Here are ten interesting historical events that took place on December 28th:
1065: Westminster Abbey in London was consecrated, a significant event in English history.
1832: John C. Calhoun became the first Vice President of the United States to resign, stepping down over political differences with President Andrew Jackson.
1846: Iowa was admitted as the 29th U.S. state.
1895: The Lumière brothers, Auguste and Louis Lumière, held the first public screening of films in Paris, marking the birth of cinema.
1908: An earthquake in Messina, Italy, and the resulting tsunami killed over 70,000 people.
1945: The United States officially recognized the government of José Félix Estigarribia in Paraguay, which had taken power through a coup.
1973: The Endangered Species Act was signed into law by U.S. President Richard Nixon, aiming to protect species at risk of extinction.
1981: Elizabeth Jordan Carr, the first American “test-tube baby,” was born in Norfolk, Virginia.
2000: U.S. retail giant Montgomery Ward announced it was going out of business after 128 years.
2014: Indonesia AirAsia Flight QZ8501 crashed into the Java Sea, killing all 162 people on board.
Thank you for reading my writings. If you’d like to, you can buy me a coffee for just £1 and I will think of you while writing my next post! Just hit the link below…. (thanks in advance)
Can pleasure be measured in terms of quantity as well as quality? What’s more pleasurable to a ten-year-old – a kitten, a teddy bear, or a bar of chocolate? Can we turn a subjective concept like pleasure into an objective measure or comparison? A man called “Jeremy” thought so.
Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) was an English philosopher, jurist, and social reformer, best known for his contributions to utilitarianism. Born in London, Bentham was a leading figure in the fields of ethics and political philosophy during the 18th and 19th centuries.
Bentham’s most influential idea was utilitarianism, a moral and ethical theory that asserts that the best action is the one that maximizes overall happiness or pleasure. According to Bentham, individuals should strive to act in a way that brings about the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. To measure happiness and pleasure, Bentham developed the principle of “hedonistic calculus,” which aimed to quantify and compare the intensity, duration, certainty, and other factors of pleasure and pain.
In addition to his work on ethics, Bentham made significant contributions to legal philosophy. He advocated for legal and social reforms based on utilitarian principles. Bentham believed that laws and institutions should be designed to maximize happiness and minimize suffering in society.
Bentham’s ideas had a profound impact on the development of ethical and legal thought, and his legacy continues to influence discussions on utilitarianism, ethics, and social policy to this day.
Bentham developed a system known as the “Felicific Calculus” to objectively measure pleasure and pain. He proposed that the value or utility of any action, policy, or decision could be quantified and compared based on the amount of pleasure and pain it produced. The Felicific Calculus consisted of several criteria that Bentham believed could be used to evaluate and compare different actions or choices. These criteria included:
Intensity: The strength or intensity of the pleasure or pain experienced as a result of an action. Bentham believed that stronger pleasures or pains should be given greater weight.
Duration: The length of time that the pleasure or pain lasts. Longer-lasting pleasure or pain was considered more valuable.
Certainty or uncertainty: The likelihood that the pleasure or pain will occur. Certain pleasures or pains were considered more valuable than uncertain ones.
Propinquity or remoteness: The nearness or farness in time of the pleasure or pain. Pleasures or pains that are more immediate were given greater weight.
Fecundity: The likelihood that a pleasure will lead to more pleasures in the future or that a pain will lead to more pains. Actions that produced pleasures with higher fecundity were considered more valuable.
Purity: The extent to which an action produces only one type of pleasure or pain rather than a mixture of both. Actions that resulted in “pure” pleasures were considered more valuable.
Extent: The number of people or beings who experience the pleasure or pain as a result of the action. Actions that produced pleasure or prevented pain for a greater number of individuals were considered more valuable.
By using these criteria, Bentham aimed to provide a systematic and objective way to assess and compare the overall utility or goodness of different actions or policies. This utilitarian approach to ethics sought to maximize overall pleasure and minimize pain often referred to as the “greatest happiness principle.” However, it’s important to note that the Felicific Calculus has been subject to criticism and challenges, and not all philosophers or ethicists accept it as a comprehensive or infallible method for measuring pleasure and pain.
However, measuring pleasure in an objective and quantitative manner is challenging because pleasure is a subjective experience. Different individuals may have different preferences, and what brings pleasure to one person may not necessarily do the same for another. Additionally, the quality of pleasure can be influenced by personal, cultural, and contextual factors.
In the case of a ten-year-old and the choices of a kitten, a teddy bear, or a bar of chocolate, the preference for one over the others would likely vary among individuals. Some children might find joy in the companionship of a kitten, comfort in a teddy bear, or delight in a bar of chocolate. The choice depends on the child’s individual preferences and experiences.
While Bentham’s hedonistic calculus provides a framework for attempting to measure pleasure and pain objectively, it has limitations, especially when it comes to the inherently subjective nature of individual experiences. The complexity of human emotions and the diverse factors influencing pleasure make it challenging to create a universally applicable and objective measure of pleasure. Consequently, the subjective nature of pleasure remains a significant aspect of ethical and philosophical discussions.
Thank you for reading my writings. If you’d like to, you can buy me a coffee for just £1 and I will think of you while writing my next post! Just hit the link below…. (thanks in advance)
Thank you for reading my writings. If you’d like to, you can buy me a coffee for just £1 and I will think of you while writing my next post! Just hit the link below…. (thanks in advance)
What was the impact on the production of both written texts and music?
In considering the effect of the print revolution on the production of texts and music it is important to define what is meant by the term “print revolution”. In simple terms, this refers to a time period starting from around 1440 when Johannes Gutenberg invented the modern printing press and continued in technological development and geographical spread, and vastly increasing printed texts and music over the subsequent two to three centuries. The key part of Gutenberg’s new technology was the use of moveable type, together with the improvement and bringing together in one process of existing technologies such as large presses, printing on paper, and refined oil-based inks.
Although the technology had become available for mass production, printing was an expensive and labor-intensive process, requiring new tradesmen such as typesetters, pressmen, compositors, and proofreaders, as well as “factory” space. All this meant that a would-be printer needed capital upfront. So printing as an industry required (or contributed to) the growth of capitalism and gave rise to new jobs and businesses not only in the production of texts and music but also to bookbinders, publishers, book-sellers, ink and paper producers, etc. Indeed the advancement of associated technologies should not be under-estimated. In Europe in the thirteenth century paper manufactured from rags was first used as a writing material. Prior to this scribes would use expensive parchment or vellum (animal skin) as a substrate.
However, the advent of mass printing didn’t end manuscript production, which was suited to luxury items (e.g. as diplomatic gifts) and for circulation of texts (e.g. poetry) among a small coterie. Shakespeare’s early sonnets, for instance, were originally circulated in manuscript copies.
The vast up-scaling of volume in the production of texts was considerable and in the 1540s in Geneva, a skilled craftsman could produce 1,300 copies of a single sheet in one day. By contrast, the upscaling of production and proliferation of music was much slower. In Venice in 1498 a printer called Ottaviano Petrucci ‘ made claim to the invention of a unique music type and patented the printing method. However, the method was laborious and time-consuming, requiring three separate print runs for a single sheet of music – these being the printing of the staves, the musical notes, and finally text. That said, Younger and Barker’s research found that in 1549 there were ten music publishers in seven cities producing 43 collections of music equating to around 1500 individual pieces of music. This showed that there was both supply and demand during this period. could be demonstrated.
When looking at different examples of the kinds of texts and music produced in this period, there is one stand-out text that exemplifies the “revolutionary” label given to print production of this period, and that is the Bible. It is not only an important example of mass print (Luther’s translation of the Bible into German was a huge bestseller with over 100,000 copies sold) but was also a hugely significant move for ancient and religious (or sacred) texts to be printed in the vernacular. Thus the word of God could become available to the masses, not only in means of availability, but also in a language that could be understood without translation. So mass printed text could be argued as a catalyst or vehicle for the Protestant Reformation. Polyglot Bibles (texts written in several languages side by side) were produced extensively and this enabled the reader to study the gospels in Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and the vernacular tongue. These Bibles were expensive to produce and would have been the property of the church. Educational texts such as “ABC”s and catechism were much cheaper to produce and had a mass market and hence could help a printer and publisher finance larger projects. Steinberg found that ‘in 1585, 10,000 copies of an English ABC and Little Catechism were sold in eight months’. Medical textbooks helped promote the study of the sciences and can be seen to run alongside the growth of humanism
More humble texts, often a single side of paper, were produced in great numbers such as almanacs (containing calendars, or information for farmers) and broadside ballads. This type of product was cheap to produce as it did not require the other processes used to make books such as sorting, ordering, cutting, collating, or binding. Broadside ballads appealed to the masses as they could contain songs that were political, satirical, bawdy, or risqué. Broadside ballads are a cross-over point to the production of printed music as some contained simple musical scores. Indeed, many choral religious songs were printed on single sheets which allowed hymns to be sung en masse and in the vernacular. A collection of such songs were put together to produce the Lutheran hymn book in 1542. Also in the sixteenth century, many partbooks were produced, containing the music or choral part for each individual performer thus reducing the cost of the overall collective choral book.
The impact of increased production of printed texts marked a shift from image culture to word culture, especially as print was increasingly produced in the vernacular. This affected all tiers of society as news, gossip, and political or religious propaganda could be distributed quickly, efficiently, and cheaply, and in the case of religion, this was at the very least the catalyst for religious reform. Knowledge could be preserved and disseminated by mass copying, which also leads to uniformity, although it should be remembered that inaccuracies could be “standardised” also. With the production of musical texts, there was a shift from an oral to written tradition, and it was no longer the preserve of the rich as choristers and even the congregation had access. Moreover, musical knowledge could be spread by print. But aside from the well-documented scholarly, religious, and political impacts – the increased production also brought about fun and merriment via the popular broadside ballads.
Both with music and text a new industry grew, that of the pressmen, compositors, proofreaders, and bookbinders. Printing became a business, and it certainly can be linked to the rise of capitalism. Large capital was needed at the outset and to estimate the numbers of print runs could mean big profits or winding up the business – if you print too few you have lost opportunity, if you print too many you may go bust. This is exemplified by William Caxton producing a 2nd edition of “The Canterbury Tales” (this containing illustrations) in 1483 as the first edition had become a best seller.
Thank you for reading my writings. If you’d like to, you can buy me a coffee for just £1 and I will think of you while writing my next post! Just hit the link below…. (thanks in advance)
Did Comte’s religion of “Positivism” break this link?
Before discussing the thoughts of Auguste Comte (1798–1857), it is useful to define the terms “religion” and “supernatural” and then consider the philosopher’s approach within these boundaries. The Oxford English Dictionary defines religion as ‘Action or conduct indicating belief in, obedience to, and reverence for a god, gods, or similar superhuman power; the performance of religious rites or observances’ and defines supernatural in terms of divinity, metaphysics and the extraordinary. However, it could be argued that belief or faith can be exclusive of a deity, in short – a worship or following of some being (human or otherwise) greater than the individual.
Supernatural identity aside, with religions there is the commonality of features; there is dogma through following a set of rituals, ceremonies, and acting out beliefs, together with some form of community or gathering. And there is often a commonality of purpose, that is to say, high moral or ethical principles are generally pursued. When examining religion and its origins, the philosophy may vary from the etymology (Latin: obligation, bond, reverence) and the term can be thought of as a Western or European concept, particularly with the three main monotheistic strands relating to the god of the old testament, and the historic writings associated with it.
French philosopher Isidore Marie Auguste François Xavier Comte (1798 – 1857), better known as Auguste Comte, was the father of Positivism and inventor of the term sociology. Comte believed religion played an important role in the individual’s and society’s well-being through establishing a common, positive set of principles and practices around the belief that pursuit of altruism and helping others precipitated a collective improvement of morals and ethics.
Comte moved away from the traditional Western deistic view, instead putting the celebration of humanity at his new religion’s core. Comte’s religion of Positivism took a humanist approach with a celebration of, and a belief in, man’s scientific and rational endeavours and achievements. Comte defined “positivism” in terms of demarcating scientific knowledge through the gaining of scientific empirical evidence, Due to his belief that working with science, reason and rationality were male traits, he also wanted to celebrate and promote his view of female virtues – which he saw as being caring, loving, nurturing and empathetic, and as such his symbolic representation of a human “deity” was a mother nurturing her son,
However, Comte did recognise the role of the supernatural and metaphysical in human development and he outlined this in his “law of three stages” where the metaphysical stage is the link between the theological and the positive. Comte’s religion was intended to be invasive in many aspects of society, with a new 13 month calendar with notable worship events centring on historical and contemporary figures from the arts, sciences, philosophy and prophets, coupled with a new cannon of literature supporting these fields (although he recognised this had it’s limitations as it was centred too heavily on western civilisation).
From a contemporary perspective, Comte’s vision and timing for his religion was to find a path forward and away from the French Revolution by revering the achievements of all that is great in humanity, with a spirit of altruism at its core. Comte’s religion replaced the reverence to supernatural iconography (such as angels) and prayers directed to a formless god, with representations of great human figures to whom they can relate, and to humanity he referred to as the “Great Being” to which they can be a part of, and contribute to. An intention of his religion was to reflect the backdrop of Europe’s move towards a scientific, industrial and technological new age, and in political terms, he favoured a sociocracy, which can really be thought of as a meritocracy, as he favoured the sovereignty to be in the hands of scientists, industrialists and enlightened thinkers.
Kees de Groot has introduced the concept of “liquid religion”, simply put, fluid and dynamic forms of religion which embrace secular non-classical and non-institutional theistic beliefs. This marks a shift from the traditional dogmatic doctrinal church to anything from the purely philosophical, social or fantasy belief sets – which could even be “pop-up” in nature. Since Comte’s time many religions have sprung up which are not deity-based and the closest “religion” to that of Positivism is the secular movement of humanism.
In summary, in today’s multicultural society, many religions live harmoniously alongside each other. Comte proposed a new religion that was not supernatural deity based, instead promoting a belief in, and celebration of, the “Great Being” of humanity.
Thank you for reading my writings. If you’d like to, you can buy me a coffee for just £1 and I will think of you while writing my next post! Just hit the link below…. (thanks in advance)
In considering this question it is important to clarify the terms “tradition” and “collective memory”. The Oxford English Dictionary defines tradition as ‘A belief, statement, custom, etc., handed down by non-written means (esp. word of mouth, or practice) from generation to generation; such beliefs, etc., considered collectively.’ The key here is that beliefs are subjective, not objective, and as such are open to interpretation. Furthermore, a canon or a collection of beliefs is dependent on the person or people considering their inclusion or deletion – hence stories are promoted or relegated due to a person’s or a party’s bias (conscious or subconscious).
When linking “tradition” to “collective memory” it is important to note that the latter term infers less formality, ie. memory is not singular and unambiguous, but rather it is plural in two senses – it is the memories of more than one event by more than one person. When discussing memory Jordan Peterson states ‘Memory is vulnerable, easily distorted to fit beliefs and modes of action that are more expedient than accurate’ which highlights the point that collective memories, by selective reference to traditions, could be regarded by some as a means of manipulation of the masses.
The change in the commemoration of the Easter Rising happened almost immediately after and during the first part of the 20th Century but key dates include 1921, 1937, and 1966 (the Golden Jubilee). The War of Independence (1919-21) was mainly a guerilla war fought by the Irish Republican Army and the occupying British forces. Propaganda was very important to instill sympathy in the Southern Irish population and the portrayal of this conflict as an armed struggle for freedom on the backs of the “martyrs” of the Easter Rising was a powerful message. The outcome of the war was the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1921, the commencement of the evacuation of British forces from Southern Ireland in 1922, and the establishment of an Irish Free State. But the change of culture should not be underestimated either, in so much as an estimated 275 “Big Houses” were destroyed during the War of Independence by the Irish Republican Army and this number rose to more than 300 during the ensuing few years. This served two purposes – removal of the English landowners and the associated symbolism therein, and also the redistribution of land to Irish rural land-workers and farmers.
The 1930s saw a movement towards depicting the Rising as a national military struggle against English oppression, and in 1935 Easter Sunday was marked by the Government of Ireland with pageantry usually reserved for wars, with military parades attended by veterans of the struggles and wreath-laying (which is associated in the UK with the endings of successful military campaigns). In 1937 the Constitution of Ireland came into being, replacing the 1922 Constitution of the Irish Free State. President De Valera supervised the drafting of the document and the importance of the constitution cannot be underestimated. The Constitution determined national sovereignty and gave the Irish people the right to self-determination. It also changed the nation’s name to “Éire” (the Irish word for Ireland), and adopted the tricolour of green, white, and orange as the national flag. More important for cultural identity was the adoption of Irish as the national language (English relegated to the second official language). But significantly for cultural appropriation – legislation was enacted so the Irish language and Irish history was taught in school (and this included “modern” history such as the Easter Rising). The most important clauses as regards the aims of the Easter Rising were Articles two and three which called for a unified Ireland on the premise that the whole of the island of Ireland be one national territory.
The change in legislation does not necessarily change the hearts and minds of the people. Symbolism and iconism played a key role, so stamps, coins, and banknotes were given Irish imagery, and the two Houses of Parliament were given Irish names. And the state commemorated those people who were involved in the uprising renaming streets and later railway stations in their honour.
The most significant change to collective memories of the Easter Rising came in the lead-up, during, and immediately after the Golden Jubilee remembrance celebrations in 1966. The Irish government wished to project an image of a modern, successful, and independent Ireland; and did this by staging a series of plays, pageants, lectures, church services, and exhibitions. Included in the celebrations were 1916 tours of the scenes of the Easter Rising, together with lectures and accounts intending to portray the leaders of the uprising as national heroes. The Rising was to be seen as a positive turning point on the road to nationalism and self-government. Popular music from groups such as The Dubliners sang songs commemorating the Rising such as “The Foggy Dew”. Indeed The Dubliners achieved UK chart success in 1966 with the song “Nelson’s Farewell” celebrating the blowing up and removal of Nelson’s Column in Dublin that year by the Irish Republican Army. Also at this time, Irish President Éamon de Valera opened the Garden of Remembrance in 1966, a memorial set out in a cross to commemorate all those who had lost their lives in the struggle for an independent Ireland.
So why have collective memories changed during this period? National identity and beliefs shared by national communities are often called collective memories. These can include national costume, stories, fables, songs, life stories, and memoirs of rural people. Maurice Halbachs in the 1920s asserted that personal memories are coloured by the people around us. And people in power, people with influence, or political parties will often see the need to shape collective memories into a homogenous record. The Easter Rising was at a time of significant social and political change right across Europe and boundaries and Empires were being redrawn with great rapidity, so there was therefore a need for national identity to be established. Pierre Nora wrote extensively about how national memory is established and crafted through mediums such as dictionaries, monuments, historic figures, museums, and sporting events.
From today’s perspective of racial tensions in the United Kingdom parallels can be drawn with the desire to rewrite or reinterpret British history too, with the recent boarding up in London of the statue of Winston Churchill, an important British National figure taught about in UK schools, but to some from the immigrant population, Churchill’s statue is a figure of a colonial and racist past which should not be on display.
Cultural nationalism can be defined as a nation in which its people identify with shared culture or heritage (real or stylised) as opposed to nationalism purely on racial, ethnic, or institutional lines. Examples of this can be seen throughout the British Isles. In England, for example, the focus on the reformation in art or Gothic architecture, or pageantry such as the Trooping if the Colour which only dates back 260 years. In Scotland the romanticism of the highland dress and games (which was a 19th Century invention). For Ireland, cultural nationalism is a promotion of the Celtic origins, Gaelic language, literature, dance, music, and sports. The invention of a culture comes with heroes and legends such as the patron Saint Patrick and the expulsion of snakes from the Island, and the adoption of Shamrock as the national plant (a representation of the catholic holy trinity). With the promotion of independence comes the demotion of the past chains of English occupation – a move away from industrialisation and urbanisation, to a time before the protestant reformation. By creating an idealised version of the past, it was intended to create an idealised vision of the future, with an Irish Free State leading to a united Ireland. From it’s inception, the Free State Government sought to unify a deeply divided country, with the common mantra being a unified hatred of the English.
Beliefs and interpretations of stories can be re-used. Like old songs recorded on vinyl, stories can be re-engineered, re-edited, and re-released as modern covers for the mp3 era. Thus by re-telling events like the Easter Rising with political spin, it is possible (and some would say desirable) to use the past to foster a sense of Irish pride of selected culture and promoted heritage. Political activists can use collective memories and tradition to foster a move towards an independent Irish state, and loyalty to a hitherto disconnected cause. It is not only powerful but also productive, to use the past to present the future, whilst at the same time engendering a sense of belonging and national moral servitude. Heroes are more easily identified by black and white photographs and Irish family names, by stories of valour against the odds, and by place names in the streets where you live, than by ancient romanticised Saints from the distant past. This is perhaps why the collective memories of the Easter Rising were, and still are, such a powerful force in the call for a united Ireland.
Thank you for reading my writings. If you’d like to, you can buy me a coffee for just £1 and I will think of you while writing my next post! Just hit the link below…. (thanks in advance)
Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980) was the leading light in the philosophy of existence known as existentialism and an award-winning author. Together with Simone de Beauvoir (1908—1986) – herself a preeminent French existentialist philosopher and writer – he would hang out in Parisian Cafes in the 1940s with other intellectuals discussing existentialist ideas.
In assessing Simone de Beauvoir’s philosophical departures from Jean-Paul Sartre’s version of existentialism it will be necessary to briefly set out the central tenets of existentialism on which they both concur, before highlighting the points where Beauvoir departs from Sartre’s views. These departures can then be considered as either additions, oppositions, or enhancements (by way of further explanation or simplification). It will then be possible to argue whether these differences are improvements in philosophical terms.
The major precepts of existentialism, in so far as areas on which both philosophers agreed, can be summarised as the construct that for human beings existence precedes essence, humans have complete freedom which comes with the burden of responsibility, human existence is essentially absurd without pre-defined meaning, one should live a life of authenticity (to not do so leads to “bad faith”), and people who are not us are “other”.
The first postulate that existence precedes essence is not entirely novel in philosophical terms, as English philosopher John Locke (1632 – 1704) had stated that humans were born with a “tabula rasa” (blank slate) to be written on by ourselves. Sartre proposed that everyday objects, such as pens, had an essence before they existed, so far as they were designed before they were made. In Sartre’s godless world, there is no human creator of humanity and he asserts “Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism.”
Sartre came down firmly on the side of nurture in the well-established “nature versus nurture” argument, insisting we are completely self-made and we always have choices. Sartre believed that we have unbridled freedom of choice in all decisions affecting our lives, and we must accept complete responsibility for our actions. Furthermore, he dismissed the importance of the background tapestry of our environmental, cultural, and even familial circumstances on to which we weave our life story, proposing we are inherently at liberty to choose who (or what) we want to be. The price of this freedom, however, is that there can be no excuses for the outcomes of our actions.
Sartre used the term “authenticity” to give practicality, or real-life meaning, to the act of truly living free, as freedom for existentialists might be considered as a solely cerebral activity, whereas freedom of thought leads to freedom of action hence invoking the burden of individual responsibility. So to be our true authentic selves is a duty, but it may lead to ‘existential angst’ upon the realisation that unfavourable outcomes of chosen actions make us culpable for those decisions. Against an atheist backdrop, we are alone in our own reality, which is unique to, and created by, ourselves. There is no succor from the cosmos, as each other person is also an individual with their own constructed version of reality. Thus living authentically means accepting that freedom is inseparable from the responsibility of thought, action, and consequence.
When Sartre talked about “bad faith”, he extended his argument on authenticity surmising that not following the rules of self-governance and personal responsibility would be living a false life. To deny one’s ownership of decisions and responsibility, or to blame external circumstances is to live a life of bad faith, as is knowingly allowing others to decide for us, in other words accepting complicity to the norm.
Of the topics of existentialism on which Sartre and Beauvoir agree, perhaps the greatest area of divergence is around the concept of “other”. Sartre believed that with the obligation of personal freedom comes the consequence of affecting other individuals’ freedom in that those individuals become objects or “other”. This deduction is supported by envisaging how the other would necessarily see themselves as an object, this reality causes a paradox as they too are free. Therefore, the freedom of others limits our own freedom condemning us not to be free. This is a two-way street – whilst one may seek to limit the freedom of others by making them into objects, others deny our freedom by objectifying us.
Moving on to areas of philosophical departure, Beauvoir departed marginally from Sartre’s first principle of existentialism that “man” has no pre-existing essence of a human being and thus has a void in terms of fixed nature. Whilst Beauvoir agreed women do not have a fixed nature, there cannot exist an “essence of woman”, she questioned if there was an equal magnitude of environmental pressures of nurture between the genders. She argues famously ‘One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman’. This is important because, unlike Sartre, Beauvoir centered on gender, whereas when Sartre used the term “man” one is left to conclude that the noun is used in an asexual sense and implies the noun “human”. So in Beauvoir’s view “becoming a woman” is an irresistible imposition, which is inescapable.
For Beauvoir, the concept of women’s freedom can be distinguished from Sartre’s on gender lines also. Although Beauvoir accepted that the idea of freedom presents a metaphysical risk, in that in the absence of freedom we can blame our circumstances for outcomes, Beauvoir believed that many women are blind to their true liberty because they are oppressed by their gender’s social standing.
Furthermore, Beauvoir’s views on authenticity were those of expansion rather than philosophical counterflow, as she again explored the effect of the female gender on an individual’s ability to embrace freedom of thought and action. Over the notion that freedom was implicit and equal for both sexes, she superimposed the social constraints of a mid-twentieth century western female in terms of inferior opportunities and standing, in such areas as employment, politics, wealth and influence, and the ability to act independently from men. Her belief was that a life of authenticity for the female gender did not allow true freedom to escape from the female stereotypes they persistently portray because the theatre in which they act is designed by, and perpetuated by, men – the analogy is that it is against the theatre owner’s subconscious interest to redesign a theatre which is consistently bringing him success.
When it comes to Sartre’s view of bad faith, Beauvoir critiqued this by saying ‘Clearly no woman can claim without bad faith to be situated beyond her sex’ and by that she challenged the simplicity of Sartre’s universality approach that all humans are equal, but rather bought into focus the hierarchical standing in the two genders, stating that a woman lives as a woman first and a human being second.
As discussed the concept of other was where we see the most striking departure of Beauvoir from Sartre’s philosophy. Again it relates to gender and Sartre’s assumption of the neutrality of man as a representation of human, Beauvoir considered that if this view were true then women would be seen as other. Beauvoir thought the status quo of elevated male hierarchy was perpetuated by the conflict that women would need to seemingly sacrifice their position as “other” by way of gender and break from their reliance on men. Conversely, Beauvoir did not see that men (being the archetype gender) become other through gender difference in reverse symmetry.
When considering the question as to whether Beauvoir’s version of existentialism was an improvement it is necessary to define the term “improve” in this context. In philosophical terms, “improve” could be to extend an argument and to address its relevance; or to make it more lucid in terms of its logic, ethics, or mortality. One could question if the departure acknowledges any problems with Sartre’s views.
On the point of the “nature of man,” Beauvoir can be seen to improve Sartre’s argument by highlighting the gender element in the development of nurture and therefore the creation of self. In a parallel to Mary Wollstonecraft’s critique of Jean-Paul Rousseau’s “Nature of Man” treatise, where the former had countered the latter’s premise that man (the male) had no pre-defined state whereas the female had pre-existing traits, so too Beauvoir accentuated the disproportionate role of nurture in gender development.
Beauvoir’s views on essence and freedom can be viewed as an amplification of Sartre’s views, in that as well as supporting the central tenet, they also challenge the term “man” as being inclusive of both genders. In supporting Sartre’s view that there is no essence of man, she clarifies this argument by stating there is no female essence, thus encompassing gender. However, she re-positions “man’s” freedom in terms of nurture along gender lines. She improves Sartre’s argument by making it more relevant and accessible to half the world’s population by highlighting women’s contemporaneous impaired societal freedoms. The obvious advantage of this doctrine of freedom is that we are free to become the best possible version of ourselves through totalitarian self-government and personal responsibility, whilst having no accountability.
However, when considering freedoms in terms of equality it would be fair to put forward the counter question – freedom from, and equal to what? And here context does become important. Beauvoir can be seen to fall into the same trap as Sartre in that when considering equality, they both did so from the perspective of being white, western, French intellectuals (following a line of other French philosophers such as Descartes, Voltaire, and Rousseau), famous, financially independent, and able-bodied. Here Beauvoir’s possible improvement on the doctrine of equality falters as it does not address the fact that everyone (including every female) is not born with the same opportunities. Furthermore, it can be questioned as to whether all women (as a separate gender) are equal when family units are diverse, and motherhood and being childless is not always a choice – the ability to conceive is not a decision.
Beauvoir does improve on Sartre’s view of “other” through the promotion of gender issues because she discounts the idea that there is no “female essence” as Rousseau had eluded, whilst recognising that the female form does exist. Furthermore, she stated that for a woman to be authentic she must be a woman foremost. This promotes, rather than demotes, the female in existentialist thinking. Nevertheless, although Beauvoir’s views were outlined in her book “The Second Sex” in 1949, it was not until two decades later that she became an active campaigner in the women’s movement, championing such causes as abortion and equal rights. This is important because like so many other philosophers before her, theories do not necessarily stand the test of real-world circumstances.
Sartre’s view of bad faith echoes very much Karl Marx’s thoughts on false consciousness; Lenin had his practical interpretation and application of Marx’s philosophy, just as Robespierre had his own style of the prosecution of the manifesto of Rousseau. Accordingly, for Beauvoir to move her own philosophy forward, it could be argued that she needed to position it in the real world, and as her existentialism expounded total self-autocratic agency at its core, Beauvoir needed to cast herself as the lead actor, as she had freely chosen to be the playwright. In doing so, perhaps, she made the philosophy of existentialism more “real”, and though her name outside philosophical circles is not as well known as that of Sartre’s, her impact on modern life may be seen as more profound.
In summary, Beauvoir’s philosophy was very much more in alignment with, rather than divergent from, the existentialism of Sartre. However, her commentary on the topics of freedom, equality, and ‘other’ stands as improvements in philosophical terms by providing increased clarity and highlighting the asymmetry of gender issues.
Thank you for reading my writings. If you’d like to, you can buy me a coffee for just £1 and I will think of you while writing my next post! Just hit the link below…. (thanks in advance)
Is greater state control of the economy the solutuon to a post Covid recession?
Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) is best know as the father of Marxism. He was a philosopher, author, and economist and is renowned for his manifestos on capitalism and communism. In describing Marx’s objections to capitalism it is necessary to define “capitalism” in terms of how Marx viewed it. Marx saw capitalism as more of an economic system rather than a purely political ideology. He believed capitalism took hold in Europe in the 16th Century with the emergence of legal freedoms concerning a free market economy, this being the private ownership and accumulation of materials, property and wealth (the means of production) and the freedom to buy and sell labour. The defining feature of a capitalist system as Marx saw it, is the division of society into two classes and the differences in function between them – the “bourgeoisie” (those that own the means of production) and the “proletariat” (those that have to sell their labour to the bourgeoisie in order to survive).
Marx’s main objections to capitalism can be grouped into three main topics: lack of freedom for the proletariat, alienation of the proletariat from the product, and exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. Marx’s viewpoint of “freedom” was that of the worker who he believed had no real choice other than to sell his labour to the bourgeoisie. In order to survive, man needs the means of subsistence (food, clothing and shelter), and if he owns the means of production (land, farming tools, building materials, or raw materials) he can meet these primary needs. However, if he has the means of subsistence without the means of production then he can’t produce anything, and he has to sell his labour to someone that does – or perish. Marx further defined freedom into two categories – formal (or legal) freedom and substantial freedom. The former is concerned with the legal rights an individual has from the state or sovereign and will include employment law and the right of an individual to withdraw his labour, own capital and employ others. The latter is what could be thought of as real freedom of choice. Marx considered whether the freedom to withdraw one’s labour was a real choice if by doing so an individual can no longer provide the means of sustenance. So Marx made a distinction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, in that the former had no substantial freedom while the latter enjoyed both types of freedom, Marx thus surmising that freedom could only enjoyed by all if society was classless and the means of production was mutually (or communally) owned.
Marx argued that alienation of the workers from the product had a negative impact on their psychological health and well-being as he believed that workers had an inherent need to see their worth and creativity in the objects they produced. With the advent of the Industrial Revolution nearly a century earlier in Britain, mechanised production lines meant that employees were involved in piece work, and seldom, if ever, saw or worked on the whole completed product. Specialised jobs make the economy highly efficient but each person working on the production line could only gauge their individual input in that part of the product, but this was dissociated from the value and benefit of the completed product – put simply if you only made chair legs, and never saw the completed dining room suite, your sense of individual worth is divorced from the true value of finished articles. Marx considered that at the core of an individual’s psychological health was the ability to feel productive, and that meant having more than a financial “buy-in” to the product, but also being creative in the process. As with the chair leg production-line analogy, the worker did not own the chair, let alone the whole dining room suite, so any value he added to the chair leg felt alien to the finished product, and furthermore any monetary value he added was not reflected in his individual financial return because the profit went to the owner of the furniture factory. Making a non-standard, superior chair leg ran counter to a worker’s psychological and financial best interests.
In order to understand Marx’s objection to capitalism in terms of exploitation, it is necessary to establish who is being exploited and by whom, and how this exploitation takes place. Marx considered all products to have a production cost (derived from the depreciation of capital set-up costs, machinery and tools maintenance, wages, and raw materials) and an exchange value (what the product can be sold for). In a capitalist system, exchange value must necessarily be higher than the production costs. Factory owners will re-invest the income of their product sales on production costs, expanding production and their own personal use (profit). Capitalists pay their workers in exchange for the labour expended in producing that product but the pay to the worker is only sufficient for that worker to meet his means of subsistence for that day, compelling that worker to return to work the next day. Marx deduced that the bourgeoisie factory owner in taking the surplus value (profit) and leaving the worker just enough for his daily survival is exploitation. Private ownership and private property make exploitation possible, and through this exploitation private property becomes profitable, ergo without private ownership, there could be no exploitation.
In discussing how convincing Marx’s objections to capitalism are, it is necessary to consider who is to be convinced and under what premise. Each of Marx’s objections has the potential to be emotive depending on an individual’s standpoint and bias, however, it is necessary to consider whether an objection will stand on its philosophical value and supporting premises. Marx’s major objections only seem valid for workers in the manufacturing industries or agriculture but seem to have a more tenuous relevance to service (tertiary) industry workers (hospitality, banking, health, leisure, public service, etc) as no product was being produced. This sector accounted for 24% of the UK workforce in 1850 and stands at 84% today.
Marx objected to capitalism from the perceived perspective of a worker’s freedom within a capitalist society. When discussing freedom it is useful to think of freedom in two distinct ways – “freedom from” (something negative) and “freedom to” (do something beneficial). Contrary to Marx’s views on freedom, one could argue capitalism did, in Marx’s time (and certainly does today) provide freedom from starvation and lack of shelter. Conditions for the worker were at times meagre and pitiful, but a worker could exchange his labour for a means of subsistence. Furthermore, a worker did have the freedom to withdraw his labour and move his labour to another employer, unlike in times of feudalism that pre-dated capitalism. Marx would argue that this freedom was not substantial because in reality, in exercising this freedom the worker has entered into a double bind constructed by the bourgeoisie – work under these poor conditions, or leave and work in poorer conditions or potentially starve. Whilst the worker is free to make his choice, each outcome produces a negative consequence, so the scenario is loaded against him.
Marx’s critique on the alienation of the worker centres on the premise that producing a part item is psychologically unsatisfying, therefore, the following premise that a person producing a whole item of a finished product would not be alienated from his work must also stand. The simplicity of this follow-on premise seems compelling in that someone who produces whole items must be free from alienation, however, if a craftsman works on a whole process in isolation (away from a production line) he may well work in more solitary conditions and feel more socially alienated. Expanding this point further, it follows that if an individual works on a production line, there is a realistic possibility that he will feel part of a team working on a greater goal than he could have ever achieved by himself, that is to say, someone that can make a good chair leg cannot necessarily manufacture a good dining room suite, but he can feel pride and satisfaction in contributing to that suite. With the exception of smallholding farmers, in the vast majority of production and service industries, workers do not consume, use or exchange the end products of their labour; it, therefore, follows that even if the chair leg maker could manufacture complete dining room suites he would only need one complete suite for his own needs, so all subsequent suites he produced would have a degree of alienation to him – their production could only serve the purpose of providing a means of subsistence.
Marx argued that for a capitalist economic regime to thrive, there was a necessity for workers to be exploited as the bourgeoisie could only generate profit on goods sold by adding value through the worker’s labour, whilst paying less for that labour than the value added. At face value this would appear to be exploitative, however, this relies on the premise that the worker is either unhappy or unaware of this inequity, or that the deal is so bad that it does not provide the worker with what he requires from the transaction. To collapse this critique it is therefore necessary to challenge the adequacy of the contract from the perspective of the worker. If a chair leg maker had enough raw product to produce an endless supply of chair legs, without those chair legs having an exchange value (ie monetary), it is unlikely that he will ever meet his means of subsistence just by making chair legs. Labour alone does not always produce goods which are tradeable or saleable. For a great proportion of the workforce, even given an endless and free supply of raw materials and tools for manufacture (which in itself seems implausible), their skill level may prohibit them from producing complete chairs, let alone dining room suites. Therefore, there would be the need to work cooperatively to achieve a return on their labour. The capitalist provides the environment for this shared labour to take place. The sum of the total products is greater than the sum of each individual product (through value added by labour) enabling the worker to have recompense for his contribution – an exchange value he could not have realised on his own merit.
Much of Marx’s objection to capitalism is based on ethical or psychological argument, and as such, it falls into the realms of subjectivity rather than objectivity and can be judged from where one stands on their own political or philosophical compass.
Thank you for reading my writings. If you’d like to, you can buy me a coffee for just £1 and I will think of you while writing my next post! Just hit the link below…. (thanks in advance)
Did Rousseau undermine Hobbes’ views on absolute rule?
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was an English philosopher who wrote at a time of great civil unrest and turbulence in his own country, his major works were written in exile in France during the English Civil War.
Hobbes described the “state of nature” in his Tetralogy of Books Leviathan in 1651 by undertaking a thought experiment – this was to mentally go back to a time in mankind’s history before there was civilisation, government, organised rule or civic duty. In such times, Hobbes surmised, life would be ‘nasty, brutish, and short’.
Hobbes considered the lack of civil authority would allow individuals complete freedom to follow their base desires, resulting in a perpetual state of conflict at the individual and family levels, where everyone would be forced to try and hold on to (or take from another) whatever meagre possessions they had. Under this regime no community activities such as farming, industry, or education would be possible, thus even rudimentary civilisation could not be founded. Hobbes believed that in nature people are free to take whatever action they want, which he perceived to be a recipe for anarchy. Any liberty an individual had, would be used in negative ways to despoil others until they themselves were despoiled.
This led Hobbes to formulate an idea which was ascribed to (but not used by himself) – the “social contract”, which set out the principles in which individuals would sacrifice or trade their innate liberties in return for safeguarding and protection from a strong ruler – a type of early day insurance or protection payment. This strong ruler would be sovereign (have supreme authority) and hence said to enjoy “absolute rule”. Under this system, Hobbes believed the individual would enjoy more freedom.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712 – 1778) was a French writer and political theorist in the Enlightenment period and his works were thought to have inspired the philosophy and politics of the French Revolution. Rousseau rejected Hobbes’s idea of the state of nature, preferring the premise that if we were left to our natural uncivilised state, life would be more pleasant, though not advocate a return to this state, He believed that it is the very growth of civilisation that leads to negative consequences with regard to adverse emotions and lack of personal liberties.
Rousseau believed that growth in social development was directly proportional to the growth of negative emotions of envy, greed, pride and revenge. Society, he thought, provides a platform for self-comparison and personal benchmarking, which are the roots of injustice. Hence Rousseau proposed that these negative emotions were a result of nurture, not nature (contrary to what Hobbes had believed). Sovereignty should only be sanctioned if it benefits all citizens uniformly, so having a powerful leader, monarch or government produces a paradox in the equality of liberty, leading him to conclude that direct self-government was the only way to achieve this end.
Rousseau’s argument hinges on the belief that mankind’s natural altruistic state allows a more harmonious existence and that more damage is done by surrendering our sovereignty to an absolute ruler through the necessity of inequity. One of Rousseau’s challenges to Hobbes’s view on absolutism was against his assertion that individuals consented to be ruled by someone with absolute power. He argued that if they were born into subjugation, for example into slavery, then they had no hope or concept of emancipation and freedom, and with this premise, it follows that rulers cannot justify superiority through birthright. Furthermore, strength (whether physical or constitutional) does not infer legitimacy.
In a monarchical Christian society, divinity could be used as a counterargument in favour of absolute power, proposing that a King does not need the endorsement of his subjects when he has a divine right; but Rousseau dismissed this argument believing Kings could be fallible as well as good, instead he favoured natural law and a social contract. This social contract was based on preserving personal liberty through each individual giving his will to the general will – or the will of the people. Thus in his hypothesis, sovereignty lies with the general (combined) will, and individual liberty is not relinquished or diminished. In short, decisions are made by the people for the people, thus negating the need for absolute rule. Two caveats may be noted to this statement, firstly Rousseau believed that this idealised form of government could only work for small states such as his own city (Geneva), and secondly, people should be “forced to be free” if they disagreed with the consensus. This appears to run counter to many contemporary views of freedom, where any individual has the right to protest in a democratic society.
In conclusion, Rousseau rejected Hobbes’s description of the ‘state of nature’ with the premise that pre-civilisation life was on the whole good and positive and he went on to undermine Hobbes’s defence of absolute rule by negating the need for a powerful ruler by promoting the idea that true sovereignty lies in the general will of the people.
Thank you for reading my writings. If you’d like to, you can buy me a coffee for just £1 and I will think of you while writing my next post! Just hit the link below…. (thanks in advance)
There were 2 cats who were in a swimming competition.
One was called “une deux trois”.
One was called “One Two Three”.
Which cat won the competition?
One Two Three.
Because Une Deux Trois Quatre Cinq.
To the person who stole my mattress; I won’t rest till I find you…
I was going to post a carpentry pun but I couldn’t find any that woodwork…
I suppose I better get up, get ready, and hit the gym.
Sorry typo, I meant gin.
The wedding invite said: ‘The Sage +1’.
So I turned up an hour late.
Knock knock…
Who’s there?
Grandad.
QUICK, STOP THE CREMATION!
I was confused as to why there were so many stories about vampires in Europe, but not in Africa.
Then I remembered that vampires are killed by holy water.
They bless the rains down in Africa.
Why can pirates never finish the alphabet?
Because they always get lost at C
I spotted Ronnie O’Sullivan at the garden centre today.
I think he was eyeing up a plant…
I once took a stuffed dog to the Antiques Roadshow.
The chap said, “This is very rare, do you know what it would fetch if it was in good condition?”
I replied “Dunno, sticks I suppose?”
I asked my girlfriend how she avoids click-bait…
Her answer may shock you!
Harry Potter can’t tell the difference between his cooking pot and his best mate.
They’re both cauldron.
A man walks into a library and asks for a book on different levels of noise.
The librarian says, “Sure, what Volume would you like?”
I have just watched a documentary on marijuana.
I think all documentaries should be watched this way.
My Czech mate is surprisingly bad at chess.
I don’t believe in sceptics.
My girlfriend said: ‘Did you know butterflies only live for one day?’
I said: ‘That’s a myth.’
She said: ‘No, it’s definitely a butterfly.’
Welcome To The Psychiatric Hotline!
If you are obsessive-compulsive, press 1 repeatedly. If you are co-dependent, please ask someone to press 2. If you have multiple personalities, please press 3,4,5 and 6. If you are paranoid-delusional, we know who you are and what you want. Just stay on the line until we can trace the call. If you are schizophrenic, listen carefully and a little voice will tell you which number to press. If you are manic-depressive, it doesn’t matter which number you press. No one will answer.
The Sage Page 