Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
English 177: Literature & Philosophy (((How do we define ourselves?…
English 177: Literature & Philosophy
How do we define ourselves?
John Locke is an empiricist who argues that knowledge is derived from one’s experiences and senses. He believes that individuals who are born are tabula rasas or “blank slates.” In other words, they come unequipped with any previous knowledge or information. In his An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, John Locke argues that consciousness constitutes personal identity. Consciousness is united by a series of memories. To Locke, there is a difference between man and person. A man includes the body. The person includes one’s united memories of being someone. For instance if the consciousness of a prince and cobbler switched, then the prince in the cobbler’s body is still, in person, a prince but is now the cobbler as a man. Locke also believes that responsibility for one’s actions should depend on who the person is, not the man. For example, if Socrates were sleeping and committed a crime, then Socrates as he woke up should not be punished. This is because while Socrates was the same man in this case as he was awake and asleep, Socrates was not the same person. Socrates as he is awake possesses a unity in memory that sleeping Socrates does not.
Locke’s picture of the self is quite restricted. He paints an image of a thinking creature in which one’s body matters but consciousness is essential. How others may perceive us does not play a large role. In other words, others’ point of view of us would not be factored into a new categorical of social identity, for example. Locke suggests that the way in which we define ourselves is through personal memory. This will prove to be a quite narrow way of depicting the self as it does not rely on others’ judgements of us at all. Locke’s picture of the self is individualistic in nanture.
Swann’s Way by Marcel Proust begins with the young narrator discussing how he becomes disoriented in his sense of space and self after sleep until habit reconnects him. The narrator argues that his identity is not centralized but decentralized in the room. He believes that he is part of the room itself, not just his body and mind. The narrator later becomes frustrated that his family is socializing with a respected Charles Swann, who prevents his mother from giving the narrator a kiss goodnight. The narrator then begins thinking of social identity and how one’s self is not just who one is to oneself but who one is to others. The narrator dips a madeleine cookie into his tea and the taste sensation elicited in him provokes involuntary memories of his childhood.
Proust’s work highlights a phenomenological approach to defining the self. Instead of focusing on the mind and body, the narrator discusses being one with his surroundings. He believes that he is a part of the space he occupies. This shows that the narrator takes experiential components of his life and attributes the self onto it. The narrator also seems to think that social identity is different than personal identity. What one defines oneself as is a fundamentally different identity than what others define one as. Furthermore, Proust’s work explores the role of phenomenology in eliciting memories and different selves.
ACT OF KILLING/SWANN'S - Proust's involuntary memory concept might align with Anwar's lack of remorse at the beginning of the film for his killings. Anwar did not understand the severity of his actions and was not forced to question whether or not what he did was wrong until he reenacted his killing scenes on camera. Doing so invoked in him involuntary memories. He imagined what it must of felt like for his victims to die. Involuntary memories can serve as an expedite to revelation.
EICHMANN/ACT OF KILLING - Both these works carry out a "bureaucratic massacre." In other words, massacre is institutionalized and carried out by the state. Massacre is made impersonal and devoid of personal involvement since it is done in the name of the state.
ds
The Act of Killing, by Joshua Oppenheimer, is a documentary film about the mass-executions of communists in Indonesia during the 1960s. Over one million alleged communists died under the hands of death-squad leaders during this time. In the film, Oppenheimer enables Anwar Congo, a death-squad leader and gangster, to reenact his killings in whatever cinematic genres he desires. Anwar works in close connection to present day right-wing paramilitary organizations in Indonesia that glorifies that massacres carried out against communists. Furthermore, Anwar and his friends depict their own killings under the genres of Western, gangster, and even musical. This points towards a glorification and idealization of their past heinous deeds. A few of Anwar’s friends seem to realize that their massacres were evil and despicable. Others seem to think that the killings were justified and honorable for the good of the country. At the end of the film, Anwar himself doubts whether or not his killings were ethical by tearing up and becoming emotional. Anwar’s thoughts on the moral status of his actions are left ambiguous.
The Indonesians involved in the massacre of communists thought of themselves as gangsters. They thought that the word “gangster” translated to “free men” in English. Though the etymology of this is incorrect, the mistranslation points towards the idea that killing communists was celebrated as an act of freedom and liberty. The ideology of being a “free man” justified the killing of morally innocent people. The fact that the mistranslation of “gangster” is so rampant in Indonesia suggests that individuals construct their own meaning of what is truth and knowledge. Furthermore, the fact that Anwar only became emotional and teared up due to his killings suggests that it is only when the knowledge of the ethicality of an act is made salient can remorse be felt. If Anwar had not self-reflected on his actions, it is unclear whether or not he would judge the ethicality of his actions as possibly evil. Without self-reflection, it seems, one does not sufficiently grasp the morality of an act or situation. This suggests that obliviousness could entail a vindication of guilt.
ACT OF KILLING/GROUNDWORK - Kant's categorical imperative would definitely deem Answar's killings as logically inconsistent and immoral because one could not wish killing someone onto universal law. The interesting thing about morality is, however, that Anwar did not seem to feel guilty about his crimes until he was intellectually aware of the notion that he might have caused some real pain onto others. Until Anwar had a moment of genuine self-reflection, he did not seem to be bothered from his past killings. This suggests that the practicality of Kant's moral doctrine is undermined since humans do not operate rationally and examine their behaviors until prompted
ads
Franz Kafka's Metamorphosis depicts the transformation of Gregor Samsa, a traveling salesman, into a grotesque bug. Samsa cares for his family and feels a duty to provide monetarily for them. He has dreams and aspirations to make enough money to send his little sister Grete to a conservatory to learn violin. Upon his transformation, Gregor finds that he cannot communicate with his family. His mother and father do not recognize him. Grete, however, convinces the mother and father that Gregor is now a bug. Gregor, though having the mind of a human, now acts as a bug would. He seeks foods that are sufficiently spoiled like moldy cheese and rotten milk. Grete primarily takes care of Gregor, but eventually as time takes it toll on the family, opinions start to change. The family, in dire financial straits, rent out their home to strangers. As Gregor becomes more and more troublesome, even intruding into the common area and revealing himself to the renters, Gregor's family starts to turn against him. They refuse to acknowledge Gregor as human. Gregor, in a state of sorrow and hopelessness, refuses to eat and eventually dies from a wound incurred by his own father. The family discovers after Gregor's death that their fortunes for the future are not bad after all, and that hope awaits them.
The Metamorphosis questions what it is to be human. Does one define him or herself as human by virtue of physical appearance or mental capacity or both? Although Gregor is physically a bug, he believes himself to be human. His family, however, eventually comes to believe that his exterior appearance is simply who he is. This challenges our what our conception of the self might be. If all there is to the self is what a person is in the mind, then it appears that Gregor's family should have accepted Gregor's bug-like appearance. In fact, what this incongruence reveals is that identity is not just personal identity or one as one relates to himself but also social identity. Social identity is who one is from the point of view of others. The Metamorphosis reveals that it is not simply ourselves that defines the self but also others in their perspectives.
MEDITATIONS/METAMORPHOSIS- Both these works have a mind-body dualist approach to ontology. Gregor seems to sincerely believe that he is a different person in his mind than what his body suggests. Similarly, Descartes argues that what it is to be the mind is fundamentally different than what it is to be a body.
In his “Existentialism is a Humanism” and “Freedom and Responsibility,” Jean-Paul Sartre argues that existentialism is not a pessimistic doctrine but rather one that advocates for “harsh optimism.” Sartre argues that we are in control of our own actions and that we create our essence. He elaborates that man creates his own essence and that existence precedes essence. In other words, we exist and then we create for ourselves what will define our selves. Sartre points out the universality of our actions because as we act, we show others the way we act and to what ideal we strive for. He argues that man is the summation of his actions. In other words, we are what we do. In this equation, however, is also intersubjectivity. We exist only in relation to others. We need others to recognize us, and we need to recognize others. Sartre, in arguing that we have complete freedom to choose our actions, also argues that we have total responsibility for how our lives turn out. In this way, we have a sort of harsh optimism in that we can look forward to creating the lives that we strive to, but if we fall short we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Sartre’s intersubjectivity is important to a discussion about identity because it grounds the self not in the individual. The self is instead grounded in its relation to other selves. Sartre’s picture of the self is one that has responsibility for its own creation. The very bare existence of a thing precedes essence, the defining feature of a thing. In this way, Sartre suggests that humans are defined as self-making. A human is at once a facticity, a thing, but also transcendent in that he or she creates meaning.
HUMAN UNDERSTANDING/ANTIGONE- King Creon in Antigone seems to align well with Locke's picture of the self. Locke argues for a self that is individualistic in nature and uninfluenced by the opinions of others. Creon, similarly, does not listen to what others have to say and allows his hubris to make decisions for him. Without having enough considerations for his social identity, Creon fails to be the best ruler he can be for Thebes.
asd
HUMAN UNDERSTANDING/PERFORMATIVE ACTS- Butler expands on Locke's view of the self by incorporating the notion of intersubjectivity. While Locke believes in a picture of the self that is fundamentally individualistic, Butler points out that some aspects of the self are highly reliant on what others believe. Aspects of the self like gender is highly conditioned by a culturally biased historical past the put women in certain social roles and defined woman in relation to man.
wde
What is the relationship between the material and immaterial?
In his Meditations, Rene Descartes argues for foundationalism, that knowledge should be built on a foundation of principles and certainty. The method motivating Descartes’ search for knowledge is one of skepticism and doubt, calling into question everything that can be known. Descartes privileges rationalism, believing that reason is the source and method of arriving at knowledge. He argues for mind-body dualism, which states that the substance of the mind is fundamentally different than that of the body. What mind and body are comprised of, that is, are different. He reasons that the one thing that cannot be doubted is the cogito, that “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes’ portrait of the self is solipsistic, meaning that only one’s own mind can be known to exist. In this way, Descartes’ view of the self centers on the individual and privileges reason and principles.
Descartes’ “Dreaming Doubt” proposes that one cannot know whether an experience is real insofar as one could simply be dreaming. The senses are not to be trusted, since it is possible to fabricate sense experience. Descartes, however, establishes the certainty of the cogito in the following way. Thinking necessitates the existence of a thinker. So, if one thinks, then there must be a thinker who exists. This, to Descartes, is a “clear and distinct perception,” something that is self-evidently true. Descartes argues that he is “able to posit as a general rule that everything [he] perceives very clearly and distinctly is true” (70). The cogito is an example of a “clear and distinct” perception that Descartes deems as self-evidently true. Perceptions like the cogito or that “I exist” cannot be doubted further, since Descartes assumes that there is “no reason for thinking that there is a God who is a deceiver” (71). In other words, something so clearly and distinctly true like the cogito cannot be false, since God would not deceive one to think otherwise.
Judith Butler in her Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory, argues that gender is a repetition of performative acts. That is to say, gender is not an ontological thing but rather a series of actions we carry out. Butler argues that existence precedes essence, that humans exist first and then decide what their defining characteristics are. Butler does not deny the facticity of biological differences between men and women. What she does dispute is, however, the notion that the facticity of these bodies also carries with it some built-in gender.
Butler argues that bodies carry a sort of historical and cultural meaning that we ascribe onto them. A history of oppression and domestic gender roles has resulted in women being perceived as a certain way and pigeon-holed into acting in conventionally feminine manners. The gender that women have do not come from their being biologically female but rather the repetition of actions that perform gender, that fits into the mold of what it is to be traditionally feminine. Butler suggests that what we do is reify gender or make it real through the social performances we put on. This suggests that our gender-orientation is not an ontologically real, tangible entity but rather an ontologically social, immaterial entity forced into existence through the way in which we conduct ourselves.
2 more items...
In his But What Are You Really? The Metaphysics of Race, Charles W. Mills argues that race has a dual-ontological status. On one hand, it is not a biological reality and is ontologically fabricated to divide individuals into categories. In what is known as racial constructivism, we create race socially through intersubjectivity. We acknowledge in ourselves and each other that race is an ontological fact. Through this, Mills argues that intersubjectivity creates a certain kind of objectivity. Race is an ontologically real and objective things, not insofar as it truly is real, but insofar as we make it real by acknowledging in each other its existence and influence. We make race a social reality, an objective one at that. It does not, however, on a scientific and biological basis, have any real standing. In this way, Mills argues for the idea that race is both real and not real, existing only insofar as it is a contingently deep social reality.
Mills points out that we can create meaning for ourselves socially and that the meaning we ascribe is indubitably powerful. He points out that the facticity of a thing does not matter as much as its transcendent qualities. Race is constructed and is a profound facet of our social lives despite being premised on a lack of evidence. Mill’s work challenges the discrimination that individuals may face due to their ethnicity. If race is made-up but is made objective through our intersubjective experiences, then that means that division in the human species is wholly unimportant from a moral point of view. If we divide ourselves along uncertain and quite arbitrary lines, then it calls attention to the fact that it is immoral categorize ourselves and others especially in a negative sense. Mills seems to also abide by a mind-body dualist philosophy. He believes that we have biological bodies that represent themselves while there is a second aspect, an idea that these bodies represent. Mills shows that what exists is not only physical objects but also the profoundly social things such as race that affect our lives.
2 more items...
MEDITATIONS/GET OUT - Both these works highlight the notion that the body and min are two separate substances. In Get Out, the minds of white people are transplanted into the body of African-Americans. These suggests that what it means to be in the mind and what it means to be in the body are fundamentally different. Likewise, Descartes argues that what comprises the body is of a different substance than what comprises the mind.
Where do we get our sense of good and evil?
In his Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill argues that an action is right in proportion to the amount of good or happiness it produces. Mill argues in favor of the greatest happiness principle which claims that we ought to make the decision to act in a way that maximizes people's total amount of happiness or utility. Another principle that goes along with this is the impartiality principle. It states that the happiness of one is not fundamentally worth more than another's. In other words, just because an action makes oneself happy at an expense of others does not make that action right. This is because one's own happiness is not fundamentally more valuable than another's. Mills also warns against "expediency" which is to prioritize short-term gain while sacrificing long-term gain and failing to look at the broader picture. In other words, it might not be in the utilitarian's best interest to do what is immediately gratifying. Instead, one must consider future rewards while calculating immediate ones.
Mill's work discusses a moral theory that attempts to account for what is right and what is good. It defines morality in terms of what produces the most pleasure or utility. It takes on a consequentialist approach to morality, claiming that what matters is the result of an action, not the intentions behind it. So, the utilitarian does not make a distinction between an act motivated by greed and an act motivated by generosity, as long as that act results in the same thing. For example, the utilitarian treats the goodness of the action to donate $5 to charity to gain a better reputation the same as donating $5 to genuinely help the poor.
1 more item...
In her The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas, Ursula K. Le Guin depicts a utopian city known as Omelas. Residents of Omelas are content and happy. They are not lacking in their basic needs. They are fulfilled in almost every way. Science, music, and the arts flourish. Le Guin prompts us to understand that this utopia lacks nothing to make its citizens feel great. However, what enables Omelas to produce such happiness for its people is a neglected, innocent child locked away in a basement, tortured and isolated from society. It is this reminder of the innocent child that enables Omelas to have achievements so great. Residents of Omelas enjoy the city’s bounty under the condition that they visit the child and live with it. Most people have emotional reactions to the child, frustrated, sad, and unhappy. Eventually, most people convince themselves that the child’s suffering is for the greater good. Others, however, cannot bear to live in the city anymore. They are the ones that walk away. The ones who walk away cannot bear the fact that the human rights of an innocent child are infringed.
This piece is important in that it exposes a potential weakness of utilitarianism as a moral theory. Utilitarianism, which argues for the greatest happiness principle, claims that insofar as there is a greater good of pleasure to be had from suffering, an action is right. Even though the innocent child suffers, as long as that suffering is outweighed by the benefits enjoyed by the residents of Omelas, keeping the child locked up is the right and moral thing to do. This, however, goes against our moral intuitions of good. The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas reveals that considerations of justice of distributing the benefits evenly among everyone must be accounted for in Utilitarianism as a moral theory that explains why an action is right and good.
BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL/UTILITARIANISM - Nietzsche might respond to the Utilitarian by saying that the move from calculating the total pleasure gained from an action to then labeling that action as right is incorrect. This is because Nietzsche argues for a perspectival view of morality. Where Mills differs from Nietzsche is assuming that the dichotomy between good and evil is a real one and that a sufficient moral theory can be created to account for this dichotomy in morality.
wd
In his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant argues that morality is grounded in logical consistency, on what is known as the categorical imperative. Moral rules for us to follow come from our status as rational beings and being immoral is logically inconsistent. The only thing that is good without qualification is the good will, the will to do the right thing. Things such as wealth, power, and courage are not unqualifiedly good. This is because all of these can be used for good or for the detriment of others. For instance, wealth can be used to be generous to the poor, but it can also be used to prolong wars. The good will, on the other hand, is always good in itself, without qualifications. Kant argues that to act from the good will, one cannot act accordingly to rules or commands imposed by others. This is because acting according to others’ expectations implies acting in accordance to consequences of reward or punishment.
The categorical imperative states that “I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law.” In other words, one should only act if it makes rational sense to will that act on everyone else. Let us take the example of lying. If a person lies and wills lying on everyone else, the logical corollary would be that there would be no point in lying. Lying would lose its power since, since truth and falsity have no value. As a result, it would not make sense to will the act of lying on everyone else. It is logically inconsistent to do so. Kant also argues that every person ought never be treated as a means to an end. If people are treated as means to an end, then that means we neglect that humans are beings of moral worth. Kant argues for deontological ethics, in which motive, intend, and duty hold primacy over acts. To Kant, it is the good will and whether a moral law can be universalized through the categorical imperative that determines whether or not something is good or bad.
Friedrich Nietzsche, in his Beyond Good and Evil, argues that philosophies put forth by intellectual giants such as Immanuel Kant, Plato, and etc are mere personal confessions. What he means by this is that philosophers use reason as a way in which they assert their own individual convictions of what is true, not what is true objectively speaking. Nietzsche, opposed to philosophical traditions of the past, turns truth on its head. He argues against a perfect dichotomy between truth and falsity, between good and evil. He argues in support of “perspectivism,” which claims that there is no such thing as an absolute truth but rather multiple perspectives that can be adopted. Nietzsche warns against dogma, against accepting ideologies as fact without further inquiring into what truth fundamentally is. Nietzsche thinks that only “free spirits” can rid themselves of the trap most philosophers fall prey to. Free spirits are individuals who recognize the bias and prejudice that underlie the world and choose to approach the world in a perspectival way. He distinguishes the free spirits from what he calls the “herd,” or people that blindly follow the dogmas propagated by the world. The herd listened to what others have to say and follow what the prevailing ideology of the times dictate. The herd does not choose to understand that the hard line between truth and falsity is not a real one. Nietzsche further argues that people’s will to truth is motivated from the will to power. The will to power is the impetus for all motivation. The will to power is instinctual, driving us to garner autonomy and dominance. It is the universal motivational principle through which everyone acts. Another dichotomy that Nietzche points out is that of master and slave morality. Nietzsche thinks that the modern world’s code of ethics that focuses on humility, honesty, and asceticism is a relic of Judeo-Christian religion. He argues that master morality perceives the noble, rich, and aristocratic as the good. Slave morality perceives the modest, humble, and ascetic as the good. The difference in which morality is supported comes from what station in life one is in. Nietzche argues that Christianity, which reigns as the dominant religion in the Western world, informs us of what is good, that is, what is aligned with slave morality. Our modern day obsession with democracy, freedom, and equality stem from a Christian slave morality.
Nietzsche is particularly important in challenging the very dichotomy between good and evil. He urges us to think of morality not in terms of black and white. Instead, he reframes the discussion around perspectivism and a deviation from an absolute good and evil. He enables us to think about morality and dogmatic ideologies as a whole in terms of the will to power. Slave morality motivates our modern day conception of ethics and has traceable roots to a historical past. Niezche provides a vital function in driving a wrench in the discussion between deontological and utilitarian ethics. While the deontologist and utilitarian argue about what is good, Nietzsche throws the whole notion out the window in support of a free spirited view of morality that focuses more on perspectives rather than truth. Furthermore, Nietzsche challenges us to reconsider if we can even be proper judges of morality. After all, the lens through which we perceive things to be good is highly influenced by a Judeo-Christian past. Nietzsche encourages us to be critical in our approach to thinking about even the most basic things. He encourages us to go beyond good and evil, beyond the dichotomies that constrict our ways of thinking about the world around it. It seems that we are more so artists than mathematicians, constructing our own truths rather than deriving them from indubitable facts.
1 more item...
Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem depicts Adolf Eichmann’s trial in court. Eichmann is a Nazi official who facilitated the bureaucratic massacre and mistreatment of millions of Jewish people in concentration camps. Under trial, Eichmann seemed “terrifyingly normal.” He did not seem to personally hate Jewish people. He claims that he was simply following orders from the state. He did not intend on anything truly evil and malicious. All he did was be dutiful to the country he lived in. The judge listens to Eichmann’s story and realizes that Eichmann seems to be an average person. At a first glance, he did not appear to be a perpetrator of crimes against humanity. However, the judge charges Eichmann of “thoughtlessness” or not questioning the authority of the state or not considering the consequences of his actions. Eichmann is sentenced to death by hanging.
Arendt’s work explores the idea that following one’s duty to the state could go seriously awry. After all, the state’s laws are created from fallible human beings that are subject to arbitrary whims and agendas. For someone who simply goes along with the motions, the crime seems to be not thinking critically or simply not thinking enough about the inherent morality of an action. Eichmann’s conduct is an example of following Kant’s categorical imperative in the wrong way. Instead of thinking about logical consistency, Eichmann thought that the state’s laws represented a moral universality that applied to everyone. He did not consider the ramifications of dehumanizing others in the name of the laws. He did not consider that laws are made by those that can be corruptible in nature. Arendt's work points out that there is a "banality of evil." In other words, evil does not have to show itself in ways that are obvious. Evil can be done in ways the go under the radar and unnoticed.
ANTIGONE/EXISTENTIALISM - Sartre's harsh optimism would similarly condemn Eichmann in his misconduct. This is because even though Eichmann did not have any real malicious intent to kill the Jews, he was still responsible wholly for his actions. Not only is Eichmann responsible for his actions, he is responsible for not taking alternative actions as well.
1 more item...
Sophocles’ Antigone centers on Antigone’s duty to bury her brother Polynices and King Creon’s obligation to uphold the laws of Thebes. On one hand, Antigone, daughter of Oedipus, believes that her brother deserves a proper burial for a safe passage into the afterlife. Antigone takes it as her divine right to carry out her familial duties and what she owes to Polynices. Creon, on the other hand, believes that Polynices should not be afforded a proper burial since the dead prince waged war against the state. This traitorous act, to Creon, should not be honored under any conditions because considerations of the state should be above any concern for individual personal well being. To help her bury Polynices, Antigone attempts to recruit the help of Ismene, her sister. Ismene declines, prioritizing her self-preservation. Antigone endeavors to bury her brother alone and is caught burying her brother by guards. Creon, in a fury, sentences Antigone to imprisonment in a cave where she later kills herself. The gods, angry at Creon’s murder, bring plague and misfortune to the city of Thebes. Tiresias a prophet predicts the death of Creon’s son Haemon and wife Eurydices. Creon is blinded by his pride and refuses to listen to Tiresias until it is too late. Both his son and wife kill themselves.
Antigone illustrates a conflict between deontological ethics and utilitarianism, conflict between a duty to one’s kin and a duty to the state. Antigone represents a deontological approach to morality, claiming that she has a duty to bury her brother. What matters to Antigone as a deontologist is not what the consequences of actions are but what her intentions are. She relies on gods’ law of what is inherently good rather than human law of what is arbitrarily decided to inform her behavior. Creon, on the other hand, does not think about the intentions behind actions but rather what is good for his kingdom. Creon takes a utilitarian approach to morality. What matters to Creon is what would produce the most happiness for his kingdom. His error, however, stems from the pride he had in his own human decision-making. Creon prided himself as being an indubitably great ruler, when, in fact, he had short-comings in choosing what is best for Thebes.
How do we come to know and acquaint ourselves with the world around us?
In his Souls of Black Folk, W.E.B. Du Bois argues that African-Americans must view themselves through what he calls "double consciousness." African-Americans must first view themselves as they would themselves. They must secondly view themselves how the broader society of majority white people would view them. Du Bois laments the fact that the larger society depicts African-Americans as inferior to the white race. He laments the fact that while he himself and others capable like him possess abilities that equal or even surpass those of white people, African-Americans are still looked down upon in society. He recounts a moment when a white girl refused to accept a greeting card from him. He recalls Jim Crow Segregation and the prejudice, alienation, and injustice that African-Americans had to suffer. He symbolizes the oppression that African-Americans face as the veil. He argues that what can lift the veil is emancipation. He argues that the black community needs political power, education, and freedom.
Du Bois with his concept of double consciousness points out that minorities often have to acquaint themselves with the world in two ways. They must first acquaint themselves from their own points of view and then from the point of view of the majority race. Du Bois highlights the fact that the way in which individuals become knowledgeable about the world is tinted along racial lines.
SOULS OF BLACK FOLK/THE SECOND SEX - Double-consciousness could be applied to minority races but it can also be applied to the oppressiveness with which women were and sometimes still are treated. Women might first look at how they see themselves, but they might also have a double consciousness of how a male dominated society might view them as inferior.
d
Simon de Beauvoir’s
The Second Sex
argues that women are identified in relation to men as the “Other.” Beauvoir claims that men are defined as the subject and the self while women are characterized as secondary to men, as objects. In other words, men are autonomous and absolute while women are dependent and relative. Men oppress women in treated them as inferior to them. Women are treated as second-class citizens. This, in part, is due to the kinds of social roles women were expected to take on. Women were expected to be docile wives and mothers who reside in the home. In her famous words, Beauvoir argues that one is “not born but becomes a woman.” That is, one is socialized into becoming a woman. Women are not born to take on the roles that they traditionally do.
Beauvoir points out that the essence or defining feature of women has been imposed onto them as the Other. Women’s bodies are “marked,” according to Beauvoir, since they are tied to a history of oppression. They have features of historicity that cannot be separated from them, since the roles imposed on women in the past are still mentally associated with the appearance of a woman. The Second Sex laments the fact that women's identities and selves are imposed onto them by society, not by who they are in their own right. It laments the fact that women lack agency in a world of oppression by the subjects, men. Beauvoir exemplifies the idea that we come to know the world in deeply social and historical terms. The way we treat women and perceive femininity itself is conditioned into our social lives in ways that we do not normally anticipate.
THE SECOND SEXMEDITATIONS - Both these works question the ontological status of something that is in the mind. Although gender roles do not exist objectively physically, they do exist objectively in the mind and in that intersubjectivity allows them to exist socially. This aligns with a dualist approach to metaphysics that what exists is not only the physical but also the immaterial, things in the mind.
s
In the film Get Out, by Jordan Peele, Chris Washington, an African-American photographer, visits the parents of Rose Armitage, his Caucasian girlfriend. Rose’s parents, who reside in Lake Pontaco, seem to be completely unaware that Chris is African-American. Chris eventually discovers that Rose’s mother is a psychiatrist and that her father is a neurosurgeon. The Armitages have two black servants in their isolated residence in the woods, Walter and Georgina. Chris determines that things are amiss when Walter, Georgina, along with other African-Americans in the property speak with a politeness and vernacular that was unfamiliar to him. Invited to a local party, Chris further noticed strange elements in his interactions with others. People comment inappropriately on Chris’ physical fitness. They also commented on how trendy and physically fulfilling it would be black. Chris eventually finds out that the Armitrages are taking the bodies of African-Americans and implanting the brains of old white people into them for longevity and youth. The Armitrages attempt to make Chris another specimen for brain transplant when Rod, Chris’ friend, investigates the Lake Pontaco residence and saves Chris. The film ends as Rose dies and Chris and Rod drive away.
Get Out highlights that we come to know the world as racially divided. Rose’s parents are taken aback when they discover that Chris is black. Chris is apprehensive to meet Rose’s parents because he knows that there is a societal stigma against African-Americans and inter-racial dating. We become acquainted with the world in racial terms. The film turns our preconceived notions about the world on its head by challenging what race is. When Walter and Georgina’s brains are transplanted into the bodies of African-Americans, it is unclear what race the two represent. On one hand, they may believe they are still white, since they were raised to believe so. They were also treated as white people. However, now that they live in African-American bodies, people in society will treat them as African-Americans. Get Out points out that we view the world as divided along racial lines all the while questions about what constitutes race is seldom investigated.
UTILITARIANISM/GET OUT - The acts of the white people in Get Out do not seem to be justified under Utilitarianism. Taking away the livelihood of the rest of someone's life to preserve some years of an old person's seems to unfairly put an emphasis on one's happiness over another. Mill's impartiality principle would argue that both white and black people's happiness should be valued equally, which the Caucasian actors in the movie do not understand.
