Condemned to be Free?

Sartre maintains that we are condemned to be free. This kind of freedom is radical in nature because we are free to do anything except to cease being free. One might think that such freedom would be a good thing, especially compared to the alternative, but Sartre begs to differ. My question is, is being radically free better or worse than being radically determined? I always assumed that complete, or radical, freedom is what all people truly desire, but Sartre believes that radical freedom causes such anguish that what people truly desire is freedom from choice at all. Whenever I personally try to imagine such a world I find it perfectly horrid. Freedom is something that people have been fighting and dyeing for since the beginning of time, isn't freedom of choice one of the most valued things in this world? Yes, having freedom of choice might mean that you are responsible for your actions, and it might mean that you cannot necessarily justify your actions, but isn't that better still than not being able to choose for yourself any actions at all? No matter how difficult it might seem to make ones' own choices, I firmly believe that it is still better than someone, or something, else having complete control over one's choices. What does anyone else think? 

Limitations of Freedom

I was wondering what are, if any, the limitations of being free? For example, how does a person's socioeconomic standing affect their personal freedom? Are there not structural problems affecting ones ability to get out of a bad economic situation, such as poverty? Are all career opportunities equal for all people? Do racism, sexism, ageism, etc. have no affect on whether or not someone can 'get ahead'? Do people honestly have complete free will in deciding what their social roles in society will be? What about physical or mental illnesses or handicaps? Can they not affect someones ability to be 'truly' free? And what about biology? Are not some things biologically predetermined? I mean, of course, beyond things like hair, eye or skin color, because no rational person could argue that these things chosen for oneself, but is there nothing else predetermined? And what about instincts and impulses, are we to imagine that we are in complete control of such things? Do we really have the power to choose our sexuality, the situations we are in, what kinds of relationships we have, and our own character? Do we honestly have the freedom to choose how we feel? And if so, then why do all people, at least occasionally, feel negative emotions? Surely no one but a masochist would willingly choose to make him or herself miserable, and surely not all people are masochistic. It is a good thing that Sartre eventually put some limitations on his original idea of radical freedom, because that simply cannot be the case. 'Pure' freedom cannot exist; freedom always comes with some limitations and restrictions. 

Pros and Cons of Capitalism

Obviously, Marx found more cons with capitalism than pros. In his view, capitalism is a necessary stage of government development, but eventually needs to be surpassed. The lack of community and the struggle between classes is too great. Workers are both alienated and exploited. They are alienated because the workers don't work for themselves but for some other capitalist, and they often cannot enjoy the things they produce. The workers are exploited for their labor and often work in very poor and sometimes dangerous conditions. Furthermore, the capitalist system only grants rewards of property, land, and other general freedoms to a select few. If you are not one of the lucky ones, capitalism has no problem with letting you starve on the street. Of course, capitalism is very efficient and profitable, at least to some, and working conditions and regulations have improved over time. But even knowing that, I am now beginning to question if the capitalist system is as good as I originally thought...

Pros and Cons of Communism

In theory, communism resolves the "problem" of capitalism. It nationalizes banks, factories, transport, and land reduces alienation. It creates a strong sense of community and treats people as more than just an economic end. The creation of communism brings about the education of the proletariat and a raise in general consciousness. Communism also seeks to get rid of private property, however, which is a more controversial issue. And although it might at first seem to bring perfect equality, it hardly seems fair to have some people work harder than others be be rewarded financially in the same way. Another problem is the unrealistic expectation of altruism from the citizens who are already receiving great financial rewards, because why would they ever want to lower their standards of wealth? In theory, a lot of different things could happen with communism. I wonder what it would look like if it were ever actually put properly in to action?

Faith & Reason: Part 2

We were talking about faith and reason in regard to the Bible and Christianity this week, but I also wondered about other religions and religious texts. Do the roles of faith and reason alter in different religions, or is the relationship between those two things the same in all religions? From my point of view, it seems obvious that the Bible is full of contradictions. I am not acquainted with any other religious texts, and do not know if there are any other texts as contradictory as the Bible, or even more so. And I think that's what it all comes down to. Most religions, that I know of at least, are not intrinsically contradictory. It would appear that the contradiction lies in the words of a text assigned to a particular religion, and that is the further cause for the contradiction between faith and reason. Does that mean that the relationship between faith and reason shift for individuals depending on the religious text they believe in? Does this imply that some religions may be more reasonable than others, depending upon the amount of contradictions found in the text of that religion? 

Faith & Reason: Part 1

The chapter we read was about the Bible in particular, and the contradictions within it, but not all sects of Christianity subscribe to the Bible. Does acceptance of the Bible or not change the relationship between faith and reason for that individual? Faith and reason are often at odds when it comes to the Bible. The stories within become core ideas and beliefs for many Christians, but a lot of those stories are seemingly impossible. How could Noah build an arc big enough for two of every kind of animal in the world? How could Moses part the Red Sea? Reason strongly militates against these stories, and yet faith often refuses to see this. There are many parts of the Bible that are, at least seemingly, intrinsically contradictory. The relationship between faith and reason in regard to the Bible is a very tricky thing to balance out, and I wonder if removal of the Bible, or any religious text, might make it more or less balanced. Thoughts, anyone? 

Patriotism: Part 4

I found it very interesting when the author brought up the fact that when a lot of people talk about America as their country, and how much they love it, they often don't fully understand what they're talking about. Are they talking about the land, the ideology, they myths, the people, the government? I think you can love any one of these things, maybe all of them, although I haven't heard many people talking about their love of the government. I don't think it's difficult to love the land, the one you were born in or not. You may not be especially fond of every rock or patch of grass you see, but I know that many people, myself included, do love the mountains, lakes, trees, etc. of the place where they grew up. As for the people, you may have a certain love for some of your countrymen, and share a kind of bond with them, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that they loved every single American by dint of being American, including rapists, serial killers, animal abusers, thieves, racists, etc. Loving your country, I think, goes beyond all of that. Every country was founded on certain principles, symbols, myths and ideals, many of them overlapping with other countries, and those are the things that seem to have the biggest impacts on the individual of that country. The mythology, ideology, and symbolism behind your country is what you love the most, whether or not those things are unique to your particular country. These things in America are most commonly represented by the ideas of freedom and rugged individualism, the symbol of the American flag and the Bald Eagle, and the myth of the American dream. I believe that these are the things that people most often refer to when talking about their love of America.

Patriotism: Part 3

I really liked the way the author brought up the fact that many Americans, though not all, only show sympathy or empathy to other Americans. Sometimes we, as Americans, act as though or pain, suffering, and grief is more important than others, even when we experience the same things. We can be far more sympathetic to an American parent who lost a child to the war than an Iraqi parent. Americans kill Middle Eastern people, and they kill American people, and everyone loses. In the end war is created by the nation's government, and they are typically not the ones losing family in friends in the horror they create. They can sit back and be almost completely untouched by it. It is the nation's citizens, and their soldiers of course, that know what war truly is. They are the ones who truly know pain, suffering, and grief. And they are the ones who should be the most sympathetic, and empathetic, to other victims of war. When we know the same pain as someone else, we have an obligation to share it with them, across country lines or not. Any parent who loses a child should be sympathized with, anyone who loses anyone should be sympathized with, and I wish more Americans could see that and realize that many of us across the world know the same pain, and we should strive to empathize with them as best we can instead of acting like our pain is the worst.