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.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, February 9, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
'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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)