Op-Ed: Swiss Ban On Minarets Intolerant

This 20 minute discussion on Talk of the Nation was very illustrative of Appiah's points about the conversations that need to happen and the dangers of counter-cosmopolitan thinking:
Egyptian-born writer Mona Eltahawy urges Europeans to use the vote as an impetus to address long-simmering questions about how they treats immigrants. She also argues that Muslims must examine the bigoted policies of many of their own countries.
You can listen here--it is a very interesting conversation--also because of the caller comments.

And you can read her Op Ed piece here. . .

Great TED Video that emphasizes points in Cosmopolitanism

East vs West--the myths that mystify

Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Stangers

I've decided that I don't need to give you a prompt. You all do a great job at engaging the text and linking to service--so, I'm leaving it wide open. If you find yourself struggling to link--email me and I will give you a prompt, no problem.

Here's my quote for the day that relates to relativism and whether or not there ARE universal moral truths:

The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.
- Flannery O'Connor (a great Southern novelist)

Inspirational 7 minute video

Bioneers and social justice issues

Prompt for On Being Authentic and Flesh and Standing for Something

In the final 2 chapters of On Being Authentic, Charles Guignon makes a few statements that should help us synthesize his proposal that authenticity might more fruitfully be considered a social virtue, as well as a personal virtue He has described the historical movements in intellectual thought that brought us to our present crux where we place high value on the development of our individual being. Yet this understanding of self-fulfillment, as an ends in itself, tends to conflict a bit with the democratic understanding that rights come with responsibilities. Our individual survival is interconnected to the condition of others.

Additionally, Chesire Calhoun, in “Standing for Something” reinforces Guignon’s final point that authenticity can be most fruitful understood as a “social virtue” (156) in which the personal undertaking of seeking to be and act authentically is “made possible by a social world in which certain democratic ideals have emerged.” Thus, “when the ideal of authenticity is understood in terms of its social embodiment [the ways in which we engage with the world] it is clear that being authentic is not just a matter of concentrating on one’s own self, but also involves deliberation about how one’s commitments make contribution to the good of the public world in which one is a participant” (Guignon, 163). Calhoun similarly argues that “integrity” can and should be seen as a social virtue for similar reasons:

Integrity calls us simultaneously to stand behind our convictions and to take seriously others' doubts about them. Thus, neither ambivalence nor compromise seem inevitably to betoken lack of integrity. If we are not pulled as far as uncertainty or compromise, integrity would at least demand exercising due care in how we go about dissenting. (260)

Please think about these ideas and one or more of the following statements in relation to your service using other quotes and concepts from the text and specific illustrations from service:

From “Story-Shaped Selves”:
Guignon describes Charles Taylor’s views:

To have an identity––to be able to answer the question, ‘Who are you?’––you must have an understanding of what is of crucial importance to you, and that means knowing where you stand within a context of questions about what is truly worth pursuing in life…To have an identity is t have some orientation in what Taylor calls ‘moral space,’ where the term ‘moral refers to whatever gives meaning and direction to a life. (136).

From “Authenticity in Context”:

G. summarizes the philosophical views of Bernard Williams:

“It is only through the our social interactions that we become selves whose inner episodes are given enough steadiness and cohesiveness so that our relations to others can be built on cooperation and trust” (155)

Outcasts United

So, what did you think?
Tried to add this to a comment after Joanna's but I couldn't paste the link in.
Go here to find out what Luma was able to do with the support that came after the exposure she got from the New York Times pieces written by Warren St. John, the author of this book. . . . Just as with Farmer's work, media exposure is very important to being able to implement change in a bigger way. . .

Prompt for On Being Authentic, Chapters 5 and 6

Okay, this is a big one--bite off what you can!

Guigon continues, in Chapter 5, to describe the ways in which our world and self views are influenced by “two deeply opposed conceptions of what life is all about” (78) and the ways in which these conflicting views have contributed to a kind of split modern personality and a series of binaries which we, consciously or unconsciously, use to understand ourselves and our relationship to the world. Guignon states that “most of us deal with the conflicting demands on us in the modern world by being instrumentalists in public and Romantics in private. That such an existence is polarized, that it breeds confusions when the private comes to be colonized by instrumentalist tendencies ––these are seen as inevitable problems of living in modern circumstances” (79-80). He goes on to say that what is of interest here is to consider the ways in which the “modern outlook is shaped by a distinctive set of binary oppositions that governs the way we sort things out in everyday life” (80). Use this chapter to explore (briefly) the implications of these opposing conceptions of selfhood and any examples you have from your own life, especially your service experience, this semester. But don’t stop there!

In the beginning of Chapter 6, Guignon sums up the concepts and ideas that he has presented thus far and then goes on to detail the post modern conception of the self which is really a non-self. Basically, the postmodern view, in this depiction, is an extension of the idea that society is a social construct–– now the individual is a product of that construct. Yet, while Guignon dismantles much of this view, he also shows how this “undoing” of the individual is also useful to countering the ways in which the ideals of individualism have gone astray in leading us to strive for an autonomy and “freedom” from worldly constraints which is neither possible or necessarily desirable. Guignon notes Richard Rorty who believed that a recognition of ourselves as socially conditioned was important for helping us to question and challenge that conditioning, even challenging what we think we believe or, as Rorty called it, our final vocabulary. For Rorty, it was important to be an “ironist”—doubting and questioning what we think we know, what may seem like the basis of our identity—for him this was the counter to fundamentalist thinking that has no room for doubt and is dangerous in a world filled with so many different worldviews.

Towards the end of the chapter, Guignon presents a “remedy” that puts the meaning back in a self and that helps us to think about the “unfinished” self that is the catalyst for Freire’s work.

To this end, Guignon introduces the concept of the dialogical self developed: by Mikhail Bakhtin. He tells us:

“The conclusion to draw from the dialogical nature of experience is that we experience the world through a “We’ before we experience it through an ‘I’…The dialogical conception of self has the advantage of making social interactions absolutely fundamental to our identity. It lets us see that being human is inextricably being part of a ‘We’” (121).

Can you illustrate ways in which your own identity has in any way been shifted/morphed/altered through any aspect of the interactions that you have had with others through service-learning?

Prompt for On Being Authentic and Flesh in the Age of Reason

In our reading from Ethics of Authenticity, Taylor points to the ways in which the moral ideal of authenticity was morphed into a focus on self-fulfillment that focuses only on the self, as if meaning/authenticity/true selfhood can best be "achieved" through a solitary process requiring a kind of retreat from the mundane, the everyday aspects of our lives (think Siddhartha as an aesthete). But, Taylor suggests, that in order to find the meaning we seek, that true self, it is important to understand that "we exist in a horizon of important questions" not just our own. We are embedded in a larger and very significant context. Maybe not all good or ideal but part of who we are and the self-defining choices that we make. He writes, "To shut out demands emanating beyond the self is precisely to suppress the conditions of significance, and hence to court trivialization" (40).
Guignon basically takes up Taylor's argument right there by examining the self-help movement and the formulaic approaches to "finding oneself" (again, think Siddhartha!).
Both of this week's readings deal with the tension between different ideas of selfhood and the striving for meaning/authenticity. Taylor and Porter begin to outline two different and often conflicting conceptions relating to the ideal of "being true to oneself," what it means to be "authentic," to "know oneself" that Taylor circled around. Both are extremes: self-denial/self-emptying/self-loss/self-abnegation/releasement vs self-possession/enownment/author of your own destiny.
Porter writes, "Thus, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, the sense of self needs rethinking" (16). Guignon believes that the "very notion of an intrinsically good, substantial self lying within becomes increasingly problematic in the contemporary world" (xii-xiii).
Use the texts to explore and illustrate the different, if flawed or extreme, ideals of selfhood that the authors describe. Many of you didn't quite catch the nuanced way in which Taylor forms his arguments, he lays out different perspectives but this doesn't mean that he is defending or putting out these ideas himself. You will see that Guignon does this also, he talks about this methodology in the preface. Philosophical writing is complex, so please try to understand what the authors are saying, what their project is, before deciding to argue a point. Critical thinking/reading is about investigation of and interaction with the text to increase your understanding of the concepts, if you disagree then be sure to use quotes to argue your point and make sure that you understand the larger context from which you pluck them. . .

Prompt for Pedagogy of Freedom

So, I want you to continue to think about what Freire is saying about education as something much broader than what we normally think of which is formal education. If we think about our ability to be both teachers/students in all aspects of our lives, Freire's points are still very applicable. If we are curious, then we also have to maintain a certain kind of openness to new information, and to experiences that challenge what we think we already know. This is a way of being which, I for one believe is a vital ingredient for moral growth as individuals and as societies.

Let's go back to an important concept that Freire poses in the beginning of last week's reading. He writes: "One of the biggest difficulties about this [the fact that we are always vulnerable to the transgression of others, meaning we can be violated by the unethical choices of others] ethical grounding is that we have to do everything in our power to sustain a universal human ethic without at the same time falling into a hypocritical moralism" (25). He goes on to say that this universal human ethic "calls us out of and beyond ourselves" (25).

Think about the idea of how we build understanding and trust of our shared humanity in relationship to Freire's concept of education, especially as he describes in this week's reading. Find places in the text that help you to understand the implications of his views in relationship to how we might build our capacity to find universal ethics related to human rights while not becoming "authoritarian" or dogmatic. Next, are there any ways that your service experience may already be deepening your understanding of this possibility or the complexity thereof? Or how do you anticipate that it might? Or ?

From Alford's upcoming book. . .

In the introduction to After the Holocaust: The Book of Job, Primo Levi, and the Path to Affliction (to be published this year by Cambridge University Press), Alford writes:
Is is good to know and accept one's nakedness and vulnerability before fate and might so that we do not become what [Simone] Weil called a Pharisee, one who worships the empire of might, social power in all its forms. This is perhaps the hardest thing for humans to do: not to confuse goodness and might––that is, not to worship might because it is might. Yet it is essential if we are to become just and good. "Only he who knows the empire of might and knows how not to respect it is capable of love and justice" (Weil, from The Illiad or The Poem of Force)

From the mouth of babes--speaking truth to power

Choices and the Fear of Being the Victim

When thinking about a historical moment usually a divided world does not come to mind. The decision we make becomes historical. Alford writes that we choice; however, "we have already made the choice a thousand times before in similar, less dramatic situations, even if we did not know it at the time" (70). It seems reasonable to access that since people make decisions based on past experiences our choice is already made. As we mature and experience more we might make better informed choices, but they all stem from our morals and those do not change. Our choices present a pattern for our beliefs and ideals which we continue to follow in all our choices. Alford states, "we have chosen by how we have lived our lives up until this point., Then our lives choose for us" (70). All the past choices we have made we have made based off of our morals so when we are presented with a more dramatic dilemma our choice is already made. Our actions throughout our life become the basis for our choice yet now the decision is made unconsciously. It's as if all the decisions we have mold our think tank and it goes off of past decisions.

As Alford talked about siding with the aggressor, the reason behind it struck me as simple, but one I had not thought of. He says, "We don't help because we are terrified of helplessness, a terror that our competitive culture does little to assuage. Perhaps it is fear of being substituted for the victim that leads so many to side with the aggressor..." (71). I believe that most people in our society are afraid of becoming a victim. It has a negative connotation. When one thinks of a victim, you think of someone who is weak and vulnerable. Nobody in our society wants to be percieved this way. Since our society looks down on victims I believe this is why we do whatever it takes not to become one. Whistleblowers, on the other hand, are becoming the victim. They stand up for the others and instead of the others becoming the victim, the whistleblower takes the heat. The whistleblowers act of becoming the scapegoat establishes his status as a victim. The whistleblower is subjected to losses such as his job, career, home, and family, attributed by the organization. The losses inflicted on the whistleblower by the organization make him the victim. In the first part of the quote, I personally relate to Alford when he says we are terrified of helplessness. A couple months ago my friends grandpa got diagnosed with cancer. I see her grandpa often and look up to him. He works down at my barn fixing small things for my friend. When he came down one day, I noticed that something had changed. His face had lost the color it once had and he seemed in pain. He has choosen not to have chemo and I could see in his eyes that he had already accepted defeat. As I noticed all this I just wanted to leave. I didn't want to accept the helplessness of this man and I myself did not want to feel helpless. I think the two go hand in hand; not only are we afraid of helplessness but we are afraid of being helpless. I didn't know what to say to her grandpa because I felt I didn't have anything to say that would be insightful about what he was going through. I couldn't relate to his experience or his decision and that made me terrified because I was helpless

choiceless choice is important

choiceless choice is an integral part of what makes a whistleblower because without it, the one blowing the whistle might not have the ability to stand behind the decsion they make. In Whistleblowers, Alford interviews one whistleblower by the name of Bower, who concludes, "Im glad i didnt have a choice. I dont think i could live with myself if i thought i chose all this." (42) Choiceless choice is essential to the keeping of a whistleblowers own sanity it seems, and without it i can see that whistleblowing might not occur nearly as much, or that is would not occur at all. they need this assurance to stand behind their actions.

Jill Bolte Taylor's Stroke of Insight

In Precarious Life, Butler emphasises the tension and contradiction that humans face. She proclaims that this tension is killing. Quoting Levinas, Butler writes, "the face of the other in its precariousness and defenselessness, is for me at once the temptation to kill and the call to peace, the 'You shall not kill'" (pg 134). One reason explaining as to why people would do this according to Butler is vulnerability. However, I do believe that some people find others weaknesses and vulnerabilites, I do not think that humans have a temptation to kill. It is not as if when we find out someones vulnerability we seek to eliminate them completely. People do use others vulnerabilities to get ahead of others. An example would be someone witnessing a crime. If the person who has committed a crime establishes that the other person is a "weak" individual, the person who has committed the crime may be able to threaten the person who witnessed the crime into not going to the authorites. Butler goes on to say that the face that prompts the reaction to kill is also the one that makes us refrain from killing. The face she writes, "at once tempts me with murder and prohibits me fromacting upon it..." (135) It is easy for humans to make such choices such as killing when they do not have to look at that person directly. Out of sight out of mind relating to unethical feelings relate. Once you have to look at a person, killing does not seem like the right solution, since that person is like you. When we are looking at someone and they acknowledge us we can relate to them and feel their suffering. The story of the soldier not killing his enemy when he runs into him is an example of this. Soldiers are faced with this dilema everyday. It is a lot easier for a human to kill and not see their target. Looking someone in the face gives that person an identity; therefore, changing our perceptions about them and our ability to do wrong against them.

Has CCS got it right?

So i was doing my pwrpoint presentation for this class and i was thinking: has CCS really got the right idea with these kids? it is great that they graduate this place with a high school degree, but what becomes of them afterword? With no viable skills it seems like they are just a burden being passed on. Granted, there are doubtless a few students who have ended up really shining, but for the greater part I'm really wondering what happens to them. So for my project i suggested that CCS collaborate with unions and the trades in order to get graduating students into strong careers and high-paid work. Some of these students might end up supporting their whole families in the future, and the harsh reality is that with the low skills they have, the current job market is holding success far out of their reach. If they turned around a got trade skills as part of their general education, i think we'd see a lot more long-term success on the part of the students. Yes, many do graduate, but what do they graduate into? without some better options, i see a bleak situation.

Watch this!

Azar Nafisi 4 minute video: Is crisis good for America?

collective responsibility

Arendt opens this weeks reading with collective guilt and responsibility. Although I do not come in close contact with gilt while doing service learning at the hospital, I see collective responsibility in affect. At the end of the day the whole hospital is responsible for how patients have been treated and how many survive. No doctor is blamed for what might have gone wrong. That is not the way a hospital gets its reputation, in fact it is through collective responsibility. Even though I am not a doctor or nurse and can not practice directly on patients, while I serve at the hospital I have the responsibility of maintaining all codes of conduct and enforcing our mission. The hospital as a whole is “held responsible for what has been done in its name” (149). It is the community Arendt gives an example of on page 150 and describes that we cannot live without a community. I can leave the hospital community, but without a doubt I will be entering another and exchanging "one kind of responsibility for another" (150). This goes further to prove that we all work together and without our togetherness we would not have the communities that help us thrive.

The ability to think

In this reading, Arendt focuses on the ability to think and how it affects other aspects of life-moral judgments, guilt, responsibility, etc. For my service learning, I have been working in a preschool where "thinking" as defined by Arendt does not necessarily ever take place. Children follow directions and the group (the so called mores and customs) and do not have an internal dialogue to decide how they feel or what they believe. Arendt writes: "Cliches, stock phrases, adherence to conventional, standardized codes of expression and conduct have the socially recognized function of protecting us against reality, that is, against the claim on our thinking attention which all events and fact arouse" (160). So by the children adhering only to their observations and the environment around them, are they in a sense being protected "against reality"? Or, could it be that first children must absorb the environment around them in order to later think and make their own judgements and reveal a reality? Does Arendt's writing on thinking only apply to adults or does it reach out to all people regardless of age and background?

More about Responsibility and Judgment

"Responsibility and Judgment consists mainly of lectures on practical philosophy delivered in the 1960s, concentrating on the relationship between the world of public politics and that of personal morality. Arendt argued that the two worlds had a lot in common, in that neither political issues nor moral ones could ever be settled definitively, or by the mechanical application of ready-made categories: The truths of morality and politics were to be brought into being by a process of deliberation rather than discovered by acts of reasoning or observation. Moral and political dilemmas were like artistic ones; they both called for what Kant called "judgment," or the kind of infinite thoughtfulness that is willing to expose its own standards of assessment to the challenge of the issues it encounters. On the other hand, there was also a fundamental difference in that moral judgments are concerned with the self, or the kind of person one wishes to be, whereas political judgments are concerned with the world, and the kind of society one wants to live in. Having established an analytical distinction between public and private life, Arendt went on to warn of the dangers of blurring it in social action."

(http://hannaharendt.net/reports/whateverII.html)

from Lauren

Arendt wrote, "the total moral collapse of respectable society during the Hitler regime may teach us that under such circumstances those who cherish values and hold fast to moral norms and standards are not reliable...much more reliable will be the doubters and skeptics, not because skepticism is good or doubting wholesome, but because they are used to examining things and making make up their own minds."
This idea that people who cling to values and standards are more dangerous than those who are freethinkers makes a lot of sense to me. I think a lot of people spend all of their time making sure that their actions agree with the moral codes they have set up for their lives, even when that code may not necessarily be fitting in a specific situation. Perhaps morals and norms have a "blinding" effect on us when we take them too seriously and choose to live our lives based largely on our moral codes. Times and circumstances change, which is why I believe so strongly that the tendency to question authority and to have facts is so valuable.

moral dilemma

what i got from the reading is a very interesting message. it seems to say that while we of course can hold blame over those who commited attrocities in the past, the blame itself is easy to mismanage. Why should a whole country take the blame for what a Facist military force did two generations ago? Of course the blame should remain on those who commited the acts, but for the whole nation to take the blame seems like the family of a murderer taking the blame for the murder, even if they did only find out at the trial. it is commendable, but is it right? it might help to assuage certain feelings, but i dont know how morally right it really is.
Take an example, if it turned out that dominican was funneling our tuition money in waterboarding at Guantanamo, would the students feel responsible, especially if we never knew? How far would the guilt run? would we try to disasociate ourselves from the school, or try to repair its tarnished image?

Arendt's Responsibility and Judgment--kick off discussion

Arendt writes, "There exists in our society a widespread fear of judging . . .behind the unwillingness to judge lurks the suspicion that no one is a free agent, and hence the doubt that anyone is responsible or cold be expected to answer for what he has done" (19). Can you connect this point to past readings (I am thinking in particular of Kaufmann but you may think of other authors) to help us understand Arendt's concept of judgement and then also unpack this idea further with other points that she makes? What is the connection between our ability to judge and the modern liberal notion that we are all moral agents that must cultivate the internal authority to know the difference between right and wrong? How does she elaborate and support this argument?

Universal morality

I was struck by the truth found in the statement that there can be no absolute or universal morality, much less a strict definition of morality itself. When confronted with that, I tried to see if i could count any of my morals as universal, which i could not, and i even found that a couple of the author's chosen virtues could not be counted universal either. Those virtues are among the best, and yet at times like war and struggle, times when morals are often turned against themselves, these morals would be better if postponed. So it seems that there can be no permanent moral code for all people to follow at all times, but rather a code of rotations. Morals that are to be used as the situation permits, but that should not be used to cover all situations. tell me what you think.

Paul Farmer/Partners in Health--health care as a human right

polemics - the practice of argumentation and refutation of an opponent’s opinions, particularly in theological and philosophical writings.
www.sastor.com/Glossary_P.html

So, the point is that--yes--Humanism is a counter point to religion for many non-religious people. I think that Eugene's point in his post is very well observed and I agree! My own conclusion or view of humanism is, as I suggested in class yesterday, it presents many universal values that people across cultures/faiths share. The big point of contention always has to do with things like the story of creation vs evolution--religious "truth" vs scientific "truth"--is God real and did God give us a purpose or do we need to create that purpose? These are the polemics that we will never resolve and have probably produced some fruitful debate and questioning in some historical moments--but my own personal view is that we don't need to be stuck here any more.
Here is a funny example (I think) of a polemical view:
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/b-humanism-is-religion.htm

Humanism a religion?

the Richard Norman reading, "On Humanism" was great, but i was confused by the fact that he kept pushing humanism in comparison to religion, even as he told us that many humanists wished to make it quite separate. In watching the news, I also found that modern day atheism is treated by the country as a religion, which seems to defeat the purpose of the whole idealism, since religion is classified in the reading as a belief in a higher power, especially a god, goddess or gods. My beleif is that if movements like this wish to be taken seriously, they should take a unique stance and ally themselves with science and the modern world, rather than trying to look like a religion in order to attract the religous. Leave the religious alone, and seek out those who will more likly join the humanist cause. then once the movement is strong enough, others will come at their own accord. What do you think? Is appealing to the religous a good idea for the humanist movement?

Barzun poses a statement about being independent without being rebellious. I was wondering if any of you had any comments about this statement. I personally believe that it is impossible. If I want to be independent I am rebelling against the influence of others' ideas over me, whether this is at work, school or some other environment. It may not be the intention that I have, but never the less is a form of rebellion. I believe that most of the time we are being rebellious subconsciously, without realizing it or wanting to. What do you think? Can you think of times when you have been rebellious without it being your intent?

New Ideas. . .

Eugene said...

Okay, so... new post for this week, but i cant figure that out. Anyway, based in the reading "We make the road by walking," the authors say that teachers must teach in a way that gets the point across and gives specific examples out of social context, but does not impose the ideas of the teacher on the student. my question: remember a time when a favorite teacher may have imposed their ideas on you. has it affected the way you think today? For me, i had an english teacher that was a vegan and very liberal. comming out of her class, i not only inexplicaly loved Bruce Springstein, but looked at the world in a more sensitive and naturalistic way.

February 2, 2009 6:07 PM

sally said...

I finally got this to work.

I guess I'll comment on Eugene's comment, which I found to be very true. In high school, it was almost a rule for teachers to prevent themselves from imposing their beliefs on their students. But I had a very liberal English teacher (who had recently moved here from Australia), and she was always trying to persuade us to follow along to her beliefs.
I found it almost offensive, but I tried not to let her opinions influence mine. They definitely got me thinking a lot more though.

February 3, 2009 1:36 PM

How to participate in the weekly discussion

I will kick off the discussion with a question. Each student will then use the "comment" to add to a string of comments. Don't add a new whole new post, just use the comment button.
So, let's test it with this post. Add a comment, put your name, tell any moral "code" that you consider almost a reflex, it doesn't matter how simple it may seem--and if there is a source that you connect to this. For instance, I never kill a spider on purpose. I will kill a mosquito but never a spider and it all goes back to Charlotte's web.