Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

LITERATURE & PHILOSOPHY (INTERNAL (“The Souls of Black Folk” (1903) -…

- - - - A key conundrum present within many texts involves what construes identity: is the "self" defined from within, or must we conform ourselves to external precepts of identity? Texts represented on the RIGHT side of this map advocate for the position of categorizing the "self" based on preexisting concepts of identity. Characters usually adhere to outside pressure over internal jurisdiction.
  - - - SARTRE
      - FORM: (phenemology): Like Sartre, uses phenemological method (reflective analysis away from first-person to indicate a departure from consciousness) to make experience more situated/objective/realistic.
      - FACTICITY & TRANSCENDENCE: Don’t remain within established/external norms; project oneself outwards and exercise the FREEDOM of choice (self-making!)
      - KAFKA (EXISTENCE PRECEDES ESSENCE): Just like how deBeauvoir rejects the social construct of a subordinate woman and encourages “self-fashioning,” Gregor refuses to succumb to the injustices of appearing inhuman and continually tries to recreate his personhood through human acts
- - - - MIND/BODY DUALISM: conflict between insect impulses and rational mind (id vs superego)
      - EXISTENCE PERCEDES ESSENCE: Gregor continually tries to reassert personhood through TOTAL INVOLVEMENT, or direct action
      - HUMANISM:
        Gregor redefines conditions for personhood by showing rational deliberation and sentient emotions despite external form
      - BAD FAITH shown by Gregor's family when they mistreat him despite knowing his innate humanness all long (intentional fleeing from responsibility)
      - UNIVERSALITY: Gregor felt the need to be an exemplar son/brother/provider, so was ANGUISHED when his physical alteration prohibited his perceived reason of existence (his PURPOSE)
  - - - MIND/BODY DUALISM: conflict between insect impulses and rational mind (id vs superego)
      - EXISTENCE PERCEDES ESSENCE: Gregor continually tries to reassert personhood through TOTAL INVOLVEMENT, or direct action
      - HUMANISM:
        Gregor redefines conditions for personhood by showing rational deliberation and sentient emotions despite external form
      - BAD FAITH shown by Gregor's family when they mistreat him despite knowing his innate humanness all long (intentional fleeing from responsibility)
      - UNIVERSALITY: Gregor felt the need to be an exemplar son/brother/provider, so was ANGUISHED when his physical alteration prohibited his perceived reason of existence (his PURPOSE)
  - - - LOCKE (CONSCIOUSNESS): Get Out features “evil” twins of the characters, similar conceptually to Locke’s “Day Man” vs “Night Man” thought experiment that depicts 2 people in one man - articulates idea that the same person, with the same physical makeup, could experience a change in mindset given different surroundings or circumstances (physical appearance alone is thus not reliable to determine identity - INTERSUBJECTIVITY)
      - MILLS (DOUBLE-CONSCIOUSNESS)
      - DESCARTES (MIND/BODY DUALISM)
      - ARENDT (DUALISM/OPPRESSION): Like in Get Out, Arendt’s commentary depicts the dangerous outcome of suppressing one’s conscience (“unthinkingness” of Eichmann allowed him to carry out atrocities without remorse)
  - - - SARTRE:
      - UNIVERSALITY: Butler expands upon the conception of an “act” by noting that it is both historically constituted and socially shared (think about the consequence!)
      - EXISTENCE PRECEDES ESSENCE: There is no preexisting gender identity (or ESSENCE of gender); merely constructed through a series of ACTS
      - DEBEAUVOIR:
      - ALTERITY: Butler agrees that identity emerges through RECOGNITION of the other, but she emphasizes that we can still make something out of what others have made of us (self-fashioning)
      - FACTICITY: Like deBeauvior, Butler agrees that facticity is a state of transcendence (FOR-ITSELF)
      - EXISTENCE: One is not born, but BECOMES) a woman
      - KAFKA (AUTONOMY of the SELF)
      - DESCARTES (MIND/BODY DUALISM)
  - - - NIETZCHE: Like Nietzsche, Du Bois sees the effects of society as hindrances or as negatively impacting the progression of the self, and encourages trusting the SELF.
      - GET OUT (DOUBLE CONSCIOUSNESS)
      - SARTRE (SELF-AUTONOMY)
      - ARENDT (RATIONAL AGENCY): Arendt articulates the dangers of adhering exclusively to state interests on society (ex: conflating state’s will with own maxim allowed Eichmann to carry out atrocities), while Du Bois shows the negative consequences on the self (never come to terms with a unified feeling of selfhood).
      - KAFKA (AUTONOMY OF SELF): Kafka also shows the negative influences of internalizing external criticism through Gregor’s belief that he truly serves no purpose/meaning from his family's repeated inhumane treatment of him.
  - - - Debeauvoir (ALTERITY): Like the concept of the Feminine Condition, it is difficult for African Americans to undergo this journey of “self-fashioning” when they are always the subordinate, or “other.”
      - Peele (VEIL): Influence from society and precedent hinders and alters one’s personal judgement of the SELF.
      - BUTLER (CONSTRUCT): Gender, like race, is not a preexisting, concrete substance but rather is only perpetuated through tradition and acts. Attacks the concept ontologically.
      - SARTRE (SELF-AUTONOMY)
      - ARENDT (RATIONAL AGENCY)
  - - - MILLS (ETHICS): Mills emphasizes a “consequential ethics,” or means-end approach while Kant exercises a duty-based (or intent-based) approach (opposites).
      - SARTRE (UNIVERSALITY): Unlike Sartre, Kant believes one cannot deduct a universal standard of universality from observing others (no “one size fits all” formula); however, he believes everyone has the POTENTIAL to be rational agents
      - KAFKA (FREEDOM):
      - ANTIGONE
      - ARENDT (FREEDOM): Similar to Arendt, Kant would denounce Eichmann’s personhood and morality as he does not exhibit the capacity to act/think freely (independent “maxim” is what comprises our identity)
  - - - KANT
      - DISTORTION: Eichmann conflated his own maxim with that of the state’s; instead of being own legislator, became legislator of laws/state interests (incorrect maxim - replaced driving principle of rationality with Fuhrer’s will)
      - DUTY: Eichmann incorrectly took duties as EXTERNALLY imposed from the state (no longer personal, good will)
      - LOCKE (RESPONSIBILITY)
      - SARTRE
      - RESPONSIBILITY: Since each individual is responsible for setting/inventing their own identity, Eichmann has no excuse (bureaucracy may have fostered a culture of blind obedience, but each individual nevertheless has the FREEDOM to either adhere/reject it - no excuses!)
      - BAD FAITH: Fled from the responsibility of acting universally by severing his judgement
      - ANTIGONE
      - CONFLICT of DUTY: Eichmann’s case showed conflict between adherence to state vs personal principles (Kant, however, states that the categorical imperative done right should eliminate this conflict, so no excuse)
      - FREEDOM: Eichmann, being in a bureaucracy (a “cog in the machinery”), was inclined to be impersonal - was his mental, freedom then in some way limited by the structure of the Nazi regime?
      - PROUST (HABIT): Holocaust was an “administrative massacre” - unprecedented crime different in nature/scale than historical killings, but judges showed reluctance in discarding precedent (or HABIT) in their jurisdiction
  - - - DUBOIS (DOUBLE-CONSCIOUSNESS): depicting a terror regime in which the victors are the bad guys highlights the discrepancy between external vs internal perception (how does the world see us differ from how we view ourselves?) Who is in the right?
      - ARENDT (BANALITY OF EVIL): Like Arendt, Oppenheimer exposes the dangers of blind conformity, or not exercising independent reasoning (not applying own judgement, or acting “unthinkingly” can lead to wildly immoral results)
      - ANTIGONE (CONFLICT OF DUTY)
      - SARTRE (SELF-AUTONOMY)
      - FORM: KAFKA: Like how Gregor’s nonchalance to his condition unsettles readers, the juxtapositions in Oppenheimer’s film show how the state (or external influence) can disorient, manipulate, coerce, and distort individual functions (ex: the man retelling the state’s murder of his stepfather in a “jolly” manner in front of the perpetrators)
  - - - MILLS
      - UTILITY: Shows moral fallacies present in Mill’s emphasis on achieving both individual and collective happiness - what if one is only possible without the other? (i.e. the happiness of the Omelas being contingent on the child’s suffering)
      - FORM: By taking on the form of a parable, Guin’s text can be seen as a case study/commentary/laboratory that fleshes out and poses a challenge to the practicality of Mill’s Utilitarianism (ex: sacrifice one for all for utility?)
      - SOPHOCLES (DUTY): Similar conflicts in duty between individual v community, state v collective, Self-preservation v Acting on principle
      - SARTRE (BAD FAITH): The Omelas can be defined as acting in bad faith, as all citizens are well-aware of the child’s suffering, yet flee responsibility/anguish (not acting universally or unconditionally for the people)
      - KANT (UNIVERSALITY/CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE): Omelas’ deliberate concession of the child’s suffering is not able to be universally/unconditionally upheld.
      - KAFKA (BAD FAITH)
      - NIETZCHE (SELF-AUTONOMY): Although the option of self-autonomy may be uncertain/unorthodox (as depicted by the “unknown” outcome of those who leave the Omelas’ society), Guin’s portrayal of those who stay as delusioned/selfish show that those who abide by their moral instinct are ethically correct.
  - - - MILL (COLLECTIVE): Unlike Mill, who sees the condition of society as a check on individual pursuits (i.e. one should not sacrifice communal well-being for the individual advancement of happiness), Nietzsche states that conventional social restrictions are precisely the hindrance to overall progression as they were devised to control the masses in the first place (trust instinct instead of conforming to society)
      - ARENDT (RATIONAL AGENCY)
      - SOPHOCLES (HUMAN LAW, INDIVIDUAL VS COMMUNITY): Like Antigone in Sophocles, Nietzsche emphasizes steadfast adherence to one’s personal principles regardless of state, social, or external influence (they are all inhibitory hindrances).
      - SARTRE (FREEDOM OF CHOICE): Like Sartre who places utmost freedom and responsibility on the individual (and thus distrusts external constructs), Nietzsche remains suspicious of established reason/science as they often end up justifying existing morality, which inhibits action, instead of encouraging independent thought.
      - PROUST (HABIT): Nietzsche likewise acknowledges how “habit,” or precedent inhibits or blindsides individual free-thinking. He encourages people to disregard/look past established constructs and trust their own judgement.
      - KANT (RATIONAL AGENCY): Both believe that ANYBODY has the potential to reach universal truth
- - - - MIND/BODY DUALISM (Kafka): Since mind/body are of separate essences, parents should not have judged Gregor’s identity (mind) only by his appearance (body)
      - Kafka (REALITY): Can Gregor’s senses/narrative really be trusted? Instances such like his dream-like state posit doubt.
      - Swann’s (REALITY)
  - - - LOCKE: Just like how a person possesses certain rights and duties to society, society/state gives the citizen a sense of belonging (relationship between state/people)
      - SARTRE
      - UNIVERSALITY: Both Creon and Antigone desire to exhibit exemplary action (ex: Creon wants to set an example to preserve authority of the state, while Antigone sets precedent of prioritizing kinship)
      - ARENDT (RATIONAL AGENCY/AUTONOMY): According to Arendt’s measure of morality (convicts Eichmann for “thoughtlessness”), Antigone is favored as she exercises her own rational agency and sticks by her internal principles despite external pressure from Creon/the state.
      - deBeauvoir (FACTICITY): Contrary to debeauvoir, Creon believes one’s identity is conditional (i.e. Polynices’ relation to the state is denounced after storming the city)
      - KAFKA (EXISTENCE PRECEDES ESSENCE)
      - MILLS (Consequential way of defining Morality)
      - KANT (INTENTION/MAXIM): Sophocles includes many types of duty, while Kant stresses a categorical view of duty; also agrees that we are ALL legislators of moral law (everyone has the potential to become universal law)
  - - - Descartes
      - (ESSENCE): By stating that no two things can occupy two things at the same time, Locke relates to Descartes’ idea of SEPARATE essences applied to his mind/body dualism
      - MIND/BODY DUALISM: But Locke disagrees with Descartes in that “man” contains BOTH mind and body
      - SELF: Locke disagrees with Descartes by saying that even if you aren’t defined as a “person,” you are still “something” (not doubt of existence there)
      - Sartre (RESPONSIBILITY/SELF/AGENCY): There are no all-encompassing set of rules that applies to every being, so responsibility is on the individual to define identity.
      - Kafka (SELF/HUMAN): By Locke’s definition of personhood - reflection/reasoning + recognition of SELF across different settings - Kafka is decidedly human
      - Arendt (AGENCY): By not exercising his rational agency independent from the state (aka “thoughtlessness”), Locke takes Arendt’s critique further and denies Eichmann’s overall personhood
  - - - LOCKE
      - time: For Locke, TIME causes issues with defining personal identity (i.e. hard to recognize same SELF in different times), while for Proust time dissolves/becomes irrelevant in sleep (not an important factor)
      - ARENDT: Rational agency important
      - KAFKA: Habit of deducting identity externally hinders family from “seeing” his innate person (they did not exercise rational reflection)
  - - - KANT (consequence-based vs intent-based): Mill provides a critique of Kant trying to ground morality solely on the “a priori” principle; says that by doing so, he glosses over the nevertheless important factor of consequence in one’s actions
      - SARTRE (UNIVERSALITY): Emphasizes utility, or collective happiness for all of humanity as the end goal, instead of trampling on others’ happiness in selfish pursuits
      - DESCARTES (MIND/BODY DUALISM): By stating the superiority of intellectual pleasures (or happiness of the mind) over body, Mill recognizes the distinct essence between mind and body like Descartes
      - OPPENHEIMER (Subjectivity vs Objectivity): Both intend to arrive at a recognition of the difference between the subjective and objective (ex: killers arrive at objective horror of their crimes; Mills tries to derive objective goodness from subjective, experiential notions of pleasure/pain)