Calvin and Montaigne: Knowledge of the Self, Translations, and Dialogues

I went to a research/alumni lunch where a few students who were doing research got up for a while and talked about it. One of the individuals spoke about her research involving comparing the essays of Montaigne and John Calvin; while her particular research was involved in the French writings of each, she mentioned some things that I think have some interesting philosophical implications.

One of these is that both individuals were interested in development of the self, although the manifestations of this were different. From what little I know of Montaigne, I understand that he spent a great deal of his life writing and rewriting his essays, which, I have heard it argued, allowed him to describe the details of his life for himself, as well as for everyone else. By continuing to write about himself, he was delving into what it meant to be a self and what it meant to be human.

Calvin, the lecturer told us, was doing the same thing, although he did it through his commentary and translations into French of political and religious works; he did this, she told us, so that the common man, those speaking French not Latin, could participate in the conversation about God, politics, and philosophy. Montaigne, she argued, did the same thing in a sense by writing his essays in French rather than Latin. It would seem that both of these individuals believed that such works should be available to all, rather than just the elite.

The second topic that has sparked thought in my mind that she went over was that of contemporaries playing off of each other. Apparently, Montaigne came briefly after Calvin and therefore was well versed in the manner in which he wrote and put forth various ideas. Why is this interesting: well, I think that philosophy should be (and has been in the past) a similar conversation in which one is developing, strengthening, and challenging not only one’s own philosophical understanding, but that of others as well.

For example, right now I am doing research for Dr. Rosental on the dialogue between Leibniz and Newton, two individuals who vehemently disagreed with one another, and yet they participated in a conversation (although with several intermediaries) which helped to develop in writing their individual thoughts. This sort of dialogue seems to be essential to the development of philosophical thought, whether it is one person building on that of another, or two bitter rivals trying to sway the other.

Zeno's paradoxes

I continued the conversation that we had in PHI 311 today with a few friends at dinner. I explained the paradoxes to them and we decided we very well might make 4 shirts that each have a paradox on it and that say "Logic: You're doing it wrong."

It's rationalist stupidity like what Zeno presents, that follow only in the mind and not in reality, that make Aristotle's Formal Logic necessary. I really believe that he looked at Zeno's arguments and said, "That's just wrong, we need to make some laws against that," and proceeded to do so. My friends would like me to say here how strange it is that I hate this man so much. My mom says that it's probably a past- life thing, but I choose to believe that I love logic so much that there is no way around absolutely hating Zeno.

My friends agreed and we have no idea why someone like Zeno is famous as a philosopher. I don't think he even accurately presented his teacher, Parmenides', arguments. Socrates is asking him how he is even trying to defend his teacher's philosophy, and if it's not clear to someone like Socrates, then you are not presenting your argument in a logical way (or clearly defined your terms).Here's a quote straight from the horse's mouth: "If place exists, where is it? For everything that exists is in a place. therefore, place is in a place. this goes on to infinity. Therefore, place does not exist." (A Presocratic Reader 77). This man is made of stupid. Grrrr and Arg!!! Enough said.

The Mind of a Serial Killer

In my Communication and Culture class, we briefly discussed Kierkegaard’s theory of the self. Kierkegaard focused on the idea of the self as being understood in regards to relationships. In Kierkegaard’s Sickness Unto Death, he says that “the self is a relation which relates itself to its own self, or it is that in the relation [which accounts for it] that the relation relates itself to its own self; the self is not the relation but [consists in the fact] that the relation relates itself to its own self,” and he also says that “such a relation which relates itself to its own self (that is to say, a self) must either have constituted itself or have been constituted by another.” (Kierkegaard) If you have not studied Kierkegaard’s theory of the self before, I highly suggest reading his words slowly to properly digest them.

In class, we expanded this idea of the self and related it to the mind of a serial killer. One, as a sane individual, may not be able to grasp an understanding of why a serial killer would commit such violent acts towards another human being. However, not only can one may not be able to grasp this understanding, one does not desire to grasp this understanding because one is afraid to have this relational connection with this serial killer, in which one is able to say, “I can understand why this person murdered these people.”

David Chalmers on Consciousness

So I saw an interview of this philosopher named David Chalmers. This guy is apparently a really famous philosopher that does a lot of studies and lectures on consciousness.

The first topic that they discussed was about Qualia. Qualia is a term that refers to the subject of our mental state and what it is like to experience everything in our everyday lives. For example, seeing the color red, hearing music, and having a conversation with someone, or feeling a sharp pain in my finger. In all of these cases, I am the subject of a mental state with a very distinctive subjective character.

David Chambers went on to discuss his theories on consciousness. He explained that there has to be more to consciousness than just the physical brain. God had to have put consciousness into us and it just so happens that we have a body to go with it. He then explained that there are two issues that we encounter when trying to explain consciousness. The first issue, the easy one, is that we can explain how the brain works. We know that we have synapses and nerves in the brain that interpret everything, etc. The hard issue is explaining why everything is always accompanied by a "conscious experience". He explains that the hard problem of science cannot be solved by neuroscience alone.

Periodically through the interview I noticed that he would refer to God. When explaining consciousness he said, "God put consciousness into us and then put a body with it." I'm thinking that when he thinks about consciousness he could be using consciousness as an alternative to the soul. But then when I think about the soul I don't usually think that my soul is the reason why I experience consciousness.

This topic is really interesting for me and I feel like I have to continue following David Chalmers to see what else he thinks about consciousness.

Society

In my political philosophy we had the most interesting discussion about Machiavelli’s book the prince. One of the issues we skimmed was the idea that we all have this need to understand who we are and where we come from. Although I am sure the question has been endlessly debated, I am still curious to know your opinions on that subject. Why did we create society?
I personally believe it’s merely because we cannot help it. A basic fact about us is that we learn; we do so whether we want it or not. Our minds registers behavior, studies our surrounding, and adapt. It is impossible to not remember that fire burns once we experience it; it is even more difficult to not remember our reaction to later. It is safe than to say that a normal human being who has experience a displeasing effect automatically rebels against the cause or tend to try and control the terms within it which it happens again. We learn and feed off each other ideas consciously or unconsciously we are each other’s mentions. We create society simply because we felt once the need to adapt our circumstances to our surrounding. Does it make any sense?

Small Press Expo

Over the weekend, a friend of mine and I flew up to Maryland to see our very first comic convention: The Maryland Small Press Expo, otherwise known as SPX. The trip was a lot of fun—we met some interesting people, and got to see some sights in DC, but what really struck me was the nature of the convention.

The convention was focused specifically on “small press” or “indie” publishers, mostly people who had printed their books themselves and not through one of the major publishers. This meant that the majority of the people with whom I spoke were putting their own money into the creation of these books, and, for the most part, only making back enough to print the next batch.

This made me wonder about art, particularly how these people were breaking their backs to publish their dreams and seeing very little come out as a result of it. Is what these young men and women do somehow more artistic than a mainstream publisher, because a mainstream publisher can support himself on the profit from his books? Does art require suffering for it to be art? If these people were successful, would it still be art, or would it descend into commercialism (for that matter, is commercialism art? Eh, a discussion for another time).

Most important, I think, is the fact that these people do continue to publish despite all the setbacks (again, the discussion as to whether they publish DESPITE the setbacks or BECAUSE of them is one for another time). From this fact, I can gather that art is a powerful force, sufficient to propel artists directly towards their own creative visions, free of compromise. True, it’s free of profit as well, but that just makes their choice—to focus on their own material—that much more impressive.

Hinduism- Relgions Role in the World

In my church class at High Street Unitarian Universalist we are learning about Hinduism. Today the topic was "God and Gods in Hinduism." We learned about how Hinduism started out as a polytheistic religion and as Buddhism and Jainism were branching off of Hinduism it was developing a monotheistic core. India was later conquered by Muslims and Sikhism was formed.

What struck me about Hinduisms history is how as the Hindu population became more diverse and instead of conquering the other tribes, and getting rid of the opposing side’s local gods/goddesses, they absorbed the local gods into Hinduism. This is what was happening during the (at least) 2000 yrs before it started developing its monotheistic core. Monotheism only started to be an idea in Hinduism after it was no longer as beneficial for the survival of the religion for it to absorb local gods in this manner.

So I was wondering about the role that religion plays in shaping the way in which people interact with each other? In the west during the same time that the Hindu’s were peacefully integrating their neighbors into their religion, the Europeans were killing each other over religion. This goes against the Richard Dawkins take on religion, which is that religion is a poison, and instead turns religion into something that unites people. What do you all think religions role in society should be?

The Mind of a Creative Thinker

Mercer hosted a movie showing of The Neverending Story at Tatnall Park. Speaking very broadly, the movie is about a young boy who finds himself in an old bookstore in his attempt to hide from bullies. The boy is introduced to a book entitled The Neverending Story, in which he is instructed not to read, but the boy ends up stealing or borrowing the book without asking. The owner warned the boy that this particular book was not like an ordinary book; that it is possible to become trapped in the story of his imagination. In reading the book, the boy experienced this other world, yet of course he was still apart of the physical world. Further details of the movie is not relevant in this discussion. I want to examine the idea of the imagination.

In an essay by Sigmund Freud entitled Creative Writers and Day-Dreaming, Freud writes, "The creative writer does the same as the child at play. He creates a world of phantasy which he takes very seriously--that is, which he invests with large amounts of emotion--while separating it sharply from reality." (Freud) I wonder, what happens to a creative artist that loses the child within him/her. Does he/her cease to 'create'? For, a creation is something that is new, unseen, and un-thought of. Does the artist's work then become just a piece that depicts the reflection of the ordinary world?

Zastrozzi, The Master of Discipline

Yesterday, I was fortunate enough to be able to see the final performance of the Mercer Theater's version of "Zastrozzi, the Master of Discipline." This play had, as one of its themes, the notion that everyone should be judged for their crimes, with the main character, Zastrozzi, taking this upon himself. In effect, this atheist becomes God, punishing sinners for their transgressions. Setting aside the irony for a moment, this brings up an interesting question: to whom are men responsible when they commit crimes?

By becoming the force that judges men, Zastrozzi seems to make the statement that a crime is a crime; he pursues one particular man with a single-minded devotion that is often confused with madness. More than this, however, he seems to believe that men should be answerable to the men they harm; they shouldn’t expect to wait until their arrival in heaven before they are judged. This implies that laws and morals are human creations, rather than being divinely inspired.

The play also focuses heavily on themes of revenge; in this moment, Nietzsche’s abyss (and its tendency to stare) is called to mind. The play is clearly meant to be a warning against the dangers of allowing revenge to consume you, but more than that, it shows that a man who can focus on revenge at the expense of all else is no different from the man who was able to commit the crime in the first place.
This means that the judge is the same as the judged; what does this say about laws? Does this mean that laws (a human invention, which must be enforced by humans) can be broken in the pursuit of one who has broken laws? If this is the case, who will judge the man who, just recently, was the agent of righteousness (or, at the very least, human punishment)?

Philosophy and Art

Okay, so, I went to view the faculty art work, and the entire collection was wonderful of course, but being as I hold photography close to my heart, this is what drew me in. The photography was done by Craig Coleman and entitled "Regularity in the Midst of Chaos." The photos were everday images of this location absent of any sort of unnatural ocurrences, but still there was beauty there. In the philosophy world, there has been debates on whether 'ordinary images' such as these can be considered art, and I say YES, (AYN RAND), YES THEY CAN!