The Irrational Forces II: A Brief Story of Inappropriateness Or How Charlie Sheen Has Perverted My Nana

My sister is getting married, she is the first person, in my family, to get married since the mid seventies, so it is a very exciting time. It was at my sister's bridal shower, that the irrational forces made themselves apparent. However, before I get into the grim set of events that have left me disturbed, it is necessary to give a brief description of my Nana and the role she has played in my life.

My Nana is devout Irish Catholic, it was on her insistence that I be brought up as such. She has since been a beacon of propriety and social respect. She is a staunch conservative, she even has picture of Ronald Regan in her china hutch. Upon her arrival we little ones were forced to be on our best behavior, meaning no booger or fart jokes, or lewd gestures toward our genitalia. We have since been forced to keep certain aspect of our lives a secret, so as not to upset her image of us. These are some of the things that made me recoil in shock and disgust upon the news of what had transpired at my sister's bridal shower.

At said bridal shower, my Nana was asking my mother about the condition of my brother and I. My mother told my Nana that my brother was fine, as he is unemployed and does not go to school; what could be wrong with that? My mother than told my Nana that I was very stressed out, because of school and work. It is here where the irrational forces reared their sporadic heads. My Nana, who is 80 years young, then said: "He needs sex!" At this point my mother had come face to face with the irrational forces, and was inclined to react. She asked my Nana why she felt it was appropriate to say such a thing, to which my Nana replied "They say it on Two and a Half Men all the time."

Now we can see the way the irrational forces, and Charlie Sheen have corrupted my Nana and destroyed the humble sweet image that she had worked so hard to achieve. How it was that the irrational forces had made this show, wherein they discuss the necessity of sexual activity, appealing to my Nana is beyond me. Further, how it was that the irrational forces had made my Nana feel that it was appropriate to say such things to my mother, and my mother to tell this story to me, is beyond me.

The simple fact that my Nana would feel it necessary to comment on my sexual activity, or lack thereof, is revolting. Further, the idea that sex would help me is wrong, sex would only compound my problems. As it would force me into a feeling of shame and self-loathing that has been brought about by my catholic upbringing, which my Nana had forced on me since birth. Furthering the proof that these irrational forces will not stop plaguing humanity.

Deconstructing "Human Resources"

As capitalism is conquering the world, it is also seeping into our language, in ways that are almost undetectable. This is something we must be aware of, as our language should be kept seperate from that which dominates and exploits us. Language is another milieu that capitalism wants to monopolize, as this will allow it to control the means of communication and possible revolution. I was made aware of capitalism's penetration into our language, through the term "human resources". Human Resources is a department of every business, it handles payment and is the bridge between the employee's personal life and professional life. However, we are not interested in the functions of the department as they appear to the employee, we are interested in the term and how it applies to the capitalist agenda. The best way to do this is to deconstruct each term on its own.

First, then, we shall examine the term "Human", as it is understood in relation to the business world. Here this term stands for that which the department is directed toward, namely humans, people, the employees. It is trying to understand the human aspects of employment. In this way the employees are looked at abstractly, not as people, but as that which needs to be managed and controlled. It is human resources that handles applications, terminations, and the dreaded performance evaluations. It would seem as if applying the term "human", to a business department, is a mask for the actual function of the department. At face value the department seems to be beneficial to the employee; it ensures that the employee gets their compensation, but in reality it just manages and controls the employee.

The other term, "Resources", is much more simple to deconstruct, but it will make apparent the capitalist manipulation of the term. If we think of any other thing that is designated as a resource, such as energy, food, lumber etc., we will understand the context that the employees are held. It is the employees that are the resources which "human resources" seeks to control. Resources are things that are managed. Essentially, we look at resources as that which is expendable, up to a certain point. For example, the amount of people a company can keep employed, until the company loses money, is something human resources handles. It is as if humans are something to be harvested (or employed) and utilized, in the same way that lumber or energy is. Humans are literally just another resource.

The tragedy is that we, the employed, are oblivious to this manipulation of language. In every place of business, there is a department that specializes in the manipulation of a living resource, namely the employed. It was unapparent to the employed because capitalism is seeping into all aspects of our lives. We must resist this kind of language abuse because once we are treated as manipulated resources, we will begin to see others as resources for our own manipulation, thereby creating a society of sociopathic citizens, breeding paranoia in the form of a constant cost benefit analysis of every situation and person that the citizens come across.

The Irrational Forces

For whatever reason, I have terrible luck with any bureaucratic process. Perhaps it relates to Phillip K. Dick's idea that there are irrational forces at play in the universe. These irrational forces, should they exist, have made it difficult for me to: graduate, get jobs, and apply for grad school. As I am trying to take my life to a new level, these irrational forces have set themselves against me, in the form of bureaucracies. There are three ways that these irrational forces are keeping from achieving my goals: stupid people, the necessary communication between bureaucracies, and my own attitude toward these bureaucracies.

The first is the basic problem of all systems. Stupid people plague the essential set-up of all bureaucracies, they are the people that depend on bureaucracies and constitute them. It only takes one stupid person to mess up the entire system that the bureaucracy instituted. Clearly, this is an example of the irrational forces at work. A system made for stupid people and comprised of stupid people can only be the result of the irrational.

We now know that bureaucracies are composed of, and instituted for, stupid people. Whenever there is communication between these bureaucracies, there is communication between stupid people. As we all know this never works out well, and the result expected is never the result that occurs. An example of this is when one administration office has to send transcripts to another administration office. The expected result is simple, the transcripts are mailed and received at the appropriate time. The irrational forces do not let this happen. Somewhere the transcripts are lost.

Of course, when I am forced to deal with these institutions my true feelings come out and my desired results do not occur. As I usually approach the stupid people with disdain and animosity, they do not appreciate my sentiments and probably sabotage my papers.

Sharks Blog

As of last night the San Jose Sharks have gone into a two nothing deficit. They now are in a very awkward, but previously experienced, position. The Sharks need to force at least a game six scenario; in order to do so they must beat the Anaheim Ducks, in Anaheim, twice. The Ducks home ice advantage is not the biggest obstacle for the Sharks; it is the Ducks goalie, Hiller, that presents the biggest threat. Overall he has a ninety-two save percentage, the Sharks have thrown seventy-five shots at Hiller, and he has only allowed two goals. Even still, the Sharks have been dominating in almost every area. They posses the puck, out hit, and out shoot the Ducks. There are three areas that the Sharks need to improve.

First, the Sharks need to win every face-off. Too many times, the Ducks are able to either clear the puck out of their zone, or keep the puck in the Sharks zone, after a face-off. Winning face-offs will help the Sharks possess the puck and make the Ducks adapt to the Sharks game. The key here is the one-on-one battles; the Sharks need to be stronger when they are battling for the puck. Marcell Coc and Joe Pavelsky are our best face off men. Yet, Goc does not seem to get very many face-off opportunities. Sharks need to dominate the face-off, as it will give them more puck possession and allowe them time to set-up in the offensive zone, giving them more opportunities to score goals.

Second, the Sharks need to improve on their entry into the offensive zone. Most entries are even given directly to a Ducks defense-men, or the Sharks go offside. The best remedy is to stick with one style of entry: either skate in with speed, dump the puck into the corner, or pass the puck into the zone. Doing all three throws off the timing off the timing of the other players on the entry; the other players are getting confused on how the person with the puck is going to enter the zone. A good entry into the zone will allow the Sharks to possess the puck in the offensive zone in the manner that will allow them to set-up good passing and scoring opportunities.

Third, and most important, the Sharks need to improve their power play. They forced the Ducks to go to the penalty box six times. That is six opportunities to make the Ducks play with a man down, and they did not capitalize on any of those opportunities. In order to score on the power play, the Sharks need to hold the offensive zone with crisp passing, and quick shooting. They can hold the zone better by winning their face-offs, and entering the zone effectively. However, the key is to shoot. Even though the Sharks are out shooting the Ducks two to one, they are not scoring. The only remedy is to shoot more; they need to force Hiller to fall to his pads, then throw the puck into one of the top corners.

Clearly, it is Hiller that is keeping the Sharks from winning, he is on fire. The Sharks were able to get two goals past him in the last game, they need to do more of the same in their next game. The Ducks have been incredibly lucky in the first two games, the sharks have hit a total of three posts, and the Ducks goals were flukes. On defense the Sharks need to be tighter on the man they are marking. The Ducks luck probably will not last into the rest of the series, and Hiller's streak is probably going to end on Tuesday night. This is going to throw the Ducks into a shame spiral and the Sharks will be able to finish out the series in game six.

The Dangers of a Cursory Undersatanding of Camus

As a philosophy student I come across a lot of different types of ideas and concepts. Over a year ago I was introduced to an existentialist philosopher by the name of Albert Camus. In class I had to read The Myth of Sisyphus, as a result my life will never be the same again. Rarely can a piece of literature have such a profound effect on an undergrad. I did not know it at the time, but there is a relation between Camus and my anarchist sympathies.

A key point of Camus' philosophy is that of the absurd. If I understand this correctly, the absurd refers to the relation between humans and the world. It says there are essentially three things that exist: the subject, the world, and a tension between the two. The subject looks out in the world, and tries to find meaning. Unfortunately for the subject, there is no meaning in the world, and the subject is left with an unfulfilled desire for meaning.

So, humans exist in a world without meaning. Even though the world has no meaning, the subject still posits meaning on the world. The most obvious instance is any religion. Religion supplies an explanation for the way humans are supposed to operate in accordance with the world they live in; hence, religion supplies a false meaning and reason for living.

Now, there is a similar relation between the way religion operates and the way government operates. A government provides its people with false meaning. People become patriotic toward their government, they feel as if their government is righteous. According to a person like Camus, nothing can be further from the truth. Hence, we should dissolve all of these absurd institutions, like religion and government, that provide humans with false meaning. It is an anarchist movement that wants to get rid of these institutions.

Refilling the Well

This semester I have written essays on Foucault, DeLeuze, Xunzi, Kungzi, Popper's theory of Demarcation, and the current condition of anarchism, just to name a few. Why, then, is it so difficult for me to blog? Writing essays on the ancient Chinese and the post-modern philosophers should make it easy to blog. These blogs are simple, I need to pick a topic and write about it, and yet I cannot find something suitable to blog about. I have tried to blog three different times today, and each time resulting in the biggest brain fart imaginable. Hence, an examination of why I cannot fucking blog, seems to be a decent topic of discussion.

First, I am clearly overwhelmed by the amount of work I have had to do this semester. Of course, this is not a good sign, as I am not even half way through the semester, and I therefore will have several more essays to write. Indeed it does seem as if the well, of blog topics, has dried up (this topic is among the last remaining drops of inspiration). So, I must figure out a way to come up with interesting topics to consider.

General frustrations always seem to be a good inspiration for a lengthy blog. So, I must begin by considering what it is that frustrates me. Already, I have been inspired by various ideas, for example: Sharks injuries. I could write very long blog about the way the Sharks have suffered from their regular season injuries. However, the opposite inspiration would serve the same purpose. Writing about things that make me feel good will serve the same ends, for example: even though the Sharks are incredibly injured they still manage to be in first place in the league. Of course my hopes for the future would inspire lengthy blogs as well, for example: In the future I would like the Sharks to win the Stanley cup. By simply examining the forms of inspiration I have discovered three future blog topics.

This shows that venting the frustrations of blogging helps to inspire possible changes in the future. Now I do not feel compelled to come up with grand topics of frustration, such as the inefficiency of the government, or the problems with the theory of "the state of nature." I can merely blog about the mundane frustrations, such as stop lights or broken shoes. Clearly, in the infinite bounds of mundane topics, a brief, four paragraph exposition is always accessible. One need only reach into one's anus and extract them before one's deadline.

Attitudes Toward Philosophy as it is Encountered by American Working Class

Philosophy is a subject that is not well received in American society. It is seen as a waste of time. Its usefulness is brought into question constantly. Attitudes toward philosophy are so hostile that even mentioning one of the major thinkers, will result in the end of a conversation.

These sentiments probably stem from the country's Protestant origins. The Protestant ideology is centered around work and worship. Blind faith is central to the Protestant belief system. In blind faith there is a blatant disregard for questioning and critical thinking. This disregard is seen in the disdain for philosophic pursuit.

Ultimately, philosophy is seen as unproductive. People of these protestant societies usually say: "Philosophy can only be taught, it cannot produce any goods or services." This shows America's attitude toward philosophy and pedagogy. Teachers are a means to a degree, they only produce agents of production. Teaching philosophy has no production value, as it will only create more philosophy teachers.

A blog for the sake of Spring Break Blogging

Philosophy is enriching. It enriches reading comprehension, and gives a profound perspective on the way the world "is." Philosophers are our conduit to the way the world operates. Philosophers observe the world and derive hypotheses about that which they observe. Philosophers such as Nietzsche and Camus explictae things beautifully. Others, such as Heidegger and Althusser, use very strange language that convalutes their overall point.

Conter-Productiveness in the Classroom

In my six years as an undergrad, I have come across all types of counter productive forces in the classroom. As I pay, from my own pocket, two-thousand dollars a semester, I feel it would be appropriate to address these different forms of counter-production. There are three types of counter productiveness they are: bad professors, loud campuses, and annoying students.

I have yet to come across the first variety at SJSU. However, fellow students have confided in me, and I have deduced three different types of bad professors. The first type is the authoritarian professor. This type of professor is counter-productive because they are more concerned with sustaining a self-inflated self-image than helping students learn. This type of professor will change test dates on impulse, neglect any margin of personal error,and treat the students as less-than-animals. Another type is the older than dirt professor. This type of professor means well, but is counter-productive as they are too senile to remember when the class ends, whether or not the students have done an assignment already, or that the curriculum has changed since they had attended college. The third type is the overburdening professor. This type of professor also means well, but neglects that the students have other classes, a job, and a necessity to eat and sleep. These three types of counter-productive professors are rare but can damage a GPA.

Another form of counter-productivity, in college, is the campus itself. It is almost always in the form of a noisy environment. This can stem from protest, which could help contribute to a more productive learning environment, but can ruin the content for that day; fraternity activity, wherein the word "bro" is yelled after every other word, which is usually followed by a profanity; or, the worst kind, the one that has a crappy band play every Thursday. I have experienced all three of these types of noisy campuses, at CSUN in Los Angeles. SJSU doesn't have a prominent noisy campus problem.

The third, and most prominent, type of counter-productivity is the annoying student. There are three classifications of this type of counter-productivity. The first type is the unintentional annoyer. This type of student either breaths too loud, consistently forgets to turn off his/her cell phone, pops bubble gum, clicks pens, or snores in class. Another type is the argumentative student. This student feels he/she is intellectual equal of the professor and is entitled to argue every point the professor makes. The third and final type of counter-productive student has plagued the class room since the dawn of pedagogy, that of the class-clown. This type of student feels it necessary to make annoying quips in order to make his or herself feel important, they make comments that are rarely relevant, and mark students papers with annoying comments during class time. This type of student engages in high school bull shit on a collegiate level, and forces his/her fellow students to be subject to their behavior.

These three types of counter-productivity permeate through all aspects of collegiate life. They make the serious student feel disenfranchised and disrespected. Either, through lack of responsibility, poor self imagery, or plain stupidity these types of counter productivity have made their way into the milieu of academia and brought it to lower and lower standards. We, as students, have a unique opportunity to be autonomous and responsible in the university system. We also have the opportunity to reduce these counter-productive forces that have exposed themselves to us. All it requires is recognition that there is a time and a place for our little annoying traits, argumentativeness, and foolishness, and it is not in class.

The Necessary Conditions for a Paradigm Shift

Thomas Kuhn's theory of paradigm shifts has probably already been applied to the political sphere. In fact, Kuhn's paradigm shifts sound a lot like Hegel's dialectical process. Even still, by looking at our paradigm, under Kuhn's terms, we may be able to see whether or not we are heading toward a "paradigm shift."

A paradigm, according to Kuhn, is a whole way of doing science. It is the way in which claims can be made and analyzed. An example of a paradigm would be the ptolemiac model of the universe, wherein the earth was at the centre of the universe. Here we have a theory in place, where other scientists can use this model to collect information and postulate theories about the structure of the universe.

The ptolemiac model was thrown out when Copernicus said the sun was at the centre of the universe. So, these paradigms change. It is the events that lead up to this change that we need to examine.

Each paradigm tries to perpetuate itself, by doing tests that would strengthen the overall theory. But, these attempts usually discover a problem with the theory as a whole. In ptolemy's case, it was the discovery of retrograde motion, and a questioning of the authority of the church, that inspired people to reject this theory.

Are there cases like these in our present political or economic sphere? clearly, the economic situation shows there are problems with the economic paradigm. The way these markets crash, the fact that people are being laid off and homes are being foreclosed, shows the utter instability of the economic system. So, we have signs that the economic factors have been thrown into doubt.

The political sphere is also being speculated. The governments power may be total, but the people are questioning the government's interests. Overwhelming aid is given to these fallen big businesses, while the average working man is left to struggle. This shows that the average working man is being neglected, and this throws the political ideology of democracy, "a government for the people, and by the people," into doubt.

This is some shallow evidence that we are heading toward a paradigm shift. But, there is another thing necessary for a shift to take place, according to Kuhn. An alternative theory is necessary, one that accommodates the shortcomings of the old paradigm, as in the Copernican theory replacing the Ptolemiac. Unfortunately, this can not be found in or politic and economic situation. There is some discussion of alternate paradigms, but there is no movement toward this alternative theory. It would seem that we are doomed to go through these market crashes, and the governments backing of these failed big businesses, every decade or so, until we can posit an alternate form of political and economic structure.

A Server's Disdain

The misery of my eight hour day accumulates into a burning desire to piss in soup and spit in salad. These are the objects of my most profound disdain. I grow tired of discussing the nature of these minute and mundane entities of consumption; every day I am forced to face the drudgery of stressing over soup and salad. Clearly I am a server, not a 'waiter.'

Every time a hungry customer comes in to the Olive Garden I am turned into a means to an end. I am reminded of Kant's golden rule and feel disparaged by the condition of our society. I go through the conditions necessary to fulfill such a rule. I always reach the conclusion that my job could not exist, if this rule were put into action.

At work I am subjugated to so many different authorities, that my self worth is completely diminished. As a server I am at the bottom of the hierarchical ladder. I am forced to comply to the will of the Darden corporation, the managers, and the customer. Three different entities that see me as a means to an end. The corporation sees me as a means to strengthen its prospects to corner the hospitality market, if it takes my existence into consideration at all. The managers see me as a means to increase their financial situation and subject me to their abuse of power. The customer, the worst of all, sees me as a means to satiation and judgement. The customer comes in with a criterion of a server and I am evaluated accordingly. My intelligence, personality, and status as a human being is determined by these standards, and I am forced to comply. If I do not meet this criterion, then I do not get a decent tip and I am forced to try to survive on minimum wage. My entire existence is dependent on the valuation of others. My only form of retribution is to compromise the various health standards, that are imposed on all servers, for the protection of the customers health, the good name of the corporation, and the jobs of the management. I am not saying that I compromise these standards, but I am sure tempted and I would certainly protect those that do compromise those standards.

The point of all of this is to show my lowly existence. In a society of wage slaves, I am the slave of wage slaves. What does my liberation depend on? What system needs to be overthrown in order to gain this freedom? Clearly it is that which perpetuates and protects the institution of wage slavery. Government and economic prowess.

Until the day these two monstrosities are overthrown, it would be wise to be kind to your server, as the very object of his or her disdain is that which you order. And we have an infinite number of bodily fluids to subject those objects to.

Rousseau's Notion of Liberty in 'On the Social Contract'

In positing anarchism, as a practical form of human existence, one must do away with the existing notions that stand in the way. Ideas like Hobbes 'state of nature' need to be critiqued. Likewise Rousseau should be criticized. Rousseau's dichotomy of types of liberty should be looked at more closely, and then criticized.

In chapter eight of book one of On the Social Contract, Rousseau points out two types of liberty, Natural liberty and Civil liberty. He says Natural liberty is the freedom limited to the extent of one's amount of force. An individual's natural liberty depends on his or her ability to force others to follow his or her will. Rousseau says it is: "[L]imited solely by the force of the individual involved." (Rousseau, 151). Here we see the way in which the individual has freedom in the state of nature, according to Rousseau.

In opposition to Natural liberty is Civil liberty. Which has more to do with the will of all people, most likely with regard to the protection of the individual's interests. Rousseau says it is: "[L]limited by the general will." (Rousseau, 151). This shows that Civil liberty depends on consensus between individuals making up a society. Civil liberty clearly belongs to the group of people living in a society.

These two forms of 'liberty,' and the relative context Rousseau places them in, are very much interchangeable. One can certainly apply one form of liberty to the other form living conditions, be they a state of nature or society.

First it seems important to mention, as I did in my last blog entry, that the state of nature does no exist in the condition that Rousseau and Hobbes say it did. Never were individuals running around independently trying to conquer or enslave other individuals. Humans have always been pack animals and the social relations between packs probably presented the conditions of slavery and dominance that Rousseau and Hobbes discuss.

That being said, it is important to examine the social bond, presented in an individual pack in the state of nature. Clearly it would be the general will of the pack, that is placed above the individual, that will limit the individual's liberty. This is Rousseau's notion of civil liberty applied to the individual in the state of nature.

Now, one could examine the opposite form of liberty in the civil state. Simply looking at the enterprise of money shows the force that one individual can exert over another. The more money a person has, the more force he or she will have in a civil state. This will create more liberty for the person with more money.

The reversal of the notion of liberty shows the possible rejection of the civil state, simply questioning Rousseau's logic, and critiquing the notion of 'the state of nature,' will give us the ability to question the foundations of the justifications of belief in the state and the sovereign. While Rousseau may have been making the argument for a republic over a monarchy or state of nature, he still advocates a minority in control of the majority. This minority will always only seek to consolidate its power over the majority, as opposed to acting in the interest of the majority.


____________________________________________________________________

Works Cited

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. On the Social COntract. Jean-Jacques ROusseau: The Basic POlitical Writings. Trans. Cress, David A. Hackett Publishing Company. 1987. In. Page 151.

Alternative Theory for 'The State of Nature' and 'The Social Contract'

In my discussions of anarchism I continually come across the Hobbesian theory of 'the state of nature.' For some reason, people use Hobbes as concrete evidence against the possibility of a human society without government. Usually referring to Hobbes' belief that: "The life of man..." in the state of nature is "... solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." (Hobbes, 292). In reality, Hobbes' concept of human nature, and even his approach to the argument, is flawed. He makes bold claims, essentially based on nothing, and applies them to political practice. He claims, for example, that humans are selfish, only interested in self-preservation, and violent. Hence, humans need a sovereign power to keep every one's violent tendencies in check.

Of course there are problems with Hobbes' theory. First, there is the problem of justification. Is Hobbes justified in saying what he does about human nature and the social contract? Hobbes believes human nature is basically violent. He gives three reasons for human violence: competition, diffidence, and glory. He applies this to man in the state of nature. If we apply simple empiricist principle, then we can criticize Hobbes' claims abouth the state of nature. Empiricism states: justified knowledge can only be gained through experience. If Hobbes has never experienced humans in the state of nature how can he claim that they are violent? Perhaps, it is not the case that humans are violent. It would seem that he cannot make this claim. He is merely stating conjecture about how a human might behave in the state of nature.

Hobbes may even commit the fallacy post hoc ergo procter hoc. Hobbes is essentially looking at the world he lives in, which was in a violent civil war, and applying it to the human in a state of nature. He essentially claims that because humans are violent now, they have always been violent and will always be violent. This is not necessarily the case. There is one central difference between man in the state of nature and the man being ruled. The difference is the ruler. Perhaps the ruler is the reason man has become violent. In the state of nature man could have been very peaceful. We must at least consider this possibility. Perhaps man may desire self preservation through community and generosity in the state of nature.

An examination of the Hobbesian man in the state of nature should show the utter arrogance of his claim. He says man in a state of nature is constantly in a war of all against all. He literally says: "... Every man against every man." (Hobbes, 592). In reality man has always been a pack animal. There were never men independently running around killing one another in the way Hobbes describes. In fact, humans were always working together to preserve his or her community, hunter gatherers are probably the best example of this. Since we have shown a flaw in the Hobbesian man in the state of nature, we can certainly criticize his theory of 'the social contract.'

The social contract essentially claims that men enter into an agreement wherein they give up their ability to use violence by giving all of their powers to a sovereign. In this way men are protected from one another by the sovereign. Again, Hobbes is merely speculating, and does not give us evidence. One could easily say the sovereign gained his power in another way. We have already seen that man probably lived in packs; then it is most probable that one pack simply dominated another, enslaved them, and then institutionalized their dominance so as to pass it on through the generations.

If this were true, then we would see that the sovereign never protected humans from one another. Rather, the sovereign simply dominated and exploited humans, which were once peaceful. Once domination was instilled in humans their sense of self worth became diminished and began lashing out because of it.

We now have reason not to believe some of the central claims of Hobbes. Among them is the belief that the sovereign protects humans from one another. Really, the sovereign is constantly trying to consolidate its power over humans. Murder, rape, poverty, theft, all of these crimes are people inflicting harm on one another and are still rampant in the sovereign's society. How does the sovereign protect us from one another? Through fear of punishment? The simple fact that these crimes are still being commited shows the ineptness of the sovereign's protection. How can a person actually consider the Hobbesian state of nature a good criticism of anarchism? Hobbes' concept of human nature was flawed and should not be regarded any longer.

_____________________________________________________________________


Works Cited

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Classics of Moral and Political Theory: Fourth Edition. Ed. Morgan, Michael L. Hackett Publishing Company. IN. 2005. Page 592.

'Political Science'

What is it we hope to learn from 'political science'? It would be best to examine the term itself to get a better understanding of what it is we are studying. Unfortunately, dictionaries tend to give a vague definition of the terms. The words "of or pertaining to..." appear in the definition; which gives us no understanding of 'political science.' So, a deconstruction of the language seems to be in order.

First, we should examine the term 'political.' If we separate one term from the other it will be easier to understand how and what we are looking at. The 'what' would be anything political. The term 'political' pertains to 'government.' By 'government' we refer to that which presides over the masses of a civilisation. We know that there is some political procedure, and it usually seeks to enforce laws on the masses, through those procedures. By understanding 'political' as 'pertaining to government' we are still left with a vague definition of the term 'political science.' But, by examining what 'political' stands in relation too, 'science,' we will better understand the discipline of 'political science.'

The term 'science' usually refers to the observation of the laws of nature. The different fields of science refer to the observation of the laws in those particular fields. Science entails an objective view of the thing being studied. A scientist strips away all of his or her own prejudices and derives conclusions from his or her observations.

Then 'political science,' if I am not mistaken in my definitions, should refer to an objective investigation of how government controls and manipulates, through its own procedures, the masses of a civilisation. But, I feel 'political science' does not examine these processes in an objective manner. Of course, by looking at particular legal cases we understand how the process of a government work, but there are no natural laws in government, only man made laws. Typically when we study something man made we call it an 'appreciation,' for example 'art appreciation.' 'Political Science' means nothing, the two terms are not synonymous and therefore are non-sequitor. I propose the new title 'Political Appreciation,' for all those students who want to join the powerful minority that ever increasingly tries to take away the freedom of the masses.