Showing posts with label inequality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label inequality. Show all posts

Sunday, March 30, 2014

What is contemporary intellectual debate?

What is contemporary intellectual debate?

Amidst grading and keeping dry this weekend, I came across this blurb of a debate talking place between two journalists, which seems apposite to some of the things we will be discussing in the next few weeks.  I'm posting the debate in the Google Drive in a folder called "Debate".  

If you care about inequality and discrimination and what the answers might be to it (nice rhetorical gesture, no?), you should read this.  None of the pieces are that long.

I also watched a horrible horrible movie called "Amazing Racer" (also apparently known prosaically as "Shannon's Rainbow") with my son, which is on NetFlix (he selected it), but starts among others Eric Roberts (no stranger to B movies), Jason Gedrick and Louis Gossett Jr. (of Iron Eagle fame!), as well as Scott Eastman (Clint's son), Darryl Hannah and Michael Madsen (MM had no business being a movie that does not involve crime or swords or violence).  It had no connection to the preceding.

Sunday, February 23, 2014

Rousseau Reflections

"One would see the leaders fomenting whatever can weaken men united together by disuniting them; whatever can give society an air of apparent concord while sowing the seeds of real division; whatever can inspire defiance and hatred in the various classes through the opposition of their rights and interests, and can as a consequence strengthen the power that contains them all" (Blue Book 89).

I wanted to present this quote to promote discussion on some of Rousseau's briefly mentioned ideas that  we didn't have time to focus on in class because we were more focused on his big ideas in the essay. When I read this section, I immediately circled it and wrote in the margins: "Britain with India's Hindus and Muslims." I sat in on a class early this semester that discussed the roots of India's revolution. Before class we had read Gandhi's Critique on Civilization (1908), where he discusses (I'm simplifying this, but it's very interesting to read) how he essentially blames railroads and technology as the downfall of India because they allowed man to travel farther than his feet naturally could take him--leading him to communities different than his own and to cause race and religious tension. (I actually didn't remember this until I started writing this blog, what I was going to bring up was...) While (Wikipedia tells me) Britain was not the first to build railroads in India, they were responsible for expanding it. In class, Professor Moss Roberts discussed how one way the British raised and maintained their political power in India was by pushing the Muslim and Hindu communities toward conflict. So rather than working together to push out the British, they were pre-occupied with land and religious tension.

While my first thought went to that seemingly far away history lesson, it seems to be this foreign politics tactic has been reused again and again, existent even today--in our own government.

Did any other particular "truths" pop out to you guys in Rousseau's text that are prevalent to our history?

On the Two Declarations, Angelica Paquette

Concerning the two declarations of rights, I have found that they contrast not only in the obvious focus on sex, but also in aspects such as punishments for crimes and taxing. The basic rights described in each are liberty, property, security and the resistance to oppression, but the ways these rights are protected and enforced are very different. De Gouges' Declaration of the Rights of Woman highlights strict enforcement and punishment for both sexes. She describes this as obeying "rigorous law" in article VII. On the other hand, the Declaration of Human and Civic Rights takes a more cautionary side when describing the enforcement of the law and punishment for offenses against it. Article 8 says punishments must be strictly necessary and specifically dictated by law. This is a sharp distinction from De Gouge's more authoritative view of the punishment for offending the law.

The difference between these two declarations contrasts from typical gender roles. The rights drafted for the National Assembly try to avoid the abuse of power while De Gouge's declaration of woman's rights is less sympathetic for offenses against the law. I have interpreted this as a result of De Gouge trying to put women on the same level of men so much so that some of the rights of government established are harsher than that of the Declaration of Human and Civic Rights. Would you agree with me in this aspect? Or would you say there's another reason why De Gouge's declaration highlights stricter punishment?

Angelica

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Rousseau Entry!

After speaking about the lack of misery that the savage man has, Rousseau states, "In instinct alone, man had everything he needed in order to live in the state of nature; in a cultivated reason, he has only what he needs to live in society" (Rousseau 34 in white book). It seems here that reason is a curse to the pursuit of happiness. A savage man cannot possibly be miserable if he is at peace and at good health, but a civilized man is miserable because he has reason and the ability to question his existence. Also, Rousseau believes that reason is deemed almost useless in time of need. Cleverness seems more useful in the natural environment but is that an innate instinct in savage man?

To delve into Angelica's point a little bit, I do not believe that he aimed this towards a Christian audience or it is very Christian because on page 26 (white book), he states "savage man… will therefore begin with purely animal functions." Christians would not believe that this is the beginning of mankind because Adam and Eve are the parents of humanity and they were made more or less with reason like modern humans. Also, there were no humans before Adam so I believe it would be a difficult argument to say that Adam = developed man because there was no man before him to develop from.

-Fiorentin Nacaj

Sunday, February 9, 2014

Reading questions: Rousseau's Discourse on the Origin of Inequality (the first part)

  1. What's the import of the Letter to the Republic of Geneva? How does it relate to the issues concerned in the Discourse proper?
  2. Why is it difficult to grasp the original of human nature?  Is it even possible?
  3. Why do we need to know what the human being was in the state of nature in order to grasp "natural right" (40)?
  4. Is Rousseau's question after the original of human nature a problem for us, given our dramatic advances in scientific and technical knowledge?
  5. Why are natural and moral inequality not the same for Rousseau? What would it mean for a concept of right if they were?
  6. What are the four main characteristics of human being in the state of nature?
  7. How are perfectibility and freedom related to one another?
  8. Does human being in the state of nature have reason?
  9. Why does human being in the state of nature not need language?
  10. One of the issues that we discussed in class last week concerned love? Can human being in the state of nature love others?