#Main - Lecture by Journal |
Foundations 102Foundations 102 index page. Representation and Reality - A general introduction. Bacon, The New Organon Rousseau, "Discourse on Inequality". Kant, "What is Enlightenment?"; "The Declaration of Independence". Jane Austen's World The Many Faces we put on Jane Austen Nietzsche's Attack on the Abuses of “History”German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche believed humans differ from all other animals because humans can remember. It is this capability to record past experiences which makes us an uniquely historical specie. In his treatise On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life , Nietzsche criticizes the abuse of history by European scholars of his time. For Nietzsche, the study of history is necessary for the progress of humanity, but that disciple must be used correctly, namely in the service of life. People must be able to remember as well as forget in order to be strong and lead healthy lives. Nietzsche's philosophy has important implications concerning all human learning and all human actions. The study of history is the human's systematic compiling of past experience into knowledge. Nietzsche describes the scope of what we remember, understand and master as our horizon. (Nietzsche, 1970: 10) and it is within this horizon we engage in existence. The mastery of previous experience is our specie's ultimate advantage over all other species. Nietzsche saw three ways to approach history; the monumental approach, the antiquarian approach and the critical approach. These approaches each serve a purpose for the advancement of life. “The demand that history be a science” (Nietzsche, 1970: 23) have perverted the disciple, so that scholars no longer pursuit historical knowledge for application in life, but study history for the sake of history. “Each of the three kinds of history is justified in only one soil and one climate: in every other it grows into a noxious weed.”(Nietzsche, 1970: 18) Nietzsche argues against the science of history that has been careless transplanted which stifling human vitality during his time. Where Hegel saw the pinnacle of human achievement in historical education, Nietzsche saw its dead end. Nietzsche argues that education is a mean to an end in the task of existing, not an end in and of itself. He advocates the idea of Vitalism; it is the idea that all knowledge should serve life and bring action. All learning must take place under the pretext that it contributes to life. “(Only) through the power to use the past for life and to refashion what has happened into history, does man become man.”(Nietzsche, 1970: 11) History is worthless if it doesn't contribute to the future. Since in all actions a measure of forgetfulness is necessary, total historical sense completely destroys our ability to act. Nietzsche argues that people, especially youth, must be able forget in order to act and perform on the stage of history. I believe Nietzsche's greatest insight is that human beings must learn historically and yet must act unhistorically. This insight has important implications concerning how modern academia functions, and how human society utilize knowledge generally. Through Nietzsche's work we can discern two opposing forces, remembering and forgetting, which shape human endeavor. Knowledge is acquired through the function of remembering. This applies for all types of human knowledge, not just historical knowledge. Action is facilitated through the function of forgetting. More precisely, it is the abandonment of doubts, fears and opposition that comes with knowledge. Nietzsche's image of the historical horizon is a good model to illustrate the need for cautious balance between remembering and forgetting. The animal which has no memory has little horizon, and therefore has minimal hesitation in action. Nietzsche argues that the animal is quite happy, or at least blissfully ignorant, while living in a horizon that is almost a point. (Nietzsche, 1970: 11) The animal's antithesis is the scholar with absolute historical awareness who is drowns in the sea of past facts constantly contemplating justice while never taking action. These scholars are overwhelmed and destroyed by the constantly expanding vastness of their horizons. In order to use historical knowledge, we must learn to forget as well as remember. (Nietzsche, 1970: 10) Nietzsche's argument is thus, “the unhistorical and the historical are equally necessary for the health of an individual, a people and a culture.”(Nietzsche, 1970: 10) I believe that Nietzsche is quite right about both of these extreme, as well as the need combine both of these forces, but he is not careful enough in drawing a balance between these. In the final chapter of On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life, Nietzsche appeals to the youth for an intellectual revolution of historical education. He compares the historical and scientific knowledge imparted upon the youth of his day to blinding light. (Nietzsche, 1970: 41) The light of reason which is supposed to grant vision instead causes blindness, leaving the youth paralyzed and incapable of living healthily. He calls for the youth to realize the emptiness of their education, to forget all the past powers which constraint them, and to create culture and history anew with their own hands. This philosophy, however, can become very dangerous to life and humanity which it claims to champion. Since Nietzsche's work itself is a piece of history, we can analyze Nietzsche's philosophy with the frame of the historical approaches he defined. Monumental history inspires, so that there is hope for future greatness. Antiquarian history preserves, so that the past can be admired by the future. Critical history demolishes, so that the future has room to grow. Nietzsche's work is very much inspired by monumental history, and his work itself is a piece of critical history aimed at the destruction and reconstruction of the education project. There is definitely a lot of action here, but in this process the antiquarian approach to history is overwhelmed. Everywhere in his work Nietzsche talks of greatness, of culture, of the attainment of humanity. Can all human beings truly pursue greatness purely by resolving to act unhistorically? Should the pursuit of historical fame be the sole goal of all societies and peoples? I believe Nietzsche's philosophy is not balanced enough to accommodate the life of a less-than-great person. This obsessive strive towards greatness, however noble, is also detrimental to life generally. The animal is not armed with historical knowledge, and therefore can live quite blissfully while forgetting everything. Human beings armed with historical knowledge are much more dangerous, and needs to be very cautious in choosing precisely what they can forget. Heavy artillery is a product of historical knowledge. Sixty five million unhistorical youths wielding heavy artillery performed a disastrous piece of monumental history in the early twentieth century. These youths, judging from their limited historical horizons drenched in national patriotism, resolved to take up arms against those they perceived as their enemies. Their forgetful leaders, looking for a teaching position in the temple of history (Nietzsche, 1970: 15), neglected to tell them otherwise. Nietzsche quotes from Wagner's opera Die Meistersinger von Nurnberg that “all things great indeed ‘without some madness ne'er succeed.'” (Nietzsche, 1970: 40) The First World War would be such madness at its best. History has been made, but at what cost? Although wars are extreme examples of the dangers in imbalance, they allow us to see clearly the more dangerous implications of Nietzsche's philosophy. Nietzsche argues against monumental history which worships the dead while despising the living. Against antiquarian history which chokes further creation. Against critical history which only leads to more critical history. Against the obsessive science of history that does not bring life. The Latin quote “fiat veritas pereat vita,” (Nietzsche, 1970: 23) meaning ‘let there be truth, and may life perish,' stands perfectly as the antithesis of Nietzsche's argument. Nietzsche makes a very good case against the excess of historical remembrance, but I believe that we need to be equally cautious in guarding against the excess of irresponsible forgetfulness. Knowledge is a dangerous tool which only becomes more dangerous as it increases. Therefore the role of the academic should not be to mechanically gather knowledge, nor to simply apply all knowledge, but to carefully analyze knowledge in order to apply it without destruction. The drive to create history, like the pursuit of historical knowledge, is just another mean to an end in the task of life. Life contains moments of greatness as well as the moments of mundanity, and our approach to history and knowledge should reflect such a balance. The Matrix as a Narrative Medium for PhilosophyWhat is the nature of reality and truth? What is the value of human progress? What is freedom? These big philosophical questions are notoriously difficult to deal with, and have perplexed philosophers like Plato, Descartes, Rousseau, Kant, and Marx through out the ages. Elaborate narratives were used by these philosophers in order to contemplate these questions and conduct thought experiments. The invention of film and cinema has created a sensational medium in which these narratives can be constructed. In the science fiction action thriller The Matrix, a technological nightmare world is set up and provides us with a starting point from which we can tackle these questions. Science fiction as a genre causes its audience to suspend their disbelief of scientific reality, freeing the film maker to push the menace of the machines to an extreme and explore the philosophical consequences of a machine dominated world. The Matrix is a human progress worst-case scenario, where humans are enslaved by intellectually superior machines of their own invention, trapped inside wire-laden slimy goo, used as batteries and plugged into a computer generated virtual reality. Machines have made people obsolete, both physically and intellectually. What happens to the specie of Homo sapiens when they are no longer drivers in the pursuit of progress? Machines have plugged people into a virtual world, feeding electronic signals to their brains, fooling them into thinking that they live in a world in which they really do not. What is the nature of reality? How do we know we are not just "plugged in?" Machines have trapped people in slimy goo, and then plugged them into the Matrix. Are these people free? Is Cypher the renegade freer inside or outside of the Matrix? The Matrix is a reflection of the social attitudes and the questions we ask ourselves today. We fear and question progress. We value our freedom. We question presented truths and realities. Movies obviously cannot answer our questions, but they do provide new ways of asking and looking at questions. Kant vs Rousseau Comparison Essay - On FreedomThe concept of individual freedom emerged during the Enlightenment movement, and has since become one of the principles of the modern western state. The sovereignty of the state, however, inherently conflicts with the sovereignty of the individual. Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant were two Enlightenment philosophers who attempted to address the issue of freedom in society. Using Kant’s “An Answer to the Question; ‘What is Enlightenment?’” and Rousseau’s “Discourse on the Origins and Foundations of Inequality”, I aim to compare and contrast these two philosopher’s approach on freedom. Rousseau’s idea of freedom is anchored to the idea of independence. Much of the ‘Discourse’ describes the story of human’s progression from equality and individual independence to inequality and social codependence. Rousseau’s ‘Discourse’ tells the story of a time before society, property, and laws; a time when human-kind existed in a “state of nature” where “the fruits of the earth belong to us (human-kind) all.” (Rousseau, 2003: 17). Living in their natural state of total independence, people did what they liked on the open earth; worrying about neither how they affected other people nor how other people affected them. They were, in the most extreme definition of the word, free. ”… free and independent mankind were before, they were
now, in consequence of a multiplicity of new wants, brought under subjection
…” When societies developed, people grew dependent upon their properties, their technologies and their peers for security and subsistence. Their mutual dependence evolved into a social contract, which bounded them to society and its orders. In Rousseau’s view, therefore, the existence of the social state is irreconcilable with the sovereignty of the individual. Contrary to Rousseau, Kant suggests that freedom can exist in modern society. In fact he believes that freedom will lead to Enlightenment, the subject of his paper. A state’s people are free so long as they can exercise their reason without hindrance. Kant acknowledges that a person acting as a member of an institution cannot be free in this sense. Being in an institution such as the church or the military requires an individual to use their reason privately. “When I term the private use of reason is that which a person
may make of it s in a particular civil post of office with which he
is entrusted.” To use one’s reason privately means that personal freedom is subjugated to the purpose of the institute by a contract. A solider is bounded to the military and must obey its order, or the army will fall apart in mutiny. In a similar way, all members of society are bounded by the social contract. Despite this bound, Kant believes people can be free so long as they can think and express themselves freely outside of their obligations as citizens. Kant’s idea of freedom is embodied today in what we call the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. Rousseau’s idea of individual freedom is absolute and rigid, and would therefore clash with any other individual’s absolute freedom. In a meeting of two individuals, both would have their sovereignty diminished. Kant’s idea of freedom is more flexible and compatible within a social context. Kant suggests that some ‘freedoms’ need to be restricted in order for society to be free and enlightened collectively. Rousseau’s ideas about freedom maybe clear and well defined, but I do not believe they are practical or useful. Freedom as Rousseau proposes is not only unattainable, but also, paradoxically, limiting in many ways. As Kant wrote, “A high degree of civil freedom seems advantageous to a people’s intellectual freedom, yet it also sets up insuperable barriers to it.”(Kant, 1970: 59) Rousseau wrote a narrative about people without the social state. It is peaceful, but also imaginary. It is not practical to talk about what a wonderful world it may have been without the institutions in the past. The fact is, in the modern world, institutions such as the state grant people protection from hazards of the modern world. By the social contract, a certain degree of civil freedom is sacrificed to give “intellectual freedom enough room to expand to its fullest extent.”(Kant, 1970: 59) The institution of the state can be compared to a building. A building’s walls and roof limit mobility, but provides security and room for activities that cannot be accomplished outside the protection of the building. Therefore, by surrendering part of their natural, absolute freedom, an individual gains new freedoms and opportunities to do what is impossible in the natural state of human beings. The freedoms that Kant champions are the practical, fundamental freedoms on which a modern state can be built. Works Cited: |