Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts

Tuesday, 6 March 2012

HCJ Seminar Paper. Nationalism and the Jews.

From one country to another, from one religion to another and from one culture to another, lifestyles and philosophies have been extremely different, but there is one thing all of the people in the world had in common. They all at one point or another, had individuals and groups in their populations who did not like Jews. But why have people hated the Jews? There have been a mixture of economic, political and religious factors. To even try and understand why people have hated the Jews, we must look at who the Jewish people are.

The Jews belong to a race that has been inferior throughout history. Since the eighteenth century, men have been classified in defined groups and categories for example working class, middle class and upper class but the most prominent classification of people has been skin colour. However, there is no race that has two original ancestors without any mixture of other races because strictly speaking, there is no such things a race. This means that the sorting of man has no value, unfortunately it has been dominant for mankind, largely due to people’s ignorance.

At first, the white race was divided into the Aryan race and the Semite race, the Aryans were considered to be the perfect race. We are indebted to them for religious and philosophical ideas and writing as well as great works of art, the Aryan race has also proved its superiority by resisting the Semites. This is a race which hasn’t really produced any artwork, but its religious and moral work has benefited man greatly. History shows Aryan vs. Semite conflict for example the Median Wars between the Greeks and Persians, with the Greeks being the Aryans and the Persians being the Semitic race. Although conflict has taken place between the two races, Aryans and Semites have shared civilisations and both have each other’s blood.

Anti-Semites admit that there are superior and inferior Semites, with the Jews being inferior. The Jews have adapted to the different places they have lived in and as a result they haven’t really remained the united group that they used to be, there are great varieties in the Jewish people, for example there are black Jews. This is basically why the grievances of anti-Semites have no foundation and also why the opposition between the Aryans and Semites is artificial.
 
The biggest hate campaign against the Jewish people came in 1894. The Dreyfus Affair divided the left and right politically minded people in France, the country was so militaristic and were worried about another war with Germany. The army was largely Anti-Semitic at the time as well. The Dreyfus Affair started because secret French military information was found in the Germany embassy, an army general Dreyfus was found guilty of giving information to the Germans and his conviction was largely based on the fact that he was a Jew. Even after Emile Zola wrote J’Accuse, the French army decided to keep Dreyfus on the Devil’s Island to avoid their own embarrassment.

Now on to the topic on nationalism and the Jewish people. To understand nationalism in the context of the Jews, we must define what a ‘nation’ actually is. A nation is generally considered to be a group of individuals who share a common territory, language, law and customs. However, it could be argued that there is no such thing as a race that shares the same origin, because there is not one country where all people are of the same the blood and spirit. However, according to Bernard Lazare, nations do exist, these may not share a common government or share their fatherland, but the nation continues as long as the consciousness of that community and its thought and interests have not disappeared, then that nation still exists.

Many would argue that there is no such thing as a Jewish race, but that the Jews are part of the nations that they currently live in. It would be easy to assume that because Jewish people are scattered around the world, mixing with many different people, that they would simply disappear. However, 3 things have stopped this: the first one is that their religion keeps them together, it acts like a glue that bonds all Jewish people, no matter where they are. The second cause is the social conditions that they are responsible for and the third is the social conditions they are not responsible for, therefore the conditions placed upon them by others.

The Jewish religion puts ethics and metaphysics together, along with being a ‘law’. To become part of the Jewish ‘nation’, you had to accept God, also called Yahweh as well as God’s laws. It has been said that without the laws, Yahweh may have disappeared into everyone who had received him. However, the Jews preserved God by following his law, also called Torah and after the fall of Jerusalem, the Torah held Israel together. Even when Jewish people spread themselves around the world, they still view the world in the same way. This also applies to the literature and philosophy that they read and follow. Jews also had similar living conditions, similar customs and were subject to the same moral laws. Many would argue that this is enough for the Jews to be called a ‘nation’ because nations have the same customs and laws, as do the Jews.

However, this cohesion may have led to the anti-semitism that they have experienced. Due to them surviving many struggles, they have considered themselves the ‘elect people’ and superior to all others. This is shown in an article written by Rabbi Manis Friedman, who says that “a Jew is a unique creation, so the soul of a Jew is inherently and basically different than the soul of a non-Jew”. However, he goes on to say that Jews can’t explain why they are ‘different’.

History may give us some clues to why Jewish people have been hated so much throughout history. At Rome, Jewish people were not subject to the municipal laws and weren’t required to appear in court on Saturday, which is their Sabbath. The Jews had in fact created a nation within a nation and had their own government and their own ruler, Jewish people were also exempt from paying taxes and eventually rose to a position higher than other people in the communities that they lived in, this led to them attracting jealousy and hatred from the people of the municipalities that the Jews were living in.

It has been argued that Jewish people gained their wealth at this time at the expense of Christians, through deception and oppression. Bernard Lazare calls it “the moral charge of the anti-Semites”, he also says that “the Jew is more dishonest than the Christian”.

However, there could be some reason behind this apparent dishonesty and exploitation of Christians. Young Jews are taught from the Talmud, which is a collection of Jewish laws and rules. Any deviation from these laws results in being shunned from the Jewish community, but Jews tried to get around these laws and the punishments with cunning, therefore it could be argued that the Jews have developed a sly nature, this is certainly implied in Lazare’s writing.

We have seen that all throughout history, the Jews have been hated, but the answer to why this is will probably remain an answered question, however some factors could include people’s ignorance and maybe even the Jews’ religion and customs.

Monday, 12 December 2011

HCJ test notes...

These are just some notes for the (example) HCJ test questions.

1: What are the main arguments in the Leviathan? To what extent are they comparable to Machiavelli?

The Leviathan is an all powerful ruler of the military and religion. It is metaphorically hired to stop chaos and to bring order to society. However, if he doesn't do this, he can be overthrown.

Hobbes argued that all men are naturally equal, but without a government, there would be an all v.s. all war. He describes life in this situation as "Nasty, brutish and short". He also says that the main motive for this war is 'self preservation'.

For this reason, we need the Leviathan.

This links to Machiavelli in the idea of 'self preservation', Machiavelli says that after a war, humans forget their father's death, but not their property's destruction. According to both Hobbes and Machiavelli, we are self centred.


2: Discuss Locke's theories of government. What philosophical trend underlies his political theory?

First treatise of government: It attacks the concept of 'The Divine Right of Kings' - the doctrine that said that kings got their power from God. Overall, Locke dislikes the concept of monarchy.

Second treatise of govt.: Everyone enjoys freedom but obey the natural laws, these are the laws that we know intuitively e.g. murder is wrong.

State of Nature: In Locke's opinion, your life and your property are the same, he believed that you could kill someone who you think poses significant danger to your life and/or property. Locke also believed that everyone is entitled to life, liberty and property. However, we have a problem with perceiving the danger that others pose.

Locke proposed the idea of a government by consent (his Social Contract), where laws keep the government at bay, but allow it to interfere when needed to e.g. when a law is broken.

In this system, taxes could be levied if the people didn't consent taxes.

Citizens could rebel if the government didn't follow the laws.

Also, the monarchy is kept separate from the government and law - this meant that the monarchy didn't have full power.


3: What evidence is there that the world is actually as it exists? Plato and Descartes.

Plato's cave/form theory explains the world's existence.

This is about prisoners being chained together in a cave, facing a wall unable to see the outside world and all they can see is their shadows. However, one prisoner decides to turn around and see what the outside world has to offer, he frees himself from his restraints to discover exactly what's outside.

Descartes' Cogito: "I think therefore I am". This theory says that because I think, I must exist. However, how do I know that anyone else exists, because I don't know whether anyone else exists because I can't think for them and don't know if they're thinking.

Descartes was sceptical about everything, because at one time or another, we have dreamt about what we are doing. Our thoughts and actions have no more status than dreams or hallucinations.

Our beliefs can be doubted whenever there is any sceptical alternative to suggest otherwise.


4: Discuss deduction, inducation, a priori and a posteriori, with reference to Hume.

Deduction: This starts with the effect and deduces the cause from it. The example Hume gives is the cannonball and cushion: the cushion has an indent in it, so we can deduce that the cannonball has caused it.

Induction: This is the opposite of deduction. It starts at the cause and induces the effect, it can be induced that the cannonball caused the indent when placed on the cushion.

A priori: This is something that can be derived from logic without any observed facts. Hume says that they give no information to the world and don't depend on anything else in the universe being in place. An example is mathematical logic.

A posteriori: Hume describes this as 'matters of fact'. They depend on certain things being in place and to doubt them would be inconcievable. An example is the sun rising: the sun must be aligned with the earth for it to rise. We can never know for sure whether it will or not because there is no logic to prove that it will happen for sure.


5: Rousseau is seen as the founder of the romantic movement. Describe his ideas and their impact on politics and culture.

Social Contract: This says "Man is born free and is everywhere in chains", this means that we are born free to do what we like, but laws and rules top us from having this freedom.

He criticised Locke by saying that the problems of inequality were caused by property ownership.

The main problem for Rousseau was finding a government that would uphold the powers/rights of the people, whilst uniting everyone. The answer to this problem was the General Will.

General Will: We all agree on what goes into the GW by giving our opinions on what should be made law - this supposedly gives more freedom to people.

It is clear that the GW influenced the French Revolution's 'Rights of Man' doctrine.

It can also be said that the General Will started the concept of democracy - everyone has a say and all the views are put together.

Wednesday, 7 December 2011

HCJ - Lecture 6.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau died a decade before the French Revolution.

He was part of the circle of French intellects (even though he wasn't French!), most notably, Voltaire was part of the circle too.  He created the 'Encyclopedie', this book aimed to bring together all human knowledge and was a high point in the Enlightenment.

In 1750, Rousseau disagreed that the progress of arts and science was beneficial to morality. This was a dramatic break with the Enlightenment and also a permanent one.

His 'Discourse on the Origin and Foundation of Inequality Among Men' said that humanity was naturally good, but it had been corrupted by society. He compared the effects on history to a statue - wind and rain had eroded humanity, so we now look scarcely like humans at all. Only the 'noble savage' hadn't been corrupted by society yet.

He attacked the Enlightenment, the Clockwork Universe and science as a means of progression. Voltaire said that the book was "against the human race".

Social Contract

Rousseau's Social Contract says "Man is born free and is everywhere in chains", I think this means that we are born free to do what we like, but laws and rules in society stop us from having freedom and hold us back (keep us in 'chains').

This was very controversial and it actually forced Rousseau to flee to Britain.

In the SC he attacked Hobbes: Rousseau says that war against all only comes into being when we are in society, as the state of war is the only state of society..

He also attacked Locke: The problem of inequality in society is caused by ownership of property. The first person to claim a piece of land as his/her own is the 'founder of civil society'. So does that mean that he/she has the right to rule society?

According to Rousseau, man isn't rational - but a sensitive being. Society corrupts us and makes us obsess about posessions and there is also a competition of self-esteem - how true that is today! 

No way back to nature

The problem: Finding a government that will defend our powers whilst uniting everyone.

The answer: The General Will. The GW is what we all agree on, everyone's opinion is followed as the law - when we obey the law, we obey our own opinion - this supposedly gives us more freedom.

A criticism of Rousseau's view would be that 'what if the majority choose the laws and the minority get no say?'. They would then be forced to be free.

TB 2011

Wednesday, 23 November 2011

HCJ - Lecture 5.

Yesterday's HCJ lecture was about David Hume.

The theory of causation goes back to 'cause and effect', this is similar to the argument for God's existence.  This is called the ontological proof because if we doubt the existence of God, we in turn doubt the first cause (that caused all other later events) and if there was no first cause, the universe can not exist, however it does exist.

The philosopher Kant said that there is no causal connection between 2 objects, we just percieve the connection to be there.  In this method of science, nothing is certain, but a lot of things have a high level of probability.

David Hume would say that it is impossible to prove the causal link between for example a tennis ball will move when hit by a tennis racket, it will always be just a guess. But we can use inductive reasoning to try and figure out how likely this is to happen.  The purpose of science is to find patterns of apparent causality, but these patterns are not central to the events themselves and causality can't be directly seen.

Hume’s law in 'The Treatise of Human Nature': It is impossible to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'.  For example: 'the train ought to be on time', we can never know this for sure, (or beyond reasonable doubt) even if all of the factors involved say that the train will be on time.  He wrote, that it seems 'altogether inconcievable that this relation (ought) can be derived from others, which are entirely different from it'.

Chapter 10 of Hume's work 'An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding' deals with miracles.  The Wikipedia page about the chapter can be found here.

The argument is basically this: The evidence for a miracle is always limited, because miracles are single events, occurring at particular times and places, the evidence for the miracle will always be outweighed by the evidence against.  Hume lays down some of the reasons why humans lack complete reliability when it comes to miracles:

People are very prone to accepting the unusual and incredible, which excite passions of surprise and wonder.

Those with strong religious beliefs are often prepared to give evidence that they know is false, 'with the best intentions in the world, for the sake of promoting so holy a cause'.

People are often too naive when faced with such witnesses, whose apparent honesty and eloquence may overcome normal scepticism.


Sources

Wikipedia
Winchester Journalism


TB 2011