainly not melancholy; it is, on the contrary, glad tidings - for the melancholy," he wrote. Furthermore, Kierkegaard never lets us forget that it is only through such acts of choice that we make ourselves into authentic "existing individuals." He even talks of "bliss."So, too, in celebrating "the open sea" of possibilities that greets us after the death of God, Nietzsche aspires to a mood of unmitigated cheerfulness. Even Heidegger and Sartre, the grand old Mr. Cranky and Mr. Grumpy of German and French existentialism, respectively, aim not at despair but at a kind of rejuvenation. Sartre, in particular, claims, in response to a question about despair, that he has never experienced it in his whole life. (That may throw into question his credibility, but it's nonetheless instructive as to his broad philosophical outlook.)Perhaps the wartime experiences of Mr. Cranky put him beyond the reach of any celebration of life, but Mr. Grumpy insists that existentialism provides an experience of incredible freedom, a feeling of responsibility that is not so much a "burden" as a matter of finding one's true self-identity. If nihilism and despair play any role in this picture, it is only as background against which existentialism is the ecstatic resistance. Responsibility and choice, picking oneself up by the bootstraps, are what this positive version of existentialism is all about.We hear so much about "the burden of responsibility" that we forget the basic lesson of existentialism: that responsibilities enhance rather than encumber our existence. Call me naïve, but most people take on responsibilities because responsibility puts them in charge of their lives and defines just who they are. Most people who enter public service, for example, do not do so because of a selfish lust for power and wealth. They usually want to change things for the better, make a contribution, and even the most corrupt and vile politicians will confess a lingering hope that that is how they might be remembered. As Sartre constantly reminds us, we are what we do.In short, existentialism is not a philosophy that allows us to feel sorry for ourselves in the midst of our malaise. It is a philosophy with which we can come to grips with these terrible times and actually change them. The recent midterm election was encouraging. What it suggests is that America is collectively recouping its existentialist roots, not because of national pessimism but because of what I hope is the beginning of a cooperative optimism and the sense that things as they are cannot stand.Why does existentialism matter? Who cares about the viability of a European philosophy that may have once been the fetish of sophisticated poseurs and profligates but has little relevance to anything today? My answer is that philosophy is always relevant, that, as the proto-existentialist Johann Fichte once said: "What system of philosophy you hold depends wholly upon what manner of man you are." And if I am right that existentialism defines an important stream of American life and thought, especially its individualism and insistence on self-reliance, that means that we should become both aware of and critical regarding what that philosophy is and what it portends.Robert C. Solomon was a professor of philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. He died on January 2 while traveling in Europe
Pessimism vs. Existentialism By ROBERT C. SOLOMON
Pessimism is back. That will not surprise anyone who has been keeping track of the nation's pulse over the past several months - or perhaps the last several years. Jimmy Carter's "malaise" speech, which may have cost him a second term, would not be at all inappropriate today. Our famous American optimism faces a mortal threat in the combination of an unwinnable war, a collapsing dollar, a sagging economy for most people, trouble on the job front for graduating students, and lowered expectations generally. And that's aside from the recent scandals among our religious, corporate, and political leaders, and the pervasive suspicion that results.So opined Adam Cohen recently in the International Herald Tribune, and so, too, according to a recent book by Joshua Foa Dienstag, a political scientist at the University of California at Los Angeles, Pessimism: Philosophy, Ethic, Spirit (Princeton University Press, 2006). In his defense of pessimism as an appropriate and realistic philosophy, Dienstag points to the usual suspects: Arthur Schopenhauer, of course, the great 19th-century pessimist; but also Friedrich Nietzsche, and Albert Camus and the modern movement called existentialism.I do not disagree with the diagnosis, but I am disturbed by the continued reference to existentialism as a pessimistic, negative philosophy. It is often considered such. Only a few weeks ago I heard a radio commentator declare that the "nothing really matters" lyric from Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody" was truly "existential." And I still hear pundits and some of my university colleagues decry existentialism as the source of our nihilistic gloom, the reason why our students don't vote and why they experiment with dangerous drugs. I listen to such comments with a mix of amusement and horror because I like existentialism and I think that existentialism, not pessimism, is what America needs right now.Existentialism is said to be all about "the death of God," the meaninglessness of human life, and the anxiety those provoke. It is in the face of such anxiety that one needs the courage to make meanings, to be oneself. The theme gets dutifully traced back to Søren Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, and forward through Martin Heidegger, Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre, Paul Tillich, and Viktor Frankl, always with a touch of heroism but surrounded by the darkness of despair and ultimate meaninglessness.In the early years of existentialism in postwar Europe, the emphasis was indeed on gloom and hopelessness. The books and articles that made the biggest splash - William Barrett's Irrational Man, for instance - were those that bemoaned the death of God and the despair and meaninglessness that are implied by that cosmic absence. That was challenged in the 60s by the celebrations of hipness in the United States at the hands of Norman Mailer, in Advertisements for Myself, and some of the Beats. The heady optimism that ruled America in those years leavened the Old World gloom and turned meaninglessness into a challenge, recasting the death of God into a sense of liberation. Even in Europe, existentialism came to present itself as a positive philosophy, a philosophy of hope, in works like Camus's essay "The Rebel" and Sartre's lecture "Existentialism Is a Humanism."It is my contention that the whole movement has been misinterpreted, turned upside down by three generations of critics and commentators. Needless to say, the perception of existentialism as an atheistic philosophy has had a lot to do with that, since there have been a lot of people with a vested interest in the idea that a world without God could not possibly have meaning. But apart from that dubious contention, such interpretations display real ignorance of the fact that one of the leading existentialists, Kierkegaard, was a devout Christian, and many existentialists since - Karl Barth and Martin Buber, to pick just two - weren't atheists at all.Why does existentialism have so much trouble shaking its nihilistic and gloomy image? To be sure, its leading promoters are rarely pictured with happy faces, but then how many philosophers in history have ever been depicted as smiling?Yet few philosophers have displayed such unmitigated joy in their writing as Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. The latter wrote: "At long last our ships may venture out again, venture out to face any danger; all the daring of the lover of knowledge is permitted again; the sea, our sea, lies open again. Perhaps there has never been such an 'open sea.'"Even Sartre, not only in his plays and novels but even in his heaviest philosophy, seems to be thoroughly enjoying himself. But when it comes to understanding the content of what they are doing, interpretations of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche seem utterly wedded to the thinkers' supposedly intimate concern with despair and nihilism. A perennial question (students love it for both term papers and doctoral theses) is whether Nietzsche was a nihilist or not.The answer is a straightforward no. Nietzsche warned Europe of the encroachment of nihilism, which he associated with the Christian denial of life. Nevertheless, the association of Nietzsche and nihilism lingers, despite the fact that his whole philosophical effort is to provide an alternative to nihilistic thinking.Kierkegaard - dutifully cited as author of The Concept of Dread - is often considered the modern inventor of the Absurd - a century before Camus. However, the ultimate indeterminacy of human existence and the need to make genuine choices (including the decision to believe in God, Kierkegaard's famous "leap of faith") lay at the heart of his whole philosophy, and those concepts were anything but negative. "Christianity is certainly not melancholy; it is, on the contrary, glad tidings - for the melancholy," he wrote. Furthermore, Kierkegaard never lets us forget that it is only through such acts of choice that we make ourselves into authentic "existing individuals." He even talks of "bliss."So, too, in celebrating "the open sea" of possibilities that greets us after the death of God, Nietzsche aspires to a mood of unmitigated cheerfulness. Even Heidegger and Sartre, the grand old Mr. Cranky and Mr. Grumpy of German and French existentialism, respectively, aim not at despair but at a kind of rejuvenation. Sartre, in particular, claims, in response to a question about despair, that he has never experienced it in his whole life. (That may throw into question his credibility, but it's nonetheless instructive as to his broad philosophical outlook.)Perhaps the wartime experiences of Mr. Cranky put him beyond the reach of any celebration of life, but Mr. Grumpy insists that existentialism provides an experience of incredible freedom, a feeling of responsibility that is not so much a "burden" as a matter of finding one's true self-identity. If nihilism and despair play any role in this picture, it is only as background against which existentialism is the ecstatic resistance. Responsibility and choice, picking oneself up by the bootstraps, are what this positive version of existentialism is all about.We hear so much about "the burden of responsibility" that we forget the basic lesson of existentialism: that responsibilities enhance rather than encumber our existence. Call me naïve, but most people take on responsibilities because responsibility puts them in charge of their lives and defines just who they are. Most people who enter public service, for example, do not do so because of a selfish lust for power and wealth. They usually want to change things for the better, make a contribution, and even the most corrupt and vile politicians will confess a lingering hope that that is how they might be remembered. As Sartre constantly reminds us, we are what we do.In short, existentialism is not a philosophy that allows us to feel sorry for ourselves in the midst of our malaise. It is a philosophy with which we can come to grips with these terrible times and actually change them. The recent midterm election was encouraging. What it suggests is that America is collectively recouping its existentialist roots, not because of national pessimism but because of what I hope is the beginning of a cooperative optimism and the sense that things as they are cannot stand.Why does existentialism matter? Who cares about the viability of a European philosophy that may have once been the fetish of sophisticated poseurs and profligates but has little relevance to anything today? My answer is that philosophy is always relevant, that, as the proto-existentialist Johann Fichte once said: "What system of philosophy you hold depends wholly upon what manner of man you are." And if I am right that existentialism defines an important stream of American life and thought, especially its individualism and insistence on self-reliance, that means that we should become both aware of and critical regarding what that philosophy is and what it portends.Robert C. Solomon was a professor of philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. He died on January 2 while traveling in Europe
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Introducing Frank Tipler and Omega Theory
Frank Tipler is a cosmologist whose theories differ from most other cosmologists. He argues that in the turn of the next century, human beings will have developed advanced robots that spread themselves out amongst the universe. Each generation after this will reproduce a better version of themselves which will ultimately cover the galaxy over a period of millions of years and outlive the human race. The robots will then develop and transform into an advanced complex form of life whose intelligence exceeds far beyond any one's imagination.
At this particular time, the universe will fold inward in what Tipler calls "the big crunch". Our universe is proposed by theory to be open. Tipler simply refutes this theory and suggests that the universe is closed. He asserts that when the universe does collapse, the advanced life forms that exist at that time must make sure the collapse of the universe is controlled in order to insure future existence. So how exactly can the collapse of the universe be controlled? Tipler believes that this answer is hidden in the equations of relativity. He asserts that general relativity is chaotic. Since the Butterfly effect is similar to this, he maintains that this theory will control the collapse of the universe.
When the universe is carefully destroyed then the higher life forms that controlled the collapse will reach a state which is called "the Omega Point". The Omega Point is closely attributed to God. Thus these beings will be the ultimate form the knowledge, power and love. At this stage in Omega point, the Resurrection of all human beings who have ever lived will occur. This will be done with a higher form of computer simulation which Tipler calls emulation.
The Omega point is defined by our DNA and this will "emulate all possible humans that have ever lived". The Omega choices who has what kind of life. So a once poor human, is now rich, an evil mass murderer is now a priest and so on..Those who are not so deserving will be placed in a series of purgatories.
So one might ask is Omega Point possible? No one will ever know and who's to say what will happen millions of years from now. The idea of using computers and robots to continue human survival has been imagined and heavily debated.
Tiper believes that each human is defined by our DNA and the Omega Point simply emulates all possible humans that could ever live. Our memories have long dissolved into entropy but Omega Point has us relive our lives in an instant, along with all the other possible lives we could have lived. Those that the Omega-God deems deserving will get to live even better lives, including lots of sex with the most desirable partners we can imagine! Tipler some how places this on a mathematical basis, computing the relative"psychological impact" of meeting the most beautiful women whose existence is logically possible compared to simply the most beautiful woman in the world. He finds this to be [log1010^1,000,000]/[log1010^9] =100,000.
Scientists and Cosmologists have imagined and debated over the possibility of computers and robots as a mean for extending human survival. What Tipler asserts in theory however is full of holes and left open for a whole lot of criticism. One example would be Tiplers big crunch theory which today's cosmologists say is highly unlikely. Here are three other weak points in Tiplers theories:
1. He assumes space and time are continuous and not discrete. Many physicists believe that space and time are discrete.
2. He also assumes that intelligent life will somehow be able to survive a universe with an average temperature of trillions of degrees. How can something survive a condition like this?? Tipler is not very clear.
3. He mentions that as the universe collapses right before the Omega Point and unlimited energy will become available; but Tipler ignores the unlimited amount of heat and density. So how does he explain the existence of structures in a universe hundreds of millions of times smaller than an atom?
At this particular time, the universe will fold inward in what Tipler calls "the big crunch". Our universe is proposed by theory to be open. Tipler simply refutes this theory and suggests that the universe is closed. He asserts that when the universe does collapse, the advanced life forms that exist at that time must make sure the collapse of the universe is controlled in order to insure future existence. So how exactly can the collapse of the universe be controlled? Tipler believes that this answer is hidden in the equations of relativity. He asserts that general relativity is chaotic. Since the Butterfly effect is similar to this, he maintains that this theory will control the collapse of the universe.
When the universe is carefully destroyed then the higher life forms that controlled the collapse will reach a state which is called "the Omega Point". The Omega Point is closely attributed to God. Thus these beings will be the ultimate form the knowledge, power and love. At this stage in Omega point, the Resurrection of all human beings who have ever lived will occur. This will be done with a higher form of computer simulation which Tipler calls emulation.
The Omega point is defined by our DNA and this will "emulate all possible humans that have ever lived". The Omega choices who has what kind of life. So a once poor human, is now rich, an evil mass murderer is now a priest and so on..Those who are not so deserving will be placed in a series of purgatories.
So one might ask is Omega Point possible? No one will ever know and who's to say what will happen millions of years from now. The idea of using computers and robots to continue human survival has been imagined and heavily debated.
Tiper believes that each human is defined by our DNA and the Omega Point simply emulates all possible humans that could ever live. Our memories have long dissolved into entropy but Omega Point has us relive our lives in an instant, along with all the other possible lives we could have lived. Those that the Omega-God deems deserving will get to live even better lives, including lots of sex with the most desirable partners we can imagine! Tipler some how places this on a mathematical basis, computing the relative"psychological impact" of meeting the most beautiful women whose existence is logically possible compared to simply the most beautiful woman in the world. He finds this to be [log1010^1,000,000]/[log1010^9] =100,000.
Scientists and Cosmologists have imagined and debated over the possibility of computers and robots as a mean for extending human survival. What Tipler asserts in theory however is full of holes and left open for a whole lot of criticism. One example would be Tiplers big crunch theory which today's cosmologists say is highly unlikely. Here are three other weak points in Tiplers theories:
1. He assumes space and time are continuous and not discrete. Many physicists believe that space and time are discrete.
2. He also assumes that intelligent life will somehow be able to survive a universe with an average temperature of trillions of degrees. How can something survive a condition like this?? Tipler is not very clear.
3. He mentions that as the universe collapses right before the Omega Point and unlimited energy will become available; but Tipler ignores the unlimited amount of heat and density. So how does he explain the existence of structures in a universe hundreds of millions of times smaller than an atom?
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
The Metamorphosis
Kafka is important to us because his
predicament is the predicament of modern man.
—British poet W. H. Auden
Kafka certainly does not provide an
interpretation of the world. . . . What he
provides is an image of how experience looks
when all interpretations are called in doubt
—British critic Anthony Thorlby
I recently advised one of my friends to read Franz Kafka's "The Metamorphosis". After her long journey into an abyss of alienation and disoriented anxiety she confronted me with many questions such as whether or not one should interpret this in a literal or symbolic sense and whether the story itself has any actual meaning. The answer to these questions do not come easy considering the work is filled with endless interpretations. The most salient feature of this work is that it has the ability to diverge its meanings. Since the book is full of possible meanings, the reader must find meaning subjectively. In a symbolic sense, one might hold that Gregor's transformation symbolizes his emptiness, his despair and his insignificant life as a traveling salesman. Others assert that the story is written through the eyes of Kafka's father who views his son as a degrading form of existence. This story can also be interpreted as an allegory. The literal transformation might exemplify the very definition of failure. However, I believe the ambiguity of its meaning is found when the reader comes to the realization that the transformation occurs in order to illustrate the fact that Gregor died the exact way in which he had lived; in isolation and in pain.
predicament is the predicament of modern man.
—British poet W. H. Auden
Kafka certainly does not provide an
interpretation of the world. . . . What he
provides is an image of how experience looks
when all interpretations are called in doubt
—British critic Anthony Thorlby
I recently advised one of my friends to read Franz Kafka's "The Metamorphosis". After her long journey into an abyss of alienation and disoriented anxiety she confronted me with many questions such as whether or not one should interpret this in a literal or symbolic sense and whether the story itself has any actual meaning. The answer to these questions do not come easy considering the work is filled with endless interpretations. The most salient feature of this work is that it has the ability to diverge its meanings. Since the book is full of possible meanings, the reader must find meaning subjectively. In a symbolic sense, one might hold that Gregor's transformation symbolizes his emptiness, his despair and his insignificant life as a traveling salesman. Others assert that the story is written through the eyes of Kafka's father who views his son as a degrading form of existence. This story can also be interpreted as an allegory. The literal transformation might exemplify the very definition of failure. However, I believe the ambiguity of its meaning is found when the reader comes to the realization that the transformation occurs in order to illustrate the fact that Gregor died the exact way in which he had lived; in isolation and in pain.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
