Langston Hughes, a 20th centruy African American writer, uses the term, racial mountain, in the "The Negro Artist and the Racial Mountain." The racial mountain for the African Americans is the white society and the mountain of values they expect everyone to emulate. He is dissapointed at African American writers who are not proud to write about their culture. Hughes writes, " One of the most promising of the young Negro poets said to me once, 'I want to be a poet- not a Negroe poet,' meaning...' I would like to be white' (1192). Hughes is critical of the bourgeoisie. The black bourgeoisie is mimicking the white bourgeoisie. Hughes wants African Americans to write in African American expressive forms. These forms include: jazz, blues, dialectic poetry, folk-tales, etc.
There will always be a mountain standing in the way of those who are roposing new ideas, innovative thoughts, and something different than the norm. This "Racial mountain" does not only refer to the African American struggle. The wall is a metaphor for the obstacles all oppressed, subjugated minorities undergo.
Simone de Beauvoir, a French 20th century writer, idealizes women joining forces to retaliate against the universal treatment of them by men. Reading this piece sixty years after its publication makes me believe that some ideas will never be universalized and the idea of the "other" will always stand. This picture of a mother holding a boy depicts women as the "other" that Beauvoir has written a book about. Women are always dragged along, murdered, neglected, and marginalized during tough times of war. They are not included in the action of war, nor are they asked for their opinion on war. They are forced to be engaged in a war that has to do merely with the ego of collective MEN on opposing sides of opposing IDEALS.
In Woman as Other, Beauvoir is concerned with the in-existence of the true essence of women. She aims in educating women to find "the other side of war." The reason I use the term "war" is because it can stand for the change that Beauvoir aims to see in women. A war of the females co-operating against the males. Nations, cultures, and races all determine superiority based on victories in battle. Why is it that women can not collaboratively form a "we"-as Beauvoir states-and lash out against the unequal treatment of men towards women?
Just like the master-slave duality of nature, there is a similar Hegelian ideology behind the relationship between men and women. Michelet writes, "He is the Subject, he is the Absolute- she is the Other" (4). Men can not exist without the procreating ability of women and women, in the eyes of Beauvoir, are not given the chance to exist independent from men. Men do not shine light on that idea. Her goal is to nullify this dual relationship and find a way for women to stand on their own.
Beauvoir writes, "If woman seems to be the inessential which never becomes the essential, it is because she herself fails to bring about this change. Proletarians say 'We'; Negroes also. Regarding themselves as subjects, they transform the bourgeois, the whites, into 'others'" (7). Beauvoir is emphasizing the fact that all inferior races or classes stand up for the better good of themselves. Then why is it that women still seem to live under the shadow of male figures? This is where I need to enter a rebuttal. There is a difference between women , proletarians, Africans, and Jews. The difference is that women are not a separate race, ethnicity or people. Women belong to the African race, the Jewish race, or the Chinese race, etc. It is more difficult for women all around the world to stand up and form a "we" against the men of the world. This is a utopian project and is not as "simple" as one ethnic group standing up against another ethnic group. Though the idea is coherent and well thought out, it is something that can only be done section by section in small women's groups around the world. The idea seems simple, but the action behind it is impossible. Men verse Women? That seems like a problem which will lead to no solution.
Each woman can work to minimize being felt like the "other" in her own relationship with men. It is difficult to universalize Beauvoir's feminist ideology upon billions of women. A woman can practice standing up for her rights by making sure her voice is heard. Today women in post-modern nations are less vulnerable to feel inferior to men. Yes, they are still viewed as a secondary species, but many well taught and educated women are ready to disagree with their counter sex and make sure their voice is heard.
Beauvoir, Simone de. Marxist Internet Archive. http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/introduction.htm. Web.
Jean-Paul Sartre said, "Why Write? Each has his reasons: for one, art is a flight; for another a means of conquering. But one can flee into a hermitage, into madness, into death" (1199). The key word in this sentence is "madness." Let us focus on that word and what it means to be mad. A mad person is not necessarily a bad person, an angry person, or an uneducated person. Although the word has a negative connotation, the most beautiful things can make someone go mad. Understanding universal ideas can make an individual go mad. On the contrary, the understanding of the smallest details have the ability to drive someone crazy as well. What makes the mad person "mad" is the word, detail. Without attention to detail, madness would not exist.
Sartre was a man of detail. He believed in abstract freedom. By "abstract freedom" I aim to label his idea of freedom as metaphysical and subjective. In class, while presenting, many people were trying to define his idea of freedom. They were all logical in their educated guesses and hypothetical analyses, but my take on his idea of freedom was simpler. I believe he wanted to give the individual the literal meaning of the word freedom.He aimed to define freedom as a person's conscious understanding of the world. He denied and critiqued accepted values and wanted to find a justification for true freedom.
In his book, "Nausea," the protagonist Roquentin is in disgust with the outside world. He begins to realize that this feeling of disgust he feels is towards people and objects all around him. He wants to free himself from comparing the present with the meaningless past. He wants to perceive objects on his terms- new terms- not terms set by others. He is disgusted by the names, colors, and special attributes that people give objects. Roquentin and Sartre apply a detailed observation of "detail" itself. Roquentin is meticulously analyzing and unraveling his disgust for all the details given to objects that exist by accident. Is Roquentin going mad? No, he is just going in over his head trying to understand the truth and meaning of creation.
Freedom, for Satre is the idea of leaving behind the past and applying yourself to the present, without any precedented ideas. The way he thinks might not be applicable to a land full of rules, but he paves way for independence and free thinking. Through my interpretation of Sartre, I believe that madness can be reached when a person thoroughly dissects a specific aspect of life. Think about the idea of death. You have just been in a fatal car accident. The car has flipped over. You see the passenger covered in blood and you are grasping for air with the seat belt tightly pressing against your chest as you face the asphalt. You have created this scenario in your head. Now try and imagine what you think will happen to your friend and yourself. There is no way it can be done without going mad. Most people can not handle the feeling of madness which includes: over-thinking, overanalyzing, researching, breaking down, repeating, rejecting, questioning and denying. Madness is something that comes naturally for people who question existence, mortality and purpose. Satre is enlightening. I might not be interpreting him the right way, but a life just lived without wondering why and how is not a life worth living.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. “From What is Literature?” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticsim.
2nd ed. Ed. Vincent B. Leitch. New York, NY, 2010. 1199-1213. Print.
For me presentations are always a drag. A group of people choose to work together and because we're not in high school anymore, it gets hard to actually meet and fully discuss and analyze a well thought out presentation. From my college experience (not this one), presenting together does not turn out well when everyone is on different pages. I can say my group and I definitely saw eye to eye, but we just did not have the time to create a fascinating activity to engage the whole class in. On top of lack of time and summer traffic, philosophy is too deep to condense into 20 minutes. I think the thrill of going up in class with classmates is exciting, but HAVING to do a presentation feels so redundant when not enough time (time in life in general) is given for a GROUP to come up with an original activity.
This is completely a rant... a mixture of my ideas towards presentations. I actually love my group members. I find them all to be educated intellectuals. Due to the presentation research, I was able to really analyze Sartre and his many books and essays. I guess I like controlling the outcome of things and the way things flow, so group work feels like so much more effort for me than an individual presentation would. But I definitely can go against myself, because a group of creative individuals could also come up with a great collaborative presentation. Like all things I am not certain about, here is my evaluation of a simple presentation. I think I just don't have enough time in general, therefore I'm venting on the effects group presentations have on me. My ideas are always subject to change. I might take all of this back.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Phenomenology
The study or description of appearance.
A priori- knowledge that is independent of experience.
Things exist independently of human knowledge
Study of consciousness.
Leave the empirical world out of the equation.
Objects and appearance, not observation and experience.
Hermeneutics
Whereas existentialism and phenomenology focus on description, hermeneutics stresses interpretation.
Husserl
His phenomenological view describes not things but our consciousness of things.
“Science of essential structures of consciousness”- what is on our mind when we think of something.
Martin Heidegger
Influenced by Husserl. He combined his Husserl's idea with that of hermeneutics.
He changes the focus from study of consciousness to the experience of being there (dasein)
Heidegger said that being and existence is continually changing.
He aimed to understand the being and rejected dualism.
The theory of a priori forms is Heidegger’s theory of existence.
To understand the essence of existence human beings must deny themselves of any consideration of purpose and realize mortality and frailty.
For Heidegger,the enlightened authentic people are self-determining, fulfill their ontological nature and experience the world in all its beauty and ugliness, while inauthentic masses who conform to social convention, babble, enjoy superficial things and ont know what is going on.
Qu’est-ce que la literature? (1948,What is Literature?)
The key chapter is “Pourquoi ecrire?” (“Why Write?”)
Intro
vSartre argues that the experience of freedom is the experience of literature.
vWhile reading, freedom is demonstratedwhen a reader foresees, waits, hypothesizes, dreams, hopes, or is deceived by the text.
vAuthors need the readers freedom for their work to exist authentically.
vWithout giving readers that power of freedom, a work will not be read, and an author will not be an author, because they did not do their job right.
vIn, “Why Write,”Sartrevalues prose moreand in doing so, he discounts poetry andoverlooks ways in which language determines consciousness (as Heidegger focused on).
MOVIE
vTo be conscious is to relate to an item in the world, rather than relate it to an inner representation of it in the head.
vWho you are is what you do, there is no pre-determined character of who you are.
“Why Write?”
v“Each has his reasons: for one, art is a flight; for another a means of conquering. But one can flee into a hermitage, into madness, into death”(1199).
vWhy do you write?
vHumans are revealers.
vThrough the reality of humans, “‘there is’ being”
vFor ex: We are the ones that point out the beauty of a sunset or the beauty of wild animals. We are the “consciousness” that reveals the nature around us.
v“One of the chief motives of artistic creation is certainly the need of feeling that we are essential in relationship to the world.” (1200).
EXAMPLE: A novice painter asked his teacher:
“When should I consider my painting finished?”
And the teacher answered:
“When you can look at it in amazement and say to yourself ‘I’m the one who did that.’”
v“Now the writer cannot read what he writes, whereas the shoemaker can put on the shoes he has just made if they are his sixe, and the architect can live in the house he has built” (1201).
vA writer needs to wait for a reader.(Top of 1201) “Without waiting, without ignorance, there is no objectivity” (1201).
vA writer does not create for himself, he creates for others.
vThe joint effort of author and reader is needed to bring about the work of the mind.
vThere is a dialectic relationship between the object and subject. (top of 1202)
vReader’s subjectivity is extremely important to give worth to the literary object.
vEx: While Raskolnikov is waiting for the crime scene to unravel, so are we as the readers. Each word shapes our feelings. So does this mean the writer writes to make us feel the way he wants us to feel?
vWhat is the writer appealing to?
vThe writer is appealing to the “Reader’s Freedom!”
vThe work of art does not have an end. The absolute end is the value. “The work of art is a value because it is an appeal” (1205).
v“The writer should not seek to overwhelm; otherwise he is in contradiction with himself…” (1205).
vIn order to make his work exist, the author must address to the freedom of readers…”the more we experience our freedom, the more we recognize that of the otherl the more he demands of us, the more we demand of him” (1206).
v“Writing is a certain way of wanting freedom; once you have begun, you are committed, willy-nilly” (1213).
vCommitted to what, he says… (last paragraph in the book)
vThe question left unanswered is…
v“For WHOM do we write?”
-"I think against myself."- Sartre
-If human beings are truly free, how are we to live our lives?
-Sartre critiqued accepted values because he wanted to find a philosophical justification for freedom. Does that make sense?
Additional Reading: Nausea by Sartre
Wikipedia:
"Over time, his disgust towards existence forces him into near-insanity, self-hatred; he embodies Sartre's theories of existential angst, and he searches anxiously for meaning in all the things that had filled and fulfilled his life up to that point. But finally he comes to a revelation into the nature of his being. Antoine faces the troublesomely provisional and limited nature of existence itself."
"In his resolution at the end of the book he accepts the indifference of the physical world to man's aspirations. He is able to see that realization not only as a regret but also as an opportunity. People are free to make their own meaning: a freedom that is also a responsibility, because without that commitment there will be no meaning"
*The unfamiliarity and hostility of physical objects
MERCY
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
"I will honor my son with the name, Amar," my mother uttered as she gave birth to me and soon after left me forever. The word, Amar, signifies a long life, one that my mother was unable to fulfill. Today, I stand in the middle of my friends and family with a strength that no one can cripple. These are my brothers. I will protect them from any harm that comes their way. I may be of the same age as them, but I have put it upon myself to be their protector, their guardian. Not all of us are fortunate enough to have two healthy parents. Our tribe is all we have. Nature is our home. Outsiders might pity us, but I know that not even the wealthiest person can endure the pain and suffering my brothers and I have undergone. The richest person might be the poorest at heart.I pray for one thing. I pray that nature will be on the side of all those I love. I pray that nature will give me the one thing my mother left me with. I pray that I will fulfill the long life that my mother was unable to complete.
Formalists want readers to avoid dissecting a piece of writing based on its historical content, psychological aspect, or author's background. Formalists advocate intrinsic analysis of the text, rather than the emotions behind the author's purpose. Victor Shklovsky was a Russian Formalist whose basic theory was for people to see things with a fresh pair of eyes. He was not interested in the habitual way of viewing things. Let us view this picture and "defamiliarize" the idea of a group of African boys. They are not just skinny and barefoot boys, living in poverty, covered in raggedy garments. They are alert and keen. All six of them are aware of a picture being taken of them. The photograph shows how each of them has a unique expression on their faces, demonstrating their individuality. The three boys on the right are in fighter position. The boy in the long dress is the only one looking away from the photograph. He is ready to playfully fight someone (probably one of his friends.) He is in his own world. The one next to him is tense and might not trust the photographer or anyone who seems too friendly towards his family. The third one from left to right feels like he has no choice but to fight, if need be. The third one (from right to left) is born to confidently fight. He is ready to take this picture. He wants people to observe his confident stance. Finally, the two friends on the right are compliant with the photographers demands, just posing to take the picture. They seem intrigued by the photographer and the reasons behind why such a snapshot is being taken.
All six individuals have one thing in common, they are the face of hope even when life takes them down. This picture symbolizes power, righteousness, and change.
