Power is present in all spheres of life. Michel Foucault has enormously shaped the idea of power present in institutions. According to Foucault, power is often used as a means of coercion. The main philosophy that he delineates is that power is everywhere and it gains eminence through regimes of discourse (Foucault 778). This paper is an exercise to understand the presence of power within a university campus.
The first part of the paper will discuss the philosophy of power as presented by Foucault. Power is defined by Foucault as a relation between groups and forces within a social institution:
The term power designates relationships between partners (and by that I am not thinking of a zero-sum game but simply, and for the moment staying in the most general terms, of an ensemble of actions which induce others and follow from one another) (Foucault 786).
The power as Foucault defines is not imposed from within the structure of the institution. Instead, it arises from relations in the society. Foucault states that there are different modes of power disciplinary modes of power and social power (Foucault 53). Power is not related to any institution nor does it arise out of force. Power does not exist individually.
It is present with other powers institutionalized by other bodies. According to Foucault, power is passes through the institutions and does not belong to individuals. Furthermore, Foucault also demonstrates that the concept of modern discipline has developed through this new understanding of power within institutions.
The panopticon system is the way power is institutionalized within a modern setting (Foucault, Power/Knowedlge 155). Foucault states that there is no exercise of power without a certain economy of discourses of truth (Foucault 93). The concept of power as delineated by Foucault has certain facets:
Power is found in relation to the social body and these two things co-exist,
Power relations are interlinked with other forms of relations,
These relations do not dictate the nature of prohibitions and punishments ,
These discourses are unified into a unitary form of domination. (Foucault 142)
Power can be used for establishment of power, knowledge, and competency (Foucault 781). Further, these struggles can be used against the group of domination and exploration (Foucault 782). The question that arises is that how the power is exercised. Foucault presents the answer to this question:
Power relations, relationships of communication, and objective capacities should not therefore be confused. This is not to say that there is a question of three separate domains.
Nor that there is, on the one hand, the field of things, of perfected technique, work, and the transformation of the real; on the other that of signs, communication, reciprocity, and the production of meaning; and finally, that of the domination of the means of constraint, of inequality, and the action of men upon other men (Foucault 786-787).
The presence of power within institutions requires obedience through recognition of power relations. The discipline of apprenticeship is necessary for appropriate communication of power, according to Foucault. The next section of the paper will discuss how power is structured within universities.
This section will delineate the issues of power that is evident within a university campus. Universities are structured in three broad groups. The first group of people is the educators or the professors. They are the ones who are in possession of knowledge and therefore, due to their abundance of knowledge, they hold a specific power over others in the institution.
This group also has an institutionalized superiority in the mind of the other groups in the university. For instance, students realize the power that the professors have through popular discourse of teachers superiority. The second group is that of the students. This the largest group within the educational institution.
They are the ones who are present in the university to gain knowledge and therefore, they hold a position of submissiveness. Further, the third group includes other people associated with the university. These may include the accounting staff, people at the library, and so on. These three are the broad groups; however, there are many other subgroups within these broader groups.
Who has power in the universities? In any educational institution, considering that they are the institutions of knowledge, power is present among the people who have more knowledge. According to Foucault, individual professors do not have the power.
The power they have does not come from their individual knowledge or positions. It is the institution of the professors. In other words, the group of people who control the dissemination of knowledge in an educational institution is the group that probably holds the maximum power within a university.
Foucault states power exists only when it put to action (789). In case of the group of students, the power originates from the groups that are formed. For instance, a students body, which has been elected to represent to the administrators, holds the power. The members of this body instantly hold the greater power than the other members of the students body.
Further, these people hold greater power because it is discoursed by the institutional machinery that they are the ones who represent the others to the administration, and therefore possess the greater power. Therefore, even the others within the students body feel that these students are important. The power of the students in the university is almost similar to that of papal power, which they hold over other students.
The others consider the students body almost as a group of priests who have remarkable power to transfer the wishes of the students to the administrators. Therefore, the belief that they are the only people who can transport the ideas to the others is a possible way in which the students body derives power.
The other possible source of power within the educational institution is observable in the student-teacher interaction. Students are the subjects and the objects of submission, while the teachers are the source of power.
The teachers body, due to greater knowledge available to them, holds a higher position and is the one who watches over the students through instruments such as projects, presentations, and examinations.
The power that the teachers hold is again the one that is discoursed to them, rather than the ones which arise out of position. Hence, Foucault rejects the concept of positional power, and fosters the belief that power is one that is created through the confrontation of the two bodies, in this case , the students and the teachers body. Foucault has explained the existence of power in relation to civil authorities and the criminals as:
Basically, power is less a confrontation between two adversaries or the linking of one to the other than a question of government. & Government did not refer only to political structures or to the management of states; & to govern, in this sense, is to structure the possible field of action of others. (Foucault 786)
Hence, the power one attains within the government is also the one that the others should abide. Had there been no discourse of the existence and the perceived superiority of the government, power would not have become such an important tool (Fanon 176).
The power that the governing bodies assumed, or any other bodies within the universities, was not derived from the structure of the institution, but from the mode of actions of the people.
The main issue is that the groups in the university provide that power emerges as a game of freedom. The process in which one group or the other within the university seeks freedom is a method in which power is created within the organization. As one tries to attain freedom, the other tries to bind it using the rules and regulations of the institution.
In this way, the governing bodies of the universities again hold power over the students as well as the teachers body. This is a spiral chain of power and the effect of it extends to all the bodies within the institution. The presence of the power within the organization, be it an educational intuition or any other, power arises from the beliefs and perception of people and through the hierarchical machinery.
Power is a system that is enforced through ages of discourse. Thus, the case study of a university shows that power, as Foucault asserted, arises not from the structure of the organization but through various methods of interaction and actions.
Works Cited
Fanon, Frantz. The Wretched of the Earth. Paris: Grove Press, 1963. Print.
Foucault, Michel. Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison. London: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2009. Print.
Foucault, Michel. Power/Knowedlge. Ed. Colin Gordon. New York: Pantheon Books, 1972. Print.
Foucault, Michel. The Subject and Power. Critical Inquiry 8.4 (1982): 777-795. Print.
Rawls introduced the concept of an overlapping consensus where the values of liberalism are compatible with the moral values of the people. He argues that political liberalism is practiced when people have equal rights to basic liberties. In a society where they have a political system that favors political liberalism, it is not just a matter of obeying rules since the enactment of the political system is similar to the moral values of the people. Rawls puts forward the theory of reflective equilibrium where the political values of an individual are coherent with the moral, religious, and philosophical values or his comprehensive world views (Rawls, 1987).
The Critique of the Overlapping Consensus
In evaluating the theory of the overlapping consensus, there are certain concepts that I agree with while others I disagree with. I agree with Rawls on the conditions that must exist for the state of overlapping consensus to hold. Any society is composed of individuals or groups that have divergent and at times irreconcilable moral, religious, and philosophical doctrines. Rawls attempts to answer the question: how would a political system that is liberal exist in a society with such opposing or different values in its citizens. There has to be social cooperation from the citizens for it to work. The people in the society have to be rational and reasonable desiring a system where what is practiced is what is good for everyone in society. I agree with him that there are two critical issues when it comes to politics which he has addressed. First of all, Rawls has highlighted the concepts of acceptance and the concept of justice very clearly.
Even though the political system is just it does not mean that the system is acceptable. This is evident in countries that have signed peace treaties only later for certain people to object, rebel, and political chaos to ensue. There are citizens who will not just accept what is being proposed, they have to be convinced of the good of the political steps that the society or the state has taken (Habermas, 1995). With time, it has been observed that even the most firmly held convictions by any people after a while begin to change.
A good example is a slavery. Gradually, people have come to accept that it is morally wrong and even though it has not been addressed fully in certain governments social policies, no person is speaking of its benefits or advantages. This brings in the issue of the legitimacy of the political system. It has to be acceptable to people who are reasonable. The people in the cooperative society are endowed with the powers to be rational and reasonable. These reasonable citizens are described as people who want to live in a well-ordered society where there is social cooperation between each other. There is no imposition of a particular value system but rather people accept mutually accepted rules. In a democratic or liberal society, citizens are expected to be fair and reasonable (Thomas, 2005).
The people have no self-interest. For the theory of political liberalism to operate there has to be the concept of the original position (Estlund, 1998). This is where the people operate under a veil of ignorance, there is no self-interest operating since the people are not aware of the privileges or hardships that may accrue to them due to their talents, social status, and other abilities at the point of decision making.
People have an ability to tolerate each other therefore in a system of worldviews; there will be a reasonable catholic, a reasonable Muslim, and people of other religions or moral values who are reasonable.
In the world, over the years, it has been perceived that the political institutions that acted on the foundation of freedom and equality helped to end the conflicts brought about by the diverse religious views. However, could it be that the principle of tolerance and not freedom and equality was the critical factor that played a major role at the end of these wars? The political system based on justice as fairness however is independent of the comprehensive world views that exist at a particular time (Rawls, 2005). It is difficult to endorse a particular worldview if you are on the opposing team. There will be chaos however the political system must be independent.
The political system will be based on such values as fair opportunities for all the citizens, decent distribution of wealth and income, and basic healthcare for its citizens.
The idea of the overlapping consensus may be a dangerous concept. The political liberals by saying that the political constitution will be based on a deep moral understanding of all the peoples work lead the people to avoid political disagreements. In such a society, dissenting voices will be quietened. They will be hushed and not allowed to speak which is dangerous for any society. We are not referring to the people with doctrines that do not espouse equality however to the voices that want to speak against observed cases of inequality.
The overlapping consensus will end up smothering the voices of the agonists. In a world of democracy, there cannot be contestations perpetually however at one time or another there has to be scrutiny and critique of the political system, and any objections that may be there should be raised.
The political consensus denies the nature of the politics which tends towards leading the people to have mutual antagonism. In other words, agonistic democracy faces up to the reality that the people will have plural and divergent views at a particular point in time. It acknowledges the reality and better yet its principles help the people to channel their objections and resolve them in non-destructive ways. In other words, there can be no long-lasting and stable point that Rawls speaks of in the overlapping consensus.
There is no permanent or long-standing permanency or point of objectivity. Even what appears to be permanent or ultimate or what Rawls would refer to as the point of overlapping consensus is really a temporal position. The moral, religious, and philosophical values of the people are in an open system and they keep changing or evolving (Mouffe, 2005). Secondly, at the point in time where there is a level of consensus, it is really about politics where the people with those values or viewpoints are the ones in power.
Insisting on an overlapping consensus may be prohibitive and even suppressive in nature. Rawls attempts to show that his theory of justice and justice as fairness incorporates pluralist values however Mouffes concept of agonistic democracy is better as it really and truly supports pluralistic values in a democracy. There is the the idea that the discursive approach may not work where it leads to destruction. In agonistic democracy however there are no enemies, rather the people view each other as opponents. In any scenario, the opponents understand the rules of the game; they understand that they are not enemies. They are committed to the values of liberal democracy and respect the people with divergent views. They actually consider that these people have legitimate and real concerns.
The idea, therefore, is one of radical democracy where divergent views are expressed amicably rather than a fixed political liberal system that will limit pluralism and might even lead to authoritarianism. The citizens that are able to thrive in such a culture are the ones who despite the deep conflicts that take place in the political domain, have strong bonds to the community and respect ethical and political values.
The people are able to be deeply committed to the community because they can express their individual liberties and views. The tensions in the liberal and democratic zones will always be there and it will be hard for them to be ultimately reconciled. The people will question the ideas or more so wonder why the ideals in the political conception of justice are preferable to other ideals. The people will resort to private scrutiny of the ideals without bringing them to the public arena. After a while, with no channels to act on their questions, the level of scrutiny will significantly reduce and be at an all-time low which will not help any society. There is also the danger that in the future, there will be political individuals who may with gradual frequency introduces values that will in the end not overlap with the comprehensive worldviews and when this happens chaos will ensue.
The political system would only be just if it has been derived from a true doctrine. The different parties maintain that their doctrines are the right or true ones. At the end of the day, the political values that will be adopted will fail to include the major points of the comprehensive doctrines; there will therefore be parties that refuse to sink into enduring tolerance.
Secondly, religious worldviews are usually concerned with answering ethical questions rather than moral questions. Moral questions are concerned with the good of the society while on the other hand ethical questions are concerned with what is good for the individual or certain individuals who in the long run at times is not good for the good of all.
A discursive approach is preferable because it also assists society to move forward. Rawlss ideal society will end up being an anemic, non-progressive, or stagnant society. It may lead to dogmatism where the temporal overlapping consensus is taken to be the established fact. It is a situation where the people are led by a system that they believe is right yet it has not been sufficiently examined.
Conclusion
Rawls shows that a balance of power is not what the liberal society requires as it will not bring the lasting stability that it needs. Only a consensus of overlapping ideals can achieve stability. The problem with a balance of power is that in the event that the balance shifts, social instability, violence, and other vices may ensue. An the overlapping consensus however on the other hand is supported by the people. The political values are not the second-best alternative or compromise they have taken rather it is their best choice because the political values have come to represent their moral values.
At the end of the day as the citizens of a nation examine their own political system, considering their free will exercise in conscience and thoughts realize that the political values are not really in discrepancy with their moral values.
There is thus an overlap of the moral and the political values of the society giving rise to an overlapping consensus. In the past, the religious doctrines used to regulate the people however they have given way to a political constitution that can be endorsed by all the people. These comprehensive doctrines have not really been able to guide the people as one set of doctrines is generally not accepted by all the people.
Rawls maintains that the overlapping consensus of moral and political values does not eliminate the aspect of pluralism. The political system just incorporates comprehensive doctrines. However, there are certain questions that arise while analyzing this concept. First of all, with the concept of the overlapping consensus of the liberal and moral values, there is a danger of the society not questioning the political system that will be prevailing at that time. In politics, there will always be a lot of questions asked as the people try to make the system better. The people will refuse to be tolerant of a political system that leans towards world views that are unreasonable. There will therefore be no ultimate equilibrium rather there has to be agonistic democracy where the political system is under scrutiny and questions asked and resolved concerning the principles the system is adhering to.
References
Estlund, D. (1998). Debate: Liberalism, Equality and Fraternity in Cohens Critique of Rawls. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 6(1): 99-112.
Habermas, J. (1995). Reconciliation through the Public use of Reason: Remarks on John Rawlss Political Liberalism. The Journal of Philosophy, 92 (3): 109-131.
Mouffe, C. (2005). The Limits of John Rawlss Pluralism. Politics, Philosophy and Economics, 4 (2):221-231.
Rawls, J. (2005). Political Liberalism. United States: Columbia University Press.
Rawls, J. (1987). The Idea of an Overlapping Consensus. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 7(1):1-25.
Thomas, A. (2005). What Does A Liberal Society Demand Of Its Citizens? Richmond Journal of Philosophy, 7: 1-6.
Describe the key lessons from the Gettier paper. What are the main lessons that the Gettier paper teaches us about the definition of knowledge as a justified true belief? Discuss the role of epistemic luck in relation to the Gettier paper.
In his paper, Gettier discusses the problem of the definition of knowledge while rejecting the traditional visions that knowledge is the justified true belief with the help of two cases in which the interdependence of such factors as truth, justification, and belief is discussed in order to conclude about the knowledge. Thus, Gettier proposes several counterarguments or counterexamples to the idea that knowledge is the justified true belief. Referring to the cases, Gettier is inclined to demonstrate that a person cannot have definite knowledge about something even if relying on the justified true beliefs and true propositions.
It is possible to focus on such lessons, which are presented by Gettier in his paper as the impossibility to conclude about the true knowledge with references to the true and justified beliefs reflected in cases and further true propositions. Gettier teaches that in spite of the fact that three necessary conditions such as belief, justification, and truth can be present at the same time and clearly observed by the person in relation to the certain case, these factors in their connection cannot provide the person with the clear or true knowledge because a lot of statements which result from analyzing these factors in their connection can lead to the false conclusions and, as a result, to the false knowledge.
Thus, referring to the cases provided in the paper written by Gettier, it is important to state that in spite of the fact that it is possible to speak about the justified true belief as it is reflected in the first case, it is impossible to hope that this belief will lead to understanding the true knowledge related to the concrete problem. From this point, Smith can rely or focus on the justified true belief, but he cannot receive the true knowledge that is why the statement that Smith knows the fact that the person with ten coins will receive the job position cannot be accepted as the true one. The situation can be described with references to the concept of the justified true belief, but the stated proposition or received knowledge is false. That is why Gettier rejects the developed definition of knowledge, according to which knowledge is traditionally discussed as the justified true belief.
The counterexamples proposed by Gettier in his paper are also correlated with the idea of epistemic luck. Thus, a person can have a true belief that is accidentally supported by evidence. The fact of the obvious support is necessary to state that the discussed belief is really true. However, the true believer cannot be discussed as true knowledge because the true belief is based not on evidence but on assumptions. In spite of the fact that sometimes there are true beliefs based on the correct assumptions, there are often false premises and assumptions which cannot lead to the true belief or to true knowledge. For instance, it is even impossible to speak about true knowledge when the person relies on epistemic luck while concluding about the definite phenomenon. As a result, following the cases presented in Gettiers paper, it is possible to state that Smith relies on true beliefs and false premises rather than on concrete justifications. According to Gettier, the described examples are relevant to speak about epistemic luck but not about true knowledge.
Discuss the Problem of the Criterion. What exactly is the problem? Discuss Methodism and Particularism in relation to the Problem of the Criterion and point out at least one problem with both Methodism and Particularism.
The Problem of the Criterion can be defined as the impossibility to determine the set criteria to speak about the knowledge or to define it. Thus, to define the knowledge, for instance, to state that the knowledge is the justified true belief, it is necessary to refer to the definite criteria according to which the definition of the knowledge can be compared and contrasted with the measures typical for the justified true belief. From this perspective, to speak about the definition of knowledge, it is important to discuss the definite criteria according to which the process of defining the phenomenon can be realized. Thus, it is important to refer to the definite measurable aspects or instances on which the definition should be oriented. The problem is in the fact that these instances should also be determined with the help of definite criteria. As a result, the Problem of Criterion can seem to be unresolved at first sight.
It is almost impossible to decide what aspects should be discussed first if it is necessary to determine the criteria and instances for defining the knowledge. Thus, while trying to resolve the Problem of Criterion, philosophers proposed two opposite approaches to the solution. Discussing possible criteria to define the knowledge, a person can assume that he or she knows the criteria to conclude about the knowledge. As a result, this person can identify aspects or instances that can be discussed as credible to define knowledge. This approach is correlated with the ideas of Methodism because a person relies on the knowledge of criteria received with the help of reflection or thinking about these criteria, and this thinking can provide the criteria to choose the concrete instances according to which the knowledge can be defined. However, the problem associated with Methodism is the fact that the philosophical reflection or thinking cannot provide credible criteria for determining instances and for the process of defining the knowledge because people do not know if their conclusions received as a result of reflection are right because they the cannot be supported by any pieces of evidence. A person cannot rely only on reflection without the necessary support; thus, a person cannot rely on the reflection with the references to the necessary instances.
Nevertheless, a person can decide that he or she is able to determine and conclude about the particular instances, which can be used as credible to state the criteria and to define the knowledge. The focus on the instances of particular instances is characteristic of Particularism. According to the principles of Particularism, a person can determine the true and credible instances of knowledge in order to determine the criteria for knowledge. It is important to note that persons can only assume about possible instances to determine the criteria for knowledge because people do not know the criteria to identify and determine the instances themselves. As a result, it is possible to speak about the problem of Particularism, which is in need of criteria or additional factors to state what instances are really correlated with the true knowledge and what instances cannot be discussed as relevant in this situation. From this perspective, the assumptions proposed either by the followers of Methodism or by the followers of Particularism cannot be discussed as appropriate to resolve the Problem of Criterion.
Jiddu Krishnamurti tries to explain human behaviour and the best principals to follow. In his discussion named the only revolution; he tries to discuss the effects of the environment on human beliefs and actions and how one can find the truth.
Socio-Cultural Background
During the times of Krishnamurti, cultural believes in the world were very divergent. In his homeland India, people were very observant of their cultural and religious beliefs. Everything that culture advocated for was taken seriously.
All the teachings of people were based on what their culture defines as being right or wrong. From time immemorial, religion has been the pillar on which society bases its principles.
In many societies including India, religion has been used as a guiding principle in determining the correct code of conduct, besides giving rules on what is considered as acceptable behaviour in society (Krishnamurti, 2010).
In a scenario like this, people are not able to free their minds and think on their own. On the other hand, Europe had a different culture at this period in time. People had extricated themselves from the chains of cultural beliefs (Krishnamurti, 2006).
They more or less engaged themselves in thinking how to advance their lives with less influence from cultural beliefs. There was a wave of change and modernization in the world especially in Europe.
Summary of the Teachings
In the search for truth, human brains play a very crucial role. Our brain can be able to freely think without pressure from the preconditions of society so as to find reality; Descartes suggested his concept of Cognito, ergo sum to shed more light on the mechanism of cognition process.
If we have predetermined expectations of what our results can be, then we cannot proclaim that we are able to find the truth. Society has been structured in a manner that outlines what is expected as being right and what is deemed wrong.
In this regard, we often find ourselves using the known facts in our search for the truth (Williams, 2004). However, as Krishnamurti argues, truth goes beyond the ordinary things that society has conditioned our minds to believe in.
Whatever people believe in is mostly what the social cultural teachings have made them to believe in, as Socrates explains in his theory of the mechanism of cognition. We seldom want to question whether the reality is the same as what our culture defines as being correct.
If we are asked today about time we gladly explain our answers. We say we did this and that yesterday. Nevertheless, Krishnamurti points out that people do not actually know the difference between yesterday and today.
Society has conditioned people to think that some things just happen naturally without any cause (Epstein, 2011). He disputes this fact arguing that nothing happens without any cause.
In his words, the cause and effect of everything in the world are so entangled that differentiation between the two is almost impossible. Thought is always in the search of how to do things better and different from other people.
As a result, letting the mind free to think is the beginning of finding truth. He is, however, concerned with the idea that human mind always works in fragmentation.
Consequently, the best education that one can get according to Krishnamurti, is the education directed to the mind thus eliminating fragmentation. Just as Socrates, Krishnamurti wants all people to be more concerned with their inner soul rather than the earthly things (Stephens, 2010).
Krishnamurti believes that people should be very objective in their search for truth. Any cultural preconditions should be removed when one is meditating.
This is because success of meditation is highly dependent on the freedom of mind to engage in reasoning without being influenced by environmental factors. In his view, human beings are similar and should treat each other as such (Hammerman, 2007).
However, the mental conditioning by the cultural and various religious beliefs bring about the difference in human beings. This brings about the difference in interpretations of various situations thus the difference in findings.
In the end, people are made to belief in various fashions of the truth when in reality only one truth exists.
Krishnamurti agrees with Plato that bodily desires and conclusions are in many instances inaccurate and misleading as far as a philosophers quest for truth is concerned (Dombrowski, 2006).
In this regard, the best realities of life, as well as the truth, are better approached in thought alone. Consequently, he advocates for people to first be human beings before sliding into their ethnical and religious cocoons.
What makes Hinduism one of the most complicated cultural phenomena to evaluate is its resistance to the numerous attempts at classifying it. Some view it as a philosophical theory, others consider it a religion; there is no method decide which category to refer Buddhism to.
In some sense, Buddhism owes the given specifics to the fact that it is composed of life experiences and revelations of a number of people, Jiddu Krishnamurti being one of them.
Despite the problems with defining whether Buddhism is actually a religious or a philosophical movement, the numerous discrepancies in the traditional Buddhist concept of the universe and the one provided by Jiddu Krishnamurti, as well as the differences between Jiddu Krishnamurtis teachings and the postulates of other theories, both religious and philosophical ones, it must be admitted that Krishnamurti has provided people with life principles that allow for drawing parallels between Buddhism and other philosophical and religious movements.
Presocratics Like Presocratics, Krishnamurti also concerns the nature of objects, phenomena and people (Curd, 2011).
Socrates Like Socrates, Krishnamurti links virtue and knowledge.
Plato In many ways, the principles that Krishnamurti declares to be the basis for Buddhist philosophy can be related to Platos universals. Much like the latter, Krishnamurtis principles are hardy applicable to everyday reality and should rather be strived for that ever attained (Huard, 2007).
Aristotle The elements of Aristotles ethics, as well as aesthetics, can be found in the key principles established by Krishnamurti. To be more exact, the idea of a single object, person or phenomenon having a cause can be observed both in Aristotles and Krishnamurtis philosophy.
Augustine While Augustines concept of the original sin does not quite comply with Krishnamurtis postulates, the two philosophies have quite similar perspective on education.
Sung Tzu Sung Tzus idea of managing conflicts can also be traced in Krishnamurtis philosophy; Krishnamurti, however, is inclined towards avoiding conflict situations (Michaelson, 2007).
Heloise Comparable to Socrates pursuit of knowledge, the need for education voiced by Heloise also complies with the key principles of Krishnamurti.
Anselm On the one hand, the concept of redemption, which Anselms philosophy is shot through with, might seem alien to Krishnamurtis idea of spiritual growth and search for Enlightenment. On the other hand, Krishnamurti also features the concept of repentance in his teachings, which means that the given work echoes with Anselms philosophy (Saint Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, 2002).
Aquinas In contrast to Aquinas, Krishnamurti does not provide the account of his thoughts on the nature of God. However, Krishnamurti does introduce his opinion on the nature of Enlightenment, which brings two philosophers closer (Hibbs, 2007).
Hobbes Hobbes social contract theory expands on the phenomenon of social justice, which Krishnamurti provides a detailed account of as well.
Spinoza Another theory that links a human being and a nature, introducing ethics to the given mix, Spinozas concept rubs elbows with Krishnamurtis concept of Enlightenment as a return to nature (Deleuze, 1988).
Locke While Lockes price theory is believed to be too down-to-earth to be compared with the basic postulates of Krishnamurtis teachings, one can argue that Locke offers an interesting perspective on values in society and among individuals, which Krishnamurtis works also touch upon.
Hegel Though Hegels denial to accept religion cannot be observed in Krishnamurtis works, it still must be admitted that the latter did not approve of considering Buddhism a religion in the sense of worshipping the Enlightened One. Instead, Krishnamurti stressed the necessity to strive for Enlightenment (Hegel, 2004).
Rousseau Rousseaus concept of natural human definitely shares similarities with Krishnamurtis idea of spiritual growth. Both concepts relating people to nature, these theories allow one to reconcile with the humane and the animalistic entities within.
Hume Humes in-out problem can also be traced in Krishnamurtis ethics.
Kant The elements of Categorical Imperative can also be tracked in Krishnamurtis philosophy. Aimed at reducing the possibility of harm to others, Krishnamurtis philosophy or religion, for that matter has a lot in common with the Kantian ethics.
Marx At first glance, it might seem that the gap between economy-focused, materialistic theories provided by Marx and Krishnamurtis theory of spiritual search and the discovery of ones self is huge. On a second thought, though, Marxs idea regarding social democracy can also be viewed in Krishnamurtis teachings, which is rather weird for a philosophy that is labeled as a religious one.
Engles Engels perspective on society as a result of cooperation between its numerous elements can also be found in Krishnamurtis concept of self as a part of a major entity.
Nietzsche Nietzsches concept of Superhuman can be interpreted as the need to reach the stage of Enlightenment, which Krishnamurti devotes a considerable amount of his work to.
Sartre What Sartre envisioned as the need for personal freedom has been conveyed in Krishnamurtis teaching as well.
Although Jiddu Krishnamurtis ideas have been criticized heavily, and that his contribution into Buddhism has been questioned greatly, he left an admittedly strong impact on the way in which Buddhist philosophy was perceived all over the world.
More to the point, Jiddu Krishnamurti made it possible for Buddhism to find points of contact with other philosophical and religious thoughts of different cultures. An obvious step forward in understanding Buddhism, Jiddu Krishnamurtis theory has clearly made a difference.
Relation to Real Life
The teachings of Krishnamurti still influence the current life that human beings lead. People still believe that life depends on explanations brought forward by different socio-cultural teachings. In any research that people want to conduct, priori theory is first used to explain the issue.
It therefore goes without saying that researchers do have prior expectations of how results of their endeavours should look like. Our behaviour is highly as a result of what our cultural backgrounds consider as being right or wrong.
When a baby is born, he or she is taken through the cultural beliefs by the parents (Krishnamurti & Blau, 2002). The baby is made to know that there is a limit as to what actions can be done and what one should think.
In this regard, our minds are preconditioned form the very beginning and all that we do is behave as per the limits imposed on us by the socio-cultural atmosphere of where we were brought up (Kumar, 2013).
The truth therefore becomes evasive because people fear going against what the society wants. Similarly, things happening in the world have a cause, and yesterday is a determinant of today. The future of everybody is dependent on how they prepare for it presently.
This is the same argument by Nietzsches who states that everything in the world is just but a replication of what happened in the past. According to the argument, the world is recurrent and will continue to recur infinitely.
Therefore, there is nothing new that happens in the world that has never been witnessed before (Valasquez, 2010). Pain, disasters, diseases and all other sorrows that are happening now or those that have happened in history will recur again.
Nietzsche argues that human beings have no control over what has happened, what is happening or what will happen in the future. The argument is similar to the reincarnation believe by the Hindu religion.
Krishnamurtis argument that people should consider themselves as human beings first before subscribing into religious beliefs is crucial in the world of today. True to his arguement that religion is just a collection of rules that serve to drift human beings apart, religion has divided the world.
Various religious groups are nowadays claiming to be the only true religions instead of teaching spirituality to the congregation (Knight, 2007). Similarly, each person only wants to think to the extent that he or she does not seem to go against his or her religious beliefs.
Criticism of the idea
Unfortunately, the ideology that there is no spontaneous thing that happens might make people highly irresponsible knowing that they can only play a spectator role in the world.
Moreover, it is crucial to note that nobody has ever come forward and claimed to be aware of what happened in the last part of his or her life.
Consequently, subscribing to the idea will not change people in any way since they will be confident that their past deeds will not haunt them (Kreeft, 2002). People can be tempted to stop working towards the prevention of evil in society (Quinn, 2009).
Anyway, it will be pointless to work tirelessly wasting ones energy in trying to prevent what will definitely recur. Moreover, it is erroneous to imagine that nothing changes in the world because definitely, the earth is not the way it was 1000 or even 50 years ago.
Much has changed; some things have become extinct like the dinosaurs, while others have emerged. Natural occurrences are definitely there. Not everything can be explained by human beings explaining why people believe in spirituality.
Moreover, Aristotle differs with Krishnamurti given that Aristotle highly encourages people to monitor natural phenomena (Knight, 2007). This implies that he accepts the fact that some things are natural.
Arguably, Krishnamurtis argument that people should free themselves entirely from any mental preconditions in their search for truth is difficult. People become human beings because of the unique way of life that is imparted into them after birth.
They way of thinking of a person is also as a result of the cultural teachings that one receives (Ross, 2011). We live in the society and do everything with regards to how society wants it to be done.
On the same note, Aristotle states that material cause is important in understanding reality thus differing with Krishnamurti. Consequently, it is pretty difficult to argue that truth can only be found if the mind is freed from the societal and cultural ties.
Despite the argument of Krishnamurti which advocates for spirituality and not necessarily religion, religion is a very influential aspect in human life. Not only does religion impart social behavior, but it also sets out what is expected from each person.
It is important to note that though the influence of religion is fading away with the emergence of modernity, it still plays an important role in various societal issues.
Contrary to ancient times when people used to involve themselves in religious matters only to the extent allowed by religious beliefs, nowadays people can think outside the religious beliefs.
This is also Spinozas view which argues that scriptures should be interpreted solely on their own (Rocca, 2008).
Conclusion
Human beings are different by nature not only in character, but also in logic. Therefore, a single issue can generate many arguments each with a different perspective. However, it is how one defends his or her own view that matters.
Philosophers in particular are known to have diverse views regarding different issues including life and death. It is however crucial to note that the views of philosophers continue to influence the world in one way or the other.
References
Curd, P. (2011). A presocratic reader: Selected fragments and testimonia. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
Deleuze, G. (1988). Spinoza: Practical philosophy. San Francisco, CA: City Ligt Books.
Dombrowski, D, A. (2006). A Platonic Philosophy of Religion: A Process Perspective. New York: SUNY Press.
Epstein, R. (2011). The Quotable Krishnamurti. New York: Quest Books.
Hammerman, J. (2007). Desires and Illusions. Bloomington: Xlibris Corporation.
Hegel, G. W. F. (2004). Hegels philosophy of nature: Encyclopedia of the philosophical sciences, vol. II. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hibbs, T. (2007). Aquinas, ethics and philosophy of religion: Metaphysics and practice. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Huard, R. (2007). Platos political philosophy: The cave. New York, NY: Algora Publishing.
Knight, K. (2007). Aristotelian Philosophy: Ethics and Politics from Aristotle to Macintyre. Cambridge: Polity.
Kreeft, P. (2002). Philosophy 101 by Socrates: An Introduction to Philosophy via Platos Apology; Forty Things Philosophy is According to Historys First Wisest Philosopher. San Francisco: Ignatius Press.
Krishnamurti, J. & Blau, E. (2002). Meditations. Brockwood: Krishnamurti Foundation trust Ltd.
Krishnamurti, J. (2006). Inward Revolution: Bringing about Radical Change in the World. Boston: Shambhala Publishers.
Krishnamurti, J. (2010). Choiceless Awareness. Hertford: M-Y Books Distribution.
Kumar, A. (2013). Curriculum As Meditative Inquiry. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Michaelson, S. W. (2007). Sung Tzu for execution: How to use the art of war to get results. Avon, MA: Adams Business.
Quinn, E. (2009). Critical Companion to George Orwell. New York: Infobase Publishing.
Rocca, M. D. (2008). Spinoza. London: Routledge.
Ross, J. E. (2011). Krotona, Theosophy and krishnamurti: Archival Documents of the Theosophical Societys Esoteric Center, Krotona, in Ojai, Calfornia. Taormina: Krotona Archives.
Saint Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury (2002). Three philosophical dialogues. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
Stephens, M. (2010). Provolution: A Guide to Changing the World Through Personal Evolution. New York: John Hunt Publishing.
Velasquez, M. (2010). Philosophy: A Text with Readings. Stanford: Cengage Learning.
Williams, C. A. (2004). Jiddu Krishnamurti: World Philosopher (1895-1986) his Life and Thoughts. New Delhi: Mortilal Banarsidass Publishers.
Victor Frankl raised many questions in his renowned book Mans Search for Meaning. One of the brightest of his conclusions is that there are only two races in the world. Thus, Frankl claimed, there are two races of men in this world, but only these two the race of the decent man and the race of the indecent man (Frankl 108).
The experience the writer gained in the concentration camp made him understand that there could be villains among prisoners, and good people among guards, Nazi. For instance, Frankl claims that irrespective of inhumane conditions and constant psychological pressing under which inmates should have lived, many prisoners still were supportive for their closest friends and often risked their lives for the sake of these close people.
For these people, the life in the concentration camp was an unrelenting struggle for daily bread and for life itself, for ones own sake or for that of a good friend (Frankl 22). However, there were prisoners who were called Capos. These people pertained to the other indecent race since they were harder on the prisoners than were the guards (Frankl 22).
On the contrary, there were guards who revealed compassion and should be regarded as decent. Frankl saw peoples behavior in extreme situations which usually reveal the real nature of every individual. In conclusion, it is necessary to point out that Victor Frankl answered one of the most disputable questions concerning races.
Admittedly, there is no difference between people of different races, but the difference in their values, beliefs, and deeds. Thus, there are only two races, and it is a choice of every individual to become a part of one of these races.
Victor Frankl wrote in his book: Our answer must consist not in talk and meditation, but right action and right conduct (98). I think this is the sentence which contains the answer to the eternal question concerning the meaning of a humans life. Admittedly, this quote should become a motto of everyones life.
I think people are too concerned with asking questions. Many people long to find the meaning of life, but do not see a simple truth. The meaning of life is life itself. One should live and help other people to live. This is the major destination of every individual. Frankl depicts people who lived in horrible conditions.
Those people were not meditating; they were trying to survive. In this extreme situation, Frankl comes to a simple but vital conclusion. People should not wait for something bigger, some supreme predestination to fulfill. People should live, and cherish every moment of their life.
I should admit that I was also trying to find the meaning of life. I spent hours wondering what people are living. However, after I have read the book, I understood the main thing. I not only know what the meaning of life is, but I know what it means the right action. It is necessary to live and support people you love and people who love you. This is the supreme predestination which is beyond many peoples reach.
In conclusion, I would like to stress that Victor Frankl revealed the most important truth. He made people understand why they live, or why they should live no matter what. This simple truth will help me to live properly, of that I am sure.
Works Cited
Frankl, Viktor E. Mans Search For Meaning. New York, NY: Pocket Books, 1997.
I argue subjectivity, not objectivity, is the best way to know the truth about reality because I believe that Nietzsches and Abrams ideas better reflect the human attitude toward the environment and their perceptions of the environment. The idea developed by Nietzsche does not refute the statements that were made by the philosophers who praised objectivity. Instead, he claims that there is no objectivity at all, as an objective point of view can only be developed using several points of view, not a single one (Nietzsche 25).
Therefore, it is essential to be able to look at the problem from a number of perspectives instead of perceiving ones outlooks as the universal truth. This does not mean that the objective view of the world is not possible, but Nietzsche states that the more perspectives on the issue we can get, the more objective we are. An extended number of perspectives, therefore, is the basis for the concept of objectivity and it should not be based solely on the implications of ones view of the world.
At the same time, Abram claims that we tend to be perceived as spectators when we go with the objective view of the world (Abram 34). He believes that it is critical to take into account ones experience and subjective opinions to make up an objective interpretation of the environment.
When it comes to the opposing view of the world, Descartes ideas, for instance, are based on the fact that even though the subjective reality is acknowledged by the majority, the cornerstone of the objective reality is the basis for the non-physical thinking (Descartes 10). Therefore, he considered that any knowledge that is available to an individual was subjective, but the thinking progression and the ability to process that knowledge were the essentials of ones objective existence.
Despite the fact that Marx and Engels disliked idealism that was inherent in Descartes works, their view of objectivity was similar to the previous works in the field. Marx and Engels also added the notion of materialism to the body of knowledge regarding objectivity as they believed that matter is the only thing that actually exists and there is no God or any other concept behind a mans consciousness (Marx and Engels 18).
By stating that, for example, racial prejudices influence police brutality, we may argue that this particular issue can only be reviewed as a subjective interpretation of reality. According to Nietzsches and Abrams ideas, we may suppose that the opinion of the society regarding this matter is merely based on both their personal and communal experiences. Therefore, police brutality cannot be assessed objectively because of its multifaceted nature and the number of parties that are involved in the hypothetic discussion.
Police brutality can also be perceived as a pure example of objectivity as the law enforcement officers are influenced by their duty to preserve safety and do whatever it takes to protect civilians. In this case, Marx and Engels materialistic ideas and Descartes concept of non-physical thinking justify the actions of police officers by supposing that their objective thinking is objective within all available contexts.
The ultimate decision regarding this issue should be subjective because the objectivity of police officers can be viewed as subjective by the majority of the society or any given individual whose life may be endangered due to the law enforcement officers actions. One should review all the points of view in order to reach an objective verdict, and it is not possible in real life without exploring all the available perspectives before the decision-making process.
Works Cited
Abram, David. The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-than- human World. Vintage, 2003.
Descartes, Rene. Discourse on the Method: Of Rightly Conducting Ones Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences. The Floating Press, 2009.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. On Historical Materialism. Progress Publishers, 1984.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. A Genealogy of Morals. Macmillan, 1897.
Positivist paradigm was developed in the 19th century after the rejection of metaphysics by scholars such as August Compte. Before the introduction of the positivist paradigm, the world was studied through natural sciences. Positivist believed that the social world can be studied through observations and analysis of research findings. Consequently, the positivist paradigm was developed to help in studying the social world with the aim of acquiring accurate knowledge on social phenomenon. Positivist scientists believe that there is a real world that is independent. Thus it is not affected by the perception of human beings. Positivists believe that reality is composed of human phenomena that are causally linked to one another (Travers, 2010, p. 12). For example, the expected degradation of the environment in the Mackenzie delta was linked to the construction of a pipeline in the region. The positivist paradigm is based on the epistemology of empiricism (Travers, 2010, p. 12). This means that the real world can only be understood by acquiring knowledge that is supported by empirical evidence. Thus any social phenomenon that can not be measured or verified with the aid of common senses is not real.
In the Mackenzie Valley pipeline inquiry, the commissioner had to base his judgment on the empirical evidence provided by the investigation. Consequently, scientific research was done on the potential negative impacts on the environment. The outcome of the investigation revealed that the project would interfere with the ecosystem and endanger some species of animals and birds (Berger, 1988, p. 96). Thus the commissioner ruled against the project. According to the positivist paradigm, the findings of the inquiry were considered to be knowledge since they were based on empirical evidence. According to the paradigm, researchers should be able to conduct their investigations in a manner that is free from the bias that is associated with prejudice and personal values (Travers, 2010, p. 13). Consequently, the commissioner had to listen to all concerned parties in order to get the unbiased position on the impacts of the project. Positivism focuses on objectivism in collecting data through observations.
Criticism of Positivist Paradigm
The potential impact of the pipeline project was the subject matter of the inquiry. The positivist paradigm helps in understanding the subject of the inquiry in three ways. First, the paradigm relies on empirical evidence (Travers, 2010, p. 12). Consequently, it is possible to understand how and why the commissioner rejected the project. The commissioners decision was based on empirical evidence that was presented during the inquiry. Second, the paradigm focuses on fairness or justice. This helps in understanding why various groups had to be given attention by the commissioner. Finally, the concept of objectivism enables use to understand the relationship between the methods used in the investigation and the expected impacts of the project. Objectivism enables researchers to approach a problem with an open mind. Consequently, the commissioner adopted a neutral ground on the matter. The neutral position was adopted in order to avoid bias that is attributed to prejudice and personal views.
Critical Paradigm
The critical paradigm was originated by Marxist scientist who opposed the objectivity of the positivist paradigm. According to Marx, the positivists objectivism favored the rich and the powerful in the society. Thus the truth about social phenomenon represents the interests of the bourgeoisie (Travers, 2010, p. 15). Marxists believe that the only way to get an unbiased picture of the society is to focus on class consciousness. This is because objectivism represents the views of the powerful instead of the reality. Thus the paradigm is based on the concept of class conflict (Travers, 2010, p. 16). In the Mackenzie pipeline project, there was a class conflict between the rich who proposed the project and the poor who opposed the project. According to the paradigm, the real world is socially constructed with the intention of benefiting the powerful. The powerful create social relations and institutions that help them to justify their actions and interests (Smith, 1999, p. 23). The poor are expected to accept their fate due to the fact that they can not change the social system that is responsible for their oppression (Smith, 1999, p. 29). For example, the powerful proposed the project in the name of economic development. However, the economic development was to benefit the powerful at the expense of the poor. This is because the local communities were to lose the land that they depended on (Berger, 1988, p. 62).
The critical paradigm is based on subjective epistemology (Travers, 2010, p. 18). This means that the suffering of the oppressed individuals forms the basis of knowledge. The communities that lived in the Mackenzie region depended on the environment for their livelihood (Berger, 1988, p. 62). Thus the implementation of the project could have interfered with their economic activities. Their collective subjection formed the basis of knowledge about the potential negative impacts of the project (Travers, 2010, p. 18). According to the critical paradigm the value of truth is based on the ability of knowledge to emancipate oppressed individuals (Travers, 2010, p. 19). Thus it is the expected suffering that prompted the locals to oppose the project. According to the paradigm, social science should focus on solving social problems through dialogue (Travers, 2010, p. 19). It is for this reason that the inquiry considered the views of all parties in order to find a lasting solution.
Criticism of Critical Paradigm
The critical paradigm helps in understanding the subject of the inquiry in three ways. First, the concept of class consciousness reveals the fact that the implementation of the project could have led to inequality and poverty among the locals. Second, the dialogue approach helps in understanding the fact that the various parties had different views concerning the pipeline project (Berger, 1988, p. 122). Consequently, the inquiry was meant to utilize the various views of the concerned parties to find a lasting solution. Finally, the critical paradigm clarifies the fact that occurrences or problems in the social world are created by the community. The powerful use their resources to exploit the poor and this leads to problems such as inequality, class conflict and the degradation of the environment.
References
Berger, T. (1988). Northern frontier northern homeland. Toronto: Simon Fraser University.
Smith, L. (1999). Decolonizing methodology. London: Zed Books.
Travers, A. (2010). The philosophy of the social sciences. Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University.
The inherent problem I have with Rorty in this article is the fact that the concept of a socially defined truth clashes with the changing nature of society and the potential for people to agree on something being the truth when it is false. First and foremost, what you have to understand is that what is defined as socially acceptable under the concept of generally accepted truth tends to change based on the society present at the time.
For instance, when examining ancient Greek society, it was considered generally acceptable for an older male at the time to have a social contract with a far younger male (i.e., sex for money and influence). In this instance, the fact that it was considered appropriate social behavior as compared to the present (i.e., pedophilia) shows that what is considered as truthful tends to change.
This shift was noted during the 1920s till early 1990s wherein western society generally frowned upon the concept of men sleeping with other men. It was only recently that the concept became a more mainstream and socially acceptable type of behavior. As such, one must ask what version is the truth. Is the ancient Greek truth of grown men lying with young boys correct, is it the social notion from the 1900s that men sleeping with men is unacceptable, or is it the present-day iteration wherein being gay is entering mainstream acceptability?
In essence, Rortys thesis on the concept of truth is far more subjective and up for interpretation rather than something objective and thus irrefutable. It should also be noted that there have been numerous instances throughout history that something that was defined as truth was proven to be false through science. For instance, it was the generally accepted truth during Ancient Greek society that weather patterns and natural occurrences were done through the actions of Gods and Goddesses.
This was accepted as truth by most of Greek society at the time and, as such, this manifested itself through various rituals and sacrifices meant to appease the Gods. However, based on the development of science over the years, we now know that weather and natural occurrences are a direct result of the normal, natural environment at work that is inherently influenced by the climate, position of the Earth relative to the Sun as well as tectonic activity in the Earths crust.
Taking this into consideration, it can thus be stated that the generally accepted societal truth that was a cornerstone of the ancient Greek belief system was, in fact, a false assumption. However, how can something be completely false if it is generally accepted as truth by a society? This aspect shows that for Rorty, the premise behind what is considered as truth is entirely independent of what can be stated as absolute fact.
It is based on this that I completely disagree with the thesis put forth by Rorty given its subjective correlation of truth. I believe that the concept of truth should be something that is based on an objective opinion that has been properly vetted by scientific inquiry. While it may be true that there are many aspects that were previously considered as truth due to a lack of scientific and the belief of a society, the fact remains that promoting the establishment of such a way of thinking is an adverse progression for social development.
Many researchers agree that there is no future as there are many futures. This viewpoint is difficult to refute as the history of humanity has a variety of examples that support this opinion. Peoples vision of the future also depends on their present and, vice versa, peoples present is shaped by their forecasts (Burns & McGrail 2012). Analysis of a picture created in the middle of the twentieth century may also be exemplary (Jacques of trades 2011). The picture depicts a city of the future as seen in the middle of the 20th century.
The standpoint of a woman of the 20th century
I asked my mothers friend, Mary, to comment upon the picture. Marys analysis of the picture can be regarded as an illustration of the first Dators law of the future, i.e. any useful statement concerning the future should seem ridiculous (Markley 2012, p. 6). Mary recalls that such a picture could be in a science fiction book in the middle of the twentieth century and it was rather ridiculous to suppose that such a future was possible. Though, now she agrees that that future is possible as she knows that such metros as New York or Tokyo resemble the image depicted in the picture.
Mary has reconsidered her attitude towards the future and she can easily admit that the future that seemed possible is rather plausible (Voros 2003, p. 16). Mary has also changed her views on governance and possible ways to develop. Dator (2006) notes that prior to the nineteenth-century people could easily use patterns that had been developed earlier as there was little change in the society, but people of the twentieth century witnessed constant change and it was difficult to come up with proper ways for future generations.
The standpoint of a representative of the 21st century
I (being a representative of the 21st century) perceive the picture differently. I can say that for me, it is rather a preferable future which is quite easy to achieve in terms of technology, but quite difficult to have in terms of global trends (Voros 2003, p. 16). Slaughter (2004) claims that people of the 21st century tend to see the future society as dystopian. The picture in question represents a metro of the present day, but it is difficult to foresee what can happen. Alford, Keenihan, and McGrail (2012) also state that people cannot rely on the past as a possible pattern to use to make decisions. I cannot predict the development of the future society and I cannot think of the future of society as I tend to think about probable and possible futures. I also support somewhat dystopian futures suggested by Maavak (2012). I think such futures are possible as the present is full of turmoil and uncertainty.
Conclusion
It is possible to note that different generations see the future differently. For instance, people of the twentieth century saw the future whereas people tend to see futures these days.
Reference List
Alford, K, Keenihan, S & McGrail, S 2012, The complex futures of emerging technologies: challenges and opportunities for science foresight and governance in Australia, Journal of Futures Studies, vol. 16 no. 4, pp. 67-86.
Burns, A & McGrail, S 2012, Australias potential Internet futures: incasting alternatives using a new technology images framework, Journal of Futures Studies, vol. 16 no. 4, pp. 33-50.
Dator, JA 2006, Fairness, globalization, and public institutions: East Asia and beyond, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
Jacques of all trades, 2011. Web.
Maavak, M 2012, Class warfare, anarchy and the future society, Journal of Futures Studies, vol. 17 no. 2, pp. 15-36.
Markley, O 2012, Imaginal visioning for prophetic foresight, Journal of Futures Studies, vol. 17 no. 1, pp. 5-24.
Slaughter, R 2004, Futures beyond dystopia: creating social foresight, Routledge, New York.
Voros, J 2003, A generic foresight process framework, Foresight, vol. 5 no. 3, pp. 10-21.
In the conclusion of the fourth part of Discourse on Method lies Descartes paradoxical assertion that the whole process of systematic and rational deduction is based on our assured knowledge of God, however, in the end, he explicitly states that the comprehension of Gods existence is beyond the capability of an imperfect creature like man (Descartes, 2013). This paradox becomes prominent in Descartes method of proof of Gods existence and the clarification of Gods omnipresence and superiority.
The question that becomes obvious is if God is the one who gives man the power to comprehend and rationalize then how can a man be sure of Gods existence? In other words, when the idea of God is deduced based on the method of deductive rationalization, then how can a man be sure that God exists? So the logical question that follows is what comes first God or the manifestation of his existence?
Main body
The whole logic on which Descartes proves the existence of God is based on the understanding that God gave us the power to think rationally: our ideas or notions, being real things that get from God everything that is vivid and clear in them (Descartes, 2013, p. 17). As Descartes assumes that God gives all senses that help man to come to a rational conclusion, he actually presupposes his existence. Therefore, the whole exercise of proving Gods existence through logical deduction becomes futile as the idea of God becomes an essential axiom to the proofs of his existence (Beyssade, 1992). As the premise of Gods existence is an essential element for the proof of his existence, it, hence, can be deduced that the idea of the presence of God is present in our personal discourse.
The burning paradox of Descartes logical proof of Gods existence becomes more inconsistent when the readers come across the most essential axiom based on which the proof was drawn, i.e. God gives man his ability of rational thinking. This axiom is revealed only after Descartes has proved this theory of Gods existence.
The proposition that is imparted at the beginning of Part IV is completely obscured in its ending. The first proposition that Descartes gives, in the beginning, is I am thinking, therefore I exist (Descartes, 2013, p. 15) puts forth the belief that mans existence is related to his faculty to think and not to any other thing. The phrase however has a drawback. It does not prove that because I am thinking that I am (Broughton, 2002). In other words, I am thinking does not directly imply that I think i.e. man is capable of independent thought. Consequently, one cannot deduce the general existence of I through the phrase I am thinking which is thought at a moment and not the general potency to think.
Conclusion
He then goes ahead to show that man cannot be the one who proves his own existence he moves ahead to prove the existence of God. He states: For, according to the arguments I have just presented: in order to know as much of Gods nature as my nature allows me to know, all I needed was to consider, for each property of which I had some idea, whether having it was a perfection or not (Descartes, 2013, p. 16).
It is clear from the passage that Descartes makes a prior assumption of the existence of God before he goes ahead to prove his existence. In a way, in rationalizing the existence of his own existence that Descartes contemplates Gods existence as well as his nature. Therefore, Descartes had presupposed Gods presence even before he went ahead to prove Gods existence.
References
Beyssade, J.-M. (1992). The Idea of God and the proofs of his existence. In J. Cottingham, The Cambridge Companion to Descartes (pp. 174-199). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Broughton, J. (2002). Descartess Method of Doubt. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Descartes, R. (2013). Discourse on the Method Part 4. Web.