Plato Addresses Lovelessness; Defines Contemporary Society?

From Plato’s Symposium:

“It’s not weariness that puts an end to love, or rather, it’s a weariness that is born of impatience, of the impatience of bodies who know they are condemned and want to live, who want, in the lapse of time granted them, to not pass up any chance, to miss no possibility, who want to use to the utmost that limited, declining and mediocre lifetime that is theirs, and who consequently cannot love anyone as all others appear limited, declining and mediocre to them.” [pg.211-212, Penguin Great Ideas: The Symposium by Plato]

Intellectual Incest: Derrida Wishes Grand-daughter Had Been His Mother

If you haven’t seen the documentary ‘Derrida’ you should. But drink coffee first, his French lullaby voice is a little too soothing. Anyway, the movie is great. Derrida, king of Deconstruction, explains many of his philosophical views (and shows a redundant detest for recording-devices) throughout the film. In fact, I’ll probably post more about this because the philosophical problems and question he puts forth/answers are extremely thought-provoking and almost frightening (in a human existence means WHAT?! kind of way).

By far, my favorite question he is asked: “What philosopher would you like to have been your mother?’ Interesting. Well, Derrida replies that there isn’t a ‘mother philosopher.’ I would’ve said Plato, but I suppose his emphasis on boy-man love and the love between men as being greater than that between a man and a woman sort of, well, leaves the woman out of the mother, if that makes sense. Ok, so no Plato. Derrida continues that a motherly philosopher would have to be his son or someone who is concerned with deconstruction–like a daughter or grand-daughter. Which is, besides being literally creepy, intriguing. He argues that philosophers are father-types (I agree. Kant? Hello.) and this is because of applying a natural inference to the term ‘philosopher’ which requires or implies that one of such stature be masculine (aka phallogocentrism).

This got me thinking about the near-dormant discourse of female philosophers. I can name maybe three (Nussbaum, Goldberg…ok maybe two. I refuse to include Ayn Rand or de Beauvoir for that matter.) What is this about? Perhaps it’s still some paternal influence remaining in the classical study of philosophy? Or just societal remnants of good, old fashioned misogyny. Either way, it would seem that if there are female philosophers of great importance, their relevance to the study and discussion of philosophy has been either stifled or simply unwanted. Derrida stated that, in his philosophy, he has tried to find a link between the nurture of woman (mother) and a logical thinker, or in his own words; “a thinking mother.” Which sounds wildly misogynistic at first (as if mothers don’t think). But upon further inspection, he’s right. Take Nussbaum–she’s looked at as perhaps ‘too feminine.’ Her philosophy has been highlighted by her development of care ethics. Which sounds exactly what you’d expect from a female philosopher with all stereotypes in place. Why hasn’t there been a female Aristotle, a female Nietzsche, a female Heidegger? Surely it isn’t because a woman can’t think in these ways. I’m presuming that it’s because there is still a profound skepticism when it comes to female intelligence. Even in contemporary philosophy, maybe especially in contemporary philosophy. Think of Nietzsche, Sartre, Kierkegaard–even the existentialists, who’s focus was so intrinsically on mere existence, failed to really give the female an adequate place in the intellectual community. Of course, there was Simone de Beauvoir who wrote Second Sex–who served as a kind of lap-dog to Sartre (the ‘other’ sex now equating to ‘second sex’); doubling as his editor, his motivator, and his consistent companion (despite what girl he was currently wooing and financially supporting). So her Second Sex philosophy–despite its ground-breaking view as woman being ‘the second sex’ a.k.a inferior to man, wasn’t respected in the same fashion as any of Sartre’s writings despite any guidance and help she gave to those texts. Maybe because she was acting as the ‘second sex’? Maybe because she was a woman? Probably.

It just strikes me that in the year 2009, there isn’t a female philosopher of extreme importance in history or at current; many are profound but not in the sense of classical philosophy, not in the integral ideas of the field. They are more likened to side-notes, or in relation/response to the more dominant male philosophers at the time. There is no female contender to, say, Heidegger. Or Kant. Or Foucault (who seems close to androgynous, but far from feminine).

So there must be some female philosophers of staggering importance who’s theories haven’t been analyzed, articulated, or implemented into the structure of philosophical education. de Beauvoir is intelligent, but she simply does not equate to the caliber of philosophers found in the male realm. Perhaps Nussbaum is. But who would know because she has been dubbed ‘care ethicist’ been dubbed ‘FEMININE’ and her place in philosophy can be likened to a stay-at-home mother taking care of the sick and elderly while the men make real decisions, form real thoughts. Harsh. I’m just saying that it doesn’t really matter what Nussbaum intended–perhaps (or maybe certainly) she was trying to achieve what Derrida was getting at; a bridge between femininity and sound, logical philosophy. If this were the case, the logic of her philosophy has been overlooked and the femininity found in her philosophy has been exaggerated.

So what would it take for a female to be an important and respected philosopher? Surely, she could ignore the emotional qualities of woman, as in the corporate world, prove to be ‘ball busting’ and ‘cold’ –a real member of the ‘boys club.’ But wouldn’t that be unrealistic, in opposition to ‘the truth,’ so far from philosophy? Ok, Ayn Rand (as much as I dislike her). Why do people respect her ideas? Because they are amazingly feminine and logical? Well, if you’ve read any of her more philosophical works, they are almost completely devoid of femininity. Her protagonists are males, her emphasis on capital and competition can be read as very ‘male’ ideas, ones commonly attributed to men. So why should it be that a woman either has to distance herself from her femininity (the true essence of self being also, a recognition and acknowledgment of gender and biology) or else be overly feminine and perhaps not be given the due respect that her male peers receive?

Surely men don’t have to pretend to be female or to possess femininity. Derrida, though he is looking for something to connect logic and nurture–cannot do this because he does not possess the female biology–though men can nurture, can possess female characteristics, etc., it is not something philosophy seems very interested in. And he is accurate when he says that he cannot do it; just as a woman cannot fully possess the male biological make-up.

There are other realms where women flourish intellectually. For instance, psychology, anthropology, social commentary–and the ‘f’ word–feminism–is a field almost entirely composed of females (as obvious as that is, it is something extremely note-worthy.) It’s just a wonder that females are so explicitly detatched from the world of philosophy–from the study of thought. And it’s outrageous when you think of it. That philosophy has been around since the birth of man, yet the ideas and theories put forth are more-than-not devoid of half the people in the world; the women.

Is there a requirement for a woman philosopher? A check-list? And would it look (roughly, and in the simplest of terms) like this:

1. Woman who is privy to experiencing emotion, but one who does not let it interfere with reason.

2. Woman who has strong maternal bond with the world but intellectual bond with the mind–a connection (ignore cheesiness) between the attributes of the heart and the attributes of the mind.

3. Woman who has deep-rooted relation with the natural world because of maternal qualities and can also detach this relation and look objectively at the natural world by suspending emotional bond?

Just looking at some things that seem to be implied by the idea of ‘female’ philosopher, it would appear that, actually, the female is equally, if not more equipped than a man to engage in the study of thought. She not only has the capacity to intellectualize, she has the capacity to empathize and nurture in a biological sense that men cannot know. So I may even challenge Derrida and say that a woman philosopher that can be described as ‘motherly’ need not be a product of deconstruction, she just merely needs to exist–with force and volume. And it would require that perhaps the males of the philosophic field deconstruct their views of women and of the ‘maleness’ of philosophy. I guess then, women may have to deconstruct their self-views because of any stereotypes they may have developed. Philosophies that have aimed at acquiring the ‘truth’ have not been adequate–and maybe its no wonder they’ve all been men. Might it be because they lack the very essence of ‘life’ that is contained within a woman? Or perhaps just because they have failed to adequately address half of humanity–the part which incubates and gives birth to the generations of philosophers to come.

Thorstein Veblen

Veblen

Conspicuous Consumption. It would seem that Veblen’s theory of economics has never been more relevant than at present. I have yet to read The Theory of the Leisure Class, but from what I know about Veblen, his theories are not only innovative but extremely progressive for his time. With the economic crisis as it is, his name is being brought up more and more frequently. So, what’s the deal? The rich consume at an unnecessary and wasteful level. Their consumption is not based on need or survival, but on social status and image. This type of consuming is highly detrimental to the world because not only does it diminish resources, but it does nothing for people of low or no income. In fact, the alarming consumption of this demographic makes living conditions worse for others because it raises the cost of living and the price of common items. It seems sort of obvious, right? However, his philosophy is interesting too, as he was a pragmatic–therefore he believed that humans view reality through their own man-made construct instead of viewing the world as it actually is or appears to be regardless of man’s view. So, Veblen argued that man is constantly manipulating nature (because he sees it only as he wants to) in order to gain what he wants from it. This, he believes is the sole reason people tend to be materialistic. Anyway, he was always one for evolving the often archaic school of economy. And today, there are wannabe Veblen’s all over the world. Thank god.

Susan Sontag Forces Me to Contemplate Marriage For No Good Reason

I know how that sounds. But a new memoir of hers just came out–well actually it’s the first volume compiling her journals. They are very intriguing, dense, and almost mesmerizing. I’ve long be fond of Sontag, although it seemed that everyone else had read a different book of hers than I had, or that people felt her philosophy on a different plane than I could. However, this journal has instilled in me a real affinity for the writer/thinker/anthropologist/ad infinitum. I’m about a third of the way in and the journals of her first marriage are particularly interesting. She describes marriage as a dulling of the emotions–stating that ‘all desires become decisions.’ Prompting me to question the necessity of marriage, or even of monogamy? Why is it that society seems to force this idea of one plus one equating two to such illogical and irrational realms as the emotions and desires? I’m not suggesting polygamy (or am I?), but the idea that one is supposed to ‘settle down’ (which already has a negative connotation; inferring that one cannot settle without someone else) into one relationship for the entirety of their lives. Now obviously this has been proven to be rarely efficient. With the divorce rate afflicting more than half of all marriages, it would seem that the notion of monogamy is not as natural as people conclude.

I suppose it’s because the idea of marriage is instilled into the onset of coupling. That is, when adolescents begin to date, they are taught that they have to commit to one, they are quite literally in practice for ‘the one.’ And there is supposed to be a one, correct? How can that be if we are able to love and grow affinities for a variety of different people. The guy I dated my senior year of high school was ‘the one’ at that time, and then in college ‘the one’ at that time. How can ‘one’ transcend so much time when my personality can hardly manage to stay in tact? I am quite definitely a different person than I had been four years ago. This being said, how would I manage to maintain a relationship with someone, while growing, and expecting the relationship to remain the same throughout the change. Perhaps I change into someone the other person doesn’t like? Maybe the other person refuses to change and is an anchor to my evolution. Whatever the case, it seems natural to question whether monogamy may actually hinder an individuals evolution and progression as a human being.

It’s also strange that when I try to talk about this subject, I am called cold or jaded, emotionally-detached or deficient. But maybe it’s just because I’m changing and the change requires that you either change in exactly the same way so as to complement my changing self (which is a completely ridiculous and probably impossible request) or that it is alright to move on and away from a person because your paths verge away from each others–as they will do with everyone else you are with.

This seems harsh, I know. But reading Sontag’s book has really got me thinking about this institution that connects–legally–your life to someone else’s. Why we must feel safe and complete when we have the very real and very legal support and connection to another human being. Is it true that we need one other person to make us happy? Is this the missing link? And why is it that there is never an easy way to relay this fluxing, this weaving of relationships through the core of one’s self? Marriage and marriage-bound relationships seem to produce an increase in jealousy, insecurity, competition, and judgment. It seems unrealistic–and quite cruel–that one should endure a relationship of this magnitude and weight for the duration implied (till death do us part.)

I’ve had the experience of coming in and out of love or affinity for an individual, but not in a consistent and exclusive way. It’s as if there are lines side by side that tend to intersect, run over one another and touch perpendicularly. But the duration of the eight years we’ve known each other, the conditions are hot/cold and filled with periods of silence and a disconnect of communication. There’s a reuniting with the help of nostalgia and a deep-seeded fondness, but often times the circumstances provide that we be different, separated, detached (at least sometimes).

And then there are friendships that can last a lifetime. Well, yes. But because there is a very clear distinction between a relationship of camaraderie and one of romantic intimacy. It seems as though this occurs because one places more weight on the intimate relationship with such things as trust, loyalty, devotion, etc. Would these things exist without our imposition of them? In reaction to the breaking or tarnishing of these expectations comes jealousy, anger, betrayal, etc. These things can happen and do happen in congenial relationships, but it seems to a lesser degree than in the intimate ones.

I believe in intimacy, monogamy (to a degree), and love. But marriage? Well marriage seems to eradicate the emotional charge of the relationship. If there is a union of two people who trust, love, and are loyal to one another, why is there a need for an official document binding them to one another? This would seem to indicate a lack of trust or an underlying suspicion. And there are people who want to marry in order to prove their love for one another, but is it really love if proof is required?

Anyway, blame Sontag’s genius for this one (and read her journals titled ‘Reborn’). It can’t be this depressing, but I see (quite clearly) the importance in her observations. And who knows? Life could also be a fairy tale and every one will live happily ever after, I’ve just never seen it.

Andre Gide’s ‘The Immoralist’ Moralizes Me (or just exacerbates my confliction)

Nothing seems more relevant than this book. Written at the turn of the 20th century, a man embarks to find the-ever-vague object of intrigue; himself. However, this book isn’t just another soul-searching, two dimensional character analysis. For one, it’s Gide and, well, he’s never bad. Moreover, the lessons that prevail throughout the book have begun forming a picket line of philosophical questions in my head. Basically, a man is married to a woman he doesn’t love, falls sick on their travels (with TB), and ends up at death’s mercy. But instead of turning to spirituality or religion as most do, he decides that he will get better by his own will. However, his wife prays incessantly over him and this provides a conundrum of sorts (was it will or faith). Anyway, he gets better. He has a new lease on life. The only problem is how to live it, who he is, what he wants. The questions are maybe the biggest to be asked of anyone and everyone at some point in time. His homosexuality starts to come forth, he loses interest in his wife (though feels a need to love her dutifully as she had nursed him back to health), and he has the most interesting of interactions with a character who seems to be a Marxist (I only say this because of the ideologies he speaks of and the time period in which the book was written). But he tells Michel, the protagonist, that he has no ego, has no use of material possessions, and he stays clear of vices (smoking, drinking, etc.) because the effects of sobriety are far greater for the lucidity of life than the base pleasures we accustom ourselves to. And he is jealous (I think as I would be) to find this man living an utterly philosophic life, free of mundane obsessions. What a juxtaposition. To do, as Michel begins doing–everything and anything he wants compared to this man who exercises adament and willful self restraint. Is there more to be said in one way or the other? From my own experience, being indulgent brings pleasure, but of a lesser quality. For instance, drugs are fun (while doing them) and wildly entertaining, but something is unsatisfying about how easy it is to acquire that level of stimulation. And then its almost disheartening to realize that you’ve given yourself to the whim of a superior substance for however long, and that maybe you’ve just wasted those hours on something that has very little to do with you or what you want. You are merely a vessel for the drug’s effects. On the other hand, should you restrain yourself to the point of punishing yourself? Will there be something to gain at the end of your life knowing that you worked for each one of your experiences on your own accord? As (too) many have said, ‘the harder you work for something, the sweeter the reward.’

Oh yeah, there’s also a nice balance to be found in the middle, I assume. One in which you can indulge sometimes, restrain sometimes. But I’m an extremist and people who are able to do that probably don’t care much for philosophy when they aren’t really in need of one. Or maybe they just like (and are able to implement) the virtue-ethics of Aristotelian philosophy, which they should be consequently admired for…if you’re into that kind of thing.

Self-less-ness

Is impossible. Even in death. I can’t think of one instance in which a person is entirely ‘selfless.’ Going to feed the homeless in Africa, donating all of your money to charity–while these things are charitable and, well, nice, they aren’t exactly selfless. The term selfless requires one to actually remove the self. How can one act without the self? Which of course leads to the question, what is the self? But that’s a whole seperate (but connected) discussion. It’s just curious how people wish to be called selfless–which is selfish, because what is actually happening is that the person being deemed selfless is basking in the recognition of his humility. And if you are basking in the compliments of others, then that is exactly the opposite of being selfless.

Even if one were to jump in front of an oncoming car in order to prevent someone else from dying–it would seem that there is that one split moment of recognition in which you should save them because you’re noble, or courageous, or some other virtue ascribed to these situations by centuries of folklore and tradition. So even in death there is the self. Especially in suicide, because there is a very willful point being made. ‘I’m tired of this life,’ ‘I will end this myself,’ In order to be truly selfless then, one must entirely remove herself from herself. Which is impossible at this time (I think). So selfless = nothingness (if there is such a thing.) So, in actuality, to call someone selfless can be seen as a term of degredation. You are saying one is nothing or one is without him or herself; nothing.

I’ve been thinking about this recently because it seems to be the goal of many; to be selfless. I’ve even contemplated the Peace Corps, traveling the world feeding the poor (ok, maybe an exagerration) but those things are completely self-indulgent.  Especially seeing as though I am a Westerner going to ‘give of my time’ in a very missionary/noble/stoic/virtuous/[societal-bullshit-term-entered-here] way. I wish I could reach a level of selflessness that doesn’t seem to exist. Maybe because it doesn’t?

Solipsism

I’ve been thinking a lot about this word I can’t seem to pronounce, despite how hard I try.  While studying philosophy, I’ve avoided it.  The notion that the only reality is in your head?  Crazy.  Or is it.  After finding existentialism unsatisfying and stern logic boring, I’ve looked back into this philosophy that most seem to ignore.  Maybe because it actually is the only reality I can experience–or anyone for that matter.  If I think negative thoughts, I get negative results.  Thoughts are the only true things.  They can make a break a person.  For instance, I have this ‘friend’ who seems to think the world of himself.  Some may think he’s arrogant–hell, I think he’s arrogant.  But once I began analyzing this arrogance, I realized that far beneath my judgment was an inkling of jealousy.  I can’t possibly think that highly of myself and if I were to, I couldn’t possibly reflect this sentiment onto the world before me.  But why.  Why can this person.  Well perhaps he’s achieved a sort of solipsism philosophy of his own.  He is, apparently, not affected by what others think.  In fact, the sense of fame he feels seems to stem directly from his own dereliction.  And it would seem that is enough.  So, then, what’s the point in human interaction?  Why not just live entirely inside of your head, without outside stimuli?  I guess that would be impossible.  It would be far fetched to assume that everything outside the mind is un-real.  But one could assuredly assume that the reality of the external world can’t ever be completely known by any measure.  It just seems backwards, the way society is structured, the way we think status equals success, when status can only be measured by the judgment of one by many.  So people acquire cars, money, up the corporate ladder, but in the end, it would be no one wonder that many ask ‘why did I do this’ or as David Byrne so succinctly said, “How did I get here?”  You probably got there because you did what was expected of you, what you saw other people doing.  Maybe you should think outside of that, or rather inside of yourself.  Of course, the hard part is figuring out how and who exactly you are, while keeping the stern eyes of others at bay.