If We Made Everything Our Problem

We talked about in class that every morning we wake up we make the decision to come to school, go to work, and do things throughout the day the way the we want our day to go, Well we also stated that when we wake up if we know that there starving children in Frayser its not our duty to go and make sure that they are fed. Its up to us to do those things in life. We as humans are not obligated to do anything to help nobody. We have the freedom as humans to decide what it is that we want to do during our day. So y question why do Sarte feel as if it is us (as humans) responsibility to stop our days to go and do things or the need? Why is it our responsibility to help some people that do not want to help themselves. In my opinion I feel if you continue to help those in need and make it your duties the would soon stop trying and to help themselves, knowing that it is our duty to help them, if we live how Sarte feel. Why should I work hard to help those that do not want to help themselves.

"I can't make you feel anything!"

         Today in class we were introduced to Jean Paul Sarte and existentialism. We discussed an object as being “in-itself” and a human as being “for-itself.” In other words, humans can transcend into something more or different, while objects (the example used was a table) can only be objects, nothing else. Dr. J explained that often times, people use the excuse of being “in-itself” to not take responsibility for an action. For example, saying “I’m a jerk because I’m white,” using being white as an excuse. Because how much easier would our lives be if we didn’t have to take responsibility for anything?

 

         I found a quote by Jean Paul Sarte on brainyquote.com. “Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.” I think this goes along really well with this particular blog post. It also reminds me of something my dad used to tell us kids when we were growing up. He used to tell us, “I can’t make you feel anything; you’re responsible for how you feel.” So if we would get mad and say something like, “you make me so mad!” he would reply with, “I can’t make you feel anything.” As we got older, he added to it and said, “You choose to be mad because of what has happened.” Ugh! Even typing it is starting to frustrate me…err...I choose to be frustrated because of something that frustrated me when I was a child. I always felt like he didn’t understand me! He’s not listening to how I feel! Now that I’m older, I’ve realized that he was always right. I am responsible for how I react and my emotions, no one else. Sounds like Sarte and my dad may subscribe to the same school of thought.

Oh and here's the lazy eye.

The have and the have nots

In class we discussed the two different classes presented to us by Marx the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat.  The bourgeoisie are the owners of the means of protection or the rich and the proletariats are the workers or the poor.  This theory is still relevant today.  The rich keep getting richer because they seem to take advantage of the poor by giving them low wages and by using them for their labor.  Their labor is what keeps the bourgeoisie wealthy but if they did not have the workers they themselves would be poor.  They keep their spirits down and make them have to work.  They need the workers to keep their lavish lifestyle.  If everyone was part of the bourgeoisie then nothing would get done.  So who is really more important to have?

Capitalism, our inevitable destruction!

Marx makes a valid point when he explains his view on Capitalism. As Dr. J explained in class, according to Marx, there are only two classes of people in our economy, the “Bourgeoisie” and the “Proletariat”, therefore, our Capitalistic economy will eventually create such a big gap between the two. The outcome being, the rich getting richer and fewer and the poor getting poorer and more numerous.

My bone to pick with this issue has to do with the power and control that big businesses and corporations have over our government. Those corporations have political power because of their federal status as “individuals”. That status gives them the right to donate very large amounts of money to politicians and their political campaigns. An example of that is that is the fact that the NRA and its allies in the firearms industries have together poured nearly $81million into House, Senate, and presidential elections since the 2000 election cycle, according to federal disclosures.

How can people stand a chance to fight against corporations that already have politicians in their pay roll? How can we defend our environment against corporations in the Coal industry? Corporations take advantage of our poor communities by dumping their toxic waste into their water streams or locating land fields right in their back yard. This is never the case in prominent communities where the health of people actually matters.

I would like to see our society seek a change that will put the well being of citizens before the greed and growth of corporations.

Can Poverty Be Eradicated?

In 1891, Oscar Wilde published The Soul of Man under Socialism, in which he wrote the line: "The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible." Of course, edgy as he was for his time, he was still a Victorian, and he would not have devised such a thing as Communism. Regardless, the sentiment in that sentence is still useful as food for thought for this discussion. 

How would it be possible to eradicate poverty on a structural level? What resources would it require and to what degree of magnitude? What kinds of behaviors would we teach our children so that they might sustain the process? What are the moral implications? What personal responsibilities would be absolved and on what terms? Would we take on additional responsibilities? Would we, collectively, be held at greater risk of failure as a nation? What are the things that cannot be anticipated? 

In spite of any questions, there must be some respite for the poor as their numbers rise. We have effectively established that seemingly no combination of goodwill, charity, or education can eliminate the problem of poverty. So it is structural in nature, and the ever-increasing population is slowly edging the underpriviledged towards a cliff. Perhaps the minimum wage needs to be raised. Perhaps more of the nation's GDP should be spent on social programs. But on what exactly and how much will it cost? Judging by the political deadlock on these questions, there isn't an easy answer.

It should be clarified that we mean to eradicate poverty to the degree that small pox was eradicated; So that it simply cannot exist and you will find it nowhere.

Should we desire to remain basically capitalist, than a guaranteed minimum income may be a contender for the solution, but even this holds significant detriment. 

So, without rebooting society itself, can it be done?

Who is right and who is wrong?

The dispute between the Communist and Capitalist of who is right is a never ending topic.  In one side, we have the Capitalist whose argument declares that we are all individuals that have to struggle to obtain a better life. The way it functions is by having people motivated by competition and a goal. Is the same system as the "survival of the fittest" of Charles Darwin. Somehow the weak person has to make its way to the top. In the present, the system seems to work; from the top. It can be argued that thanks to it  the United States has become the country that is today.

In the other hand, Communism wants a society where everyone is equal. Where the rich and the poor do not exist. Where alienated labor did not exist and everyone could help each other one out. It is basically the solution to the problems of Capitalism; and it is. The problem is that in theory is a great idea but in  practice it fails.  The best example is the Soviet Union. Which under Joseph Stalin the country was starving and was not able to have a stable economy.

In addition, Capitalism has failed too. The result of the flaws of Capitalism resulted in the Great Depression. Some of the major causes of the depression were that the rich were getting richer and the poor were getting poorer and the government did not intervene. Also in the attempt of the poor to live like the rich they were eaten by debt. The Capitalist system is very vulnerable but it does provide or at least allows for the individual to strive for a better life.

No system is better than the other. If Communist was applied right, it will have success. If the flaws of Capitalism where fixed it will work as well. The solution for each of the system's prob the other system has it.  The hard part of it is to get the people of each system to compromise because neither of them will agree that their system has is not what they believe.

Is it worth it?

Is it worth doing all the things that we do in society like working and going to school? I can just bet if we had the option to do as we will many of us would not chose to go work or even continue our education after high school. I think that many of just do things to have equal or better than what I parents have. I feel that paying for college is just another way for the rich to get richer being that we attended k-12 for free no money out of our parents pockets but yet we have to pay to go to these university. I feel like that I just got a free 12 year trial of school and clicked yes to continue but it with a price. I always felt like I want more from life anyways try to think of different ways to get to that point of contentment of live. I want to be living well and doing well as philosopher Aristotle would say, however living in today's society it feel like majority of us will never get there. I feel like today's workforce is modernize enslavement of the middle class people and I am not just talking about a specific race of people, but all races. We are so use to buying in to the image of what's going on around us that we lost focus that we are getting poorer and the rich is getting richer. It really don't make sense how much profit that one or a group of superior people are making off of us. Not only are we working for these companies that have ample of currency, but we are also putting that money we make back into the their hands. So it is a cycle that will continue to go on. A system that made just for the richest of people to have control over us a population. Is it worth it for all the things we do to keep society running to put so much time and energy into something and get so little back?

Capitalism: An equal chance to succeed?

Hey everyone! After learning more about Marx ideology of communism, I began to speculate more about our capitalist society. It is commonly believed that capitalism is the type of mindset that would encourage people to work hard in order to escalate their place in society. In other words, the more you work the more you can achieve. However I find many fallacies with this mentality, because in many cases people are not compensated in proportion to the work they put in. For example, there are people who are overworked for mere minimum wage. A common illustration of this are the waiters/waitresses that get paid a minimum of $2.25 an hour. Many would argue that tips compensate their low salaries, but the reality is that often times they go home with no more than 20 dollars after long hours of work. And yes, I acknowledge that there are days when they receive good tips and what not but this does not change the injustice of this system. I think this system was designed to benefit no other than the rich (bourgeoisie) in expense of the working class' hard labor.


Moreover, this system will only create a larger gap between the rich and the poor because the intentions of this system is for the working class to remain in its place. If we think about it, if people really had the chance to escalate a place in society than there would be no poverty. Yet, the reality is that the paycheck people receive for alienated labor is only enough to help them survive under decent conditions; but not enough to surpass those conditions. With all this injustice going on maybe we should reconsider capitalism and maybe give communism a try; after all every system is bound to fail when it becomes infested with corruption. It is only a matter of time before another revolution plagues the nation.

How far is the revolution?

I was looking up this article I read at the beginning of the year that talked a lot about economic disparity. I thought it might be interesting considering what we were talking about in class. The story covered a man named Thomas Piketty who wrote the book "Capital in The Twenty-First Century". I kind of had a hard time reading some of it, but this is a philosophy class so everyone is probably used to that. Just to give you an Idea of what's in this article.


"...the income from wealth usually grows faster than wages. As returns from capital are reinvested, inherited wealth will grow faster than the economy, concentrating more and more into the hands of few...


During the Gilded Age — a period of enormous concentration of income and wealth — the stock of the world’s privately held capital amounted to some five years’ worth of global income, by Professor Piketty’s estimate. By 1950, it had fallen to below three, but by 2010, it was back at four. And by the end of this century, Mr. Piketty projects, it will amount to almost seven.


Is there a politically feasible antidote? Professor Piketty notes that the standard recipe — education for all — is no match against the powerful forces driving inherited wealth ever higher." - Eduardo Porter 18,21, 26


So like we learned in class having money makes more money. If I'm interpreting this correctly it makes more money than actually having a job and working for it. Not only that, it is concentrating in the hands of a few, who by the end of this year (2014) will have made more than you could in seven years. The worse part is getting a better education probably won't change your situation. That's something to think about. If all of this is true, then just how far do you think we are from a revolution?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/12/business/economy/a-relentless-rise-in-unequal-wealth.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3As%2C%7B%222%22%3A%22RI%3A12%22%7D

The Needs of the Many

I, myself, agree with Marx that capitalism is overall a hurtful system. I don't understand how a country so big and powerful as the United States can have children living on the streets. I don't understand how a country so wealthy can let people go to bed hungry. We can do better. We should do better.

America overall doesn't like the word socialism (much less communist) and prides itself on being a capitalist society, so I don't see any big changes happening soon--at least not with the baby boomers running the show. I do, however, hope that our generation and the ones that come after will take large steps towards equality. Even if people take advantage of the system--and there will be some that definitely take advantage--isn't it worth it if it means our society as a whole will be better?

Poverty is a big push towards crime. A lot of crimes are committed by desperate people, and even sadder, a lot of crime is created by people who, since birth, have been living in that environment. Let's give everyone a home. Even if they haven't "earned it." Let's make sure that America does not allow one single person to starve to death on the streets, no matter what. Let's make sure no one goes broke simply because they had an accident or because they got cancer. Health care should not be a privileged. Let's make higher education free. Education should be a right. I believe minimum wage should be enough to for a single mother to afford a two bedroom apartment and food and bills.

Even if--if--that made people lazier, so what? Our community would be happier and we would all be safer and a lot more equal (hopefully). I truly don't think it would make people lazier, though. I don't think we would stop innovating. We'd still be consumers. We'd still try to find fulfilling work. It's just that we wouldn't be terrified that if we fail, if we make one mistake, we could ruin our entire lives. We wouldn't be in mountains and mountains of debt. Hell, I even think we, as a country, would be more innovative since we'd have a higher amount of educated people (since a good education would be free and kids grew up in a good, safe environment, not starving and fearing they won't have a roof over their heads the next day) and with fair wages we'd have more money to buy all of that stuff AND TIME to actually enjoy it. No one should have to work two jobs just to get by.

And if rich people wanna cry about how that's unfair to them and their pile of money that it would literally take 4 lifetimes to spend, well, they can suck it up and enjoy the happy society they will get live in. Capitalism likes to make us sympathize with these people by making us hope we will one day be them. We won't. They can foot the bill for this great new society, and it's not that big of a tragedy if they only have 2 mansions instead of 7.

The Ubermensch

In our discussion of Nietzsche, two points have stood out to me. These points are the idea of an ubermensch and the no-saying slavish mode of thinking.

The ubermensch or super man was Nietzsche's way of showing us how to become who we really are. One assertion that Nietzsche makes is that we should own up to our envy. When I first thought about it, I disagreed because I thought that nothing good would come out of doing something like that. However, upon reconsideration I saw that good does in fact come out of it. By owning up to our envy, We set a sort of goal for ourselves and aim to not only achieve said goal but to do so better than the person who has already achieved what is was that we are trying to attain. For example, if you are the studious type who finds yourself  short the person who stands at the top of the class, then you may become envious of that person. But by Nietzsche's standards, you should own up to that envy and use it as a means to get yourself to a higher standard. It's all about self-overcoming. The ubermensch "rises over circumstances and difficulties to embrace what life throws at them".

The slavish mode of valuation determines evil first and by way of elimination, good is the opposite.     

"For, in just the same way as people separate lightning from its flash and take the latter as an action, as the effect of a subject, which is called lightning, so popular morality separates strength from the manifestations of strength, as if behind the strong person there were an indifferent substrate, which is free to express strength or not." 

Nietzsche packs a lot into this statement. He is saying that in the same way people say "a flash of lightning" as if lightning wasn't the flash, the popular morality makes the distinction such that strength should not be shown as strength and that weakness should be shown as strength. In other words, if you were in a confrontational situation, you should be the "better person" and walk away. I find this to be a particularly profound statement and something that takes a moment in order to grasp.

Who Will Win?

In class we talked about the strong and the weak. While strong forces will always overpower the weaker ones, is there anything that can be done to avoid that? According to Nietzsche, is it some that is just the force of nature.  Just like we do not expect a lamb to suddenly stand up for its self against its predator, Nietzsche says that we should not expect the weak to suddenly take up and fight against the strong. This is a theory that has made me wonder why is it that we allow our society to behave this way. Essentially we are allowing the strong people to be toned down to the standard of the weak ones. Why should a person that is strong, smart, and beautiful have to behave in such way that allows those that are not the same to compete with them? Because or society wants to give everyone an equal opportunity to those weaker being as to those stronger ones. Is this something that is fair? This is a dog eat dog world and Nietzsche is saying that the bigger dog should eat the smaller dog without warning, is this something that can benefit our world today if we started to behave like Nietzsche believes. To me it seems like if we allow the world to behave like this it will become vicious, there will be no balance to keep the strong people and the weaker ones from eliminating one another.  Would it be better to keep society how it is and just allow the strong to prey on the weak or will it be better to keep this balance that “allow” groups to have some sort of fairness system in place?