Up@dawn 2.0

Monday, December 30, 2019

How to Understand the Universe When You’re Stuck Inside of It

Lee Smolin has a radical idea for how to understand an object with no exterior: Imagine it built bit-by-bit from relationships between events. His biggest inspiration: Leibniz

The universe is kind of an impossible object. It has an inside but no outside; it’s a one-sided coin. This Möbius architecture presents a unique challenge for cosmologists, who find themselves in the awkward position of being stuck inside the very system they’re trying to comprehend.

It’s a situation that Lee Smolin has been thinking about for most of his career. A physicist at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada, Smolin works at the knotty intersection of quantum mechanics, relativity and cosmology. Don’t let his soft voice and quiet demeanor fool you — he’s known as a rebellious thinker and has always followed his own path. In the 1960s Smolin dropped out of high school, played in a rock band called Ideoplastos, and published an underground newspaper. Wanting to build geodesic domes like R. Buckminster Fuller, Smolin taught himself advanced mathematics — the same kind of math, it turned out, that you need to play with Einstein’s equations of general relativity. The moment he realized this was the moment he became a physicist. He studied at Harvard University and took a position at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, eventually becoming a founding faculty member at the Perimeter Institute.

“Perimeter,” in fact, is the perfect word to describe Smolin’s place near the boundary of mainstream physics. When most physicists dived headfirst into string theory, Smolin played a key role in working out the competing theory of loop quantum gravity. When most physicists said that the laws of physics are immutable, he said they evolve according to a kind of cosmic Darwinism. When most physicists said that time is an illusion, Smolin insisted that it’s real.

Smolin often finds himself inspired by conversations with biologists, economists, sculptors, playwrights, musicians and political theorists. But he finds his biggest inspiration, perhaps, in philosophy — particularly in the work of the German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz, active in the 17th and 18th centuries, who along with Isaac Newton invented calculus. Leibniz argued (against Newton) that there’s no fixed backdrop to the universe, no “stuff” of space; space is just a handy way of describing relationships. This relational framework captured Smolin’s imagination, as did Leibniz’s enigmatic text The Monadology, in which Leibniz suggests that the world’s fundamental ingredient is the “monad,” a kind of atom of reality, with each monad representing a unique view of the whole universe. It’s a concept that informs Smolin’s latest work as he attempts to build reality out of viewpoints, each one a partial perspective on a dynamically evolving universe. A universe as seen from the inside.

Quanta Magazine spoke with Smolin about his approach to cosmology and quantum mechanics, which he details in his recent book, Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution. The interview has been condensed and edited for clarity... (Quanta, continues)

Was Socrates Anti-Democratic?

POSTED ON MONDAY, DEC 30, 2019 2:10AM

by Scott F. Aikin and Robert B. Talisse

When people talk about Socrates, they typically refer to the leading character in Plato’s dialogues. This is because little is known about the historical Socrates beyond the fact that he wandered barefoot around Athens asking questions, an activity that got him executed for religious invention and corrupting the youth in 399 BCE. The relation between the historical figure and the Platonic character is debatable. In any case, Plato’s Socrates is most commonly read as a staunch anti-democrat. However, once one distinguishes between being opposed to democracy from theorizing the ways democratic society can fail, the relationship between Socrates and democracy grows more complicated.

The depiction of Socrates as an anti-democrat draws largely from the scathing critique he launches in Plato’s masterpiece, The Republic. There, Socrates famously characterizes democracy as the rule of the unwise, corrupt mob. Like children loose in a candy store, the democratic herd pursues pleasure only, rewarding sweet-talkers and flatterers with the power of political office, who in turn exploit politics for their own gratification. The result is injustice. Accordingly, Socrates says, democracy ultimately dissolves into tyranny — a population of citizens dominated by their basest desires, and an opportunistic ruler that manipulates them for personal gain.

Socrates’ critique of democracy is formidable. Notice, however, that Socrates is laying out a vulnerability inherent within democratic politics that no advocate of democracy can afford to ignore. In fact, the tradition of democratic theory is largely focused on identifying ways in which this vulnerability can be mitigated. And popular discussions today about disinformation, corruption, and incivility tend to concede much of Socrates’ case. The point is that giving voice to a standing weakness of democracy does not by itself make one an anti-democrat. One might argue that a crucial part of democratic advocacy is to engage in criticism of extant democratic practice.

Yet in The Republic, Socrates also lays out a vision of the perfect city, the kallipolis, and it is decidedly undemocratic. Kallipolis is an absolute kingship where philosophers rule over a strictly stratified society in which everything is exactingly regulated, from education, production, and conquest to art, diet, sex, and parenting. According to the standard line, that Socrates proposes the kallipolis as the paradigm of justice entails that he is an anti-democrat... (3qd, continues)

Trumpschmerz

So much for the holidays. In the quiet of Christmas and New Year’s, the President of the United States has repeatedly attacked “Crazy Nancy” Pelosi and her family, inveighed against the “bogus Impeachment Scam” and circulated the alleged name of the C.I.A. whistle-blower whose complaint triggered it, retweeted an account that described former President Barack Obama as “Satan’s Muslim Scum,” hosted the accused war criminal he recently pardoned over the objections of military leaders, and promoted a post calling himself “the best President of all time.” He even accused the Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, of personally ordering Canadian television to cut a seven-second snippet of the schmaltzy Christmas movie “Home Alone 2” that features Drumpf, an accusation the President refused to retract, although it was quickly proven that the scene was one of many edited out as a time-saver back in 2014, long before either Trudeau or Drumpf was anywhere close to power.

Even now, three years into the Drumpf Presidency, there is no language to fully capture the madness of all this, though many of my journalistic colleagues have gone to great lengths to record and codify just how disturbingly nutty 2019 has been. The Washington Post reports that Drumpf ended the year having made more than fifteen thousand four hundred false and misleading statements since his inauguration. CNN’s “Inside Politics” produced a four-page, single-spaced list of all the people and institutions Drumpf has attacked by name this year. There are online trackers for the unprecedented levels of turnover in Drumpf’s Administration and for the rapidly proliferating array of lawsuits involving Drumpf’s assertions of sweeping executive authority. By any measure, 2019 will go down as a remarkable year in the annals of the American Presidency: Drumpf began it by causing the longest-ever federal government shutdown in history, after Congress refused to spend billions on his proposed border wall, and ended it as only the third President in history to be impeached by the House of Representatives.

But, of course, all the metrics can’t really quantify the crazy of a President who acts like this and the relatively stable forty per cent of the public that continues to approve of him, no matter what he says and does. How will we explain to our future selves the sheer bizarreness of an American leader who rants at rallies about the evils of windmills and modern toilets, who brags that he and North Korea’s homicidal dictator “fell in love,” who repeats Russian propaganda from the Oval Office, and who issues major national-security decisions by fiat on Twitter without informing the Pentagon, State Department, or his own staff? All of that happened this year, too, and it’s not even what he was impeached over. (continues)

Why we need Walt Whitman

When Walt Whitman arrived in Washington at the end of 1862 to take up residence in the city and serve as a hospital volunteer, the construction of the Capitol dome was not yet complete. In a dispatch published in the Oct. 4, 1863, edition of The New-York Times, Whitman described this “vast eggshell, built of iron and glass, this dome — a beauteous bubble” that “emerges calm and aloft from the hill, out of a dense mass of trees.” The poet recounted how a “few days ago, poking about there, eastern side” he found the yet to be hoisted Statue of Freedom that now crowns the Capitol dome “all dismembered, scattered on the ground, by the basement front.” In retrospect it’s a rather on-the-nose metaphor, this personified representation of liberty “standing in the mud” while the nation immolated itself in civil war, yet still visible to our greatest poet and prophet of democracy, perhaps signifying the incomplete task of the American project.

When the war began, Whitman was despondent, but the violence of those years seemed to strengthen and clarify his faith in democracy, a faith that would take on a transcendent dimension. For the poet, democracy wasn’t simply the least bad form of government, it wasn’t reducible to dreary policy and endless debate, but it was rather a vital, transformative and regenerative ethos. Even as the survival of what President Abraham Lincoln called the “last, best hope of earth” was in doubt, Whitman’s belief in the philosophical and political foundation of the nation flourished.

If the war against illiberalism takes place on many fronts, including the economic and the cultural, then one domain where the revanchists are clearly gaining power is in the realm of the transcendent. In the delusions of “blood and soil” there is for many the attraction of a deeper meaning. Authoritarians claim that they offer their nations (or at least a segment of the population) unity and purpose. The 20th-century German philosopher (and victim of the Nazis) Walter Benjamin warned how fascism engages an “aestheticization of politics,” where spectacle and transcendence provide a type of ecstasy for its adherents. Watch clips of fevered crowds, from today or the past, chanting against “enemies of the people”; they are malignant scenes, but ones that in no small part mimic religious revivals.

Critics of democracy often claim that it offers no similar sense of transcendence. The 19th-century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche castigated democracy as a system of “quarantine mechanisms” for human desires, and as “such they are … very boring.” If the individual unit of democracy is the citizen, authoritarian societies thrill to the Übermensch, the superman promising that “I alone can fix it.” Yet I would argue that all of the hallmarks of authoritarianism — the rallies and crowds, the marching and military parades, the shouting demagogue promising his followers that they are superior — are wind and hot air. What fascism offers isn’t elevation but cheap transcendence, a counterfeit of meaning rather than the real thing. (continues)

Wednesday, December 18, 2019

"There is a tomorrow"

Spring 2020 Honors Lecture Series on Climate Change

"There is a tomorrow": Philosophical Reflections on the Climate Crisis

Teenage climate activist and TIME Magazine's Person of the Year  Greta Thunberg says “We can’t just continue living as if there was no tomorrow, because there is a tomorrow. That is all we are saying.”

Today, though, the forecast for tomorrow is cloudy. "We’re in big trouble," says one commentator:
Over the coming 25 or 30 years, scientists say, the climate is likely to gradually warm, with more extreme weather. Coral reefs and other sensitive habitats are already starting to die. Longer term, if emissions rise unchecked, scientists fear climate effects so severe that they might destabilize governments, produce waves of refugees, precipitate the sixth mass extinction of plants and animals in the Earth’s history, and melt the polar ice caps, causing the seas to rise high enough to flood most of the world’s coastal cities. The emissions that create those risks are happening now, raising deep moral questions for our generation.

But the rise of a new generation of engaged activists, led now by Thunberg, leads long-time climate crusader Al Gore to hope for a bright new dawn. “This moment does feel different. Throughout history, many great morally based movements have gained traction at the very moment when young people decided to make that movement their cause.”

In my talk I'll reflect on environmental ethics and the perils and promise of this moment.
January 27
Philip Phillips
Introduction / Syllabus
February 3
Law Harrington
Keynote Speaker
February 10
Kim Sadler and Cindi Smith-Walters
Are K-12 Educators Teaching about Climate Change
February 17
Phil Oliver
“There is a tomorrow:”  Philosophical Reflections on the Climate Crisis
February 24
Alisa Hass
The Who, What, When, Where and Why of Heat Exposure in a Warmer World
March 2
Ennio Piano
Some Economics of Climate Change
March 16
Kate Pantelides
Climate Rhetoric:  Examining Genre Change in the UN Climate Report
March 23
Ryan Otter
Climate Change through the Lens of Data Science
March 30
John DiVincenzo
Climate Change:  The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth, so help me Science
April 6
Daniel Sandweiss
Using Climatic and Cultural History to Understand El Nino’s Role in Ancient Peru
April 13
John Vile
A Biblical Approach to Climate Change

Monday, December 16, 2019

Happy birthday Arthur C. Clarke

Like meaning and purpose (see next post), optimism may also be self-fulfilling... so long as we can still unplug the stubborn technology that would frusttrate it. "Open the pod-bay door, HAL..."
Image result for 2001 a space odysseyArthur C[harles] Clarke (1917) In 2007, on his 90th birthday, Clarke recorded a video in which he says goodbye to his friends and fans. In it, he said: "I have great faith in optimism as a guiding principle, if only because it offers us the opportunity of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. So I hope we've learnt something from the most barbaric century in history — the 20th. I would like to see us overcome our tribal divisions and begin to think and act as if we were one family. That would be real globalization ..." He died of respiratory failure three months later. WA

Friday, December 13, 2019

Asking yourself 'What's the meaning of life?' may extend it



This essay is part of a column called The Wisdom Project by David Allan, editorial director of CNN Health and Wellness. The series is on applying to one's life the wisdom and philosophy found everywhere, from ancient texts to pop culture. You can follow David at @davidgallan. Don't miss another Wisdom Project column; subscribe here.

(CNN) — "What is the meaning of life?"

It's one of those enormous questions that's so important -- both philosophically and practically, in terms of how we live our lives -- and yet we rarely, if ever, stop to really think about the answer.

Given that you might be able to formulate your response in less than a minute, the wisdom-to-effort ratio for this philosophical exercise could not be more advantageous.

And having an answer may even improve your health and help you live longer.

A new study published Tuesday in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry examined the relationship between our physical and mental well-being and the search for, or presence of, purpose in life.

After studying 1,300 subjects from ages 21 to more than 100, the authors found that older people were more likely to have found their life's purpose, while younger people were more likely still searching. That's logical, given that wisdom is often born from experience. According to research by Stanford education professor William Damon, the author of "The Path to Purpose," only 20% of young adults have a fully realized sense of their life's meaning.

And according to the new study, the presence of meaning in one's life showed a positive correlation to one's health, including improved cognitive function, while searching for it may have a slight negative effect. Mental and physical well-being was self-reported, and having a sense of purpose tended to peak around age 60, the study found.

According to two other studies published in 2014 -- one among 9,000 participants over age 65 and another among 6,000 people between 20 and 75 -- those who could articulate the meaning and purpose of their lives lived longerthan those who saw their lives as aimless. It didn't seem to matter what meaning participants ascribed to their life, whether it was personal (like happiness), creative (like making art) or altruistic (like making the world a better place). It was having an answer to the question that mattered.

The connection to longevity could be causal -- having purpose may help one cope with daily stress, as other research has shown -- but it could also be that those who think about life's meaning are more likely to do other activities that promote good health.

Or as the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche is quoted as saying, "He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how," nicely summing up the connection between having purpose and forbearance in one's life.


Starting an annual meaning of life resolution


The easiest but perhaps healthiest resolution you could make in the New Year may be to simply ask yourself what the meaning of life is for you. What gives you purpose? Why are we all here?


Every January for more than two decades, I have taken a few moments to ponder the answer to the question.


The reason I ask it annually is because my answer changes over time, which I find interesting and insightful. There is no objectively correct answer, I believe, only answers that are right for you at any given time.


Great thinkers (and celebrities) have given the question thought, so you can look to the words attributed to them for inspiration. Aristotle, the Greek philosopher who lived 2,500 years ago, is believed to have written that the essence of life is "to serve others and to do good," and the Roman philosopher Cicero, born 280 years later, came to the same conclusion. As did Russian author Leo Tolstoy, who wrote, "The sole meaning of life is to serve humanity." And His Holiness the Dalai Lama added, "if you can't help them, at least don't hurt them."








Scottish rugby legend Nelson Henderson put the same notion poetically when he said, "The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit." And actress Whoopi Goldberg's meaning-of-life metaphor was to "throw little torches out to lead people through the dark."


"Love" was the conclusion of Trappist monk and writer Thomas Merton, and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" actress Julie Benz. Alternatively, actor Arnold Schwarzenegger concluded, "The meaning of life is not simply to exist, to survive but to move ahead, to go up, to achieve, to conquer."


My favorite answer, though, is the Zen-like circular reasoning attributed to writer Robert Byrne, who put it, "The purpose of life is a life of purpose."


Some have concluded that life's meaning is subjective. "There is not one big cosmic meaning for all," Anaïs Nin wrote in her diary. "There is only the meaning we each give to our life, an individual meaning, an individual plot, like an individual novel, a book for each person."








I agree, which is why I recommend formulating your own answer. "Each man must look to himself to teach him the meaning of life. It is not something discovered: It is something molded," wrote Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, well-known for his book "The Little Prince."


Taking a few moments to record your answer to the question "what is the meaning of life?" is the kind of simple exercise that effectively adds meaning to your life.


And then I suggest answering it every year. Looking back at how your thinking has evolved and been influenced by experience tells you something more about yourself. Cumulatively, it gets you closer to a deeper self-understanding.


In 1997, my answer was "the discovery, pursuit and attainment of one's bliss," inspired by myth expert Joseph Campbell. A year later, is was to make "the world a better place." In 2002, the year I got engaged, it was simply "Love." And the year we conceived our oldest daughter, it was the less-romantic "continuation of one's DNA to the next generation." But most years, my answer is some combination of love, legacy, happiness, experience and helping others.


As a practical matter, if you want to do the annual "Meaning" exercise, I suggest not looking at past answers before answering anew, to avoid biasing your answer. I write them down on the same now-yellowing piece of loose-leaf paper, and keep it someplace safe.


The last use of this experiment is to try to turn your answer into action. If you conclude, as Tolstoy and Aristotle did, that the meaning of life to help others, that should help motivate you to do more of it. If "love," is the answer, then love more. If it's "find your bliss," then get searching for it.


This is not a theoretical exercise. Whatever small step you make toward finding the meaning of life is a step toward a more meaningful, and longer, life.


https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/31/health/meaning-of-life-wisdom-project/index.html

Thursday, December 12, 2019

Time's up

The CoPhi final report post deadline for Fall 2019 has now passed. Happy Holidays.

Image result for deadline cartoon new yorker

Duct tape + banana = art.


The question of "what is art?" has made a rare appearance in the mainstream culture recently. Italian artist Maurizio Cattelan duct-taped a banana to a wall, and it sold for $120,000 at Miami's Art Basel, which set off quite a controversy around the world. People often scoff at works like this, saying, "I could have done that!" But they didn't. The artist thought of it, no one else.

Cattelan is known for work that provokes commentary and engagement. His 2011 solo exhibition featured all of his work suspended from the ceilings. In 2016, he replaced one of the toilets in a Guggenheim Museum public restroom with a fully functional 18-carat gold commode. "The Comedian," as he titled the banana, was not some off-hand prank, the work was a year in the making. Initially, the artist had planned to create a sculpture of the fruit, making models in resin, bronze and painted bronze before deciding to use an actual banana. The piece is meant as a contemplation of objects and their value in context. It is also a critique of the inequalities of the art world and capitalism, in general. It is a criticism of the art world from within it. It has meaning and a message.

Philosopher and art critic Arthur Danto declared simply that something was art when it had meaning. Kirk Varnedoe, an art historian, felt that artists were "meaning-makers, not just image-makers." Kant also believed that art consists of making meanings, that it is human nature look past just things, and seek the message in what we see. 

Art is about using line, color, shape, texture, and any other elements to communicate with the viewer. I've come to believe that this is the value of art, how it connects with the community. It might be a community of just the artist and one viewer but still a community of sorts. Art, in its ideal, is an integral part of everyday life. All art is representational on some level, it may not accurately depict a tree or flower, but more importantly, art expresses a meaning. The essence of nature, the experience of life. Dewey said that "science states meanings, art express them." 

Each brushstroke, every placement of color or line, every decision is an artist organizing these elements as well as the experiences and emotions they represent to distill feelings and ideas. This dialogue with the viewer is fundamental in nature. Art doesn't merely describe a scene; it seeks to portray an experience. Van Gogh never accurately portrayed the world around him in a literal sense, but his paintings did show the world in a way that speaks to many. It captured the truth of reality in a way that a camera never could achieve. 

This ability makes art the most universal means of communication. There's no need to translate human feelings of joy or despair portrayed by paint on canvas, chiseled from stone or welded in steel. We connect with it on a primal level. 

In the end, I think Dewey, Danto, Varnedoe, and Kant might agree that the banana was art. The banana duct-taped to a wall wasn't about the fruit as much as the meaning that the artist is communicating, and so it is art.

(Even if someone did walk up, rip it off the wall and eat the banana. But, maybe we should consider that art as well since it was a performance artist who did it?)

Sunday, December 8, 2019

Always a good question

Related image

Best of 2019



More Winter Reading suggestions... 100 notable books of 2019...
Connor Mixon
Section 11
Final Report

Related imageUtopias and distopias have been the subject of many stories in recent years. From The Giver to Nineteen Eighty-Fourwe've become familiar with the terrible societies of our nightmares. The control of families, careers and, possibly the most frightening, words, has shown us how much bad can be legitimized for the "good of the people." This brought me to a thought. What if the leaders and enforcers really did think this was what was best for the people, what if they just misunderstood.

Escapism (noun): the tendency to seek distraction and relief from unpleasant realities, especially by seeking entertainment or engaging in fantasy.

Escapism could be an explanation for how the leaders of such a society could legitimize their actions. If they don't look down at the lives of individuals, they could think that such a society is best for the people and not just themselves. Big Brother may have thought that the only way to keep a stable society was to control the masses even when his folly would have been revealed by a simple stroll through the streets of London. 
Image result for 1984
In both The Giver and Nineteen Eighty-four, Couples must apply for parenthood, and the size families is limited. This isn't something we would consider acceptable, but for someone who is not directly exposed to the state of the public, it could be seen as the best way for society to progress. They can't let just anyone have children, now can they. 

In both books, the individuals of the community are involved in the denial, either by propaganda, or medication. They believed the things that were limited were in their own best interests. The similarities between these communities, and the fact that most individuals are content with the powers that be shows the power of denial, and therefore, escapism.



Discussion Questions:
1. What other Distopian societies fall under the blanket of escapism?
2. How does escapism affect your life?

Positive and Negative Effects of Social Media on Society

Posted for William Disspayne, #13
December 7, 2019

The main questions of the technology debate seem to be whether or not technology can be a bad thing along with what makes up the internet really causes the harm, and whether or not parents of teen’s should limit their teen’s screen time.



The technology debate has been going on for quite some time now, and as we are exposed more and more to technology more problems occur and as a society we are constantly seeking answers and solutions to the questions that the technology scene arises. A major question for concern in the technology debate is whether or not teen’s screen time should be limited or not? Another major question in the technology realm that often comes up is whether or not technology is overall a good or a bad thing? Along with that, is the internet itself bad, or is what makes up the internet really at fault for what happens on the internet?



Growing up throughout the 90s and early 2000s technology was still seen as almost foreign, but as I aged technology started to become more and more a part of my life. I happen to be a large fan of technology, but even I would have to say that it has its problems. It is still important to keep structure for teen’s and technology users as we continue to progress further and further with technology. Everyone is different and that is definitely something that needs to be noted. Some teen’s might do great with no screen time regulations as they have better self control, but some might not be able to be given that freedom. So yes I am a big believer of technology, but as with any part of teenage years they are about learning and setting yourself up for the rest of life.

The technology of today can be very hard to control and regulate as the modern times have changed the way work is done in the workplace and in the classroom for teen’s. Maybe one of the biggest concerns that technology gives all users is the fact that there can be constant distraction. With so many jobs requiring hours and hours a day on a computer and most school assignments involving computers, makes it almost impossible to escape technology in the modern setting.






As an overview of the technology debate, the authors from two and additional sources all tend to agree at stasis in terms of definition, but when it comes to policy, conjecture, and quality the authors do all not reach stasis. Most of this comes from the fact that most believe that there is a problem with technology, but they disagree on common ground when it comes to solving the problems that come from technology. The proposal that more study is needed on the whole for technology and the effects of screen time, especially for teens.

Quiz Questions


How will the evolution and rapid advancements in technology continue to affect future generations?


How will technology continue to affect society in general on the whole?


Is technology and the internet truly only a self- control issue?

Discussion Questions


Do you think that the major problem with technology is peoples lack of overall self- control, or is technology just that much of a distraction in general?


Do you agree or disagree that we have already seen monumental changes in society with the implementation of technology and the internet in general throughout our relatively short time here on earth?

Works Cited

Boyd, Danah. "Blame Society, Not the Screen Time." The New York Times.

The New York Times, 11 July 2016. Web. 6 Dec. 2019.

Bergman, Chris. "Don't Limit Your Teen's Screen Time." The New York Times.

The New York Times, 16 July 2015. Web. 6 Dec. 2019.


Tynes, Brendesha, “Cyberbullying Is a Bigger Problem Than Screen Time Addiction.” New York

Times. New York Times, 24 Aug. 16. Web. 6 Dec. 2019.


Potenza, Marc. "Teens and Screen Time Is a Problem, But More Study Is Needed." New York

Times. New York Times, 16 July 15. Web. 6 Dec. 2019.


Young, Kimberly. "How to Regulate Your Child's Use of Technology at Every Age." New York

Times. New York Times, 16 July 15. Web. 6 Dec. 2019.

The Philosophy of Romanticism: Self-Awareness

Posted for Vladimir Sitnikoff, #12. December 7, 2019
The philosophy of romanticism emphasizes on emotional self-awareness as a fundamental condition in improving the society and bettering human life. The philosophy identifies with subjectivity rather than objectivity. Science tries to describe the world objectively. In this regard, there is no viewpoint through which the world is understood. I identify with the philosophy of the Romantics. I content that viewing a particular aspect subjectively is more important than focusing on the objective viewpoint. In the modern economic environment, subjectivity is preferred to objectivity as it fosters innovation and entrepreneurship essential in promoting the growth of economies. For example, if three people, a farmer, property developer, and artist look at a particular landscape, each of them would see it from a particular viewpoint. For instance, the property developer would see the potential of developing real estate apartments, a farmer would see the chance of practicing agriculture and the artist would see subtleties of form and color. In this context, each individual sees the landscape from a particular (subjective) viewpoint rather than an objective viewpoint. Whenever I look at something, I look at it from a perspective that could be able to make economic sense. In this regard, I prefer subjective evaluation to objective evaluation because it is bound to make sense out of a particular concept rather than just viewing it.


I believe that an individual should be allowed to lead a life that promotes independent self-determination, self-expression, and self-realization. In this regard, the nature of a person should not be defined by either the political or societal factors. The romanticism philosophy further emphasizes on these aspects. According to Wordsworth, one of the influential philosophers in the romantic period, ‘an individual could directly understand nature without the need for social and society artifice.' He further contends that salvation is a solitary individual choice and should not be in any way influenced by political movements. On a personal level, it attaches most importance to independence in decision making. Since the humans are created with ‘super' cognitive abilities, an individual should be allowed to make independent decisions rather than being coerced to accept a position that conflict with his values and aspirations.





The position goes hand in hand with Jean-Jacques Rousseau's ‘Noble Savage' idea that rejects corruption by society and artifice. Rosseau believes that ‘man was born, and he is everywhere in chains.' In this context, civilization is thought to seduce ‘man' and fill him with unnatural wants which drive him from his original freedom and true nature. Rosseau concludes that an individual should be ‘forced to be free' if he does not want to subscribe to a particular notion. I find this position an important element that should guide the modern societies. People should be given their original freedom to allow them to exhibit their true nature rather than imposing societal rules that restrict individual freedom. In this case, the current government systems are a perfect example. Most of these systems are defined by dictatorial and autocratic tendencies that define the nature of freedom and self-expression in the society. In such systems, the people are forced to subscribe to particular notions contrary to their aspirations. In response to the oppression from the government and other instruments of power, I contend that a ‘people' should come to terms with reality and fight for their original freedom to enable the expression of the true self. People would only rise to fight for a common purpose when they become aware of the existing realities and their implication on the society. A similar position is propagated by Hegel, a German Idealist philosopher. In one of his most famous statements, Hegel indicates that ‘The Real is the Rational and the Rational is the Real.' The statement regards the mind not just as a passive absorber but an active organizer of the real world. On the same note, the mind is considered not to know things-in-themselves resulting in the Geist (mind, spirit or soul) becoming real. People can only be free when the Geist becomes real. During this time, people can be able to understand reality thereby making free judgments based on a constructive thought process that has taken into consideration the consequences related to such decisions. I am a realist. I see and speak about things as they are. In the same regard, I think that people should be aware of the happenings in the real world and react appropriately rather than being passive observers. For example, I happened to witness an unfortunate happening when I lived in Indiana some years back. There were increased cases of domestic violence and few people gave a thought about. Most of the unaffected people thought that as long as it doesn't affect me, then it doesn't matter. One particular individual that headed a ministry in charge of handling such cases lost his daughter to domestic violence. That's when it hit him hard. He then decided to spearhead reform in the sector to fast-track investigations and aid justice. People should be in contact with reality and make appropriate decisions as regards to the situation. These sentiments are further echoed in the philosophy of the Romantics. In the end, a person does not have to be self-aware to enjoy life, but I believe the process of stepping back and becoming aware of your own thoughts and surroundings could lead to a way of life that is more fulfilling and curious than the next person.