Kierkegaard believed that in order to understand ourselves and the world, the best place to look is within ourselves as humans. The scientists and philosophers looking for objective knowledge were wasting their time as it wasn’t possible. Instead, we can make sense of things by looking at our actions and decisions, and the choices we are able to make. Kierkegaard concludes that we have absolute freedom to make any choice we want, there’s nothing to stop us from being immoral, responsible, kind, negligent or apathetic. We can do anything or nothing.
However, what comes from this realisation of freedom is anxiety. Anxiety is the possibility of freedom, anxiety makes us realise that our freedom is real.
For example: A woman stands at the top of a tall building looking over the edge. She experiences 2 kinds of fear: the fear of falling and the fear brought on by the impulse to throw herself off the edge. The second type of fear described here is the realisation that she’s able to throw herself off if she wanted to.
Anxiety is therefore the consequence of us knowing the absolute freedom we have. It’s the dizziness that comes with making decisions about the future and the sheer possibilities that come with it. However, anxiety is not all bad. It can cause despair but it makes us more aware of the choices, rather than mindlessly making decisions. It makes us more responsible and brings about self-awareness.
But what can we done about this? Kierkegaard believes that we can calm anxiety through faith: The highest passion that drives us to have a more profound encounter with truth and with God. This allows us to better understand our anxiety and ultimately utilise it.
Tags: Existentialism, Self, Mind
Utilitarianism is a principle where it's criteria for virtue lies in actions that maximise the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Bentham thinks that social problems can be remedied if we act according to this principle.For example, free universal healthcare is of benefit to everyone and conforms to the utilitarian theory that it is providing great happiness for as many people as possible. Whereas choosing to steal from everyone yields very little happiness for everyone and great happiness for the thief only.
This idea falls into the ancient theory of Epicureanism that says our actions should aim to maximise pleasure whilst reducing pain. Yet Bentham is emphasising that it's not just about pleasure but attaining justice.
Bentham's theory is founded from the most basic of human needs which is to seek pleasure and avoid pain and becomes the criteria for acting virtuously.
The ancient Greek philosopher Plato believed that Democracy was not the ideal system for society. To allow the public to participate in political matters leads to decisions based on self-interest and ignorance. Moreover, those that are in power are also capable of corruption and can manipulate public opinion. So what does the ideal society look-like? Plato’s solution is for society to be ruled by ‘Philosopher Kings’: Those that have the best understanding to lead the people, the greatest understanding of good and bad and show genuine concern for the welfare of the state and it’s citizens.
So how do you become a Philosopher King or Queen? Plato conceives of a system where children are chosen at a young age for their intelligence. They are then trained and carefully raised to become self-less, incorruptible and virtuous rulers.
What about the rest of the people? Plato splits society into 3 classes: The Rulers A.K.A the Philosopher Kings Guardians (Auxillaries): The warriors responsible for defending the state and enforcing the rules The rest: The everyday people, the producers of things, the members of society
With Philosopher Kings and Queens in place, society will experience what it is to be ruled justly and allow individuals to live the best life they can.
Wittgenstein believed that all language is public, there's no meaning or understanding in the states or processes of the mind alone. Language cannot exist privately.
He emphasises this by considering it's opposite and ultimately denying it: the concept of private language
He explains it to be the following: it's the idea that language can be inherently private and known only to that individual. It's a theoretical language that refers to the person's private sensations, feelings or experience. And these references cannot be checked by anyone else. For example, I am experiencing a specific kind of pain that no one else has felt. I decide to call it ‘Flarg’. Only I know what ‘Flarg’ truly is because I'm the only one who's experienced it
Why does Wittgenstein deny this?
Let's take his analogy: let’s say everyone has a box with something called a beetle inside. No one can look in each others' box. My meaning of the word beetle is unique to me because only I can see what's in my box, and the same applies to everyone else. This, therefore makes the use of the word beetle inconsistent of it's use and meaning. We could all be looking at different things or the same thing but never know it.
He believes for language to be meaningful, there must be shared rules and criteria that others can use to verify what words mean. These words cannot be checked if they're in the private scope. Moreover, Following rules is a social activity, in which the community check and enforce if rules are followed.
So why has he made this distinction, what’s the point of emphasising that language is public?
Wittgenstein thinks the many problems we have in philosophy and other subjects comes down to how we understand language. It’s not merely a labelling mechanism of the world, nor is it a description of our behaviours. It is a way of participating in various forms of life and this participation is a communal activity.
Tags: Epistemology, Language
In a climate where Reason was the prevailing idea and was often underpinned by religious and spiritual doctrine, Rousseau sought to break away from this idea and placed the happiness of the human first.
His conception of the self is all to do with feeling and empathy; the self is distinctly moral and man is naturally good. None of his natural inclinations are bad - they are not harmful, illusory or contradictory. His desires are all proportioned to his needs and his faculties to his desires. And on a still deeper level, he has within himself a fundamental source of contentment and joy in merely existing.
Although man is free and morally good, he becomes corrupted by society. By living as part of a society, he is no longer a free man, he is a citizen, a participant that must adhere to the rules. Man is governed by laws and rules that takes away what it is to be human… “Man is born free, yet everywhere he is in chains”.
The sessions listed here are a summary and notes of the subjects discussed in each session