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.