Territory: Disability. Object: The treatment of disabled people. Concepts: Equality, Dependence. Change: Treatment of disabled people over time. Thinkers: Singer, MacIntyre. Questions I am going to consider: • The idea of ‘normality’, and whether a disabled person can constitute a ‘normal person’. • The idea of inclusion and whether disabled people can be considered to be included as normal members of our society. • Both of these things, normality and inclusion, relate to the concept of equality. Are disabled people equals to people without disabilities? • Is the language used in reference to disabled people appropriate or could it be improved upon? • How much does independence matter to a disabled person? Should they have greater independence despite their limitations? Sources: • ‘The Disability Reader’, edited by Tom Shakespeare, 1998, Continuum • ‘The Diving Bell and the Butterfly’, Jean-Dominique Bauby, 2008, Harper Perennial • ‘Practical Ethics’, Peter Singer, 1993, Cambridge University Press • ‘Rational Dependent Animals, Alasdair MacIntyre, 1999, Gerald Duckworth and Co. Ltd.
Category: 2008
This project investigates the motivations behind different terrorist attacks. From what drives them to become involved in terrorism to the different positions that are open to them and finally the effectiveness of their role and the influence of society’s perception. I decided to title my project “The War on Terrorism”. By my title I do not mean the campaign that was initiated by America and joined by other countries throughout the world to ‘curb the spread of terrorism’. My project will discuss the reasons why this campaign will not work. This War on Terrorism was authorized by the United States Congress under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists and was passed on the 18th of September 2001 after the attacks on America on 9/11. The object I plan to focus on is a scene from the film ‘The Kingdom’. The reason for this is because it is a film about terrorism, which I think compliments the objective I am trying to prove. The reason why I chose this is film is because at the start of the film when the terrorist bomb goes off in the housing compound, Agent Fleury whispers in one of his associate’s ears in comfort something we as the audience cannot hear. Then in one of the latest scenes when the leader of the terrorist group is shot and is dying he whispers to a young girl in comfort something that again we as the audience can’t hear. Then in the final scene each person reveals what was said to them. It was, “Don’t worry, we’ll kill them all.” This for me is very significant because it showed that even though the American agent was claiming to be bringing justice to the terrorists he was actually just looking to kill them all for killing his comrades. Both sides had the same objective, they both wanted to kill. How will this ever stop terrorism? My parallel territory was the Cold War as I believe no other event in history has affected world politics as the same way the Cold War did in the mid 1940’s till the early 1990’s. Terrorism has taken its place in modern day politics. The concepts I identified throughout my project were power, identity and the loss of identity. I believe America’s waging of war on terror was just an assertion of power and way in which to reinsert them as the main hegemonic power throughout the world. A philosophers whose work I have used is Ted Honderich, especially his work terrorism for Humanity which raises many difficult questions that are unavoidable at this moment in time as the war on terror rages. Questions related to the morality of terrorism and the use of political violence. In this work Honderich’s arguments for and against terrorism are directed towards the goal of the Principle of humanity. The questions which are raised throughout run along the lines of when is terrorism right, if ever? And when is it wrong? And what are the reasons for it being wrong? The main reason I chose this philosopher to focus on is because throughout this work he implores us to open our minds and explore political philosophy but he reminds us that even though we are opening our minds to see the bigger picture it does not mean we have to lose our convictions. Other philosophers I chose to look at are Castell and his work on resistance and identity, Habermas’s philosophy at the time of terror and Baudrillard and his fatalist theory,
Territory: Fast food industry. Objective: The aim of my project is to focus on how the fast food industry is taking over society and how the advertising within the media influences our decisions. I will illustrate how the fast food industry began and how it has developed into the global industry that we know today. How this industry has dominated the way that we see food as well as changing society into a fast pace society of convenience. As well as how our food choices are so heavily influenced by these corporations, that we are slowly becoming a nation killing ourselves through unhealthy food. Aim: I will be looking at chefs such as Jamie Oliver and Gordon Ramsey to understand how they are trying to change society’s eating habits and trying to help us not become such an unhealthy nation. The Philosopher that I will be using to aid my thought process will be Marx. I will focus on Marxist ideas on commodities and capitalism, as well as his theory of ideology. Focusing not just on Marx, but also on influential Marxists such as Fredric Jameson and Georg Lukac.
In this project I am looking to investigate the effects of capitalism on the music industry and more specifically the dominance of major record labels over independent. • One of the major influences for this project is the rise of television programmes such as the X Factor and Pop Idol and their effect on the world of music. These programmes seem to concentrate more on how much money they make rather than what the producers say they aim to do, which is to find musical talent. • By looking primarily in Marx and Fukuyama, I want to develop the idea of capitalism and the division of labour through Weber and Durkheim. • Finally I hope to bring both Music and Philosophy together by looking at Keith Negus and Simon Frith who have both looked at the idea of capitalism in music in an attempt to conclude once and for all whether or not capitalism truly has had a negative effect on the quality and production of music.
Territory: The territory I have considered in this project in order to understand the changing nature of identity is that of advertising in contemporary society. I have explored the history of advertising, the psychology of advertising and some advertising techniques that are used by companies to persuade. Concepts: The key concepts I have engaged with in this project are: – Loss of agency -Fragile nature of identity -Identity given by society -Identity in flux. Key questions I have engaged with are: -How is our identity formed in modern society? -How has it changed over time? -What are the influential factors on identity? -How do advertising agencies target individuals? -What methods do they use?
Territory – Comedy. Object – Offensive Humour. Concepts – Ethics, Liberty, Utilitarianism. Thinkers – Mill, Freud, Bakhtin. The Two Ways In Which Humour Can Be Evaluated: The aesthetical question concerns when it is fitting to laugh at something, and the ethical question, when is it morally wrong to laugh at something. For example if you claim that you should not laugh at sexist jokes, then in the aesthetic sense that means sexist jokes lack the features that something must have in order to be funny. If someone is amused by these jokes, then in this sense there has been an error of judgement, it’s not that they have done anything morally wrong, rather these kind of jokes fail as comedy. The ethical question, on the other hand, identifies something as morally wrong to laugh at. Linked to this is Ronald De Sousa’s account of how humour works. He claims that in order to be amused by something we have to endorse the attitudes of it. To take the previous example, according to him, some of us will find sexist jokes funny whereas others will not, the difference is in whether you support those attitudes. Therefore it would become immoral to be amused by this type of joke since to find it humorous is to be sexist. Main Objective: I intend to make a study into the area of humour, focusing upon looking into ethics surrounding amusement and attempting to find out whether it could ever be morally perverse or wrong to make jokes, or laugh about particular things. Utilitarian Concept: I shall engage with a utilitarian perspective when it comes to discovering whether finding humour in something could ever be morally wrong. Take for example the Dutch cartoon of Mohammed. Clearly this had a lot of negative consequences and upset a lot of people. Quite obviously blasphemous humour can be offensive. However no utilitarian evaluation is complete without looking at all the consequences, and it could be argued that there was some positive outcomes. It got people talking about religious views, and reflection and discussion are beneficial to individuals and society as a whole. A society with more discourse and exchanging of ideas is a happier society than one without. In that sense jokes such as these could be argued to be for the greater good. Change and Contrast: The historical contrast between the role of parody in the Medieval carnival and the limits of parody in modernity. Medieval Carnival: Generalised ethical permission under which parody, that would have amounted to blasphemy on any other occasion, was acceptable, under a particular kind of social occasion. Modern day there are restrictions on parody and what is acceptable or viewed as offensive. Could not conceive permission to create a parody of a war memorial for example.
One of my main sources links Fight Club with an article by Omar Lizardo named ‘Fight Club, or the Cultural Contradictions of Late Capitalism’, which I found in the Journal for Cultural Research. I chose this because it places quite an original perspective in that it is a reaction to arguments that tend to emphasize Fight Clubs relevance for the study of contemporary representations of gender and masculinity. Lizardo argues ‘that Fight Club can be seen as an attempt to deal with the evacuation and exhaustion of the original form of value-rationality from the realm of production in service work. Basically it contemplates whether class-consciousness in the modern capitalist state has left man with a sense of lost virility, and whether or not Fight Club is a reaction to this. I have chosen to link this with Thomas Hobbes’ ‘Leviathan’ which talks of the state of nature and how man gave up his freedom and violent, barbaric ways to conform to civil society under social contract. Sigmund Freud served more as a psychoanalyst and sociologist than a philosopher in this project as I used his work ‘Civilization and its Discontents’ to analyse the possible reasons for the narrator’s breakdown. Many of Freud’s ideas already appear quite blatant and self explanatory in the film, however Freud covers much more material that is not evident at all. I chose to use the film ‘Zeitgeist’ by Peter Joseph as I felt this would be both very interesting material and also would place a very original comparative to Fight Club. I was in complete awe, shock and amazement when I first watched this extremely powerful and scary film and am very passionate about spreading the word about it. It will prove highly relevant to some of the material in Fight Club, and is something that I feel everyone should know about.
Territory: Escapism, our obsession, need for it. What I will use to do this: My mind, Psychology, Fromm, Sociology. We are the only species on this planet that routinely, and necessarily require some form of detachment from our existence. I want to explore this need of ours to escape from the perspective of the protagonist Craig Schwartz in the film ‘Being John Malkovich’. As well as using an individual’s perspective I hope to look at society as a whole, the way it is driven by a mainstream commercialist economy and how this affects our need to subvert our reality from time to time.
From the birth of modernity mans values have been forced into change with the diminishing role of religion in society and the subsequent rising of science and rationality. The object that seems to have become of most importance since the decline of religious beliefs is money. Is there a case then that money has become all that modern society values? Cases of modern day philanthropy, such as those pledges made by famous entrepreneurs Bill Gates and Richard Branson offer an alternative to this view. After the oppressive feudal system governed by the Church, the move onto a capitalist approach was thought of as bringing an otherwise unheard of amount of freedom to the common man. That the individual could now accumulate wealth and use this commodity to raise one’s social standing offered much hope for a liberal future. The modern day philanthropists seems the ideal modern man, whose success in accumulating wealth is then transferred into helping other important social ‘goods’. There is of course criticisms aimed at these capitalist ideals, in this project the works of Marx and Marcuse are of significant interest. Marx is perhaps the most famous opponent of capitalism and his work is used here to describe his idea of money ‘alienating’ man from his fellow man. Marcuse’s ‘1-Dimensional Man’ is a work very critical of those institutions in our advanced industrial society that keep the common man under control. In particular, the mass media and the use of advertising as tools used by modern society to plant ‘false needs’ into the consumer in order to support our ever-increasing rationality. The discussion thus follows whether in modern society there is more to the successful man than wealth. Surely the accumulation of wealth on its own is not something to be admired within a man, instead perhaps it should be that the sharing of wealth is that which we value.
Territory: Graffiti. Object: Graffiti Art. Graffiti as an art movement and global phenomenon, originates in the early 1970’s in New York City. The unique dynamics of the city gave rises to an artistic battleground of expression in a cultural climate of alienation and class divide. As the youth at the heart of American capitalism struggled to gain recognition, the graffiti subculture was born. Using unconventional mediums and the alternative canvas of the urban landscape, graffiti, enveloped the city, the nation and eventually the entire world. Philosophical Concept: Heidegger- The Origin of the work of art. Heidegger’s intent is always to bring us closer to the understanding of Being. Art in its origin, is art; the happening of truth of a people’s historical existence. Great artworks in the current tradition of aesthetics are ripped away from their essential truth when classed as objects to be judged and experienced in pleasure, losing their authenticity and ability to ‘set-up’ a world and ‘set-forth’ the earth. Graffiti’s philosophical relevance: The Truth of Being. Graffiti writing rose out of a particular ‘world’, a horizon of disclosure dominated by capitalist alienation. The struggle of the youths in New York City was a battle of resistance to authority and conformity that led to an artistic battle of expression. In graffiti’s expression, the ‘world’ of the American culture is opened up, the ‘earth’ rips through this ‘world’ in the form of undefined and sublime images of the New York subway trains, taking us out of our everyday world and reminding us of other existing realities. We forget the mysteriousness of truth in its dual essence of aletheia, and the works of the original underground graffiti movement disclose this struggle of world and earth; the truth of Being. It is this struggle that graffiti writers sought to sustain in their works, therefore, graffiti did not originate from art but rather from the truth of a people’s historical existence; the historical truth of being.
The dilemma of whether there is still a place in today’s society is one that still poses a lot of questions, and so I decided to look in more detail at the issue for the basis of my project. I used ‘The Da Vinci Code’ by Dan Brown in order to look at how literature has changed to reflect the decline of religion and faith in society. I realised that due to technological advances, such as developments in medicine, religion and faith have begun to take a backseat in terms of how much influence they still have in people’s lives. Alongside this was the discovery of the fact that religion itself could have changed in that Dan Brown claims that the church itself has been hiding a huge secret: that the Holy Grail is in fact not a chalice as Christians for millions of years have believed, rather it is a woman- Mary Magdalene – and there still exists today the bloodline of Jesus Christ, living descendants. Is it possible that after all this time the Christian faith has been based on a lie? And if that is the case, can it be said that the Christian faith is worth any less? After looking at how religion has changed I moved on to begin to introduce philosophical concepts into my project. I drew on ideas and notions put forward by philosophers Friedrich Nietzsche and Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Friedrich Nietzsche: o He did not believe in the divinity of religion, the idea that religion allowed us access to another dimension of reality. o He claimed that science cast doubt on the comfort of religion. o He believed it was fear, not faith that drove people to religion. o He argued that the Christian conception of God was one of the most corrupt images of God to exist. o God is dead. Fyodor Dostoyevsky: He suggested that people were in search of miracles as opposed to looking for a place for God in their lives. He thought that people believed in God because they desired to, not because they truly believed. He advocated a Christianity in which human redemption and resurrection could occur on earth. Every individual has the ability to choose whether or not to believe in God. Throughout my entire project I have attempted to link religion with society, or alternatively assess how society has changed so much that there now is no place in society for religion. The philosophical concepts I used seemed to suggest a change in faith and religion and this is something that I explored in my project. It is evident that religion has less significance in society, and by religion I am referring to the ‘motions’ of religion, such as going to church. However I discovered that many people still call themselves Christians, and so even though religion has declined there is still faith and belief in God, so this led me to conclude that religion might be declining within society, but there is still evidence of God today.