Philosophy

Scattered Reflections: Haikus by Eli Olevsky

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

I. Melancholy & Memory

Someday, I would like
To run in a flower field.
Then, I’d be happy.

Every note, a tear.
Crying seas of melodies,
Pianos don’t float.

Sunsets mark the end.
A seasonal depression—
Then the cold sets in.

Cold, dead, leafless trees.
Spines of their beautiful selves,
Reborn in the spring.

Down by the river,
Reflections looking at you—
What have you become?

II. Darkness & Disillusionment

Afraid of the dark.
Afraid of what’s in the dark.
The dark is lonely.

Screams overwhelm me,
But silence unsettles me.
My ears deceive me.

The stars in the night
Are just satellites up high:
Techno-pollution.

Truth is fallacy.
Lies, just hiding behind cloaks—
Soon to be revealed.

A childhood ruined,
Fond memories corrupted.
Cocoa made by slaves.

III. Wander & Wonder

Staring at my screen,
Light pierces my retina.
I lay motionless.

If you jump up high,
Maybe you can touch the sky.
They’ll call you spaceman.

Do not fight the waves,
For they will carry you home—
Just go with the flow.

Alone in my mind,
I travel through time and space.
I find memories.

When you’re having fun,
Time sure likes to go by fast.
Isn’t that kind of cruel?

Threads of Being: Short Poems by Eli Olevsky

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

————————————————————————————————————–

Seasons

A Summer ending with a fallen leaf,

A tree standing bare, lonely in a daze.

Whispers of Autumn, the song of a thief,

Blankets of warmth and light, gone in a haze.

Beasts retreat amidst Winter descending,

A father’s call, “Где ты, моя солнушка?”

A sun hides, tired, in its gaze, relenting.

“I’m sorry, I have to sleep now, Papa.”

And yet, a lowly flower lies unharmed,

The aftermath of war, a survivor.

A tear of pollen, a bloom of hope sired

From the heavens, melodies of a lyre.

Visions of light, once made a pariah,

A sign of Spring, hymns of the Messiah.

—————————————————————————————————————

Deception

(Inspired by survivor accounts of the Nazi Death Marches)

I can’t stop running, 

You’re so tired 

My body is shaking, 

Take a break 

I can feel my heart beating, 

Go to sleep 

I look up, it’s snowing 

It’s so cold 

The silence is captivating, 

Say something 

I’m not breathing, 

What is that smell? 

I think I’m bleeding, 

You’re too weak 

The light is fleeting, 

It’s getting dark 

I can feel myself collapsing, 

This is the end 

I wake up, 

You weren’t dreaming. 

————————————————————————————————————–—

Manifesting Divinity

Who is God without Adam? 

Who is Adam without God? 

The touch of life and its duality 

The connection between two worlds 

One cannot live without the other 

Connected like the atoms in our body 

The movement of electricity 

Gives meaning to our world 

Supposed greatness perceived 

By what is tangible and what is not 

Who is God without Adam? 

Who is Adam without God?

Sunburned

So, how’s your day?

Sun-sick skin

Scorching sand sizzling

Soaking, salt stinging

Aquatic arms aching

Ashy aromas abound

Albatross alarms air

And still, it’s a blissful day

————————————————————————————————————–

Scintillating Sky

The scintillating sky soars above, scattered so high. 

A creature overlooking, an all-seeing eye. 

It watches from afar, 

Like an empire and its Czar. 

It’s light will soon fade away, 

To be seen again the next day. 

The scintillating sky soars above, scattered so high. 

We carry

(Inspired by “Things We Carry on the Sea by Wang Ping” )

We carry memories of happiness 

We carry memories of sadness 

We carry the hugs of our mothers 

We carry the lessons of our fathers 

We carry the heat of hot summers 

We carry the cold of icy winters 

We carry the leaves that fall from trees 

We carry the ocean’s gentle breeze 

We carry our sins and our greeds 

We carry our virtues and good deeds 

We carry our hopes and dreams 

We carry our egos and high self esteems 

We carry the first breath out of our lungs 

We carry the death of our loved ones 

We carry memories of happiness 

We carry memories of sadness 

Ethical Perspectives on the Rights of Disabled People and Animals: A Comparative Analysis of Eva Kittay and Peter Singer

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

by Eli Olevsky, May 3, 2023

The rights of animals and those of disabled people have long been an area of ethical discussion. While some argue that humans have an ethical duty to respect and safeguard the interests of the disabled and animals, others contend that human interests must always come first and resort to the degradation of others. Eva Kittay and Peter Singer have contributed significantly to this debate as philosophers. Kittay emphasizes the need to prioritize people with disabilities, while Singer advocates for a level playing field between the rights of humans and the rights of animals. Both positions have their own set of merits, but also each contains some controversial elements I will discuss in this essay. Ultimately, Kittay’s argument is more reasonable and morally comprehensible than Singer’s ethically questionable argument because it warrants a more accepting environment in which all living things are equally loved and appreciated. 

 Kittay argues that part of the job of a mother of a disabled child is to ensure that they are cared for. She asserts, “For her, socialization for acceptance means that you have both to help the child make her way in the world given her disabilities and to help shape a world that will accept her.” (Kittay 398). Kittay believes that mothers have this responsibility because disabled children deserve this kind of care and to be seen by the world as valued. This is apparent in her distress of opposing views, stating, “What are the specific challenges facing someone in my position? There are essentially two. The first is to overcome the anger and revulsion that one feels when encountering the view that one’s disabled child–or child with a particular disability–is less worthy of dignity, of life, of concern or justice than others.”  (Kittay 398-399). Her perspective challenges the ableist assumption that those with disabilities are less valuable or worthy of consideration than their non-disabled counterparts. The importance of this particular position of Kittay’s is necessary to understand the virtuous aspect of her argument. 

A potential critique of Kittay is her biased focus on the value of a disabled person as more valuable than a nonhuman. She portrays this perspective when sharing how she feels about her child being compared to animals, saying, “For a mother of a severely cognitively impaired child, the impact of such an argument is devastating. How can I begin to tell you what it feels like to read texts in which one’s child is compared…how corrosive those comparisons are, how they mock those relationships that affirm who we are and why we care?”(Kittay 397). However, Kittay clarifies she does indeed love animals, although still believing they cannot be compared to children, stating, “I am no stranger to a beloved animal. I have had dogs I have loved, dogs I have mourned for. But as dog lovers who become parents, can tell you, much as we adore our hounds…there is also no comparison when that child has intellectual disabilities.” (Kittay 397). This humanizes Kittay’s perspective of animals, and although she does not see them as deserving of the same love as a disabled child, I believe it is understandable why she feels this way as no mother would ever want their child compared to an animal, which has been used as a derogatory insult for millennia. Kittay’s stance may not be morally perfect in an ideal world that places equal importance on every living thing. Still, it is far closer to perfection when compared to Singer’s general position. 

Peter Singer offers a different take on the ethical nature of personhood than Eva Kittay. Singer bases his notion of morality towards sentient beings on what is known as “The principle of equality,” which is “not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans: it is a prescription of how we should treat human beings.” (Singer 33). He uses this principle and extends its validity past just human beings, reasoning, “It is an implication of this principle of equality that our concern for others and our readiness to consider their interests ought not to depend on what they are like or what abilities they may possess…But the basic element–the taking into account of the interests of the being, whatever those interests may be–must, according to the principle of equality, be extended to all beings, black or white, masculine or feminine, human or nonhuman.” (Singer 34). Singer is challenging traditional views on nonhuman animals that believe humans possessing rationality or consciousness gives them special moral status. According to him, his view ignores sentience as a primary characteristic of moral consideration and argues that simply being able to feel is the only necessity for equality. Singer’s perspective on sentience as a limiting factor for the basis of morality has far-reaching ramifications for how we treat nonhuman animals. Moreover, Singer believes pleasure and pain experiences are morally significant when they affect an animal’s capacity for experiencing pleasure or pain and not just human beings. He asserts, “The capacity for suffering and enjoyment is a prerequisite for having interests at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in any meaningful way” (Singer 37). He clarifies this statement to include nonhumans, stating, “A stone does not have interests because it cannot suffer. Nothing that we can do to it could possibly make any difference to its welfare. The capacity for suffering and enjoyment is, however, not only necessary, but also sufficient for us to say that a being has interests–at an absolute minimum, an interest in not suffering. A mouse, for example, does have an interest in not being kicked along the road, because it will suffer if it is.” (Singer 37). Similarly to Kittay, the sentiments in Singer’s position display some respectable attributes of his overall view, such as his support for equality and his belief that all living things that feel pain (or have an interest in not feeling pain) are equally morally deserving of care and consideration. However, the troubling sides of his argument, particularly his justification of murder, reveal the paradoxical nature of his view toward disabled people. 

Singer’s position on disability remains concerning for many individuals, including myself. Despite arguing for equality between humans and nonhumans, he seems to believe that sentient beings can have unequal worth, stating, “I conclude, then, that a rejection of speciesism does not imply that all lives are of equal worth” (Singer 54). Singer then justifies the killing of disabled people, first when choosing between disabled people and “normal” human beings and then when choosing between disabled people and nonhumans. “Since pain is pain, whatever other capacities, beyond the capacity to feel pain, the being may have–these capacities are relevant to the question of taking life. It is not arbitrary to hold that the life of a self-aware being, capable of abstract thought, of planning for the future, of complex acts of communication, and so on, is more valuable than the life of a being without these capacities…if we had to choose to save the life of a normal human being or an intellectually disabled human being, we would probably choose to save the life of a normal human being…the same is true when we consider other species…if we have to choose between the life of a human being and the life of another animal we should choose to save the life of the human, but there may be special cases in which the reverse holds true because the human being in question does not have the capacities of a normal human being” (Singer 54-55). From this, we can understand and gather Singer’s belief that when comparing a disabled person to an animal, it is moral to kill the disabled person because they are apparently of less value than the nonhuman. 

Although I can understand and empathize with Kittay’s perspective stemming from the want for her child to be loved and for the world to love her child, it is much harder for me to understand Singer’s purpose for justifying the killing of disabled people. I cannot even understand the purpose of including an argument that revolves around deciding to kill a disabled person, and much less so in an essay that was primarily about the advocacy for the equality of all sentient beings. Singer spent the majority of Chapter 1 arguing how racism, sexism, and speciesism have no place in society because they involve claiming superiority for a certain group of humans solely due to some difference in a characteristic, “Racists violate the principle of equality by giving greater weight to the interests of members of their own race when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of another race. Sexists violate the principle of equality by favoring the interests of their own sex. Similarly, speciesists allow the interests of their own species to override the greater interests of members of other species.” (Singer 38-39). Despite this, he ended his essay with an argument justifying killing disabled people. I believe this is in poor taste, and it completely dismisses what his essay worked so hard to argue, the point that equality is solely based on the interests of the being and extends to all beings, human and nonhuman. Morally, this should include disabled people as well. Because Singer’s argument so clearly does not, this is why Kittay’s argument is by far the more intelligible and morally acceptable perspective. Conclusively, I believe that Singer fails to assume his role as “moral philosopher,” and as a result, a more appropriate title for him would be “hypocrite.”

Works Cited 

Singer, Peter, 1946-. 19771975. Animal Liberation. New York, Avon Books. 

Kittay, Eva Feder. “THE PERSONAL IS PHILOSOPHICAL IS POLITICAL: A PHILOSOPHER AND MOTHER OF A COGNITIVELY DISABLED PERSON SENDS NOTES FROM THE BATTLEFIELD.” Metaphilosophy 40, no. 3–4 (July 1, 2009): 606–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.2009.01600.x.

Plato’s Unloving Lover

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

By Aviram Nessim, March 9, 2024

Plato’s masterpiece, Phaedrus, contains two rather intricate definitions of love. On one hand, the concept of love is tainted by the prominent Athenian orator, Lysias, during his dialogue with Phaedrus, a young, impressionable student of rhetoric. As we will see, Lysias’ declamation places the “non-lover” on a pedestal while regarding the lover as inferior, thereby jeopardizing Phaedrus’ growth by portraying love in a damaging light. On the other hand, Socrates delivers a speech disagreeing with the words of Lysias by attempting to redefine love, and, in turn, emphasize the emancipation of Phaedrus’ soul. In this essay, my objectives are threefold. First, I will explain how Lysias’ speech was inherently destructive through its attempts to denounce the very essence of love. Second, I will explore how such a speech jeopardized both Phaedrus’ philosophical and divine potential, specifically through its attempts to hinder both. Lastly, I will explain how Socrates’ amendment of the definition of love attempts to redeem Phaedrus from the ruinous nature of Lysias’ words.

Lysias turns the concept of love into a denunciation by vehemently suggesting that it is best to avoid it altogether. However, he believes that the “non-lover” can still derive pleasurable benefits, proposing that “favors should be granted to a man who is not in love rather than one who is” (Plato, 3). Favors, in this circumstance, are a euphemism for intercourse. Lysias asserts that sexual pleasures can only be reserved for those who disregard any devotion they might have for one another. Yet, such an opinion is rooted in Lysias’ belief that those in love continuously experience negative emotions such as remorse for having engaged in a relationship; according to Lysias, for this very reason, the “non-lover” must not affiliate themself with such emotions. Moreover, Lysias claims that those in love “think they have long since given return enough to the objects of their love; whereas those unloved cannot allege neglect of their own interests because of it, nor reckon up their past labours” (Plato, 7). Here, the narrative of love is perceived with a negative connotation, illustrating how lovers continuously display regret after separating from their partner (whereas their counterparts are unable to associate themselves with any sentiment). Moreover, this quote illustrates Lysias’ perception of love as an exchange of favors while denying its inherently selfless and giving nature. Thus, the theme of entering into relationships as a “non-lover” while still indulging in romantic circumstances is the overarching theme of Lysias’ argument. In his efforts to reinforce it, Lysias repeatedly condemns the longing of love, asserting that it results in intolerable emotional repercussions.

The degree to which Phaedrus embraces Lysias’ speech is, simply put, concerning. This is because, immediately following Lysias’ speech, Phaedrus eagerly reports to Socrates about how “extraordinarily well done” and well-formulated Lysias’ speech was (Plato, 11). Socrates calmly and promptly acknowledges that a vulnerability is present in Phaedrus’ novel perception of love and, as a reply, delivers his own definition of love. Socrates begins his proclamation by insisting that throughout time “there were two kinds of madness, the one caused by sickness of a human sort, and the other coming about from a divinely caused reversal of our customary ways of behaving…and belonging to Aphrodite and Love” (Plato, 49). Socrates interprets such “madness” as a phenomenon occurring on both a human and divine level. According to him, “madness” on a divine level originates from the gods and influences both the lover and the beloved with the intention of shaping their behavior and emotions in romantic relationships. Socrates’ explanation is crucial in surmounting the harmful words of Lysias to allow the growth of Phaedrus’ soul. Ultimately, it is Socrates’ portrayal of love as a purposeful, spiritual “madness” that allows Phaedrus to embrace Socrates’ concept fully while recognizing the illegitimacy of Lysias’ argument.  

Additionally, Socrates posits that a soul situated within the human body on Earth will dramatically grow its wings upon encountering beauty. Specifically, the soul will “become winged, fluttering with an eagerness to fly upwards”; it is this very occurrence that transforms one’s soul into “a lover” (Plato, 30). Socrates reiterates, explaining that the innocent soul of Phaedrus can do the same – observe beauty and soar upwards. The speech of Lysias only succumbs itself to the human benefits of what is seen to be an objectively non-loving relationship. According to Socrates’ speech, love stems from divinity, containing something far more innate and spiritually significant than casual pleasure-generating relationships. Therefore, the arguments of Lysias bitterly drag down Phaedrus, keeping his soul confined to Earth by stunting the growth of his “wings” and limiting his ability to admire the divine beauty that love can offer on both a human and divine level. Ultimately, upon Phaedrus observing this far more authentic interpretation of love, he spares his physical body of lackluster relationships, and, more importantly, his soul from withering away.

Today’s world holds many contemporary viewpoints for approaching love. One may even see a dichotomy between viewing love as merely a human emotion and having its roots in divinity and spiritual significance, which are akin to the aforementioned beliefs held by Lysias and Socrates. In this same context, however, there are many people who resemble Phaedrus: lost yet voraciously searching for a sense of direction. Hearing the wise words of astute philosophers may help them find their way.

Works Cited

Plato (2005). Phaedrus. Penguin Books.

A Brief Analysis of Ennui in Dostoevsky’s Notes from Underground

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

by Namal Fiaz, September 29, 2023

The term ennui, a French loanword, describes a state of boredom induced by a lack of purpose and feelings of dissatisfaction with life. In Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Notes from Underground, the narrative captures the reflections of an embittered, reclusive man whose thoughts are tightly chained by that very state. Several philosophical revolutions were simultaneously developing throughout Europe in the 19th century – namely nihilism, a glaring threat in Dostoevsky’s eyes. Published in 1864, Dostoevsky’s novella was a polemic against the Russian nihilist movement gaining traction in the nineteenth century.  In Notes from Underground, the relationship between the narrator’s ennui and consciousness lead him to live a dreadful existence, one that rises directly from his nihilist mindset.

Nihilism is the supreme catalyst of the underground man’s ennui. In order to effectively analyze the role of ennui in the narrator’s consciousness, it is necessary to establish a brief philosophical definition of nihilism. The term was popularized following Ivan Turgenev’s 1862 novel Fathers and Children, in which it was contextually defined as someone who rejects authority and principles of all faiths. It follows the Latin nihil – “nothing” – implying the nihilist is ultimately “pursuing nothingness.”1 Additionally, this philosophy asserts a lack of an objective meaning to human life. Existential nihilism, a more developed concept, states that existence itself is ultimately pointless given that all action and suffering does not have a meaning.2 Efforts to create meaning are therefore impractical in their futility. 

The unnamed narrator in the novella, the underground man, is an extreme nihilist. He eponymously lives underground alone in St. Petersburg after retiring from his work as a civil service officer, though his isolation is entirely self-imposed. His contempt for other human beings, skepticism of society, spiteful attitude, and eventual retreat to a life of seclusion are key influences of his nihilistic mindset. The character expounds on his beliefs in a series of confessional diary entries. His pessimistic outlook on life is derived from his intense self-awareness and critical nature, which naturally leads to – or rather intensifies – feelings of ennui. The underground man personally attributes his ennui to acute consciousness, claiming that “to be too conscious is an illness – a real thorough-going illness.”3 He explains the difference between men of consciousness – like himself – and the “stupid,”4 or direct men. Those who act on their thoughts and beliefs – direct men – are able to do so because their minds are at ease. In contrast, the underground man’s habit of dwelling on each thought, event, and emotion through deep analysis causes him to have an overactive and restless mind. He believes he is therefore burdened by his superior intellect. 

“There in its nasty, stinking, underground home our insulted, crushed and ridiculed mouse promptly becomes absorbed in cold, malignant and, above all, everlasting spite. For forty years together it will remember its injury down to the smallest, most ignominious details, and every time will add, of itself, details still more ignominious, spitefully teasing and tormenting itself with its own imagination. It will itself be ashamed of its imaginings, but yet it will recall it all, it will go over and over every detail, it will invent unheard of things against itself, pretending that those things might happen, and will forgive nothing.”5

The acutely conscious man ruminates and dissects his thoughts to the extent of dehumanizing himself; he calls himself a mouse.6 Though it is of course a metaphorical statement, the lively imagery created by the underground man’s descriptions provide crucial insight into his self-perceptions: by shrinking such a person to the size of a small rodent – one that is known for its tendency to flee at the shadows of the slightest danger – the narrator characterizes himself as timid, self-conscious, and withdrawn. According to the underground man’s further commentary, the direct man, when seeking revenge, uses justice as a motive to commit the action. Meanwhile, the “mouse” is unable to do the same as his acute consciousness diminishes the emotion by dissecting it. He will overthink and create doubt in his own mind, and then rework it with other details and possibilities, all of which make his mind relentlessly spiral. The conscious man’s tendencies can be equated to thinking oneself to death. The narrator mentally torments himself out of boredom since his mental state renders him incapable of having a meaningful life and intimate human connection. By convincing himself that he is limited in his actions, the narrator remains stationary in the place he rents underground.

This inaction – called inertia7 – is another consequence of possessing an acute consciousness along with ennui. As a result of the narrator’s isolation, his existing ennui greatly reinforces itself through a melancholic, repetitive mechanism. With very little to keep him occupied, he traps himself in a cycle of rumination — an idle dweller in his self-constructed prison cell.The fight against ennui is very much a continuous and lifelong struggle. As exemplified by the character’s situation in Notes from Underground, nihilistic thoughts promote a swift resignation to even attempting to live a fulfilling life. The prevalence of this feeling of ennui, especially in current times, is largely due to the way many naturally begin to find comfort in its presence after a prolonged period of despair. The underground man has lived in his depraved hole for nearly two decades during the time of his writings, and he is thoroughly comfortable in his position; he finds solace in idleness. Breaking through the fog of ennui may bring about bouts of discomfort and anxiety that may discourage many people – avoidance is simply a more bearable response. However, in order to live a meaningful and authentic life, ennui requires direct confrontation. The act of acknowledging that one exists in a state of ennui itself is daunting, it may rouse uneasiness in an individual’s pride, among other things, but it is a necessary step towards a fruitful existence.

There  is also a necessity, perhaps above all else, for conscious effort. Allowing ennui and nihilism to take over the conscious mind is akin to digging one’s own grave – while still alive – convinced that the only thing left to do is lie in it. In the face of absurdity –  “an unfulfillable desire for complete fulfillment,”8 as defined by existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre – the happenings of daily life can appear bleak and devoid of meaning. An individual must therefore exercise conscious effort and recognize that they have the ability to construct personal meaning in life. Dostoevsky’s allegorical Notes from Underground serves as the first, and arguably the most profound, existential novel. His exploration of the human condition through the cynical underground man character conveys life in the depths of nihilism where free will is used to choose a path of misery. Unlike the underground man, people can use their abilities to take control of their situations, such as the hopelessness that ennui brings, and make decisions that lead to personal contentment. After all, knowing that we possess the power to make conscious decisions towards fulfillment, such as finding pleasure in the mundane, is the tide that washes us of misery.

Footnotes

1 Petrov, Kristian. “‘Strike out, Right and Left!’: A Conceptual-Historical Analysis of 1860s Russian Nihilism and Its Notion of Negation.” Studies in East European Thought 71, no. 2 (2019): 73–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-019-09319-4.

2 Pratt, Alan. “Nihilism.” Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Accessed October 15, 2022. https://iep.utm.edu/nihilism/#H3.

3 Kaufmann, Walter Arnold. “Dostoevsky: Notes from Underground.” Essay. In Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre. Edited, Selected, and Introduced by W. Kaufmann, 56. Thames & Hudson

4 Kaufmann, 59.

5 Kaufmann, 60.

6 Kaufmann, 60.

7 Kaufmann, 64.

8 Irvine, Andrew. “Existentialism,” 1998. https://people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/wphil/lectures/wphil_theme20.htm. 

Bibliography

Irvine, Andrew. “Existentialism,” 1998. https://people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/wphil/lectures/wphil_theme20.htm. 

Kaufmann, Walter Arnold. “Dostoevsky: Notes from Underground.” Essay. In Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre. Edited, Selected, and Introduced by W. Kaufmann, 52–82. Thames & Hudson: London; printed in U.S.A., 1957. 

Petrov, Kristian. “‘Strike out, Right and Left!’: A Conceptual-Historical Analysis of 1860s Russian Nihilism and Its Notion of Negation.” Studies in East European Thought 71, no. 2 (2019): 73–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-019-09319-4. 

Pratt, Alan. “Nihilism.” Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Accessed October 15, 2022. https://iep.utm.edu/nihilism/#H3.

The Power of Social Influences

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

by Joshua Isakharov, September 29, 2023

Ever wonder why a person is suddenly motivated to do something that they know is wrong? Incredibly,  psychological influences have more power over people than they might believe. Oftentimes, good people commit deviant behaviors. A good person is a person who otherwise displays actions and qualities that are intended to promote the welfare of society. A deviant behavior is an action done by an individual that breaks or defies social norms. A social norm is the behavior typically expected by an individual from the society they live in during that time period. Thus, a good person committing a deviant act can be defined as a typically moral individual who generally promotes social welfare through their actions but at times commits actions that violate the morals and norms of society. While the greed factor is often touted as an explanation for deviance, neutralization theory and the pressure to conform are far superior explanations for why good people commit deviant behaviors.

Neutralization theory is a theory stating that people (or in this case good people committing deviant behaviors) will make use of one or multiple justifications in order to neutralize their actions (Bernard). According to this theory, a good person will cognitively justify their deviance in their mind through a train of thought. A neutralization, or rationalization, is a thought process that a person will undergo to explain or justify their action. In fact, neutralizations are considered to be one of the most, if not the “most important explanation of deviant behavior” (Kaptein and van Helvoort 1261). The theory can therefore be used to explain why a good person will “do bad” as “they did not know it was bad” (Sampson 123). The reason why the otherwise good person failed to acknowledge their action as bad is because they neutralized the action in their mind. 

In this context, the usage of the word “bad” is used interchangeably with deviant. For example, if an otherwise upstanding citizen steals a little bit of money from someone else, they can rationalize the action in their mind by telling themselves that it’s not a bad thing since other people do it or that the person they stole from did not really need the money. This rationalization has the effect of cognitively convincing a person that their action was not bad and did not defy standard social norms. This justification is indeed how “a good deal of ethical misbehavior starts [as] a small misstep at the beginning, a recognition that it doesn’t do much harm, and a continuance, until one has developed behavior that is habitually perverse” (Duska 23). This neutralization is exactly how the infamous swindler Bernie Madoff justified his Ponzi scheme, as “he cheated a little bit at the beginning, got away with it, and fell into a pattern or habit of taking from one person and giving it to another” (Duska 23). Although Bernie Madoff may not be an example of a star citizen, one can argue that he was not such a deviant person before he started his Ponzi scheme. There are many other Bernie Madoffs in this world; otherwise good people who neutralized one deviant action before that one deviant action became a habit that made them into a monster.

Neutralizations are a critical component of explaining deviant behavior. A popular saying in society that exemplifies neutralizations is “the ends justify the means.” According to one psychologist, “if an outcome is important, [people] begin to believe that the ‘ends justify the means’” (Riggio). When a person begins to believe that their actions are okay in context, then they can engage in ego protection and can freely commit acts of deviance, especially if their actions result in something meaningful to them. If a person’s end goal is to make as much money as possible, they may not care who they trample on in the process as that end goal is so important that any and all actions leading up to their end goal will be justified even if deviant. Through their studies, two psychologists named Cressey and Matza argue “that delinquents possess a system of rationalizations that allow them to (temporarily) view crime as acceptable in particular situations” (Thomas 7). The work of Cressey and Matza illustrates the very concept of “the ends justify the means” as the delinquents studied neutralized their behavior situationally in order to justify the means to their end goal. 

Furthermore, “prior work has shown that situational rationalizations and general moral beliefs are not strongly correlated and are distinct constructs” (Thomas 7). An otherwise good, moral person can thus situationally exonerate themselves of any deviant behaviors as their morals are not really related to their system of justification. The fact that these two systems are not connected only reaffirms the idea that good people can commit deviant behavior. The idea that morals and situational rationalizations are distinct explains why “among U.S. adolescents, 93 percent report disapproval for hitting another person and 97 percent report disapproval for stealing, while the prevalence of such behaviors is substantially higher” (Thomas 8). Many otherwise moral youth are good people who have strong beliefs and know what is morally right and wrong based on societal norms, yet many still engage in behaviors that defy societal norms such as hitting others and stealing. Once again, “the concept of situational rationalizations addresses this” phenomenon “because it denies that delinquents must outright approve of delinquency and holds instead that they temporarily approve of it given certain circumstances—that is, they are able to sidestep their abstract disapproval of delinquency by applying a rationalization” (Thomas 8). In order to free themselves from society’s bounds, people will rationalize their behavior based on the situation they are in so that they do not have to break any moral beliefs they might hold. Through this strategy, a person can fully believe that their behavior was not in any way morally incorrect, offering a straightforward explanation as to why a person can commit a deviant act in one moment and then carry on with their lives as if they are a good, not deviant, person in the next.

Most acts of deviance are internally justified. One popular justification of deviancy is “‘Everybody does it’” (Duska 24). This popular saying is a form of ego protection as it allows an individual to neutralize unpleasant feelings that may arise from their actions. After all, “the maintenance of self-esteem and self work [are] among [the] strongest and most persistent human goals” (Bersoff 28). Ego protection is an extremely integral part of human existence and allows for neutralizations to occur. An example of this would be an underage individual engaging in illegal alcohol and drug consumption and then telling themselves it is okay because “everybody does it.” Although the underage individual may know that it is wrong to drink alcohol and take illegal drugs, they will utilize this saying in an attempt to neutralize any unpleasant feelings associated with their deviant behavior. However, it is important to note that “there are situational differences in the difficulty of applying a rationalization” (Thomas 11). An individual may not be able to hit an elderly man and steal his money as easily as taking illicit drugs, as it might be harder to say that “everybody does it” to hitting an elderly man than it would be for taking illicit drugs.

Additionally, a study conducted by David Matza suggests that part of the reason why people commit deviant acts is social (Thomas 7). Humans are social beings. As a result of being social beings, “people learn to behave in accordance with the wishes or habits of those who lead their tribes” (Duska 23). Since people will often follow their leaders, their actions can often be attributed to social pressures. It is why a person will commit deviant behavior based on the wish or command of a boss as they are socialized in a manner that teaches them to follow the leader. Despite an individual’s belief of being “autonomous and self-ruling,” studies such as Milgram’s experiment illustrate the “large extent [to] [which] people are likely to respond to authority” (Duska 24). Milgram’s study involved participants being told to administer a shock to another person if they got an answer to a question wrong, with each successive shock being higher in voltage, and thus more fatal. Even when the participants did not want to administer the shock, an authority figure strongly encouraged obedience (McLeod). The fact that most people were obedient to authority elucidates how Nazi soldiers carried out terrible atrocities, even if they did not want to. Therefore, a big reason why otherwise good people commit deviant behavior is because most people are socialized into believing that they need to be obedient to authority and need not question it. Consequently, most people justify their actions as being of those in authority instead of their own.

Besides possessing a strong obedience to an authoritative  figure, people are most often loyal to their group and feel the need to go with the group rather than against it. Oftentimes, when members of “a group [engage] in unethical behavior, individuals are far more likely to participate in or condone that behavior rather than risk standing out” (Bradberry). Due to the need for approval and acceptance, an individual would rather let members of their group commit unethical actions or even join in on the deviant behavior than go against the grain and condemn the deviance. People dislike confrontation, and going against the group you are a part of risks confrontation and possible expulsion from the group. Therefore, since “people have a tendency to keep their heads down”,  “ethical behavior at times requires heroic effort” (Duska 23). Rather than be a hero and risk standing out for their morality, an otherwise good person will commit deviance for the sake of conformity and group cohesion, which they can later neutralize in order to protect their ego. 

Although there may be additional reasons for why otherwise good people commit deviant behaviors, the neutralization theory as well as the feeling of needing to conform are the most influential. Some may argue that money is a largely influential factor in deviant behavior. However, in the case of stealing, “research on employee theft does not support the theory that workers steal, in general, because they need the money” (Bersoff 29). In fact, “three out of four shoplifters can afford to buy the merchandise they have taken, and many are even caught carrying enough money to pay for the lifted items” (Bersoff 29). Money may very well play a pivotal role in why good people do deviant things, but it is not the most influential. As shown by the aforementioned research, it is more likely those who shoplifted did so as a consequence of social pressure or as a rationalization of the action as “not bad,” allowing them to protect their ego and steal despite possessing the capacity to pay.

It is abundantly clear that people will justify their deviant actions in some manner in order to protect their egos. However, not all hope is lost as there are ways to combat our own deviancy, as we are all capable of committing some degree of deviancy. One such way a person can do this is by strengthening their mind and increasing their willpower (Duska 24). In his book, Can’t Hurt Me: Master Your Mind and Defy the Odds, David Goggins relays many techniques he has used to increase willpower and offers practical solutions to help others increase their own willpower. Although mastery of such a technique may not come easy, it can be very effective and can improve a person’s lives in various ways besides simply preventing deviance. A solution against group influences would be to “recall what your mother said when you asserted that everybody does it. Your mother would say, ‘I don’t care if everybody does it (jump off the bridge, jump off the cliff ), that doesn’t make it right’” (Duska 24). According to Duska, this popular saying was found to be universal among students of different cultures in some form or another (24). This conveys how although a person can be influenced by social pressures, they can still resist and do not have to take part in deviancy. Therefore, through the use of anti-rationalization techniques, a person can protect themselves against committing potential acts of deviancy and can thus contribute to a stronger moral character of not just themselves, but those around them as well.

Works Cited

Bernard, Thomas J.. “Gresham M. Sykes”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 25 Oct. 2022 https://www.britannica.com/biography/Gresham-M-Sykes. Accessed 24 February 2023.

Bersoff, David M. “Why Good People Sometimes Do Bad Things: Motivated Reasoning and Unethical Behavior.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 25, no. 1, Jan. 1999, pp. 28–9., https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025001003. Accessed 26 Feb. 2023. 

Bradberry, Travis. “14 Psychological Forces That Make Good People Do Bad Things.” Inc.com, https://www.inc.com/travis-bradberry/14-psychological-forces-that-make-good-people-do-bad-things.html. 

Duska, Ronald. “Why Good People Do Bad Things: Applications to Financial Advisors—The ‘WIZARD.’” Journal of Financial Service Professionals, Sept. 2013, pp. 23–24. 

Kaptein, Muel, and Martien Van Helvoort. “A Model of Neutralization Techniques.” Deviant Behavior, vol. 40, no. 10, 1 Dec. 2018, p. 1261., https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2018.1491696. Accessed 26 Feb. 2023.

Mcleod, Saul. “The Milgram Shock Experiment: Summary, Results, & Ethics.” Simply Psychology, 8 Mar. 2023, https://simplypsychology.org/milgram.html. Accessed 18 Mar. 2023

Riggio, Ronald E. “The Science of Why Good People Do Bad Things.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 1 Nov. 2014, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201411/the-science-why-good-people-do-bad-things. 

Sampson, Steven. “Good People Doing Bad Things.” Journal of Legal Anthropology, vol. 5, no. 1, 2021, p. 123., https://doi.org/10.3167/jla.2021.050105. 

Thomas, Kyle J. “Rationalizing Delinquency: Understanding the Person-Situation Interaction through Item Response Theory.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, vol. 56, no. 1, 26 July 2018, pp. 7–11., https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427818789752. Accessed 26 Feb. 2023. 

The Philosophical Lens of a Camera

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

by Grace Sargent, January 24, 2023

Introduction

In American philosopher and writer Susan Sontag’s In Plato’s Cave, the concept of photography is examined from a philosophical standpoint and connected to Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. She details the way in which we as humans interact with photography and the large role it plays in our lives. Ultimately, Sontag proclaims that we remain in Plato’s cave by emphasizing how our consumption of photography is flawed—that we take photographs to show the truth, when in reality, they are mere versions of it. The ideas she presents are incredibly insightful and should be taken into greater consideration by our media-centered society. Philosophers like Sontag encourage valuable introspection that could likely afford each of us a healthier mindset pertaining to media consumption, and ultimately improve our relationship with the media. 

Greater Context and Connections

To begin the discussion of Sontag’s piece, we must first understand the work from which she draws upon: Plato’s Allegory of a Cave. Although Sontag’s In Plato’s Cave talks specifically about photography, Plato was actually interested in investigating our relationship with knowledge and our view of the world as a whole, and he painted an obscure picture in order to set the stage for his theory. Plato describes an alternate universe where a group of people exist who have experienced their entire lives within a cave, and they have been restrained in a way where they are only able to view shadows of statues created by other people. For a long time they view these shadows as a true form of something—a man, woman, or horse. However, when they are forced out of their protective cave, they come to the realization that the shadows they took to be the truth were mere versions of the real objects that exist in our world. Plato then connected this with our perception of our surroundings, explaining that we are constantly misinterpreting false forms of reality as the truest ones. Overall, he implored us to seek greater knowledge, education, and understanding. Though his work is thousands of years old, its message is timeless; as a society, one of our main goals at all times should always be to actively search for new knowledge and make an attempt to constantly enlighten ourselves, moving ever-closer to the actual “truth.”

Sontag’s Standpoint

Sontag takes Plato’s brilliant approach and applies it specifically to humanity’s relationship with photography, aptly pointing out how centered it is around absolute reliance. She heavily emphasizes Plato’s aforementioned theory of forms, which is a crucial concept. Sontag clarifies how we believe photographs to maintain “narrowly selective transparency,” and contrasts it with photography’s subjective reality (Sontag 4). In other words, we see images as the entire truth and fail to recognize how they are manipulated and presented to us. A wonderful example Sontag provides is one quite common to us: not believing in something until we are given a picture of it, consequently proving its existence in our eyes. This directly correlates to the group of people in Plato’s cave, and how they wrongly viewed the shadows to be the absolute truth. In our modernized situation, the photograph is the misinterpreted truth, while the subject of the image is the real truth. 

Here it becomes crystal clear how, despite all the time that has elapsed since Plato’s allegory, we as a society remain stuck inside his cave—we have not yet mastered the ability to reach a greater depth of understanding regarding the media presented to us. In order to fully understand where Sontag is coming from, we must be shown instances where her point is validated. In her piece In Plato’s Cave, she gives the strong example of the Farm Security Administration (FSA) photography project conducted in the 1930s, where people from this organization were sent out to capture images of the effects of significant events such as the Great Depression. While one may believe that these photos are irrefutably unbiased, such an assumption isn’t necessarily accurate  due to the intentions of the photographers as they capture their carefully planned shots. At the end of the day, they were trying to present images of impoverished, grief stricken people. The pictures showcased to the public emulated this strong bias, similar to how the countless amount of photographs in our life now contain hidden truths. It is because of this that we cannot take images as entire truths of something. Rather, we should be more inquisitive of what is presented: what is being photographed? Who is photographing it? Why is this photographing taking place? These are all contextual questions that can help us uncover the truth that is being obscured, and can—referring back to Plato’s desires—aid us in our journey to acquiring greater knowledge and understanding. Furthermore, they will propel us further out of where we remain: Plato’s cave.

Conclusion

In conclusion, both Plato and Sontag present extremely thought-provoking approaches to areas of our life we tend to shield from deep questioning: knowledge and photography. Through their developed discussions, we are able to gain a better understanding as to where they are each coming from, but also to use them in conjunction with looking further into a singular idea. By listening to Plato, we realize that he has found a flaw in our interpretation of the world, urging us to take necessary steps in improving it. Subsequently, by listening to Sontag, we recognize those same faults in our viewing of photography, and how we should alter our damaging behaviors. By intently listening to each of them and viewing them as pieces in conversation, we are one step closer to reforming the way in which we approach modern photography.

Works Cited

Plato, and J. M. Cooper. Complete Works /Edited with Introduction and Notes by John M. Cooper. Hackett, 1997. 

Sontag, Susan. On Photography. RosettaBooks, 2005.

What should we do about suffering? Jean-Paul Sartre on human responsibility

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

by Zelalem Amera, September 29, 2022

There is so much suffering in the world. Fyodor Dostoevsky explores this suffering in his novel, The Brothers Karamazov, where he tells the story of three brothers, Ivan, Alyosha, and Dimitri. They each symbolize philosophically distinct ideas, and Ivan Karamazov, who embodies the voice of creeping nihilism, has a memorable conversation with his monk brother Alyosha (whom he considers naive). He goes on an animated rant, telling Alyosha the story of a five-year-old girl who is locked up in a shed by her parents covered in excrement; Turk soldiers who ripped out a baby from the mother’s womb and impaled it with their spears for sport; parents who physically abused their seven-year-old girl and were acquitted by a jury to continue their horrific antics; and a man who let loose a pack of dogs on a young boy and forced his mother to watch because the boy had hurt one of his hounds (Dostoevsky). 

This is only a small excerpt of the accounts of human suffering that Ivan describes. His speech on the problem of evil is one of the most moving sections in Dostoyevsky’s novel. By the end of Ivan’s tirade, we have a bleak depressing picture of what human suffering is about. Even Alyosha, the ever optimistic and faithful character, seems to doubt his own beliefs by the end. 

The world is full of injustices that offend us in ways that other things don’t. This kind of injustice is personal. It puts a void in our peace and makes us see the brutality of life. Perhaps for the sufferers it’s normal, but we cannot ignore this reality in good conscience. Turning a blind eye won’t make this fact go away. What are we to do with human suffering?

The French existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre tries to address this question in his book Being and Nothingness, where he lays out an entire ontological framework for human reality. In the end, all Sartre says to conclude is, “All of these questions refer us to a pure, and not complicit, reflection. They can be answered only within the domain of morality, to which we will devote a future work” (Being and Nothingness 811). What an anticlimactic way to end such a profound work! Despite the immense scope of his book, which covers everything from consciousness and bad faith, to love, relationships, and society in general, we will try to simplify and explore one common theme which runs throughout, the relationship between freedom and facticity. Sartre argues in his book that human reality is structured in such a way that we are all free even in the midst of terrible circumstances. We must be free even when we don’t get to choose our reality. 

To get our readers on the same page with some of the jargon used here, freedom is simply the fact of being responsible for a choice. Sartre defines humans as fundamentally free beings. Consciousness is always consciousness of a choice. We all live in the context of a possible future, and it is through our projecting of our own possibilities that we bring a new reality, or being, into the world. You plan an action in your mind before it becomes a reality. You think about eating a sandwich before you actually get to the task of eating it. This is an example of your freedom in action. Naturally, freedom is what allows you to be happy. Happiness is being able to do what you want. To be free is to be happy. 

Facticity is what someone or thing is. It is essentially the meaning we associate with the physical manifestation of reality. “Black hair” is the facticity of the thing on your head.  

For Sartre, the idea of freedom coincides with the concept of nothingness. It is only because humans are nothing that they can bring about being. It’s a rather cryptic concept to understand, but it is not important for our discussion.

What we are interested in answering is the above mentioned question, how do we deal with suffering? We live in a time when we are hypersensitive to injustice. We are trying to create a world where everybody has an equal chance at happiness and success, but this often leads to an overwhelming amount of conflict between political parties, countries, and even among family members. In a way, we are all vulnerable to the implications of this question.

Actually, we must first take a few moments to examine why this question matters to us so much. Why does suffering matter so much? How does it affect you personally? 

Have you ever looked at someone else and wondered to yourself how it was unfair that they are prettier, taller, wealthier, or smarter than you are? It’s not like they deserved to have these things more than you did. How are you to blame for your genetics or your family? Not only that but it seems like these things ultimately affect where they end up in life. For example, if you are born to a rich family, your odds of living a more successful life are higher. If you are attractive, people will probably pay more attention to you, and it’s going to be easier for you to find friendship and love. If you are a citizen of a powerful country, it is easier for you to find employment, education, and build a life. We can even take this a step further and say that these people with natural advantages can solidify and secure their position in society, ultimately making it so that other members of society can’t be happy even when the natural conditions are leveled out. However, that is another discussion.  

This unfairness is at the essence of being in a minority group. You want to have the same fighting chance as someone else, but you are limited by your situation. If you’re from an immigrant family, you want to get into Harvard just as much as everybody else. But if due to factors outside of your control this is not possible, then obviously this would make you frustrated! Why should you be punished for something that is not your fault? How are you to blame for your financial or social circumstances? Whether or not we are on the privileged side, we can relate to the frustration of not being able to get what we want despite all our efforts. We all want to be free to pursue our happiness, but are we all free? 

We cannot choose what we are. We don’t choose our race, sex, parents, economic and social background, and country of origin. From the moment we are born, we are labeled with meaning that doesn’t come from us. How can any of us be responsible for all of it? We can’t even hold the people in power responsible for the fact that they were born to it. This is why the question matters. Are we still responsible for our happiness even though we don’t get to choose our circumstances? Can we hold people who are born in terrible conditions and live short lives accountable? Are they still free to choose? Jean-Paul Sartre would definitely argue yes. In fact, he would say that we have no choice! We will use a simple example to explore his answer.      

Imagine a tall man and a short man. They both want to be good at playing basketball. Obviously, the rules of the game discriminate against shorter people. We can all agree that from the start that the tall guy has a natural advantage over the short guy, because he has a better vantage in relation to the hoop. Neither of these two men are responsible for the facticity of their height. The tall man is not responsible for the fact that he is tall, and the short man is not responsible for his shortness. However, if we put both of them in an arena with zero experience and all other factors accounted for, we should expect to see the tall person outperform the short one.

Now, you may object to that and say, “what if the short person has better eyesight?” or “better hand eye coordination?” Well, let us assume for the moment that all these other traits have been accounted for and the short and tall person are both equal on all levels except their natural height. Besides, if height was not an important selecting factor for prowess in basketball, the NBA would not be so full of tall people. Over a period of a few months, one would expect the tall person to vastly outperform the short one, given the same amount of practice and training. The game would be significantly easier for him simply because he is taller.

But let us digress here and say that somehow that doesn’t happen. Actually, from the moment those two are put in the arena, the short man seems to perform way better than the tall person. And a few days later, the short person is even better than the taller person, to the extent where he is making most of the shots he attempts and is humiliating his opposition. So how do we explain this counterintuitive situation? 

We must imagine that when the short person went into the arena, he was thinking to himself, “I know I’m at a natural disadvantage, so I must try harder to win this game. I can’t afford to make mistakes.” Whereas the tall person was thinking to himself, “well, I’m taller than him so how hard can it be to beat him? Really, I don’t have to be that worried.” Of course, he could have thought to himself, “I should probably use my natural advantage to win against him,” but he didn’t have a reason to.  

The short man, knowing that he must try harder, plays less carelessly; he doesn’t attempt shots that don’t work; he second guesses himself more; he thinks about the best path to winning; he is more devoted to the task of winning; he finds more options; more possibilities open up to him and he exploits these possibilities. An observer might conclude that he is a “natural,” but that is not the case. He is just much more devoted to the task of winning than his competition. He is more desperate. So, the short man practices for longer hours. He works harder at getting better than the tall man and that is why he is unexpectedly better at the game than his naturally gifted competitor. It’s the classic “The Tortoise and the Hare” story we heard as children. 

So what? Have we answered the question then? Can we conclude from this that despite your natural advantages, if you don’t work hard you will lose, and despite your natural disadvantages, you can still win if you bridge the gap through your commitment and hard work? No, there is still something off.

What if we weren’t dealing with a tall person and a short person. What if that is too fair? “The Tortoise and Hare” story suggests that our freedom can bridge the gap between our natural differences. Presumably, we are all free to pursue happiness and able to get it at least in theory. If you are born in a poor country, then all you have to do is work extremely hard and you will be just as successful as someone from a wealthy country. If you are short, just make up for it by being smart or strong or something else. But this seems a bit naive, doesn’t it? 

What if the tall man was competing with a cripple? 

Ah! You might balk. Life would never be so unreasonable! Actually, life is exactly this unreasonable. A person who is born from a poor dysfunctional family in an obscure country is not just a short man, he is a crippled man. We must emphasize this point for some members of our audience who have not been outside the country. There are places in the world where people live in abysmal conditions. There are kids who are born in the middle of civil wars, who live very short, miserable lives. Surely, they can’t be expected to compete and win, right? What about people who are born with serious medical conditions that prevent them from moving or talking? And what about the people Dostoyevsky described in Ivan’s speech? No, we must hold the position that some people are indeed born cripples. 

But doesn’t this mean that we are not all free? “The Tortoise and the Hare” story does not hold up to scrutiny. Sometimes, hardwork and commitment are not enough to bridge the gap between our circumstances. Sometimes, we can’t get what we want no matter how hard we try.  

So what now? Is freedom a lie? Is it an arbitrary thing that only the privileged have? The question is now even harder to answer; how does a cripple compete in a basketball competition and expect to win? How is he responsible for his inevitable failure? How are you responsible for your happiness even though you aren’t responsible for your circumstances? 

This is where Jean Paul Sartre breaks the bad news: “We should not confuse my freedom to choose with my freedom to obtain” (Being and Nothingness 658). What does this mean? Is he trying to dodge the question with some sort of sophism? What is the use of a freedom that is stripped of its content? What’s the use of being free if you can’t be happy?

What Sartre tries to emphasize in his book is the absolute necessity of freedom for being. Nowhere in the description of his idea of freedom does he permit that a freedom necessarily has to get what it wants. In fact, the absurdity of freedom is that it’s not even free to choose itself. 

To bring it down to a practical level. What he is saying is that when it comes to happiness, nobody can get away from responsibility. Being born with advantages is not enough. You must act. It might be easier for you to get what you want, but you still need to do something. You are not free from challenges. If you are born a cripple, you will probably never beat someone at basketball (and yes, we can talk about how the modern world allows the possibility for prosthetics, but that is another arena with the same sort of problems to play out). You are still forced to play, and even if you refuse to play, that is still a choice you must be completely responsible for. 

Even if you never reach your goals because of your situation, even if you are in a position where you can’t because you are oppressed, you are still responsible for your happiness. Perhaps the absurdity in Sartre’s argument is that he suggests that a person is free to punch a brick wall continuously until his knuckles bleed. He is free to act towards a goal which he knows is impossible. If he quits, he is still free. There is nobody to blame but himself. There is no god to complain to. This is just the way it is. In fact, his oppression only makes his freedom more apparent to him. What an absurd thing to suggest! This is probably what Sartre means when he says, “nowhere were we freer than under the German occupation” (“The Republic of Silence” 1).

We cannot hide in our facticity and say, “this is my destiny.” Even the best of us need to act in order to make our goals happen. Facticity will not save you from choices. You can’t say, “I lost the game because I was short.” No, you lost the game because on a certain level, you chose to lose the game. 

Even if you lost the game because you couldn’t compete with someone taller than you, you were still responsible for winning it. Even if you have no chance at getting what you want, that still does not absolve you from the responsibility of acting. Who are you going to complain to? Who is going to fix this unfair and absurd situation? If you want to be happy, you have to try anyway. You could try to change the circumstances of course, but not every inequality can be leveled out. You don’t always have the power to level the playing field. But you always have a choice. Even if you give up on your happiness and commit suicide, it is a choice you are fully responsible for. There is no escape from freedom. As Jean Paul Sartre would put it, “I am condemned to be free” (Being and Nothingness 577).

This doesn’t sound very appealing of course! We started out with hopes of a reassuring solution to the problem of inequality but what have we concluded? That it doesn’t matter either way! Whether or not we are equal does not save us from this burden. We are all responsible for our happiness even if we don’t get to choose the playing field or what tools we have at our disposal. We are not responsible for our circumstances, but we have to be completely responsible for the outcome. This is the absurdity of life. We all must be free. Sometimes, we must be free even when our freedom is useless.

Now that we have established this conclusion, we must go off on a tangent and ask one more question: do the weak deserve to suffer then? If it’s true that human beings are completely responsible for their happiness and nobody is going to save them from choosing, doesn’t that mean people are responsible for their suffering? If you lose the game, make a mistake, or mess up your life, doesn’t that mean you deserve the outcome you chose? If you can’t blame your circumstances or your nature for your failure, and if you can’t blame God, then who else is there to blame but yourself?

The implications of this conclusion are obvious. We are not morally obligated to do anything about suffering. Everybody, even the most needy people, are responsible for their circumstances. Complaining is pointless. One must suck it up and make it work anyway. 

But isn’t this depressing?

This is the image that you get when you look at human reality from the perspective of the individual: an abandoned, lonely person, who is completely responsible for his life and must face forces way beyond his capacity to survive and be happy. Perhaps the implication of this conclusion is that to focus so heavily on the individual is unnatural. 

Human beings are social animals.We are always surrounded by people, and we will never escape from them. It seems absurd to construct a philosophy dealing exclusively with the individual. The individual is never alone in the world. He is not abandoned, he is abandoned together with the rest of human reality. It is not an I that defines human reality, it is a we. 

No, the weak do not deserve to suffer because if the individual is not powerful enough to fix his circumstances, and if there is no god who will make everything right, then that is more reason for us to take up the mantle. We did not choose to be here, so we must roll up our sleeves and get to the task of building the kind of world we want. 

But who is this “we” in all of this? Is it America? China? Russia? Is it the West or the East? Are women included in this “we?” We must refer to every conscious individual. We must somehow find a way to make a connection with everybody. You can see how this makes our task so much more difficult. Every human being working together under the same flag? That seems absurd doesn’t it? When “mankind” conquered the moon, whose flag was it that was planted on the surface? Was it really one small step for mankind? Does anything we do have this humanism in mind or are we all selfish on some level?

This is what we have concluded from our discussion on human suffering. On a fundamental level, we are all facing the same problem. We are all trying to be happy in a world we do not choose. Literally and metaphorically, we are in the same boat. There is camaraderie in that, and the injunction is to be kind to one another; not just some people, but everyone. We may never get to this utopia, but we must try, and to accept our radical freedom and responsibility is the first step. 

Works Cited

Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness. Routledge books, 1943.

Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. The Brothers Karamazov. 1880. 

Sartre, Jean-Paul. “The Republic of Silence.” Lettres françaises, 1944.

What Does it Mean to be Free: Sartre’s Take On Human Freedom in the Face of the Nazi Regime

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

by Gina Koch, April 15, 2022

Jean-Paul Sartre is undeniably one of the most prominent philosophers of the twentieth century and the chief founder of existentialism. The works he published influenced various ideologies spanning philosophy, politics, literature, and cultural studies. Sartre, like most philosophers, had his moments of being subject to public disappointment and outrage. After living through World War II as a French prisoner of war, he sparked outrage when he published the essay, “The Republic of Silence,” which he started with the infamous line “Never were we freer than under the German Occupation” (Sartre, 1).

In  “The Republic of Silence,” Jean-Paul Sartre explores the concept of true freedom amid the Nazi German occupation of France. Extreme conditions often breed unique schools of thought for many thinkers, and Sartre was no different. Being a witness and victim of the brutal Nazi regime resulted in profound ideologies coming to light, especially regarding the concept of freedom as evidenced by his essay “The Republic of Silence.” Sartre explains that the essence of true freedom materialized during times of oppression. When people are condemned to extreme conditions of suffering, the sanctity of every thought and every right becomes apparent, and they are faced with the question of their freedom. There exists no force or authority that is capable of taking away one’s freedom because it is inherent and essential to the human condition. However, some forces can place physical limitations on one’s freedom, and it becomes a grave situation when these limitations go so far beyond as to attack one’s rights, beliefs, and principles. Under such an attack, people have the choice to exercise their freedom and resist such oppressive forces or partake in bad faith and give up on such beliefs and principles. This concept of freedom was different from other ideologies circulating at the time. For example, French philosopher Albert Camus, known for his contributions to the absurdist movement, maintained that human freedom is not inherent to humans but rather a state of mind achieved when people understand the absurdity and meaninglessness of life; thereby stopping themselves from constructing some greater meaning from it (Camus). Many differing ideologies regarding human freedom circulated during this war-torn era, but Sartre’s ideas managed to stand out among them. 

During the Nazi era in Germany, which lasted from 1933 to 1945,  particular groups of people such as the Jewish, gypsies, homosexuals, and any other groups not considered a part of the superior Aryan race were targeted as part of the ethnic cleansing scheme initiated by political leader Adolf Hitler. These groups faced oppression, suffering beyond imagination, and witnessed their inherent and basic rights being stripped away from them. They were stripped of their citizenship, denied interactions with those considered part of the Aryan race, and sent to concentration camps, often to be killed. Sartre, being a philosopher who means to seek meaning in everything that happens around him, found hope among the brutality that surrounded him. In his essay, he claims, “never were we freer than under the German Occupation” (Sartre, 1). It is quite a wonder that Sartre was able to find such freedom when the majority of people around him were arrested, sent to concentration camps, or killed. He is not talking about physical freedom, but inherent freedom; the freedom that governs the human condition and is an essential part of existence. He compares the manner people think in during peaceful times and during atrocious ones, similar to that of Nazi occupation. 

As Sartre says, “In this way, the very question of freedom was posed, and we were on the verge of the deepest knowledge human beings can have of themselves” (Sartre, 5). During times of oppression, people tend to question the limits of their freedom and their character questions that were neglected during peaceful times. Would they resist the torture and hold on to secrets and information about the resistance movement or would they give in to the pain and reveal secrets that can lead to numerous arrests and deaths? It is during moments like these that people question their freedom and existence because the choices they make can have profound effects, many times concerning life or death. Sartre also discussed “resistance was a true democracy” (Sartre, 6). There was solidarity in how they resisted the Nazi regime. During such difficult times, there is a sense of equality and responsibility among the people that is not palpable in society during peaceful times. Sartre claims he witnessed the strengthening of the Republic because everyone shared the same freedom regardless of their rank or position within the movement. The freedom they experienced while under the ironclad rule of the Nazi regime was one that was true, absolute, and equal. 

The freedom that Sartre discusses in his essay is distinct from the conventional idea of freedom that many may have. The freedom to do anything one wants is separate from the true and absolute freedom that Sartre refers to. True personal freedom is one’s ability to express their beliefs and principles regardless of the forces that govern them. It is the ability to make choices regardless of any rewards or material possessions one may obtain as a consequence of their choice. In an oppressive society, personal beliefs often start to take precedence over any material possessions and sometimes, over their own life. In other words, people are willing to die at the hands of their oppressors rather than give up on what they believe in. In his essay, Sartre explains that people often made the authentic choice in the presence of death, and it was through this act that they were able to exercise true freedom. Many of those who were tortured at the hands of the Nazis resisted revealing any information they had on the resistance movement because they stayed true to believing that their people should be freed from the oppressors. This choice may have cost them their lives but they did so as part of exercising their freedom. If they had instead chosen to spill information as a means to keep themselves alive, they would have continued living a limited life; one in which they sacrificed their freedom and lacked any meaning or purpose because they abandoned any beliefs they had. People are more than their situation so they should be able to transcend the situation and stay committed to their beliefs. 

The attitudes that Sartre shared in his essay forces us to think about the manner in which we live. Initially, society seems to be guilty of stripping freedom away from the people, and then forcing them to obey laws in order to keep their freedom. In fact, it may seem quite ironic how we are rewarded with freedom, which is something inherently ours, for giving up a certain level of our autonomy. However, this outlook on society in freedom is not accurate. Since freedom is something that is inherently ours and essential to our existence; it cannot be stripped away from us by external forces or authority. However, as members of society, we agree to accept some limitations placed on our freedom. For example, we agree to obey the laws of society as a means to maintain order in our lives and fulfill our potential as social creatures. However, we do not lose our freedom because everyone has the ability to break the law. The fact that we are still capable of committing terrible acts but choose not to proves that we still maintain our freedom. 

However, one would have to face the consequences of committing any terrible and unlawful acts. Therefore, it is important to distinguish between the consequences of an act and freedom. People have the freedom to commit any acts but they may not be successful or satisfied with the consequences, but this does not mean they do not have the freedom to commit an act. The German occupation placed limitations on people’s freedom that conflicted with their rights and beliefs. At this point, it becomes a clear case of oppression as opposed to society maintaining order. During peaceful times, it is not obvious if something is lacking in the manner they live their lives but during oppressive circumstances, it becomes very apparent. Once, it becomes apparent that their lives are not to be lived in the way that it is supposed to be, the urge to fight for their lives materializes and it results in a strength that ultimately empowers them to exercise their freedom. The absolute freedom that they experience under the regime is one that was born out of the shackles that they were bound to. 

Works Cited

Camus, Albert. “The Myth of Sisyphus.” The Myth of Sisyphus, and Other Essays. Translated by Justin O’Brien, Hamish Hamilton, 1955, pp. 3-119.  

Sartre, Jean-Paul. “The Republic of Silence.” Lettres françaises, 1944, pp. 1-7.

An Analysis of Ambiguity in Humans

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

by Sanjana Sankaran, November 12, 2021

The existentialist philosopher Simone De Beauvoir explained in her book titled, The Ethics of Ambiguity, why humans are ambiguous creatures. Beauvoir first proclaims that humans have felt the ambiguity of the states of life and death for a long time. However, even if people recognize the ambiguity of life and understand that as humans we will all die, they eliminate ambiguity by proclaiming religious immortality, and by saying one should become pure internally and externally (Beauvoir 7). As an advocate for women’s rights and human rights, she believed that in order for people to achieve a sense of freedom they must recognize and appreciate the ambiguity. I will further analyze the importance of ambiguity of life and why Beauvoir’s assessment of the human condition as fundamentally ambiguous is correct. 

After recognizing the concept of ambiguity, Beauvoir then differentiates between the two main types: fundamental ambiguity and the simpler ambiguity.  The fundamental ambiguity of the human experience has two parts: the first being that humans are free, we have the ability to think about the world (consciousness), and we can decide how we wish to act and have a private life (internal) (Lecture Notes 11/9/2020). This knowledge gives us strength and power to act (Beauvoir 8). The second part contradicts the first by stating that we are not free because humans cannot escape death in any way. Humans, in many ways, are objects by which external forces can act, so we therefore also have an external existence that cannot be controlled. The simpler ambiguity also has two parts: one is factual and deals with our bodily existence, while the other is free and deals without conscious existence (Lecture Notes, 11/9/2020). Again, philosophers have been dishonest about the ambiguity of life in two ways; they either deny its existence or they disparage it and deem it as negligible to understand and recognize. So, in this process, their style of ethics try to assert one of the ideas of this dualism of life, complete freedom, and determinism, where all your actions have already been determined and you have no control (Lecture Notes, 11/9/2020). 

Ambiguity is extremely important to Beauvoir’s style of ethics because she argues that the concept of ethics itself only makes sense within the context of ambiguous creatures like humans. She states that ethics is brought about by the tension of what is and what ought to be. ‘What is’ is the reality of a situation, such as “there is social injustice.” ‘What ought’ is how things should be –  our opinion –  such as “there should not be social injustice”. She argues therefore that ethics becomes valid when we recognize the ambiguity between what we are and what we could and should be (Lecture Notes 11/9/2020). Beauvoir’s ethics is the ethics of freedom for humanity, which she claims is the source and goal of all ethics. Freedom is what lets humans express meaning and value about certain things and thus must be willed because humans are ambiguous. To will freedom, humans must first recognize the ambiguity instead of denying it to open up their future and keep the ability to act in multiple ways (Lecture Notes 11/11/2020). 

The human condition is fundamentally ambiguous for three main reasons: we cannot escape death,  there is freedom in the uncertain or ambiguous and, lastly, humans live in constant doubt. Humans cannot escape death; philosophers and other thinkers have tried to escape death by arguing that it does not matter what we do in life as long as we end up pure enough to be in heaven. The same goes for religions that discuss reincarnation; however, we live it does not matter because we will be reincarnated. However, as Beauvoir states, the ends do not always justify the means, nor should one be focused on the means and forget about the end. In the first case, when people ignore the means to achieve their goal, they will commit atrocities to get there (Lecture Notes 12/2/2020). For example, in the case of the serious man, they find a single value the absolute and will become a slave to this value, and find everything else as unimportant. This ultimately results in a fascist regime, cult followers, and other heinous crimes against humanity. The serious man fails to recognize the ambiguity in human existence and that humans are free to set up their own values and not blindly follow the values of others (Lecture Notes 11/16/2020). Nietzsche, one of the fundamental philosophers of the existentialist movement, explains the avoidance of death as an end to asceticism – humans will endure severe self-discipline, abstinence, or a denial of our own enjoyments in favor of the spiritual world, a kingdom of God. He argues that humans have used this to endure suffering under the pretense that it can give life meaning. However, Nietzsche wonders how to avoid ascetic ideals without falling into the trap of nihilism (Lecture Notes 11/2/2020). “The ascetic ideal has an aim – this goal is, putting it generally, that all the other interests of human life should, measured by its standard, appear petty and narrow” (Nietzsche Essay 3 Section 23). Asceticism allows for ethics of certainty, not ambiguity; in doing so traps them, and restricts their future. The ascetic ideals, when taken advantage of by cult leaders and tyrants, are often used as a method of oppression. The goal of human life is freedom, not the ascetic ideal. As Beauvoir states, this is achieved by humans having to create their own values, constantly living in doubt, and in the process, gaining genuine freedom. Genuine freedom is something humans have to produce on their  own; we must will it ourselves (Lecture Notes 11/9/2020). As Nietzsche states, “Man, the bravest animal and the one most inured to suffering, does not repudiate suffering in itself: he wills it, he even seeks it out, provided that he is shown a meaning for it, a purpose of suffering” (Nietzsche Essay 3 Section 28). Ambiguity states that life has the ability to be meaningful; however, humans must make life meaningful. Humans have made life meaningful by choosing to stand up for the oppressed and not just assuming an existing value system; they have made it meaningful by protesting injustice and changing unjust laws. They may suffer while standing up for the oppressed as Nietzsche states, but there is a greater purpose for it, and that is freedom. 

Life is uncertain, and acknowledging this uncertainty opens up our future and allows us to be free. When humans follow ethics of certainty instead of uncertainty, they leave themselves in an echo chamber where they may become narcissistic, brainwashed, and tyrannical. If humans choose freedom they must live in this ambiguity, as many of us do. Humans live in a constant state of doubt, questioning what is right and wrong, seeking advice from others, and learning from different resources (Lecture Notes 12/2/2020). This doubt is  why humans read books – to learn more about the world they live in. Ethics can therefore not tell us exactly what to do, for this would be ethics of certainty; one must determine right from wrong while making decisions as they question value systems already in place. Those who reject the fundamental ambiguity are those who do not reject the previous value systems. According to Nietzsche, the value systems in place are the aristocratic value system and the slave value system. The aristocratic system is one where good is associated with characteristics of nobility, and bad is associated with characteristics of common people, or the minority. The slave value system was developed from the original system as ressentiment or resentment, causing an inversion of values; good is only derived by comparison to the aristocrats and evil is a term of vilification where it represents narcissism, racism, and so on (Lecture Notes 10/19/2020). Nietzsche states that both the aristocratic value system ‘good and bad’ and the slave value system ‘good and evil’  have existed in our society since the aristocratic times; however, humans must question the values already present (Lecture Notes 10/21/2020). Beauvoir goes on to state that, “an ethics of ambiguity will be one which will refuse to deny a priori that separate existants can, at the same time, be bound to each other, that their individual freedoms can forge laws valid for all” (Beauvoir 18). In other words, the ethics of ambiguity can only exist when people acknowledge the separation that exists between humans, especially of different minority groups. By acknowledging the imbalance that exists, all humans of separate groups have the ability to develop a new value system where there is freedom for all.   

We do not live in the future, and we cannot wait for it; the future is created. In the present, we make choices as we live in a state of doubt that builds a better future for others. This is shown in politics all the time (Lecture Notes 12/2/2020). For example, in the state of this pandemic, people in the present should stay at home and make the decision in the present to protect themselves and others, in order to build a future where COVID is no longer a major concern. Over the summer as people increasingly doubted the structure of our governmental system, people intervened and criticized the justice system, standing up for black lives. This doubt of the certainty that existed allows for freedom in the future. Beauvoir elaborates, “one must attempt to judge the chances of success that are involved in a certain sacrifice; but at the beginning, this judgment will always be doubtful […]” (Beauvoir 148). Choices in the present must be made by doubting the chances of success in the beginning. When people assume the world to go a certain way, this leads to events of destruction and oppression with Nazi Germany being a key example.  Hitler, in this case, is a serious man, who took a value that already existed, did not doubt it, and oppressed many. Those who questioned his assumptions are those who accepted the concept of ambiguity. 

In conclusion, Beauvoir was correct, humans are fundamentally ambiguous creatures because death is inescapable, even through religious means. Life will end at any time, and we live in this uncertainty and create a sense of meaning on our own. Humans live in constant doubt making dynamic choices in the situation that they are currently in while deciding how to create a better future. This is how humans live life to the fullest and by recognizing this we are free, but not from circumstances out of our control.

References/Works Cited

Beauvoir, Simone de. The Ethics of Ambiguity: Pour Une Morale De L’ambiguïté. Translated by Bernard Frechtman, Open Road Integrated Media, 2018.

Faul, Caleb. “Ethics of Ambiguity.” Philosophy 104. 9 Nov. 2020, Stony Brook University. Class Lecture.

Faul, Caleb. “Ethics of Ambiguity.” Philosophy 104. 11 Nov. 2020, Stony Brook University. Class Lecture.

Faul, Caleb. “Ethics of Ambiguity.” Philosophy 104. 16 Nov. 2020, Stony Brook University. Class Lecture.

Faul, Caleb. “Ethics of Ambiguity.” Philosophy 104. 2 Dec. 2020, Stony Brook University. Class Lecture.

Faul, Caleb. “On the Geneology of Morals.” Philosophy 104. 19 Oct. 2020, Stony Brook University. Class Lecture.

Faul, Caleb. “On the Geneology of Morals.” Philosophy 104. 2 Nov. 2020, Stony Brook University. Class Lecture.

Faul, Caleb. “On the Geneology of Morals.” Philosophy 104. 21 Oct. 2020, Stony Brook University. Class Lecture.

Nietzsche, Fredrich. “On the Genealogy of Morals (A Modernized Translation with a New Introduction and Biography).” Edited by Bill Chapko. Translated by Horace B. Samuel, 2010.