Philosophy

As philosopher and poet Nietzsche’s work is not easily conformable to the traditional schools of thought within philosophy. However, an unmistakable concern with the role of religion and values penetrates much of his work. Contrary to the tradition before him, Nietzsche launches vicious diatribes against Christianity and the dualistic philosophies he finds essentially life denying. Despite his early tutelage under the influence of Schopenhauer’s philosophy, Nietzsche later philosophy indicates a refusal to cast existence as embroiled in pessimism but, instead, as that which should be affirmed, even in he face of bad fortune.

This essay will study in further detail Nietzsche view of Schopenhauer and Christianity as essentially nihilistic. Nihilism Throughout his work Nietzsche makes extensive use of the term nihilism. In texts from the tradition prior to Nietzsche, the term connotes a necessary connection between atheism and the subsequent disbelief in values. It was held the atheist regarded the moral norms of society as merely conventional, without any justification by rational argument.

Furthermore, without a divine authority prohibiting any immoral conduct, all appeals to morality by authority become ollow. By the atheists reckoning then, all acts are permissible. With Nietzsche’s appearance on the scene, however, arrives the most potent arguments denying the necessary link between atheism and nihilism. It will be demonstrated that Nietzsche, in fact, will argue it is in the appeal to divine proscriptions that the most virulent nihilism will attain.

There is a second sense of nihilism that appears as an outgrowth of the first that Nietzsche appeals to in his critique of values. It contends that not only does an active, pious, acknowledgment of a divinity foster nihilism, but also, he disingenuous worship of a deity that has been replaced in the life man by science, too, breeds a passive nihilism. Christianity Nietzsche conceives the first variety of nihilism, that fostered through active worship, as pernicious due to its reinforcement of a fundamental attitude that denies life.

Throughout his life Nietzsche argued the contemporary metaphysical basis for belief in a deity were merely negations of, or tried to deny, the uncertainties of what is necessarily a situated human existence. Religious doctrine is steeped in, and bounded by references to good and evil and original sin. The religious student is taught original sin, with the hopes the student will faithfully deny a human nature. Good and evil are not the approbation or prohibition against certain actions, rather, such doctrine codifies self hatred and begs the rejection of human nature.

Christianity goes beyond a denial of just the flesh and blood of the body to do away with the whole of the world. In Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche suggests in several places, that the world is falsified when dictated by the tenets of dualistic philosophies, with emphasis on Christianity. How the True World Finally Became Fable, a section in Twilight of the Idols, s subtitled The History of an Error, for it supposes to give a short rendering of how the true world is lost in the histories of disfiguring philosophies that posit otherworldly dualistic metaphysics.

First, Plato’s vision of the realm of forms. The true world – attainable for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man, a feasible world, achievable through piety and wisdom. A world a man may come to know, at least possible for the contemplative and diligent student. In this early imagining the world is not entirely lost yet, it is however, removed from the concrete world. A world hardly accessible but by he few who might escape the cave. The first realization of nihilism is the denial of the sensuous world for the really real. The idea of the true world removed is then characterized as the Christian world.

The true world – unattainable for now, but promised for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man (for the sinner that repents’)… (progress of the idea: it becomes more subtle, insidious, incomprehensible – it becomes female, it becomes Christian. ) The true world is promised, but removed and the apparant world is denied for the sake of attainment of the real one. The ndermining of sensuous values attains what Nietzsche calls ascetic ideals, good, evil, God, truth and the virtues that are demanded to attain in light of these form the codes of the priests.

These metaphysical codes are designed to give the pious a transcendent idealized place to go, one that will replace the sensuous situated world of humanity. The series of nots that Christianity embraces, truth is not of the body, not of this world, not humanity, this general negation of the world reveals to Nietzsche, Christianity’s fundamental denial of life. Ultimately, the unattainable world is the truth, God’s point of iew is the view from nowhere, an unquestionable unbiased veridical apprehension of the really real.

Another sense of nihilism arises, rooted somewhat in the first, it will not be the abdication of this world for some other instead. This brand of nihilism attains when one’s words overtly call attention to God, and the values fostered in His name, but the very idea of no God has replaced the hitherto dominant theocentric paradigm, science now situates man’s place in the universe. Nietzsche is perhaps most famous for his rallying cry, God is dead.

Nietzsche will contend, in the parable of the Madman that we have taken a step away from he stultifying belief in the trasencendent realm, but are far from behaving as if we acknowledged His death. The events for which God was invented have now all been explained by a science, the holiest and mightiest… has bled to death under our knife. But the crowd listening only stares on silently looking on surprised. The madman is too early, for the wielders of the blade have not measured the full implication of His death. There remains the residue of Christian faith that is still in need of overcoming.

Our greatest reproach against existence, he writes, was the existence of God, and he believes, our reatest relief is found in the elimination of this idea. But in rejecting the Christian formulation the role and importance of existence is left an open question. The question turns now on the significance of existence. Despite the overt and honest atheism both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche profess to share, the Schopenhauer formulation of the significance of existence will appear, at least, if not more life denying to Nietzsche than the Christian.

Schopenhauer If one understood a fundamental project of Nietzsche as a will to affirm life even in the face of great tragedy, Schopenhauer stands in stark contrast. It is eyond the scope of this paper to determine where exactly Nietzsche would be siuated with respect to his cosmology, and the notion of eternal return. But to illustrate the contrast of Nietzsche with Schopenhauer a delving into will bring some of this difference into relief. Nietzsche asks how might one respond if a demon were to reveal that all of a life, every moment, would be forever repeated.

This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more, with nothing new but to repeat every pain and every joy. Would a reponse be to praise and exalt the demon for that , or is one more ikely to throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the who spoke thus? (GS, 341). For the purpose of this paper it matters not if the demon speaks truly, for the idea serves a function; could one affirm life and live as if one had to eternally repeat it? The challenge then is to live joyfully, in the sensuous world.

Could one face optimistically the ambiguities, uncertainties and chaos that is the world, in a spirit of affirmation? Nietzsche imagines no greater affirmation of life can be concieved than this test of willing. For Schopenhauer ,this is unlikely, in his the World as Will and Idea, a passage is offered that ould hardly be a more explicit denial, at the end of life, if a man is sincere and in full possession of his faculties, he will never wish to have it over again, but rather than this, he will much prefer absolute annihilation (WWI 589).

Schopenhauer’s pessimism has some roots in our inability to adequately satisfy our wants. A casual reading might have one to believe both philosophers took the will to be the same oject or process, but that where one celebrates it the other denigrates it. A more careful reading will reveal, however, that, Nietzsche though initially impressed with the Schopenhauer conception of the ill, he will later reject it. Schopenhauer concieves the will to be a primal metaphysical reality.

The mileage the two philosophers get from investigating will, the term is no coordinate in their use, nor are we surorised at the disparity of their mature philosophies. For Nietzsche, the resignation of the will is a forlorn denial of life. Similarly, the appeal to a transcendent deity also indicts the indivuals as resentful in the face of those who can affirm life. Nietzsche proposes one should affirm life even in the midst of tragedy, thus the passive nihilism that embraces the ascetic ideals are overcome.

Emerson’s “transcendentalism” is essentially a romantic individualism, a philosophy of life for a new people who had overthrown their colonial governors and set about conquering a new continent by their own lights. Though Emerson is not a technical philosopher, the tendency of his thought is toward idealist metaphysics in which soul and intuition, or inspiration, are central. The new American experiment needed every idea within its reach. Taking a practical and democratic, yet poetic interest in all of nature and in individuals of every walk of life, Emerson stresses the potential for genius and reativity in all people.

It is a source of creative insight within which Emerson identifies as divine. His praise for Plato can easily be found in his work. He says that “Mind is the only reality of which men and all other natures are better or worse reflectors. ” For Emerson, “intuition” is a poetic faculty of seeing things creatively. Nothing is possible within our distinctively human world without such creative insight and interpretation. Therefore, Emerson calls for us to always be prepared to listen to this voice within instead of conforming to societal pressures.

The theme of Self-Reliance s an elaboration of this idealist theme — we are to follow our own lights. The Over-soul, “the only prophet of that which must be, is that great nature in which we rest. ” It is both “the act of seeing and the thing seen,” and it creates our world in depth by means of our insight and interpretations. Emerson’s great emphasis upon nonconformity and integrity shows that this Over-soul creates a world through individuals rather than through the commerce of groups. Where we find beauty in a flower or a forest or a poem, meaning and direction, or deep understanding, the voice of “this deity” is peaking through us and creating the world around us by such means.

This deity does not speak to groups but, in radical protestant style, to each person alone to the degree he or she attends to the message. ” The value Emerson attributes to the messages depends upon the Over-soul being “self-sufficing and perfect in every hour. In spite of his individualism, Emerson’s thought is similar to the romantic nationalism of 19th century Europe, but where this nationalism focused upon collective entities such as a people, their language and culture, or their state, Emerson’s focus is upon the individual. In Self-Reliance he says, “it is easy, in the world to live after the world’s opinion; it is easy in solitude to live after our own; but the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude.

Where romantic nationalism stresses the development of an authentic national culture free from foreign influences and takes a collective perspective more or less for granted, Emerson applies a similar approach to each individual. He complains that all men hear the inner voice in solitude but that they lose themselves when they enter into the world of men. “Society everywhere is a onspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members. ” Emerson feels man must work on his own and be diligent and truthful in that work to produce a better society.

Man must be willing to take risks instead of conforming to the rules of society in order to prosper. Man should control society instead of allowing society to control him. The two major barriers to self-reliance are conformity and relying on the past. The Trustee is man, himself, when he trusts his own intuition. This modifies the egotism of self-reliance because it makes it common to all men and it creates the view that self-reliance is not based on ntellect but on common sense. Self-reliance allows one to progress in any situation. It implies that there would be no king or higher government; all would be equal.

Self-reliance does not allow men to claim that they know God and use archaic terminology because in this way men revert to the past for authority. Emerson feels man should realize that his life is built on fate and chance and he has no power to control the outcome. Society wants to impose government, rules, and law on its people so they can be puppet-like. Emerson proposes that men live based on their own individual instincts thereby creating heir own internal law.

Emerson believes that men fail to prosper because they allow society to think for them. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblins of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. ” Emerson believes in living in the present and not in the past. Society is likened to a “joint-stock company, in which the members agree, for the better securing of his bread… to surrender the liberty and culture of the eater. ” This is his explanation of how people are seduced into ignoring their own insights and onvictions, their own “culture,” in order to better profit by their intercourse with society.

Emerson warns of the seductions of society and supplies a moral counter-weight: “Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind. ” It is better to make your own mistakes and suffer from them than to make the mistakes dictated by another and surrender oneself to dissolution in outside forces. Creative interpretation is not to be discouraged, and each person’s genius should be developed as far as possible. This is the central meaning of American liberalism, and the critique of mere conformity is n important part of this.

Yet an empirical and scientific emphasis is needed to counter balance the stress upon creativity. For while facts and perception do not dictate our interpretations of the world, they are often capable of deciding between them. Emerson, the man and Emerson, the thinker never completely left the world of common human experience, never sought to dwell, with the Over-soul alone, among the clouds of Plato’s heaven. His writing also suggests a critical attitude toward the apparent excesses of Emerson’s individualism. For it suggests that romantic individualism arises from uncritical use of creative nsight.

The alternative involves a greater stress upon cooperation and collaboration. Though Emerson’s individualism is less extreme than Thoreau’s, involving as it does a deep-felt mission to help others help themselves, helping others does not amount to collaboration with them. Even the best aimed, most needed charity does not engage and challenge self and others as do cooperative undertakings. Emerson’s point is that we need to rely upon the creative individual, freed of the felt need to conformity, to supply interpretations of experience.

However, since interpretations and insights are not self-certifying, t follows that great importance attaches to understanding alternative interpretations or theories. Otherwise, there will be no possibility of tests between such alternatives. This requires tolerance of alternative perspectives. It requires, as well, the attempt at sympathetic understanding of alternative points of view. Communications between alternative viewpoints is crucial if we are to put ourselves in a position for deciding between alternatives in an intelligent manner.

Besides listening to the internal voice, we must also do our best to listen to voices from without. The opposite of conformity is not simple elf-assertion, or uncritical persistence in one or another prejudice, not even ones own; these are merely two sides of the same bogus coin. The alternative is conclusions based upon well-informed, intelligent communications. The facts of social and intellectual complexity in the modern world, no less than humanity’s power over nature, make it imperative to think, deploy the full powers of human intelligence.

Emerson provides a framework, or basic value orientation, for flexible relations to the world around us including the social world of joint projects and purposes. Yet this framework leaves us as isolated ndividuals where it is not supplemented by emphasis upon empirical inquiry and tests of our insights and intuitions. Our actions in the world, and even the full development of the self, depend upon cooperation with others in every crucial sphere. But considerable inquiry, however informal, is required merely to find those most suited to such joint undertakings.

For example, one does not effectively distinguish a momentary wish or feeling from a formative and enduring desire on the basis of 5 minutes’ conversation. Yet momentary wishes are near useless as a basis of long-term cooperation. In order to avoid being tomized and isolated, to avoid a mere phenomenal existence, Emersonian intuition requires the addition of a tough-minded empiricism, oriented to the lush growth of human expression and suited to intelligent cultivation of the best in others.

Though “the sensual man conforms thoughts to things, the poet conforms things to his thoughts. ” Emerson succeeded in conforming generations of Americans to his thought. Now, in an age where conformity is used in commercials as an advertising gimmick, Emerson would probably offer the following: “Your conformity explains nothing. Act singly, and what you have already done singly will justify you now. “

The “Enlightenment” or the “Age of Realization” was an age of great advancement and reform for all of Europe and beyond. Great advancements were being made in the fields of science, philosophy, mathematics, and logic. Most people attribute these achievements to the social critics of that time, also known as the philosophes. These philosophes were controversial thinkers and pioneered the intellectual movements of the 1700’s. They stood up for what they believed in, although they were constantly criticized and censured by many other people.

Such philosophers include Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, and Voltaire. Although their beliefs violently contradicted, they were all working to change what they thought was wrong with their present government. They were four men who disagreed about almost everything, and yet they were working towards a common goal. This is how the Age of Enlightenment became a reality. Rene Descartes was a French philosopher, mathematician, and scientist. He was born in La Haye, France (now called Descartes) in 1595.

Unlike some other Enlightenment thinkers, he relied on logic and math in his reasoning. He was educated at the Jesuit College of La Fleche. It is thought that his most important influence was a man named Isaac Beeckman. It was with this man that Descartes discussed math, philosophy, and physics. This man was his friend and trusted colleague. In 1618 Descartes served in the army of Prince Maurice of Nassau. It was Descartes theory that stated, “the discovery of proper method is the key to furthering scientific advancement.

Descartes was responsible for a number of very influential works including Rules for the Direction of Mind, Le Monde (The World), Discourse on Method, Meditationes de Prima Philosophia (Meditations on the First Philosophy), The Principles of Philosophy, and Les Passions de l’ame (Passions of the Soul. ) He coined the phrase, “Cogito Ergo Sum,” in English meaning, “I Think Therefore I Am. ” Although Descartes died in Stockholm in1650, his words have lived on for many centuries and will survive through many more. Thomas Hobbes was born in London, England in 1588.

He was educated at Oxford University in England where he studied the classics. In 1651, Hobbes wrote his most famous book, Leviathan. In this book he argued that most people were born evil and could not be trusted to govern themselves. He thought that a ruler needed to have complete control over his people to govern efficiently. His idea was to have something to force the people to obey their ruler at all costs. He called this document the Social Contract. He thought that giving power to an individual would start a “war of every man against every man” and make life “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Although these thoughts may seem to label Thomas Hobbes as a supporter of an authoritarian government, he favored a representative democracy. He coined the phrase, “voice of the people,” but he thought that this “voice” should be vetoed if a ruler deemed it proper. John Locke was born in 1632 at Wrinton in Somerset, England. He opposed the views of Thomas Hobbes and thought that people were born neither good nor evil. He believed that people’s characters were solely based on their experiences and their environment. He also believed that people could learn from their experiences and change their characters for the better.

He believed that people had three Natural Rights- life, liberty, and property. In Locke’s eyes, the purpose of the government was to protect the people’s Natural Rights. He thought that if the government was not doing this job, that the people had the right to overthrow it. Although it may seem that Locke would support a democracy, he was not a democrat. He believed that laborers were of a lower status that the middle and upper classes and had no place meddling in the affairs of the government. He believed that the poor had neither the education nor the inclination to make political decisions responsibly.

This was a popular belief of the time. Francois-Marie Arouet de Voltaire was born in Paris France to a wealthy family. He was raised a deist and a liberal. He was educated at Louis de Grand, a Jesuit College, where he was exposed to both Latin and French theatre. Although his father wanted him to study the law, Voltaire abandoned the idea for philosophy and his interest in theatre. Voltaire is famous for his satirical poetry and controversial works, many of which never became published because they were so astonishing to the society.

He wrote poems and plays that made a mockery of the French government and society. He encouraged free speech among his colleagues and friends and is sometimes remembered by this line, “I disapprove of what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ” Voltaire fought for a limited government and was arrested twice for insulting nobles. It is said that this great man published over 70 books of political essays, philosophy, history, and drama. Voltaire died in his sleep at the age of 84, a hero.

This rebel’s contribution to the field of philosophy will never be forgotten because it helped to free the minds of the people of the eighteenth century from the hypnotic drone of former life. Each of these enlightenment thinkers has a different view about people and about life. Each in their own way, I can relate to all of these philosophes. For example, I agree with the ideas of democracy presented by Thomas Hobbes. I can also relate to the beliefs of John Locke. I also believe that people are influenced by their experiences and environments.

I also think that if given the chance I would encourage Voltaire’s rebellious behavior and satirical views of government. I also agree with the ideas of Descartes. I think that math and logic are important keys to decipher human philosophy. Who could pick only one of these amazing thinkers of the Enlightenment era? Not I. I would rather do as Rome did to Greece: take what I like and adapt it to fit me. Perhaps I could be one of the Enlightenment thinkers of the Two thousand tenth century. Perhaps I could have the great honor and recognition to be called a philosophe.

Anarchy is a political philosophy shrouded in misconception. This misconception is caused by the diversity of the subject of anarchism itself, which cannot be characterized by simple slogans or television plugs. In theory, anarchy provides the most personal freedom for the individual. Anarchy is more than just politics; it is a way of life encompassing political, pragmatic and personal ways of life. Anarchy, however, remains but a theory to the human race. In fact, human nature undermines the ultimate utopian idea of freedom i. e. ere will always be one person wanting power over another.

In an ideal anarchist’s commune, every single person must use his or her freedom responsibly. The power-hungry human will ultimately destroy peace. “Anarchism strives to reach peace, but there will always be those in opposition to peace, either to obtain power or to ultimately corrupt utopia,” states Dave Roediger in the Haymarket Scrapbook. Even though anarchy remains a theory, the idea itself has existed for over two hundred years, not only outlasting civilizations, but thriving throughout time.

The French Revolution, begun in 1789, had a strong pro-anarchist element. Anarchists also played a substantial role in the revolutionary movements in Russia in 1905 and 1917 (Pleck 69), but were suppressed, often ruthlessly, once the Bolsheviks consolidated power. ” The Spanish Revolution of 1936-1939 held close anarchy ties between ‘Benedict Arnolds,’ ” says Patrick Brenner in Black Rose. The Spanish Revolution set the stage for the most widely known large-scale manifestation of anarchism, the theory of anarchy itself.

Prominent anarchists such as Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman participated in a variety of radical causes throughout the early 1900’s. Goldman held rallies and protests for women’s rights and “free Love. ” She was imprisoned several times and had sex to raise money for protests. Suffragettes in the 1920’s had a chant that stated: “Emma said it 1910, now we’re gonna say it again! ” (Brenner) There was also a strong anarchist current in “many of the social change and alternative lifestyle movements of the 1960’s,” reports David Farber in Chicago ’68.

This includes parts of the feminist movement, the gay liberation movement and the anti-war and free speech movements. Even today, anarchism is flourishing. ” As well as thriving throughout time, anarchy does promote the most freedom for all aspects of life. To better understand other choices of political philosophy, it is helpful to examine all major points of view. Communism, libertarianism, liberalism and nihilism are often confused with anarchy. But these political philosophies are predominantly too structured for the typical anarchist’s viewpoints (Heretics’ Hall 4 April 1997).

Many anarchists value communalism and collectivism, whereas anarchists reject the totalitarianism of the existing communist states. Libertarians are anti-state but are not opposed to domination and hierarchy in all its forms as anarchy is. The idea of leftism is a prominent issue taken up in the 1990’s; liberals traditionally associate themselves with the right wing. Anarchism is free of these boundaries and is not constrained enough to hold a place within typical “democratic” statutes. Nihilists often call themselves anarchists, but anarchism does not promote random violence like nihilism.

There are also many different types of anarchists, allowing for many choices as to what type of peaceful protests an anarchist would like to choose (abortion rallies, war protests, political strikes, et cetera). Finally, anarchy is among the most “generation-conscious” of political philosophies. Preparing for the 21st Century, anarchists are looking forward to the safety of descendants and ancestors alike. Anarchist ideals such as rebellion and revolution are often espoused by youth within the punk, rave, radical, and typical black dress of high school student cultures throughout the world.

These young people attempt to escape the injustice and alienation of life in the prevailing consumer society (drugs are good, hemp necklaces, preppies, upper class, cell phones, etc. ) by forming communities of resistance. Some examples of resistance communities are collective living, squatting (inhabiting abandoned buildings), and info shops (literally, shops containing information on thousands of political topics of debate; offers jobs, commune availability, and varieties of music-an anarchist’s version of a yuppie’s coffeehouse).

The creation of one-time ‘zines such as the underground newspaper run by Carmel students and Spunk Press on the Internet links many “off-the-scene,” or non-public anarchists, to contribute to the revolution effort. Anarchists are involved with a wide array of Internet web sites and message boards The Internet is often labeled as “anarchy in action” (Farber 321). Electronic communications provide a way to transcend national borders and may minimize the importance of cultural barriers such as race and gender as well.

In summary, anarchy is a diverse, tightly woven philosophy that has been adopted in one form or another throughout the past two hundred years by a wide range of individuals and groups, many of whom do not realize or do not associate the individual’s ties with anarchy. These people, however, search for the most freedom offered by world affairs and find it in anarchy. Anarchy can have relevance to all facets of one’s existence, including political, pragmatic, and personal values.

In emphasizing freedom, self-determination, personal responsibility, direct action, and the creation of the voluntary, cooperative alternatives, anarchism has the vision and the flexibility to provide a viable way to transform one’s own life while working for the radical and lasting social change that will transform the world. If the idea of anarchy, which is anarchism, was put into effect, poverty, war, disease, homelessness and lack of education could be abolished forever.

“Anarchism, then really stands for the liberation of human mind from the domination of religion, The liberation of the human body from the domination of property, Liberation from the shackles and restraints of government”#-Emma Golman. During the late 1800’s urbanization began to inflict the cities and the industrial revolution began resulting in governments gaining more and more power. “The state is authority; its force”#-Mikhail Bakunin. As the governments grew it was believed the state was more concerned with its growing power rather than the interests of the people.

A group known as the anarchist believed that the government should be abolished and then the people would be free to live co-operatively with full social and political. Anarchy began as a political philosophy and soon turned in to an all out revolution resulting in assignations, bombings and kidnappings spanning over the better part of the past century. During the 1970’s and 1980’s, anarchy started to become more of a fashion trend if you will, rather than a political philosophy. “I Wanna Be Anarchy”-Sex Pistols.

The Punk movement in music during the late 70’s was first to wide spread expose the public to anarchy and anarchist ideals. Followers of punk and punk music usually didn’t have the tendency to look of the proper meaning of anarchy, but since Johnny Rotten was saying it, it was cool. Today if you take a look at the public wither you are in a public school or a shopping mall, you can see teenagers with anarchy symbols on their shirts, pants, back packs and even drawn on their sneakers in an attempt to look what the public calls “hardcore”.

Anarchism is the sprit of the youth against out worn traditions”-Mikhail Bakunin, this would prove to be all too true in this new era of “anarchism”. This paper will further outline how anarchy started out as a political philosophy and turned in to a symbol of unconformity. Anarchism can be defined as a political philosophy and social movement designed to destroy the government in hopes of creating a society based on voluntary co-operation of free individuals.

In 1840 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a peaceful anarchist, published his controversial pamphlet titled “What Is Property”. Proudhon clamed that violence and crime was not caused by individuals but instead by the government. He believed that police and laws forced humans to live in an unnatural state of oppression and equality, according to Proudhon the ownership of property was the main root of all equality. “As man seeks justice in equality, so society seeks justice in anarchy.

Anarchy-the absence of a sovereign-such is the form of government to which we are every day approximating” # In this quote, Proudhon predicts the eventual dissolve of the government and the rise of a natural social order. Proudhon felt it was possible to create and emplace anarchist organizations in an established society. Eventually the organizations would rise as the government was falling, thus freeing the people from property and oppression enabling the them to live in a free socially liberated society.

Mikhail Bakunin on the contrary was not a peaceful anarchist, he believed that the only way to achieve an anarchist society was through a violent revolution. “The passion for destruction is also a creative passion”#. Although he believed that anarchy was only achievable through a violent revolution, Mikhail Bakunin shared some of the same ideas with Proudhon. Bakunin agreed with Proudhon that human kind’s intentions were for the most part good, but oppression caused by the government had forced the natural quality of human kind to become corrupted.

Bakunin viewed the government “as a negation and annihilation of all liberty”#. Bakunin summarized the intentions and attitude of the anarchist movement by saying this, In a word we reject all legislation, all authority, all privileged, licensed, official and legal influence, even though rising from a universal suffrage, convinced that it can turn only to the advantage of a dominate minority of exploiters against the interests of the immense majority in subject to them” # It was believed by Bakunin that the state should be replaced by a series of agreements and voluntary associations.

Eventually the state would be replaced by a free federation in which every individual would be equally privileged and have equal rights. To say that the anarchist movement started in 1840 with the publishing of Proudhon’s controversial pamphlet “What Is Property? ” would be untrue. The first plans for an anarchist uprising were conceived by Gerrard Winstanley almost 200 years prior to Proudhon publishing his pamphlet. In Gerrard’s pamphlet “Truth Lifting It’s Head Above The Scandals” he wrote what was to become the back bone of the anarchist theory in years to come.

The pamphlet declared that power corrupts the minds of the people and freedom is unachievable with the existence of property. In an experiment, Gerrard Winstanley established an anarchist community on a hillside with his followers. Ironically the community was destroyed by government oppression. Anarchism quickly spread its roots through the world and by 1845 it reached Spain and the first anarchist journal was established, but it was quickly destroyed by government censorship.

Anarchism in Spain gained more and more followers, in 1870 there were as many as 40 000, by 1873 there were 60 000 followers. Despite anarchism growing popularity in Spain, the movement was forced underground in 1874, by 1880 the Spanish anarchist front resorted to violence and terrorism. It wasn’t until the Spanish Civil War of 1936 that anarchist ideals were given an opportunity to be placed in to action. Railways, factories and land were seized and taken over, libertarian villages were established and the internal usage of money was abolished.

Within these libertarian villages the land was tilled collectively, products were distributed to each family according to their need and at equal shares. Due to their inability to sub stain warfare the anarchists failed, yet they succeeded in inspiring many people and showing the world that anarchism is possible. American anarchism was mainly sub stained by immigration from Europe and by the 1800’s anarchism was a large part of life for many people. America saw its fair share of anarchist activity. The Haymarket riot in Chicago left 7 policemen dead and 1 anarchist severally injured.

In 1901 president McKinley was assassinated by anarchist Leon Czlogosz. Due to violent acts including riots, bombings, assignations and kidnappings, anarchists are often perceived and mindless individuals and dangerous violent people, which is not entirely true. Anarchism has its pacifists who do not advocate the usage of violence and believe that the government can be brought down through peaceful and political means. The punk movement of the late 70’s and early 80’s associated its self with anarchy and anarchist ideals because of it’s wild unconformist past.

Anarchy and anarchist imagery were used primarily for shock value and nothing more. This became known and the anarco-punk scene. Anarco punks adopted what they call an anarchy symbol which consists of an irregular capitol “A” in the centre of a circle. This anarchy symbol has become the primary symbol for aggression and non conformity based on punk ideals. Anarchism took on a whole new meaning in 1977 with the release of The Sex Pistols’ first single “I wanna Be Anarchy”. The lyrics advocated a violent anarchist society and mindless destruction.

Positivism is a trend in bourgeois philosophy, which acknowledges the orthodoxy towards empirical knowledge of natural phenomena where metaphysics and theology are regarded as inadequate and imperfect systems of knowledge. Positivism, began to rise as the main intellectual movement during the second half of the 19th century in response to the inability of speculative philosophy, witch was indeed Romanticism. During the first half of 19th century, the Romanticism brought new views that helped the civilization of that time reach a higher level but it also brought the negative side effects.

It brought the chaotic effect that people started in a extremely liberal way to threat the social order in the increasing dispute of 1847 to 1848 which was posed not just by revolutions but by the eruption of an insidious, continually growing, struggle of class against class. The imperceptive economic thoughts, as those in France of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, eloquent if inconsistent writer, denounced the property classifying it as theft. The revolutions of 1848 lead the way for European thinkers to develop new visions for the way of thinking that brought to the idea of Positivism.

Claude Henri de Saint-Simon, French socialist/philosopher, conceived the idea of a new science of society that would result in the economic and intellectual emancipation of man. Saint-Simon thought that the new idea must be a positive philosophy based on experience and science. Another Frenchman Auguste Comte, who is considered the founder of Positivism, was the first to introduce the term “positivism. ” According to Comte, the new natural sciences indicated that a new social science should be built on observation and experience.

Comte also described the human history as a three-staged chronology of progress, with each stage having a different social organization based on the social environment of the time, with action based on different principles at each stage. Those were the theological stage, metaphysical stage and at last the positive era. After its birth in France, positivism continued to spread to England where it obtained a new and better form. In fact, it was in England that the biggest positivist arose.

James Stuart Mill, a writer on economy, was one of the main figures in English positivism. In his largely influential System of Logic (1843) Mill introduced the logical positivism that declared: all discoveries of truth not self-evident consist of inductions and the interpretation of inductions. Mill’s theory of logic is based on the laws association. Comte’s influence extended to many other intellectuals in England including Herbert Spencer who followed the positivist idea. According to Spencer, the universe is a result of evolution.

The laws, which made possible such an evolution, are two: Concentration, by which is meant the transition of elements from the state of instability to the state of stability; Differentiation, by which is meant the passage from the homogeneity of the elements to the state of heterogeneity. German Positivism first emerges as a reaction against Idealism in general and Hegelianism in particular and then as re-development of Kantian theory of knowledge. The German positivist, as an anti-Hegelist, was Ludwig A. Feuerbach who sought to reduce religion to the cult of humanity.

Friedrich Albert Lange, as a young Kantian, demonstrated the necessity of rejecting and overcoming materialism because it presumes to derive knowledge from material motion. The most important of German intellectual to contribute to positivism was Karl Marx, author of Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto. Marx together with his collaborator Friedrich Engels strove to put into practical effect the humanitarian concept of Feuerbach. In so doing, they founded a new economic movement called Socialism,

The exponent of Italian Positivism was Roberto Ardigo, who accepted the evolutionist principle of reality as a passage from the “indistinct to the distinct. ” According to Ardigo, the primordial “indistinct” condition of being is a psychophysical reality revealing itself in the first event of consciousness. After the aftermath of 1848, Romanticism began to fade away and positivism aroused all over Europe. In arts, literary realism supported the positivist movement by reacting strongly against romanticism and retreating to a realistic, even humdrum description of the ordinary.

I cannot forgive Descartes. In all his philosophy he would have been quite willing to dispense with God. But he had to make Him give a fillip to set the world in motion; beyond this, he has no further need of God. Blaise Pascal, Penses, number 77 Cosmology itself speaks to us of the origins of the universe and its makeup, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise but in order to state the correct relationship of man with God and with the universe.

Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth, it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer . . . other teaching about the origin of and makeup of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven. Pope John Paul II, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on 3 October 1981.

The discovery of the New World and especially the people inhabiting it was very dangerous to the Christian Church in the sense that it pointed out falsities in a paradigm to which people held great loyalty for its antiquital and divine authority. Humans are opposed to change, for at each moment in history, we like to think our paradigms for the universe and the heavens hold the absolute good and truth. It comes down to a question of pride. In order to change a paradigm, we have to admit that the previous paradigm was wrong; The longer it has been in place, the harder this is.

Like a lie, the longer it is maintained the harder it is to tell the truth, for longevity requires investment of lie upon lie upon lie. When we have invested life after life, profit after profit, scholar after scholar in a paradigm, it holds great value. This is where the antiquities derive their authority, for they give us the paradigms in which we invest. And, this is why we are loyal to our paradigms, to the point of interference with advancement—which ironically, in this case, means toward the absolute good and truth in our paradigms.

Thus, for the same reason, we ought to question our antiquities; The more time and energy we invest the more we lose and the farther we get from the absolute truth and good. Yet there are absolute goods and truths in our paradigms; It is just that our paradigms are not the absolute truth and good. This concept is not unlike the King having two bodies, one being the office and the other being the individual. We have the human spirit and then we have the human incarnate.

The absolute truth and good are in the human spirit, but no one human possesses the knowledge, perfection, or purity to capture the absolute. Our antiquities—scholars and profits—are those who come closest to the absolute truth and good with the knowledge available at the time, to the best of their human imperfection and impurity. Therefor, we cannot blindly throw out our antiquities when their paradigms are humbled, for although not the absolute, there are absolute truths and goods to be maintained and built upon.

We should extract, from our antiquities’, elements of absolute good and truth for application in a new, more perfect and pure, paradigm. This is in part what we are doing when we cite texts, and this adds legitimacy to our works with the antiquities’ authority derived from our loyalty to their paradigms. I suppose I should cite someone here. I agree with Descartes in that everything in the past is wrong, one will only find the truth in them selves. But, one does not throw out the past, we note changes not to be made again and maintain the truths and good.

We know from Descartes that absolute truth is in the human spirit, and from Aristotle that humans are inherently good. Then if, all men do all their acts with a view to achieving something which is, in their view, a good, there will be some absolute good and truth in their acts. In taking the elements of truth and good from our antiquities paradigms and adding them to our own, we transcend the human incarnate working collectively through the human spirit toward the absolute truth and good. In this way too, we reconcile our loyalty to our antiquities.

We are not abandoning our antiquities when we throw out their wrongs, rather we are joining them in combining their truths and good into a new paradigm created by a group of humans, a human spirit, not a fallible individual. Now, how do we determine what to keep, what is truth and good, but by expunging that which no longer applies after the subject of a paradigm’s design changes, after a new discovery. With each new discovery, our first attempt, at understanding, maps it into an existing paradigm.

We call the West Indies, the West Indies, because they fit into the Indies place on the map of the world at the time, and obviously later found not to be. Hence, the quite natural, term paradigm mapping. If a discovery does not actually fit into a paradigm, serious figure doctoring is necessary to keep it there. This is a natural defense reaction brought on again by our loyalty to existing antiquities and paradigms. However, the awkwardness of the mapped paradigm should quickly point out a need for revision.

Here to revise is to make the paradigm fit the discovery not the discovery fit the paradigm. In this way paradigm mapping becomes almost an exercise in developing new paradigms. We would rather, admit to being partly wrong than look ridiculous. A mapped paradigm forces a break from antiquital loyalty enough so that we can see the faults in existing paradigms; All that is left we can, until the next discovery, take to be truth and good. Still, there is another reason for peoples reluctance to change; The existing paradigm may be convenient.

Would you want to change the paradigm if it placed you at the top, in power? This why discoveries become dangerous. They force the change of paradigms, and often a changing of the guard. Existing Paradigms have never been more challenged or changed then by the Discovery of the New World, and especially the people inhabiting it. At the time, the Bible served as both the universal and heavenly paradigm, it was both the science and the religion. More accurately, the Bible was the religion at the time and religion was both science and morality.

Religion can and did then explain life on two levels: the big LIFE—life on an evolutionary (for lack of a better word) timescale, and the life of the individual—life on an ontogenetic time scale. Since the discovery of the New World, and because of the discovery, there has been a movement, long resisted by the Church, de-emphasizing the big LIFE side of Christianity while emphasizing the life of the individual and how to conduct life morally. One of the main challenges, or questions to the Church’s big LIFE authority was: Where did the Cannibals come from?

The church had to find a place for the Cannibals in their existing biblical paradigm. A first response was paradigm mapping; Mendieta found a place for the Cannibals in a parable from Luke 14. As the end of the world neared, a man invited three guests to his meal symbolizing the Jews, Muslims, and the Gentiles. The Cannibals definitely weren’t Jews or Muslims so they must be Gentiles. However, at a time when reason ruled the day, the stretch Mendieta made was easy to see. Why would the Jew and Muslims be so clearly defined by God and not the Gentiles?

And didn’t the apostles preach to the Gentiles the middle east. Jose de Acosta offered a better place for the Cannibals through reason. If the Bible says that all men descended from one man, then the Cannibals reached the Indies by land or by sea—probably by land, for it could not be disproved with 16th century geography. This explanation was good; It did not hurt the Church’s big LIFE authority, for the time in that it did not point out any faults in the Bible’s paradigm. It is interesting that Jose de Acosta was a Jesuit.

For his explanation of the Cannibals reflects greatly the Jesuit movement of excellent education, not excluding the sciences, as well as their interpretation and direction of intention policies toward religion. Although many criticized them for this, as in the Provincial Letters by Blaise Pascal, these moves where necessary to reconcile the science they taught with the religion they preached. Pascal accuses the Jesuits of making things too easy for their followers, and in many way Pascal is right—interpretation and direction of intension can be abused.

But, the spirit of what the Jesuits where trying to do makes it possible for people to live life according to Christian morals and ethics, laid out by the Bible, from a contemporary perspective of the world. But, back to the Church’s problems with the New World, the Cannibals already had their own paradigms of government and morals that often seemed better then Christian ones. Montainge writes heavily on the Cannibals’ paradigms, and how the Cannibals themselves criticize the European paradigms.

The Cannibals found it unusual and contrary to their paradigm, that strong European men would follow a child king, because of hereditary right. The Cannibals did not realize that it was not just hereditary, but divine right as well, which gave the Church power over the King. Yet, the Cannibal strongest warrior paradigm was dangerous to the Church’s power, for it had reason on its side. And why should the Europeans rule over and convert the Cannibals, if they are in way better ruled and more pious. Many of the Church’s arguments center around and Aristotelean states of nature argument.

Sepulveda, argues that the perfect and powerful (Spaniards) should rule over the imperfect and weak (Cannibals), they should destroy the barbarism of the Cannibals and guide them to a more humane and virtuous life. However, reason as Montainge showed quite clearly places the Cannibals out of the barbaric state to which the Europeans claim superiority, and as Mendieta observed some Cannibals remain so pure that they do not know how to sin. Clearly this posed some valid opposition to the Church’s paradigms and power, by presenting an alterative working paradigm.

Such problems do not arise from the religion its self, but from the Christian institution. The goal of Christianity is to direct peoples lives so they can get to heaven, not to explain the heavens. Before there was any concrete science religion had to be both a way of life and an explanation of life. Christianity went wrong in trying to place all confidence in the word of God though human envoys. What documents does Christianity have that came directly from God? Jesus did not write any of the Bible directly.

Not even the Ten Commandments came to us directly from God, free from human envoy. And whether they are God’s exact words or not, they still set down some guidelines on how to live. Even if you throw out the Bible’s story of creation as a literal story of creation, it holds value as a parable—it speaks of the vice of temptation. It could be that creation is speaking of the human race’s descent from one spontaneous creation of human intellect, or the creation of the male and female mind, not literally man and woman.

Christianity has to accept the element of human imperfection in the Bible. Even those divinely inspired are subject to the imperfection of their individual human incarnate. How can any mortal being possibly fully understand God—the things that God puts in the revelations of our profits? Our profits are human, St. Peter couldn’t even speak Latin, Mark, his interpreter, wrote most of his testament through Pete’s witness. But of course, we can still extract valuable lessons from these stories.

And why should humans be afraid to offend God, that perhaps God’s word is not a definitive explanation of the world. Aside from the human understanding point, it is a sign of devotion and flattery that humans, in their hour of need, turned to God for explanation. If as Descartes would have said according to Pascal, all God did, was put a fillip in things to get them going. Look at all that came of it; it is amazing. Before humans had an understanding of how the universe arrived at its current state, they could see that it was divinely inspired and turned to God for explanation.

Yes, God set things in motion and has the power to pull the plug. But that is as far as God goes in that sense of things—beginning and end, and . The human spirit is defining everything in-between. God gives each one of us life of which we can see the end and gives us guidelines for the middle. Hopefully we add something to the big LIFE in which the human spirit exists during our human incarnate life. To be part of that power after life-as-we-know-it, is where religion’s moral side applies. We want to live accordance with God to this end.

Enlightenment began with an unparalleled confidence in human reason. The new science’s success in making clear the natural world through Locke, Berkeley, and Hume affected the efforts of philosophy in two ways. The first is by locating the basis of human knowledge in the human mind and its encounter with the physical world. Second is by directing philosophy’s attention to an analysis of the mind that was capable of such cognitive success. John Locke set the tone for enlightenment by affirming the foundational principle of empiricism: There is nothing in the intellect that was not previously in the senses.

Locke could not accept the Cartesian rationalist belief in innate ideas. According to Locke, all knowledge of the world must ultimately rest on man’s sensory experience. The mind arrives at sound conclusions through reflection after sensation. In other words the mind combines and compounds sensory impressions or “ideas” into more complex concepts building it’s conceptual understanding. There was skepticism in the empiricist position mainly from the rationalist orientation.

Locke recognized there was no guarantee that all human ideas of things genuinely resembled the external objects they were suppose to represent. He also realized he could not reduce all complex ideas, such as substance, to sensations. He did know there were three factors in the process of human knowledge: the mind, the physical object, and the perception or idea in the mind that represents that object. Locke, however, attempted a partial solution to such problems. He did this by making the distinction between primary and secondary qualities.

Primary qualities produce ideas that are simply consequences of the subject’s perceptual apparatus. With focusing on the Primary qualities it is thought that science can gain reliable knowledge of the material world. Locke fought off skepticism with the argument that in the end both types of qualities must be regarded as experiences of the mind. Lockes Doctrine of Representation was therefore undefendable. According to Berkley’s analysis all human experience is phenomenal, limited to appearances in the mind.

One’s perception of nature is one’s mental experience of nature, making all sense data “objects for the mind” and not representations of material substances. In effect while Locke had reduced all mental contents to an ultimate basis in sensation, Berkeley now further reduced all sense data to mental contents. The distinction, by Locke, between qualities that belong to the mind and qualities that belong to matter could not be sustained. Berkeley sought to overcome the contemporary tendency toward “atheistic Materialism” which he felt arose without just cause with modern science.

The empiricist correctly aims that all knowledge rests on experience. In the end, however, Berkeley pointed out that experience is nothing more than experience. All representations, mentally, of supposed substances, materially, are as a final result ideas in the mind presuming that the existence of a material world external to the mind as an unwarranted assumption. The idea is that “to be” does not mean “to be a material substance;” rather “to be” means “to be perceived by a mind. ” Through this Berkeley held that the individual mind does not subjectively determine its experience of the world.

The reason that different individuals continually percieve a similar world and that a reliable order inheres in that world is that the world and its order depend on a mind that transcends individual minds and is universal (God’s mind). The universal mind produces sensory ideas in individual minds according to certain regularities such as the “laws of nature. ” Berkeley strived to preserve the empiricist orientation and solve Lockes representation problems, while also preserving a spiritual foundation for human experience. Just as Berkeley followed Locke, so did David Hume of Berkeley.

Hume drove the empiricist epistemological critique to its final extreme by using Berkeley’s insight only turning it in a direction more characteristic of the modern mind. Being an empiricist who grounded all human knowledge in sense experience, Hume agreed with Lockes general idea, and too with Berkeley’s criticism of Lockes theory of representation, but disagreed with Berkeley’s idealist solution. Behind Hume’s analysis is this thought: Human experience was indeed of the phenomenal only, of sense impressions, but there was no way to ascertain what was beyond the sense impressions, spiritual or otherwise.

To start his analysis, Hume distinguished between sensory impressions and ideas. Sensory impressions being the basis of any knowledge coming with a force of liveliness and ideas being faint copies of those impressions. The question is then asked, What causes the sensory impression? Hume answered None. If the mind analyzes it’s experience without preconception, it must recognize that in fact all its supposed knowledge is based on a continuous chaotic volley of discrete sensations, and that on these sensations the mind imposes an order of its own.

The mind can’t really know what causes the sensations because it never experiences “cause” as a sensation. What the mind does experience is simple impressions, through an association of ideas the mind assumes a causal relation that really has no basis in a sensory impression. Man can not assume to know what exists beyond the impressions in his mind that his knowledge is based on. Part of Hume’s intention was to disprove the metaphysical claims of philosophical rationalism and its deductive logic. According to Hume, two kinds of propositions are possible.

One view is based purely on sensation while the other purely on intellect. Propositions based on sensation are always with matters of concrete fact that can also be contingent. “It is raining outside” is a proposition based on sensation because it is concrete in that it is in fact raining out and contingent in the fact that it could be different outside like sunny, but it is not. In contrast to that a proposition based on intellect concerns relations between concepts that are always necessary like “all squares have four equal sides.

But the truths of pure reason are necessary only because they exist in a self contained system with no mandatory reference to the external world. Only logical definition makes them true by making explicit what is implicit in their own terms, and these can claim no necessary relation to the nature of things. So, the only truths of which pure reason is capable are redundant. Truth cannot be asserted by reason alone for the ultimate nature of things. For Hume, metaphysics was just an exalted form of mythology, of no relevance to the real world. A more disturbing consequence of Hume’s analysis was its undermining of empirical science itself.

The mind’s logical progress from many particulars to a universal certainty could never be absolutely legitimated. Just because event B has always been seen to follow event A in the past, that does not mean it will always do so in the future. Any acceptance of that “law” is only an ingrained psychological persuasion, not a logical certainty. The causal necessity that is apparent in phenomena is the necessity only of conviction subjectively, of human imagination controlled by its regular association of ideas. It has no objective basis. The regularity of events can be perceived, however, there necessity can not.

The result is nothing more than a subjective feeling brought on by the experience of apparent regularity. Science is possible, but of the phenomenal only, determined by human psychology. With Hume, the festering empiricist stress on sense perception was brought to its ultimate extreme, in which only the volley and chaos of those perceptions exist, and any order imposed on those perceptions was arbitrary, human, and without objective foundation. For Hume all human knowledge had to be regarded as opinion and he held that ideas were faint copies of sensory impressions instead of vice – versa.

Not only was the human mind less than perfect, it could never claim access to the world’s order, which could not be said to exist apart from the mind. Locke had retained a certain faith in the capacity of the human mind to grasp, however imperfectly, the general outlines of an external world by means of combining operations. With Berkeley, there had been no necessary material basis for experience, though the mind had retained a certain independent spiritual power derived from God’s mind, and the world experienced by the mind derived its order from the same source.

Despised by academics, passionately loved by her followers, Ayn Rand, the novelist-philosopher, has evicted the whole gambit of emotions and responses. Her work has been ridiculed and praised. Her followers’ devotion has produced outcries of cultism, allowing one author to write a stirring critique[1] and another a book. [2] Despite this, Ayn Rand remains, one of the most polarizing writers of the 20th century. Barbara Branden, a longtime associate, wrote of her: Few figures in this century have been so admired and so savagely attacked.

She is viewed as goddess and as malefactor, as a seminal enius and an ominously dangerous corrupter of the young, as the mightiest voices for reason and the destroyer of traditional values, as the espouser of joy and the exponent of mindless greed, as the great defender of freedom and the introducer of malevolent values into the mainstream of American thought. [3] Her followers can be found in the Federal Reserve, with Chairman Allan Greenspan, who some 53% of respondents[4] gave the responsibility of the current economic boom in the United States of America, bypassing such important institutions as the Clinton Presidency and Congress.

Rand was reatly known for her literary works, the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, the former, presenting the idealized man, the latter presenting an idealized conception of life, society and politics. Despite Ms. Rand’s popularity, academia has been slow to produce many scholarly books on her or her philosophy, which she has labeled as Objectivism. Indeed, much of academia, an overcrowded cesspool of contemporary liberalism and postmodernity, has shunned her, precisely because of her strong ideological contempt for them and their views.

Rand herself had an unyielding contempt for the intellectual atmosphere of her ime. In her book, For the New Intellectual, she wrote, “The majority of those who posture as intellectuals today are frightened zombies, posturing in a vacuum of their own making, who admit their abdication from the realm of the intellect by embracing such doctrines as Existentialism and Zen Buddhism. “[5] Her passionate defense of values such as: capitalism, reason, egoism, and atheism, made her enemies in every intellectual circle.

William Buckley’s conservative magazine, the National Review, reviewed Atlas Shrugged, accusing her of fascism and totalitarianism. [6] Liberal ritics were no less scathing in their attacks. Granville Hicks of the New York Times wrote, “Loudly as Miss Rand proclaims her love of life, it seems clear that the book is written out of hate… “[7] However, throughout this bombardment of negative contempt and accusatory rhetoric, sales of Rand’s works were exponential. [8] It seems for all her “hate” and intellectual naivet, people across North America were tuning in to Ayn Rand’s message.

A message that refused compromise and irrationality, a message that worshiped the self, a message that romanticized greatness, a message of perennial importance. The Early Ayn Rand Ayn Rand, the woman, was born and raised in Moscow, Russia, under the name Alice Rosenbaum. [9] Born of Jewish heritage, in a country ruled by a despotic Czar and a mystic Church, she was even as a child, a bright and enigmatic figure. Her mother attempted in vain to instill femininity in the young Ayn Rand but to no avail. Instead, even as a child, the young Ayn Rand derived her value from her mind.

In 1917, the Bolshevik Revolution would take place and life would never be the same for Ayn Rand. For Rand, Russia seemed to be antithetical to her own life and beliefs. Rand “saw Russia as a nation that glorified the tragic and the malevolent, glorified the very qualities that were the antithesis of what she wanted in her own life and what she wanted to create in her stories. “[10] Rand, disgusted by the disintegration of her country and family, fled joyfully to America. Moving to Los Angeles from New York, Rand flirted with cinematic writing and met her future husband, Frank O’Connor.

The drama and flair of the cinema is an apt career, considering her dramatic and idealistic literary style and beliefs. Rand wrote stage plays and screenplays in this eriod, as well as her first published novel, We the Living. We the Living was her most autobiographical work. The novel centered on a love triangle in Soviet Russia and the destruction of the protagonists by the antagonistic Communist state government. It is during this period of Rand’s life that her Nietzschian influence would most shine through.

We the Living contains many Nietzsche-like qualities of bravery, courage, and contempt for the masses and/or proletariat, not seen in other Rand novels and novella. Rand subsequently edited portions of We the Living, purging some of its Nietzschian qualities. 11] The affect of Nietzsche on Ayn Rand is often misunderstood. Many academics have unfortunately associated Rand with only Nietzsche, disregarding the more obvious intellectual influence of Aristotle and Enlightenment figures, such as John Locke. However, Nietzsche did hold some influence over the young Rand.

His influence is perhaps more spiritual than ideological. Nietzsche’s romanticized overman (or superman) and his idealization of aristocratic values found an ally in Rand. Rand’s two main protagonists, Howard Roark (Fountainhead) and John Galt (Atlas Shrugged), have definite Nietzschian overtones. They are both trong and uncompromising individuals, concerned only with their own values and life. Ronald E. Merril characterized Nietzsche’s influence on Rand as such, “It is clear that Rand, as a philosopher and as a writer, derived much of her intellectual impulse from Nietzsche.

Yet, as we shall see, she was in the end by no means his follower. “[12] Rand clearly departed from Nietzsche, in some fundamental aspects, especially concerning metaethics, as we shall see later. The Literary Period Ayn Rand’s second and third novels, the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged respectively, are her grandest literary achievements. The two novels could be viewed as a micro and macro view of her philosophy. The Fountainhead displays the protagonist Howard Roark, an uncompromising architect, who blows up a building project because its style and design have been changed from his original form.

Rand presents Roark’s life as a sort of archetype for humanity to follow, not in his specific occupational or situational actions, but in the spirit of the man. Roark values his own life as an end in itself, against those “looters” and “second-handers” that wish to dispose of his work and genius. His uncompromising individualism haracterizes Rand’s normative ethics of rational selfishness or self- interest. While the Fountainhead concentrates on the individual and his fight to uncompromising greatness, Atlas Shrugged approaches a philosophical treatise in novel form.

The title displays a great Randian device of using mythic imagery with striking clarity. Atlas, the Greek god, who held the world on his shoulders, is used as a metaphor for the great men who hold the world on their shoulders. These men are the producers, inventors, innovators, and great intellectuals (as Rand perceives them). As the title uggests, the novel is centered on what would happen if these men were to “shrug” as it were, and withdraw their ideas and production from the world. In apocalyptic fashion, the world collapses without them.

John Galt, the main protagonist who is shrouded much of the novel, gives a speech to the disintegrating society of epic proportions, lasting over fifty pages. [13] Galt speaks to the philosophical underpinnings of the society’s problems, employing metaphysics, ethics, politics, and epistemology. Galt’s speech echoes the whole of Atlas Shrugged, which attempts to show the socio- conomic, political, ethical and philosophical implications of Ayn Rand’s vision. Galt concludes his speech saying in grandiose fashion, “I swear-by my life and my love of it-that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine. [14] Rand’s sense of life, as displayed by Galt, has deep roots in metaethical issues, as we shall soon see.

The Philosophical Period While much of Ayn Rand’s beliefs are evident from her novels, questioning readers and students began desiring a more systemized and concrete vision of her philosophy. At the behest of friends, Rand embarked on a non-fiction writing career. She exploded on the scene, after an anthology work, in typical polemical Randian style, with The Virtue of Selfishness. This brief book, containing different essays written by Rand, explores normative Objectivist ethics.

Rand wrote other non-fiction works, including, the Anti-Industrial Revolution, Philosophy: Who Needs It, For the New Intellectual, the Romantic Manifesto, and an Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. In this period, Rand systematically engineered a new philosophy. Rand covered the gambit of intellectual and academic subjects, including: metaphysics, religion, epistemology, ethics, esthetics, psychology, politics, love, and sexuality, not to mention her commentary on contemporary intellectual, political and cultural trends of her day.

In short, Rand was a writer of broad interest. She felt the pull towards a systemized worldview, which remained integrated from one subject to another. This pull towards integration was to be a hallmark of her philosophy. The dichotomies between fact and value, reason and emotions, mind and body, would find no place in Rand’s thought. Rather, her thought typified a drive towards a full and integrated anthropology. Her philosophy and ethics are anthropocentric and proudly so.

As Rand put it, “Man must choose his actions, values and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man-in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life. “[15] Rand was profoundly aware of the implicit notions of differing philosophical theories and their effects on both the society and the individual. Thus, she took intellectual exercise to be a fundamental necessary human act, an act that caused two world wars and both an industrial and American revolution. For Rand there was no dichotomy between the academy and real life, they were in separately linked.

Saint Anselm of Aosta, Bec, and Canterbury, perhaps during a moment of enlightenment or starvation-induced hallucination, succeeded in formulating an argument for God’s existence which has been debated for almost a thousand years. It shows no sign of going away soon. It is an argument based solely on reason, distinguishing it from other arguments for the existence of God such as cosmological or teleological arguments. These latter arguments respectively depend on the world’s causes or design, and thus may weaken as new scientific advances are made (such as Darwin’s theory of evolution).

We can be sure that no such fate will happen to Anselm’s Ontological Argument (the name, by the way, coined by Kant). In form, Anselm’s arguments are much like the arguments we see in philosophy today. In Cur Deus Homo we read Anselm’s conversation with a skeptic. This sort of question-and-answer form of argumentation (dialectic) is very much like the writings of Plato. The skeptic, Boso, question’s Anselm’s faith with an array of questions non-believers still ask today. Anselm answers in a step- by-step manner, asking for confirmation along the way, until he arrives at a onclusion with which Boso is forced to agree.

This is just like Socrates’ procedure with, say, Crito. Later philosophers have both accepted and denied the validity of Anselm’s famous ontological argument for the existence of God, presented in both the Proslogium and Monologium. Anselm did not first approach the argument with an open mind, then examine its components with a critical eye to see which side was best. Anselm had made up his mind about the issue long before he began to use dialectic to attempt to dissect it.

Indeed, the extreme ardor which mpels him to search everywhere for arguments favorable to the dogma, is a confession his part that the dogma needs support, that it is debatable, that it lacks self-evidence, the criterion of truth. ” (Weber, V) In chapters 2-4 of his Proslogium, Anselm summarizes the argument. A fool is one who denies the existence of God. But even that fool understands the definition of God, “a being than which nothing greater can be conceived. ” But the fool says that this definition exists only in his mind, and not in reality.

But, Anselm observes, a being which exists in both reality and in the nderstanding would be greater than one that merely exists only in the understanding. So the definition of God, one that points to “a being than which nothing greater can be conceived”, points toward a being which exists both in reality and in the understanding. It would be impossible to hold the conception of God in this manner, and yet deny that He exists in reality. The argument was criticized by one of Anselm’s contemporaries, a monk named Gaunilo, who said, that by Anselm’s reasoning, one could imagine a certain island, more perfect than any other island.

If this island can exist in the ind, then according to Anselm, it would necessarily exist in reality, for a ‘perfect’ island would have this quality. But this is obviously false; we cannot make things exist merely by imagining them. Anselm replied, upholding his argument (in many, many words) by saying that they are comparing apples and oranges. An island is something that can be thought of not to exist, whereas the non-existence of “that than which a greater cannot be conceived is inconceivable. ” (Reply, ch.. 3) Only for God is it inconceivable not to exist; mere islands or other things do not fit this quality.

Copleston sums it up succinctly (for Anselm doesn’t): “it would be absurd to speak of a merely possible necessary being (it is a contradiction in terms), whereas there is no contradiction in speaking of merely possible beautiful islands. St. Thomas Aquinas rejects the argument, saying that the human mind cannot possibly conceive of the idea of God by reason alone (a-priori), as Anselm might. The argument does not make sense by itself, and must first provide an idea of the existence of God with an analysis of God’s effects (a- posteriori), to which Thomas turns.

I think there is evidence in Anselm’s ritings that he would disagree, saying that the idea of God is an innate one given to us by God, and needs no other revelation to bring it about. “Hence, this being, through its greater likeness, assists the investigating mind in the approach to supreme Truth; and through its more excellent created essence, teaches the more correctly what opinion the mind itself ought to form regarding the Creator. ” (Monologium, ch. 66) Although St. Thomas was obviously a believer, he was not swayed by the idea of reason alone being sufficient to prove God’s existence.

His objection f the human mind’s capability to ascertain God is echoed by other philosophers such as Kierkegaard (who was also a Christian): “The paradoxical passion of the Reason thus comes repeatedly into collision with the Unknown… and cannot advance beyond this point. [Of God:] How do I know? I cannot know it, for in order to know it, I would have to know the God, and the nature of the difference between God and man; and this I cannot know, because the Reason has reduced it to likeness with that from which it was unlike. (Kierkegaard, 57)

Anselm disagrees, and explains why illumination of God through rational iscourse brings Man closer to God. “So, undoubtedly, a greater knowledge of the creative Being is attained, the more nearly the creature through which the investigation is made approaches that Being. ” (Monologium, ch. 66) Descartes restates Anselm’s argument for his own purposes, which include defining what sorts of knowledge is around that is grounded in certainty. Most later philosophers tend to use Decartes’ formulation of the argument in their analyses.

Required for Descartes’ project is God, who granted humans the reasoning capability with which we can cognate truths. The form of Anselm’s rgument he uses involves defining ‘existence’ as one of God’s many perfections. “Existence is a part of the concept of a perfect being; anyone who denied that a perfect being had the property existence would be like someone who denied that a triangle had the property three-sidedness… the mind cannot conceive of triangularity without also conceiving of three-sidedness… the mind cannot conceive of perfection without also conceiving of existence. (Fifth Meditation)

Several philosophers ask what properties necessarily should be ascribed to God, and if existence is one of them. Lotze asks how a being’s real existence logically follows from its perfectness. This deduction, Lotze says, satisfies our sentimental values that our ideals must exist. “Why should this thought [a perfect being’s unreality] disturb us? Plainly for this reason, that it is an immediate certainty that what is greatest, most beautiful, most worthy, is not a mere thought, but must be a reality, because it would be intolerable to believe [otherwise].

If what is greatest did not exist, then what is the greatest would not be, and it is not impossible that that which is greatest of ll conceivable things should not be. ” (Lotze, 669) The mind can contrive wonderful and fantastic things. Where is the fallacy in thinking of a perfect, unreal something? Descartes’ formulation which ascribes ‘existence’ to a most perfect being leads us to the most famous objection to Anselm’s argument, from Kant. Kant has a problem with treating ‘existence’ as a property of a thing, that it makes no sense to talk of things which have the property of existence and others which do.

Consider the plausible situation of asking my roommate Matthew to get me a beer. “What kind of beer? he replies. “Oh, Budweiser. And a cold one, at that. Also an existing one, if you’ve got any,” I might specify. Something just seems amiss. For Kant, when you take away ‘existence’ from a concept of a thing, there is nothing left to deal with. It makes no sense to talk of an omniscient, all-powerful, all-good God, nor of a red-and-white, cold, non-existent Budweiser. A thing either exists, with properties, or it doesn’t.

Where Descartes and Anselm would say you are making a logical contradiction by saying “God does not exist” because of the fact that this statement conflicts with the ery concept of God including the property of existence, with Kant, making this sort of a statement involves no contradiction. For postulating non-existence as a part of a thing’s concept sort of negates any argumentative power that the concept’s other qualities might have had. A concept of a thing should focus on its defining qualities, such as cold and Budweiser, rather than on its existence.

Anselm’s original reply to Gaulino might be applicable here in a defense against Kant. Perhaps it is possible to deny the existence of mere things (be they islands or Budweisers) without logical contradiction, but in the case of a ost-perfect being, ‘existence’ must be part of its concept. Perhaps it is possible that an island can be said not to have existed, maybe if tectonic plates hadn’t shifted in a certain way. But God is not bound by the constraints of causality; God transcends cause, existing throughout all time.

So in the concept of God is ‘existence’, as well as His various other attributes. So to say “God does not exist” is contradictory, after all. Kant counters this with a devastating blow. He reduces the ontological argument to a tautology: “The concept of an all-perfect being includes existence. “We hold this concept in our minds, therefore the being must exist. ” “Thus, an existent being exists. ” Even if we grant the argument numerous favors, letting it escape from plenty of foibles, in the end, it still doesn’t really tell us anything revealing.

All the trouble and labour bestowed on the famous ontological or Cartesian proof of the existence of a supreme Being from concepts alone is trouble and labour wasted. A man might as well expect to become richer in knowledge by the aid of mere ideas as a merchant to increase his wealth by adding some noughts to his cash-account. ” (Kant, 630) Anselm’s argument was not designed to convince unbelievers, but to be food for believers like Gaunilo who wished see what results the tool of dialectic will bring if applied to the question of God.

While today the argument seems weak, or even whimsical, it is a brave attempt to go without dogma in explaining God. The argument “must stand or fall by its sheer dialectical force. A principal reason of our difficulty in appreciating its power may well be that pure dialectic makes but a weak appeal to our minds. ” (Knowles, 106) I think I stand with St. Thomas and Kierkegaard in this matter, for it eems that a purely logical argument of God’s existence is somewhat out of place.

One must be in a position of “faith seeking understanding”, in an a-posteriori state of mind to appreciate an a-priori proof such as this. This is somewhat odd and unsettling, for I tend to agree with logically sound arguments at all other intersections of my life. It seems as if Church dogma these days accentuates the mystery of God, staying away from reasoning such as Anselm’s to attract followers. For to have faith in the mystery is what is admirable. One should not be tempted to attend church smugly because it is illogical not to.

In explaining Humes critique of the belief in miracles, we must first understand the definition of a miracle. The Webster Dictionary defines a miracle as: a supernatural event regarded as to define action, one of the acts worked by Christ which revealed his divinity an extremely remarkable achievement or event, an unexpected piece of luck. Therefore, a miracle is based on ones perception of past experiences, what everyone sees. It is based on an individuals own reality, and the faith in which he/she believes in, it is based on interior events such as what we are taught, and exterior events, such as what we hear or see first hand.

When studying Humes view of a miracle, he interprets or defines a miracle as such; a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, an event which is not normal to most of mankind. Hume explains this point brilliantly when he states, Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it has ever happened in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man seemingly in good health should die on a sudden. (Hume p. 888) Hume states that this death is quite unusual, however it seemed to happen naturally.

He could only define it as a true miracle if this dead man were to come back to life. This would be a miraculous event because such an experience has not yet been commonly observed. In which case, his philosophical view of a miracle would be true. Hume critiques and discredits the belief in a miracle merely because it goes against the laws of nature. Hume defines the laws of nature to be what has been uniformly observed by mankind, such as the laws of identity and gravity. He views society as being far to liberal in what they consider to be a miracle.

He gives the reader four ideas to support his philosophy in defining a true miracle, or the belief in a miracle. These points leads us to believe that there has never been a miraculous event established. Humes first reason in contradicting a miracle is, in all of history there has not been a miraculous event with a sufficient number of witnesses. He questions the integrity of the men and the reputation in which they hold in society. If their reputation holds great integrity, then and only then can we have full assurance in the testimony of men.

Hume is constantly asking throughout the passage questions to support proof for a miracle. He asks questions such as this; Who is qualified? Who has the authority to say who qualifies? As he asks these questions we can see there are no real answers, in which case, it tends to break the validity of the witnesses to the miracle. Humes second reason in contradicting the validity of a miracle is that he views all of our beliefs, or what we choose to accept, or not accept through past experience and what history dictates to us.

Furthermore, he tends to discredit an individual by playing on a human beings consciousness or sense of reality. An example is; using words such as, the individuals need for excitement and wonder arising from miracles. Even the individual who can not enjoy the pleasure immediately will still believe in a miracle, regardless of the possible validity of the miracle. With this, it leads the individual to feel a sense of belonging and a sense of pride. These individuals tend to be the followers within society. These individuals will tend to believe faster than the leaders in the society.

With no regard to the miracles validity, whether it is true or false, or second hand information. Miracles lead to such strong temptations, that we as individuals tend to lose sense of our own belief of fantasy and reality. As individuals we tend to believe to find attention, and to gossip of the unknown. Through emotions and behavior Hume tends to believe there has been many forged miracles, regardless if the information is somewhat valid or not. His third reason in discrediting the belief in a miracle is testimony versus reality.

Hume states, It forms a strong presumption against all supernatural and miraculous events, that they are observed chiefly to abound among ignorant and barbarous ancestors; or if civilized people has ever given admission to any of them, that people will be found to have received them from these barbarous ancestors, who transmitted them with that inviolable sanction and authority, which always attend perceived opinions. (Hume p. 891) In any case many of the miraculous events which happened in past history would not be considered a miracle in todays world, or at any other time in history.

The reality most people believed at that period, as a result can be considered lies or exaggerations. Hume discredits the miracle as to the time period in which the miracle is taking place, the mentality, or the reality of individuals at that given time. Hume suggests that during certain times in history we are told of miraculous accounts of travelers. Because we as individuals love to wonder, there is an end to common sense, and human testimony, in these circumstances, loses all pretensions to authority. (Hume p. 0)

The final point Hume gives to discredit the validity of a miracle is that there must be a number of witnesses to validate the miracle. So that not only the miracle destroys the credit of testimony, but the testimony destroys itself. (Hume p. 892). This basically means that the witnesses must all give the exact same testimony of the facts of the event. Hume finds difficulty in the belief or integrity of any individual, and the difficulty of detecting falsehood in any private or even public place in history. Where it is said to happen much more when the scene is removed to ever so small a distance.

Hume p. 892) A court of justice with accuracy and judgment may find themselves often distinguishing between true and false. If it is trusted to society through debate, rumors, and mans passion it tends to be difficult to trust the validity of the miracle. Throughout the rest of the readings Hume states a few events which many believe are miracles. He discredits many these miracles through his critiques. I have chosen to illustrate two so-called miracles from the New American Bible and to show how Hume would view these miracles.

The stories are of Noahs Ark and The Burning Bush. The story of Noahs Ark took place when the Lord began to realize how great mans wickedness on earth had become. He began to regret the fact that he had created man on earth. The lord decided the only way to rid the wickedness would be to destroy all men, and all living creatures living on the earth. The only men in which he would not destroy were to be Noah, his sons, Noahs wife and his sons wives. He also would save a pair of animals. Of each species. The rest were to perish from the earth.

He chose Noah to be the favor and carry out the task. The Lord requested Noah to build a ark explained exactly how it was to be made. Noah spent six hundred years of his life building the ark in which God insisted upon. When the ark was finally complete The Lord told Noah it was time to gather the selected few the floods were about to come. These floods lasted forty days and forty nights. The floods wiped out all living creatures on earth, except all on the ark. In the six hundred and first year of Noahs life the floods stopped and the earth began to dry.

Noah then built an alter to the Lord and choosing from every clean animal he offered holocaust on the alter. As God states Never again will I doom the earth because of man, since the desires of mans heart are evil from the start; nor will I ever strike down all living beings, as I have done. In deciding upon whether this is a valid miracle in Humes opinion of miracles I believe he would consider it to be a miracle but, would have a hard time validating the testimony of it. The reasons in which he would criticize the validity with in the testimony would be as follows.

The testimony versus the reality. To further support the theory he would argue the time period in which the miracle had taken place. And would find it difficult to believe with out a reasonable doubt. There is a question to whether it could be lies or exaggerations. Furthermore, it could not possibly be a validated miracle considering the amount of men in which witnessed the event. As well a s questioning the integrity of the men. Although this miracle was a act of God we can still question the validity of our ancestors or God for that matter.

Hume would not be satisfied not only with the integrity of the individuals but the amount of witnesses at the given time. Therefore we can only view this as a miracle depending upon our own individual perceptions of what we believe to be true. This leads to a non uniform event since we as individuals hold different beliefs of what we hold true, and false. The second miracle in which I will discuss was that of Moses and the burning bush. As Moses was working in the fields a angel of the Lord appeared to him in fire flaming out of the holy bush.

Almost amazing the bush was full of flames but was yet not consumed. As he walked closer he heard the voice, the voice of God telling Moses he was the chosen one to take the Israelites out of Egypt away from the cruel hands of the Egyptians. In disbelief that he was the chosen one he set forth on his journey to Egypt with God watching over him and leading the way. As Moses leads the Israelites out of Egypt he comes to the Red Sea with the Egyptians close behind. As the bible explains the miracle takes place the Red Sea splits leading the Israelites to freedom.

As the Egyptians were crossing the sea it closed its gates and let them drown with in the waters of the sea. In justifying whether Hume would discredit this miracle he would definitely see how one may say it is a miracle, but again would have a hard time validating the testimony of the miracle. Again we see the pattern of the fact that there is no one to testify for the event. We can only view this as a truthful experience through our belief in God and the bible. It is what we are taught to believe through religious texts, and our house of worship.

It is the individuals perception of reality and what he or she believes to be a valid event. In conclusion, a miracle is actually based on an individuals own perception of past and present experiences. The belief in a miraculous event tends to have no real evidence through mans hope, it tends to be something better through our expectations. I can not debate the belief of a miracle. There is no right or wrong belief. It is viewed through our own individual perception and faith, our existence and sense of reality.

In order to help us understand the meaning of Philosophy we must first understand the long debates regarding what it means to be human, and how “being” differs from “to be”. Does an individual become human or is “that” individual only “that” individual? How does being differ from to be? The fundamental capacity to understand the world outside the world of the individual and his or her internal world includes the ability to interpret, characterize, and associate what things seem to be singular, or at least, singular groups of things.

Understanding the process of being as compared to the process of becoming and distinctly separate concepts for Plato, Pieper, and Thoreau are directly related to that capacity of understanding. For Plato, the physical things of the world must have bodily form. They must be both visible and tangible, yet their state of being is not the same thing as their essence. Plato, through his stories of Socrates and Socrates views, began the debate that has served both as an intellectual argument and an effort to understand human existence for millennia.

In Walden, Henry David Thoreau wrote about his account of an extended stay in the woods. Thoreau wrote that he wanted to follow nature’s example, to “see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived” (Walden 172). And, for Pieper, God’s role in the life of every individual and the cardinal virtues of prudence, justice, courage, temperance, and love are the ways by which human beings understood truth. He believed the natural world would reveal its truth if and when one had the proper attitude toward the divine.

Clearly, from the most ancient of times to only a century ago, humanity has sought to understand its place in the order of the cosmos and has predicated deal of its philosophical wonderings on that search. It is important to understand that Socrates’ primary goal was to require people to think. Certainly, his most famous statement ever was that the “unexamined life was not worth living precisely because an examined life was essential to answering the question “how should I live my life? ” Apology 63).

He also was determined that his words be conveyed on a level by which people could better understand their own motives and thoughts and, thus, allow them to be much more aware of why they made certain decisions or took specific actions. The “doctrine” of Socrates was one that was expressed in terms of a symbolism of love, truth, and humility, all of which were embodied in the personality of Socrates himself. The “apprehension and appreciation” of formal reality is what makes life worth living, according to Socrates. Of equal importance is the fact that it also makes one moral.

Therefore, it seems clear that in order to fully cultivate the most meaningful life, one must be willing to look inward toward the reality of one’s own life and beliefs in order to understand what it is to be fully alive. Without that willingness to “examine” one’s own life, a person is only partially alive. His final days, as documented in Plato’s works are the Apology, Euthyphro, Crito, and Phaedo. While each illustrates Socrates thinking regarding his willingness to drink poison as ordered by the court, the Crito best illustrates his philosophy regarding his view of life.

When Crito brings word that Socrates must die within a few days, he urges him to escape. But Socrates refuses saying that he cannot go against the decisions of the law anytime such decision does not suit him or else there would be an end to law. Justice is and must be first, says Socrates, then considerations of family and friends (Crito 86-87). Socrates believes that the collective group of people chosen to make decisions about governance and all aspects of daily life are considered to be good people, and Crito agrees that the leaders of Athens are good men, and then they must be followed even when they make a bad decision.

Henry David Thoreau had gone to Walden Pond, a small body of water outside Concord, Massachusetts, in order to write a book dedicated to his dead brother. Instead, he wrote about his solitary opportunity to observe nature directly. “We need,” he wrote, “the tonic of wildness, to wade sometimes in marshes where the bittern and the meadow-hen lurk, and hear the booming of the snipe; to smell the whispering sedge where only some wilder and more solitary fowl builds her nest, and the mink crawls with its belly close to the ground” (Walden 339).

It was in “Walden” that Thoreau launched his major criticism of American civilization; its materialistic values and its unthinking work ethic and his philosophy that it was possible to redefine, through his time at Walden Pond, what the true “necessaries” of life really are (Walden 111). Thoreau notes that the real necessities of life, which are essential to people anywhere, can be answered with only a few items: food, shelter, clothing and fuel. He then contrasts such “necessities” with the luxuries or comforts humans think they must have but that are, in reality, impediments to the discovery of an individual higher nature.

Obviously, Thoreau’s antidote to what he saw as the poison infecting the modern “civilized” man was to take to the woods, in order to learn more about the world, what it means to be fully human, and himself: “My purpose in going to Walden Pond was not to live cheaply nor to live dearly there, but to transact some “private business” with the fewest obstacles. ” That “private business” was to search his own soul (Walden 119). In that search, Thoreau found that: “Time is but the stream I go a-fishing in. I drink at it; but while I drink I see the sandy bottom and detect how shallow it is” (Walden 178).

Josef Pieper lived in some of the most turbulent of modern times. As a German man reaching intellectual and philosophical maturity during the middle of the twentieth century, he ultimately developed a wider following of readers interested in his philosophy in countries other than Germany. He believed “What it means to inhabit a system of thought long enough to see the world in its terms. But that same truth remains elusive, beyond our complete comprehension, because the things whose truth we seek to know are bathed in an abyss of light into which we cannot look directly.

Only in the beatific vision-the end toward which philosophy, the love of wisdom, is oriented-will those limits be overcome”. In the mind and the writings of Josef Pieper the Greek philosophical tradition and the Christian theological tradition met and enriched each other. In conclusion, the primary focus should be “What is the meaning of philosophy? ” In my opinion philosophy is a reasoned pursuit of fundamental truths, a quest for a comprehensive understanding of the world, and a study of the principles of conduct.

Philosophy is in a sense inescapable: life confronts every thoughtful person with some philosophical questions, and nearly everyone is often guided by philosophical assumptions, even if unconsciously. One need not be unprepared. To a large extent one can choose how reflective one will be in clarifying and developing one’s philosophical assumptions, and how well prepared one is for the philosophical questions life presents. Philosophical training enhances our problem-solving capacities, our abilities to understand and express ideas, and our persuasive powers.

It also develops understanding and enjoyment of things whose absence impoverishes many lives: such things as aesthetic experience, communication with many different kinds of people, lively discussion of current issues, the discerning observation of human behavior, and intellectual zest. In these and other ways the study of philosophy contributes immeasurably in both academic and other pursuits. Therefore, the goal of philosophy is to understand one’s self, one’s being, and one’s place in the universe.

Because of the diversity of positions associated with existentialism, the term is impossible to define precisely. Certain themes common to virtually all existentialist writers can, however, be identified. The term itself suggests one major theme: the stress on concrete individual existence and, consequently, on subjectivity, individual freedom, and choice. Moral Individualism Most philosophers since Plato have held that the highest ethical good is the same for everyone; insofar as one approaches moral perfection, one resembles other morally perfect individuals.

The 19th-century Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard, who was the first writer to call himself existential, reacted against this tradition by insisting that the highest good for the individual is to find his or her own unique vocation. As he wrote in his journal, “I must find a truth that is true for me . . . the idea for which I can live or die. ” Other existentialist writers have echoed Kierkegaard’s belief that one must choose one’s own way without the aid of universal, objective standards.

Against the traditional view that moral choice involves an objective judgment of right and wrong, existentialists have argued that no objective, rational basis can be ound for moral decisions. The 19th-century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche further contended that the individual must decide which situations are to count asmoral situations. Subjectivity All existentialists have followed Kierkegaard in stressing the importance of passionate individual action in deciding questions of both morality and truth.

They have insisted, accordingly, that personal experience and acting on one’s own convictions are essential in arriving at the truth. Thus, the understanding of a situation by someone involved in that situation is superior to that of a detached, objective observer. This emphasis on the perspective of the individual agent has also made existentialists suspicious of systematic reasoning. Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and other existentialist writers have been deliberately unsystematic in the exposition of their philosophies, preferring to express themselves in aphorisms, dialogues, parables, and other literary forms.

Despite their antirationalist position, however, most existentialists cannot be said to be irrationalists in the sense of denying all validity to rational thought. They have held that rational clarity is desirable wherever possible, but that the ost important questions in life are not accessible to reason or science. Furthermore, they have argued that even science is not as rational as is commonly supposed. Nietzsche, for instance, asserted that the scientific assumption of an orderly universe is for the most part a useful fiction.

Choice and Commitment Perhaps the most prominent theme in existentialist writing is that of choice. Humanity’s primary distinction, in the view of most existentialists, is the freedom to choose. Existentialists have held that human beings do not have a fixed nature, or essence, as other animals and plants do; each human being makes hoices that create his or her own nature. In the formulation of the 20th- century French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre, existence precedes essence. Choice is therefore central to human existence, and it is inescapable; even the refusal to choose is a choice.

Freedom of choice entails commitment and responsibility. Because individuals are free to choose their own path, existentialists have argued, they must accept the risk and responsibility of following their commitment wherever it leads. Dread and Anxiety Kierkegaard held that it is spiritually crucial to recognize that one xperiences not only a fear of specific objects but also a feeling of general apprehension, which he called dread. He interpreted it as God’s way of calling each individual to make a commitment to a personally valid way of life.

The word anxiety (German Angst) has a similarly crucial role in the work of the 20th- century German philosopher Martin Heidegger; anxiety leads to the individual’s confrontation with nothingness and with the impossibility of finding ultimate justification for the choices he or she must make. In the philosophy of Sartre, the word nausea is used for the individual’s recognition of the pure contingency f the universe, and the word anguish is used for the recognition of the total freedom of choice that confronts the individual at every moment.

History Existentialism as a distinct philosophical and literary movement belongs to the 19th and 20th centuries, but elements of existentialism can be found in the thought (and life) of Socrates, in the Bible, and in the work of many premodern philosophers and writers. Pascal The first to anticipate the major concerns of modern existentialism was the 17th-century French philosopher Blaise Pascal. Pascal rejected the rigorous ationalism of his contemporary Rene Descartes, asserting, in his Pensees (1670), that a systematic philosophy that presumes to explain God and humanity is a form of pride.

Like later existentialist writers, he saw human life in terms of paradoxes: The human self, which combines mind and body, is itself a paradox and contradiction. Kierkegaard Kierkegaard, generally regarded as the founder of modern existentialism, reacted against the systematic absolute idealism of the 19th-century German philosopher G. W. F. Hegel, who claimed to have worked out a total rational understanding of humanity and history. Kierkegaard, on the contrary, stressed the ambiguity and absurdity of the human situation.

The individual’s response to this situation must be to live a totally committed life, and this commitment can only be understood by the individual who has made it. The individual therefore must always be prepared to defy the norms of society for the sake of the higher authority of a personally valid way of life. Kierkegaard ultimately advocated a ” leap of faith” into a Christian way of life, which, although incomprehensible and full of risk, was the only commitment he believed could save the individual from despair.

Nietzsche Nietzsche, who was not acquainted with the work of Kierkegaard, influenced subsequent existentialist thought through his criticism of traditional metaphysical and moral assumptions and through his espousal of tragic pessimism and the life-affirming individual will that opposes itself to the moral conformity of the majority. In contrast to Kierkegaard, whose attack on conventional morality led him to advocate a radically individualistic Christianity, Nietzsche proclaimed the “death of God” and went on to reject the entire Judeo-Christian moral tradition in favor of a heroic pagan ideal.

Heidegger Heidegger, like Pascal and Kierkegaard, reacted against an attempt to put philosophy on a conclusive rationalistic basisin this case the phenomenology of the 20th-century German philosopher Edmund Husserl. Heidegger argued that humanity finds itself in an incomprehensible, indifferent world. Human beings can never hope to understand why they are here; instead, each individual must choose a goal and follow it with passionate conviction, aware of the certainty of death and the ultimate meaninglessness of one’s life.

Heidegger contributed to existentialist thought an original emphasis on being and ontology as well as n language. Sartre Sartre first gave the term existentialism general currency by using it for his own philosophy and by becoming the leading figure of a distinct movement in France that became internationally influential after World War II. Sartre’s philosophy is explicitly atheistic and pessimistic; he declared that human beings require a rational basis for their lives but are unable to achieve one, and thus human life is a “futile passion.

Sartre nevertheless insisted that his existentialism is a form of humanism, and he strongly emphasized human freedom, choice, and responsibility. He eventually tried to reconcile these existentialist concepts with a Marxist analysis of society and history. Existentialism and Theology Although existentialist thought encompasses the uncompromising atheism of Nietzsche and Sartre and the agnosticism of Heidegger, its origin in the intensely religious philosophies of Pascal and Kierkegaard foreshadowed its profound influence on 20th-century theology.

The 20th-century German philosopher Karl Jaspers, although he rejected explicit religious doctrines, influenced contemporary theology through his preoccupation with transcendence and the imits of human experience. The German Protestant theologians Paul Tillich and Rudolf Bultmann, the French Roman Catholic theologian Gabriel Marcel, the Russian Orthodox philosopher Nikolay Berdyayev, and the German Jewish philosopher Martin Buber inherited many of Kierkegaard’s concerns, especially that a personal sense of authenticity and commitment is essential to religious faith.

Existentialism and Literature A number of existentialist philosophers used literary forms to convey their thought, and existentialism has been as vital and as extensive a movement in literature as in philosophy. The 19th-century Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky is probably the greatest existentialist literary figure. In Notes from the Underground (1864), the alienated antihero rages against the optimistic assumptions of rationalist humanism.

The view of human nature that emerges in this and other novels of Dostoyevsky is that it is unpredictable and perversely self-destructive; only Christian love can save humanity from itself, but such love cannot be understood philosophically. As the character Alyosha says in The Brothers Karamazov (1879-80), “We must love life more than the meaning of it. ” In the 20th century, the novels of the Austrian Jewish writer Franz Kafka, such as The Trial (1925; trans. 1937) and The Castle (1926; trans. 930), present isolated men confronting vast, elusive, menacing bureaucracies; Kafka’s themes of anxiety, guilt, and solitude reflect the influence of Kierkegaard, Dostoyevsky, and Nietzsche.

The influence of Nietzsche is also discernible in the novels of the French writers Andre Malraux and in the plays of Sartre. The work of the French writer Albert Camus is usually associated with existentialism because of the prominence in it of such themes as the apparent absurdity and utility of life, the indifference of the universe, and the necessity of engagement in a just cause.

Existentialist themes are also reflected in the theater of the absurd, notably in the plays of Samuel Beckett and Eugene Ionesco. In the United States, the influence of existentialism on literature has been more indirect and diffuse, but traces of Kierkegaard’s thought can be found in the novels of Walker Percy and John Updike, and various existentialist themes are apparent in the work of such diverse writers as Norman Mailer, John Barth, and Arthur Miller.

Throughout history it has been the individualists, like Henry Ford and Rosa Parks, who have led nations, formed common groups, and made the greatest impact. However, people, such as the author, Michael Walzer, of Multiculturalism and Individualism, condemn the independent person as an unreliable footloose and empty creature (533). This denouncement of the socially unrestrained human is the fearful reaction to the power that these individuals can possesse. Nonetheless, strong individuals form the foundation of the worlds progress in technological and social fields because of their willingness to question and create.

Individualists have always been more involved with technological advances than the communitarian. It has been the person, unhindered by other peoples opinion that has given the most creative and helpful of inventions. A brief look into history reveals names such as Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and, more recently, Bill Gates who have improved and contributed to the comfort of humanity. These individuals were often criticized for their self-interest work, but when the products of their imagination changed the lives of humans around the world the dissatisfied voices quieted.

The communitarians accusations, that the individualist is a dangerous ungrounded individual who needs to conform to social norms, are actually the reasons for the importance of individualists influence in society. The communitarian is fearful of the risks that are involved when tradition and safety is tested, but tradition only limits change and as long as the world contains negativity there is room for transformation. Christopher Little, the author of Communitarianism, A New Threat For Gun Owners, explains that communitarians believe that liberty is a threat to public safety (548).

This fear of danger only inhibits the growth of the community. It has been said, a person only fails when he or she fails to try. By limiting peoples right to be different from their neighbor, whether it is the choice of gun possession or free speech, the communitarian damages the community. Individualists stand out as people who are willing to question and test the social and mechanical boundaries of the world. Individualists are more socially persuasive than the faceless members of self-interest groups.

History reveals that it is the individual that empowers the people. I ask you, what are ten important interest groups that had a positive influence on America in the nineteenth century? This is a difficult question. However, if the words interest groups are replaced with individuals the answer would be relatively easy. Michael Walzer claims that individuals are just jetsam floating aimlessly away from every creative center(533). But, it is the eccentric individualists who have the power to create the groups. Every group is a product of a individualist.

So by arguing for the extermination of individualistic thought a group is actually cutting their own lifeline. Individualists are the largest and most important contributors to society. The fear of change doesnt change that fact. Society has always condemned the different, eccentric, and unconventional person when in actuality that person is the source for the advancement of society itself. When conformist and communitarians attempt to limit personal freedom and thought they are only limiting their own personal growth. Individualists are the most significant supplier of creativity and good.

No bubble is so iridescent or floats longer than that blown by the successful teacher. Sir William Osler (1849-1919), 4 Oct. 1911, Glasgow (quoted in: Harvey Cushing, Life of Sir William Osler, vol. 2, ch. 31, 1925). Mitch Albom wrote Tuesdays with Morrie as a final tribute to his old college professor, Morrie Schwartz, who intended that his death should be his “final thesis. ” Grim and fascinating, Professor Schwartzs courage in the face of a painful death is truly inspiring.

The lucidity and wisdom which Professor Schwartz gained over the years became increasingly pronounced and focused as he ontemplated his life and imminent death, as well as his place in the Cosmos while his frail body melted away through A. L. S. (Lou Gehrig’s disease). This paper will discuss five of Professor Schwartz aphorisms (or proverbs), which would facilitate learning in subject- specific -and other educational venues. The Meaning of Life So many people walk around with a meaningless life. They seem half-asleep, even when theyre busy doing things they think are important.

This is because theyre chasing the wrong things. The way you get meaning into your life is devote yourself to loving others, devote yourself to our community around you, and devote yourself to creating something that gives you purpose and meaning. (emphasis added) (p. 43) Professor Schwartzs analysis of the “meaning of life” is particularly appropriate for teaching philosophical views and sociological concepts. Since time immemorial, man has contemplated why he is on the Earth and what his place is in the Greater Scheme of Things.

While students rush through the educational process in a pinball-like attempt to learn what they need to thrive and survive, they frequently overlook those aspects of their education, which are the most mportant. When people become self-actualized, as Professor Schwartz did, they are better able to view humanity from a broader angle. This “better view” of mankind involves a commitment to others and to the community in which one lives, but it is more elemental than that. Material possessions, according to the professor, mean little when you are lying on your deathbed.

What is truly important is that an individuals life is given meaning and purpose by the degree to which that individual has served and loved others. Admittedly, Professor Schwartz had the wisdom of years and the insight provided y decades of philosophical research; however, the quest for the “meaning of life” is a universal aspect of mankind and finding the right answer is like finding the Holy Grail — many have looked but few have seen. Therefore, Professor Schwartzs thought process concerning devoting oneself to loving others and their community is particularly appropriate in a philosophical and sociological learning environment.

A better learning experience could be gained by a requirement that all college students perform a certain number of hours of service to the community: painting and repairing low-income housing, or olunteering at nursing homes or veteran centers, for example. This “giving back” to the community would reinforce Professor Schwartzs view that we are all part of the human family and we gain meaning in our lives through service to others. An activity using this aphorism in the classroom was completed by my sixth grade Literature class at Greenwich Catholic School.

The grade decided to express the true meaning of Christmas by bypassing the holiday gift giving and donating their gifts to a local charity of the childrens choice. Then, each child wrote an essay on the true meaning f Christmas and related their experience to the activity performed. This truly put Morries proverb to work. Faith and Trust You see, he says to the girl, you closed your eyes. That was the difference. Sometimes you cannot believe what you see; you have to believe what you feel. And if you are ever going to have other people trust you, you must feel that you can trust them, too — even when youre in the dark.

Even when youre falling. (p. 61) There is an old saying concerning trust and faith: “Fake it till you make it. ” This means that trust and faith can be learned. Trusting others is more difficult for some people than others. Trust, then, is the basis for all human endeavors, which involve others, since we must accept on faith that people will act in certain ways in order to live our daily lives. For example, in a learning environment, trust is the basis for the effective transmission of knowledge from teacher to student.

Moreover, it is the essence of living in a civilized society, for, if we cannot trust the driver approaching us in the other lane to not swerve and hit us head-on. If we do not trust the police to phold the law, there is anarchy; if we do not trust our spouses to be faithful, there is infidelity; if we do not trust our teachers when they teach, there is ignorance. Therefore, the application of this aphorism would be appropriate in practically any classroom setting, but particularly appropriate in a philosophical environment in which universal truths are discussed.

More specifically, encouraging students to trust each other (which does not, of course, mean to naively accept everything people tell you) will enhance their ability to learn and to interact with their peers, their family members and ociety in general. An activity that could enforce this trust would involve partners. One person would stand directly behind the other and support their partners weight. Then, they would let their partner fall backward with the promise they will catch their partner before he/she hits the floor.

This would provide a difficulty for the partners and would reinforce the fact that it is imperative to trust others in all situations. Learn How To Die So You Can Learn How To Live The truth is Mitch, he says, once you learn how to die, you learn how to live. (Emphasis added) (p. 82). A scene in Remarche’s All Quiet n the Western Front described a grizzled old sergeant advising his men that they might as well consider themselves as already dead. This motivated the troop to find the courage required to continue to fight.

While Professor Schwartz was not saying to consider oneself “already dead,” he was saying that by accepting the nature of life and its ultimate conclusion, you are then able to make the most of life. Dreams, which may well go unrealized, are achieved when you realize that life is short and ultimately precious. If you let society dictate your dreams, those are the dreams you will die with. From a motivational tandpoint in a learning environment, this aphorism is exceptional since it will encourage students to move beyond the institutional structures, which press heavily on civilized societies.

From an educational standpoint, “learning how to die so you can learn how to live” would be applicable in classroom discussions. For example, lets examine the problems associated with aging and coping with loss. When people are able to accept their own mortality, they are then able to make the most of their lives by realizing their ambitions, trying new things and taking chances they would not have otherwise. In a classroom setting, taking chances and trying new things are what it is all about: rote learning will not provide an individual with the insight needed to achieve all that may be possible.

An example of an activity that could be used in the classroom is a creative writing project. You tell the students to go home and get a list of things from an adult (preferably a parent) that did not exist thirty years ago. Then, the students can make a list of things that they use all the time. The students can group ideas from each list and write an essay on the similarities of their parents and themselves. This activity can point out the changing of time and the mortality of life. Additionally, it will improve the students writing skills through drawing inferences and making conclusions.

Cultural Values Heres what I mean by building your own little subculture, Morrie said. I dont mean you disregard every role of your community. I dont go around naked, for example. I dont run through red lights. The little things, I can obey. But the big things — how we think, what we value – those you must choose yourself. You cant let anyone — or any society — determine those for you. (p. 155) Values clearly are the guiding rinciples of life and teachers are in a position to teach them; however, values are accumulated over a lifetime through parental guidance, other family members, and pressure from peers, religious leaders and educators.

Furthermore, it is possible for teachers to encourage students to question the validity of the status quo — to push the limits — to achieve the unachievable — by recognizing that what other people believe to be important may not be appropriate or even relevant. Teaching students to “create a culture of their own”, encourages individual values and thought and will provide them ith the ability to think about things differently and to live their lives based on a solid foundation of personal integrity.

Professor Schwartz insight in this regard would be well suited for educational settings, which require an analysis of an individuals place in society and the values associated with various religions. This aphorism can be used in many venues such as History, Philosophy, Sociology and Literature. An activity done by an eighth grade class at my school reinforced Morries aphorism well. The class studied many different cultures and created list of each cultures attributes. Next, the students took what hey most admired about each culture and created a list of their own.

Then, they organized that list into their own personal culture they could live by. Each student created a poster board of their cultures values and attributes. These students also did an oral presentation describing their new culture to the class. Were All Part of the Human Family I heard a nice little story the other day, Morrie says. He closes his eyes for a moment and I wait. Okay. The story is about a little wave, bobbing along in the ocean, having a grand old time. Hes enjoying the wind and the fresh air — until he notices the other aves in front of him, crashing against the shore. My God, this is terrible, the wave says.

Look what’s going to happen to me! Then along comes another wave. It sees the first wave, looking grim, and it says to him, why do you look so sad? The first wave says, “You don’t understand! Were all going to crash! All of us waves are going to be nothing! Isnt it terrible? ” The second wave says, “No, you dont understand. Youre not a wave, youre part of the ocean. (Emphasis added) This “Morrie-ism” is perhaps the most important lesson contained in Tuesdays With Morrie. The concept of being part of the ocean” reflects Professor Schwartz view of accepting our mortality so we can live more fully.

It is actually more fundamental than that — it means that we accept the fact that although we must die physically, in a spiritual sense, we continue to exist in the hearts and minds of those we knew and loved. This concept would be an effective adjunct to a course on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. As people gain experience and wisdom, recognition that we are all part of a continuous circle of life is achieved and an appreciation for the part we all play in the Cosmos is attained. At the high school level, this aphorism would be effective for Creative Writing, History and the Sciences.

An activity effectively using this aphorism could be describing to the students the effect of the food chain. As the students build the chain, the teacher can point out the need for all creation, especially the lower species, in order for more developed species to exist. Another effective activity can be the creation of a family tree. The student can see the importance of all who exist on a personal level. The aphorisms of Professor Schwartz could be applied to numerous earning environments in which values and humanity are discussed.

The insights contained in Tuesdays With Morrie took the professor a lifetime to develop and by communicating them to us, he truly achieved his self-written epitaph of “Teacher to the End. ” One last “Morrie-ism” which might be extrapolated from the many he provides is “Knowledge can be learned but wisdom must be earned. ” Professor Schwartz certainly earned his knowledge and wisdom. By devoting his remaining days on Earth to imparting this knowledge to us, he “walked the walk” instead of just “talking the talk. “

Existentialism is the title of the set of philosophical ideals that emphasizes the existence of the human being, the lack of meaning and purpose in life, and the solitude of human existence. Existentialism maintains existence precedes essence: This implies that the human being has no essence, no essential self, and is no more that what he is. He is only the sum of life is so far he has created and achieved for himself. Existentialism acquires its name from insisting that existence precedes essence.

Existentialist thinkers are of the view that the metaphysical explanation of existence as given by the traditional schools of philosophy fails to produce satisfactory results. They also maintain that the problem of being ought to take precedence in all philosophical inquiry. Existence is always particular, unique and individual. Existentialist are opposed to the view laws explaining human freedom and activity can be formulated.

Existence is essential and fundamental: Being cannot be made a topic of objective study. Being is revealed to and felt by the human being through his own experience and his situation. So it is maintained existence is the first and central problem. Existentialism stresses the risk, the voidness of human reality and admits that the human being is thrown into the world, the world in which pain, frustration, sickness, contempt, malaise and death dominates.

It was during the Second World War, when Europe found itself in a crisis and faced with death and destruction, the existentialist movement began to flourish. The dark portrait of such a sickness could be found even in the optimistic and confident nineteenth century in the works of authors as diverse as the communist German Karl Marx (1818-1883), the religious Dane Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855), the German Fredich Nietzche (1844-1900).

Existentialism as a contemporary philosophical trend reached the zenith of its popularity in the years following the war, the time when Europe was in a despairing mood, perhaps not without the hope of social reconstruction but pessimistic and morbid enough to accept the existentialist outlook of the lack of design and intention in the universe and the nausea of human existence and its frustration.

The most important philosopher of existentialist in its celebrated form was the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980), recognized as the most powerful intellectual force in France in the mid-20th century. Existentialism originated from the works of Kierkegaard, Nietzche, and the Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevoski (1821-1881).

Kierkegaard had reacted against the idealism of G. F. W. Hegel (1770–1831), whose doctrines developed from the classical idealism of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). The existentialist stand that is opposed to the view of reducing existence to reason can be seen in the polemic of the idealist F. W. J. von Schelling, a contemporary of Hegel. Nietzche was influenced deeply by Arthur Schopenhauer (1778-1860), whose views were strikingly pessimistic. The influence of Blaise Pascal (1632-1662) on the existentialists should also not be overlooked.

Philosophy started when human beings started to ask questions, about how and what things are actually, due to curiosity. The things that caused these questions to come about were the people started to realize that everything isnt exactly what it appears to be. Philosophy started in the town of Miletus, many early philosophers came from here. The philosophers started their work around 585 B. C. Thales, one of the early Miletus philosophers, left no writings behind, all we know about him is memorable incidents recorded by later writers.

He lived between 624 and 546 B. C. His unique contributions to thought was he believed that even though there are differences between various things there is a basic similarity between them all. He thought that some single element, that contained its own principle of action or change, lay at the foundation of all physical reality. This element being water. Another Miletus philosopher and also a pupil of Thales was Anaximander. Anaximander believed also about some thing at the foundation of all physical reality, but he didnt believe it was water or any specific element.

He thought the primary substance that all things come is an indefinite and boundless realm. He differentiates things from their origin by the indeterminate boundless. The last Miletus philosopher was Anaximenes, he was an associate of Anaximander. Anaximenes wasnt satisfied with the thought of the boundless being the source of all things, he thought this was too vague. He combined Thales belief of a definite substance and Anaximanders concept of the boundless in continued motion. Anaximenes declared air as the primary substance from which all things come.

The Miletus philosophers did raise questions about the nature of things and made the first direct inquiry about what nature consist of, but they didnt form their hypothesis the way modern scientists would, nor did they use and experiments to check their theories. Pythagoras, from the small island of Samos, brought new philosophic theories. Pythagoras followers were called Pythagoreans, they devoted themselves to mathematics. Pythagoreans, while unlike Miletus philosophers, believed everything consist of numbers.

Pythagoras biggest philosophical contribution was the concept of form. Form to them meant limit and they saw it best shown in music and medicine. In both of these, harmony is the central fact, and taking into account proportions and limits achieve it. The greatness of Pythagoras and his followers is shown by the influence they had on later philosophers. Many later philosophers tried to explain change, the first Heraclitus. Heraclitus main belief was that all things are in flux or everything is in constant change.

He described this change process as a unity in diversity. He thought the thing changing was fire. He believed fire to be the basic reality and thought he discovered the principle of change itself. Paramenides, a younger contemporary of Heraclitus, founded the Eleatic school of Philosophy. His major philosophical contribution was a radical interpretation of change. He rejected Heraclitus theory of change as unity and diversity also criticized the Miletus philosophers explanations bout the origin of things.

Paramenides rejected the thought of change, believing change is an illusion and that if all things are made up of a single substance than change is logically absurd. Zeno, of Elea, was Paramenides pupil and his chief concern was defending his master against his attackers. Zeno believed our senses deceived us, and to get at the truth is more reliable to go by thougth than to go by sensation. To prove motion as impossible Zeno came up with four arguments, the racecourse, Achilles and the tortoise, The arrow, and The relativity of motion.

Zenos main point was that motion has no clear definition, that it is a relative concept. Empedocles, deciding arguments for and against motion and change were of some value, combined both points of view on change. He found a consistent way of showing that there is change and also affirming reality is fundamentally changeless. Anaxagoras started a major development in philosophy when he introduced a novel interpretation of the process which matter takes on the form of particular things. His major contribution was the theory of mind (nous), which he distinguished from matter.

The Sophists were a group of Greek teachers, who were around at the end of the fifth century B. C. They claimed to be purveyors of wisdom, but in reality undertook to show that all true certitude is unattainable, and that culture and preparation are to be acquired by discussion and debate. The way they contributed to philosophy was by calling attention to a problem, this could make them the first Greek skeptics. The three best-known Sophists were Protagoras, Gorgias, and Thrasymachus. Socrates lived from 469-399 B. C. e was a philosopher of Athens, who is regarded as one of the wisest people of all time.

He left no writings, our knowledge of him comes from his most famous pupil, Plato. He is descibed as having neglected his own affairs, instead spending his time discussing virtue, justice, and piety wherever his fellow citizens met, seeking wisdom about right conduct so that he might guide the moral and intellectual improvements of Athens. He drew forth knowledge from his students by asking a series of questions and examining the answers, this is known as Socratic dialect.

Socrates attributed virtue to the knowledge of ones true self, believing no one knowingly does wrong. In 399 B. C. he was tried for corrupting the moral of Athenian youth and for religious heresies. He was convicted and resisting all efforts to save his life, he willingly drank the cup of poison hemlock given to him. Plato is arguably one of the best known of all the Greek philosophers. His real name is Aristocles, but because of his broad shoulders his classmates called him Platon meaning broad and it was later shortened to Plato.

He lived from 427 to 347 B. C. and was a pupil of Socrates startin gin 409 B. C. Plato started a school in Athens called the Academy, this term has been used for school ever since. His main interest was moral philosophy, he wasnt fond of natural philosophy which he thought of as an inferior and unworthy sort of knowledge. Plato believed knowledge had no practical use, it existed for the abstract good of the soul. Aristotle, who along with Plato and Socrates is considered one of the most famous ancient thinkers, lived from 384-322 B. C. He studied under Plato at the Academy starting at age 17 and stayed for 20 years, first as a student then as a teacher.

After Plato died Aristotle left Athens and counseled Hermias and married his daughter, Pythias. Then he tutored a young Alexander the Great. 355 B. C. he returned to Athens and established his own school, Lyceum. Aristotle regarded the world as being made up of individuals occurring in fixed natural species. Aristotles most distinct philosophic contribution was a new theory of causality. He thought each thing or event has more than one reason explaining its existence. He proposed four explanatory causes.

The material cause, matter out of which a thing is made; the efficient cause, the source of motion or change; the formal cause, which is the species, kind or type; and the final cause, the full development of an individual or the intended function of a construction or invention. Aristotle explored many fields of thought. In astronomy he proposed a finite, spherical universe, with the earth at its center. To him psychology was a study of the soul and its association with the body. In logic he developed rules for reasoning that included syllogisms. His works were lost in the West after the downfall of Rome.

Until the 20th Century logic meant Aristotles logic. In the 20th Century a new appreciation developed for Aristotles thought and its relevance to education, literary criticism, and political analysis. After Aristotle, four groups of philosophers helped to mold a new direction of philosophy, they were the Epicureans, the Stoics, the Skeptics, and the Neoplationists. Unlike their predecessors, who tried to fit individuals into large social and political organizations, the new groups taught people to think of themselves and how and individual could have the most satisfactory personal life.

They were, on the other hand, influenced by the old philosophers. Epicurus relied upon Democritus for his atomic theory of nature, the Stoics made use of a fiery substance permeating all things, the Skeptics built a method of inquiry upon the Socratic form of doubt, and Plotinus drew heavily upon Plato. This ancient period of philosophy shaped the philosophic mind. Many theories were conceived by many great men and most just added on to an original notion. This period also had three of the greatest thinkers ever, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.

Like many of the 17th Century philosophers such as Descartes, and Leibniz, Locke’s work on Substance and Essence were very much a reaction against Aristotelian Scholasticism and the idea of substantial forms. The mould in which something was created is its substantial form, according to Aristotle, and it owes its characteristics to it. A stone then was created after the mould of stoniness and owed its weight to its nature, which tried to return to the earth, which came of its substantial form.

Locke, however, rejected classical doctrine as unscientific, preferring nstead to work on a system of classification which reflected the true nature of objects. As Ayers said, ‘the foundations of our system of classification… are not universal forms or moulds but objective resemblance’s between things. Locke then wished to classify genera on the basis of a resemblance between their primary qualities. Locke takes the already used word ‘essence’ and calls a thing’s ‘real essence’ “the very being of a thing, whereby it is what it is” (3. 3. 15) or later on as “The real constitution of things from which all their properties flow”.

By this Locke is referring to the micro-structural rrangement of parts or ‘corpuscular structure’ measurable in primary terms which give an object its observable visible secondary qualities. This real essence, Locke believes, is what is responsible for the properties of objects. There is a problem however with this definition of ‘real essence’ as a replacement for a scholastic substantial form. As an object’s micro- structural arrangement is undetectable, and Locke agrees with this, how is it possible for us to recognise and therefore classify groups of objects, species or genera? Lock’s answer is his notion of nominal essences.

Locke elieved that in observing any given substance the “combination of simple ideas that we believe belong” to that whole substance. Locke defines simple ideas elsewhere as the basic irreducible concepts we have that will build up our more complex ideas. For example, the complex concept of a ‘Zebra’ would be made up of many ideas such as ‘black’, ‘white’, and ‘horse’. Some of these such as ‘horse’ could still be broken down further but others will be simple like ‘black’. So as Ayers describes it, “A nominal definition consists of a non-explanatory list of attributes peculiar to the species nd is so suitable as a criteria for recognition”.

So though the nominal essence of a substance could be used to classify groups and must be observed to make distinctions, it is the ‘real essence’ reflects the true nature of an object and contains its explanatory power. As Lowe said “we now have two notions of essence, one explanatory and the other classificatory”. This is a move by Locke away from the scholastic idea that substantial form could play both roles. Locke disagreed that nominal essence had much credence as it did not inform us as of the characteristics that are inseparable from the substance and ruly make it what it is.

If we consider Gold and whether anything that is ‘nominally’ identical to Gold, if possible, could be called Gold. Obviously Locke’s answer would be no, in order to be like Gold it must have its identical ‘real essential nature’. Putman answer – division of linguistic labour theory Contemporary philosophers have raised problems with Locke’s idea of ‘real essential natures’. Dewey (in Copi) for example claimed that a substance’s essential nature is determined purely by the vocabulary we use and that the words trick us into thinking there is more to an object’s essential nature han our verbal concept of it.

Dewey gives the example of a table, saying that if I change its colour this is purely accidental and therefore the table remains the same whether green or brown. What if, he speculates, it is brown tables only which interest me? Then a change in colour would reflect an essential change in the table for me. Therefore “the very being of the thing, whereby it is what it is” would be contingent only on the vocabulary used to describe it and any quality could be described as an essential characteristic. Exploring this further causes yet another problem or Locke.

If his distinction is consists in separating the explanatory from the classificatory then according to Locke it is the ‘real essence’ alone which causes the object to be as it is. Now if an object’s appearance changes, it would cease to be as it was and would begin to display different properties. Though the change seems nominal, isn’t this an essential change. As Copi says, “If all properties depend upon its real essence then every change is an essential one. ” Even time can be seen as change and then it would be completely impossible to speak of a thing’s eal essence.

Further criticism came from Berkeley and Hume, fellow empiricists, who seized on the idea of real essence as completely unknowable and decried it as un-empiricist and ultimately unprovable. Locke’s defence has come from modern science. Scientists now study the micro-structural composition of objects and determine what Locke would consider to be an object’s ‘real essence’. This also weakens Dewey’s objections. By specifying the micro-structural criteria for real essence, we recognise when a substantial change occurs.

Brownness, or greenness, as haracteristics are secondary qualities and are only definable in terms of primary qualities, which are verifiable and quantitative. It would be a mistake then to try and attribute these subjective, indefinable qualities to an object’s real essence. Locke’s discussion of real and nominal essences, attempting to move away from scholastic doctrine, was definitely a step forward. As many of Locke’s ideas are in agreement with modern science it is clear the distinction deserves merit. Critically examine the way in which Locke interprets the distinction between real and nominal essences.

Existentialism is a philosophical movement that developed during the 19th and 20th centuries. One of the first things one may notice about existentialism is the confusion and disagreement of what it actually is. Dissertations have been written on the expanse of the topic, but I shall only give an overview of the philosophy. Walter Kaufmann, one of the leading existential scholars says, Certainly, existentialism is not a school of thought nor reducible to any set of tenets. The three writers who appear invariably on every list of existentialists, Heidegger, and Sartre — are not in agreement on essentials.

By the time we consider adding Rilke, Kafka, and Camus, it becomes plain that one essential feature shared by all these men is their perfervid individualism. Some of the difficulty in defining existentialism results from the characteristics of the philosophy itself. “For example, most existentialists deny that reality can be neatly summarized into a system, and so they reject all-inclusive views like Hegels,” says Diane Barsoum Raymond. This does not mean that existentialists are unsystematic, but rather that they tend to emphasize the richness of human experience rather than construct a tidy framework.

Therefore, a precise definition is impossible; however, it suggests one major theme: a stress on individual existence and the subsequent development of personal essence. Existentialists attempt to direct our attention to ourselves as individuals. “They force us to think about our relation to such topics as the existence and nature of God, what it is to be Christian, the nature of values, and the fact of one’s own death. Existentialists encourage us to consider, in a personal way, the meaning of living authentically and inauthentically”(Oaklander ix).

Man is the only known being, according to the philosophers, that defines itself merely through the act of living. In other words, first you exist, and then the individual emerges as life decisions are made. Freedom of choice, through which each human being creates their own nature, is one of the basic themes. Because individuals are free to choose their own path, existentialists have argued that they must accept the risk and responsibility of their actions. Those who follow this believe they are in a world that does not always make sense, a world that is filled with uncertainty where well-intended actions can become obscure and chaotic.

In basic existentialist beliefs, man is the only animal defining itself through life. Without life, there is no meaning. Existentialists believe in life and fighting for it (Wyatt, 1999). While fighting for life, each person must face important and difficult decisions with only limited knowledge and time in which to make these decisions. Human life is seen as a series of decisions that must be made without knowing what the correct choice is. They must decide what standards to except and which ones to reject. Individuals must make their own choices without help from external standards.

Humans are free and completely responsible for their choices. Their freedom and responsibility is thrust upon them and they are “condemned to be free”. Their responsibility for actions, decisions and beliefs cause anxiety. They try to escape by ignoring or denying their responsibility. To have a meaningful life one must become fully aware of the true character of the situation and bravely accept it. Yet other existentialist thought dictates every person spends a lifetime changing his or her essence. Without life there can be no meaning; the search for meaning in existentialism is the search for self.

In other words, we define ourselves by living; killing yourself would indicate you have chosen to have no meaning. Existentialists believe in living — in fact fighting for life. Camus, Sartre, and Nietzsche were involved in various wars because they had a strong belief in fighting for the survival of their respective countries. In order to understand the current meaning of existentialism, one must first understand that the American view of existentialism was derived from the writings of political activists, not intellectual purists.

Americans learned the term existential after World War II. The term is credited to Jean-Paul Sartre to describe his own philosophies, but it was actually coined by Kierkegaard when he described his existential dialectic. It was not until the late 1950s that the term was applied broadly to several divergent schools of thought. As stated earlier, existentialism maintains that life is a series of choices, creating stress. Few decisions are without any negative consequences. Some things are irrational or absurd, without explanation. If one makes a decision, he or she must follow through.

Even these concepts are not universal within existentialist writings, or at least the writings of people labeled as such. Blaise Pascal, for example, spent the last years of his life writing in support of predetermination, the theory that is better known as fate. First, there is the basic existentialist standpoint, that existence precedes essence. Man is a conscious subject, rather than a thing to be predicted or manipulated; he exists as a conscious being, and not in accordance with any definition, essence, generalization, or system. Existentialism says I am nothing but my own conscious existence.

A second existentialist theme is that of anxiety, or the sense of anguish, a generalized uneasiness, and a fear or dread that is not directed to any specific object. Anguish is the dread of the emptiness of human existence. This theme is as old as Kierkegaard is within existentialism; it is the claim that anguish is the underlying, all-pervasive, universal condition of human existence. Existentialism agrees with certain ideas in Judaism and Christianity, which see human existence as fallen from grace, and humans have lived in suffering, guilt, and anxiety.

This dark and depressing view of human life leads existentialists to reject ideas such as happiness, enlightenment optimism, a sense of well-being, since these can only reflect a superficial understanding of life, or a naive and foolish way of denying the despairing, tragic aspect of human existence. 20th-century German philosopher Martin Heidegger felt that anxiety leads to the individual’s confrontation with the impossibility of finding ultimate justification for his or her choices. A third existentialist theme is that of absurdity.

An existentialist would say I am my own existence, but this existence is absurd. To exist as a human being is inexplicable, and absurd. Each of us is simply here, thrown into this time and place—but why now? Why here? Kierkegaard asked. For no reason, without necessary connection, my life is an absurd fact. A whole school of theatre, known as the theatre of the absurd derives from the philosophical use of the word absurd by such existentialists thinkers as Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sarte. A fully satisfying rational explanation of the universe was beyond its reach and the world must be seen as absurd.

Playwrights such as Samuel Beckett with Waiting for Godot and Tom Stoppard with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead gear their works towards the existential school of thought. For example, the strange atmosphere of Godot, in which two tramps wait on what appears to be a desolate road for a man who never arrives. Waiting for Godot captures the feeling the world has no apparent meaning. In this misunderstood masterpiece Beckett asserts numerous existentialist themes. Beckett believed that existence is determined by chance. This is the first basic existentialist theme asserted.

Two of the characters are waiting for Godot who never arrives. Two of them consist of a flamboyant lord of the earth and a broken slave whimpering and staggering at the end of a rope. They meet perchance but the play rests on simply the objective of our waiting. Another basic existentialist theme on which Beckett reflects is the meaninglessness of time. Because past, present and future mean nothing, the play follows a cyclic pattern. Vladimir and Estragon returned to the same place each day to wait for Godot and encounter the same basic people each day.

Godot’s messenger does not recognize Vladimir and Estragon from day to day. This suggests that the people we meet today are not the same as they were yesterday and will not be the same tomorrow. Beckett also examines a theme of self-deceptive attempts to dodge reality by making excuses for one’s actions. Vladimir and Estragon fool themselves by engaging in petty discourse that reflects the absurdity of life. They even contemplate suicide numerous times for numerous reasons, but ultimately persist in the futility of life.

As well in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, Rosencrantz creates a picture of characters who inhabit a world which is stranger than they had supposed, which they know it is not as it seems but what it is. He evokes the ability of all man kind to understand those forces ultimately in control of their lives and fates. At outset of the play, Rosencrantz remains oblivious to any oddity and their coin-tossing, describing the improbable run as 85 heads as merely a new record. The destiny which awaits Rosencrantz and Guildenstern consists of nothing for which they are prepared.

Instead they are to be “kept intrigued without ever being enlightened”. The purpose of the coin-tossing scene is the obvious conclusion that forces beyond their control are guiding their fate and it is obvious Guildenstern is more conscious of the two. He also sets up the quest theme that the play will take on. The ranting and ramblings of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are reminiscent of the spiritual pilgrim of the protagonist of Waiting for Godot. They both spend the entire play searching for a fate and spiritual rationale that is always alluding them.

It can be concluded that the title characters are searching for a divinity that will make itself evident. The fourth theme which pervades existentialism is that of nothingness or the void. “If no essences define me, and if, then, as an existentialist, I reject all of the philosophies, sciences, political theories, and religions which fail to reflect my existence as conscious being and attempt to impose a specific essentialist structure upon me and my world, then there is nothing that structures my world” (T. Z. Lavine).

I am my own existence, but my existence is a nothingness. Related to the theme of nothingness is the existentialist theme of death. Nothingness, in the form of death, which is my final nothingness, hangs over me like a sword of Damocles at each moment of my life. I am filled with anxiety at times when I permit myself to be aware of this. At those moments, says Martin Heidegger, the whole of my being seems to drift away into nothing. The unaware person tries to live as if death is not actual, he tries to escape its reality.

But Heidegger says that my death is my most authentic, significant moment, my personal potentiality, which I alone must suffer. And if I take death into my life, acknowledge it, and face it squarely, I will free myself from the anxiety of death and the pettiness of life– and only then will I be free to become myself. But here the French existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre begs to differ. What is death, he asks? Death is my total nonexistence. Death is as absurd as birth– it is no ultimate, authentic moment of my life, it is nothing but the wiping out of my existence as conscious being.

Death is only another witness to the absurdity of human existence. It is common for people to associate a lack of faith or secular beliefs with existential thought. Existentialism has little to do with faith or the lack thereof. Religion is merely another choice you make in weaving your essence. Existentialism is not a singular school of thought, devoid of any and all forms of faith. It may surprise laypersons that many of the existentialists were religious. Pascal and Kierkegaard were dedicated Christians.

Pascal spent the end of his life in a monastery. Kierkegaard was a passionate Protestant, and supporter of Luther’s teachings. Despite his famous (infamous? ) God is dead quote, Nietzsche also appears to have been a believer in a Creator, though he branded organized religion as a manipulative tool to control the masses. He often insulted the Church merely to cause a stir. Some, notably Walter Kaufmann, call Nietzsche the anti-Christian existentialist, because he believed the organized Christian churches were the most destructive influences of his time.

We are then left with Camus and Sartre, and of these two, only Sartre can be seen to consistently deny any and all belief in a divine creator. Sartre was raised with religion, but World War II and the constant suffering of the world drove him away from faith. Many existentialists believe the greatest victory of the individual is to realize the absurdity of life and to accept it. In short, you live a miserable life, for which you may or may not be rewarded by a greater force. If this force exists, why do men suffer?

If it does not exist, why not commit suicide and shorten your suffering? These questions indicate the confusion of existentialism. Personally, I agree with many of the basic tenets of existentialism. Personal accountability for the decisions and actions made seems to be something that is fading from public opinion. Excuses seem to be replacing responsibility. Existentialism is liberating for those of us who do not rely on fate, God, or chance to guide us through the path of life. One aspect that is questionable is our ability to continuously reinvent ourselves through our actions.

While this is wholly possible, the vast majority of people stick to old ways of doing things, or follow others blindly. Despite encompassing a staggering range of philosophical, religious, and political ideologies, the underlying concepts of existentialism are simple. Mankind has free will. Life is a series of choices, creating stress. Few decisions are without any negative 6 consequences. Some things are irrational or absurd, without explanation. If one makes a decision, he or she must follow through. The decisions you make are whom you are, so decide accordingly.

It is my understanding that there are three main branches of philosophy. These three branches include Metaphysics, Ethics and Epistemology. Metaphysics finds its focus through questions on reality. These questions include: What is real? What is mind and what is matter? What kind of reality do we have? Epistemology deals with truth versus opinion. Questions include what is truth, and what is its source? Is truth absolute or relative? Lastly, Ethics deals with right and wrong. It also deals with the interactions between people and their society.

Students of Ethics might ask What are our obligations to ourselves and society? and Why should one be moral? I will attempt to answer this question. I think it is important to define morality and ethics, as I understand them. Morals are a set of rules passed to us though our family, social, and religious experiences that serve to govern our independent actions. Our moral beliefs rest only on our sense of right and wrong. It is important to note that morals only apply to individual action and consequence. Ethics, however, apply to the actions of two or more people.

Ethics are meaningless unless applied in a social context. Ethics serve to define the acceptable actions of the individual within the social structure. Ethics are established through the consensus of many people and with the guidance of human experience. With morality, ones behavior is held to an ideal code of conduct. Ethics, however, deals with an imperfect, but attainable set of practices. It is left to the individual to take a decision that is moral, regardless of its ethical standing. Each of the Philosophers we have read about has held some view concerning morals and ethics.

Socrates held that To know the good is to do the good. By this, he meant that no man knowingly acts against his own interest. Socrates believed that no man could knowingly do wrong if that person truly knew the right course of action. Socrates defines moral as being the logical result of rational thought. Through reason, one will know morality. Plato, a student of Socrates, held a similar view. Plato taught that moral values are absolute truths and thus are abstract perfect entities. He called this the Idea of the Good. The Idea of the Good is the supreme source of all values.

Plato felt that this was the fulfillment of truth and reality. He also defines this good as unachievable. This good is something to be sought after, but never achieved. Aristotle held that there were two kinds of virtue: moral and intellectual. He felt that morals are the tempering of mans natural desires and appetites. Intellect, he says, is the development of acceptable habits through repetition. He believed that We become just by doing just acts. Aristotle argues that most virtues fall at a mean between more extreme character traits.

According to Aristotle, it is not an easy task to find the perfect mean between extreme character traits. In fact, we need assistance from our reason to do this. Additionally, Aristotle disassociated morality from God. He taught that God is too pure to bother with such trifles. He states that God is Thought thinking thought. Descartes felt it necessary to prove the existence of God. He attempts rational deduction based upon unproven axioms of supposed self-evident truths. Descartes claims that there are innate ideas. He feels that all men are born with these ideas and that they are self-evident and are born of nature (God).

After satisfying himself of the existence of God, he abandons God as the cause of our actions. He feels that we are nothing more than thought, and that our substance is as a result of thought. This bizarre thought process left him in a moral vacuum that allowed him to torment and mutilate animals. He was a sick man. David Hume seemed to delight in breaking down the argument concerning divine origins of morality. Although Hume dismisses the possibility of a God, he has many things to say concerning God. Hume states that our notions of do not entitle us to ascribe to God our own moral code.

He taught that our moral thinking is due to our biological nature and our desire to survive. He further attacks the rational Plato and Socrates. Hume states that reason has no causality to the effect of morals. Reason will not motivate him to be moral. Furthermore, the only true motivator comes in the form of desires, sentiments, and the possibility of joy or pain. This brings us to Hegel and the belief in the State as a source of moral authority. In Hegels belief, there is no moral authority above the state. He felt that we owe everything to the society in which we live.

He states that all ethics find their base in society. There can be no elevation of religion, laws or morals above the good of the state. In addition, the moral authority of one state need not be the same as that of another. Each society forms its own set of ethics to which all members must subscribe. Of course, this leaves little room for civil disobedience. Through my discussions with several other people, I have come to the conclusion that morality and ethics are closely interrelated. I propose the idea that a person can be moral and ethical.

I further believe that a person can be moral and unethical. I think, however, that a person can not be immoral and ethical. I believe that ethical behavior is a direct result of morality. I will restate my definition of morals and ethics: morals are perfect and unachievable, and ethics are imperfect and achievable. It may seem odd that a person must first be perfect (moral), before he can be imperfect (ethical). I posed several questions to my friends and family. They included the question Can a lecherous president who performs all his political duties be considered moral and/or ethical?

Each person interviewed felt that neither was possible. Cited examples were that this president could propose laws concerning equal rights for women. His actions, however, would demonstrate that he did not in fact believe in the laws he mandated. His deeds (lechery) would be immoral and would therefore invalidate his laws. It would be a demonstration of the adage Do as I say, not as I do. The next question we wrestled with concerned Dr. Death. Dr. Jack Kevorkian has assisted in the death of at least 30 people. He is a convicted felon for murder in the second degree.

He will spend the rest of his life in jail. Are his actions ethical? Are they moral? Not surprisingly, the jury of my peers is hung. Some feel he is both, while others feel he is neither. I feel he is moral and unethical. His personal morals dictate that human life is precious. I am led to understand that he holds life in such high regard that he is willing to end it with the patients consent when the quality of that life declines sufficiently. He holds that quality is more important than quantity. Ethically, however, he has strayed. He took an oath when he became a doctor.

With that oath, he swore to do no harm. Dr. Kevorkian failed to uphold his oath. He is therefore unethical in his recent medical dealings. This is not to say that I think what he did is wrong. I feel that there should be some latitude available to the individual in this matter. If I take the decision, as has his patients, to end my life, I should be able to do so. I believe that Dr. Kevorkians actions will result in changes to our legal system as it applies to this matter. I hope they are for the better. I think that his actions, while unethical, were necessary.

I hope that others follow where he has led. I also hope that our medical ethics evolve for the better around this issue. The last question we discussed concerned animals. The vegetarian in the group felt that it would be immoral to eat animal. She also felt it was unethical. Everyone else felt that it was perfectly acceptable to eat animals. That is to say, it is perfectly acceptable to eat certain animals. No one was willing to eat a cat, a rat or a bald eagle. The consensus was that a cat would be immoral, a rat would be disgusting and an eagle would be unethical.

Apparently, if an animal is cute and cuddly, it is immoral to kill it. An eagle, however, could be killed morally, but not ethically. They had no idea about the rat, and preferred not to discuss it. I feel that the vegetarian was the only one with consistent beliefs. She felt that all life is sacred, and one should cause harm. I pointed out that the toothpaste she uses contains gelatin. Gelatin is an animal product. She was aware of this, and stated that she does the best she can, and avoids as many products made from animals as humanly possible.

This demonstrates in my view that morals are to be strived for, but can not be attained. The meat eaters in our discussion felt that they were acting ethically. Interestingly, no one had ever slaughtered an animal, nor had they been to a meat packing plant. These people were bothered by the idea of what is done to animals at slaughter. Some also espoused the idea that hunting is inhumane. They were, however, willing to ignore how these animals are treated. I think that this is a demonstration of acting immorally.

If we know something is wrong, and are willing to ignore it in favor of personal gain (food) then we are acting immorally. As we have seen in each of these examples, it is quite possible for an individual’s morals to conflict with a group’s ethics. In fact, it is quite probable that at any time, an individuals moral position will be in conflict with the group ethic. It is however, necessary to have these ethics. It had been said that an ethical culture is a happy, just, and secure culture. I feel it is necessary for the individual to define moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct.

Our morals are the test to which we apply our behavior. The Golden Rule is a classic example of this. We should do unto others what we would have others do unto us. Since I do not want my neighbor to steal my belongings, then it is wrong for me to steal his belongings. Since I would want people to feed me if I was starving, then I should help feed starving people. Following this line of reasoning, it would be possible for me to determine whether any action is right or wrong. Therefore, based on the Golden Rule, it would also be wrong for me to lie to, harass, victimize or kill others.

It is from these kinds of moral judgments that society is able to define a larger set of fundamental principles; such as rights to life, liberty and happiness. This leads to the formation of a sort of democratic version of morality called ethics. A group selects certain rules of right conduct from a pool of rules of right conduct created by individuals and adopts them as the social norm. In this way, a composite ethical code evolves so that most of the people in the group are content to follow most of the rules most of the time. In this way, our society encourages people to be moral.

Before a researcher can initiate a research project, they face the confusion and the range of theoretical perspectives, methodologies, methods, and the philosophical basis that encompasses them all. This seemingly meticulous structure for the research process is in fact aimed toward providing the researcher with a scaffolding’, or a direction which they can go on to develop themselves to coincide with their particular research purposes. (Crotty, 1998)

Once a researcher has developed a research question they are seeking to answer, they must consider what methodologies and methods they will employ in the research; what theoretical perspective lies behind the methodology; and what epistemology informs this theoretical perspective. (Crotty, 1998) Before continuing it is important to explain these key terms: Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge, which seeks to inform us how we can know the world.

In the context of social research, epistemology is the form of proof one requires to justify a claim to knowledge about the social world. This will have a salient impact on the kind of data one can collect in order to validate their arguments concerning the social world (methodology), as well as the methods one considers in collecting valid data (methods). A researcher’s choice of methods will be conditioned by theoretical perspectives, the way one sees the social world. (Livesey)

Researchers of social science use a wide variety of research methods to gain and enhance knowledge and theory. The different types of research methodologies, quantitative and qualitative, are associated with the epistemological and theoretical perspectives the researcher wishes to adopt. This choice the researcher makes determines the way in which research should be conducted. This paper will discuss, critically analyse and compare the epistemological and theoretical perspectives of two research methodologies used for social research: positivism and interpretivism.

The various research methods used within the frameworks of each of these will then be discussed. Positivism There are two main types of epistemologies: positivist and anti-positivist. “Positivist research is an approach which combines a deductive approach with precise measurement of quantitative data to enable the discovery and confirmation of casual laws to predict human behaviour. ” (Neuman, 2000) In the social sciences, the criteria positivism as a theoretical perspective shapes reality to be objective: free of bias, opinion or prejudice; and that there is one reality in nature, one truth.

The principle purposes of social research, in a positivist approach, are to explain social life and predict the course of events. Positivism has received a great deal of criticism for use as a social research methodology as quantitative methods can be argued as unsuitable for research of human beings. “The individual is relegated to being nothing more than a system outcome, not a thinking and acting human. ” (Kelly & Charlton, 1995) Quantitative methods use numerical data, facts and universal laws to perform research.

These methods of science used to study the natural world, are arguably impossible for the study of human affairs. Epistemological dimension of positivism understands human behaviour as patterned, orderly and relatively stable. Therefore, methodologically, a positivist will use objective methods to collect data about human behaviour. “While the positivist tradition is perhaps one of the least appropriate approaches to the social world it is, paradoxically, one of the most commonly employed. “(Lawson, 1997)

There are divisions of opinion amongst sociologists about the extent to which sociology is capable of producing objective understanding of life. The positivist concept is that the principles of science can be applied to the study of people. Therein lies the main question a researcher must consider: Can sociology, or any form of social science, be considered to be scientific? “the principle legacy of positivism today is an enduring belief in the dichotomy between objective knowledge and subjective opinion. ” (Buchanan, 1998)

Positivist, or quantitative methods used for social research, trying to be systematic, objective and precise, are criticized as being flawed for excluding too much that needs to be included; such as failing to take account of essential characteristics of human behaviour and social life, which cannot be measured, or predicted using numbers or universal laws. Furthermore, natural sciences attempt to quantify the phenomena or experience and reproduce the results through repetition of the research method; this should not and cannot be applied to social sciences.

Human beings are not just natural elements; they are acting individuals with their own perceptions and wishes, and part of a social community. The nomological regularity’ behind the natural process, simply does not exist in the social sciences. (Sarantakos, 1998) Positivism offers a logical and efficient way of modelling reality, except the model created is a restricted representation of a subset of existence. ‘ The positivist assumption that science is the most appropriate theoretical perspective for social research will result in epistemologically under-justified use of quantitative methods for qualitative questions.

The application of scientific methods can only be justified for use in the physical domain, not the social domain. (Love, 1998) However, despite all the criticism positivism receives as a social methodology, its popularity has continued. “Positivism having lost every single epistemological battle over the years seems to have won the war, certainly in terms of research effort and funding. “(Pawson, 1989) The influence of positivism has inspired much of social research’s most prevalent research methods. Some of these include surveys, questionnaires and statistical models.

A researcher applying a positivist methodology for their study would consider large-scale sample surveys and controlled laboratory experiments as suitable research methods. These methods can be justified as they allow positivist researchers to employ empirical and logical quantitative data Interpretivism The theoretical perspective of interpretivism understands that human beings cannot have knowledge of the world independently of what is in their minds. Therefore the interpretivist research methodology was a reaction against the very strident claims of positivism.

The purpose of developing practical reason is not to predict, control or change anyone, but to deepen our understanding of what it is to live a human life, to contribute to human self-understanding and decency. ” (Buchanan, 1998) Within the domain of social research, interpretivism as a theoretical perspective shapes reality to be subjective: relating to a person’s, or research’s emotions, prejudices and bias. Interpretivism’s epistemological assumptions is that reality is created through social interaction: the concept that meaning and knowledge are socially constructed within a certain context and time.

Also that there is no one universal truth of reality, but multiple truths created by individuals. Human beings are seen as the creators of their own world or reality, not being restricted by any external laws. Sociology and human practices are a categorically different kind of phenomena than natural sciences, and require a different approach to understand their meaning. Critics suggest that these differences, from an epistemological position, may account for the inadequate success of positivist methodologies in explaining human behaviour. Buchanan, 1998)

The main intentions of social research, in an interpretivist approach, are to interpret and understand social life; to uncover and unravel the multiple layers of meaning represented by human action. ” (Vrasidas, 2001) Interpretivism is a research methodology that employs qualitative methods. Qualitative methodology aims to understand people, not to measure them. It attempts to capture reality in interaction. Whereas qualitative methodology uses no quantitative measures or variables, interpretivism does not necessarily exclude quantitative methods.

Interpretive research is a broader term than qualitative research as it encompasses all other approaches based on participant researchInterpretivism does not carry with it the false connotation of excluding the use of quantitative measuresit emphasises interpretation and suggests a focus on the meanings in action of participants and how the researcher uncovers and interprets those meanings. ” (Erickson, 1986) It is important to emphasise that with interpretivist research methods, a researcher can never arrive at the one absolute truth, or to achieve a complete understanding of the setting they are researching.

The concept of completeness of knowledge relates to the concept of the hermeneutical circle: that “there is a circular movement and shift of focus on interest from the whole to the parts and vice versa. Every time the circle is completed, the researcher and the interpretation are changing. You always get closer to a more complete understanding, but you never reach completeness. ” (Vrasidas, 2001) Interpretivism or qualitative theoretical perspectives are clearly the required methodology for social research; however, there are several weaknesses.

Studying humans as individuals and being interested in their everyday experiences and interpretations produce the risk of collecting useless information, making it very time consuming. There are problems of reliability caused by the subjectivity of the researcher, as well as ethical issues, such as privacy. Differences of the methodologies A fundamental contrast between the two methodologies is that a positivist researcher is thought to assume a passive, or objective, role during data collection; whereas in interpretive research, the research is taken to be actively involved in the process of data collection and analysis.

As a researcher, it is important to discuss some of the factors that may have influenced their interpretation, which will allow observers of the research to be co-analysts and arrive at their own conclusions on the validity of the research. Positivist research primarily serves to test theory and increase predictive understanding of phenomena. Interpretive research, on the other hand, is intended to understand the deeper structure of a phenomenon. The difference between the two research methodologies is their focus and what kinds of questions it addresses.

A research technique does not constitute a research method. ” (Erickson, 1986) Although positivist methods use natural science techniques to analyse data, interpretive approaches do not exclude the use of quantitative methods. The fundamental issue is “deciding what makes sense to count. ” (Erickson, 1977) The two methodologies should not be seen as competing perspectives, as both have valuable features to offer towards the understanding of the research question. A researcher needs to find a mutual shaping perspective combining the best parts of both methodologies.

Researchers using either of the two methodologies clearly want to have their research warranted as useful and beneficial to the understanding of their research question. This greatly depends on the validity of their work, so a number of measures, which vary from case to case, are used to achieve this. The main focus of a researcher to check the validity of their quantitative research is to ensure that the results reflect the true situation and conditions of the environment studied. The main focus that must be considered in interpretivist research is that all the directions and biases were considered in the results.

Existentialism, philosophical movement or tendency, emphasizing individual existence, freedom, and choice, that influenced many diverse writers in the 19th and 20th centuries. Because of the diversity of positions associated with existentialism, the term is impossible to define precisely. Certain themes common to virtually all existentialist writers can, however, be identified. The term itself suggests one major theme: the stress on concrete individual existence and, consequently, on subjectivity, individual freedom, and choice.

Most philosophers since Plato have held that the highest ethical good is the same for everyone; insofar as one approaches moral perfection, one resembles other morally perfect individuals. The 19th-century Danish philosopher Sren Kierkegaard, who was the first writer to call himself existential, reacted against this tradition by insisting that the highest good for the individual is to find his or her own unique vocation. As he wrote in his journal, I must find a truth that is true for me . . . the idea for which I can live or die.

Other existentialist writers have echoed Kierkegaard’s belief that one must choose one’s own way without the aid of universal, objective standards. Against the traditional view that moral choice involves an objective judgment of right and wrong, existentialists have argued that no objective, rational basis can be found for moral decisions. The 19th-century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche further contended that the individual must decide which situations are to count as moral situations.

All existentialists have followed Kierkegaard in stressing the importance of passionate individual action in deciding questions of both morality and truth. They have insisted, accordingly, that personal experience and acting on one’s own convictions are essential in arriving at the truth. Thus, the understanding of a situation by someone involved in that situation is superior to that of a detached, objective observer. This emphasis on the perspective of the individual agent has also made existentialists suspicious of systematic reasoning.

Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and other existentialist writers have been deliberately unsystematic in the exposition of their philosophies, preferring to express themselves in aphorisms, dialogues, parables, and other literary forms. Despite their antirationalist position, however, most existentialists cannot be said to be irrationalists in the sense of denying all validity to rational thought. They have held that rational clarity is desirable wherever possible, but that the most important questions in life are not accessible to reason or science. Furthermore, they have argued that even science is not as rational as is commonly supposed.

Nietzsche, for instance, asserted that the scientific assumption of an orderly universe is for the most part a useful fiction. Perhaps the most prominent theme in existentialist writing is that of choice. Humanity’s primary distinction, in the view of most existentialists, is the freedom to choose. Existentialists have held that human beings do not have a fixed nature, or essence, as other animals and plants do; each human being makes choices that create his or her own nature. In the formulation of the 20th-century French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre, existence precedes essence.

Choice is therefore central to human existence, and it is inescapable; even the refusal to choose is a choice. Freedom of choice entails commitment and responsibility. Because individuals are free to choose their own path, existentialists have argued, they must accept the risk and responsibility of following their commitment wherever it leads. Kierkegaard held that it is spiritually crucial to recognize that one experiences not only a fear of specific objects but also a feeling of general apprehension, which he called dread. He interpreted it as God’s way of calling each individual to make a commitment to a personally valid way of life.

The word anxiety (German Angst) has a similarly crucial role in the work of the 20th-century German philosopher Martin Heidegger; anxiety leads to the individual’s confrontation with nothingness and with the impossibility of finding ultimate justification for the choices he or she must make. In the philosophy of Sartre, the word nausea is used for the individual’s recognition of the pure contingency of the universe, and the word anguish is used for the recognition of the total freedom of choice that confronts the individual at every moment.

Existentialism as a distinct philosophical and literary movement belongs to the 19th and 20th centuries, but elements of existentialism can be found in the thought (and life) of Socrates, in the Bible, and in the work of many premodern philosophers and writers. The first to anticipate the major concerns of modern existentialism was the 17th-century French philosopher Blaise Pascal. Pascal rejected the rigorous rationalism of his contemporary Ren Descartes, asserting, in his Penses (1670), that a systematic philosophy that presumes to explain God and humanity is a form of pride.

Like later existentialist writers, he saw human life in terms of paradoxes: The human self, which combines mind and body, is itself a paradox and contradiction. Kierkegaard, generally regarded as the founder of modern existentialism, reacted against the systematic absolute idealism of the 19th-century German philosopher G. W. F. Hegel, who claimed to have worked out a total rational understanding of humanity and history. Kierkegaard, on the contrary, stressed the ambiguity and absurdity of the human situation.

The individual’s response to this situation must be to live a totally committed life, and this commitment can only be understood by the individual who has made it. The individual therefore must always be prepared to defy the norms of society for the sake of the higher authority of a personally valid way of life. Kierkegaard ultimately advocated a leap of faith into a Christian way of life, which, although incomprehensible and full of risk, was the only commitment he believed could save the individual from despair.

Nietzsche, who was not acquainted with the work of Kierkegaard, influenced subsequent existentialist thought through his criticism of traditional metaphysical and moral assumptions and through his espousal of tragic pessimism and the life-affirming individual will that opposes itself to the moral conformity of the majority. In contrast to Kierkegaard, whose attack on conventional morality led him to advocate a radically individualistic Christianity, Nietzsche proclaimed the death of God and went on to reject the entire Judeo-Christian moral tradition in favor of a heroic pagan ideal.

Heidegger, like Pascal and Kierkegaard, reacted against an attempt to put philosophy on a conclusive rationalistic basisin this case the phenomenology of the 20th-century German philosopher Edmund Husserl. Heidegger argued that humanity finds itself in an incomprehensible, indifferent world. Human beings can never hope to understand why they are here; instead, each individual must choose a goal and follow it with passionate conviction, aware of the certainty of death and the ultimate meaninglessness of one’s life. Heidegger contributed to existentialist thought an original emphasis on being and ontology as well as on language.

Sartre first gave the term existentialism general currency by using it for his own philosophy and by becoming the leading figure of a distinct movement in France that became internationally influential after World War II. Sartre’s philosophy is explicitly atheistic and pessimistic; he declared that human beings require a rational basis for their lives but are unable to achieve one, and thus human life is a futile passion. Sartre nevertheless insisted that his existentialism is a form of humanism, and he strongly emphasized human freedom, choice, and responsibility.

He eventually tried to reconcile these existentialist concepts with a Marxist analysis of society and history. Although existentialist thought encompasses the uncompromising atheism of Nietzsche and Sartre and the agnosticism of Heidegger, its origin in the intensely religious philosophies of Pascal and Kierkegaard foreshadowed its profound influence on 20th-century theology. The 20th-century German philosopher Karl Jaspers, although he rejected explicit religious doctrines, influenced contemporary theology through his preoccupation with transcendence and the limits of human experience.

The German Protestant theologians Paul Tillich and Rudolf Bultmann, the French Roman Catholic theologian Gabriel Marcel, the Russian Orthodox philosopher Nikolay Berdyayev, and the German Jewish philosopher Martin Buber inherited many of Kierkegaard’s concerns, especially that a personal sense of authenticity and commitment is essential to religious faith. A number of existentialist philosophers used literary forms to convey their thought, and existentialism has been as vital and as extensive a movement in literature as in philosophy. The 19th-century Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky is probably the greatest existentialist literary figure.

In Notes from the Underground (1864), the alienated antihero rages against the optimistic assumptions of rationalist humanism. The view of human nature that emerges in this and other novels of Dostoyevsky is that it is unpredictable and perversely self-destructive; only Christian love can save humanity from itself, but such love cannot be understood philosophically. As the character Alyosha says in The Brothers Karamazov (1879-80), We must love life more than the meaning of it.

In the 20th century, the novels of the Austrian Jewish writer Franz Kafka, such as The Trial (1925; trans. 37) and The Castle (1926; trans. 1930), present isolated men confronting vast, elusive, menacing bureaucracies; Kafka’s themes of anxiety, guilt, and solitude reflect the influence of Kierkegaard, Dostoyevsky, and Nietzsche. The influence of Nietzsche is also discernible in the novels of the French writers Andr Malraux and in the plays of Sartre. The work of the French writer Albert Camus is usually associated with existentialism because of the prominence in it of such themes as the apparent absurdity and futility of life, the indifference of the universe, and the necessity of engagement in a just cause.

Existentialist themes are also reflected in the theater of the absurd, notably in the plays of Samuel Beckett and Eugne Ionesco. In the United States, the influence of existentialism on literature has been more indirect and diffuse, but traces of Kierkegaard’s thought can be found in the novels of Walker Percy and John Updike, and various existentialist themes are apparent in the work of such diverse writers as Norman Mailer, John Barth, and Arthur Miller.

The word philosophy comes from Greek and literally means love of wisdom. Webster dictionary defines philosophy as a critical study of fundamental beliefs and the grounds for them. Both explanations of philosophy are correct and concrete, while where the meaning of human existence is located has no such concrete answer, but in this paper we will examine where Sartre believes it to be. Sartre’s existentialism is a philosophy, which deals with man. It states that man is that which he makes of himself and that he has to make his own choices in a state of anguish.

Man chooses in anguish, because he has no external guidelines to help him and must rely on his own morals and beliefs. Man chooses completely want he wants to do. His existence depends on this. And this is where I believe Sartre locates the meaning to mans’ existence. According to Sartre mans’ existence only takes on meaning through his actions. The Sartrian existentialist finds it extremely troubling that God does not exist because with Him vanishes all hope of finding values in an intelligible heaven.

As Dostoevsky once said, If God did not exist, then everything would be permitted. (pg 22) Sartre claims this to be the existentialist starting point. This is the reason that Sartre talks about anguish, because one cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself. It must necessarily follow that man is to be forlorn; he can’t find anything to depend upon either internally or externally. He therefore lacks excuses. We cannot explain our actions in terms of or in reference to… given and specific human nature. g 23) This rules out of the possibility of predetermination. Man is free, man is freedom. (pg 23) For non-existentialists, passion and fate may be an excuse for their actions; but for existentialists, taking responsibility for one’s choices is a central belief. Fate is overruled and passions hold no power. An existentialist will never view a great passion as a destructive agent, or blame fate for making a man commit certain actions. Again pointing to mans’ existence being defined by his choices and actions.

Since Sartre claims that existence precedes essence, an existentialist will also deny the support of an organized religion. As a result there is an absence of values. The existentialists’ world is one of being forsaken and abandoned. In this sense, abandonment can mean that we ourselves decide our being. As an example we can consider the case of the man who was faced with a difficult decision the. The young man had two choices: To take care of his mother, or to go to England to join the freedom forces. The first option is a concrete and certain course of action.

It is immediate, but directed to only one individual. The second choice of action is addressed to an infinitely greater cause, yet the outcome is rather uncertain. The Kantian ethic warns not to regard another person as a means, but rather as an end. (pg 25-26) In this case, for the young man to remain with his mother, he would be treating her as the end and the freedom fighters as the means. On the other hand, if he were to aid the freedom fighters, he would be treating them as the end at the risk of treating his mother as the means.

This example shows how man cannot rely on values. Sartre in this case recommended to the young man to trust his instincts. Sartre’s philosophy also deals with despair and the meaning of one’s life. Marxists say, Your action is limited by your death; but you can rely upon the help of others. (pg 30) However, Sartre claims that he must confine himself to what he can see. Existentialists doubt that others will carry on their work after their death. An existentialist does not necessarily believe that the revolution will lead to the triumph of the working class.

To carry this further, from the individual cases to the great collective movements, it is necessary for the masses to free themselves by once again going back to the idea that one must do everything on his own. Another principle of existentialism is that one must first make a choice and then act upon the commitment, according to the formula that Sartre provides us with. For the existentialist, hope is a passion that gets him nowhere. He must face life in his abandoned state, with courage and self-affirmation.

Sartre’s existentialism is unique in its individualistic outlook, its detachment, its lack of reliance of an outer code to manage behavior, and its emphasis on man’s self-reliance. Existentialism, as exemplified in the work of Sartre, deals with fundamental issues of life and how he finds mans’ existence within the choices and actions that define him. Since Sartre believes that there is no transcendent this theory causes man to be alone. Man has only himself to fall back on. Man makes his own future through the actions that he makes. This is where man is defined, and his existence finds meaning.

Kant starts off making two distinctions regarding kinds of knowledge, empirical/rational and formal/material. Empirical or experience-based knowledge is contrasted with rational knowledge, which is independent of experience. This distinction between empirical and rational knowledge rests on a difference in sources of evidence used to support the two different kinds of knowledge. Formal is contrasted with material knowledge. Formal knowledge has no specific subject matter; it is about the general structure of thinking about any subject matter whatsoever.

Material knowledge is of a specific subject matter, either nature or freedom. Rational knowledge is metaphysics, of which there are two branches, the metaphysics of nature and of morals. The metaphysics of nature is supposed to provide rational knowledge of the laws of nature. These are not empirical laws; they are more like universal principles of nature that any empirical physical would presuppose, such as that no event in nature occurs without a natural cause. The metaphysics of freedom is supposed to provide knowledge of the laws of freedom.

These are the universal rules, which free agents devise to govern them. Thus, Kant’s grounding, his initial attempt at a critique of rational reason, is an investigation of the possibility of purely rational knowledge of morals. Take, for example, the Moral Rule: Thou shalt not lie. If the moral law is valid as the basis of moral obligation or duty, then it must be necessary. Kant using the word \”necessity\” means that the rule obligates or binds whatever the conditions or in all circumstances.

It also means that the rule applies to all rational beings and not only to human beings. In this second sense we can say that the rule is universally binding. So in fact, moral rules are universal and necessary. If a moral rule is to be universal and necessary, the moral law must be derived from concepts of pure reason alone. Therefore, if a moral rule or law can only be derived from reason alone, there must be a pure moral philosophy whose task is to provide such a derivation.

In the \”Grounding\”, Kant sets himself the task of establishing the \”supreme principle of morality\” from which to make such a derivation. According to Kant good will and only a good will is intrinsically good. Kant distinguishes two different types of intrinsic or extrinsic goods. If a thing is only extrinsically good, then it is possible for that thing not to be good, or to be bad or evil. Intrinsic goodness is goodness in itself; if a thing is intrinsically good, its goodness is essential to it; and its goodness is not a function of factors other than itself.

Kant holds that only a good will, not happiness, is intrinsically good. The idea that it is reason rather than natural impulse that guides action for the sake of happiness is false. Parts of a person perform their functions by surviving and this provides happiness for the person. Reason functions poorly in serving that purpose; instinct does better job. Natural instinct rather than reason provides better for happiness. Kant distinguishes between having a reason to act and acting for a reason. The motivating reason is the reason for which agent acts.

A justifying reason is the reason that justifies, warrants, and provides the criterion of rightness for the action. The agent’s motivating reason might or might not provide a justifying reason for his action. Kant then defines three types of motivating reasons. One type of non-moral motivation is natural motivation. Action in accord with duty is motivated by immediate or direct inclination. Direct inclination includes such motives as love, sympathy, instinct for self-preservation, or the desire for happiness. The other type of non-moral motivation is prudence.

An action in accord with duty, but motivated by prudence, is action motivated by the pursuit of self-interest or happiness. Since all human beings naturally desire happiness, prudential motivation is indirectly motivated by a natural motivation. Moral motivation is the third type of motivation. The action is not only in accord with duty, but motivated by duty, done from duty, or for sake of duty. The agent’s motivating reason, the reason for which he acts, is that the action is what morality demands and he wants above all to do what reason demands.

I believe that the popular or “ghost in the machine” form of substance dualism best solves the mind body problem. My views in this area have been influenced by my twelve years of Catholic education. The soul, or mind, depending on your level of belief, was a complete and separate entity and was the center of a human being. The body was an ambulatory device that the soul directed. The idea that the mind is a separate entity and that it is independent of the physical body is the central point of substance dualism.

Churchland explains that substance dualism claims that the mind is a distinct nonphysical hing, a complete nonphysical entity that is independent of any physical body to which it is temporarily attached. Any and all mental states and activities, as well as physical ones, originate from this unique entity. Substance dualism states that the real essence of you has nothing to do with your physical body, but rather from the distinct nonphysical entity of the mind. The mind is in constant interaction with the body. The body’s sense organs create experiences in the mind. The desires and decisions of the mind cause the body to act in certain ways.

This is what makes each mind’s body its own. The popular or “ghost in the machine” form of substance dualism states that a person is a “ghost in a machine”, the ghost being the mind or spirit and the machine is the body. Within this description, the mind/spirit controls the body and is in intimate contact with the brain. The brain would be the nexus between the mind and body. The popular form of substance dualism was adopted after the difficulties of Cartesian dualism could not be overcome. Rene Descartes stated that the nonphysical and the physical could not interact.

This became a problem n dualism since the nonphysical mind needed to interact with the physical body. These difficulties provided a motive for the move to popular substance dualism. The first major argument for substance dualism is religion. Each of the major religions place belief in life after death that there is an immortal soul that will survive death. This very closely resembles substance dualism. The mind can be substituted for the immortal soul. In fact the two are almost interchangeable. This argument is primarily the basis for my own belief in substance dualism.

My personal experiences as a religion student give me insight nto this argument. The second major argument for substance dualism is irreducibility. This points to a variety of mental phenomena that no physical explanation could account for what is going on. An example would be the quality and meaningful content of human thoughts and beliefs. These things cannot be reduced to purely physical terms, hence irreducibility. This is also another good argument that I can understand from personal experiences. I cannot reduce my reactions and feelings toward how a steak tastes to a mathematical equation.

This is the same idea. The final argument for substance dualism is arapsychological phenomena. Mental powers such as telepathy, precognition, telekinesis, and clairvoyance are all near impossible to explain within the boundaries of physics and psychology. These phenomena reflect the nonphysical and supernatural nature that dualism gives to the mind. Because I believe in these phenomena, it seems logical to me that parapsychology is an excellent argument for substance dualism. These arguments give a good basis for a philosopher to believe in substance dualism. However there are also serious arguments against it.

The first major argument against dualism is simplicity. Materialists state that because their view is simpler (they only believe in one thing- that which is physical) it is more rational to subscribe to their view. The materialist point of view is also easier to prove because there is no doubt that physical matter exists, while nonphysical matter is currently a hypothesis. This argument seems very illogical to me. Philosophical views should be chosen because one makes more sense to you, not because one has a smaller number of ideas within it. The second major argument against substance dualism is explanatory impotence.

Materialists can explain anything physical through cientific study, whereas dualists can explain nothing because no theory has ever been formulated. Churchland says, “… dualism is less a theory of mind than it is an empty space waiting for a genuine theory of mind to be put in”. I see one flaw with the materialist theory here. The mind in the dualist theory may use a form of energy transfer not yet discovered by science. Centuries ago, undiscovered forms of science were refuted and called “magic”. In the future, The mind may become completely understood by science. The third argument against substance dualism is neural dependence.

That he mental capacities depend on the brain’s neural activities. The materialists show that the mind is altered when the brain is altered by drugs or injuries. I would explain this by saying that since the mind is a separate nonphysical entity and cannot interact with physical matter, it needs a focal point to control the body from. This focal point is the brain. The mind and the brain are so intimately intertwined any disruption of the brain will affect the mind. The Final argument against substance dualism is evolutionary history. The materialist states that human beings have been incrementally built up from impler physical creatures.

This is evolution. Because this is a pure physical process and the simpler creatures we were constructed from had no nonphysical mind, there is no way to account for our mind. This is a difficult argument to win. The only rebuttal I can give is that because we are a pinnacle of evolution, we developed the nonphysical mind along with free-will and our level of intelligence. This may be an extremely arrogant and proud view, but it is the only one I can think of. I believe that the strength of dualism’s positive arguments outweighs is detractions.

Strongly influenced by the rise of modern science and by the aftermath of the long religious conflict that followed the Reformation, the thinkers of the Enlightenment (called philosophes in France) were committed to secular views based on reason or human understanding only, which they hoped would provide a basis for beneficial changes affecting every area of life and thought.

Denis Diderot, advocated a philosophical rationalism deriving its methods from science and natural philosophy that would replace religion as the means of knowing nature and destiny of humanity; The philosophes believed that science could reveal nature as it truly is and show how it could be controlled and manipulated. The enlightened understanding of human nature was one that emphasized the right to self-expression and human fulfillment, the right to think freely and express one’s views publicly without censorship or fear of repression.

Voltaire admired the freedom he found in England and fostered the spread of English ideas on the Continent. Enlightened political thought expressed demands for equality and justice and for the legal changes needed to realize these goals. The Enlightenment came to an end in western Europe after the upheavals of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic era (1789-1815) revealed the costs of its political program and the lack of commitment in those whose rhetoric was often more liberal than their actions.

Nationalism undercut its cosmopolitan values and assumptions about uman nature, and the romantics attacked its belief that clear intelligible answers could be found to every question asked by people who sought to be free and happy. The skepticism of the philosophes was swept away in the religious revival of the 1790s and early 1800s, and the cultural leadership of the landed aristocracy and professional men who had supported the Enlightenment was eroded by the growth of a new wealthy educated class of businessmen, products of the industrial revolution.

“The new narcissist is haunted not by guilt but by anxiety. He seeks not to inflict his own certainties on others but to find a meaning in life. Liberated from the superstitions of the past, he doubts even the reality of his own existence. Superficially relaxed and tolerant, he finds little use for dogmas of racial and ethnic purity but at the same time forfeits the security of group loyalties and regards everyone as a rival for the favors conferred by a paternalistic state. His sexual attitudes are permissive rather than puritanical, even though his emancipation from ancient taboos brings him no sexual peace.

Fiercely competitive in his demand for approval and acclaim, he distrusts competition because he associates it unconsciously with an unbridled urge to destroy. Hence he repudiates the competitive ideologies that flourished at an earlier stage of capitalist development and distrusts even their limited expression in sports and games. He extols cooperation and teamwork while harboring deeply antisocial impulses. He praises respect for rules and regulations in the secret belief that they do not apply to himself.

Acquisitive in the sense that his cravings have no limits, he does not accumulate goods and provisions against the future, in the manner of the acquisitive individualist of nineteenth-century political economy, but demands immediate gratification and lives in a state of restless, perpetually unsatisfied desire. ” (Christopher Lasch – The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an age of Diminishing Expectations, 1979) A characteristic of our times is the predominance, even in groups traditionally selective, of the mass and the vulgar.

Thus, in intellectual life, which of its essence requires and presupposes qualification, one can note the progressive triumph of the pseudo-intellectual, unqualified, unqualifiable… ” (Jose Ortega y Gasset – The Revolt of the Masses, 1932) Can Science be passionate? This question seems to sum up the life of Christopher Lasch, erstwhile a historian of culture later transmogrified into an ersatz prophet of doom and consolation, a latter day Jeremiah. Judging by his (prolific and eloquent) output, the answer is a resounding no.

There is no single Lasch. This chronicler of culture, did so mainly by chronicling his inner turmoil, conflicting ideas and ideologies, emotional upheavals, and intellectual vicissitudes. In this sense, of (courageous) self-documentation, Mr. Lasch epitomized Narcissism, was the quintessential Narcissist, the better positioned to criticize the phenomenon. Some “scientific” disciplines (e. g. , the history of culture and History in general) are closer to art than to the rigorous (a. . a. exact” or “natural” or “physical” sciences).

Lasch borrowed heavily from other, more established branches of knowledge without paying tribute to the original, strict meaning of concepts and terms. Such was the use that he made of “Narcissism”. “Narcissism” is a relatively well-defined psychological term. I expound upon it elsewhere (“Malignant self Love – Narcissism Re-Visited”). The Narcissistic Personality Disorder – the acute form of pathological Narcissism – is the name given to a group of 9 symptoms (see: DSM-4).

They include: a grandiose Self (illusions of grandeur coupled with an inflated, unrealistic sense of the Self), inability to empathize with the Other, the tendency to exploit and manipulate others, idealization of other people (in cycles of idealization and devaluation), rage attacks and so on. Narcissism, therefore, has a clear clinical definition, etiology and prognosis. The use that Lasch makes of this word has nothing to do with its usage in psychopathology. True, Lasch did his best to sound “medicinal”. He spoke of “(national) malaise” and accused the American society of lack of self-awareness.

But choice of words does not a coherence make. Lasch was a member, by conviction, of an imaginary “Pure Left”. This turned out to be a code for an odd mixture of Marxism, religious fundamentalism, populism, Freudian analysis, conservatism and any other -ism that Lasch happened to come across. Intellectual consistency was not Lasch’s strong point, but this is excusable, even commendable in the search for Truth. What is not excusable is the passion and conviction with which Lasch imbued the advocacy of each of these consecutive and mutually exclusive ideas.

The Culture of Narcissism – American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations” was published in the first year of the unhappy presidency of Jimmy Carter (1979). The latter endorsed the book publicly (in his famous “national malaise” speech). The main thesis of the book is that the Americans have created a self-absorbed (though not self aware), greedy and frivolous society which depended on consumerism, demographic studies, opinion polls and Government to know and to define itself. What is the solution? Lasch proposed a “return to basics”: self-reliance, the family, nature, the community, and the Protestant work ethic.

To those who adhere, he promised an elimination of their feelings of alienation and despair. The apparent radicalism (the pursuit of social justice and equality) was only that: apparent. The New Left was morally self-indulgent. In an Orwellian manner, liberation became tyranny and transcendence – irresponsibility. The “democratization” of education: “… has neither improved popular understanding of modern society, raised the quality of popular culture, nor reduced the gap between wealth and poverty, which remains as wide as ever.

On the other hand, it has contributed to the decline of critical thought and the erosion of intellectual standards, forcing us to consider the possibility that mass education, as conservatives have argued all along, is intrinsically incompatible with the maintenance of educational standards”. Lasch derided capitalism, consumerism and corporate America as much as he loathed the mass media, the government and even the welfare system (intended to deprive its clients of their moral responsibility and indoctrinate them as victims of social circumstance).

These always remained the villains. But to this – classically leftist – list he added the New Left. He bundled the two viable alternatives in American life and discarded them both. Anyhow, capitalism’s days were numbered, a contradictory system as it was, resting on “imperialism, racism, elitism, and inhuman acts of technological destruction”. What was left except God and the Family? Lasch was deeply anti-capitalist. He rounded up the usual suspects with the prime suspect being multinationals.

To him, it wasn’t only a question of exploitation of the working masses. Capitalism acted as acid on the social and moral fabrics and made them disintegrate. Lasch adopted, at times, a theological perception of capitalism as an evil, demonic entity. Zeal usually leads to inconsistency of argumentation: Lasch claimed, for instance, that capitalism negated social and moral traditions while pandering to the lowest common denominator. There is a contradiction here: social mores and traditions are, in many cases, THE lowest common denominator.

Lasch displayed a total lack of understanding of market mechanisms and the history of markets. True, markets start out as mass-oriented and entrepreneurs tend to mass- produce to cater to the needs of the newfound consumers. However, as markets evolve – they fragment. Individual nuances of tastes and preferences tend to transform the mature market from a cohesive, homogenous entity – to a loose coalition of niches. Computer aided design and production, targeted advertising, custom made products, personal services – are all the outcomes of the maturation of markets.

It is where capitalism is absent that uniform mass production of goods of shoddy quality takes over. This may have been Lasch’s biggest fault: that he persistently and wrong-headedly ignored reality when it did not serve his pet theorizing. He made up his mind and did not wish to be confused by the facts. The facts are that all the alternatives to the known four models of capitalism (the Anglo-Saxon, the European, the Japanese and the Chinese) have failed miserably and have led to the very consequences that Lasch warned against in capitalism.

It is in the countries of the former Soviet Bloc, that social solidarity has evaporated, that traditions were trampled upon, that religion was brutally suppressed, that pandering to the lowest common denominator was official policy, that poverty – material, intellectual and spiritual – became all pervasive, that people lost all self reliance and communities disintegrated. There is nothing to excuse Lasch: the Wall fell in 1989.

An inexpensive trip would have confronted him with the results of the alternatives to capitalism. That he failed to acknowledge his life-long misconceptions and compile the Lasch errata cum mea culpa is the sign of deep-seated intellectual dishonesty. The man was not interested in the truth. In many respects, he was a propagandist. Worse, he combined an amateurish understanding of the Economic Sciences with the fervor of a fundamentalist preacher to produce an absolutely non-scientific discourse.

Let us analyze what he regarded as the basic weakness of capitalism (in “The True and Only Heaven”, 1991): its need to increase capacity and production ad infinitum in order to sustain itself. Such a feature would have been destructive if capitalism were to operate in a closed system. The finiteness of the economic sphere would have brought capitalism to ruin.

But the world is NOT a closed economic system. ,000,000 new consumers are added annually, markets globalize, trade barriers are falling, international trade is growing three times faster than the worlds GDP and still accounts for less than 15% of it, not to mention space exploration which is at its inception. The horizon is, for all practical purposes, unlimited. The economic system is, therefore, open. Capitalism will never be defeated because it has an infinite number of consumers and markets to colonize.

That is not to say that capitalism will not have its crises, even crises of over-capacity. But such crises are a part of the business cycle not of the underlying market mechanism. They are adjustment pains, the noises of growing up – not the last gasps of dying. To claim otherwise is either to deceive or to be spectacularly ignorant not only of economic fundamentals but of what is happening in the world. It is as intellectually rigorous as the “New Paradigm” which says, in effect, that the business cycle and inflation are both dead and buried.

The philosopher I used is Immanuel Kant. He was very practical in his thinking of goodness. A quote of his was “I ought, therefore I can”. His view was good anything is under good will . He believed good will was the primary goodness, good in its purest form, and that it couldn’t be corrupted. Good feelings and good intentions and actions can be interpreted in different ways; man can corrupt these things into evil… even though it still might be good in that man’s eyes. What he’s really trying to say is that good will is good in its objective form. Therefore, it defines goodness.

A few examples of forms of oodness that could be corrupt are intelligence, courage, and resolution. These things can be very good, but can be used for evil as well. The short story I would like to allude to in order to connect these themes and ideas is “A Good Man is Hard to Find”. The title even has “good” in it… and according to Kant, goodness in its purest form is good will. The question now would be, does the Misfit have good will? Is what he is doing good, objectively, and purely? He is purging and purifying the world. He is Christ like in many senses.

He is purifying the world by purging it of its evil… relating to the Old Testament. God decided that the human race was too evil to survive, so he flooded it. God killed, as well as the Misfit. This isn’t the same as Christ, though; it just adds to the religious element. Christ’s mission was to try and rid the world of evil, and sacrificed for it. The Misfit sacrificed his freedom initially, was “reborn” again by escaping from jail, and become a Christ like figure again… he’s now reborn, and his mission has an even stronger exclamation point on it, just like Christ’s after he was resurrected.

The literal differences are obvious; Christ never held anyone at gunpoint, let alone kill old ladies (no matter HOW hateful). But the allusions above illustrate that the Misfit was indeed a Christ-like figure with good intentions; good will . The Misfit was in a world of evil where he felt it was his mission, as well as his intention and his will, to be the savior of the good people. When it really comes to good will, I believe that the Misfit did have good will and that, in a world such as his, the South, he was not just playing God, but his will was forcing him to be God to judge the “infidels”.

I think the best poem I can relate to Kant’s philosophy is “Richard Cory”. Richard Cory didn’t have good will, that was his downfall. You can’t ell a whole lot from his personal life from the poem, but you can always assume that he didn’t have good will, at least in relation to Kant’s philosophy. Assuming that, we look at his “good” actions, intentions, etc. from the poem. He was a pillar of society, looked at as the model of goodness. This is exactly the people’s mistake.

I believe that the people killed Richard Cory by not looking inward for goodness; by saying: ” Well, if Richard Cory does that, if I do that, I’ll be good like him”. This put him on a pedestal, like the hunger artist. The people killed him by this method; he realized that the people did ot have good will because they were looking at him for goodness, and therefore, he could never have good will. The people were looking for an identity, and it was too much for Richard Cory. An aspect of my life, or upcoming life, that I’d relate to Kant’s philosophy is the fact that someday, I’d like to be a parent.

We say it’s for “selfish reasons”, but I think most people who realize what they’re doing when they want to become a parent , and not just a biological mother/father, also realize how much responsibility, caring, and planning parenting really takes. God knows that the fact this isn’t happening often enough is leading to problems ike overpopulation and societal breakdown, but I would want to be a role model to my child(ren) and teach them everything I know so that eventually, they will be the best possible person I can raise them to be, and then be able to go out on their own and do the same.

I think that this is good will, because, yes, reproduction is selfish in a way, but if you have the good will to be a good parent, by teaching your children, and trying to make them model their lives after yours, if you truly believe you can be a good mother/father, then you are acting on good will much more than selfishness.

Kant defined aesthetic as both, “the analysis of taste and the analysis of sensible cognition or intuition” (1). Aesthesis, means “sensation”, the Greeks made a distinction between aesthesis autophues (natural sensation) and aesthesis epistemonike (acquired sensation) (1). We may say that aesthetics is both the study of aesthetic objects and of the specific and subjective reactions of observers, readers, or audiences to the work of art.

Aesthetics is necessarily interdisciplinary and may be interpretive, prescriptive, descriptive, or a combination of these. The big, obvious question about aesthetic value is whether it is ever ‘really in’ the objects it is attributed to. This issue parallels the realism/anti-realism debates elsewhere in philosophy (2). Though there is little reason to assume that aesthetic value will behave in just the say way as for example, moral value.

An extreme realist would say that aesthetic values reside in an object as properties independent of any observer’s responses, (3) and that if we make the judgment ‘That is a beautiful flower’, or ‘this painting is aesthetically good’, what we say is true or false – true if the flower or painting has the property, false if it does not. We will tend to like the object if we recognize the aesthetic value in it, but, for the realist, whether we recognize it and whether it is are two separate questions. Consequently, much work in aesthetics has gone into trying to specify the nature of aesthetic experience or aesthetic response.

One factor is pleasure, satisfaction, or liking. The second is experience: the response we are looking for must be a way of attending to the object itself (4). In the case of music, it must be a response to perceived patterns of sound, in the case of cinematography, a response to the experience of seeing something on the screen. If you merely describe a piece of music or a sequence of images to me, I am not yet in a position to respond in the kind of way which is peculiarly relevant to aesthetic value. The third factor in aesthetic response is thought to be ‘disinterestedness’.

The idea is that the pleasurable experience of attending to something in perception should not consist in liking a thing only because it fulfills some definite function, satisfies a desire, or lives up to a prior standard or principle (4). There are subjective responses which we are justified in demanding from others: these are not idiosyncratic likes and dislikes, but deeply rooted in our common nature as experiencing subjects, and founded on a pleasurable response to the form of the object as it is presented in perception. This means, among other things, “aesthetic value cannot be enshrined in learnable principles” (5).

There are no genuine aesthetic principles, because to find aesthetic value we must, “get a look at the object with our own eyes” (5). Aesthetic judgments are founded upon the slender basis of one’s own feeling of pleasure, but can justifiably claim the universal agreement if the subjective response in question is one that which any properly equipped observer would have. Sometimes it is assumed that the prime interest in art is aesthetic, but that assumption bears some examination. Unless “aesthetic stretches to cover everything conceivable that is of value in art, art may have values which are not aesthetic.

For example, it might have therapeutic value, or give us moral insights, or help us understand points in history or points of view radically unlike our own. We might admire a work for its moral integrity, or despise it for its depravity or political untruthfulness. Are all these a matter of aesthetic value? If not, then aestheticism gives too narrow a view of the value of art. Without succumbing to the view that art’s point is always as a means to some end outside itself (6), we should concede that works of art have a great variety of values.

Artworks are, nevertheless, usually intentionally produced things. They are also things with characteristic modes of reception or consumption (7). Paintings are placed where we can se them in a certain way, music is enjoyed or analyzed mostly by being heard. This pattern of production and reception gives rise to two recurring questions in the philosophy of art: What relation does the work bear to the mind that produced it? And what relation does it bear to the mind that perceives and appreciates it (8). As an example, we may take emotion and music.

We say that music has or expresses some emotional character. Since emotions are mental states, we may think that the emotion gets into the sounds by first being present in the mind of the composer or performer. Or we may think that the listener’s emotional reactions are somehow projected back on to the sounds. Neither of these approaches has great plausibility, however, so that a new question emerges: The music all by itself somehow seems to point to, or stand for emotions – how? Aesthetics has yet to come to terms with this issue.

There is a similar pattern in the case of artistic representation. In the question of what a picture depicts, what role is played by the artist’s intentions, and what by the interpretations which an observer may conjure up? Or does the painting itself have a meaning by standing in symbolic relations to items in the world? If the latter, how similar, and how dissimilar are depiction and linguistic representation? (8). Once one starts to address problems at this level, the philosophy of art starts to concern the nature of philosophy as a whole.

Existentialism is a philosophical movement that developed in continental Europe during the 1800s and 1900s. Most of the members are interested in the nature of existence or being, by which they usually mean human existence. Although the philosophers generally considered to be existentialists often disagree with each other and sometimes even resent being classified together, they have been grouped together because they share many problems, interests, and ideas.

The most prominent existentialist thinkers of the 1900s include the French writers Albert Camus, Jean-Paul Sarte, and Gabriel Marcel and German hilosophers Karl Jaspers and Martin Heidegger. The Russian religious and political thinker Nicolas Berdyaev and the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber were also famous existentialists. Existentialism is largely a revolt against traditional European philosophy which reached its climax during the late 1700s and early 1800s. Principles of knowledge that would be objective, universally true, and certain were produced.

Existentialists rejected the methods and ideals of science as being improper for philosophy. They investigated what it is like to be an individual human being living in the world nstead of making the traditional attempt to grasp the ultimate nature of the world and abstract systems of thought. They stress the fact that every individual is only a limited human being. Each must face important and difficult decisions with only limited knowledge and time in which to make these decisions. Human life is seen as a series of decisions that must be made without knowing what the correct choice is.

They must decide what standards to except and which ones to reject. Individuals must make their own choices without help from external standards. Humans are free and completely responsible for their hoices. Their freedom and responsibility is thrust upon them and they are”condemned to be free”. Their responsibility for actions, decisions and beliefs cause anxiety. They try to escape by ignoring or denying their responsibility. To have a meaningful life one must become fully aware of the true character of the situation and bravely accept it.

Existentialists believe that people learn about themselves best by examining the most extreme forms of human experience. They write about such topics as death and extreme situations. This concentration upon the most extreme and emotional aspects of experience ontrasts sharply with the main emphasis of contemporary philosophy in England and the United States. This philosophy focuses upon more common place situation and upon the nature of language rather than experience. Jean-Paul Sarte was born in Paris in 1905, and died in 1980. In 1964, he was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature.

However he refused to accept the reward. Sarte was a French existentialist philosopher who expressed his ideas in novels, plays, and short stories, as well as theoretical works. The mere existence of things, especially his own existence, fascinated and horrified him. To Sarte there seemed no reason why anything exists. He stated that only human existence is conscious of itself and of other things. He argued that non-living objects simply are what they are and people are whatever they choose to be. People exist as beings who must choose their own character. He agreed with the existentialists philosophy that people are completely free.

Sarte said, “People are afraid to recognize this freedom and to accept full responsibility for their behavior. ” Throughout his philosophical and literary works, he examined and analyzed the varied and subtle forms of self-deception. In Sartes chief philosophical work, Being and Nothingness, he investigated the nature and forms of existence or being. In his essay, Existentialism and Humanism, he defined existentialism as the doctrine that, for humankind, “existence precedes essence”. In the Critique of Dialectical Reason, Sarte presented his political and sociological theories.

The theater of the absurd refers to tendencies in dramatic literature that emerged in Paris during the late 1940’ss and early 1950s. Its roots can be found in the allegorical morality plays of the middle ages and the allegorical religious dramas. The term theater of the absurd derives from the philosophical use of the word absurd by such existentialists thinkers as Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sarte. A fully satisfying rational explanation of the universe was beyond its reach and the world must be seen as absurd. The images of the theater of the absurd tend to assume the quality of fantasy, dream, and nightmare.

The theater of the absurd movement heightened people in abstract situations. It was informative and overall made the audience think. Its purpose is to provoke thought with laughter. Theater of the absurd does not stay in key and is sometimes described as crazy. It always has intense moments, does not look like conventional theater, and has no start, no middle and no end. Samuel Beckett was born in Foxrock, Ireland in 1906. He attended Trinity College in Dublin and left for Paris when he was twenty-two. Throughout his life he wrote in both English and French, but most of his major works were written in French.

Beckett was awarded the Nobel prize for literature in 1969. He died in Paris in 1989. Becketts works are explored in novels, short stories, poetry, and scripts for radio, television, and film. He is best known for his work in the theater. His most famous play Waiting for Godot became one of the most dramatic works in this century. The strange atmosphere of Godot, in which two tramps wait on what appears to be a desolate road for a man who never arrives. This made his audience come back to see other major works. Becketts drams are most closely associated with the Theater of the Absurd.

He has a minimalistic approach, stripping the stage of unnecessary spectacles and characters. His works cover much of the same ground as World War II French existentialists. Waiting for Godot captures the feeling the world has no apparent meaning. In this misunderstood masterpiece Beckett asserts numerous existentialist themes. Beckett believed that existence is determined by chance. This is the first basic existentialist theme asserted. The play consists of four vulgar characters, and in a simple way who twice arrives with a message from Godot, a naked tree, a mound or two of earth and a sky.

Two of the characters are waiting for Godot who never arrives. Two of them consist of a flamboyant lord of the earth and a broken slave whimpering and staggering at the end of a rope. It is almost certain that Godot stands for God and those who are loitering y the withered tree are for salvation, which never comes. Many critics have agreed that Godot does not necessarly mean God, merely “the objective of our waiting- an event, a thing, a person, a death. ” Another basic existentialist theme on which Beckett reflects is the meaninglessness of time. Because past, present and future mean nothing, the play follows a cyclic pattern.

Vladimir and Estragon returned to the same place each day to wait for Godot and encounter the same basic people each day. Godots messenger does not recognize Vladimir and Estragon from day to day. This suggests that the people we meet today are not he same as they were yesterday and will not be the same tomorrow. Beckett also examines a theme of self-deceptive attempts to dodge reality by making excuses for ones actions. Vladimir and Estragon fool themselves by engaging in petty discourse that reflects the absurdity of life. They even contemplate suicide numerous times for numerous reasons, but ultimately persist in the futility of life.

Tom Stoppard was born in Czechoslovakia on July 3, 1937, the son of Eugene Straussler, a doctor employed by Bata, the shoe manufacturers. In 1942, his family moved to Singapore. He and his mother evacuated to India with is brother before the Japanese invasion. His father was left behind and killed. He then went to a multi-racial English speaking school in Darjeeling, India. His mother later married Kenneth Stoppard, who was in the British army in India. Stoppard was educated in a prep school at Nottingham Shire, and a grammar school in Yorkshire.

He was then employed by Western Daily Press in Bristol, were he lived. There he was a news reporter, feature writer, theater critic, film critic and gossip columnist. Eventually he married Jose Ingle. He wrote such works as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Meet King Lear, a one-act play in verse. He also wrote Rosecrantz and Guilenstern Are Dead. He won the John Whiting award and Evening Standard award in 1967. Rosencrantz creates a picture of characters who inhabit a world which is stranger than they had supposed, which they know it is not as it seems but what it is .

He evokes the ability of all man kind to understand those forces ultimately in control of their lives and fates. Because Rosencrantzs and Guildensterns fate is determined by Hamlet and not by random forces. At outset of the play, Rosencrantz remains oblivious to any oddity and their oin-tossing, describing the improbable run as 85 heads as merely a new record. The destiny which awaits Rosencrantz and Guildenstern consists of nothing for which they are prepared. Instead they are to be “kept intrigued without ever being enlightened”.

The purpose of the coin-tossing scene is the obvious conclusion that forces beyond their control are guiding their fate and it is obvious Guildenstern is more conscious of the two. He also sets up the quest theme that the play will take on. The ranting and ramblings of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are reminiscent of the spiritual pilgrim of the protagonist of Waiting for Godot. They both spend the entire play searching for a fate and spiritual rationale that is always alluding them. It can be concluded that the title characters are searching for a divinity that will make itself evident.

Irony comes to fit in the framework of the play because we know that the pair are to loose their heads. The humor of this situation is a game of questions where they “answer” every question with another question, but really realize how the game is mirroring their predicament, which is to inhabit a world full of questions which, for them, have no answers. For every action they partake in order to answer their calling, they are met with a hundred more questions, and In this lies the irony of the entire production. T. S. ELIOT T. S. Eliot (1888-1965) was born in St.

Louis, Missouri and graduated from Harvard. He lived in England for most of his life, returning to the United States periodically to lecture and teach at Harvard and other universities. Eliot achieved the fullness of his poetic expression in The Waste Land and other poems on this recording. In 1948 he was awarded a Nobel Prize. Eliot ranks among the most important poets of the 1900s. He departed radically from the techniques and subject matter of pre-World War I poetry. His poetry, along with his critical works, helped to reshape modern literature.

Many of Eliots views on literature appeared in The Criterion, a literary magazine he edited from 1922 to 1939. Eliot served as a director of a London Publishing house from 1925 until his death. Eliot also received the Order of Merit for literature during his lifetime. He finally found happiness in his second marriage which took place eight years before his death on January 4, 1965. Two important factors in Eliots development as a poet ere his introduction to French symbolist poetry and his friendship with fellow American Ezra Pound.

It was in Pound that Eliot found a devoted mentor and a sensitive critic of the early drafts of his poems. With Pounds help, The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock was published in Poetry in 1915 and Preludes in Blast that same year- thus launching Eliot into the midst of literary modernism. Eliots first major poem, The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, revealed his original and highly developed style. The poem shows the influence of certain French poets of the 1800s, but its startling jumps from rhetorical language o cliche, its indirect literary references, and its simultaneous humor and pessimism were quite new in English literature.

The Waste Land has become the poem of the twentieth century. The poem offers an epochal insight into the modern world, the urban blight, of death and destruction, of meaningless relationships, and of a profound absence of spiritual, social, and cultural assurances. It is presented with a series of allusions, fragments of texts and documents, because Eliot wants the reader to experience that sense of fragmentation for themselves through a kind of collage technique. There are glimpses of a sense of underlying order and unity expressed throughout this literary masterpiece.

Eliot suggests that the poem draws upon the powerful myth of the wounded king who must be restored to health before his lands can be returned to wholeness and fertility once more. Eliot also suggests that, deep within the cultural unconscious of our modern wasteland, there are underlying patterns and a sense of continuity. This poem has references to previous empires and cultures such as Rome, Alexandria, and Vienna. The Waste Land is widely regarded as loose or impressionistic.

In India there are six orthodox schools of philosophy which recognize the authority of the Vedas as divine revelation, and they generally function as pairs – Nyaya and Vaishesika, Mimamsa and Vedanta, and Samkhya and Yoga. Those who did not recognize this authority were the Jains, Buddhists, and materialists. Even in India where spiritual ideas dominate the culture there were some who were skeptical of those ideals and held to a materialist view of the world; they were called Carvaka, and their doctrine that this world is all that exists is called Lokayata.

The materialists did not believe in an afterlife and found sense perception to be the only source of knowledge, denying the validity of inference or general concepts. They focused on the senses and the four traditional elements of earth, water, fire, and air. Consciousness for the Carvaka is only a modification of these elements in the body. The soul is also identified with the body, and pleasure and pain are the central experiences of life, nature being indifferent to good and evil with virtue and vice being merely social conventions.

This worldly philosophy naturally ignored the goal of liberation (moksha) or simply believed that death as the end of life and consciousness was a liberation. However, they also tended to neglect the value of virtue or justice (dharma), placing all of their attention on the worldly aims of pleasure (kama) and wealth or power (artha). Although Carvaka ideas are mentioned in some ancient writings, their own ancient writings were lost, and much of what we know of the early materialists is based on criticisms of other schools.

However, a famous, ancient drama called The Rise of the Moon of Intellect (Prabodha-candrodaya) reveals some of the beliefs of this worldly movement. In this play Passion is personified and speaks to a materialist and one of his pupils. Passion laughs at ignorant fools, who imagine that spirit is different from the body and reaps a reward in a future existence. This is like expecting trees to grow in air and produce fruit. Has anyone seen the soul separate from the body? Does not life come from the configuration of the body? Those who believe otherwise deceive themselves and others.

Their ancient teacher Brihaspati affirmed the importance of the senses, maintaining that sustenance and love are the objects of human life. For the materialists the Vedas are a cheat. If blessings are obtained through sacrifices and the victims ascend to heaven, why do not children sacrifice their parents? How can fasting, begging, penance, and exposure to the elements be compared to the ravishing embraces of women with large eyes and prominent breasts? The pleasures of life are no more to be avoided because they are mixed with pain than a prudent person would throw away unpeeled rice because it has a husk.

Sacrifices, reciting the Vedas, and penance are merely ways that ignorant and weak men contrive to support themselves. Yet upon analysis it was often found that the materialists’ theory that no general inferences can be made contradicted their own views about the nature of the world. Nevertheless their hedonistic philosophy at times gave a humanistic criticism of the ethical contradictions of others. In the great epic Mahabharata a Carvaka is burned to death for preaching against the bloodshed of the great war and condemning Yudhishthira for killing thousands to regain his kingdom.

They did criticize sacrifices and valued the arts as a means of pleasure. Hell they believed to be the pain experienced in this world, but all this ended in death. Like Epicureans they found that pleasure could be maximized and pain minimized by detachment (vairagya). Immortality was only found in the fame one leaves behind for noble deeds performed. Nyaya and Vaishesika The Nyaya and Vaishesika schools are primarily analytic and are therefore more concerned with logic and epistemology than ethics. The word nyaya means that by which the mind is led to a conclusion.

The Nyaya school formed about the fourth century BC with the Nyaya Sutras by Gautama. The first sentence declares that supreme happiness is attained by knowledge of the sixteen categories which are right knowledge, objects of knowledge, doubt, purpose, example, tenets, inference, confutation, ascertainment, discussion, sophistry, cavil, fallacy, quibble, futile rejoinder, and losing arguments. Knowledge comes from perception, inference, comparison, and verbal testimony. Objects of knowledge are self, body, sense organs, sense objects, intellect, mind, activity, defects, rebirth, fruit, pain, and release.

The soul is distinct from the sense organs and the mind which it uses to make judgments with the aid of memory. Judgments and actions are transitory but produce karma, which causes the union of the soul with the body, the soul transmigrating from a dead body to another birth. Gautama recognized the soul as the cause of the body but also acknowledged parents and food as other causes as well. Ethical concerns can be found in the discussion of the defects and the means of liberation. Gautama mentioned three categories of defects as attachment, aversion, and misconception.

Vatsyayana, who wrote the first commentary on the Nyaya Sutras in the 4th century CE, explained that attachment can come from lust, jealousy, avarice, greed, and covetousness; aversion from anger, envy, malice, hatred, and resentment; and misconception from wrong apprehension, suspicion, pride, and negligence. Gautama considered misconception the worst sin, because without it attachment and aversion do not occur. By fruit Gautama referred to what is produced by activity and defects. These results of action (karma) may occur immediately or after a long interval. Release is defined as the absolute deliverance from pain.

Release does not occur though because of debts, afflictions, and activities. However, when knowledge is attained, wrong notions and defects disappear, removing pain and bringing about release. Since false concepts are the cause of the chain of events that leads to pain, correct knowledge is the solution. Even hatred of pain and attachment to pleasure can bind one. The activities of mind, speech, and body must be good and not bad but must also be performed without attachment. Selfishness is associated with false concepts, and virtuous actions emphasize the soul rather than the body and its senses.

True knowledge comes from meditation, which is prepared for by good deeds. Gautama recommended practicing yoga in forests, caves, and on riverbanks. To attain final release the soul may be embellished by the restraints and observances of the internal discipline learned from yoga. Study and friendly discussion with those learned in knowledge is also suggested. The Vaishesika philosophy is considered the oldest of the six orthodox schools and may even be pre-Buddhist. The Vaishesika Sutras by Kanada were written shortly before Gautama’s Nyaya Sutras.

The word vishesa means particularity, and this philosophy emphasizes the significance of individuals. Vaishesika recognizes three objects of experience as having real objective existence, namely substance, quality, and activity, and three products of intellectual discrimination which are generality, particularity, and combination. The reality of the soul is inferred from the discernment that consciousness cannot be a property of the body, senses, or mind. However, the life of the soul’s knowing, feeling, and willing is only found where the body is.

Each soul experiences the consequences of its own actions, resulting in the differences between individuals, from which the plurality of souls is inferred. Even liberated souls maintain unique characteristics in the Vaishesika philosophy. The Vaishesika Sutra begins with the idea that virtue (dharma) is the means by which prosperity and salvation are attained, but it acknowledges the authority of the Vedas as the word of God that leads to this prosperity and salvation. As with Nyaya the supreme good results from knowledge, in this case of the six predicables – substance, quality, activity, generality, particularity, and combination.

In addition to the four traditional elements of earth, water, fire, and air, they name ether (akasha), time, space, soul, and mind as the only other substances. One need not fall back on the scriptures to know the existence of the soul, because the expression of “I” makes its reality clear. The qualities are color, taste, smell, touch, numbers, size, separation, conjunction and disjunction, priority and posteriority, understanding, pleasure and pain, desire and aversion, and volition. Activity is going up or down, contracting, expanding, and motion.

Action (karma) is opposed by its effect which is how it is neutralized. Individuals are only responsible for voluntary actions; actions from organic life are considered involuntary. Worldly good is attained by ceremonial piety, but spiritual value is found by insight. The highest pleasure of the wise is found in independence from all agencies involving memory, desire, and reflection, and this knowledge results from peacefulness of mind, contentment, and virtue. Pleasure and pain result from the contact between soul, senses, the mind, and objects.

When the mind becomes steady in the soul through yoga, pain can be prevented. Liberation (moksha) is not having any conjunction with the body and no potential for a body so that rebirth cannot take place. The traditional character of this school can be seen from the actions recommended for achieving merit. Ablution, fast, abstinence (brahmacharya), residence in the family of the preceptor, life of retirement in the forest, sacrifice, gift, oblation, directions, constellations, seasons, and religious observances conduce to invisible fruit.

Progress comes from virtue (dharma), but even this has consequences which neutralize it; for ultimate release cannot occur until even virtue is eradicated in selfless insight. So long as one is dominated by desire and aversion, virtue and its opposite are stored up, preventing liberation. When one realizes that all objects that seem either attractive or repulsive are merely compounds of atoms, their power over one ceases. True knowledge of the soul dispels self-interest in universal awareness. Each soul reaps the harvest of its deeds in this life or a future one, but with liberation it becomes absolutely free.

The awareness of the seer is the vision of perfection which results from virtue. Mimamsa and Vedanta The Mimamsa philosophy is also very ancient, and the Mimsama Sutra by Jaimini was written about the 4th century BC. This text begins with the subject of dharma, which the Vedas consider the means most conducive to the highest good. Dharma transcends sense perception, because the senses only perceive what exists in the present; dharma in the Mimamsa philosophy has a metaphysical reality that carries into the future. The soul also transcends the body, senses, and mind, being omnipresent, eternal, and many.

In Mimamsa the soul is the agent that causes all movement of the body. Like in Vaishesika, salvation occurs when the fruits of all good and bad actions are exhausted and the generation of new effects is stopped. However, in Mimamsa Vedic prayers, rituals, and sacrifices are emphasized as the means of achieving this. Women as well as men were allowed to perform sacrifices, but Sudras were still forbidden. In the ancient Mimamsa philosophy the experience of happiness in heaven was the ultimate goal. Mimamsa is based on the revelation in the Vedas, which are considered as eternal as the world.

The metaphysics of this ethics even comes close to replacing God as the source of all action that governs the universe. Essentially everything is determined by character (dharma) or lack of it through the law of karma or action with its consequences. Not only is the soul as the agent of action real, but the action itself is a spiritual reality that transcends space and time, determining the nature of the universe. This unseen force is called apurva which means something new, extraordinary, or unknown. Thus dharma or action (karma) supports the universe.

If it is ethically right, it produces enjoyment; if it is wrong, then suffering is experienced. This force (shakti) of dharma or karma is extraordinary and unseen. The universe being eternal is not created by this force, but it is shaped by it. A unity to this universal force is posited to control and guide individuals in a single cosmic harmony. Yet humans are free and determine their own destiny by their actions. The karma from past actions does not limit free choices but is like capital that can be spent in various ways as it is resolved. The soul usually carries a mixture of good and evil consequences, and these may cancel each other.

Obligations are actions which must be performed, or one gets demerit, though there is no merit for doing them. Prohibited actions if done also cause demerit, but if avoided likewise do not give merit. Optional actions may produce merit or demerit according to their consequences. Focusing primarily on the spiritual effects of rituals the Mimamsa philosophy relies on the Dharma Sutras for guidance in worldly ethical questions. The Vedanta school complements Mimamsa’s focus on the Vedas and sacrifices by illuminating the knowledge of the Upanishads as the “end of the Vedas,” which is what Vedanta means.

The Vedanta Sutra written between the 500 and 200 BC by Badarayana is also called the Brahma Sutra since it discusses knowledge of Brahman (Spirit) and sometimes Shariraka Sutra because it concerns the embodiment of the unconditioned self. The Vedanta Sutra attempts to clarify the meaning of the Upanishads and is rather terse, but it has been made famous by the commentaries written by the great Vedanta philosophers of the middle ages, Shankara, Ramanuja, and Madhva. If the way of action derives from the Mimamsa theory of karma, Vedanta suggests a way of knowledge by the soul of Spirit.

The first chapter of the Vedanta Sutra describes Brahman as the central reality and creator of the world and the individual souls. The second chapter answers objections and explains the world’s dependence on God and its evolution back into Brahman. The third chapter suggests ways of knowing Brahman, and the fourth chapter indicates the rewards or fruits of knowing this Spirit. Badarayana is traditional in that he believed knowledge comes from scripture (sruti) and other authorities (smriti), though sruti as revelation is identified with perception and smriti as interpretation with inference.

Scripture refers to the Vedas and smriti to the Bhagavad-Gita, Mahabharata, and Laws of Manu. Reason for Badarayana must conform to the Vedas, but it is nonetheless subordinate to intuitive knowledge, which can come from devotion and meditation. Brahman as Spirit is considered the light of the soul, which is also eternal, though Brahman is distinguished from the intelligent soul and the unintelligent material things. As in Mimamsa individuals are responsible for their own actions and thus determine their own happiness or suffering. The soul is affected by pleasure and pain, but the highest Lord is not.

Injunctions and prohibitions exist because of the connection of the soul with the body. Ethical action helps the soul attain a body fit for knowledge of Brahman which then may be attained through service, renunciation, and meditation. Meditation on the highest yields unity with the infinite and knowledge of Spirit (Brahman), enabling one to stop producing karma and end the cycle of karma and reincarnation. Badarayana combined earlier views of Brahman as indeterminate intelligence and a definite personal Lord. While developing itself in the universe Brahman is still transcendent.

Though Brahman is in individual souls, it is not polluted by their defects. Human purpose comes through knowledge of Brahman which also results in bliss and the nullification of works (karma). To obtain knowledge one must be calm and in control of the senses. Works can be combined with knowledge, but those performing them must not be overcome by passion. Knowledge may also be promoted through special acts such as prayer, devotion, and fasting. Meditation though should focus not on symbols of the soul but the reality. Through immobile meditation thoughtfulness and concentration are increased, and meditation needs to be practiced up to death.

By resolving karma through knowledge oneness with Brahman is attained. At death the liberated soul is released from the body and does not return to another. Samkhya and Yoga Kapila, the legendary founder of the Samkhya school, is said to have been an incarnation of Vishnu or Agni; he probably lived during the seventh century BC at the time of the early Upanishads. Kapila was endowed with virtue, knowledge, renunciation, and supernatural power, and taking pity on humanity, he taught the Samkhya doctrine to the Brahmin Asuri, who is mentioned in the Satapatha Brahmana as an expert in sacrificial rituals.

The Samkhya knowledge of discerning the spirit from nature is explained in the Shvetashvatara Upanishad. The word samkhya means discriminating knowledge and came to mean number as an exact form of knowledge. In Asvaghosha’s Life of the Buddha (Buddhacarita), Siddartha is taught Samkhya ideas during his ascetic phase. Aradha described nature (prakriti) as consisting of the five subtle elements, the ego, intellect, the unmanifest, the external objects of the five senses, the five senses, the hands, feet, voice, anus, generative organ, and the mind.

All of these make up the field which is to be known by the soul. Worldly existence is caused by ignorance, the merits and demerits of former actions, and desire. He then explained the problems of mistakes, egoism, confusion, fluctuation (thinking that mind and actions are the same as the “I”), indiscrimination (between the illumined and the unwise), false means (rituals and sacrifices), inordinate attachment, and gravitation (possessiveness). The wise must learn to distinguish the manifested from the unmanifested.

When the prince asked how this is to be accomplished, Aradha explained the practice of yoga. Though an orthodox Hindu school, Samkhya did criticize the killing of animals in the sacrifices. Samkhya ideas also appeared in the Mahabharata in the portions known as the Bhagavad-Gita and the Mokshadharma from book 12. In the latter the intellect (buddhi) controlled by the spirit (purusha) evolves the mind (manas), the senses, and then the gross elements. The three qualities found in all beings are goodness (sattva), passion (rajas), and darkness (tamas).

Goodness brings pleasure, passion pain, and darkness apathy. The knower of the field is emphasized as the spirit (purusha) or soul (atman), and Samkhya and yoga are considered two aspects (knowledge and practice) of the same philosophy. The standard 25 Samkhya principles are enumerated as the eight material principles and the sixteen modifications completed by the all-important spirit (purusha) or unmanifest knower of the field. Ethically the Mokshadharma explains the Samkhya follower as:

In meditation the soul may be seen by the yoga of concentration and the Samkhya yoga of discriminating reason as well as the yoga of works. By knowing all the courses of the world one may turn away from the senses so that after leaving the body that one will be saved, according to the Samkhya view. Disciplined purity and compassion to all creatures are important; the weak may perish, but the strong get free. The field-knower governs all the strands of the material world. Making thought come to rest by meditation, perfected in knowledge and calm, one goes to the immortal place.

The elaborated Samkhya doctrine is attributed to Pancashikha, but the earliest Samkhya text is the Samkhya Karika from the second or third century CE by Ishvara Krishna. According to this text the three qualities of goodness (sattva), activity (rajas), and ignorance (tamas) whose natures are pleasure, pain, and delusion serve the purpose of illumination, action, and restraint. The great principle of intellect (buddhi) which evolves the world, in its good (sattvic) form has virtue, wisdom, non-attachment, and lordly powers, but the reverse are its dark (tamasic) forms.

Yet it is the will that accomplishes the spirit’s experiences and discriminates the subtle difference between nature (prakriti) and spirit (purusha). Uniting with the all-embracing power of nature, causes and effects lead to virtue and ascent to the higher planes or vice and descent to lower. Goodness comes from wisdom, bondage from the opposite. Attachment and activity lead to transmigration. Attainments come from correct reasoning, oral instruction by a teacher, study, the suppression of misery, intercourse with friends, and purity.

Sattva predominates in the worlds above, tamas in those below, and rajas in the middle with the pain of decay and death. Evolution from the will down to specific elements modifies nature and emancipates each spirit. Just as one undertakes action in the world to release the desire for satisfaction, so does the unevolved function for the liberation of the spirit. Thus spirit is never really bound or liberated nor does it transmigrate; only nature in its manifold forms is bound, migrates, or is liberated.

The pure spirit, resting like a spectator perceives nature which has ceased to be productive and by discriminating knowledge turns back from the dispositions. When virtue and other karma cease to function, the spirit of the individual remains invested with the body by past impressions; but when separation from the body comes, its purpose is fulfilled as it attains eternal and absolute independence. The practice of yoga in India is very ancient, probably even pre-Aryan. Yoga is mentioned in several Upanishads and its philosophy is described in the great epics, particularly in the Bhagavad-Gita portion of the Mahabharata.

The classic text for what is called the royal (raja) yoga is Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras, probably written in the second century BC, although scholarly estimates range from the fourth century BC to the fourth century CE. The word yoga has the same origin as the English word “yoke” and means union. In the Katha Upanishad the senses are to be controlled as spirited horses are by a yoke. The raja yoga tersely described by Patanjali as having eight limbs is considered the psychological yoga.

The Yoga Sutras begin with the idea that yoga (union) is the control of the modifications of consciousness; this enables the seer to stand in one’s own form instead of identifying with the modifications. The five modifications are knowledge (perception, inference, and testimony), error (ideas not formed from reality), imagination (ideas without objects), sleep, and memory (experienced objects). These are controlled by practice and detachment. Practice requires constant attention for a long time, and detachment comes from getting free of the desire for experiences.

Mastery of this comes from the spirit overcoming the qualities. Meditation can be reasoning, discriminating, and joyful awareness of the unity of the universe and self or cessation by renunciation and constantly dissolving impressions, resulting in undifferentiated existence, bodilessness, absorption in the supreme, or faith, enthusiasm, memory, and wisdom. Intense practice brings the best results, or it may be achieved by surrendering to the Lord. The perfect spirit of the Lord is untouched by afflictions, actions, and their results; it is the infinite seed of omniscience beyond time, and its symbol is the sacred word.

Constant practice of that brings cosmic consciousness and the absence of obstacles. The obstacles that distract consciousness are disease, laziness, indecision, apathy, lethargy, craving sense-pleasure, erroneous perception, lack of concentration, and unstable attention. These distractions are accompanied by sorrow, worry, restlessness, and irregular breathing. Cultivating the feelings of friendship, compassion, joy, and equanimity toward those who are happy, suffering, worthy, and unworthy purifies consciousness, as does breathing in and out.

Subtle vision modifies the higher consciousness by bringing the mind stability, as does the transcendent inner light, the awareness that controls passions, the analytical knowledge of dreams and sleep, and concentration according to choice. The lessened modifications become transparent and transformed, and the memory is purified and empty so that objects shine without thought. The subtle elements become undefinable nature in the meditation with seed. Beyond discrimination the oversoul is blessed with direct truth, which is different from verbal inferences.

This impression prevents all other impressions, and control of even this controls everything in seedless meditation. The practice of yoga and meditation is enhanced by discipline, self-study, and surrender to the Lord in order to remove obstacles such as ignorance, egoism, attachment, aversion, and clinging to life. Obstacles result in action patterns that cause suffering in this life and the next, as virtue and vice bear the fruits of pleasure and pain; but concentration overcomes their effects. Future suffering can be avoided if the perceiver does not identify with the perceived.

Discriminating undisturbed intelligence removes ignorance and suffering by the absence of identity and the freedom of the perceiver. The practice of union proceeds through the eight steps of restraint, observances, posture, breath control, sublimation, attention, concentration, and meditation. The restraints are not injuring, lying, stealing, lusting, nor possessing and are called the universal great vows we have often seen before. The second step of observances involves cleanliness, contentment, discipline, self-study, and surrender to the Lord.

Patanjali suggested that destructive instincts may be overcome by cultivating the opposites of greed, anger, or delusion. In confirming nonviolence the presence of hostility is relinquished. Not lying brings work and its fruits, not stealing riches, not lusting vigor, and from not possessing comes knowledge of past and future lives. Cleanliness brings protection of one’s body, goodness purified becomes serenity, and single-mindedness conquers the senses. Being content gains happiness. Discipline perfects the senses and destroys impurities.

By self-study one may commune with the divine ideal, and meditation is successfully identifying with the Lord. Stable and pleasant postures (asanas) release tension and transform thought. Regulating the inhalation and exhalation of the breath (pranayama) prepares the mind for attention. By withdrawing consciousness from its own objects the senses are sublimated (pratyahara) and under control. The last three steps of attention (dharana), concentration (dhyana), and meditation (samadhi) are the same as the last three steps of the Buddha’s eightfold path.

Attention is defined by Patanjali as the original focus of consciousness, concentration as continuing awareness there, and meditation as when that shines light alone in its own empty form. These three work as one in inner control leading to wisdom and are the psychological steps. As the control of destructive instincts and impressions evolves, the flow of consciousness becomes calm by habit, and oneness arises in meditation. As this oneness evolves, past and present become similar in the conscious awareness. Patanjali then described various psychic abilities that can be attained from the practice of yoga.

Supernatural powers may come from birth, drugs, chanting, discipline, or meditation. Yet he warned that worldly powers are obstacles to meditation. Only the knowledge of discriminating between goodness and spirit brings omnipotence and omniscience, and only from detachment to that is the seed of bondage destroyed in freedom. The soul of the discriminating perceiver is completely detached from emotion and mind so that with serene discrimination the consciousness can move toward freedom. Finally the evolution of transforming qualities fulfills its purpose and stops, cognized as a distinct transformation.

Patanjali concluded, This yoga text has been tremendously influential in India and beyond, and is in my opinion a very positive guide to spiritual liberation as well as being beneficial to ethical development. Bhagavad Gita The Bhagavad-Gita, which means the Song of the Lord, was written between the second century BC and the second century CE. It synthesized many ideas from the Samkhya philosophy and practice of yoga, but it is also claimed by Vedanta and Hindu philosophy in general as its greatest work on spirituality.

The text is actually contained in Book 6 of the epic poem Mahabharata, which tells the story of the great civil war that may have occurred in India as early as about 1400 BC or as late as about 900. These stories will be discussed in the next chapter, but the dramatic context for the dialog between the warrior Arjuna and his charioteer Krishna is the beginning of the actual battle between the rival ruling families, the Kauruvas and Pandavas. The Bhagavad-Gita is narrated by the sage Sanjaya, who clairvoyantly perceives what is going on and relates it to the blind King Dhritarashtra.

Krishna is an uncle and friend of the Pandavas, but remaining neutral he allowed one side to use his vassals in battle, while the Pandava Arjuna got to have him as charioteer although he would not fight himself. By the time this was written Krishna was considered an incarnation of the god Vishnu, the preserver, and he teaches Arjuna several kinds of yoga for achieving union with God. This is the earliest work that emphasized the religious worship of God through devotion to an avatar or incarnation of God which developed into the Vaishnavite faith in medieval Hinduism.

The poem begins with Dhritarashtra asking Sanjaya what is happening not only on the field of Kuru but also on the field of dharma (virtue, duty). Sanjaya describes how both armies are arrayed against each other blowing their conch horns to show their readiness to fight. Then Arjuna asked Krishna to position his chariot between the two armies, and there he saw many of his relatives on the other side, causing him to feel faint and consider not fighting.

Even though the others are killing, Arjuna does not think it would be worth it to do so, even for sovereignty of the three worlds, let alone an earthly kingdom. Evil would come to him, he says, if he should kill his relatives. How could this bring happiness? This family destruction is wrong and would destroy ancient family duties and bring on lawlessness, which would lead to corruption of the women and caste mixing. Why should he kill for greed of royal pleasures? It would be greater happiness for him to be killed unresisting and unarmed. Thus Arjuna’s mind was overcome by sorrow.

Kant starts off making two distinctions regarding kinds of knowledge, empirical/rational and formal/material. Empirical or experience-based knowledge is contrasted with rational knowledge, which is independent of experience. This distinction between empirical and rational knowledge rests on a difference in sources of evidence used to support the two different kinds of knowledge. Formal is contrasted with material knowledge. Formal knowledge has no specific subject matter; it is about the general structure of thinking about any subject matter whatsoever.

Material knowledge is of a specific subject matter, either nature or freedom. Rational knowledge is metaphysics, of which there are two branches, the metaphysics of nature and of morals. The metaphysics of nature is supposed to provide rational knowledge of the laws of nature. These are not empirical laws; they are more like universal principles of nature that any empirical physical would presuppose, such as that no event in nature occurs without a natural cause. The metaphysics of freedom is supposed to provide knowledge of the laws of freedom.

These are the universal rules, which free agents devise to govern them. Thus, Kant’s grounding, his initial attempt at a critique of rational reason, is an investigation of the possibility of purely rational knowledge of morals. Take, for example, the Moral Rule: Thou shalt not lie. If the moral law is valid as the basis of moral obligation or duty, then it must be necessary. Kant using the word “necessity” means that the rule obligates or binds whatever the conditions or in all circumstances.

It also means that the rule applies to all rational beings and not only to human beings. In this second sense we can say that the rule is universally binding. So in fact, moral rules are universal and necessary. If a moral rule is to be universal and necessary, the moral law must be derived from concepts of pure reason alone. Therefore, if a moral rule or law can only be derived from reason alone, there must be a pure moral philosophy whose task is to provide such a derivation.

In the “Grounding”, Kant sets himself the task of establishing the “supreme principle of morality” from which to make such a derivation. According to Kant good will and only a good will is intrinsically good. Kant distinguishes two different types of intrinsic or extrinsic goods. If a thing is only extrinsically good, then it is possible for that thing not to be good, or to be bad or evil. Intrinsic goodness is goodness in itself; if a thing is intrinsically good, its goodness is essential to it; and its goodness is not a function of factors other than itself.

Kant holds that only a good will, not happiness, is intrinsically good. The idea that it is reason rather than natural impulse that guides action for the sake of happiness is false. Parts of a person perform their functions by surviving and this provides happiness for the person. Reason functions poorly in serving that purpose; instinct does better job. Natural instinct rather than reason provides better for happiness. Kant distinguishes between having a reason to act and acting for a reason. The motivating reason is the reason for which agent acts.

A justifying reason is the reason that justifies, warrants, and provides the criterion of rightness for the action. The agent’s motivating reason might or might not provide a justifying reason for his action. Kant then defines three types of motivating reasons. One type of non-moral motivation is natural motivation. Action in accord with duty is motivated by immediate or direct inclination. Direct inclination includes such motives as love, sympathy, instinct for self-preservation, or the desire for happiness. The other type of non-moral motivation is prudence.

An action in accord with duty, but motivated by prudence, is action motivated by the pursuit of self-interest or happiness. Since all human beings naturally desire happiness, prudential motivation is indirectly motivated by a natural motivation. Moral motivation is the third type of motivation. The action is not only in accord with duty, but motivated by duty, done from duty, or for sake of duty. The agent’s motivating reason, the reason for which he acts, is that the action is what morality demands and he wants above all to do what reason demands.

From Descartes’ perspective, nature is a representation of God; therefore, God must intrinsically exist, inasmuch as he, too, is a product of His own creation. Descartes was one of many philosophers who fully supported this argument in support of God’s existence, contending that the external world is the ruling force behind the presence of all beings.

Descartes’ assertions, as portrayed within the literary boundaries of Meditations on First Philosophy, were founded not in cosmological or ontological arguments but rather in teleological debate, inasmuch as the philosopher believed hat there has to be an omnipotent entity responsible for all the purpose and order that is found within natural existence and, thereby, stimulating a sense of wonder about the world.

One of the primary reasons why Meditation III brings forth such a sense of wonder is because Descartes’ philosophical writings followed a very distinctive trail, one that pursued a path of purity and sincerity. He believed deeply in the value of ethics as it related to humans within the natural world, and his concept of forming an adequate ethical code was thought to be the only way in hich people could truly base their value system.

Within this natural world of which he spoke, Descartes theorized that knowledge was the ultimate controller of the environment, thus supporting the teleological argument as proof of God. He persevered and postulated as to how he could at last seal the overwhelming gap that existed between thought and action. It was through his writings that Descartes exercised the possibility that all thought and action are interconnected, bringing to mind the view of science and how it undoubtedly demonstrated the same evidence.

Characteristic of humanity’s constant quest for the oncept of God’s existence, the journey of understanding has come to represent myriad things to myriad people, ultimately rendering any universal explanation virtually impossible. The problem with such sought-after meaning is attempting to successfully pinpoint a single yet comprehensive connotation to its concept; however, this cannot be achieved as long as any two individuals harbor decidedly different interpretations.

I shall now close my eyes, I shall stop my ears, I shall call away all my senses, I shall efface even from my thoughts all the images of corporeal things, or t least (for that is hardly possible) I shall esteem them as vain and false; and thus holding converse only with myself and considering my own nature, I shall try little by little to reach a better knowledge of and a more familiar acquaintanceship with myself” (Descartes PG).

Inasmuch as Descartes provides a naturalistic theory for God’s existence, which is based upon human nature’s philosophical reasoning, this form of mitigated conviction is what essentially supports his stance on God’s existence through teleology. When discussing alternate restriction on philosophical position, it is important to consider the undamental basis of Descartes’ principles as a means by which to ascertain a clear and concise impression of the philosopher’s intent.

Indeed, it can readily be argued that Descartes held a strong belief in universal infiltration of one’s existence; however, it was also quite obvious that he parted ways with myriad other theorists when it came to the issues of proof of God by any other explanation than teleology. Once an individual realizes that thoughts can connect form as well as ideas and that everything in the universe is vibrating energy, then one is able to grasp the rational oncept that God truly does exist.

I ought in no wise to doubt the truth of such matters, if, after having called up all my senses, my memory, and my understanding, to examine them, nothing is brought to evidence by any one of them which is repugnant to what is set forth by the others. For because God is in no wise a deceiver, it follows that I am not deceived in this” (Descartes PG). With this internal insight, one can better attune to the natural balance of which all entities are a part, striving to bring a sense of balance and harmony within.

All of this is readily ccomplished by focusing upon what one wants to envision, as well as the belief that without God’s existence there would be no tangible world. The ways in which Meditation III has encouraged a sense of wonder about the world is through Descartes’ lucid images. The way to accept God’s existence is not shown through emotions but through the Higher Mind, through the faculty of intrinsic belief. Feelings can be misleading for they are often nothing more than reactions from the lower self.

As an example, even a sentimental emotion disguised as love can be an improper stimulus for action. A strong personal desire can also evoke an emotional response, which would be interpreted as a divine signal to move toward the goal, even while the higher Mind is suggesting a different plan of fulfillment. From this point, one may perceive that the mind rather than emotions represents the path of divine guidance; however, the mind, too, may represent a pitfall with regard to mental reasoning and analytical thinking. Hence there remains only the idea of God, concerning which we must consider whether it is something which cannot have proceeded from me myself.

By the name God I understand a substance that is infinite [eternal, immutable], independent, all-knowing, all-powerful, and by which I myself and everything else, if anything else does exist, have been created. Now all these characteristics are such that the more diligently I attend to them, the less do they appear capable of proceeding from me alone; hence, from what has been already said, we must conclude that God necessarily exists” (Descartes PG).

Descartes illustrates how human beings are the very source of thought, the eternal connection to the divine intelligence that is inside, in front of and behind all orm. Our willingness to say yes, to be positive, unafraid to take the next step, to go with our internal intuition is all part and parcel of what God has created within the scope of nature, bestowing the power to co-create with that divine intelligence as a universal essence.

When assessing the critical components of utilizing teleology as a means by which to prove God’s existence, it is important to also look at oneself as but a minute element in the overall scheme. “From this it is quite clear that, notwithstanding the supreme goodness of God, the nature of man, inasmuch as it s composed of mind and body, cannot be otherwise than sometimes a source of deception” (Descartes PG).

Also important to remember is that in accordance with the teleological argument, one’s subconscious mind has the duty to manifest whatever the conscious mind puts its attention upon. God is an entity of His own artistic creation; thus, His existence is a truth for the very reason that it was His efforts that enabled all other entities to exist, as well. Also known as the design argument, one can readily contend that nature is superior to art; as such, nature represents no less a form of divine art.

The word philosophy, by definition, is extremely vague and ambiguous. It can be related to anything to do with thought, perception, and even basic human existence. Therefore, in defining philosophy, perhaps it is easier to simply state what it may or may not involve rather than trying to find a concrete and simplified definition.

Philosophy includes the studies of logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology. Logic deals with the principles and systems of reasoning. It is the method by which we deduce and interpret information. Ethics involves the principles of morals and the judgment of good and bad conduct. Aesthetics is the appreciation of artistic beauty and taste. Metaphysics examines the nature of reality and its relationship to the supernatural. Epistemology studies the very nature of knowledge itself.

Through its development, philosophy has also touched virtually every intellectual discipline possible. These include, but are by no means limited to: science, mathematics, psychology, religion and theology, literature, politics, history, and the arts. It is easy to see how the lines from a particular discipline to philosophy can be somewhat blurred.

It is difficult to truly grasp the enormity of what philosophy can include. Perhaps an appropriate definition may be the study of the most fundamental principles of knowledge and reality. But this explanation does not seem to provide an adequate scope of what the discipline entails. Philosophy touches everything and everyone, every thought and every conception. And it is only through its study and everyday use that we are able to fully understand its extraordinary scale.