Gadflies: Philosophy Versus Ideology

This was my very first paper written in college. Not my very best work, but I think I did an adequate job for my initial attempt at a university-level final paper assignment. I did this at the very last minute and I remember the night before it was due very well. I was extremely stressed and panicking because I had run out of ideas to write about. Nonetheless, I survived and turned it in. I got a decent grade for it, so it wasn't that bad.

Continue

Hume's Argument Against Reason in Conclusions of Cause & Effect

           In the Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume sets out to show that all knowledge can be derived from experience. Hume takes a particular look at the experience of cause and effect and our knowledge of the relation between the two. It is in the fourth section of the Enquiry that he presents what one commentator (Peter Millican) describes as Hume's “most celebrated argument” concerning the relation of cause and effects. It is obvious that we experience things of which we call causes and other things which effects, but Hume is interested in how and why one can conclude anything at all from such an experience. Hume answers in part two of the fourth section, that conclusions from an experience of seemingly cause and effect, cannot be founded by reasoning. He therefore takes it as his aim to explain and defend this answer throughout the fourth section and the rest of the text. I will therefore argue in this paper that Hume's argument for his solution functions as a viable defense for his solution.              

          Prior to Hume's discussion of cause and effect he makes an important distinction between two kinds of objects of reason. That is to say a distinction between the kind of things that one can reason about. This distinction will aid us in our understanding of Hume's discussion of cause and effect. One kind of object of reason is what Hume calls relation of ideas. By ideas Hume means the less lively and less forcible perceptions of the mind. Ideas are faint copies of another kind of perception of the mind known as impressions which are lively perceptions (such as hearing, seeing, feeling) and are forced upon our minds. Relation of ideas Hume means, “every affirmation, which is either intuitively or demonstratively certain”(4.1) Things that are intuitively certain are things that are known through a direct intellectual grasp, such as our knowledge that 2+2=4. Things that are demonstratively certain are things which can be proven by a sequence of intuitive steps, such as a proof of Pythagoras’s Theorem (that the square of the hypotenuse of a triangle is equal to the square of its two other sides). Relation of ideas are thus objects of reasons which can be known a priori. By a priori I do not mean to imply that there is any innate knowledge in people (recall that ideas are derive from impressions which are derived from experience), but that only that it can be justified without experience.

       The second kind of objects of reason Hume calls matters of fact. Matters of fact are in contrast, a posteriori, that is they can only be learned through experience. They concern ideas in relation to the actual world. For example, it is a matter of fact that words are appearing on the screen of my computer after I press buttons on my keyboard. And it is not a contradiction to suppose that a matter of fact such as this could be otherwise. For it could be the case that I press the buttons on my keyboard and birds start to fly out my computer screen. For this reason Hume thinks that “every matter of fact is still possible” (4.2) since every outcome which we conceive by the mind would have the same “facility and distinctness” (4.2). Therefore, matters of fact cannot be demonstratively or intuitively certain.

                 Now we have sufficient understanding of Hume's distinction of objects of reason to proceed to unravel his enquiry of cause and effect. Hume decides to investigate a little deeper into the nature of the evidence that gives us an assurance of matters of fact. Matters of fact he states are found on relations of cause and effects. Recall, I found that it is a matter of fact that words appear on my computer screen after I pressed keys on my keyboard. And still as I continue to type this paper I am making an on-going inference that there is a connexion between my pressing the keys and words appearing on the screen. But on grounds is this inference made? Hume answers that the connexion between cause and effect is not intuitive and there is a required medium (grounds) from which to make the inference. As this is as Hume says a “new” (4.17) question we should not trust our own “penetration” (4.17) of the question and instead lay out all the different kinds of reasonings and show that none of them make a viable medium for inferences of cause and effect.

                 Hume divides all reasoning into two kinds, demonstrative reasoning and moral reasoning. Demonstrative reasoning is the reasoning concerning relation of ideas. Arguments from this kind of reasoning involve intuitive steps such as, if you recall, my earlier example of Pythagoras’s theorem. Moral reasoning concerns matters of fact and involves uncertain inductive steps. I am using moral reasoning to infer at this moment that words will continue to appear on my screen after I press the keys because that has been the case several times in the past. Therefore, if Hume is to show that our conclusions from experience of cause and effect cannot be derived from reason he will have to show that that these kinds of reasoning are not plausible mediums from which to infer the connexion between cause and effect.

                   Hume first refutes the possibility that the grounds for the inference of cause and effect can be founded on demonstrative reasoning. Demonstrative reasoning if you recall are always certain. That is, a denial of it would imply a contradiction. 2+2=4 can be not be conceived to be any other way or else it would be a contradiction. But as Hume points out, “it implies no contradiction that the course of nature may change” (4.18). For there is no contradiction in supposing that birds may fly out of computer screen after I press on the keys. Such conceptions would seem to oppose the nature of demonstrative reasoning. Another much simpler refutation to this kind of reasoning is that demonstrative reasoning requires no experience, but we need experience in order to infer an effects from its cause. For a person that has never seen a gun could not infer without experience that a bullet will be fired after the trigger is pulled.

                 Hume then continues to investigate whether moral reasoning could be a plausible medium for the inference. We have said that matters of fact are founded on the relations of cause and effects, and that we know that relation from experience. In our ending conclusion we want to be able to say that the future will resemble the past. But in moral reasoning this means, the future will resemble the past, because future has always resemble the past. But this doesn't tell us why the future must still resemble the past. The evidence itself supposes the conclusion which generates a circular argument.

It must follow then that our conclusions from experiences of cause and effects (namely that there is a connexion between the two) cannot be founded on reason. This negative argument (one that derives it conclusion through the negation of the other options) is one that is not only plausible but also perfectly viable if we are to accept Hume's empiricist philosophy. For in order to refute Hume, one would either have to show how relation of ideas and matters of fact do not cover the all objects of reasoning, or prove that there is an object-less reasoning which both exists and is viable solution for making inferences of cause and effect. Otherwise we must accept as Hume does in the fifth section of the Enquiry that we only draw conclusions of cause and effect out of a habit of seeing the events constantly conjoined.

Continue

Blast From The Past: Bully Research Paper

This is a paper I wrote in the 10th grade. Looking at this work, retrospectively, makes me realize that my writing has come a long way. I'm by far not a great writer, but I'm glad that I can notice improvement in my ability to compose a prose. 

Continue

Assertion of One’s Own Importance: Comparing and Contrasting

It is very common for people to feel the need to impress their families and their friends through different means. From expensive clothing to boasting about one’s own abilities, society is known to give more importance to certain things than others. But could our own want for validation serve a higher purpose in the bigger picture? If we put aside the obvious notion that some paintings serve a greater importance in history, and look at the artwork of the 18th century, we can see the various degrees the public would take to assert their value in society. Here, we’ll be analyzing the portrayal of two men, one from the beginning of the 18th century and the other from the late 18th century. 

In Pompeo Batoni’s Portrait of John Talbot (1733) we are presented with a man of culture and class. Or so we are meant to believe. 

Hyacinthe Rigaud’s Portrait of Louis XIV (1701), presents Louis XIV honorably and admirably in order to show the power of France. The techniques, use of color, and objects found in the portrait’s of the men reflect not only their countries and interests but also their value in the eyes of the public, but to different degrees.

The unique objects placed in the background and the rich garments wrapped around these two gentlemen portray them to be of high status, but to different measures. While in the Portrait of John Talbot it seems to show the young man to be finely dressed, the king shown in the Portrait of Louis XIV presents the king to be in far more luxurious clothing. The very ornate, rich in color, fur lined robe and the lavish drapes hanging behind the king gives us a peek into the royal’s grandeur and pompous lifestyle. This leads the viewer to the obvious conclusion that Louis XIV has a larger amount of wealth than the young John Talbot, whose clothes are fashionable but not of the same quality or material. Though, during the Enlightenment period, it was far more important to be presented as a cultured, well-traveled, sophisticated man, which was what John Talbot had been aiming for. With Neoclassicism on the rise, the classical antiquity placed in the surroundings of John Talbot is a fine example of being a cultured, sophisticated man. This attention to classical antiquity and enlightenment is a very distinguishable characteristic of Neoclassicism. In comparison, the Portrait of Louis XIV, presents a slight interest in the architecture, with the column placed behind the king, but not of classical antiquity. This interest in architecture refers to the time period’s focus of Classical Baroque, which was the king’s preferred art style.

Due to their darkened backgrounds and contrasting colors, the figures are greatly illuminated by the colors in their garments. In Pompeo Batoni’s artwork, the dark, murky blues and greens casted by the trees in the background strongly contrast the warm, bright reds and soft gold used in his clothing. There is also a soft light approaching from the left casting on him to bring all the focus on him, as well as  creating a fairly strong shadow behind him furthering the contrast between lights and darks. This great contrast in both color and in value make John Talbot the center of attention in this piece. In Hyacinthe Rigaud’s artwork, a similar technique is used in order to set the king as the most important part of the piece. The light casting on the king illuminates him and the background only gets darker the further it goes back into space. The warm reds on top and the darkened yellows placed in the background, as well as on the floor, are used to accentuate Louis XIV’s rich blue robe and bright white garments. This technique not only brings the main focus into view but also draws out distinctive characteristics of the men. Mostly, that of the king.

Both men in these portraits try to present their more admirable qualities, but there are also characteristics about themselves that are not presented or are hidden by the artist. While in Pompeo Batoni’s piece, John Talbot’s leisurely and relaxed side is reflected in the work. John Talbot does not face the audience but instead stares off into the distance with a soft smile on his face. The audience would believe that John Talbot is just a relaxed, easy-going man but it’s hard to decipher any outstanding things about this man, such as what he does in his past time. In contrast, the artist presents great characteristics of the king in the Portrait of Louis XIV. He does so by accentuating Louis XIV’s legs with his use of color as well as positioning the piece to show the legs more fully. In his portrait, Louis XIV wanted his legs to be visibly notable to indicate his great skill in dancing that he had done as a young man, which he was strongly proud of. But even with his well-toned legs and extravagant garments, the king had attributes that he did not want to be noticed by the public. Due to the short stature of the king, he specifically instructed the artist to make him appear larger in his portrait. In order to do so, the artist made Louis XIV appear larger than life and positioned the artwork in a way to present the king in a grander manner. As well as feeling insecure about his height, the king had worn a wig to appear more youthful towards the public to keep a certain image of him, and perhaps his country, in tact.

Both men had asked for these portraits in order to display their high status and good qualities, not only to show themselves as respectable men but to represent their country admirably as well. John Talbot was on his travels through Rome and felt it appropriate to show his travels to his friends and family by commissioning a portrait to depict them. This could be seen as an earlier version of a souvenir to bring back to show the world his refined taste and worldly experience. Because the English had won the seven year war, and there was a burst of pride for one’s own country, this type of action wasn’t uncommon. They felt a need to assert themselves as a winning power. In fact, since it was fairly common to do this, the artist had all the props to stage this type of portrait frequently! As an Englishman of class, John Talbot could have been one of the men who felt that he had to show he was part of a grand country. But it wasn’t to the same extent that Louis XIV wanted to show his power. John Talbot’s depiction of his country being powerful was much more subtle, and while it could influence others to see him as a respectable Englishman, the need was not as strong.  Louis XIV had also felt the need to use his own portrait as a status symbol to the public. He felt the need to accentuate his legs, make himself appear larger and younger than he really was, in order to keep his image of a strong ruler in tact. This artwork is considered to serve as propaganda to show the power of the ruler and the country. By depicting the king as a healthy, young man with both riches and experience, he is showing that there is still power in France. That France itself is still stable because the king is as well. In this sense, it could be described to be a more powerful piece than Pompeo Batoni’s portrait of John Talbot since John Talbot did not hold such a strong, influential position in power that could influence the masses as much as a portrait of a king.

Although both portraits serve to emphasize the importance of the two gentlemen being painted, one portrait serves a higher, more influential purpose than the other. Both are similar in various techniques involving both light, shadow, and color in order to emphasis the importance of the men in the portrait. The content is also used to the advantage of the men to depict their significance and great qualities that each possess or would wish to imply to others in order to gain admiration and respect from others. This could be from a small community or to a larger audience. Hyacinthe Rigaud’s Portrait of Louis XIV was a strong piece of propaganda in order to get the audience to entrust the king and marvel at his power, health, and stability. While Pompeo Batoni’s Portrait of John Talbot was a lot more subtle in it’s purpose. The audience was not meant to marvel at his strength in power or his stability in the monarchy but to impress others with his worldly experience. But, in my personal opinion, they both need to chill because they are so fucking full of themselves. Seriously.

Continue

IB Historiagraphy: Jim Morrison and William Blake's Poem

To what extent can Jim Morrison’s ideals be seen as parallel to those presented in William Blake’s “The Marriage of Heaven and Hell” ?

(Word count: 1868)

Continue

The Value of Comradeship

War is an arena of constant and immediate death permeated with the desperation and fear of humans. Soldiers are tasked with living and surviving in such conditions for long periods of time. Thus, making one wonder how they are able to withstand such psychological stress for so long. In reading war novels, one gains insight into the introspective thoughts of a soldier on war, and a pattern emerges in which soldiers rely on each other for emotional support and stability. Comradeship serves as an oasis for soldiers, in which they can create a social imaginary within their circles that catalyzes the normalization of war, and is utilized as an emotional support. However, when they actually return home this oasis is no longer needed. Thus, resulting in the soldier realizing two thing: how some relationships are only possible in war and, through cognitive dissonance, how much war has altered their character.

In the prologue of The Road Back we are directly planted into a war, and the main character, Ernst, is surrounded by his comrades. One can be forgiven if in the first couple of pages one fails to realize that these men are actually at war. The conversations that Ernst and his comrades have do not directly focus on war, but better serve to distract the soldiers from what is going on around them. They reveal to the reader a mentality that these soldiers share with each other. A mentality that leads to the normalization of war. This is a classic method of enduring and coping with the savagery of warfare, but this exercise is not done alone. The process of adapting to war is one that is made possible through the vehicle of comradeship, and by the tool of conversation. For example, Wessling, Kosole, and Willy talk about wild Geese, and how they want to eat them, and be them so they can fly away from the war (Remarque 7). Jupp and Kosole have a conversation about shells not about that fact that they are weapons for killing, but they focus on the sound they make as they’re fired (Remarque 3). In these scenes, the soldiers are discussing entities of war in a nonchalant manner, that gives the idea that these war experiences are workaday. This behaviour is one done in camaraderie, and it fuels the mental oasis that the soldiers make within their communities. It allows them to adapt to war and all of its gruelling aspects by speaking casually about it within their groups, which creates a mentality that war is an ordinary ordeal, and leads to the soldiers being able to cope with the experience of warfare.

Camaraderie also serves as an emotional support for the soldier, an entity they rely on in times of peril. The story of the baby buffalo in The Things They Carried exemplifies the importance friendship possess, and how soldiers support each other in hard times. While playing catch with Rat Kiley, Curt Lemon stepped on a booby trap and died (O’Brien 74). This event obviously affected Rat Kiley, who was friends with Curt Lemon, and his feelings manifested themselves in killing a baby buffalo. Once the baby buffalo was captured Rat kiley proceeded to, “[shoot] it in the hindquarters and in the little hump at its back. He shot it twice in the flanks. It wasn’t to kill; it was to hurt” (O’Brien 75). This event is very telling of the internal conflict Rat was feeling at the time, but what is even more important to notice is the reaction of the rest of the soldiers. “Nobody said much. The whole platoon stood there watching, feeling all kinds of things, but there wasn’t a great deal of pity for the baby water buffalo. Curt Lemon was dead. Rat Kiley had lost his best friend in the world” (O’Brien 75). The group of soldiers understand the severity of losing such a friendship, especially at war, and know that the pain the baby buffalo was feeling could not match the internal suffering of Rat Kiley.

In Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk the main character, Billy, also relies on his comrades for support to handle the overwhelming gratitude of the people. There are two instances in which Billy expresses a disconnection when dealing with citizens. The first occurs in the beginning of the novel, where the detachment Billy has towards the citizen, and their ideas of war, is best observed in the words he uses to describe them. For example, “overcaffeinated tag teams of citizens trampolined right down the middle of his hangover” (Fountain 1). Furthermore, “there’s something harsh in his fellow Americans, avid, ecstatic, a burning that comes of the deepest need” (Fountain 38). To Billy the citizens are not only people, but a boisterous aggressive energy that desires something from him. He doesn’t understand this need nor does he know how to properly interact with these people. Throughout the book Billy describes the awkwardness he feels as he is being acknowledged by people, “Billy felt his stride going wonky, his arms starting to fail, but a quick glance at Dime settled him down... Fake it till you make it, he reminds himself” (Fountain 52). This interaction is key because in the middle of the internal mayhem Billy is experience the thing that helps him stabilize is his comrade, Dime. This is because Dime has been with Billy for the most difficult moments of war. They have a bond that was forged in war and that the citizens do not understand nor will they ever. This is what helps Billy endure the overwhelming attention he receives from the people, and is something Ernst had with some of his comrades.

After war, a soldier realizes that certain connections are only made possible in war. The uniformity of war suppresses the ideas and premises that make up the social imaginary, thus allowing for unbiased friendship. Back home, however, the soldiers are once again subjugated to the social imaginary, and slowly the relationships forged in combat are dissolved. Ernst in The Road Back discovers this phenomenon when his war buddies unite for the first time after war. He realizes that the socio-economic standings of his comrades divide their once united attack force, but in the front lines they played no role,“Perhaps it is because of the civilian clothes sprinkled about everywhere among the military togs, or maybe that profession and family and social standing, like so many wedges have split us asunder; but certainly it is, the old feeling of comradeship has gone” (Remarque 180). The setting of war is where Ernst best understood the human condition, but outside of armed combat he struggles to comprehend his friends like he use to back at war.

The soldier, after war, is left with new ideologies that were overseeable in the oasis of comradeship. This is evident in the various texts we have read, the soldier has a different set of ideologies than that of the citizen. For example, take the conversation Ernst has with his sister about her engagement with a captain, “If a captain stops a shrapnel bullet in the nut he’s a gonner, same as any other sort of man” (Remarque 70). The crude type of language Ernst uses in this scene would be normal in a conversation with his comrades, but in his home with his sister this type of language is no longer acceptable. Furthermore, this type of disconnection between the world build by a soldier and his comrades is evident in the interpretation of the baby buffalo story in Tim O’Brien’s work. While talking about his story with a woman O’Brien says, “she wasn’t listening. It wasn’t a war story. It was a love story” (81). This text reveals that the soldier sees this story very differently from the average person. This is because the world of a soldier is interconnected, and the violent act that Rat Kiley did was an expression of love for his fallen comrade. The soldier is best able to recognize the changes within himself by interacting with people that have not undergone the same conditions as them. By talking with people not associate with the war the soldier can see the changes in his ideology that were catalyzed by war.

The cognitive dissonance that is created between the soldier and the citizen is illustrated further in Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk. During the Bravo’s meal a man approaches them and starts once again the trite conversation the soldiers know too well of war and all of its extremities (Fountain 65). At one point the man says, “I can imagine how hard it is on you young men. To be exposed to that level of violence” (Fountain 65). Which is responded by Dime with, “That’s not it at all! We like violence, we like going lethal! I mean, isn’t that what you’re paying us for?” (Fountain 65). This interaction demonstrates the difference in ideologies that the soldier and the citizen subscribe to. The citizen thinks the soldier shares the same moral compass as he does, and assumes that killing, to the soldier, is an unpleasant and grueling obligation. However, the soldiers reveal that this is completely false, and that the opposite is the actual truth. The soldiers are no longer members of the social imaginary that the citizen references. The soldier belongs to an imaginary that is only shared by other soldiers, an imaginary that does not follow the conventional premises of society.

The maelstrom of despair, blood, and death that is war, is an entity that affects the mind of a soldier long after the fighting has ended. The relationships forged in war serve as an emotional comfort, and tool for adapting to the cruelties of war for the soldier. They bring soldiers together and make them heavily rely on each other for support. Thus, making comradeship extremely valuable for the soldier, and this is shown by the reaction of Rat Kiley at losing his best friend. Furthermore, after war the refuge the soldier creates to survive mentally in active warfare is no longer necessary. In time, the soldier realizes that they no longer are in sync with the ideas that people in society hold as conventional. They see the world in a different light, and most importantly they realize that people in society will never see the world as they do. This is when the soldier realizes that war has changed him as a person, and that the only people that can truly understand him is other soldiers. Furthermore, he realizes that some of the relationships held in combat are not possible in normal society, for some soldiers have gone back into the social imaginary. Once the fighting ends the soldier is left with a profound connection he feels with his comrade and a deep disconnection with the people back in society.


Work Cited:

• Remarque, Erich. The Road Back. New York: Random House, 2013. Print.
• O’Brien, Tim. The Things They Carried. New York: Mariner, 2009. Print.
• Fountain, Ben. Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk. New York: HarperCollins, 2012. Print.

Continue