In this project I shall explore the idea of authenticity in the blues, using both the idiomatic definition of ‘authentic’, and martin Heidegger’s theory of authentic and inauthentic existence
As a case study I shall use the career of Huddie ‘lead belly’ Ledbetter and his working relationship with the folklorists John and Alan Lomax
Are the blues authentic?
Is the life of a bluesman?
Can we appreciate the blues in an authentic way today?
The aim of my project is to examine how impossible standards of beauty are being promoted as the ideal within society.
As a result, thousands of women are resorting to the use of cosmetic surgery to try and emulate this ideal.
Women have been banished to the sphere of Otherness, destined to achieve nothing and receive only that which men have been willing to grant.
Simone de Beauvoir argues that women should be liberated from abstract, restrictive essences, like ‘femininity’, which continue to cement women in their subordinate place.
My aim is to explore the question of whether a child can be born purely evil, or whether they can only be made so by adults. I first compared philosopher’s views on the concept of evil whilst also exploring the issue of the age of criminal responsibility in respect to ethics. My territory was the ethical debates behind the treatment of child offenders and debating whether the age of criminal responsibility is correct.
The object I used is the novel and 2011 film We need to talk about Kevin. It is a novel about the relationship between a successful business woman named Eva and her son Kevin, a 16 year old boy who kills seven fellow students at school. The novel tackles the issue of nature vs nurture, asking whether a child can be predisposed to being ‘evil’ and with the intent to kill, or whether a parent’s shortcomings can shape their child and potentially lead them to evil actions.
I looked at the idea of responsibility, both moral and legal, and whether the age of responsibility is ethically sound or not. The fact that the defence of infancy age differs widely from country to country, from as high as 18 in Columbia, to no defence of age at all in Saudi Arabia. suggests that the law is highly debatable.
I looked primarily at the ethics concepts of Kant and Hobbes, comparing Hobbesian ethics laid down in his Leviathan, and Kant’s deontological ethical views with the Groundwork of the metaphysic of morals. I chose to look at Kantian ethics because of his strong claim that one is only responsible for what is under one’s control. Additionally, Hobbes has strong ethical views on authority, which can be linked with the idea of a parental control and also with the age of legal responsibility. Hobbes and Kant both also hold strong different views on why we obey laws in the first place, along with views on freewill and determinism, which ties in with the nature vs. nurture debate.
The Advertising of Honda – Popular and life-affirming, but is it just a capitalist front designed purely for selling and promoting the spectacle?
Popular and life-affirming, but is it just a capitalist front designed purely for selling and promoting the spectacle?
The Society of the Spectacle (Guy Debord) – claims our society is dominated by the spectacle (TV for e.g.) but is it too cynical?
‘The Power of Dreams’ or ‘the glitter of the spectacle’s distractions’? Through this project, I aim to examine the theory Guy Debord asserts in his The Society of the Spectacle in detail, in order to discuss the relevance of a Debordian analysis with relation to Honda’s advertising.
Aims
– To outline the key philosophical, social and legal theories which are integral to the debate about the legalisation of drugs.
– To consider some of the most salient and persuasive cases for the legalisation of drugs, including:
o Medicinal cannabis use
o Spiritual or religious drug use
– To make recommendations for changes to the extant legal and social policies with regard to certain types of illegal drug use.
“In our societies, the systems of punishment are to be situated in a certain ‘political economy’ of the body […] it is always the body that is at issue – the body and its forces, their utility and docility, their distribution and their submission.” (Foucault)
The War on Drugs
Key Thinkers
– John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
– Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish
Chairman Mao
Mao Zedong (1893 – 1976) is the focal dictator within my project. He ruled over the People’s Republic of China for nearly 30 years and in that time is said to have caused the deaths of 5070 million people. However he is still seen by many of China’s people as one of their great leaders.
His doctrine of Maoism refers to Mao’s belief in the mobilization of the masses, particularly in large-scale political movements. This ideology was projected during the Cultural Revolution whereby Mao retained his position of absolute power after giving it up, due to the downfall of his Great Leap Forward initiative.
Methodology
This project was a brief insight into the systems of government around the world, the main focal point being, of course, Dictatorships. It delves into the concepts of power, justice and equality. I feel that my project contains importance for everyone as it delves into concepts that have had direct or indirect effects on all of us, due to politics and government that has an effect on all of our lives in some respect.
Dictators also have profound effects on people, some positive but mostly negative, and the project will outline what it is that moves individuals into something outside of basic human morals.
Philosophers
I have of course looked at the major works of Machiavelli The Prince as well as Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan. I have discussed that both hold the same ideal – that there should be a single seat of absolute power within a society – but are at differences as to how said single individual should project their power.
I have also looked at the work of John Locke on the notion of freedom in the sense of natural rights, such as property. With reference to John Stuart Mill and his utilitarian view on freedom, as well as justice.
There is also a small view into John Rawls, David Hume and Aristotle on this issue, as they are all philosophers who speak in depth on the topic of a ‘Rule of One’ and the concepts that are addressed in the project.
Aim: To discuss the relevance of the music festival as an arena for transgression and excess, and as an escape from the constraints of society. Using a variety of music festivals from past and present to construct a coherent argument.
Discussion: It is felt that music festivals provide a much needed release from the strains and pressures of society; one is permitted a degree of excess within a shared environment. The use of drugs and alcohol during a festival is representative of the need to cast off one’s inhibitions and to partake in unrestrained celebration. However, the music festival is still influenced by social rules and regulations. It is a temporary letting-loose, and therefore may be regarded as another form of social constraint.
Philosophy: – Freud; Civilisation and its Discontents, Totem and Taboo – Bataille; Inner Experience – Hegel; Elements of the Philosophy of Right, The Phenomenology of Mind
“Long may the expression of free-thinking people reign over this land!” -Michael Eavis
HEGEL’S SITTLICHKEIT:
Using Hegel’s Philosophy of Right and Philosophy of Mind, I have established the theory of Sittlichkeit and the State. The Sittlichkeit is the moral fabric of a society, founded on the historical development of social norms. Within a state, it is the basis of personal and societal morality. If we look at the student experience, it could be seen as part of modern society’s Sittlichkeit, a social norm in itself based around mutual interests and community.
MY OBJECT:
The student experience: excessive drinking, late nights, unhealthy food, promiscuity.
BATAILLE’S NON-PRODUCTIVE EXPENDITURE:
We have urges for sacrifice and ritual not supported by society. Bataille says we must release these need through non-productive expenditure, concerned only with destruction and sacrifice. Bataille’s general economy is this cycle of production and destruction: both equally necessary. Applied to the student lifestyle, excessive behaviours are nothing more than a release of these urges through action for its own sake: non-productive.
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF MUSIC FESTIVALS IN RELATION TO: BATAILLE’S NOTION OF FESTIVITY, MICHAEL KELLEY AND MICHAEL SMITH’S A VOYAGE OF GROWTH AND DISCOVERY, AND NIETZCHE’S DUALISTIC COMPONENTS OF ATTIC TRAGEDY.
BATAILLE
Notion of festival: general and restricted economy, non-productive expenditure, taboo and transgression, sacrifice, the sacred and profane, and joy before death…
CONTEMPORARY MUSIC FESTIVALS
The Burning Man…
A VOYAGE OF GROWTH AND DISCOVERY
Smith and Kelley’s artistic interpretation of carnivalism…
NIETZSCHE
Apollonian and Dionysian: Greek Attic tragedy and Wagner…
The discussion of this paper will be centred on the object of art with reference to beauty. We know that beauty has played a vital role in the lives of humans for thousands of years, we seek it in natural and man-made objects, and we crave it. So, why is our art turning towards what we would generally consider to be ‘ugly’ aspects within our modern culture?
This project will focus on the following main questions;
What do we mean when we call a work of art ‘beautiful’?
Does art have to be beautiful?
Has beauty been lost to the modern world?
Has the understanding of what is beautiful changed in the modern world?
Can beauty still be found?
We will be discussing the position held by Roger Scruton, who asserts the purpose of art is to provide the spectator with a sense of comfort, however, he states this rationale has been consequently lost to modern art as the artist is no longer concerned with technique or skill and instead focuses on self expression. We shall consider the views of Arthur Danto, who claims since the Brillo Box exhibition, art has become a purely philosophical endeavour. Our discussion will finally lead us to the views of Hans-Georg Gadamer who is unafraid to admit that there is an inevitable ‘gap’ between what we classify as traditional art and what we see as modern art, however, he sees philosophy as being able to bridge this gap. We will also look to his concept of ‘play’, ‘symbol’ and ‘festival’ which primarily allow for an object to be regarded as art.
To determine whether or not drum and bass is a legitimate art form I have looked at the publications of four men; two philosophers and two artists.
Schopenhaur – Music is a representation of the will. Good music accurately depicts the will.
Adorno – music is good insofar as it is innovative and revolts against the bourgeoisie culture industry.
Goldie – Don’t think about art just enjoy it!
Wilde – Art Is good insofar as it is beautiful – as simple as that.
Background:
In August 2011, England experienced its ‘most serious bout of civil unrest in a generation’, for most the riots were a clear indication of the deepening problem of broken Britain. The majority of people could not understand and were left deeply bewildered at the shocking behaviour exhibited and total disregard shown for the law, 59% were unemployed and 50% were under 18.
Aims:
– In this project one of my fundamental aims is to assess whether the motives behind the riots were legitimate or as David Cameron described acts of ‘mindless criminality’
– Did the participants wish to change the political system? Were they just fed up of being ignored? Or did people just follow the masses and joined in because everybody else was like a ‘domino effect’
– I will also research the validity of rioting itself and distinguish between violent and non-violent protest and research whether non-violent protest can significantly change a system or is just witnessed and ignored.
Thinkers:
Thomas Hobbes- Concentrates on the individual’s pleasure. However emphasised the importance of a state, as there would be anarchy without one.
John Stuart Mill- Uses Utilitarianism as a foundation (pleasing the majority) Also focused on the individual, pleasure alone motivates us
Thomas Aquinas- Just War theory ‘last resort’, has to be appropriate motives
Emile Durkheim- Sociologist witnessed social disunity. Offered theory of Social Integration.
Objective/Territory – In relation to the experience on an executioner, I wish to map our conventional views of human responsibility and the sanctity of life, and question whether they can exist rationally in our contemporary world. From this, I shall be assessing the role of an executioner and exploring the state of mind required to perform such a difficult and controversial job. In doing so, I shall be questioning how anyone, even in 21st century society, can so willingly take the life of another human being. What are the consequences of such a job?
Sources – To achieve this, I shall be looking at Kant’s Moral Theory, and looking at the concepts of duty and universalisation and asking whether they can be achieved through the experience of an executioner. Moreover, I shall be using Hegel’s philosophy, particularly to his concern with human intention and responsibility and questioning whether an executioner should be solely responsible for the killing of life. Additionally, I shall be exploring the Utilitarian position, which Mill shall be representing, to consider if welfare is achieved in society through the performance of an executioner.
‘Animals obviously cannot have a right of free speech or a right to vote because they lack the relevant capacities. But their right to life and to be free of exploitation is no less fundamental than the corresponding right of humans.’ – Julian H. Franklin
In this project I have looked back through the history of animal rights and the way in which the consideration for them is evidently growing. Will this care for the animals ever grow until their rights become equal to ours? Descartes believed that animals were merely muscular machines, unable to feel pain due to the fact that they were lacking in mind and soul. Bentham began the fight for animal rights in the 1800’s. Today, vivisection continues…
‘Speciesism’ – The argument for putting the rights of humans over those of animals – Peter Singer.
‘How we ought to treat animals depends first of all on the relationship we have with them… There is our relation with pets, who are promoted to honorary membership of the moral community. They are an exception, in a sense a perversion, and a temptation too. There is our relation with animals that we keep for our uses, where we have a clear duty of care but we are not trying to establish quasi-personal relations. Then finally there is our relation with animals in the wild. My argument is that we have duties to animals in all these three areas but they are of a different kind depending on the structure of the relationship.’- Roger Scruton
My project was an examination of Comic Books and Graphic Novels and whether or not they can be used to give us Ethical and Moral Direction in our lives. I focused on the Comic Books Kick Ass by Mark Millar and John Romita Jr. and also on V for Vendetta by Alan Moore and David Lloyd. I looked at the Ethical Philosophy of John Stuart Mill, looking at his Utilitarian theory from his Book titled Utilitarianism, Immanuel Kant and his theory from Groundwork for the metaphysics of Morals and also Thomas Hobbes’s theory seen in the Leviathan. I also looked at the Aesthetic Theory of Arthur Schopenhauer. I applied the Philosophy to the actions portrayed in the comic books to see if there was any ethical guidance to be taken from the comic books. Also looking at the Comics as works of art to see if there is any element of Aesthetic pleasure to be gained from them.
Madness is instantly an attractive subject to investigate because of the alien nature of ‘mad’ behaviour to the ‘sane’ majority. In investigating something so mysterious the line of enquiry I am following is not political or ethical, as I am not intending to investigate the ethical considerations when it comes to confinement or treatment of the mentally ill. Although ethics surrounding the treatment of the mentally ill would no doubt be fascinating, it has been talked about throughout history and well documented. It is easy to question what is right and wrong in the treatment of the mentally ill however what I think is more important and interesting is the nature of madness, what it is and where it comes from. Although it has been long discussed there has been no definite conclusions as to what defines madness, whether it be nature, nurture or something else. It is therefore my task to investigate madness in this manner as it interests me most, and it will, in my opinion, offer a more worthwhile conclusion.
As I previously stated I am going to discuss madness in reference to Michel Foucault and Sigmund Freud. Foucault’s Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason will be my main focus but I will also use his work The Order of Things: An Archaeology of The Human Sciences and The Archaeology of Knowledge. In discussing Freud I will primarily reference The Ego and the Id and Civilization and Its Discontents. Throughout Madness and Civilization Foucault describes what society perceived to be ‘mad’ at certain points in history and how the ‘mad’ have been treated. He works from the Middle Ages up to the his present day (Madness and Civilization was published in 1961.) Foucault sees psychoanalysis to be the most modern method of treatment and the new medical approach that deals with attempting to find a cure for madness. Psychoanalysis is a Freudian method of psychological treatment and Foucault deals with Freud’s teachings to a certain extent. In analysing Foucault I will discuss what he claims modern society’s perception of the essence of madness to be. I will contrast these claims with those of Freud. Freud’s claims are of a scientific nature whereas Foucault’s point to a changing social discourse and therefore changing opinions of madness. I will argue that Freud’s argument is currently relevant and grounded in relatively logical thought that makes sense in our current method of thinking in the western world. Foucault’s arguments undermine the whole nature of the way the human sciences operate and that because of certain assumptions made upon apparent scientific truths, social discourse is affected. Considering this I will argue that Freud’s argument is the most useful as far as a timely and useful definition is concerned but Foucault’s argument attempts to invalidate human sciences and brings Freud’s ideas into question but does not supply a useful definition of madness and is largely a bitter critique of psychiatry.
CONCEPT: The mind behind serial murder and the influence of mental illness on our judgement of correct punishment.
PHILOSOPHY: Mill’s Utilitarianism and Mill’s Speech in Favour of Capital Punishment; exploring contradictions, claims of morality and the influence of human nature.
SOURCES: newspaper reports, true story based films along with texts on Capital Punishment by Hodgkinson and Schabas and secondary texts on utilitarianism such as Utilitarian ethics by A. Quinton.
It was the relationship between mental illness and crimes of murder that first inspired my investigation into the punishment of a serial killer. I began to question what evidence of mental illness meant for the responsibility of the crime and how the law ought to respond to this. My initial intuition is that regardless of this, murder rates MUST be reduced, and so the introduction of a harsher punishment is necessary. Although, I am aware this causes problems when bringing up any causes that may have influenced the murder.
My aim is to use various reactions to the controversial issue of the death penalty to construct whether it is right to make judgements and decisions based purely on the ‘utility’ of the outcome.
Our reasons for and against capital punishment may not have an outcome of utility in mind but purely ‘what is right’. As well as the mental state of the criminal, many of us cannot but care for the right to life of the criminal, even for he who commits the worst crime imagin
What is beauty in today’s society? Beauty should not be based purely on physical attributes. Essentially, my project argues that the media is wrong for constantly portraying unattainable body images of young men and women. The media persistently tells us what we should wear, how we should look, what size we should be; giving us a normative dimension that is not beauty as a fact, but as a value; something we want it to be.
We need to set ourselves free from the media’s conception of beauty and perfection. We need to use our philosophy to understand and discover what beauty really is; for it is more than what we presented in the media. If we disregard the media’s perfectionist views on beauty, we will be happier. A better understanding of what beauty is can liberate us from the obligation to look ‘perfect’. In the same way that when I do not believe in God, the Priest ceases to have power over me; when I do not believe in the media’s representation of beauty, the images cease to have power over me.
I aim to conclude my project firstly by agreeing that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I certainly agree that beauty can be many different things to many different people. I shall use Plato, Kant and Hume to support my view.
How far can we know ‘truth’ From artistic works? Comparing Nietzsche’s thought that we are living in delusion with Ayn Rand’s bitter Objectivism. Can we know and reflect an external reality through painting? Using Nietzsche’s ‘On Truth and Lies in a non-moral sense’ and Rand’s ‘The Romantic Manifesto’. In essence, we cannot attain rigid truth, but there are degrees of truth which we can have access to through our senses, even if delusional, these hold some consistencies. With Euclidean geometry, traditional versus modern art, Adorno, and quantum art…
This project was an exploration into the effect of WikiLeaks on our society, weighing up the benefits and disadvantages in order to come to a rational conclusion about the function of WikiLeaks and how freedom of speech and expression can be justifiably curtailed by the government. The philosophers I included were John Stuart Mill, I looked at his work in On Liberty surrounding his argument for freedom of expression regulated by the Harm Principle and also Immanuel Kant’s work in Critique of Pure Reason, where he gives his argument for the existence of the public sphere of discussion and just how important this is to society. Both advocate free speech in society, however both also give justifiable reasons for limiting it some extent. Mill gives a consequentialist theory based upon his Utilitarianism and Kant gives a duty based response.
I also looked at what different types of speech should be regulated, i.e. hate speech, controversial political parties such as the BNP and the benefits we experience through giving these extremists a platform of free speech. To give a comparison between the restrictions we face here in the UK I looked at Chinese censorship and how the dictatorial regime interferes in every aspect of Chinese open discussion, to remind us that this is not what we want to slide into.
Philosophers
– John Stuart Mill
– Immanuel Kant
Main Points
– Freedom of speech – to what extent do we have this right? If at all, when can this be rightfully curtailed? Why is it so important to protect?
– Freedom of media and press – censorship, Wikileaks’ effect on society
– Government control and interference – why should the government be allowed to control our access to information? What are the benefits of a limited government with free sphere for expression?