Personal to Pace

[Nick_A]

Hi Pace

I see your question has been banned so ifyou’d like we can continue my suggestions on another board or site if you’d like. PM me if interested and I’ll use my diabolical brain tofigure some way around all this.

First your question:

Message
Pace

Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 7

Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 4:34 pm Post subject: PLEASE HELP

---

How are you doing guys. I am just starting to get involved with Philosophy. I wanted to write a paper on philosophy for my english class in college but I wanted to be more direct and I wanted something on more than just what is philosphy. So I went and spoke with a Philosophy Prof. and he gave me a few ideas. I was wondering if you guys could help me break down what these mean?

He said I should Explain Kant’s view on the subject of marriage. Is there anyway you guys can tell me what was new and distinctive about it? I need some help evaluating it. I dont really understand this and I can use help.

One othe option he said I should think about writing on was do I agree or disagree with Rouseau’s assessment of the consenquences of living in civilized society? I really am unsure and I need opinions. Again I love Philosophy and I am very new at it and I thought these questions would be a great place to start.

PS: as of now on my own I am reading Kant, Rousseau, Hume, and Descartes.

THANKYOU

Hi Pace

This is a challenge. When I was in college, English class usually had a female Prof. that liked the hearts and flowers approach. Philosophy class usually had a male that for some reason liked walking around with a stick up his behind assuming this to be a philosophical stance. So maybe a flowery paper on the trials and tribulations of an ill placed stick may make both happy.

If not which of these suggestions you are considering is of more interest to you? Both can be taken either superficially or in depth so consider the length of the paper.

Which of these two paragraphs interests you the most? Then perhaps we can discuss it.

First,as far as Kant and marriage, it begins with the contention that somehow sex as animal passion is degrading to reason so therefore, the human being.

“… to allow one’s person for profit to be used by another for the satisfaction of sexual desire, to make of oneself an Object of demand, is to dispose over oneself as over a thing and to make of oneself a thing on which another satisfies his appetite, just as he satisfies his hunger upon a steak. But since the inclination is directed towards one’s sex and not towards one’s humanity, it is clear that one thus partially sacrifices one’s humanity and thereby runs a moral risk. Human beings are, therefore, not entitled to offer themselves, for profit, as things for the use of others in the satisfaction of their sexual propensities.”

• Immanuel Kant

I believe this is from “Kant’s Philosophy of Law” But whatever, the idea here is that it is not right to use another as a means to an end. So if I as a man, am looking at the cute blond as a means to an end in regards sex, it is degrading to ones humanity.

Sex also denies reason, man’s defining quality assumed here as our rationality that allows us to rise above primal passions . This denial has been made crystal clear to every man knows who has pursued cute blondes.

Marriage saves the day because it is an agreement where one can be used by the other as well: In this way there is no unfair advantage of one over the other.

“each of them undertaking to surrender the whole of their person to the other with a complete right to disposal over it.”

So Pace, do you agree that sex degrades another to the level of a thing, necessarily degrades rationality, and that it is wrong to take advantage of another in this way?

Now as far as Rousseau as I understand him he believed man to be the “noble savage.” He became corrupted by society.

To make any sense out of this I believe we have to begin with three essential questions.

1. Is each man really good by nature? What defines “good” in this case?

2. Are all people the same? If not, how can we make such a blanket statement that each person is corrupted by society?

3. Can a society exist that by its nature develops rather than corrupts the “Noble savage?” What would be some qualities of such a society?

So Pace, does either Kant or Rousseau interest you? If you appreciate discussing such things, then you like philosophy. If not, why bother. If you’d like to hash some ideas around, lets do it. Give me your thoughts on which topic interests you and we can begin a conversation on it.

[Obw]

Come on Nick.

[Nick_A]

OBW

It is one thing to do someones homework for them and it is quite another thing to so crudely shoot down a new student. Some conversation and encouragement is not doing their homework. Maybe it inspires some thoughtful contemplation or is this considered outmoded since it gets in the way of nastiness?

That’s the trouble with philosophy now. Nastiness and attitudes have taken the “love of meaning” out of it. If the consensus is to rape some woman, I don’t see why I should participate in holding her down.

[Obw]

I’m not certain I can reply to that without coming off bad. Nicely done!

[Nick_A]

Obw

What can I tell ya, I’m a broad shouldered Aries male. It seems absurd to me that there should be this hesitancy to become vulnerable to express these questions honestly. Better to be correct than think. So I wasn’t sure what "help in evaluating"meant. I felt that Pace was then possibly more concerned with what was considered “right” rather then truly thinking on the question. We cannot upset the Prof. Now can we? So I thought to post a few teasers and invite him to question with me. What does he think. What are his questions. Lay it on me. I can take it without having to resort to righteous indignation. Then perhaps he can read further and organize all this into a coherent paper and not just copy someone elses work with a blank stare. This is not condescending but only an invitation to share in what I find both interesting and valuable. If it were a tavern, we’d pour a couple of tall ones and dig into it.

I remember when I first read this interview and how sad this passage made me feel. Maybe I’m old fashioned but this shouldn’t be the case. Kids shouldn’t be so fearful of considering these essential questions. One doesn’t have to be crude to be sincere. We are crude because we are unable to admit to this human vulnerability. Perhaps this is why I’m defensive in these situations.

conversations.org/jerry_n.htm

JN: There was an article a few weeks ago in the New York Times about New York City becoming the philosophy capital of the world–many leading academic philosophers are teaching there–and I was trained in that world at Harvard University. There were all these guys–competitive, analytic–and very often they were arguing about things which, to me, were completely sterile. And many people like you-I write about this in my book [The Heart of Philosophy]-who fell in love with philosophy find it was like falling in love with a beautiful woman who turned out to be frigid.

I remember I was a freshman at Harvard, in one of my first philosophy classes there. The professor started by asking-like I do sometimes, like professors do-what do you expect to get out of philosophy? I put up my hand and said, “I want to know why I’m living, why we die, Does God exist? What are we here for?” I went on an on like that, and I could see around me that there was this silence. My throat got dry, and I just felt awful. At first I’d thought that I was going to speak for the whole human race. And the professor, of course, was saying, “Yes. Go on.” He knew he had one. Finally I just couldn’t go on any more. Then he said, “Yes. But you see, that’s not philosophy. If you want to know those things, you have to see a psychiatrist or a priest. This is not philosophy.” It was such a shock.

I recovered quite well, but I had to find a few other people who shared my hunger. It is the hunger you’re speaking of. That is what Plato called eros—a word that’s come down to us which has taken on a sexual association. But for Plato it had to do, in part, with a striving that is innate in us, a striving to participate with one’s mind, one’s consciousness, in something greater than oneself. A love of wisdom, if you like, a love of being.

Eros is depicted in Plato’s text, The Symposium, as half man, half god, a kind of intermediate force between the gods and mortals. It is a very interesting idea. Eros is what gives birth to philosophy. Modern philosophy [??] often translates the word, “wonder” merely as “curiosity,” the desire to figure things out, or to intellectually solve problems rather than confronting the depth of these questions, pondering, reflecting, being humbled by them. In this way, philosophy becomes an exercise in meaningless ingenuity.

I did learn to play that game, and then to avoid it.

My students at State were very hungry for what most of us, down deeply, really want from philosophy. When we honor those unanswerable questions and open them and deepen them, students are very happy about it, very interested in a deep quiet way.

RW: It is really very hard to find that, I believe.

JN: Some years ago I had a chance to teach a course in philosophy in high school. I got ten or twelve very gifted kids at this wonderful school, San Francisco University High School. In that first class I said, “Now just imagine, as if this was a fairy tale, imagine you are in front of the wisest person in the world, not me, but the wisest person there is and you can only ask one question. What would you ask?” At first they giggled and then they saw that I was very serious. So then they started writing. What came back was astonishing to me. I couldn’t understand it at first. About half of the things that came back had little handwriting at the bottom or the sides of the paper in the margin. Questions like, Why do we live? Why do we die? What is the brain for? Questions of the heart. But they were written in the margins as though they were saying, do we really have permission to express these questions? We’re not going to be laughed at? It was as though this was something that had been repressed.

[Mucius_Scevola]

“… to allow one’s person for profit to be used by another for the satisfaction of sexual desire, to make of oneself an Object of demand, is to dispose over oneself as over a thing and to make of oneself a thing on which another satisfies his appetite, just as he satisfies his hunger upon a steak. But since the inclination is directed towards one’s sex and not towards one’s humanity, it is clear that one thus partially sacrifices one’s humanity and thereby runs a moral risk. Human beings are, therefore, not entitled to offer themselves, for profit, as things for the use of others in the satisfaction of their sexual propensities.”

• Immanuel Kant

As usual, Kant sticks his alpenstock firmly in the ground of reason and attempts a logical construction clad in iron-bound arguments which, if permitted, appear overwhelming. This is, of course, a good thing, as harshness has never done wrong to anyone.

One must see Kant’s position towards hedonistic behaviour as, firstly, an affirmation of his own transcendental philosophy and, second, the edifice of such a philosophy transposed in reality. As far as I know and can understand of Kant, he has throughout his entire life maintained a stalwart position at the antipode of the fashion of physical intercourse. Having known only one woman his whole life, a female servant, he finds an echo in the more modern Borges, who apparently knew none. Kant’s actual description of the sexual act was that it “is short lasting and the moves are ridiculous”. Kant advocates his ideas with the argument that to be free is to affirm the autonomy of your will, which is the action guided only by moral law in its absolute. Not much you could use to impress your girlfriend, eh ?

Anyway, it’s interesting to see how he (Kant) comes at odds with the Greek acception of being and its role/destiny. The Greeks, good lads, held the unalterable ethical position that Good as a Form was that which gave consistency and, foremost, completion to an existence. Up to Aristotle, the good old Antics aimed to give unity of content rather than of form to the subject - something that enabled him to fulfil his destiny.

“Do what you like”, they said, “with the condition to gain wholeness and fulfillement”. As opposed, Kant’s Categorical Imperative said: “Do what you have to” (even if you may never feel accomplished).

How should we see the ethical act between the two poles, as reuniting the exigence of form imposed by Kant and that of content advocated by the Antics ?

Maybe we could slip more towards existentialism, perhaps we should reconcile the act and our ethical conscience, in the attempt to fill actual content into a given form. Kant’s detractors have always seen in Kant’s moral man an overly formalized being, uncontaminated by reality and its contexts and, ultimately, ridiculous. As far as we put more stress on the perpetual change and dynamism of the human being, such an opinion is somehow justified. Tolstoy’s most blissful characters, like Pierre Bezuhov in War and Peace combined a transcendental vision with a healthy life, where the plenitude of of a healthy feeling prevails over formal aspects of conduct, although meeting them with accuracy.

As a sidenote, I prefer to see Nick helping students with their studies and inquiries rather than gliding over entire pages of small talk about one’s new car.

[Faust]

Mucius - there are few passages in Kant that illustrate better that he was, at bottom, an idiot. See ethics between these two poles? How does Kant get into this game at all? You can’t start with something so moronic on its face. Start anywhere else - not with Kant.

“Act as if all your former girlfriends are watching” - Ernst Werklempter.

Kant always acted as if his mother was watching. Okay for the masses. Idiotic for the philosopher.

faust

[Obw]

A couple of observations Nick about that interview you cited:

1. I don’t think the guy knows much about Plato or Ancient Greek society. He literally thinks plato meant by eros a semi-demi-god entity.

2. Dry philosophy is the unavoidable result of any serious, intelligent, pursuit of the passion for exactly the sorts of questions the student chap was interested in. It’s just a shame that so many people pick up the passion for the image of philosophy but then get turned off by the prospect of a little hard work and effort - it cannot all be marvel after marvel, at some point you are going to have to work out if synthetic a priori judgements are really possible or not. And that’s simply not passionate nor particularly enjoyable. But it does let you discover, ultimately, some very marvellous things. I personally get quite angry by people like that chap, who think only they have the real ancient’s love for the field, whereas all these hardened dry academics have somehow got caught up in word games and left the ‘real meaning’ behind. It just sounds like excuses from those who were too lazy.

[Faust]

obw - while I have reservations about the seriousness of many academics, I will say that you have said a mouthful here, and well. Part of the problem here is that many start with the ancients, don’t get past them, fall in love with them, and think they deserve the last word and a wholly undue reverence.

[Nick_A]

Obw

couple of observations Nick about that interview you cited:

1. I don’t think the guy knows much about Plato or Ancient Greek society. He literally thinks plato meant by eros a semi-demi-god entity.

2. Dry philosophy is the unavoidable result of any serious, intelligent, pursuit of the passion for exactly the sorts of questions the student chap was interested in. It’s just a shame that so many people pick up the passion for the image of philosophy but then get turned off by the prospect of a little hard work and effort - it cannot all be marvel after marvel, at some point you are going to have to work out if synthetic a priori judgements are really possible or not. And that’s simply not passionate nor particularly enjoyable. But it does let you discover, ultimately, some very marvellous things. I personally get quite angry by people like that chap, who think only they have the real ancient’s love for the field, whereas all these hardened dry academics have somehow got caught up in word games and left the ‘real meaning’ behind. It just sounds like excuses from those who were too lazy.

I think you underestimate Jacob needleman. He is far from lazy or a dreamer. IMO he is one of the truly gifted thinkers on these matters in America and lives by his understanding. He isn’t against the critical mind but it should serve as a tool for the wholeness of a person rather than create the person through the denial of reality.

jacobneedleman.com/

Click on his bio. Could you do half as much? IMO he understands Plato as intended by Plato.

[Obw]

It’s not really about obw vs. Jacob Needleman though - I was just making some observations about that type of opinion.

I couldn’t comment on his general understanding of Plato. Anyone who thinks Plato meant by eros the literal demi god does not, in my opinion, have the right end of the stick. I’ve been wrong before!