Schopenhauer and Kants Copernican Revolution - Dissertation Example

Phil 330 Chapter 9 How does Schopenhauer carry on Kant’s Copernican revolution? Kant’s “Copernican Revolution” is all about the idea that objects of experience are known as phenomena while in the absolute sense they were only subjective. For Kant, the real objects are the things-in-themselves, which are apart from the perceiver’s consciousness. Schopenhauer echoed the same ideas of Kant as Schopenhauer believed that the real thing is known as the “Will as thing-in-itself,” while at the same time he maintains that objects as we perceive them are “all there are.” This means that while all that we can perceive is “phenomena” or “all there are,” the real thing or one that we cannot perceive but whose existence we know of is the “Will as thing-in-itself.” However, for Schopenhauer, this “Will as thing-in-itself” cannot be separate from “phenomena,” while Kant believed they were separate. 2. What are the two aspects of the world that we experience according to Schopenhauer? According to Schopenhauer, the two aspects of the world that we experience are the objective world or the external world that is relative to each of us, and the subjective world of the will, which is internal to us. Thus, the movement of the hand is objectively the outward movement, but inwardly it is the will in the individual to move it. 3. Explain Schopenhauer’s doctrine of the will to live. For Schopenhauer, the doctrine of the will to live means that everything in this world is an expression of the will and thus depends only on oneself. The world was therefore shaped through man’s will. Thus, when there is a will, there is life. Moreover, when one has the will to live, he does not fear death. This is the basis of the will to live or survive, which is the highest of all wills. 4. What is the relationship between our body and the will? For Schopenhauer, the physical body is the only object relative to the individual. The physical body is the object that experiences our will and is subjected to the laws of the universe, and the vehicle by which we experience emotions and action. It is the will that directs and shapes the body as it is. 5. What is the human condition according to Schopenhauer? Do you agree with him? Schopenhauer believes that if humans see the truth of the world from a moral perspective, they would see suffering, death and all other repulsive things. Thus, the result would be their denial of the will-to-live, which some people express through asceticism. This is the human condition, thus the goal of philosophy is to teach people to embrace the will-to-live and thereby to direct it towards better ways. I agree with Schopenhauer on the human condition. Thus, I believe one should own all these bad circumstances that surround him, and thus accept the will-to-live in the process in order to change these bad things. 6. According to Schopenhauer, what should be our attitude toward our death? According to Schopenhauer, one should embrace the will-to-live in order to accept the fact that death is the aim and purpose of life and that death is inevitable. For Schopenhauer, existence is constant dying, which means that all our actions are directed towards the avoidance or delay of death, although death is inevitable. Nevertheless, despite the inevitability of death, one should embrace the will-to-live in order that he may not fear death. Chapter 10 1. Explain historical materialist determinism. Historical materialist determinism is the idea that all cultural and social movements and ideas were caused or brought about by economic and material conditions of the times. Thus, it was the economic upheavals that gave birth to the many eras of human history. It is not the change of governments or religious ideas that triggered the growth of new societies but rather the economic and material conditions of the time. 2. Explain Marx’s organicism. What does he mean by that term? Organicism, according to Marx, is the notion that capitalist society is not a fixed, homogeneous entity but an organism that is dynamically changing and developing. The organic development of a society is the progressive development from a contradictory state to one which is fully actualized and self-sufficient or self-subsistent. Organic unity is therefore gauged as the number of diverse interests that all humans in a particular society held together in harmony. The setting of an organic society is one where freedom is maximized, and alienation and compulsion are absent. 3. What is the significance of the class struggle in Marx’s philosophy? With the word “class” synonymous to the idea of property ownership, class struggle means the conflict that exists among homogeneous economic classes such as the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The conflict or struggle lies in the fact that as society matures, it is only the bourgeoisie and the landowners that control the means of production. Thus, they control the money while they deprive the workers of their rights to own part of the production. 4. What do Marx and Engels predict as the future course of the class struggle? The future course of the class struggle is the formation of labor unions and a social revolution if necessary. Moreover, the society will hopefully reform after the social revolution and will transform into a classless or stateless society. 5. What is the relationship between the Communist Party and the proletariat? According to the Communist Manifesto, the Communist Party and the proletariat share the same ideals. The Communists do not form a separate party or develop interests that are different from those of the working-class parties. The Communist Party, in fact, should be instrumental in carrying out the aim of the proletariat: the overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy and the raising up of the political power of the proletariat. The Communist Party is expected to carry this out in favor of the proletariat. 6. What is Marx’s view of morality? Is Marx a moral relativist? Does he treat justice as an absolute? Marx had a vague view of morality. Marx never described capitalism as a just system nor did he describe the Communist society as a just one. However, since he implied that communism is an ideology that can bring about abundance and equality in favor of the proletariat or the masses, Marx can be said to be more on the side of doing good to the many instead only of a chosen few. He can then be classified as someone who is in favor of balance, equality or justice. Marx treats justice as unnecessary in a communist society, because there is no conflict of classes anymore. Since Marx believed that moral systems did not depend on an absolute system of moral rules but only on one’s respective society or class, then Marx is still, therefore, a moral relativist. 7. What is Marx’s analysis of religion? Is it valid? Explain. Marx views religion as the “sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions [and] the opium of the people” (Communist Manifesto). Thus, Marx believed that religion existed only for the purpose of making people cope with the sufferings of life and to divert their attentions away from reality. By virtue of experience, this is a valid analysis of religion. However, religion may also actually transform someone mentally and instill abundance in him so that he can strive in life better. Thus, religion may actually be very helpful and may create long-lasting positive effects or changes in a person’s life, unlike the short-lived effects of opium. Response to the Ideas of Marx Karl Marx formulated ideas that are not sound and sensible in a practical sense. This means that, perhaps in the metaphysical sense, Marxist ideas are sound and valid. However, they lack practicality in the real sense, or that they cannot be properly applied to real-life situations. These ideas are those concerning communism and communal property and religion. While Marx’s concept of communism further aggravates class struggle, his idea of religion is simply not an open-minded one. Communism is described by Marx as something supporting the proletariat and advancing the political status of this particular social class. However, if it is in Marx’s intention to advocate communism, then what he has is an impractical form of government. It would have been better if communism only supports or uplifts the proletariat. This way, the proletariat can gain their rightful place in society and can actually somehow uplift themselves in the long run. However, communism also seeks to overthrow the bourgeoisie, which could even mean having a social revolution against them. Thus, instead of bridging the gap between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in order to help uplift the latter, communism actually increases the gap and increases the struggle between the social classes in the long run. It is therefore not a solution to but a catalyst for further class struggle. Besides, Marx cannot just accept the fact that society will always have class struggles, one way or another. Another idea of Marx that is not considered practical is his view on religion as the opium of the masses. Religion may actually not be exactly as what Marx has observed. Perhaps, it is true to many people that religion is the only way through which they can cope and they may actually do this instead of focusing on action in order to improve their lives. However, what Marx may have failed to see is that religion was the refuge of a people that did not have any other way to improve themselves or did not know what to do with their financial conditions. At least, religion was there to delay the social revolution. Moreover, religion may have instilled patience in many people who were contemplating to destroy their lives during that time through suicide or vices. Religion during Marx’s time may have therefore encouraged some of the proletariat to understand and accept life as it was. On the other hand, it may even have inspired them towards the revolution if this revolution were to create positive change in their lives. If Marx had one idea that I personally liked, it would be the idea that morality depended on one’s classes. Although I am personally not in favor of moral relativism as I have my own beliefs, I am fascinated at the idea that one’s system of morality is heavily influenced by one’s economic status in life. It is actually more true than false that rich people perceive God as good while the poor believe otherwise. This is something that I would want to include in my own description of human nature. Perhaps, most of our opinions about God and about life in general simply depend on our circumstances in life, especially our financial circumstances. Perhaps, people who have horrible circumstances believe that life is indeed horrible for them, while those who have good lives believe that God is good to them. Chap 11 questions 1. Describe Freud’spsychoanalytic theory. What are its salient points? Freud’s psychoanalytic theory is the theory which supposes that human actions and outward behavior are almost always caused by underlying motivations and desires unknown to the conscious self. One salient point of this theory is that the personality is made up of the id, ego, and superego, where the id governs the instincts of the individual, the ego as the decision maker, and the superego as the conscience. A second salient point is that the mind is divided into the conscious and the subconscious, where the latter takes up the greater part and serves as the motive behind conscious actions. A third salient point is anxiety, where it can be reality, mortal or neurotic anxiety, and where reality anxiety refers to external physical threats, mortal anxiety as the fear of one’s conscience, and neurotic anxiety is the constant fear of imagined punishment. A fourth salient point of the theory is that the individual resorts to defense mechanisms in order to prevent the ego from collapsing, and some of these include repression, denial, projection, regression, identification and compensation. A fifth salient point is the Psychosexual stages of Freud, starting with the oral, anal, phallic, latency, and genital stages on which some individuals are believed to be fixated. 2. What are the weakest points of Freud’s system? Can they be met? One of the weakest points of Freud’s system is the idea that one must deceive the id using the ego. The id seems to be the basic operative aspect of one’s personality and so it seems that this is more evil than good for it is impulsive and based on instant gratification. Thus, man is basically an evil creature according to the Freudian system of psychoanalysis. This can only be reformed by emphasizing the greater role of the ego in controlling the id or by separating the id and the superego from the ego. Another weak point is the idea of the unconscious and the idea that the best way to tap through it is through free association. It therefore seems impossible that one can actually be cured using this considering the many years that unconscious thoughts have been deeply ingrained in an individual. This can only be reformed through novel psychotherapy methods. 3. Compare Freud’s theory’s theory with Adler’s and Jung’s theories of human nature. Unlike Freud’s theory, Carl Jung believed that the human psyche is motivated not by the unconscious but by a religious nature, and that the goal of psychology is not the understanding only of the unconscious but to integrate both conscious and unconscious. Moreover, culture and society play an important role in the decisions of the individual, and not just separate aspects of himself or his unconscious. Moreover, every person is bound to conform to a particular archetype of the self, which includes his culture. Moreover, mental illness is not based on the repressed desires of the unconscious but on a need for self-realization. Moreover, unlike Freud’s, Jung’s psychotherapy involves free association using symbols of human experience and not just of sexuality. On the other hand, Adler believed that a sense of inferiority governs all neuroses. Moreover, frustration from the unfulfillment of goals is the reason behind many psychological conditions. Mental health therefore is determined by the individual’s ability to achieve his goals in life. Moreover, in therapy, the therapist can engage in Socratic dialogues with the patient, and not just listen to him as in Freudian free association. 4. Compare Freud’s theory of human nature with Schopenhauer’s(CHAP 9) Freud’s theory of human nature is that humans are directed towards the fulfillment of unconscious desires, while Schopenhauer’s is that humans are directed towards the avoidance of death. It is therefore possible that Schopenhauer’s “will to survive” expresses itself as Freud’s “unconscious” desire to live. Chap 12 questions 1. Discuss the main ideas of existentialism. How valid are they? Assess the strengths and weaknesses of this view of human nature. One of the main ideas of existentialism is that every human being is the only ones responsible for his or her fate. Secondly, there is no supreme or omniscient being that controls human destiny. Thirdly, everyone is immortal. Fourthly, everyone has complete freedom and therefore complete responsibility for his life and destiny. These may be valid but only by experience and not by logic. One strength of this is the sense of control that one may have over one’s life and one’s destiny, thus existentialism teaches control and responsibility and thus shuns irresponsibility and overdependence on circumstances. However, one weakness of this is that there is a greater dependence towards the self for this may result in dissent over religion and society. Another weakness is the tendency to put the blame on people themselves for whatever happens to their lives, even if these people are poor Africans or those born with certain illnesses that perhaps only science, religion and the existence of God can explain. Still, another weakness is the tendency of some individuals to recognize power in themselves and therefore wield this power and rationalize their desire to overpower others in the name of existentialism.   2. What gives you meaning in life? Kierkegaard defined subjective truth as that for which you are willing to live and die. For what are you willing to live and die? What gives meaning to my life is my desire to achieve financial independence at an early age in order to help my family and to have a happy family life myself someday. It is the motive behind my desire to study hard and to work hard after graduation. I would be willing to die for the achievement of financial success. 3. Do you agree with existentialists, especially Sartre, that we are” condemned to freedom”? Are we responsible for what we do with our lives, or do chance and circumstances have more to do with what we become than the existentialists assert? Chance and circumstances have undeniably something to do with our lives, especially if we are born under certain negative circumstances like disease and poverty. However, just like what Bill Gates once said – If you were born poor, that’s not your fault, but if you die poor, that is your fault – then it means that we are still largely responsible for our lives the moment we realize it and the moment we think we can start changing our lives for the better and to our advantage. Thus, we are indeed condemned to freedom. We cannot just childishly put the blame on other people and on God for our lives. We cannot escape choice and decision. It may be unfair as we do not have all the details and we do not know the outcome of every choice – nevertheless we have to make a choice for that is the only way. That is the meaning of being condemned to be free. Nonetheless, it would always be wise to give some room for mistake and for chance/destiny to take place. 4. What does Nietzsche mean by the death of God? Is he correct? The death of God is the metaphorical death of Christ or the death of a loving and nurturing being on whom human beings depend for decision and guidance and all kinds of help. Thus, the death of God means that each person is responsible for himself or herself and that there is no more God who will help him with his supplications. Man alone must seek ways to attain what he wants. He must be the one to forgive himself, and he must be the one to give himself the courage to live. 5. What does Sartre mean by saying “existence precedes essence”? In non-existential philosophy, it is always essence before existence, which means that principles and values exist and that life and existence must be patterned after these principles and values. However, for Sartre, human beings have the power to create their own values first and thus determine what kind of lives they should live based on these values. They make their own rules and base these rules on their own existence, from which they derive essence. Thus, I choose to do good so I am good. Everything is a matter of choice. That is how an existentialist defines himself. Read More