in it’s earlier philosophic conception, balance was known as harmony. the presocratics poisted their many physical explainations of the universe based on the achievement of this harmony, this balance. platonic ethics carried this concept to stand as the necessary prequesit for all acts of virture; a harmonious soul is the ideal state to be virtuous, not simply performing acts with a soul out of wack.
balance was not based on what one did, but what one was.
the cartesian cognito advanced to extremes, specifically in the works of locke, during the enlightenment changed the concept of balance. balancing was removed from a term refering to the ordering of an a priori soul, to become the ordering of the events in the life. this shift is because there was a pivot in the definition of a soul, or a life force – it became what one choose to enact on the world, rather than something given at birth. by controlling what one did, by bringing balance to the external forces of one’s life, one soul was balanced because a soul was only a composite of one’s actions.
popular discourse still remains in this state, strangely enough. in the media, in the discussion with the common folk, a balance is said that needs to exist between what one does. being a student must be a balance of working a job, studying and classes, going out to party, etc. being an adult largely means balancing a personal life with a job. the ideal of balance is still held. one must assume that this is because the conception of the cognito is also accepted.
which makes fustrating for any student of post-modernism because we need only look at the works of marx and freud to see this refuted. both thinkers are still very popular for other contributions to the public discourse, yet both seem to be ignored on their position. marx suggested that the lockean cognito was actually valid only in reverse; we did not actually act on the world, but it acted upon us to determine our selves. freudian theory believed that there was another force at work, below the consciouslly constructed self, that was not in our control. what these two theories mean to do, while neither needing to be absolutely right, successfully proove that there are alternative explanations for the creation of the self.
the myth of balancing becomes just a myth. it is a hangover from enlightenment that lets people believe they exercise subjectivity and are therefore ‘empowered’.
yet, just as there are perfectly viable alternatives to the lockean cognito, there are also viable alternatives to the priority of balance; it alone does not have to be the ideal. but the popular sentiement that one needs to strive for balance in one’s life is in itself a hegomonic view of binarism. it’s unwillingness to allow for a different conception of the self, or of the ideal self, is a narrow view that can be dangerously wield.
You mention in your concluding paragraph that there are ‘viable alternatives to the priority of balance’. And yet you fail to provide any.
Are you suggesting some abstract ‘striving for imbalance’ here? Or is the word ‘striving’ itself a problem? Does not ‘striving’ necessarily make ANY formulation (of which it is a part) to some extent hegemonic and thus ‘narrow’ (as you say of the notion of striving for balance itself)?
To strive for balance may be hegemonic and narrow but to strive for anything else is surely equally so (?)
If we’re not careful here, we will be caught in a quagmire of relativism.
strive was the incorrect word if strive is equated with progress or advancement. then it does conform to the hegomoneic view because all progress is inately linear.
but, i think that strive can refer to wanting to achieve something, in the same way that one might desire something. assuming that the desire is done not in self-interest (i.e. that it is not ranked perferentially but is something just wanted arbitarily) to strive for something seems to me to be able to constitute simply the fulfilling of what one wants.
no, that would be the perfect Other though, wouldn’t it? i’m not suggesting any alternative to striving for balance because i think that the concept of balance is intricantly tied to a concept of the self. what i wanted to show was that if one is rejected, as i think most 20th century philosophers seem to, or at least most of the major schools, than what needs to be redefined is a purpose. balance was the purpose of the modern life, because the self consisted only in what one did. if the self takes on other forms, there is no reason to hold on to this concept of balance – it’s outdated.
the concept of balance is to philosophy what an appendix is to the human body; a leftover from the past, presently useless and potientially dangerous if not removed when it is necessary.
the danger with retaining the concept of balance is that we also retain the notion of subjectivity. that we need to exercise control over our surrondings. wasn’t the iraq war justified with the idea of bringing balance to region dominated with fundamentalists? that to me seems more of an unfavourable quagmire.
I think that with your own words there is sufficient evidence to disagree with the assertion you make and subsequently clarify in your second post, that: “what i wanted to show was that if one is rejected [the cognito or balance], as i think most 20th century philosophers seem to, or at least most of the major schools, than what needs to be redefined is a purpose”
You wrote:
and,
Marx is essentially saying that what creates the cogito is the environment. Therefore, presocratic harmony (or balance) is created by aligning the “soul” with what created it- the environment. But if you’re inculcated into a world that claims a particular balance is necessary (as ours does), and that same world determines your cogito (according to Marx), then aren’t you forced to live a balanced life in order to be virtuous? One seems to beget the other…
A huge problem I see with the presocratic ideal of virtuousness, when combined with Marxian theory, is that one could lead a virtuous life by being murderous, corrupt and deceitful. If a man’s self is created by the environment, and that environment makes him into a murderer, than in order to be virtuous he would have to continue to behave as his world created him.
I also kindly disagree with the notion that seeking balance equates to purpose. I don’t see balancing a life as its purpose- it is merely a means to keep “peace of mind.” I don’t think we can actually assign life a purpose, aside from perhaps that it should be experienced (and even this is arguable).
I also disagree with concluding that the Lockean Cogito is refuted by the following rationale:
While these theories may be right, they in no way prove that the Cartesian idea of the self is incorrect, as you seem to allude to. We simply do not know. Doubt can be cast on anything, but this proves nor disproves nothing.
You argue, if I understand you correctly, that ‘balance’ is youor intuitive concordance with your environment. This sidesteps problems of ideology as you note.
But as youo note, balance and purpose are different things. You have not shown how problems of ideology can be similarly sidestepped when dealing with questions of ‘purpose’. The above quote is not sufficient.
I am intensely dissatisfied by this conclusion. This is horribly relativistic and (I say it reluctantly) a tad naive.
‘Something exists’ is a provable statement, for instance, whose validity ‘doubt’, whatever you think that might signify, is not able to challenge. You may disagree. But I should warn you that I won’t refer you to some simple ontological argument on this point. Instead, look at the problem of ‘nothingness’ as approached by Heidegger et al. This is what I’d point to as a starting point for the refutation of your position.
for the record, i have written and posted 2 replies to matthew e’s post but each has been lost. my fustration is paramount. let’s lighten the mood with me telling everyone an interesitng piece of inforamtion. the philosophy prof who teaches the courses on marx and marxism at my school is also the president of the communist party of canada. deep breath. once again…
what i intended to suggest by bringing in marx is to show that by altering the conception of the self, a differing conception of balance or an ideal state is delievered. the marxist self is constructed by the environment. however, marx also believed that there was a rational part of the human (it just didn’t consist of the entire self, as the moderns thought). it was through using this part that it was expected we would return to our true natures – building a communist state. commuisim is all about balance and harmony, equally spreading the wealth, the political decisions, the social power…so, marx shifting the need for balance from the individual to the collective would be how marx’s reconception of the self reflected a reconception of balance. he would not have said that the individual living in the society that encourages individual balance is an ideal, but the individual should actively campagain to bring about the communism. the self and the concept of balance, i think he will agree, provides a false sense of power for man that he simply doesn’t have.
the very possibility that the other theories might be correct proove that the cartesian self is incorrect. the cognito is absolute there is only one way that the world can be seen, only one way that the self can be accessed and that is solely through the rational man. this is an absolutist stance, and i think the fact that other views of the self cannot be disproven entirely is a testament to the inadequancies of the theory. that is, if i were to make the statement: democracy is only caused by economic growth is every political system ever VS democracy can sometimes be produced by economic growth amongst other factors. while i believe strongly that the first statement can be certainly disproven, the second even less so.
gavtmcc,
i think matthew e. was trying to prove that balance can be an instruemental good, but just an end in itself. i don’t think this disturbs my arguement too much, as i want only to proove the correlation between the self and balance, which still stands if the self is an instrument. further, under the lockean cognito, doesn’t everything outside of the rational mind HAVE to be an instruement?
I don’t doubt existence, so allow me to make that clear. Everything else however, can be doubted. I should have made that more explicit in my post, so I apologize. Whether or not it is reasonable to doubt the “realness” of everything is another story. I don’t really wish to get into a debate over skepticism, so I’ll await your response to see just how much you agree with such a position.
I’m not too sure that I am side-stepping ideology when determining that life may be purpose-less. I’m simply at the position that I cannot know life’s purpose, but that there seem to be several choices (ideologies) I have to pick from.
Trix wrote:
What the self “is” is really an epistemological question, much in the same vein as free will and determinism. I’ve gathered (at least from the countless threads that are continually started on the subject) that the “truth” behind any of the aforementioned theories cannot be proven. These two topics are at the core of this debate- Marx’s deterministic world, and Locke’s free-choice world. Both make compelling arguments, but neither is “proven”- especially by the mere presence of the other.
I hesitated to respond to this thread, especially since Trix is gone. Perhaps, my post may incite her to come back. I leave the power to the moderators in deciding whether or not my post should be deleted. But here goes my response…
The thread is in error right from the title of the thread. There is a crucial difference between ‘balance’ and ‘harmony’. Plato was aware of both words and those who really understand plato know that he chooses every word carefully and methodically. He chose the word ‘harmony’ and not ‘balance’ for a reason. I won’t go into the greek translations of the words and how they were interpreted in that time, for I think that a contemporary review of the words suffices.
A state of equilibrium or parity characterized by cancellation of all forces by equal opposing forces.
In order to really understand this definition as well as others we need to understand ‘equilibrium’ which is defined as: A condition in which all acting influences are canceled by others, resulting in a stable, balanced, or unchanging system.
Now we can see that Plato couldn’t have meant ‘balance’ since the three parts of the soul don’t cancel each other out. Furthermore, Plato would not agree that the three parts of the soul have equal forces, whether opposing or otherwise.
The power or means to decide.
This one is easily refuted since a person without harmony in their soul could still make decisions, or atleast would have the POWER to make decisions.
A state of bodily equilibrium: thrown off balance by a gust of wind.
The definition refers to a balance in standing or being physically counterweighted to be still. There is the same problem with the word equilibrium and even if there wasn’t and they interchanged it with harmony, it still wouldn’t be enough since Plato believes in harmony between the mind, body, and soul.
A stable mental or psychological state; emotional stability.
This one misses out on the soul and the body.
A harmonious or satisfying arrangement or proportion of parts or elements, as in a design. See Synonyms at proportion.
This one is a kicker, cause it refers right to ‘harmony’. It’s also a good definition because it is general and allows us to fit Plato’s view into it. Hence, if by ‘balance’ we mean this sixth definition, than I am in agreeance. Since it will be synonymous with ‘harmony’.
An influence or force tending to produce equilibrium; counterpoise.
Same problem with ‘equilibrium’. Furthermore, harmony, for plato, is not a force that tends to produce anything. Harmony is the compatibility of all parts and not that which causes the compatibility of all parts. Here it is defined according to dictionary.com:
compatibility in opinion and action
a harmonious state of things in general and of their properties (as of colors and sounds);
congruity of parts with one another and with the whole [syn: concord, concordance]
4: agreement of opinions [syn: concord, concordance]
The definition that fits best from these is #3.
Onto Trix’s elucidations…
Trix stated:
No it wasn’t. It was differentiated then just as it is now. There may be moments where people’s usage of ‘balance’ is synonymous with ‘harmony’ but the two are distinct. Like I said, Plato was aware of both words and chose ‘harmony’ for a reason.
Trix stated:
I think what you mean to say here is that the harmonious soul is the only state from which one is virtuous. Even an apparent virtuous act is not virtuous if one’s soul is not in harmony. In fact, Plato thought that if there was harmony in your soul then you were incapable of committing an unvirtuous act. He went further to say that one with harmony in their soul won’t even get sick. The reason I point these things out is because of your next line…
Trix stated:
Which I believe in highly erroneous. For the above stated reasons it should be apparent that harmony was based on having harmony in one’s soul which is the same as what one was, how one acted, as well as one’s physical condition. The three are inexorably linked, not distinct as you make it appear.
Trix stated:
I’m a little confused here. You speak of balance, then you speak of the cogito advancing to extremes, but you provide no link between the two. How is balance and Descartes ‘Cogito’ related? Furthermore, how exactly did Locke go to extremes with Descartes ‘cogito’? You need to supply your claims with some kind of argument. I don’t need you to make extravagant references to philosophers, or air tight arguments, but atleast provide some quick personal, or otherwise, reason for why you claim what you do.
Trix stated:
There needs to be a little bit of clarity added to this. It’s not that balance/harmony referred to the ordering of an apriori soul, but that it referred to the harmony of an apriori soul WITHIN the body. That is an important difference. I don’t agree that balance was removed as one definition and reinstated as the ordering of the events of one’s life. We speak of having balance in our lives, yes, in the way you describe it. But that doesn’t mean that we are ignorant of the fact that our thoughts, logic, feelings, and actions must all be in harmony. I think you have created an imaginary image of people in contemporary times and have based your entire argument upon it. But if you are wrong about your image of people then the entire argument is reduced to a Straw Man Fallacy.
Trix stated:
I don’t know of a single person who believes that one’s soul is only a composite of one’s actions. In contemporary times I have noticed that there isn’t so much an emphasis on actions, but the way in which the actions are done. We are also quite aware of the importance of intention (Kant is a very big influence in modern philosophy), as opposed to a rigidly consequentialist perspective.
Trix stated:
Where can I find this POPULAR DISCOURSE in the state of one’s soul being only a composite of one’s actions. I would be most interested to indulge myself in such reading in order to understand your perspective from a different light.
Trix stated:
??? I watch TV, I read newspapers, I read magazines, and I listen to the radio…and never, and I mean never, have I heard the words “one’s soul is merely a composite of one’s actions” or anything close to that. Perhaps you could enlighten me with some references to movies, shows, sitcoms, quotes, books, magazines, newspapers, where this reference is made. Apparently you are something other than the common folk which you denigrate to believing balance exists only in one’s actions. I remember a time when you also denigrated ILP as containing LOTS OF UNIFORMED TALK…all I have to say to you is “Projection your Honor!”. Projection (Psychological term) = attributing one’s own qualities onto others as a self-defence mechanism or a strategy for making oneself feel better about themselves.
Trix stated:
I really don’t know where you are getting the idea that balance for a student means that they MUST be working a job, studying for classes, and going out to party. I know plenty of students who are happy individuals and they don’t have a job, yet they are studying. I also know plenty of individuals who are working but don’t study though they do go to school. I also know plenty of individuals who party but don’t have a job. Lastly, I also know plenty of people who work a job, study, and party. According to your above quote, we should be charging Plato with claiming that a soul consists merely of one’s actions since he believes in the specialization of one’s talent in terms of a job which one does for the state. Hence, Plato would claim that what one does is an expression of their soul and they are happy doing it (according to your claim this statement could be made). Plato doesn’t even speak of a personal life. He speaks only of the working and political life. It seems you aren’t convinced of where it is you stand on the matter.
Trix stated:
First of all. With everything you stated prior to this quote was meant to be in terms of us acting on our environment? Does doesn’t necessarily follow. It is possible to think of one’s soul merely as a sum of one’s actions and believe that either I am acting on my environment or that the environment acts upon me. Secondly, I don’t agree with you that marx and freud refute the fact that our soul is merely a sum of our actions. In fact, I think it is impossible to tell whether our soul is a sum of our actions only, when it comes to Marx. In both the German Ideology and The Communist Manifesto Marx makes many claims in terms of a humans life, but all are in terms of a humans ‘material life’. Furthermore, it is apparent that he is aware of a human life being about more than just the ‘material life’. It’s just that those other forms of life don’t concern him insofar as his political views are concerned. Nevertheless, I think a marxian argument can be made for both sides. For example, in THE GERMAN IDEOLOGY under the first chapter FEUERBACH (A. Idealism and Materialism) Marx states: “As individuals express their life, so they are.” Which could easily be interpreted to mean that he believes we act upon our environment through what we produce and how we produce it. On the other hand, in the same chapter Marx claims “The nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining their production” which could easily be interpreted to mean that nature acts upon us. It could even be argued that Marx doesn’t argue for either, but that he thinks the two coincide. In the same chapter Marx states: “What they are, therefore, coincies with their production, both with what they produce and with how they produce.”
As for Freud, well as far as I have spoken with Psychology professors, Freud is as good as gone as Phlogiston was once believed to be the source for Fire.
Trix stated:
I’m confused again. You said that balancing is now wrongly interpreted to be the balancing of one’s actions in order to keep the soul balanced. Yet, then you claim that people believe this because it makes them believe that they excercise subjectivity and are therefore ‘empowered’? I think the issue here is one of order. If as you claim that the soul is the sum of one’s actions then you are claiming that first there are actions and only then is the soul defined. This is an objective claim. Yet, if this is so, then you cannot claim people have this belief so that they can believe that they are excercising subjectivity. Only a view in which the soul was first and not the sum of one’s actions would one be led to a subjective view.
Trix stated:
I don’t agree that balance as you have defined it is what the majority or even the minority believe about their actions or about their soul, and hence not hegemonic. You’ve made people out to be much more simple then they are (again with the Staw Man). I don’t see any ‘unwillingness’ for a different conception of the self. I see many conceptions of the self amongst all classes; poor and rich, uneducated and the educated, the enlightened and the unenlightened. You’ve narrowed the view of others unjustifiably and provided, rather ironically, a very narrow view of a counter-argument. In fact, it is very difficult to see where it is that you yourself can be found amidst your post. You seem to be saying Plato thought this…people today think this…marx and freud claim this…and hence people’s conception is a hegemonic view of binarism (which is nothing more than an insult - people, as a majority, are a little more sophisticated then simply viewing everything as either white or black - though as you have proven there are those who do see things only in white or black).