Beyond Good and Evil was the first Nietzsche book I read - as a result, I read it without guidance and I must say not too much comprehension of what was going on. The most prominent criticisms are those of Women - I've had friends (a man, by the way, who converted from being a conservative women/gay/refugee distrusting conservative to a vegetarian feminist overnight) who could not understand how such views as are in Beyond Good and Evil to be published.
Of course, anyone who's studied Nietzsche will know how misconceived the racist/sexist perceptions are, so I won't go on too much about this.
It is hard, without having read much Nietzsche at the time, to differentiate between his sarcastic statements, his deliberate eccentricities and his sincere concerns. I think everyone at some point would like to write the way Nietzsche does - just get all your ideas out there and refuse to sensor any ideas that might seem a little askew.
What resonates in Beyond Good and Evil, as well as his distrust of organized religion and manipulative women, is his love of art. When one picks up on this value, the other statements can be interpreted toward it. e.g. what is wrong with Christianity is the suppression of the artistic soul, what is wrong with women is ... well, yes, I guess that stuff is more an expression of impotence and desire - which is indicative of a torn and longing individual, rather than a sexist one.
Friday, November 12, 2004
Friday, August 13, 2004
The Wall
"Le Mur" (The Wall) is included in Sartre's collection of short stories, released under the title "Intimacy" in English (although I think the collection was also called Le Mur in French).
I had heard about this story from a friend doing a French Lit unit, and that apparently it retold lived experiences from Sartre's days in the resistance, and that one of the characters is Camus. Unfortunately the publishing of the story predates the war (and the resistance, it's actually set during the Spanish civil war), and furthermore predates Sartre's introduction to Camus (Camus had reviewed the short stories, an essay which is published in the collection: Lyrical and Critical Essays). However, what was quite delightful when I had heard about it was the connexion between this story, and an essay by Kant "On a supposed right to lie because of philanthropic concerns".
Kant's essay gives a hypothetical dilemma: a murderer is at your door, asking for your friend. You think your friend is at the cinema, so you can either tell the truth, or lie (inaction is not possible). The argument runs like this: if you lie, and say your friend is at the cemetary, and by some strange coincidence the murderer finds him there, then you are morally responsible for the death. If you tell the truth, you are not morally responsible.
Yep, it's pretty dumb (in its condensed form anyway), but without getting into the strengths and weaknesses of Kantian philosophy, Sartre's story is an allegory of this anecdote (is an allegory of a fictional story still an allegory?). In Le Mur, the protagonist, Pablo, is being interrogated about the wherabouts of the rebels' leader - Ramon. When they do finally bring him in (all because Pablo tries to give them the runabout by lying about his whereabouts), Pablo falls to the ground in some ambiguous fit of tears and laughter.
I should revisit this short story collection, I don't remember it to be that memorable. I much prefer Sartre's plays - in his stories, there is something bitter, a smirk at the human condition, which I can't help but feel is a result of Sartre's dissatisfaction at being ugly... (i'm only being half facetious)... but respect there is always.
I had heard about this story from a friend doing a French Lit unit, and that apparently it retold lived experiences from Sartre's days in the resistance, and that one of the characters is Camus. Unfortunately the publishing of the story predates the war (and the resistance, it's actually set during the Spanish civil war), and furthermore predates Sartre's introduction to Camus (Camus had reviewed the short stories, an essay which is published in the collection: Lyrical and Critical Essays). However, what was quite delightful when I had heard about it was the connexion between this story, and an essay by Kant "On a supposed right to lie because of philanthropic concerns".
Kant's essay gives a hypothetical dilemma: a murderer is at your door, asking for your friend. You think your friend is at the cinema, so you can either tell the truth, or lie (inaction is not possible). The argument runs like this: if you lie, and say your friend is at the cemetary, and by some strange coincidence the murderer finds him there, then you are morally responsible for the death. If you tell the truth, you are not morally responsible.
Yep, it's pretty dumb (in its condensed form anyway), but without getting into the strengths and weaknesses of Kantian philosophy, Sartre's story is an allegory of this anecdote (is an allegory of a fictional story still an allegory?). In Le Mur, the protagonist, Pablo, is being interrogated about the wherabouts of the rebels' leader - Ramon. When they do finally bring him in (all because Pablo tries to give them the runabout by lying about his whereabouts), Pablo falls to the ground in some ambiguous fit of tears and laughter.
I should revisit this short story collection, I don't remember it to be that memorable. I much prefer Sartre's plays - in his stories, there is something bitter, a smirk at the human condition, which I can't help but feel is a result of Sartre's dissatisfaction at being ugly... (i'm only being half facetious)... but respect there is always.
Monday, July 12, 2004
Camus and Sartre, an historical quarrel
I was introduced to both Camus and Sartre via my philosophical studies under Russell Grigg. Consequently, one can't help but draw comparisons, decide which one you "like" - who is smarter? who is more artistic? who is right/wrong etc...
The intellectual quarrel fascinated me, however. The story was put together for me gradually, disseminated throughout book introductions and reading guides. The publication of Ronald Aronson's Camus and Sartre: The friendship and the Quarrel that Ended It was then quite timely, released just when I wanted to know more and just before my birthday.
The book is a really easy read, Aronson has a great understanding of French culture, and seems well versed in the the writings and history of both Sartre and Camus. In order to write this book he interviewed Jeanson (the third man in the quarrel) and this interview is obtainable also (if you are interested). A brilliantly crafted section of the book discusses The Fall, drawing links between some of Camus' offhand comments and his friendship/falling out with Sartre. Truly enthralling!
One did feel at times that the book seemed somewhat of an apology for Sartre, which I think is fair enough - many commentators getting caught up in how his justifications for violence did not stand the test of time.
Reading this prompted me also to buy Sartre and Camus: A Historic Confrontation, which Aronson (in private correspondence with myself - yes, I talk to people) had been asked to write the introduction for, however did not end up having time. Rather than enhancing my reading of the two literary philosophers, I rather found that this topic sparked a separate, parallel interest.
For those interested in a summary of the bout: Sartre was editor for a popular journal called Les Temps Modernes . This journal was becoming increasingly allied with communism (around the time much of the fascist horrors were beginning to surface but before the Russian trials executions etc were well known). Camus, whilst a friend of Sartre, remained independent of the circle of followers Sartre had accumulated. Camus was not too fond of these underlings as their views on politics disagreed with his. He was particularly annoyed when a bad review of one of Arthur Koestler's books came out, a good friend of Camus - i think there was some physical incident with Koestler, Sartre and Camus, maybe Koestler hit Camus or something but I forget - anyway, main thing is: Camus wrote the Rebel, rather than review the book, Sartre asked Jeanssen to do it - probably knowing it would be unfavourable, Camus submitted a scathing response to the review, Sartre and Jeanson published their responses in the following issue. Camus felt betrayed, Sartre was fedup. The end... although when Camus died, Sartre wrote a nice obiturary. Translations of all these letters can be found in Sartre and Camus: A historic confrontation - the two books work quite well together.
The intellectual quarrel fascinated me, however. The story was put together for me gradually, disseminated throughout book introductions and reading guides. The publication of Ronald Aronson's Camus and Sartre: The friendship and the Quarrel that Ended It was then quite timely, released just when I wanted to know more and just before my birthday.
The book is a really easy read, Aronson has a great understanding of French culture, and seems well versed in the the writings and history of both Sartre and Camus. In order to write this book he interviewed Jeanson (the third man in the quarrel) and this interview is obtainable also (if you are interested). A brilliantly crafted section of the book discusses The Fall, drawing links between some of Camus' offhand comments and his friendship/falling out with Sartre. Truly enthralling!
One did feel at times that the book seemed somewhat of an apology for Sartre, which I think is fair enough - many commentators getting caught up in how his justifications for violence did not stand the test of time.
Reading this prompted me also to buy Sartre and Camus: A Historic Confrontation, which Aronson (in private correspondence with myself - yes, I talk to people) had been asked to write the introduction for, however did not end up having time. Rather than enhancing my reading of the two literary philosophers, I rather found that this topic sparked a separate, parallel interest.
For those interested in a summary of the bout: Sartre was editor for a popular journal called Les Temps Modernes . This journal was becoming increasingly allied with communism (around the time much of the fascist horrors were beginning to surface but before the Russian trials executions etc were well known). Camus, whilst a friend of Sartre, remained independent of the circle of followers Sartre had accumulated. Camus was not too fond of these underlings as their views on politics disagreed with his. He was particularly annoyed when a bad review of one of Arthur Koestler's books came out, a good friend of Camus - i think there was some physical incident with Koestler, Sartre and Camus, maybe Koestler hit Camus or something but I forget - anyway, main thing is: Camus wrote the Rebel, rather than review the book, Sartre asked Jeanssen to do it - probably knowing it would be unfavourable, Camus submitted a scathing response to the review, Sartre and Jeanson published their responses in the following issue. Camus felt betrayed, Sartre was fedup. The end... although when Camus died, Sartre wrote a nice obiturary. Translations of all these letters can be found in Sartre and Camus: A historic confrontation - the two books work quite well together.
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
hell is other people
Huis Clos (i think "through the keyhole") translated to No Exit and In Camera in English is Sartre's most famous novel, "Hell is other people" contained therein. I much prefer Sartre's style in his plays, perhaps because he is forced to "show and not tell" if that's the rule.
This little scene of hell is used to demonstrate the philosophical idea of Mauvaise Foi (Bad Faith) - Sartre's main component of his moral philosophy. There are two aspects shown in these characters: 1) they cannot convince themselves of their own authenticity and 2) they cannot convince the others. "Hell is other people" then articulates the idea that as long as other people are around, we're not ever going to be able to convince ourselves that we're okay. One is in Bad faith when one relegates a moral decision to some form that exists outside ourselves: e.g. I can't steal that bread because I'm a Christian. The tenet is one then that stems from Nietzschean directives to reinvent one's values. The three characters crimes are thus: Garcin - flees conscription, claiming to be a pacifist, he now tries to convince the others and himself that he is not a cowaard, Estelle - commits matricide, driving a lover to commit suicide, her bad faith is then a denial that she held any responsibility toward her man or her child, and Ines - A Lesbian who is killed by her female lover in a double suicide after they conspired to kill the lover's husband, again, she seems to blame her actions on "who she is" rather than accepting her absolute freedom.
Sartre's characters are never particularly likable, but this play carries so much interest - trying to find out what happened, how they will react to each other etc. - that it is enthralling. As a side-note, it does seem like the first job of any new moral philosophy requires accepted moral rights and wrongs to find a place within its framework - always is interesting though! At one point Camus was going to act as Garcin in this play, but I think it ended up falling through - it's a part of how their friendship started.
This little scene of hell is used to demonstrate the philosophical idea of Mauvaise Foi (Bad Faith) - Sartre's main component of his moral philosophy. There are two aspects shown in these characters: 1) they cannot convince themselves of their own authenticity and 2) they cannot convince the others. "Hell is other people" then articulates the idea that as long as other people are around, we're not ever going to be able to convince ourselves that we're okay. One is in Bad faith when one relegates a moral decision to some form that exists outside ourselves: e.g. I can't steal that bread because I'm a Christian. The tenet is one then that stems from Nietzschean directives to reinvent one's values. The three characters crimes are thus: Garcin - flees conscription, claiming to be a pacifist, he now tries to convince the others and himself that he is not a cowaard, Estelle - commits matricide, driving a lover to commit suicide, her bad faith is then a denial that she held any responsibility toward her man or her child, and Ines - A Lesbian who is killed by her female lover in a double suicide after they conspired to kill the lover's husband, again, she seems to blame her actions on "who she is" rather than accepting her absolute freedom.
Sartre's characters are never particularly likable, but this play carries so much interest - trying to find out what happened, how they will react to each other etc. - that it is enthralling. As a side-note, it does seem like the first job of any new moral philosophy requires accepted moral rights and wrongs to find a place within its framework - always is interesting though! At one point Camus was going to act as Garcin in this play, but I think it ended up falling through - it's a part of how their friendship started.
Monday, March 15, 2004
Cogito Ergo Sum
I am obliged to respect Descartes for his mathematical innovations (Cartesian co-ordinates allowing the marriage of geometry and algebra, index representation of powers, and others), and of course, "I think, therefore I am" is an important step in the philosophies of identity and epistemology (although I'm not sure everyone who refers to it knows how it's intended). His philosophical discourse in this book is one of those that spends a lot of time trying to reconcile notions of God, heaven, the soul etc., with logical sense. On this account, I think it fails - however, it is quite delightful to read the writings of such a pompous and arrogant man. He is so preoccupied with hes greatness, quite oblivious to the ridiculous impression he makes. I guess there's something typically French about it, which makes it entertaining rather than boring - he reminds me of the cousin in the BBC pride and prejudice, Mr. Collins (hopefully more charismatic... dressed up in his 17th century fashionable French attire).
An interesting side-note of this book is that Descartes self-censored some of his ideas, given the controversy surrounding Galileo in the preceding years. Galileo's ridiculous idea that the Earth might revolve around the Sun earned him a spot on the Heretics for Burning List, and some of Descartes ideas about the origins of mind and knowledge could have landed him in similar strife.
An interesting side-note of this book is that Descartes self-censored some of his ideas, given the controversy surrounding Galileo in the preceding years. Galileo's ridiculous idea that the Earth might revolve around the Sun earned him a spot on the Heretics for Burning List, and some of Descartes ideas about the origins of mind and knowledge could have landed him in similar strife.
Tuesday, March 2, 2004
A brave new unconscious civilisation
I read John Ralston Saul's Unconscious Civilisation when I was trying to get into politics. I'd recently purchased the Oxford Companion to World Politics in order to better understand the US election process, and my brother-in-law recommended Unconscious Civilisation because it was about where he stood. Since then I have seen Ralston Saul give a lecture on his book The Collapse of Globalism, and he's quite an interesting speaker.
He comes from an economics background, and has ideas that are probably centre-left - which is good because it's progressive but realistic. It's one of those books (indeed, he's one of those writers/speakers) that looks at conventions of today and questions their necessity. Of note, intellectual property laws that stopped a condom maker from making "Stealth Condoms" because the shape of the stealth bomber is patented, and the elitist culture where leaders drive public interest rather than respond to it as per democracy. Obviously there's some room for debate here - perhaps one of the reasons most of us have hope in Obama is that he's likely to orient the public toward "better" interests, but when stakeholders and the elite get together things can go wrong.
A most interesting line in this book is his mention of 1984 and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Huxley's book I think came out in the 30s, a decade or so before 1984, but I guess they are roughly written around the same time in our unconscious - what Ralston Saul points out is that we have been so preoccupied with warning against the bleak 1984 future, and virtually no mention is made of Brave New World - even though it's much closer to where our society is headed and probably far more dangerous.
Brave New World manufactures 5 classes of citizens by adding a little alcohol to the test-tube babies in different doses, and inculcating the societal roles from a young age. Sex is no longer needed to reproduce, so partnership becomes redundant and indicative of an unhealthy lifestyle. Once again, the point isn't to predict "hey, we might become this test-tube society - isn't that strange and terrible?", but rather every aspect of the society is somehow related to our own. We are brought up culturally to recognise tiers of society, keep to our own limitations and not try to upset the order, and we get plenty of messages from government and advertising companies that reinforce this, even if we don't really think it should be the case.
Oh yeah, plus the THC drug in it, rad stuff.
He comes from an economics background, and has ideas that are probably centre-left - which is good because it's progressive but realistic. It's one of those books (indeed, he's one of those writers/speakers) that looks at conventions of today and questions their necessity. Of note, intellectual property laws that stopped a condom maker from making "Stealth Condoms" because the shape of the stealth bomber is patented, and the elitist culture where leaders drive public interest rather than respond to it as per democracy. Obviously there's some room for debate here - perhaps one of the reasons most of us have hope in Obama is that he's likely to orient the public toward "better" interests, but when stakeholders and the elite get together things can go wrong.
A most interesting line in this book is his mention of 1984 and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Huxley's book I think came out in the 30s, a decade or so before 1984, but I guess they are roughly written around the same time in our unconscious - what Ralston Saul points out is that we have been so preoccupied with warning against the bleak 1984 future, and virtually no mention is made of Brave New World - even though it's much closer to where our society is headed and probably far more dangerous.
Brave New World manufactures 5 classes of citizens by adding a little alcohol to the test-tube babies in different doses, and inculcating the societal roles from a young age. Sex is no longer needed to reproduce, so partnership becomes redundant and indicative of an unhealthy lifestyle. Once again, the point isn't to predict "hey, we might become this test-tube society - isn't that strange and terrible?", but rather every aspect of the society is somehow related to our own. We are brought up culturally to recognise tiers of society, keep to our own limitations and not try to upset the order, and we get plenty of messages from government and advertising companies that reinforce this, even if we don't really think it should be the case.
Oh yeah, plus the THC drug in it, rad stuff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)