Categories
2021 Abstracts Stage 3

‘it’ for what ‘it’ is, do Nietzsche and the Buddha say the same things?

Both Buddhism and Nietzsche’s philosophy point in the direction of nothingness. Nietzsche studied Buddhism at a young age due to his training as a classical philologist and it most likely accompanied him throughout his life as one of the cornerstones to his thought alongside his great educator Schopenhauer. Buddhism as a philosophy lacks breadth and depth, unlike Nietzsche who is a far-reaching philosopher writing on many topics in a variety of ways. It is an articulation of the application of emptiness and becoming onto all things in the universe – subtle in its poetic method of reducing many things’ Being to empty becoming. Buddhism is direct yet allusive in its brevity, a feat somewhat lacking in Nietzsche’s numerous aphorisms: there is so much character and enthusiasm in Nietzsche’s many articulations of nothingness and his many affirmations of life, forcing the discussion at hand to demand that portions be ignored, to allow other parts to make sense. So that Nietzsche may compliment Buddhism and Buddhism may compliment Nietzsche, the discussion will dissect Nietzsche’s most pure nihilisms from his array of articulations and applications of nihilism, in order to be able to compare their likeness to one another. The discussion will likewise only have eyes for Madhyamaka interpretations of the Buddha’s doctrine through Nagarjuna. Importantly, Nietzsche and the Buddha will be discussed within the milieu of their contextual origin, which will poke at the purpose of their philosophy: the Buddha’s extinction through nirvana demanded by his Indian peers (post-Brahmanical annihilation), and Nietzsche’s edified affirmations of life, attempting to provide the facilities for all to see ‘it’ for what ‘it’ is, in Europe upon God’s death. This discourse is a deliberately polemical approach to nihilism for the sake of being able to discuss Nietzsche’s selected philosophy and Buddhism mutually, improving ones ability to see where the two agree and disagree at the cost of excessive hyperbole.

Categories
2021 Abstracts Stage 2

How Free Am I to Shape an Identity Through Consumerism?

I will be exploring the relationship between consumerism and identity. I will ask if people are free to create an identity and control the way in which they express themselves under the social order of consumerism. I will argue that rather than being emancipatory, consumerism instead imposes restrictions on people in ways that will be explored in this essay. The main philosophical ideas used to engage with this thesis will be drawn from works of Jean Baudrillard. I will primarily be drawing from Baudrillard’s The Consumer Society and will later incorporate some ideas from his Simulacra and Simulation. Baudrillard’s philosophical analysis of consumerism provokes much thought about identity, and the freedom that we possess to manipulate this identity. These ideas will be fundamental to my argument.

Categories
2021 Abstracts Stage 2

Voices of the Pandemic: Consensus and Conflict in Attitudes towards COVID-19 Restrictions and the relation to the views of Karl Popper and Fredrich Nietzsche.

The recent and ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has shown a clear display of the attitudes and values some of society withhold in response to the restrictions and guidelines put in place to protect the larger community. While there is constant conflict between opinions on these restrictions, one thing that the debate almost always comes back to is the question of freedom and freewill, and whether enforced mandates are a violation of this or a commitment to the greater good regardless of sacrifice. Current events present this question; however, this discussion is not new and has been debated throughout history by many philosophers, but speakers Karl Popper and Fredrich Nietzsche present particularly appealing arguments that can be applied to both the conversation regarding the lack of freewill in this modern pandemic and in the past with reference to morality and religion. Furthermore, the debate of the validity of the proof behind the reasoning for the COVID-19 restrictions is constantly argued, often from two uncompromising parties, one that sides heavily with the scientifically backed restrictions and the other who completely disagrees with the evidence and its validity. The heavily discussed philosophical concepts of rationalism, empiricism and relativism can be applied to this argument to analyse each viewpoint and provide an insight on how philosophers like Popper and Nietzsche would approach the argument based on their philosophical beliefs and views of the above concepts. With this project being heavily based on the differing viewpoints of the community during the pandemic and linking this to different philosophical concepts based in several different fields: rationality, focusing on the subject’s personal beliefs; empiricism, focusing on scientific, verifiable truth; and relativism, focusing on the subjects moral and religious beliefs.