The past few days I’ve been feeling my mind getting mouldy, and so its time to take out the duster and clear the clutter a little, so I may set the mechanism in motion again.

I would like to contest a point made in this blog, that:

“All we need is to believe that good and evil exist. Where it comes from — from reason, from God, from self-interest — does not matter. It is enough to believe that good and evil exist. If we do, then that alone gives us enough — necessary! — reason to live. That is our purpose. That is the meaning of life — that we live because we must fulfill our moral duties and obligations.“

I beg to differ. But before I ramble on, you may want to read his reasoned argument here so that we are on the same page.

For those who would rather get a condensed version, I shall summarize his argument thus:

It is hard to find the meaning of life. Can we approach the problem from another direction by asking instead “is there a necessary reason for you to live?”

If morality exists, there exists a necessity for you to do good instead of bad. As “you need to be alive to obey the demands of morality”, morality demands your existence. “You have therefore a moral duty to live and it comes from the fact that your living is a prerequisite to almost all the things that morality demands of you.”

“There is reason to live. You must live. If you do not, you cannot bring a smile to another’s face. If you do not, you cannot inspire others. If you do not, you cannot help a person in need. Do you believe these are things that you should do, because they are morally required of you? Then you must live. And you must always live knowing that the reason you live is for the moral good.“

I beg to differ, because I do not live for the necessity of doing good, and I am surprised at how he has constructed the argument such that upholding morality justifies existence. Such that without morality, and without God, life ceases to have reason.

Morality, as far as I know, is a burden on living life. Rousseau had it right when he said that “Man is born free, and is everywhere in chains”. The codes of conduct of society, law, and personal morality restrict the liberty of an individual to experience life to its fullest. Life has its own reasons, being moral limits its potential.

I guess I’ll have to explain what I believe is the meaning of life, in order to justify my words. I believe that everyone comes up with their own meaning of life, that there is no common meaning of life for everyone. Mine is simple, I live to delight in the world. I live for the taste of yellow nectarines, for the sight of piercing blue of dawn, for the patter of rain, for the warmth of a fire. And yet it is not purely sensual pleasure – I live for the half-world I conjure from the dry pages of a book, I live to leap from word to word on a well written poem, I live to deconstruct obscure texts into pure, clear meaning. And I live also, to create, to weave stories from emotion and fragments of thought, to touch someone to tears. Writing is cruel, I seek not to bring a smile to people’s lips, but to wrench their hearts so hard they need to wring dry their tears with racking sobs.

So there you have it, I live for sensory pleasure, for intellectual pleasure, for the pleasure that creating things give me. It has nothing to do with moral duty to do good. I do not live to help a person in need – you could almost say I am quite selfish and self-centered in my reasons for living. Who isn’t? Even a social worker lives for the pleasure that helping others gives him, he does not live for the obligation of being moral by helping others. Take for example a person who hates helping others, although he believes that helping others is good. Will he live in order to help others, or will he rather kill himself instead, if that’s all the choice life gives him?

There is, however, a possibility that I might have mis-read the author of the post. It all hinges on the definitions of good and evil, which is not made clear in the argument. How far am I able to stretch the definition of good/evil/moral?

If I am able to define “good” as that which is pleasurable, and “bad” as that which is not, I feel there might be a compromise between our two distinct arguments for the meaning of life.

Honestly though, I do not see a “duty” to do good, even if doing good means to do things that are pleasurable. It is hard for me to conceive of the meaning of life as a duty to do good.

It will be interesting to see a comment on my point of view from the original author of the post, as I still believe that his breadth of knowledge and grasp of logic is better than mine. I have kept my promise though, yet intellectual debate is something that I cannot resist, hence this chunky post.

Aquí os presento una agenda de acontecimientos para el próximo año, en el que todos los amantes de Lost esperamos que nos entusiasmen con el final de la serie.

17 de enero 2010. 41º cumpleaños de Naveen Andrews (Sayid)

2 de febrero 2010. Emisión capítulo 1 y 2, season 6. “La X” (Multicéntrico)

9 de febrero 2010. Emisión capítulo 3, season 6. “What Kate Does”/”Lo que hace Kate”

2 de marzo 2010. Emisión capítulo 4, season 6. “The Sustitute”/”El sustituto” (Locke)

9 de marzo 2010. Emisión capítulo 5, season 6. “Lighthouse”/”Faro” (Jack)

16 de marzo 2010. Emisión capítulo 6, season 6. “Sundown”/”Puesta de sol” (Sun y Jin)

23 de marzo 2010. Emisión capítulo 7, season 6. “Dr. Linus” (Ben)

27 de marzo 2010. 40º cumpleaños de Elizabeth Mitchell (Juliet)

30 de marzo 2010. Emisión capítulo 8, season 6. “Recon”/”Nueva estafa” (Sawyer)

17 de abril 2010. 43º cumpleaños de Henry Ian Cusick (Desmond)

28 de abril 2010. 37º cumpleaños de Jorge García (Hugo)

7 de mayo 2010. 63º cumpleaños de Alan Dale (Widmore)

25 de mayo 2010. 5 años desde el final de la emisión de la primera temporada en la ABC

6 de junio 2010. 36º cumpleaños de Sonya Walger (Penny)

14 de julio 2010. 44º cumpleaños de Matthew Fox (Jack)

15 de julio 2010. 58º cumpleaños de Terry O’Quinn (Locke)

20 de julio 2010. 41º cumpleaños de Josh Holloway (Sawyer)

3 de agosto 2010. 31º cumpleaños de Evangeline Lilly (Kate)

4 de agosto 2010. 42º cumpleaños de Daniel Dae Kim (Jin)

7 de septiembre 2010. 56º cumpleaños de Michael Emerson (Ben)/ 55º cumpleaños de Mira Furlan (Rousseau)

22 de septiembre 2010. Se cumplen 6 años de la emisión del capítulo piloto en la ABC

8 de octubre 2010. 41º cumpleaños de Jeremy Davies (Faraday)

7 de noviembre 2010. 37º cumpleaños de Yunjin Kim(Sun)

1 de diciembre 2010. 42º cumpleaños de Néstor Carbonell (Richard)

8 de diciembre 2010. 33º cumpleaños de Dominic Monaghan (Charlie)

27 de diciembre 2010. 28º cumpleaños de Emilie de Ravin (Claire)

Aquí tenemos una promo de la próxima temporada:

Intentaré ser breve este domingo y ofrezco mi mensaje de hoy a todo aquél que, por lo menos una vez en la vida, se haya sentido superior a otra persona en alguna capacidad o situación, para aquél que alguna vez ha estado hablando con alguien y sólo piensa: “¡qué tío tan tonto!” ¿No os ha pasado alguna vez?

Prometí ser breve y en mi próxima entrada hablaré sobre los principales postulados del igualitarismo y cómo combatirlos: sé que me leen muchos universitarios así que os recomiendo imprimir estas cosas o memorizarlo para poder hacer frente a todas las teorías de la progresía. No podemos escatimar ni un sólo momento – cuando se abra la oportundiad, hay que conocer bien al enemigo de la libertad, con sus doctrinas de igualitarismo falso. Nosotros, los de tradición liberal española, tenemos todas las ventajas, pues contamos normalmente con más formación y documentación que las turbas abertzales y comunistas de las universidades.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)nació y murió en la antigua ciudad prusiana de Königsberg. Procedía de una familia modesta y de arraigada profesión de fé cristiana. Echó fama de persona metódica y ordenada. A pesar de nunca haber salido de su ciudad natal y sus alrededores, el suyo fue un espíritu cosmopolita y siempre estuvo al tanto de lo que pasaba en el mundo a través de periódicos y libros. La extensión e intensidad de sus conocimientos fueron estimuladas por la penuria económica y el agobio del pluriempleo, que le obligaban a profesar casi la totalidad de las materias de las Facultades de Filosofía de la época. Comprendían las ciencias empíricas -tanto naturales (física, química o geografía) como humanas (historia, filología, antropología) y las “ciencias puras”, como la matemática pura y la filosofía pura, ésta a su vez dividida en dos grandes apartados (la metafísica de la naturaleza y la metafísica de las costumbres) que acabarían vertebrando la propia obra de Kant.

Kant adquirió una cierta familiaridad con la tradición de la metafísica racionalista, de inspiración remotamente leibniziana, sistematizada por Christian Wolff. Éste sostenía que todos los entes que componen la realidad han de ser posibles (es decir, no contradictorios) y existen en virtud de una razón suficiente, de suerte que estos dos principios se bastarían para explicar todo cuanto hay. Un armonismo éste del que ayudarían a salir a Kant el empirismo antimetafísico de Hume y el radicalismo político de Rousseau.

En lo que se refiere a Hume, y por más que Kant no vacile en atribuirle la hazaña de haberle despertado del “sueño dogmático”, la deuda precisa matizaciones. No está claro que el empirismo constituya la teoría del conocimiento más adecuada para satisfacer las necesidades del pensamiento científico, como la de dar cuenta, por ejemplo, del funcionamiento del principio de causalidad. Cuando la priedra lanzada por un muchacho rompe el cristal de una ventana, lo único que empíricamente percibimos es una sucesión de hechos -lanzamiento y rotura- pero no así el nexo causal entre uno y otro, que sería absurdo reducir a la simple secuencia temporal de nuestras percepciones (nadie diría, pongamos por caso, que la undécima campanada del reloj sea la causa de la duodécima cuando oímos dar la hora al mediodía). Frente a la pretensión empirista de que no hay nada en el entendimiento que no se halle con antelación en los sentidos (nihil est in intellectu quod prius non fuerit in sensu) un Leibniz habría respondido que ciertamente no lo hay… salvo el entendimiento mismo (nisi intellectu ipse). Si Hume despertó a Kant del sueño dogmático, fue Leibniz quien le previno de incurrir en el sueño escéptico y abandonarse a la tentación de renunciar a cualquier esfuerzo por ir más allá de lo empíricamente dado, con la funesta consecuencia de impedir al sujeto cognoscente la posibilidad de contribuir activamente a la organización intelectual del conocimiento científico en lugar de someterse pasivamente a los rudos y crudos datos suministrados por los objetos conocidos de conformidad con los cánones empiristas.

La “revolución” filosófica de Kant divide en dos la historia entera de la filosofía. Descontando el difuso precedente del humanismo renacentista, la reivindicación del protagonismo del sujeto en la filosofía moderna se remonta a Descartes, pero la de Kant es más sobria y sofisticada que la cartesiana. El sujeto del que habla Kant no es el “yo substancial” de la metafísica racionalista inaugurada con Descartes y que vendría a ser para el criticismo incognoscible, pues no hay manera de confirmar su existencia (Kant reservará para esa supuesta substancia -la res cogitans del cogito, ergo sum- la denominación de sujeto metafísico o “yo nouménico”), pero dicho sujeto tampoco se reduce a inconexas percepciones de sí, como lo quería el empirismo antimetafísico de humeano, pues el yo de “yo pienso” o cogito habrá de acompañar a todo acto de conocimiento, un sujeto que oficiaría como “la condición de posibilidad” de cualesquiera objetos o hechos en cuanto conocidos (recibirá en la jerga kantiana el nombre de sujeto o “yo trascendental”, con lo que el criticismo kantiano pasará a ser llamado trascendentalismo).

De la deuda de Kant para con Rousseau, reconocería deberle poco menos que su “sentido de la humanidad”, obnubilado con frecuencia en los filósofos por un pedante intelectualismo, y consideraba a Rousseau “el Newton del mundo moral”, en el que él mismo había sido introducido de su mano. Cabría decir ahora, que el lugar central ocupado por el sujeto (el sujeto moral y no ya el tracendente) se traduce en la “autonomía” de su legislación moral o su moralidad, la cual el hombre se impone a sí mismo libremente en lugar de esperar a que le venga heterogéneamente impuesta desde fuera. La huella de Rousseau en Kant-más que la de ningún otro ilustrado, cosa que aquél sólo lo fue muy matizadamente- se dejará apreciar con fuerza en el texto Contestación a la pregunta: ¿Qué es la Ilustración? de 1784, donde Kant aventura una famosa caracterización de esta última:

Ilustración significa el abandono por parte del hombre de una minoría de edad de la que él mismo es culpable. Esta minoría de edad significa la incapacidad para servirse de su entendimiento sin verse guiado por algún otro. Y uno mismo es el culpable de dicha minoría de edad cuando su causa no reside en la falta de entendimiento, sino en la falta de valor y de resolución para servirse del suyo propio sin la guía de algún otro. Sapere aude! ¡Ten el valor de servirte de tu propio entendimiento! Tal es el lema de la Ilustración.

“No history of psychology is complete without a look at Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He

has influenced education to the present day, philosophy (Kant, Schopenhauer…), political theory (the French Revolution, Karl Marx…), and he inspired the Romantic Movement in Philosophy, which in turn influenced all these things, and psychology, once again.

Plus, he’s one of the most colorful characters we have and, as an added bonus, he has left a particularly revealing autobiography in The Confessions.

He was born in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1712 to  the watchmaker Isaac Rousseau and his wife Suzanne Bernard Rousseau.  Athough a Calvinist, Isaac was also a bit unstable, and left his wife and first son, returned to father Jean-Jacques, then left again.  His mother died one week after Jean-Jacques was born, and he was raised by an aunt and uncle.

They sent him off to boarding school in the country where, he says, he learned “all the insignificant trash that has obtained the name of education.”  The experience did, however, serve as the start of his love-affair with rural life.

At twelve years old, he returned to his aunt and uncle.  There apprenticed to a watchmaker, he developed two other personal qualities:  The constant beatings from his master (as well as at school) led him to lying and idleness;  and adolescence led him to develop a rather bizarre romantic streak.  He would spend much of his life falling in love.

At sixteen, he ran away from home with no money nor possessions.  A priest led him to baroness Mme de Warens, a 29 year old beauty who apparently had a soft spot for losers and potential converts.  Her influence led him to convert to Catholicism, though he was not yet ready to give up his exhibitionism nor his desire to be spanked by lovely ladies.  He entered a seminary in 1729, but was promptly dismissed.  He eventually developed an on-again, off-again physical relationship with the lovely Mme Warens.

In the mean time, he walked all over the countryside, often long distances.  He loved the woods, mountains, and nature itself.  He served as an occasional tutor and music teacher, but spent much of his time reading Enlightenment authors.  Voltaire’s work turned him to a Nature worship quite congenial to his personality.

In 1742, when he was 30 years old, he left for Paris.  He quickly befriended the political writer Diderot , who managed to help him get a job as a secretary at the French Embassy in Venice.  He was dismissed because of his insolent nature.

In 1746 he met and fell in love with Therese Levasseur, a simple-minded laundress and seamstress.  They together had four children, all of whom were send to orphanages.  Keep in mind that that was a common response to poverty in those days (i.e. from the fall of Rome to World War II!).  He did feel considerable remorse about it later, but admitted that he would have made a really lousy father!  No one doubts him on that.

He worked as a secretary to various aristocrats and spent quite some time composing music.  He even rewrote an operetta by Voltaire and wrote to him.  A literary contest with a monetary prize caught his attention and, in 1750, he won with Discours sur les arts et les sciences — a powerful attack on civilization.

This was the first time we see his ideas about the natural goodness of man.  And although we think of him as an Enlightenment thinker, this thesis was actually anti-Enlightenment, anti-philosophy, anti-reason, anti-Voltaire, and even anti-printing press!  The good life, he was saying, is the simple life of the peasants.  This conception of “back to nature” involved, of course, a romanticized notion of nature, and stands in stark contrast to the nature of jungles and deserts!

1752 was another active year.  He wrote his comedy Narcisse.  His operetta Le devin du village was successfully presented to the King.  Unfortunately, his illness — he suffered from a variety of painful and humiliating bladder problems — kept him from meeting the King, and he forfeited a pension.

In 1753, another competition was announced.  Rousseau’s entry, Discourse sur l’origine et les fondements de l’inegalite parmi les hommes, won and was published two years later.

In this piece, he accepted biological inequalities, but argued that there were no natural basis for any other inequalities — economic, political, social, or moral!  These, he said, were basically due to the existence of private property and the need to defend it with force.  Man is good, he argued, but society, which is little more than the reification of greed, corrupts us all.

He admits that it is no longer possible for us to leave civilized society now.  It has, in fact, become a part of our nature!  The best we can do is to lead simpler lives with fewer luxuries with the simple morality of the gospels to guide us.

In his article on economics for the Encyclopedia, he suggest that it would help if we had a graduated income tax, a tax on luxuries (and none on necessities), and national free public education.

In 1756, he moved with Therese and her elderly mother into “the Hermitage,” a cottage lent to him by Mme d’Épinay.  There he wrote a novel (or “romance”) called Julie, ou la nouvelle Heloise, referring to the Heloise of Heloise and Abelard fame.  It became perhaps the most famous novel of the 1700s.

On the other side, he alienated his friends with unpleasant letters and his rudeness towards his benefactress Mme D’Epinay.  Even his oldest friend, Diderot, called him mad.  In a huff, he left the Hermitage.

In 1762, Rousseau published both Émile and The Social Contract.  The first line of The Social Contract is the most famous:  “Man is born free, and he is everywhere in chains.”  The purpose of the rest of the book was to describe a society that would instead preserve that freedom.

“The social contract” is an admittedly mythological contract among individuals to surrender some of their freedoms to ensure a community which respects the individual and, thereby, preserves as much freedom as possible.  This idea, combined with Locke’s thoughts on government, were to inspire the founding fathers of the new United States.

It should be noted, though, that at the end of the book, Rousseau does prescribe death as the punishment for anyone who, by their actions, shows that they do not hold the common values of the community!  The French Revolution would show more clearly than the American what a double-edged sword a philosophy such as Rousseau’s can be!

Émile was far more sedate.  It is a treatise on child-rearing, from the man who sent his four children to orphanages!  Turns out, though, he had some pretty good advice.

He condemned all forms of education that use force.  Instead, he promoted education that nurtured the natural unfolding of a child’s potentials.  This in a time when it was thought that if you didn’t beat children regularly with a good sized stick, they would grow up spoiled!  And Nature, he said, is to be the child’s primary teacher, with freedom to explore the major teaching method.

Basically, he says, the child learns by gradual adaptation to necessities, and by imitation of those around him.  Education should be primarily moral until the child is twelve, when intellectual education begins.  Religious education should be held off until the child is 18.  This way, the child can develop reasonable religious beliefs, rather than unthinking acceptance of mythology and miracles.

The book is beautifully written, but many would say almost naively idealistic.  It would be a great influence in Europe and later in the United States.  Maria Montessori in Italy, for example, based many of her ideas on Rousseau, as did John Dewey in the US.  What we now call progressive education and learning by doing come basically from Émile!

The great philosophers of his time laughed at him — but the clergy was outraged!  Rousseau’s friends warned him and encouraged him to flee.  In 1762, the French parlement ordered all copies of Emile confiscated and burned.  Rousseau fled to Switzerland, only to have both his books burned in Calvinist Geneva.

He begged Frederic the Great for asylum in Neuchâtel.  There he lived, more eccentric than ever.  And yet he was the idol of women everywhere, and his publishers begged him for more.  He gave them more, primarily in the form of essays or letters to his critics.

But the local ministers in Neuchâtel were also upset about his writings, and a local sermon led to an attack on Rousseau’s house.  He and Therese moved again, to a lone cottage on a tiny island in a lake in Switzerland.  But he was again ordered to leave, which he did, first to Strasbourg, then to England at the invitation of David Hume in 1766.

At first in London he was the talk of the town, and everyone wanted to meet him.  But he tired of this quickly and asked Hume to find him a place in the country.  There, Rousseau, Therese, and their dog Sultan put quite a strain on their hosts’ hospitality.

Rousseau began to read critical articles in the British press.  Already rather paranoid, he responded to them as if there were a conspiracy against him, and even accused Hume of being a part of it.  He and Therese “escaped” from England back to France.

Although technically still in danger of arrest in France, he nevertheless enjoyed the reception his fans gave him.  But fearing for his life, he fled into the countryside to wander anonymously.  In 1768, he finally married his Therese.

She begged him to go back to Paris, so they did (under pseudonyms).  There he copied music for a living, and also finally finished, in 1770, his autobiography.

He continued to write, some of his most beautiful work as well as some of his most paranoid, until 1778.  He had moved into a cottage offered by the marquis de Girardin, where he happily studied the local flora, when he suffered a stroke.  Therese tried to move him onto his bed, but he fell again and cut his head.  By the time the Marquis got to him, he was dead.

He was buried on the estate, and his grave become a pilgrimage site.  He was later moved to the Pantheon in Paris, and laid to rest not far from, of all people, Voltaire.”

The History Of Psychology, Part 3: The 1800’s

Dr. C. George Boeree

© Copyright 1999 C. George Boeree

Ali.♥

Eu tenho aqui feito uma crítica cerrada ao Tratado de Lisboa e ao leviatão europeu em si, mas penso que os meus dias ― e os vossos também ― de liberdade estão contados. Acontece algumas vezes dizerem-me que sou “maluquinho”, mas acontece também que passado um ano ou dois, aqueles que me diziam “tolinho” acabam por me dar razão ou, no mínimo, por “meter a viola ao saco”.

A União Europeia baseia os seus princípios de cidadania no conceito elitista e não-democrático de “vontade geral” de Rousseau, a que fiz referência aqui.

Na carta dos direitos fundamentais da União Europeia, podemos ver a elencagem normal e politicamente correcta dos direitos e garantias, e depois vemos no artigo 52:

O “interesse geral” invocado é, sem tirar nem pôr, a “vontade geral” de Rousseau que tanto fascinou os jacobinos franceses e a revolução francesa. Isto significa que em nome da “vontade geral” do corpo político elitista europeu ― que ou não foi eleito directamente pelos cidadãos, como é o caso do Conselho Europeu, ou se foi eleito é um simples proforma, sem poderes legislativos ou de fiscalização, como é o caso do parlamento europeu ― todos os direitos e garantias podem ser restringidos ou mesmo abolidos em nome do poder plenipotenciário dessa “vontade geral” exarada no corpo político e por este exclusivamente representada, e ao arrepio da vontade dos povos.

Porém, a dita Carta vai mais longe. No seu artigo 54, diz o seguinte:

Isto significa que a mais ninguém, à excepção do corpo político que se auto-intitula como sendo o “representante da vontade geral”, é permitido criticar ou colocar em causa, nomeadamente, o artigo 52. Não só as liberdades e garantias podem ser coarctadas a qualquer momento e de forma “legal”, como qualquer crítica ou acção política que coloque em causa essa restrição das liberdades é considerada ilegal.

one of the perks of reading philosophy

is that you learn how to spell

rousseau and nietzsche properly

La carta di queste perle è tratta da una riproduzione tratta da I Maestri del colore, del quadro “Il sogno” di Henri Rousseau (Laval 1844 – Parigi 1910) , che si può ammirare al  MOMA di New York (The Museum of Modern Art, www.moma.org)
Le altre perle sono in rame e pietra sanguigna africana naturale (Bloodstone)

Lunghezza collana 147 cm

Lunghezza orecchini 8,5 cm

Después de unas entradas ligeras, con objeto de introducción, es hora de pararse a analizar con algo más de profundidad. Tal y como indica el título de la entrada, “moral como contenido”, exige toda nuestra atención y concentración. Nos adentramos en otro nivel de la moralidad, denominado así por Zubiri y Aranguren, que surge de la contraposición moral-inmoral.

Moralidad y eticidad.

En este otro nivel de la moralidad el ser humano no sólo trata de “ajustarse” a la realidad de cualquier forma, sino de hacerlo con justeza. Por contenido ofrecidos sociohistóricamente por las religiones y normas de convivencia, esto es, por los códigos culturales. Es esa normatividad, encarnada en las instituciones, la que queda recogida en el francés moeurs y en el alemán Sitten. La Sittlichkeit (eticidad) venía constituida, para Hegel, por las valoraciones sedimentadas en las instituciones sociales, superadoras de lo que él consideraba “mera moral”.

La crítica de Hegel a Kant insistía en el formalismo de los principios morales kantianos, su universalismo abstracto, la impotencia del deber y el rigorismo de la convicción, que no tiene en cuenta las circunstancias y las posibles consecuencias de una aplicación descontextualizada de dichos principios. La polémica ha sido renovada en nuestros días en el intento de reactualización de la ética kantiana por parte de K. O. Apel y J. Habermas y en el debate entre liberales y comunitaristas. Sin embargo, las historia más reciente, con sus secuelas de horror y barbarie públicamente encarnados, cuestiona radicalmente el ideal hegeliano y marxista de la coincidencia entre el hombre y el ciudadano, e induce la fundada sospecha de que tal reconciliación no habría de lograrse sino al precio de consagrar una forma de vida como utopía cumplida e insuperable, lo que no haría sino liquidar el ímpetu crítico del deber frente al ser ya alcanzado. Sin olvidar lo positivo de la crítica hegeliana, el recurso a la conciencia crítica parece ineludible, si no se quiere estar a merced de contextos sociales, que la posibilitan, pero también la atan. Recordemos las palabrás de Paul Ricoeur:

Ciertamente, es impresionante la inculpación que Hegel dirige contra la conciencia moral cuando ésta se erige en tribunal supremo desde la ignorancia soberbia de la Sittlichkeit en la que se encarna el espíritu de un pueblo. Pero nosotros, que hemos atravesado los acontecimientos monstruosos del siglo XX vinculados al fenómeno totalitario, tenemos razones para escuchar el veredicto inverso, mucho más abrumador, pronunciado por la propia historia a través de los labios de las víctimas. Cuando el espíritu de un pueblo es pervertido hasta el punto de alimentar una Sittlichkeit mortífera, el espíritu que ha desertado de las instituciones que se han vuelto criminales se refugia en la conciencia moral de un pequeño número de individuos, inaccesibles al miedo y a la corrupción. ¿Quién se atrevería a burlarse del alma bella, cuando es la única que queda para atestiguar contra el héroe de la acción?

Es preciso poner de relieve que, en la medida en que el hombre no se abandone a la normatividad socialmente vigente, y aun cuando concuerde con ella, habrá de asumirla personalmente (para seguirla o modificarla), si es que no quiere ser un mero producto de la presión social, cayendo en lo que Heidegger denunció como la banalidad del das Man, del “se”: se dice, se hace, se comenta… En el simple abandono a la vigencia social, como el capricho, el hombre se hace esclavo en vez de dueño de sí. Dijo Rousseau: “el impulso del simple apetito es esclavitud, y la obediencia a la ley que uno se ha prescrito es libertad.”

“Bueno” en sentido instrumental y en sentido moral. Técnica y práctica.

La Ética a Nicómaco se abre con: “El bien es aquello hacia lo que todas las cosas aspiran.” El equívoco que suscita se debe a la ambigüedad del término “bueno”, que no siempre se usa en sentido moral, sino también en sentido instrumental, en cuanto adecuado a su fin. Kant, en la Crítica de la razón práctica (1788), quiso desbaratar el equívoco producido por las ambigüedades de “bonum” y “malum“. Se sirvió del alemán al distinguir entre “das Gute” (lo bueno) y “das Wohl” (lo provechoso) para bonum, y entre “das Böse” (lo malo) y “das Übel” (lo perjudicial) para referirse a malum, la acepción moral para las primeras de esos pares y para las segundas lo apetecible sin relación a la voluntad, en cuanto determinada por la ley de la razón. El provecho o el perjuicio significan una relación con nuestro estado de agrado o desagrado respecto a un objeto. Sin embargo, el bien o el mal significan una relación con la voluntad en tanto que ésta se vea determinada por la ley de la razón a hacer de algo un objeto suyo. Por lo tanto, este bien o mal queda estrictamente referido a acciones, nunca a cosas.

Éticas materiales y formales.

Conviene señalar que la “moral como contenido” no es necesariamente una “ética material”, sino que puede constituirse por una “ética formal”, es decir, una “ética sin código”. Kant, en su filosofía moral, se preocupó de indagar qué condiciones ha de reunir un precepto para considerarse moral: ser autónomo, expresión de la ley que cada cual se da a sí mismo, e incondicionado, tal y como se expresa en el imperativo categórico. “Obra sólo según aquella máxima por la cual puedes querer que al mismo tiempo se convierta en una ley universal“. No establece qué hemos de hacer, sino cómo hemos de actuar para comportarnos moralmente. La moral como contenido se hace aquí precisamente vacía, puramente formal.

On Tuesday, November 3, voters of Washtenaw County rejected a proposal to raise their property taxes.  The revenue generated by the millage was supposed to go to the Washtenaw County public school system, comprised of 10 districts with the money being distributed to these districts on a per-pupil basis. (Michigan Daily)  The debate over this millage sparked my interest as I began to consider the perspectives of Locke and Rousseau on this issue.  I’ve concluded that although both are democratic, Rousseau would likely have been opposed to the outcome of the vote, whereas Locke would have supported the voters’ decision.

Rousseau asserts that the answer to the disaster that society has become is to form an association “which defends and protects with all common forces the person and goods of each associate” (Wootten, pg. 432). His ideal form of government acts in a manner that is consistent with the general will.  He states, “the general will is always right and always tends toward the public utility” (Wootton, pg. 437).  He also warns that the populace is not corrupted, but it is often tricked (Wootton, pg. 437).  With the foundation for Rousseau’s thought in place, I hope to illustrate why Rousseau would oppose the outcome of the millage vote.  In a recent survey of Washtenaw County, 54% of adult voters favored a countywide enhancement millage for schools (mlive.com).  According to this statistic (which I am assuming to be a direct reflection of all Washtenaw County residents) a majority of residents favored education, so the proposed millage should have passed.  Yet the millage was not passed, and therefore Rousseau may have argued that the rejection of this millage is inconsistent with the general will.   Rousseau could also argue that the personal advantages of lower taxes may have “tricked” individuals into voting against the millage.  In this instance, it would be appropriate for the government (of Washtenaw County) to intervene and enact the millage, thereby “forcing” the voters to be free, since it is in the interest of the general will.  The fact that Rousseau would support government intervention to tax personal property is at odds with the purpose of government according to Locke.

Locke’s chief end of government was to protect the people’s property.  Locke states, “the power of society…can never be supposed to extend farther, than the common good; but is obliged to secure everyone’s property” (Wootton, pg. 321).  With this statement, I will extrapolate to say that Locke would have supported the voters of Washtenaw County, who he sees as the supreme power in civil society.  Contrary to Rousseau, Locke would not support the government overriding the vote in favor of the “general will” as it infringes on the citizen’s personal property.  Therefore, the government would need the consent of the people before it could impose the tax suggested in the millage.

Ultimately, Locke and Rousseau would have agreed on the democratic principles involved in deciding on a public issue like the Washtenaw County millage proposal.  Yet, because a survey was released indicating a majority of Washtenaw county residents would have favored increased funding for local school districts, Locke and Rousseau would have disagreed on the outcome of the vote, with Locke supporting the millage rejection if residents felt it would infringe on their property rights.   Moreover, Rousseau would have argued the government could have acted in opposition to the vote and implemented the property tax because it was the general will to have increased funding for education.  Although we will never know exactly what each philosopher would argue, especially with the structure of Washtenaw County’s society being vastly different than any society they may have imagined, I still find it interesting to try and deduce what their reaction to an issue like this might be.

http://www.michigandaily.com/content/county-voters-reject-school-millage

http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2009/06/survey_shows_majority_of_washt.html

Modern Political Thought: readings from machiavelli to Nietzsche/ edited, with introductions, by David Wootton.-2^nd ed.

Aquí os presento algo más sobre los ‘menos protagonistas’, con vídeos suyos en sus respectivos nombres.

CHRISTIAN SHEPHARD: Padre de Jack. Viajaba muerto dentro de un ataúd en el Oceanic 815 y cuando el avión se estrelló en la isla su cadaver desapareció. Sin embargo, su fantasma ya ha hablado con varios protagonistas adquiriendo un papel cada vez mayor en la trama de la serie. También es padre de Claire, aunque de diferente mujer, y ella nunca lo conoció como tal.

CLAIRE LITTLETON: Hermanastra de Jack sin saberlo. Viajaba en el Oceanic embarazada de Aaron, al que dio a luz en la isla y forma, junto a Charlie, una de las parejas más entrañables de la serie, que se rompe con la muerte del último. Fue raptada por ‘Los Otros’ y perseguida por Rousseau. A día de hoy se desconoce su paradero, aunque sabemos que se encuentra con Christian y eso da seguridad.

CHARLIE PACE: Miembro de ‘Drive shafts’, una banda de rock en decadencia. Llega a la isla siendo un drogadicto y Locke le ayuda a dejar las drogas. Se enamora de Claire y forman una ‘familia’ con Aaron. Protagonista principal en las primeras temporadas que, junto a Hugo, son ‘la sonrisa’ del espectador. Muere por amor y amistad. Un ejemplo a seguir.

AARON LITTLETON: Hijo de Claire al que Charlie apadrina como un hijo. De los únicos que nació en la isla. Actualmente está en tierra firme pues Kate, que fue como una madre adoptiva para él durante un tiempo, lo dejó allí cuando volvió de la isla.

HUGO ‘HURLEY’ REYES: Mantiene el ‘buen rollo’ entre los supervivientes del Oceanic 815; es el personaje cómico de la serie. Ganó la lotería con unos ‘números malditos’ (4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42) que se repetirán a lo largo de las temporadas, lo que da un suspense bastante interesante. Estuvo internado en varias ocasiones en manicomios por tener visiones de gente que ha muerto y es perseguido por la policía por los secretos que guardaron al abandonar la isla. Actualmente se encuentra en la isla y, aunque durante poco tiempo, trabajó en la Iniciativa Dharma.

MICHAEL DAWSON: Superviviente del Oceanic que llega a la isla con su hijo Walt, al que apenas conoce por haber estado éste con su madre. Construye una balsa para sacar a Walt de la isla y Los Otros se lo roban. Para recuperarlo, se convierte en un traidor al asesinar a dos compañeros para salvar a Ben, líder de Los Otros. Regresa a su casa y, tras intentar suicidarse en varias ocasiones, vuelve a la isla “para morir” ayudando a los supervivientes en un barco que manda Charles Widmore.

WALT DAWSON: Hijo de Michael. Llega a la isla e intima mucho con Locke, algo que no gusta a su padre. Siempre inseparable de su perro Vincent, los flashbacks demuestran que tiene poderes antinaturales. Sabe que su padre asesinó a dos supervivientes y por eso deja de hablarle. En estos momentos se encuentra fuera de la isla, aunque en un capítulo se le aparece a Locke para darle fuerzas a continuar con su trabajo.

SAYID JARRAH: Torturador que trabajó en la milicia iraquí y llega a la isla siendo un experto con los aparatos electrónicos. Al salir de la isla acaba trabajando para Ben como sicario tras enterrar a la mujer de sus sueños por culpa de los enemigos de éste, los hombres de Charles Widmore. Otro que ha dado, está dando y dará mucho juego a la serie.

JIN SOO KWON: Pescador coreano, esposo de Sun y sicario del padre de ésta. En un principio no sabe hablar inglés lo que le da problemas con los supervivientes del 815 pero acaba aprendiendo a la perfección. Parece que muere en el barco que los va a salvar pero finalmente acaba viajando en el tiempo con Sawyer y los otros donde conoce a Rousseau de joven. Ahora está trabajando en la Iniciativa Dharma.

SUN HWA KWON: Mujer de Jin e hija de un empresario coreano multimillonario, que no acepta su relación hasta que Jin trabaja como sicario para él. Al principio es reprimida en la isla por su marido pero poco a poco las cosas se calman, aunque en los flashbacks veamos que lo ha engañado con otro hombre. Se queda embarazada en la isla pero da a luz en Corea, cuando es una de ‘Los Oceanic Six’ que habían salido. Está enfrentada con Ben por pensar que había matado a su marido y cuando éste le dice que no está muerto, ella vuelve a la isla.

DESMOND HUME: Llega a la isla antes que los supervivientes y se pasa tres años de su vida pulsando un botón para ‘salvar el mundo’. Es la pareja de Penny, hija de Widmore, quién cree que no se merece a su única descendiente aunque la relación entre ambos sea envidiable -sobre todo por esa preciosa conversación que tienen tras tres años sin verse-. Antes de que Charlie muera, tiene una compenetración especial con éste al salvarle la vida en varias ocasiones por visualizar el futuro. Otro que tiene mucho que dar a la serie.

PENNY WIDMORE: Hija de Charles, hermanastra de Faraday y pareja de Desmond, lo que la convierte también en un personaje importante. Enfrentada con su padre, busca a ‘Des’ alrededor del mundo durante tres años hasta hallarlo vivo y rescatarlo, junto a otros supervivientes, en un barco que iba en su búsqueda. Éste es el momento cuándo Penny y Desmond se conocen por primera vez.

DANIELLE ROUSSEAU: Superviviente francesa de otro naufragio anterior al Oceanic, el de ‘La Roca Negra’. Estuvo durante 16 años viviendo en la isla escapando de ‘Los Otros’, quienes le robaron a su hija Alex, y evitando cruzárselos en su camino. Deja un mensaje en la torre de radio que se repetirá todos esos años y por ello los supervivientes descubren su existencia. Intenta llevarse a Aaron de las manos de Claire. La conocimos de joven cuando su barco llegó a la isla. Los hombres de Widmore acaban asesinándola cuando intentaba proteger a su hija y al novio de ésta.

ALEX ¿LINUS? ROUSSEAU: Hija de Rousseau y robada por Ben, a quién ella conoce como padre. Un lío, vamos. Vivió toda su vida en la isla con ‘Los Otros’ hasta que conoce a su madre y a los supervivientes del Oceanic 815. La acaban matando en los ojos de su padrastro Ben, que la deja morir. Aquí lo vemos.

JULIET BURKE: Médica especializada en reproducción, es reclutada por Richard para conseguir hacer nacer a niños en la isla, que hasta ese momento es imposible por un error electromagnético que ya explicaré más adelante. Se convierte en una de ‘Los Otros’ durante tres años hasta que se escapa con los supervivientes por medio de Jack, con el que parece que va a iniciar una relación. Finalmente, y tras quedarse en la isla mientras Jack y los demás se van, se convierte en la pareja de Sawyer en 1977 cuando están con la Iniciativa Dharma y acaban viviendo juntos. Con la vuelta de Kate, peligra su relación.

RICHARD ALPERT: Interesante y muy importante personaje que conocemos en diferentes épocas y siempre está con el mismo aspecto físico, es decir, nunca envejece. Es uno ‘Los Otros’ y, aunque nunca ejerce como líder, siempre es un fiel consejero de todos ellos para comunicarse con Jacob y también para traer a gente que ellos necesitan a la isla, como Juliet. Le salva la vida a Ben y está en muchos momentos con John Locke.

DANIEL FARADAY: Físico y profesor que se lanzó a la isla en paracaídas (a los primeros que encontró fue a Jack y a Kate: de ahí la famosa frase entre los Losties de ‘Are you Jack’?) desde un helicóptero que venía del barco de Widmore. Era hijo de Eloise y de Charles Widmore, pero de éste sólo lo supimos al final, por lo que es hermanastro de Penny. Es uno de los protagonistas y es muy entrañable por su actitud distraída, sus buenas maneras y su interés científico por las misteriosas propiedades de la Isla. Se pasó toda su vida adulta estudiando el espacio-tiempo y su constante es Desmond porque se le apareció del futuro. Era muy cariñoso con su amiga Charlotte, de la que estaba enamorada y la vió morir en sus manos por los continuos flashes y viajes en el tiempo.Cuando acude armado al campamento de ‘Los Otros’ para buscar a su madre en 1977, ésta lo mata sin saber que era su hijo.

Y no me olvido de estos que están o han estado y que han tenido importancia, pero por unas razones u otras no los debo meter en este ‘Quién es quién’:

- Mr. Ecko
- Libby y Ana Lucía
- Rose y Bernard
- Boone y Shanon
- Nikki y Paulo
- Vincent
- Ethan, Tom, Goodwin y Mikhail
- Horace, Mr. Chang, Radzinsky
- Charlotte, Naomi, Lapidus, Minkowski, Keamy

ABORIGENI CONTRO IL MITO DEL BUON SELVAGGIO

Per il Guinness dei Primati è «il luogo non in guerra più pericoloso al mondo». Ma la sprinter aborigena Freeman ha deciso: «Salverò la perla d’Australia»: …Così Palm Island si trasformò presto in un campo di lavori forzati con condizioni dickensiane, al cui comando si susseguirono personaggi in preda al delirio d’onnipotenza; come quello che «regnò» sull’isola dal 1920 al 1930, che un giorno, raccontano le cronache, «impazzì, uccise i propri figli, sparò ai suoi assistenti e incendiò parte dell’abitato». O come Roy Bartlam, l’ex poliziotto il cui periodo di sovrintendenza negli Anni 50 è ancora oggi ricordato dai locali come «the Gestapo time»… 8 nov, La Stampa.

Ecco un articolo per riflettere mettendo in controluce storia e cronaca.
Uno dei luoghi più violenti sul globo. Un coacervo di Aborigeni.
Onore a Strauss, appena defunto, e al suo impegno per chiamarli piuttosto “primitivi” che “selvaggi” e così via.
Ma a me questa storia puzza di atzechi, e mi ricorda la violenza sanguinolenta cui Las Casas portò soccorso.
E un ultimo inchino al Rousseau e al mito del buon selvaggio.

DONNE: ABORTI, LEONI, LEONESSE E TRANS

E l’aumento di aborti in spagna – sintomo di isolamento e addandono delle donne a se stesse, come hanno ben denunciato i movimenti pro-life – mi fa venire in mente una seconda immagine da savana. Quella dei leoni che cercano di sbranare i figli. Ma non ce la fanno, finchè le leonesse stanno a guardia della cucciolata.
Forse le femministe non hanno divorato i loro figli: nell’aborto reclamizzato, nell’emulazione dei ruoli leonini del maschio? Eccome.
Peccato aver trascurato l’importanza di quel loro ruolo di guardia, così lontano dai riflettori ma così necessario.
Ultimo esito di tutto questo? I maschi preferiscono i trans a lorsignore di carriera. Finte donne. Deprecabili leoni.

LOST is a show with international appeal. Just check the front page of Lostpedia. There are links to airdates in 6 different countries, as well as a link to find further “worldwide” airdates. Obviously the story is at the center of the global LOST fandom, but what about the characters? LOST is a melting pot of culture – something I think has big stakes in the show’s appeal around the world.  House of the Rising Sun dealt with a couple from the far east. Solitary, on the other hand,  deals with a man from the middle (east, that is.)

The character of Sayid is probably the most daring choice made by the Lindelof and the writers. The wounds of 9/11 were still fresh, and the ill-conceived “revenge” war was taking place in Iraq. Still, the writers decided to introduce us to not only an Iraqi, but a former soldier. From the beginning even the audience was being asked to put aside past indescretions, and we’re just the observers. How would a recently crashed plane full of people react to having a “gen-u-ine I-raqi” on board?

Sayid has always been a main character, but has also seen himself relegated to the sidelines. Like many other early episodes, Solitary is our first look at Sayid’s past. We knew he was in the Republican Guard, but until Confidence Man, we didn’t know what he did. After showing Sawyer the wrong side of some bamboo shoots, Sayid goes out on his own, ashamed of his actions – action he’s vowed to never commit again.

These actions go back a long way (farther than we’re able to see here) but by the time we flashback to Sayid in Solitary, he’s already been trained to torture. The problem is, Sayid is ordered to torture a woman he knows, and loves. We meet Nadia for the first time in this episode, and her relationship with Sayid is established. Childhood friends, they grew apart over time, possibly as a result of Nadia’s action (or even Sayid’s). Off the Island we see Sayid visting Nadia during her incarceration, and eventually freeing her.

These events again mirror on-Island events, as Sayid is taken prisoner himself, and for the first time we have concrete proof of someone else on the Island. Danielle Rousseau will appear many other times, but her first appearance is the most memorable to me.

According to former LOST writer David Fury though, the most important part of the Rousseau/Sayid conversation never made it into the show. Fury tells of an early draft of Solitary that included an exchange between Sayid and Rousseau. After telling Sayid she was part of a research team, Sayid asked what kind of research the team was conducting. Her answer: TIME. ABC read the draft and asked that the line be removed, wanting to nix any kind of hardcore sci-fi genre elements. I’ll let you take away from that what you want, but to me this is just another example of planning paying off.

Rousseau’s story also contains a few other now known mysteries, as well as some we don’t know yet. The Monster, of course, is one of LOST’s main questions. Rousseau gives the first opinion/clue as to what it might be: a security system. She also talks of the sickness that infected her team, and of removing the firing pin from Robert’s gun. We’d see all of these events take place in This Place is Death.

Back in Cave Town, Hurley organizes the survivors for a game of golf. This was just another of the many one-off side stories that LOST would apply over the years. The golf sideplot has little significance aside from seeing the survivors relax and Sawyer delivering the great line, “Doctor playing golf? Boy howdy! What’s next, cop eatin’ a donut?” Lost amongst the fun is our first meeting with Ethan Rom. I found it funny that he and Locke spent so much time together. Again it raises the question with me about who Locke really is/was? Did he know Ethan’s secret?

At the time of Solitary, The Others themselves were a big secret. Rousseau gives us the first mention of them. Sayid, on the other hand, has what could be a first-hand encounter with them in the form of the whispers. For me, the whispers are a top 5 “What are they?” question of LOST. Are they the Others? Are they time travel/Island moving related? Accoring to those with high powered audio equipment, the voices Sayid hears are as follows:

Male voice: Just let him out of here
Male voice: He’s seen too much already.
Male voice: What if he tells?
Female voice: …”Could just speak to him”
Male voice: No.

Solitary is another early episode that introduced mythology elements we waited a long time to pay off (the beach wire, Rousseau) and some we’ve yet to see (whispers, the Monster). I think it’s weird that the network wanted the “Time” line removed, but had no problem with polar bears, ghosts, smoke monsters, and crazy French women. That point is moot now though. As LOST’s first season moved on, we would learn a great deal more about our characters, while at the same time delving deeper into the mysterious Island.

Random Obervations

• The wire found by Sayid on the beach would be seen again several time, next in the Season 1 episode Numbers.
• Nadia’s photograph reads “I will see you in another life, if not in this one.” We’ll hear a very similar sentiment echoed by Desmond - “See ya in anotha life, brotha.”
• Numbers alert: Rousseau’s distress signal has been on a loop for 16 years.
• We get the first mention of Alex, but Sayid incorrectly assumes Alex is a “he.” We’d find out in Exodus that Alex is a girl, but wouldn’t meet her until Maternity Leave, although she’d only be known as “Teenage Girl.”
• The term for the Island’s “natives” is used for the first time – The Others.

Rousseau defines inequality in two parts: natural and social. Natural inequalities are the differences of “age, health, bodily strength, and qualities of mind or soul” (Wootton 379). Social inequalities are “the different privileges enjoyed by some at the expense of others, such as being richer, more honored, more powerful than they, or even causing themselves to be obeyed by them” (Wootton 379). Furthermore, he believes that natural inequalities are the basis of social inequalities and that social inequalities are justified so long as they reflect natural inequalities.

Throughout part one of his discourse he logically explains the relevance of natural inequalities to social inequalities. Basically he argues that the smarter man will be more successful and powerful than the less intelligent, and that the more intelligent man will be more respected than a less intelligent man. Therefore, the more intelligent man will be socially unequal to the less intelligent man. Usually the more intelligent, or richer, etc. will be in a higher social class. This social class is created from the natural inequalities of man; his conception is quite clear.

Although his logic is clear, his view on natural inequalities is skewed when it comes to women. Rousseau has a rather poor view of women. Throughout his discourse he talks strictly about men. The only time he mentions something about women he says that they “are the sex that ought to obey” (Wootton 392). Basically he is calling women naturally insufficient. Following his theory which claims that natural inequalities are the root to social inequalities, one can determine that women are socially unequal. It can be agreed upon that women are socially unequal both in the sense of his theory and with all the issues of discrimination that women are currently exposed to. If we agree that Rousseau’s theory is correct then we arrive at the conclusion that women must be naturally disadvantaged. However, one can prove that women really are not as naturally insufficient and unequal to men as Rousseau seems to think, and I believe that he knows it too.

First of all, Rousseau’s claim that women are naturally less sufficient than men in the primitive state of nature is contradictory. By saying this, he is implying that women should not have survived the state of nature. That doesn’t make sense since women obviously did; if they didn’t then women would currently be extinct. Furthermore, a simple conversation of the birds and the bees proves that men could not exist without women. Rousseau clearly understands that men need women in order to survive by saying that humans have a “general desire to unite with each other” (Wootton 392). It can be assumed that Rousseau was smart enough to know that fundamental fact. Therefore we can conclude that Rousseau actually doesn’t believe what he wrote about women in his discourse. Upon closer examination of his own statements, I think he would see that he contradicts himself. If he can come to the conclusion that men need women to survive then he can conclude that women can’t be naturally less equivalent than men.

Even if we pretend that he was so dense that he didn’t understand the concept of the birds and the bees, and that he didn’t see his contradiction, one could still prove to him that women are not as naturally unequal to men as he says. One could prove this even if nature didn’t require both male and female to reproduce. Women do have some natural advantages over men that are usually overlooked. The fact that women are naturally smaller and weaker than men can be an advantage when looking for a place to hide from predators. A big man or animal could not fit into the same small nook or cranny that a woman could. Another advantage women would have in the state of nature is that they have more body fat than men do (“Women Fitness”). More body fat means that one has more insulation, so they can survive longer in cold temperatures. Men aren’t the only ones with physical advantages.

Since we can assume that Rousseau did actually understand the details of reproduction, and that women are not as naturally inept as he proposes, one thing remains unclear—why exactly did Rousseau say that women naturally “are the sex that ought to obey” (Wootton 392) if he knew it contradicted his own theory? It is obvious that Rousseau has some bias against women and that he has incorporated that bias into his discourse. He offered no logical explanation as to why women are naturally weaker than men; all he said was that they were. Rousseau may have been a smart and respected man, but he does not have the authority to justify a poor accusation without a legitimate explanation. If we can agree with Rousseau in that fact that social inequalities stem from natural inequalities, then we can conclude that either (a) women really are at a natural disadvantage or (b) that Rousseau is biased and therefore his theory on women being naturally unequal is wrong. Clearly I believe that the correct answer is the latter. What do you think?

Citations:

“Body Fat and Women.” Women Fitness. 2009. Womenfitness.net, Web. 3 Nov 2009. .

Wootton, David. Modern Political Thought Readings from Machiavelli to Nietzsche. 2nd. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2008. 371-426. Print.

E’ iniziata il 26 settembre e terminerà il 7 marzo 2010 la mostra firmata da Marco Goldin a Villa Manin (Udine).
Tema centrale è il rapporto tra la nascita della cosiddetta scuola di Barbizon in Francia è la diffusione del Realismo e del Naturalismo nei Paesi dell’Europa centrale ed orientale.
120 sono le opere esposte e suddivise n quattro distinti capitoli: Villaggi, Acque, Ritratti e Figure. Quindi si il percorso espositivo inizia da celebri artisti quali Courbet, Corot, Millet, Rousseau..poi si avvicina al periodo impressionista con opere di Manet, Monet, Bazille, Caillebotte, Sisley, Renoir, Pisarro, Degas, Cèzanne. Sono inoltre presenti tre opere di Van Gogh provenienti dal museo di Amsterdam.