Owen Hodges - HON 201 by Owen Hodges

Padlet #1: Existential Wagon Ride

ohodges1_1 — 2024-09-04 14:54:55 UTC

https://www.ranker.com/list/things-you-missed-in-calvin-and-hobbes/genevieve-carlton

This is a comic from Bill Watterson’s Calvin and Hobbes in which Calvin poses a series of existential questions regarding the presence or absence of meaning in life. Despite Calvin’s characterization of a meaningless state as “absurd” and containing “no reason, truth, or rightness”, Hobbes seems to embrace that state by the end. Calvin’s opening statement would not be out of place in Sartre’s Existentialism is a Humanism, specifically the sections where he writes about the various avenues that people take to decide for themselves what is right and meaningful. However, the rest of the comic indicates that, unlike Sartre, Calvin does not view himself as a representative of or owing anything to the rest of humanity. In fact, the overall sentiment of the strip is closer to the “passionless” state that Kierkegaard lamented in The Present Age, as while the statements made are grand in nature, they do not drive anyone to action, and indeed, the strip ends with Calvin and Hobbes helplessly falling, in no position to change their situation(almost as though they were going over a waterfall).

Here are a couple of questions:

1) Is the philosophy that Calvin describes more reminiscent of Christian or atheistic existentialism? Or is it something else entirely?

2) Do you consider the metaphor of the wagon rolling aimlessly over the cliff a suitable one for Sartre’s version of human existence? What about Kierkegaard’s?

Padlet #2: Freud and Lord of the Flies

ohodges1_1 — 2024-09-19 18:27:49 UTC

I thought it was a bit much to post an entire novel, so here's the SparkNotes summary. Anyway, the plot of William Golding's Lord of the Flies contains several themes in line with Freudian psychology, in particular the idea of the Id, Ego, and Superego. In the novel, a group of young boys are marooned on an island after surviving a plane crash. There are no adults around, and thus no coercion from society. Freud would argue this would quickly lead to a descent into a base, asocial state, which is precisely what occurs. Ralph, the main character, attempts to fill the role that society (the ego/superego) normally would and compel the others to be productive by keeping a smoke signal going to hopefully get them rescued. As the novel goes on, however, they increasingly follow the lead of another boy, Jack, who makes no effort to restrain them or himself and engages in, among other things, the graphic ritual murder of a pig and the mounting of its head on a stake. The pig's head becomes something of a symbol for what Freud saw as the boys' natural state of savagery. By the end of the novel, the whole island is burning and the boys are trying to hunt down and kill Ralph. They thus no longer act in anyone's best interests but are only out to fulfill their own impulses.

A couple of questions:

1) The novel ends with Ralph and the others being discovered by a British naval officer, and the boys all begin to weep in his presence, presumably having seen the horror of what they had done. Is having this realization upon being reintroduced to society consistent with Freud's ideas?

2) In the novel, the boys pursue their instincts to the point of burning their home and killing multiple of their own. How would Freud or Darwin differently interpret this obviously counter-productive action?

Padlet #3: Marxism and the Soviet Union

ohodges1_1 — 2024-10-07 17:33:48 UTC

For this Padlet, I specifically want to focus on the economic structure of the Soviet Union, particularly the section on “collectivization and industrialization”. The revolution that Karl Marx advocated (and said was inevitable) was not totally unlike the one which installed the Soviets in power in 1917 - it was a political struggle by a Communist political party followed by a forceful consolidation of power - and the Soviet projects that followed it, specifically the abolition of private property in favor of a state-owned enterprise, are generally in line with his ideals. However, Marx also notably criticized the state as an arm of the bourgeoisie, and the centralization thereof as necessary for capitalism. He also describes the end stage of communism as a stateless society in which the working classes of all nations stand united. All of this seems to be at odds with the reality of the Soviet Union, ostensibly founded on his beliefs, which was a highly centralized and totalitarian state. And the aspects that were in line with Marx’s writing, namely the confiscation of private property, hurt the peasant class by way of displacing many of them and causing a famine. Notably, however, the collectivization that took place here was of a predominantly agricultural area, rather than the industrial system that Marx was focused on, and was replacing an aristocratic regime, not necessarily a bourgeois one.

Thus, the question I pose is: Can the Soviet Union still be called a properly Communist state or at least one on the path toward it? If so, is the failure of its economy sufficient to disprove Marx’s ideas about the ideal system? And if not, is it possible for a properly Communist state or society to exist?

Padlet #4: Neitzche, Language, and 1984

ohodges1_1 — 2024-10-24 12:37:48 UTC

(the poster is from https://libertymaniacs.com/products/ingsoc-1984-crimestop-poster)

And here is a summary of the book, if needed: https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/1984/summary/

As I read On Truth and Lies and the postmodern perspective about language in general, I was reminded a bit of George Orwell's 1984, in that both center around a view of language as a force for power. In 1984, the ruling Party has essentially created its own language (Ingsoc) in order to limit what its subjects are able to think. In addition, the idea of truth is systematically broken down, as the Party makes frequent use of contradictory slogans like "War is Peace" and constantly rewrites its own history in order to suit its needs. This philosophy of the truth being malleable is similar to the one at the core of Neitzche's writing. Since language ultimately cannot explain the universe and every person's understanding through it is thus limited to them, it follows that concepts such as war and peace could be compatible from a certain perspective. In addition, since language is the structure on which our intellect is based, control over it is the most absolute power an organization can have.

A couple of questions with this in mind:

1) According to Neitzche's worldview, is it possible for any organization to set the conventions of what is considered true for everyone?

2) In the Parable of the Madman, Neitzche argues that with no God, humans must themselves become higher beings. Is what the Party does in 1984 an example of this?

Padlet #5: Lyotard, Language, and the Law

ohodges1_1 — 2024-11-07 21:28:34 UTC

This links to a legal article by Brian C. Kalt regarding the "Yellowstone loophole", the idea that somebody could not be charged with a crime that was committed in the Idaho section of Yellowstone National Park. The particular alignment of the state and district boundaries, and the text of the 6th Amendment, would require the jurors for such a criminal trial to come from the Idaho section of the park, where nobody actually lives. Kalt goes on to discuss an actual legal case where something similar to this happened and a conviction was reached. But, he argued, the language of the case made it so the loophole was not actually closed. This is an example of Lyotard's idea of language games being put into practice; to somebody unfamiliar with the laws surrounding the issue, it would seem like a ridiculous conclusion not to try the offender, and as mentioned, a court did come to that conclusion. But I feel Lyotard would describe this as that court's refusal to operate under the rules the other party set out, a statement Kalt seems to agree with due to his lamenting the way the matter was resolved. I feel it would also strongly resonate with Derrida as an example of the shortcomings of the calculable legal system and how, if it were deconstructed in the way that he describes, a case like this could be resolved logically.

A couple of questions to consider:

1) Obviously, the writers of the districting laws and the 6th Amendment did not intend for them to be used in this way; they did not agree to the language game that they are partaking in. From Lyotard's perspective, is it immoral to misuse the language of people not involved in your game for your own purposes?

2) Kalt argued that, rather than requiring a judge's discretion, the written law should have just been changed to close the loophole. However, Derrida would argue that the judge ignoring the legal text was evidence that a deconstructionist legal system could work. Which do you more agree with?