New Years Resolutions and Command Over Self

My good friend Coco wrote an amazing blog post about new years resolutions. I thought one part was especially relevant, and wanted to share with you all. To me, this speaks to Nietzsche's ideas about the commanding and obeying parts of ourselves. There is a lot of this at play vis a vis new years resolutions.

"It occurs to me that a resolution is a funny thing. It’s a promise I make to do something, in theory, for my own benefit, and so it would seem natural for me to want to do it. And yet, if I wanted to do the thing I’m promising to do in the first place, I probably wouldn’t need to make a resolution! In a way, a resolution serves as a demand from one part of myself to another – from the part that wants to toward the part that doesn’t. Immediately I feel some relief as I acknowledge this, as well as the fact that rivaling whatever need may be present for the part of me that wants to write, lose weight, stick to a budget, etc, my need for autonomy, for freedom from domination -even by my own hand- is just as strong. Out of this new awareness of the subtle way in which a well intentioned resolution can be perceived by some part of me as a threat to my freedom and thus create the condition for an internal rebellion, a question arises: is there any value in making a resolution?

My first sense is that there is value in noticing the impulse toward making a resolution and viewing it as an indication that there is an unmet need present and a desire to feel a certain way as a result of meeting that need. Approached with curiosity and compassion, and a willingness to look beneath the surface, I believe my resolution can put me in touch with my heart’s deepest longings."

You can read the entire thing here.

Happy new years!

Relevent college Essay

The application to University of Virginia calls for a description of a book that in some way "challenged" the applicant.My essay is about "The Republic" and handles some topics we have discussed in class.

I was unnerved and vaguely disturbed when I read The Republic, by Plato. Although Plato’s thesis clashes with ideas of liberty and justice, which I had previously accepted as truths, his argument is clear and convincing. The book forced me to question my own ideas, and society’s opinions, all of which had previously been resolute in my mind. Plato for instance, argues that personal freedom will cause society to collapse, but the traditional American belief holds that personal freedom in society is the ultimate goal. In Plato’s view everything, including marriage and profession should be organized by the government, yet I grew up believing that choices like these are basic rights of the individual. As I enter university, I am grateful to choose my own field of study.
I grew increasingly horrified as Plato systematically tore down the structures of liberty and democracy which society has impressed upon me as righteous. I was astounded that Plato’s philosophy, which in my mind seemed so “wrong”, could almost convincingly contradict ideals that I had previously recognized as “right”. I grew defiant, then angry at Plato for making me challenge my whole belief system. As my classmates and I discussed our observations, I realized that each of us responded differently to The Republic. Although Plato’s thesis intrigued us each in individual, personal ways, I was relieved to discover that not only I was unnerved.
Ultimately, I am grateful that I read The Republic as it has demonstrated that commonly accepted “truths” are often actually one-sided opinions. It had previously never occurred to me that individual freedom could be viewed so negatively. Reading The Republic was an invaluable part of my process of coming of age and an apt farewell from high school to remind me that the world is not always as it seems.

Dates

Case Study (final draft) due: Wednesday, January 5th
John McGowan visit (lunch + class + group collection): Monday, January 10th
*Elise will cook some sort of spaghetti lunch*
Names of panelists to Elise: Friday, Jan 21st
Philosopher handout: Friday, Jan 21st
OVERNIGHT! At Hyco Lake: Monday, Jan 24th
First paragraph of final paper posted on blog and handed to Jamie and Elise(with thesis): Friday, Jan 28th
Final papers due (FINAL DRAFT): Monday, Feb 7th (one day before Dan's birthday! :)

Panels from Thurs, Feb. 10th - Thurs, Feb. 17th

Jamie quote:

"You have the authority to dress like a little slut or dress like a nice girl, but that's about it..."

Mill begins chapter four, On Liberty, with “To individuality should belong the part of life in which it is chiefly the individual that is interested; to society, the part which chiefly interests society.” (On Liberty, page 1). I should begin by defining society, or "social power". I believe in most of what Mill is discussing, he is referring to the government when he mentions society or social power. There is an obvious distinction between the government and society, but I believe he is mainly focusing on the rules that come with said society, and therefore is focusing on the government.

Mill discusses strongly that this social power or society is only interested is helping the people of the society. He suggests that the governments main focus should be on the peoples freedom, and therefore search for truth (ones entire life goal). One is only able to find ones person truth, if one "sublates" (as Hegel would call it) with everyone around them, discussing and questioning everything that you know to be able to discover the highest truth possible. Mill believes you are only allowed to sublate however, if you feel protected. The governments one purpose, is to give this protection. They are not allowed to enforce laws on the citizens, because that goes against individual freedom. But if someone’s acts under their own individual freedom somehow hurts another, they are allowed to step in and punish the offender. The government, as well as the others under the social power, are not allowed to step in unless “any part of a person’s conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others.” (On Liberty, chapter 4, page 1). But they are allowed to judge, and talk the person out of whatever mistake they are making. Mill believes a man can never be in isolation, therefore everything that they do somehow effects everyone else around him. The society must intervene and help the person make the best decisions, but “he, himself, is the final judge.” (On Liberty, chapter 4, page 2). Their main goal is to help the person reach their highest truth (and freedom), and only step in when absolutely necessary. We conform to this sort of society because it benefits us tremendously. We are allowed to work with others, getting all the help that we need to discover our highest truth, our main goal in life.

I believe there is such a thing as too much individual freedom. If a person is so caught up in living their life how they want to, and not caring what others (especially the society) has to say, it can cause some major upheaval. You must have individual freedom, but you must also follow the rules that are in place for the good of the society. You must conform, but conform willingly, and for your benefit.

Sorry its late guys! And sorry its so long!!

This is actually Sarah's post, not mine--I'm just moving it to a new post instead of as a comment from Elise's question.

In society the individual has the freedom to do what he likes within the confines of a social structure. Society has an overarching affect on in the individual, in that society will allow the individual to do what he likes as long has he is hurting neither himself, nor others. In society the individual is allowed certain freedoms, like speech, press, assembly, and religion, and it is society's job to protect those freedoms. Society has the job of projecting our individual liberty, and providing us with the security to express those liberties. In society we expect that society will provide us with the security to do what we want without fear of being silenced. To be a free individual living to our best ability we accept that we have our freedom so long as we generally go along with societal rules. Society creates rules and regulations to ensure that we will be secure, and that others will not be able to harm us.
There is such a thing as having too much individual freedom. If every individual were to have the freedom to what they want whenever they want, then that would be a very bad thing for society. Societies are put in place to keep the individuals in that society safe from harm. if would be very difficult for any society to provide any kind of security to anyone, if every individual in that society threw caution to the wind, and just did whatever they felt like doing.

-Sarah B

peer pressure on individual freedom

The individual is given as much freedom as he desires so long as he does not harm anyone else. Society requires the individual to give up certain desires for him to join; if he wishes to be a part of society and obtain the security of it, he must accept that the security also protects the other individuals in the society and therefore he may not harm them if he wishes to remain a part of it. The individual appears to have vast amounts of freedom; however, no man lives in isolation and one man’s acts, innocuous as they may seem, are capable of affecting everyone around that man, and these acts often do. If this individual is just plain annoying and an altogether undesirable sort of person, unless he commits a distinct crime against the specific laws of society, “The offender may then be justly punished by opinion, though not by law” (chapter IV). Social power may include persons encouraging the individual who commits immoral acts to change his ways through persuasion and demonstrating how immoral his previous acts were, but he cannot actually be punished by law to change unless he has done a lot of harm to another person.

Although the individual is given freedom, he must acknowledge that almost everything he does has an effect on those around him. Mill uses the example (chapter IV) of a man who destroys his property, which has a direct effect on the community around him, and a man who harms himself, thereby destroying the happiness of those who depend on his happiness, the people who care for him and do not wish to see him harmed. Nearly everything that a person does affects another person. Ultimately, though, the individual must choose for himself what to do, no matter how much pressure is put on him by society to change his ways, because “all errors which he is likely to commit against advice and warning, are far outweighed by the evil of allowing others to constrain him to what they deem his good” (chapter IV). He may be pressured by the others in society if he is just a crap person, but he cannot be persecuted by law if he is only exercising his individual freedom in a manner that harms only himself or his belongings. He may have opinions that others do not agree with and do not like, perhaps ones that befit his personality as a really annoying guy, but “if all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind” (chapter II). As a collective society, everyone is searching for the truth and silencing one person’s truth could mean silencing the real truth because others’ opinions may help shape one’s own personal truth and all that.

In my opinion, there is such thing as too much individual freedom: although of course everyone rejoices in “Freedom”, too much freedom allows a person to do as much harm as he wishes to himself and no one would have the power to stop him because that would infringe upon his rights as an individual. The individual should, however, be given as much freedom of speech as he requires to speak freely, and share his opinion without being silenced.

grant us this day our daily bread, and deliver us from evil

First and foremost, society exists for the protection of the individual freedom of each of its citizens. Neither society nor an individual “is warranted in saying to another human….that he shall not do with his life for his own benefit what he chooses to do with it”. Society does, however, have the ability to encourage or discourage the citizen with its collective opinion, and to judge the citizen for his actions and for his choices. The ability to advise and judge one’s compatriots is not only an opportunity, but a duty. Individuals in society “owe to each other help to distinguish the better from the worse, and encouragement to choose the former and avoid the latter” (ch2p2). The individual benefits from his compatriot’s feedback, so this exchange between individual’s freedom and society’s influence provides an opportunity for human progression.

Society, however, has only a “fractional”(2) interest in the individual, and its judgment can be “misapplied to individual cases”(2). The individual, therefore, as the “person most interested in his own well-being(2)” is himself the “the final judge” of the decisions he makes. He alone ultimately chooses how to use his “entitlement to free exercise”(2). Because of this, the individual is morally responsible for the “consequences of his acts”(4) and should “bear the whole penalty of his error”(4). Society punishes the individual’s errors with opinion and penalty, or applauds him for his achievements. It is Just, and beneficial to society, for the individual to be subjected to this judgment by society. Society’s power to enforce “moral retribution and punishment” (3) on the individual can and should be used to help the individual reach his full moral and intellectual potential. As individual’s morals and intellect solidify, society too will approach its potential.

Society’s power , then, is productive when it is used to help the individual become a better person. It should not be used “to the oppression of his individuality”(3) and should only restrict his personal freedom when his actions infringe on the freedom of his compatriots. In these cases, “society, as the protector of all its members, must retaliate on him”(4), judge his actions, and punish him accordingly. Ultimately, the power of society is its faculty to judge individual’s actions. Mill argues that individual freedom and social power can be used productively together, and need not conflict. Both are necessary for individual freedom to be an option in society.

All quotes were taken from chapter 4 of On Liberty
I realize I have not even begun to address the second question.