How Simone Feels

"One's life has value so long as one attributes value to the life of others, by means of love, friendship, indignation and compassion."
-Simone de Beauvoir


Note that she is talking about social relationships with others, not radical freedom, making life meaningful.

Radical Freedom

Early Sartre placed extreme emphasis on radical freedom and the ability for one to make choices using that freedom regardless of one's place in life or one's surroundings. Of course, we know that doing that would be impossible (because we now know that we are not conscious of everything that we do and the reasons why we do it) and Sartre himself later denounced this so called "radical freedom" unaffected by our surroundings. The later Sartre still believed in the freedom (and necessity) to choose for oneself, but he recognized that certain aspects such as our surroundings or economical places in life effect the way in which we use our freedom, like it or not. I do wonder, though, what the world would look like if all people used their "radical freedom" that Sartre states we are born with. Sartre thought that if we all reached the point of leaving our anguish behind that we would have somewhat of a Marxist utopia where everyone can make their choices and do whatever they want without consequence of society. While I do find the idea of Sartre and Marx's utopia, I have to ask if that could ever really work.
Some people, using their radical freedom, would choose to do immoral things that would obviously effect society. If someone used their freedom to kill your brother if would effect you even if they thoroughly thought things through and claimed responsibility for them. Even things that are not as extreme as that example would effect everything in one's life as well as the lives of the people around them. Humans are social creatures that are highly aware of those around us because it is in our nature to be so. Take love for example. If someone that you're involved with decides, through their own free choice, to go have a relationship with someone else, it will probably adversely effect your life. Sartre would have highly disagreed with me there.
Using Sartre (and his wife, Simone de Beauvoir) as an example, one could argue that radical freedom is suited for some people and not others. Sartre and his wife maintained an open marriage, which they were both allegedly happy with. It would appear that they each made free choices without regard for the other and were able to maintain a happy, lifelong partnership in doing so. However, I do not think that those who are not completely devoted to the existentialist cause could truly follow such a life. Most people are too highly effected by the choices of those around us. This leads me to ask:

Do you think that you could be a true existentialist? Is radical freedom suited for everyone, or a select few?

Facebook Ideology and the Power of Lables

I will admit that once upon a time (about six months ago) my facebook political views said, "Socialist." I got a lot of backlash at school for posting such a horrible, horrible thing on my facebook page. Didn't I know that communism just doesn't work?! We've all read the chapter on Marx, so there's no need to go into a discussion about true communism here, so back to the point. I defended my decision to post that political ideology by saying that I had been driven to extremes by the staunch conservative/capitalist attitudes around me. This would imply that I was an extremist for being a socialist, which is false. I see no extremism in challenging the capitalism that has failed us time and time again. I made an excuse so that people wouldn't label me as some crazy Marxist, but wasn't that exactly what I was? If I'm crazy for believing in a little bit of economic equality then so be it. I think that we need to stop looking at socialism as the enemy here. I find it laughable that we are still influenced by the propaganda of the Cold War and the Red Scare. We should all be able to embrace whatever social/political ideology that we truly believe in.
Professor Johnson pointed out that labels strongly effect the way that we see someone before we ever really look at them. I can think of many times that I have formed opinions on people due to the way that others described them. Unfortunately, the words that people use carry connotations that none of us can avoid, no matter how good of a person that we are.

My question is: Do you ever think there will be a time that labels will no longer matter?

Response to "Vegetarianism."

Skyla's question was: What, in our human nature, allows us to eat slaughtered animals even though it really isn't necessary?

Basically, survival. Back when humans were hunter/gatherers living in small bands they needed the occasional game to sustain them for longer periods of time than plants can. That tradition developed along with human society. What in our nature allows us to kill another thing when we don't really need to is a mystery to me. Some people, such as myself, could never kill another animal, but I can certainly eat one and enjoy it. This is extremely hypocritical. As Catherine Anne Porter said in one of her essays, "Morally, if I wished to eat meat I should be able to kill the animal--otherwise it appeared that I was willing to nourish myself on other people's sins." However, I know that I could kill an animal if my survival depended on it. I can even see the potential appeal in doing so. Perhaps our arrogance in thinking that we are above nature for being human is what enables us to kill and eat other animals. Most of the animals that we kill and eat pose no threat to us and we could certainly live on plants alone and supplements. So why don't we? I don't think that humans have advanced enough to abandon such an integral part of being human. We continue to relish being on top of the food chain. I think that so long as we see ourselves as being superior to animals we will continue to kill and eat them.

Human Arrogance

The thing that I have found most interesting in all of the theories of human nature that we have been reading is to separate our animal needs from our human nature. Are the phiosophers that think this suggesting that we are above nature simply by being human? Are we not animals at all? Religious thought suggests that humans are God's greatest creation, so of course we are above nature in the eyes of God. But then why do we have these animal needs at all? Many of our most basic instincts are animalistic. Without those inherent qualities humans would have gone extinct years ago. I think that it's important that we look at ourselves as people as well as animals. However, this could cross into making excuses for doing bad things and blaming it on being animalistic. There must be a good balance to realizing our humanity and keeping in our minds that we are not above nature itself.


Do you think that we will ever be able to overcome our animal needs and desires? Do we need to?

Response to "Human Competition."

Skyla's question was, "What would life be like if there was absolutely NO competition?"

Having zero competition in life sounds like a great idea, but I'm not sure that it could ever work. It is in our nature to be competitive. Even if most of us could put aside our selfishness and learn not to be competitive I don't think that everyone could. It would only take a few people to bring the whole system crashing down. That said I think that we've reached a degree of competition that concentrates power in the hands of fewer and fewer people (capitalism). I'm hopeful that someday we'll find a way to reach a balance of competition that will be beneficial for everyone, but for now that doesn't seem realistic. I don't think that we will ever be able to eliminate competition from our nature entirely, but there has to be a way to guide that competition in a more productive, less destructive direction.

Rousseau

In an interesting twist of thought, Jean Jacques Rousseau believed that the development of civilization has in a way "enslaved" people. To Rousseau, our natural happiness has been taken away by civilization and unnatural inequalities have developed as a result. Most people would argue that the more civilized we become the more inequalities fall away. Of course, we have to keep in mind the time frame that Rousseau was writing (pre-revolution France). I wonder, then, if Rousseau would have held those same beliefs if he lived and wrote today. I think that he probably would, considering all of the inequalities that are still evident around the world and even in America. It is also interesting to consider whether or not Rousseau would be in favor of communism. Here I am talking about TRUE communism, not the socialism that we have seen develop in parts of the world and call itself communism. It seems that Rousseau would love the idea of having no government at all, of having no need for one. Rousseau may argue with Marx that such a state would be idea for the elimination of inequalities and the increase of "natural" happiness and freedom. However, Rousseau also says, "It is unnatural for a majority to rule, for a majority can seldom be organized and united for specific action, and a minority can." Rousseau makes it difficult (if not impossible) to say what his ideal form of society would look like by contradicting himself.


My question is, do you think Rousseau would have leaned more toward the idea of a Philosopher King society or a Marxist society?