America & The New Industrial Estate

America and The New Industrial Estate

Max Weber was the first to look at Bureaucracy. He believed that it was the most efficient form of organisation. The organisation had a well-defined line of authority and clear rules, as well as regulations. These HAD to be strictly followed. 
Certain features that an efficient bureaucratic organisation should have is; precision, speed, unambiguity, knowledge and strict subordination. 
America is a bureaucratic country, run my Lawyers who divide and sort out the rules. 
Bureaucracy is the main source of legal power. 

Karl Marx said that the crisis of capitalism will lead to the fall of Western Civilisation. There is a constant struggle for humans to survive as we use up all of our resources to the maximum limit. 
The 60's and 70's are a prime example of this as there was the economic boom that led to high levels of inflation and therefore mass unemployment. 
Marx believed that money became the state intervention of 'mans true nature'. Forcing him to therefore become alienated. 
Marx's theory describes two elements that led to the exploitation of the working class;
1. Forces - raw materials, technology and labour
2. Relations of Production - Ownership
Similar to David Riccardo, he believed a products value was dependent on the amount of labour power invested in it. 
Marx was influence by Adam Smith about the free market and efficiency. 

John Kenneth Gailbraith wrote The New Industrial Estate in 1967. The book explores the economics of production and the effect large corporations could have over the state. 
Gailbraith argues that the 'industrial system' is controlled by Technostructure rather than share holders. Technostructure is the term for all those involved in groups decisions and making the organisation tha they form. The goals of technostructure are survival, growth, technical virtuosity and increased rate of dividends. The basis need is to prevent it's revenue from falling. 
The New Industrial System satisfies anything that can be seen as a human need. 

Heidegger believes that society is a death machine and it is doomed. 
Nietzsche - 'You are a slave if you are not prepared to die'

John Keynes was a British Economist who believed that money had the power to affect human behaviour. He believed in a problem free society and saw the massive decline in income and employment that was way below average.
Keynes thinks that every need should be satisfied and problems such as war, and disease should be dealt with. 
He believes the answer to all these problems is to go to these places such as Vietnam and Poland and now allow their citizens to come where the money is. This can be related to many modern day problems occurring at the moment with the Government. This will therefore solve problems of over population and the fight for jobs. Keynes' ideas were attacked from both sides. The left was Heidegger and Satre who saw America as bureaucratic and run by Lawyers. The right was attacked by Hayek who believed that things started to go wrong with Kant, and by Nietzsche it was a disaster. 
Keynes' economic philosophy is that 'money matters'. 

The New Journalism

This lecture was based upon the new journalism and a brief history of American Journalism.

The Penny Papers in America (papers for a penny) - deeply partisan - merchants and politicians. An awaking of writing news for people who weren't highly educated. Tapping in to the regular public rather than the newspapers and articles that were written by the elite. 

Mid-19th Century objectivity became a factor in journalism because of the creation of wire services. The associated Press - AP - needed objectivity to be profitable.

The (first) New Journalism - The Yellow Press - late 19th Century.

The world of William Randolph Hearst of the New York Journal and Joseph Pultizer of the New York World. - Tried every trick in the book to beat each other in the circulation war. Hearst focussed on dramatic, romantic and shocking stories, he wanted you not to think, but to care.
Citizen Kane.
Shaking up the newspapers, making them far more interesting.

Sensationalisaton - huge, emotive headlines with big striking pictures - Sun on Sunday - Exclusives, dramatic stories, romantic stories, shocking stories, crime stories.

Many called Yellow Journalism the New Journalism without a soul. All the stories were about sin, sex and violence. (Yellow Journaism - frozen television - colourful, looks like TV)

America of the 1960’s and 70’s - similar to the time of Hearst and the Yellow Press. Great deal of political and social upheaval - fighting foreign wars, with even more serious military threats building overseas.

Journalists recorded the events of the day - normally in a formulaic way. Being trained in a specific way, who what when where why. Similar to the way we are trained as Journalists. New Journalism was an attempt to reflect what was happening at the time, in a much truer sense than had been done before (Tom Wolf).

Five W’s - news pyramid etc. But the New Journalism was an attempt to record events mirroring the language and the style of the events. Letting it bleed into the copy. (copy = the news story/feature) 

Poltical and Cultural Scene

1960’s was particularly turbulent - great hope of JFK (people looked up to, the American Dream), destroyed in assignation in 1963, disastrous war in Vietnam - controversy of the draft - Muhammed Ali refused to be conscripted - “I aint got no quarrel with them Viet Cong”

Demographic reasons - baby boom created a powerful youth culture - baby boomers hitting their teens in the 1960’s. They turned the faces away from the war in Vietnam. A Mass generation clash. The elite were seen as old etc, the voice of radical political change was the youth. 

Sexual revolution - sexual freedom, the pill, Reichian free love. The student movement - worldwide protests of 1968 - Civil rights, Black Power - use of LSD (introduced by CIA, they wanted to control the soviets) to assess altered thinking of counterculture. When women could take control of the reproductive, it’s a big deal because it taps into exestentialism, choice, freedom etc. Women could have sexual partners without being married etc, it allowed them to make their own choices and have their freedom. You could have casual sex. 

The CIA basically created the need for LSD, generally it gave the young people (minorities) they weren't part of society, they were different. ‘turn on, tune in, drop out’ (fight against it)

Reichian free love - (Feud says bad stuff going on in your mind and subconscious) 

He was a follower of Freud but then fell out with him. He said that Freud had it wrong, you should just let it all hang it, people are unhappy because they keep things in.

Sexual revolution relates to feminism and everything that started to change for women as a whole.
Turbulent political time - Panthers, Black rights etc.


Prohibition of drugs created subcultures - Hippies, communes, collectives etc - and established much of youth culture has other - deviant. 

Music was central - for Satre Jazz was authentic, the music of the 1960’s was a full frontal attack on the norms, drugs fueled (Doors, Beatles) and anti-establishment - protest and poltical songs, lead the movement (Bob Dylan) - with the aim to subvert and be political.

Music is a big part of existentialism. Heidegger - Authentic. Sartre thought music was Authentic. Bad faith, true and authentic life.
1960’s music was an attack on the norm.

Gil Scott Heron - The Revolution Will Not be Televised (protest song)
The real world is happening on the streets. - Existentialism
It’s saying the world happening out there get involved.

The revolution will be live - the revolution will put you in the driving seat

Influence of Existentialism

Ideas informed by Existentialism - Heidegger’s Authenticity, Sartre’s Bad Faith. Key ideas - Freedom and Choice, for example Fanon’s view of a path to freedom via accelerated choice (violence). As we have seen, for Fanon the act of violence is essentially the extreme expression of choice - choice with real, immediate impact.

Fanon took Sartre’s thought of choice one step further. We have to use violence to push to get to the point of freedom. Violence gets us there quicker. 

The most crucial choice you make, is the next one.
Black Power Movement - formed by Existentialism
Malcolm X - was named that as he wanted to cut away everything from his past and did not want to be defined by his past. He agrees with Fanon that violence is the way to freedom.

Anti-establishment feeling - “there is a policeman inside your head - he must be destroyed” - began to seep into Journalism.

Journalist question whether basing stories on press releases, press conferences and official statements made by the establishment was really objective - and more importantly a true reflection of events? [Bad Faith]

new forms of journalism began to emerge.

Journalists began to focus on setting, plot, sounds, feelings, direct quotes and images, while still being as careful as before with facts. Truman Capote, Tom Wolfe and Normal Mailer are examples of this new breed. 

How can you rely on the police, when they are shooting students, how can you rely on the CIA when they are making drugs to give to students etc. So people turned away from the establishment.

Journalists then began to get out of the office  - Tom Wolfe “if your a features writer, you begin to work doubly hard, like a crime reporter trying to figure out facts.”


This alternative journalism was personal and expressed an individual point of view. It was also unconventional, disagreeable, disruptive, unfriendly, and anti-power structure.

Shift in form of narration form DIEGETIC TO MIMETIC 

“Telling” to “Seeing”

An example of telling can be viewed on this link: http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/video/newscast/

An example of seeing: The TV Series: Mad Men

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItI0EQ9O7Gg

Marshall McLuhan’s Hot and Cool media -
Hot media: media that is very explicit about what it’s trying to tell you. Daily Echo telling you about a car crash on the M27. It gives you no choice of interpreting the information for yourself.
Cool Media: The Mad Men, ambiguous. You have to interpret the media yourself, you can see what’s happening, you’re not sure why it’s happening, you bring the meaning yourself. 

In New Journalism “Objectivity” [authority’s message] is junked in favour of subjective experience. 

Most famous example - Tom Wolfe

Wolfe was a huge fan of Emile Zola - one of the greatest writers of natural realism. 

“Zola crowned himself as the first scientific novelist, a ‘naturalist’, to use his term studying the human fauna.” - According to Wolfe

The New Journalism - essays done by a mix of people.

Wolfe enters into journalism first thing he notices is the status competition.
He is a very good journalist, he’s very specific and straight forward.

The competition varies though - the reporters are in the “scoop competition” - SKY - “First for Breaking News” - BBC - “updated every minute of the day”
Ambulance chasers - stories about “power and catastrophe”.

The other is the feature game - “a story that fell outside the category of hard news”. The game was hold your own in the competition until you got busy writing a novel.

“what inna namea Christ is this” -  Tom Wolfe. - Dramatic shift.The Features game was changing. Trying to replicate what was happening in the real world, putting it on the page.

New articles with real, intimate dialogue.

Reporter needs to be there to see it, to collect the data first hand. Once there it is only a small step to becoming involved - another character in the scene - Gonzo Journalism - Think HST ‘The Kentucky Derby’

To get this sort of material, you need to invest a lot of time in the subjects - days, weeks, years. “Use the whole scene, extended dialogue, point of view, and interior monologue.”

New Journalism pg 46 & 47

These are the 2 most important pages about features you will ever read as a Journo. 

The Journalists embraced social realism. Learned the techniques of realism from Balzac, Zola, Dickens etc. 

This power is derived from four devices: 

1. Scene by scene construction - telling the story in scenes and not in a sheer ‘historical narrative’. Journalists needed to be at the event to witness it. 
2. ‘Realistic dialogue involves the reader more completely than any other single device - it also defines character more quickly and effectively than any other single device.”
3. - third-person point of view - “giving the reader the feeling of being inside the characters mind.” need to interview the subject about his thoughts and emotions, along with everything is. 
4. The fourth device is the recording of everyday gestures, habits, manners, customs, styles of furniture, modes of behavior towards children, superiors, inferiors and other symbolic details that might exist within a scene. Symbolic of people’s status of life.
   Small details gives ways in to explain what people are like.
   
   Ultimate New Journalism piece is FEAR AND LOATHING  (Hunter Thompson).. “Gonzo Journalism”

“Performance Journalism” (eg SUPERSIZE ME) Michael Moore etc
You become the story and are central to the story.

Louis Therox - Gonzo Journalism
Gonzo Journalism can often be obvious by such features as: fly on the wall, shaky footage, being authentic. 

Philosophy Lecture - Totalitarianism

Totalitarianism

Things we will cover in this lecture

1. How could it happen? (Origins of Totalitarianism)
2. Control Language - control thought (Orwell’s 1984)
3. What is your personal responsibility? (Eichmann in Jerusalem)

Key question - can good people do evil things?

Main Person - Hannah Arendt

Her Book - The Origins of Totalitarianism

How could it happen?

Nearly 100 years of relative peace before WW1 after Napoleon things did settle down a little - then huge atrocities in Russia, China and especially Germany, one of the most cultured nations in the world (the German century). As a race we began to control these vulgar parts of our personalities, overall we were better and the future was brighter. Within every year that passed we improved (after Napoleon) all the bad stuff was just part of history. This was the german century mid 19th century, all the philosophers etc were German. It seemed like we were coming up to the promised Land (Hegel’s teleological approach) pushing on terms of cultural, scientific and philosophical process.  

Totalitarian regimes - Plato’s republic - against these ideas: contact theory, idea that the powers of the state should be limited (even by Hobbes), Liberalism - personal freedom protected by the state. Totalitarian regimes - strip away any individuality.

Hannah Arendt (HA) argues the 20th Century totalitarian regimes were different to anything that had come before - the central purpose of totalitarian regimes was to destroy the individual, utterly. The divine right of Kings - the kings could do whatever they wanted, HA is saying this is different, the Nazi’s etc were different to what had come before. These regimes were strange. She was fascinated with the newness/strangeness of this new political model:
“Everything we know of totalitarianism demonstrates a horrible originality - it’s very actions constitute a break with all our traditions.”

“Fascism is for liberty. And for the only liberty which can be a real ting, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. Therefore, for the fascist, everything is in the State, and nothing human or spiritual exists, much less has value - outside the state.
Outside the state there can be neither individuals nor groups. Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” 

• The Doctrine of Fascism - Benito Mussolini
  

The state is the food you eat, the drinks you drink. You are either with the state or not. Etc

But she saw the imperialism as a precursor to totalitarianism - because it contained so many traits which the new regimes could use. (The imperial expansion were based on races, which are the most inferior race etc based on genes not what people have done)
One such trait of imperialism was the development of racism. -within racist movements, you are superior based on your genes, not on anything you have done. Once established, ways of thinking and behaving that denied rights to large sections of humanity were available for totalitarian regimes to adopt. (think of General Kitchener’s actions in Boer War - the concentration camps used by the British were the model that the Nazis used)
YOUR COUNTRY NEEDS YOU - slogan. Kitchener’s - pack people in concentration camps and the Germans used this idea in the future.

Our individuality makes us difficult to control and gather up into a collective movement. To destroy this individuality two methods are used: state terror and ideology. - HA

The purpose of the terror is not just to murder vast numbers of people - but also to destroy their individuality and ability to act against the government - not just to act, but even the thought of acting (Think Orwell) E.g. When you kill someone, no one thinks of them as human.

Ideology compliments the policy of terror - it eliminates the capacity for individual thought and experience among the executioners themselves [Orwell WAR IS PEACE; FREEDOM IS SLAVERY; POVERTY IS PLENTY]
Ideology is also a type of specialist knowledge - as Popper points out is often used as a justification for the authority of rulers. It is also a way to avoid responsibility.

The Ideology [natural or historical movements] gives them “the total explanation of the past, the total knowledge of the present, and the reliable prediction of the future” OT p469

Ideology frees the mind from the constraints of common sense and reality. This breakdown of the stable human world means loss of the institutional and psychological barriers that normally set limits to what is possible. Things you might of never considered doing, you might end up doing as the norm. 

For HA the first move the Nazis made on the road to the “Final Solution” was to deny Jews citizenship - making them stateless and removing their rights. She argues that rights are only relevant within nations - not “natural rights”. These stateless people - without any rights - were superfluous - and perfect victims for a totalitarian regime.

The Jews were a rootless community based on race. The Nazis saw them as a rival master race, a model to be emulated and overtaken. This was the idea of Hannah Arendt

Here she highlights the fragility of civilisation - how quickly groups and whole people can fall through the cracks, even in the heart of Europe. People thought in the 19th century we as humanity had become more decent but if it was in a bad situation and people are there who can exploit that, these barriers can come down very quickly. 

To be civilised human beings we need to inhabit a man-made world of stable structures (remember her view on judgement in Eichmann). We need these to give us laws, rights and provide a society which gives us access to common sense and a shared reality. Almost a hint of Hobbes there or Aristotle, we are only human in a society where we are free to be different. We need that. As when things start to break down it becomes a jungle. 

1. Control language - control minds
   

WW2 - Ministry of War (now it’s called ministry of defense) - MOD (it goes and invades countries basically).

Orwell was horrified by the capacity of totalitarian regimes to attempt to control minds, by manipulating languages.

Thought takes place in purely linguistic terms.

Therefore: Control language, and you control thought

Therefore: Mind control (may be) possible through manipulation of language.

In the USSR - experiments with ‘linguistic reform’
Idea was utopian - ban words for racial difference, and this abolish racism (very like PC language now).
This resulted in horrible, ugly distortion into Communist-speak - all - jargon, cliches, ritual phrases, slogans. A form of language designed to prevent thought.

1984
Ministry of Peace - organises war
Ministry of Love - organises the police
Ministry of Plenty - gathers taxes

In the novel - Winston’s job is removing articles from the archive which contradict the current (ever changing) line on the party. 

3. What is your personal responsibility in a dictatorship?

Would I collaborate?

In May 11 1960, Israeli Secret Service kidnapped Nazi fugitive Adolf Eichmann in Argentina. He stood trial in Jerusalem for crimes he had committed during the final solution. Eichmann’s main responsibility during the Holocaust had been the organisation of the transport of millions of Jews from across Europe to concentration camps - a function he carried out with zeal and efficiency. 

For the Israelis the trial served three purposes: Trying Eichmann for his crimes, educating the world about the nature and extent of the Holocaust, and the legitimatizing of the Jewish state. 

For Arendt it was a shock to see Eichmann - he spoke in endless cliches, was proud of being a “law abiding citizen” - she concluded that it was not necessary to possess great wickedness to commit great crimes - the banality of evil. He was a typical bureaucrat. He looked so normal, like a typical librarian. He said he wasn’t involved in the killing of Jews, he just sorted out the transportation.

Arendt agreed with the judgement that Eichmann should be put to death - but she disagreed with the reasons and the spectacle of the trial.

Arendt believed Eichmann’s crime was non-thinking ... Choice is crucial to the existentialist point of view.
Hannah Arendt is saying that he didn’t make a choice and you can not avoid choice. He didn’t chose so he got put in this position.

Eichmann claimed that in implementing the final solution he was acting from obedience and that he had derived this particular moral precept from his reading of Kant.
Kant’s categorical Imperative: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

He invoked duty in an effort to explain his version of Kantianism. Arendt responds - this was outrageous on the face of it and also incomprehensible since Kant’s moral philosophy is so closely bound up with mans faculty of judgement which rules out blind obedience.

Satre: the only thing I cannot escape is the need to choose. but the possibility of recreating oneself is rightening - people will try to avoid this freedom. This is ‘bad faith’. 

She rejects the physiological interpretation - Eichmann is neither perverted or sadistic. In her view he just acted according to a brutal law that had become normal. What was his crime according to her was that he failed to think, he failed to judge [he failed to choose’.

Even if eighty million Germans had done as they did that would be no excuse for you - Arendt.

What had become banal was the failure to think. This is Eichmann’s crime - HA

Arendt is saying that we must look to our personal judgement (thinking) rather than the law in order to know how to act because law may turn out to be criminal as in Nazi Germany. In which case we have responsibility to oppose bad law even a responsibility in those conditions be defined as disobedience - indeed sometimes disobedience is exactly our responsibility and this is what Eichmann failed to grasp. 

Philosophy Lecture 21/2/13

“The rebels weapon is the proof of his humanity. This irrepressible violence is man re-creating himself.” (Wretched of the Earth)

Existentialism as an agent for political change - via existentialism principles established by Nietzsche, Heidegger - a call to arms from Sartre and the explicit embracing of violence by Franz Fanon.

Key figures in development of existentialism:
Nietzche

He makes a complete break to what we have before.
God is Dead - the end of certainty - and we are faced with a crisis - we need something new to sustain us. (He isn’t saying specific god, he’s talking about this big structures that we rely on such as religion, that we want guidance from. We need certainty. As a kid we like adults to tell us what is right and what will help. Nietzsche uses this analogy, that we we believed in this superstructure such as religion, we are like children. Then we grow up and realize there is no good, no structure etc. Life is confusing. There are no absolutes.He thinks it is just brilliant, as up to this point we were just being told, what you should do to go to hell and heaven etc.  

This crisis is fantastic according to Nietzsche - it means freedom. It gives us the freedom to find value for ourselves (this is called the transvaluation of all values)

For Nietzsche human nature is not universal. Our natures are different and it therefore follows that different people can find and follow different conceptions of excellence, different moralities. (opposing position of natural rights [Locke] and creates space for Fanon’s violence.

The Ubermensch (demi-god - a person with great powers and abilities. Nietzsche’s concept for ‘an over man’) - overcomes what has so far defined us as humans. The Overman renounces all of this, carving out his place in the world according to his own will. Will to power - defining himself by the choices he makes.
* Rousseau - there is a general will*

*Locke - natural rights etc*
Nietzsche disagrees with R and L

CHOICE IS CRUCIAL TO THE EXISTENTIALIST POINT OF VIEW.

Heidegger
- Being and Time: highly influential (Sartre’s being and Nothingness - homeage to it)
- The book is about human existence. Heidegger is interested in what it means to exist and consequently the problems of human life. But before we can investigate the nature of being as such we must first question the nature of the being which causes the questions to be asked. 

- And that is a creature he calls Dasein - Dasein is each of us.
Heidegger thought that humans were Dasein but it’s not only human beings, he thought there was potential for others e.g. aliens to be Dasein too.
Heidegger is largely an attack on Descartes. He lays into the Cartesians, he has no time for them. He dislikes Descartes so much, as the idea of cartesian dualism (two things in the universe, mind and body. These things are completely different) Heidegger thinks that this from Descartes was an utter disaster as if you believe in this, there is no possible way for philosophy to work. If these two things are different, how do they interact? E.g. Casper the ghost, how can a ghost lift something he is see through.
If your mind is one thing and your body another, how do you control your body.
Therefore Heidegger believes this idea is completely wrong.

The thrust of his philosophy is largely directed against one philosopher - Descartes

But if we are stuck in our minds and theres a very real question which plagued Descartes and virtually all of the philosophers after him - how we get out of our minds to know the world itself?

Sceptic's like David Hume doubted that we could ever know the world as it is. Also Bishop Berkeley. 

In place of consciousness and subjectivity Heidegger simply talks about Dasein (being in the world) - he is looking for the essential structure of Dasein.

Being in the world - but not to be understood as a spatial relationship - it denotes a certain type of engagement - I’m in Journalism - one defines me in terms of my engagement with Journalism. Dasein is our engagement in the world - involved in it. 

Your existence is your engagement in the world. Every engagement in the world is to do with choice. Even if you are disengaged, this is a choice. He is not trying to work out what the world is (empirical way), he is just saying this is the way it is.

Heidegger believes that Cartesian Dualism is absurd. For Dasein to exist, it must exist in the world. Therefore there is no Dasein without the world Socrates and Christian philosophers were mistaken.
He says that when we normally speak with ourselves we don’t speak about our authentic selfs at all - true self - being one’s own person. Influenced by Nietzsche has a long argument against slave morality (THIS IS CALLED BAD FAITH)

You are defined by your choices and decisions - existentialism. 

Nietzsche - slave morality (the slave who is following religion and rules etc)
If we want to be an ubermensche we must overcome this, Heidegger is saying the same thing. He says we have our true self, if we make decisions to show our true selves we are living an authentic life. If we follow the crowd, doing what others believe we should do, then we are living an inauthentic self.
Das man self - the inauthentic self - what he has in mind is a sort of social construal of the self. The Das Man self is inauthentic because it is simply a social self, it is not one own’s self at all. 

Existence - this doesn’t just mean taking a place in the world, it has to do with possibilities and choices.This is to be contrasted with what Heidegger calls Facticity (which Sartre will borrow)

Facticity (the events that have brought you to this place now) are those parts of ourself which are simply given - we are thrown into the world. We are born at the certain time at a certain place, of certain parents and we don’t have a choice about any of this. Our Dasein is very much wedded to where we happen to be thrown in life. Facticity - ‘THROWNESS’ - we are born with a blank slate (Chomsky) but already have a past. Moral Luck.

For the existentialist the future is the most important dimension. We are creatures of the ‘possible’.

Transcendence - is my reaction to my facticity - our possibility, which may not be realized. I am defined by my choices - I re-create myself - I am not defined by my past. (This is crucial to Fanon - path to escape the role of victim) = Throughout history, people have thought that certain races or people, Aristotle (people are natural slaves), are inferior. That’s because they were defining people by there past. Heidegger doesn’t believe anything matters e.g. nationality, sex etc. We do not need to be victims, we choose to not be victims. He thinks we should fight aggressively against people who think this.

Sartre
Key Idea - existence precedes essence. We create our own purpose.  

For example, - Simone de Beauvoir - “one is not born a woman, but becomes one” How you act, as a woman, how a woman should act, you are not born with that. You become that. E.g. certain things a woman does, but these are all choices. You are just a physical being, how you present yourself are just choices. We create our own purpose and define our own essence. 

The absurd - there is no guiding spirit, no teleological driving force - stuff happens, good and bad without reason and so life is in some way ridiculous and absurd.

Heidegger’s existentialism was right wing (Nazi) - Sartre’s was left wing.
Shows that existentialism is broad, it is shown in different ways.

Similar to Heidegger - The life of a person is not determined in advance, by God or moral laws says Sartre. The only thing I cannot escape is the need to choose. But the possibility of recreating oneself is frightening - people will try to avoid this freedom. This is bad faith. 

Being-in-itself, being-for-itself

Some people like to be led and to be told what to do, but we need to make choices. Existentialist believes that you can re-create yourself. Your facticity is your past, the most important thing is the next choice you make, and this choice can re-create yourself.
You can change your life by your very next decision. The moments when we are in bad faith, are when we allow ourselves to be defined ‘I’m just a student‘ etc. Then Sartre will say ‘you are not‘ you could decide to be a doctor or anything else. You pretending to yourself that you can be defined is bad faith. In a way its just you dodging a decision.

The alternative is to take responsibility for your actions and be defined by your choices: “all the barriers, all the railings, collapse, annihilated by the consciousness of my liberty. It is I who maintain values in being.” (Think Nietzsche Open Sea)

Humanity for Sartre is:

Abandonment - God is Dead (Nietzsche), God does not guide our actions, there is no divine set of rules to follow - we are alone and there is no one/thing to guide us on how to act.
Anguish - Humans are fundamentally free, ‘condemned to be free’, the responsibility of being free is enormous, we have no excuses, we are responsible for everything we are. We cannot choose our past but we chose how we feel and act to every situation. 

Despair - This is the realization of that the world may prevent us from getting what we want, but we still chose how we react to the setback, we are totality of what we actually do.

Example:
Sartre’s pupil:

Choice between his mother and joining the free French (the resistance).
Abandonment, Anguish, Despair.

The choice? “You are free, therefore choose.”

Bad Faith
Most people think that being a soldier, police officer, student, engineer, confers certain obligations on you, for example students are expected to attend lectures, do exams etc. But Sartre might accuse you of bad faith - the denial that you are radically free, when they think their past determines their future.
Sartre thinks such people are making a metaphysical mistake - turning themselves into inert objects rather than free beings condemned to making free choices.

Examples:
cafe waiter - the waiter is acting out on a role, in doing that he is denying that he is free to otherwise, in that way he is like a mechanical robot. The waiter is trying to represent himself as determined in his actions. 

Notes on Seminar - Epistemology

- A Priori - knowledge before experience.
- This idea is similar to Descartes 'I think therefore I am'
- The Opposite of Descartes is Locke who thought that the mind is a blank slate. This can relate to the theory of Noam Chomsky.
- Induction = basing generalised ideas on things. This needs experience first. Therefore Induction is after experience.
- Deduction = the rephrasing of something
- A solopsist believes that only you exist.
- Ontological = God is perfect. Because he is perfect, he must exist.
- Cosmological = Something must have caused it. Keep going back and back (on cause cause)
- Teleological = Things happening for a reason. We are heading somewhere.
- Non Teleological = Things JUST happening for a reason.

Cartesian Dualism = the mind and body are separate.
Evil Demon - Descartes - It is deceiving
You can't know something is really there.
You can't trust the outside world.

Philosophy 7/2/13

HCJ Semester 2, Lecture 2

Frege, Russell, Whitehead - logic and mathematics

Natural numbers, these are words used to count things. To count is to create an abstract category or group. 

Creating words and abstract symbols for plural categories (plural = more than one) requires a system of number words (‘symbols’), and a logical syntax for combining these number-words (symbols) to imply further or predicate number-words.

Three fundamental attitudes towards languages (including syntactical number systems, such as arithmetic), but especially numbers

1. The natural and can be empirically observed (e.g. Mill and most ordinary folks)
2. Platonic. They are intuitions of harmonic perfect platonic other world (e.g. pythagoreanism, Descartes, geometry)
3. They are abstract logical objects, constructed purely from syntax (Frege, early Russell)
   

Russell started as a platonist.

SYNTAX - logical system using rules of inference to alter meaning of symbols (e.g. words numbers). It is basically a set of rules to modify the meaning of one logical object to another. Adjectives and nouns have syntactical forms. Numbers are created by Syntax according to Frege.

Numerical Naturalism/ Evolutionary Psychology
There are said to be three areas of numbers. Apes and stone-age tribes appear to be able to judge simple empirical plurality , typically; 

0 = absence of a thing e.g. banana

1 = one banana/enough bananas

2 = (maybe) a lot of bananas/unlimited bananas

“one thing” and “more than one thing” and possible “many things”. These are the only numbers they need. Even for people from advanced cultures small number words are functionally different to large number words. If you come into a room and there is one person, you don’t count the one person; even with three you can categorize that as a simply plurality. Most people will go up to maybe six or seven objects in a group before counting, using logic relations to the empirical pluralities.

Addition and multiplication - empirically - are plurals or plurals, systems of storing and communicating information. You would not go to a football ground and look at the crowd and say there are 37,879 people here. You could go to a football ground and say there were four people there, without counting. Or ‘the ground was empty‘ (the empirical zero, called ‘the null class’) then; ‘there were a few people in the ground‘ (relative to capacity) and ‘the ground was full’. These are ‘natural numbers‘ or ‘simple pluralities’.

So the number 7,456 is a predicate symbol of more basic symbols organized according to known syntax (logical rules of inference). And as a predicate it can be analyzed (operation similar to division and calculating number squares and roots) - “analytic philosophy” - the paradigm of analysis.
Technology - basic logical language - computers, Facebook etc
Discuss - the limits of logical modeling of human intelligence e.g. predictive texting (fuzzy logic vs neat logic.
Noam Chomsky - innate knowledge (look over English Lang notes from A Level)
Human syntax is incredibly subtle compared to computer syntax

Attitude 2: Pythagoreanism/Platonism
This is the view that numbers are so strange that they don’t occur in nature. Not known in a Kantian world. Simple plurality does occur in nature. 

Prime numbers (not divisible - they don’t resolve into whole numbers) are pre-existing, external supernatural forms - necessary pre-conditions for consciousness - the ‘logos‘. All other numbers are just rational combinations of prime numbers. (Contra Kant - “existence is not predicate” for Platonism existence is a predicate of numbers and other external forms. Primes exist in non-human dimensions, just as the idea, objects of aesthetic perfection and the ratios of geometry. These things are externally true, ultimately mysterious and part of the panoply of Orphic (pre-socratic, more of a general movement, Orpheous is the God of music) religion (Neitzsche’s Appolonion religion - pace, the birth of tragedy)

Orphic Religion - pythagorean. You couldn’t eat beans in this religion as they thought they were fetus’s, you can’t walk on the pavement, you must never leave the impression of your body on your bed. Cult like ideas. Worship mathematics. Chanting geometrical ideas etc. Contemplating the eternal truth

Prime numbers are rational. 

Similar to Plato and the cave analogy. Things for the domain on perfection.

The special religious significance of the prime number three (the first plural prime).
Three is the ‘magic’ number. Art - rule of thirds. Music - three chord triad. The three part drama with a beginning, a middle and an end.

Other primes have religious and even magic significance (Frazer, the golden Bough) Islam (Arab neo-platonism) exhibits cults around the none plural prime (one), but also five and seven (pentagrams)

Aristotle’s physics was a matter of solid geometrical shapes; what differentiated air from water was the number of faces of the sold geometrics fundamental objects.

This is all Orphism (according to Neitzsche, Russell and Frazer) and also the codified religion of Pythagoreanism (anthropologists often point to the Pythagorean elements in Christianity - the trinity; three people on the cross, resurrected after three days; cock crows three times, etc. 

Christians - worshipers of the number three

Muslims = worshipers of the number one.

Islam is obsessed with the number 1. Only ever 1 thing, 1 substance. 

The Greeks fear the number 1 and 0. Greek counting started with the number 2. 

Number 5 and 7 are important. Babylonions - special significance of 12, because of the zodiac.

Pythagoras (and all the Greeks) regarded only plurals as natural numbers so they began counting with two.
“one” and “not one” were different logical categories.

The odyssey - Odyseus and the Cylops - ‘my name is no one’ and the cyclops says ‘no one is there’. Frege later cities the same problem in logic. (‘there is no one on the road’ does not mean the same thing as ‘the road is empty’ and anyway the road is not empty because it contains at least the road).

Special problem with Nothing and Zero
The concept of ‘zero’ came from India, much later via Sufi Islam. Entire Arabic numeral systems was introduced in the middle ages after the fall of Rome. It is a very difficult concept as ‘Zero = nothing. But Nothing = something.’ The is contra to Aristotle's first law of logic and contradiction. Aristotle invented Logic, and was a way of set out syntax so your beliefs will be true.

Modern philosophers of mathematics have thus assert that zero is a natural number, logically derived as 1 - 1 = 0. ‘Nothing’ is a philosophical absurdity (e.g. Heidegger), also the qualitative differential gap between 0 = nothing and 1 = something is as big as the universe.

The moon is the sun, and the sun is the sun. Therefore you know the sun isn’t the moon. 

Aristotle

All swans are white - All men are mortal - Aristotle
This bird is a swan - therefore it is white.
Aristotle is good as you can know HOW you know something. Why do you know that that bird must be white because it’s a swan. But a problem occurred as Australia was found and they had black swans so that idea went out the window.
Organon - another word for the logic. 

0 + 1 = 1 but 0 x 1 = 0

BUT

So what does 1 mean? And how can it be defined?

0 + 1 = 1 (infinitely large increment)

1 + 1 = (double in size)

N + 1 (infinitely small increment)

That was all wrong attitude that numbers are platonic entities from another universe but not known as things in themselves.

Attitude three; numbers as logical objects

The problem of zero and nothing remained unresolved for 1000 years until Frege (1848 - 1925)
His Books -  The foundations of Arithmetic (1884) ‘The Grundlagen’ - this is the first approach of numbers - LOGICAL OBJECTS. 

For Frege, arithmetic is just a language such as English is. They are all the same when you look at them analytically.

Links logic to arithmetic in an overall system of philosophy of language, with arithmetic as a special case of language.

Adapted by Russel and Whitehead (Principia Mathematica) as an attempt (failed) to demonstrate the logical basis for numbers, arithmetic and mathematics - thus refuting Phatonism and numerological mysticism (Russell started as a Platonist, saying that numbers could only be observed and used in calculation, but not understood as things in themselves. 

Rejected Mill’s numerological empiricism (you can not find zero in nature; the +1 increment can not be observed as empirically constant, therefore numbers must be derived from logic.

Frege had already reasoned in the same way in the previous generation. 

Frege’s Method
- (*) Axiom - all things which are identical are equal to themselves. This is asserted APriori (deductive truth) - certain. 

- It follows all things which are pairs are identical to all other pairs (regardless of what they are pairs of)
- The class of all pairs, contains all pairs and this and this can be given a purely nominal symbol (e.g. ‘two’) a word or a numeral, it does not matter.
- Larger numbers can be built as logical constructs along the lines of ‘the class of all things which are pairs of pairs’. We can attach any symbol we like to this; the conventional one would be ‘four’.
- One is the class of all things which are not associated with other things.
- Zero as a class of all possible objects which are NOT equal to themselves. There are no such objects, by definitions (see (*) Axiom. 

Bertrand Russell - 1872 - 1970
1907 - Stood for parliament as a suffragette (lost to a Tory)

1913 - Principia Mathematicia (age 41 - ‘exhausted’)

1914 - Pacifist (WW1)

1940 - Sacked by New York City University for immorality

1941 - Renounces pacifism 

1950 - Founder, campaign for nuclear disarmament.

Peano (same conclusion as Frege) He has the same argument as Frege about the ‘null class’.

Frege’s Logic
Syllogistic Logic - Aristotle

Inference - deductive (analytic/apriori) inductive (synthetic/aposterori)

Sentential logical - Frege - meaning is in the sentence as a whole

It is possible for a sentence to make sense but have no reference. It makes sense but there is no point of reference. This conversation would make sense but there are no reference points.

Seminar Paper

Existentialism is a term which was used by many philosophers in the late 19th to 20th Century. These philosophers shared the belief that philosophical thinking begins with the human subject, stressing the importance of personal experience and the acts and feelings of the living human. 

To begin the idea of consciousness, it is important to mention that consciousness ‘just is’, it is not the result of anything or the cause of anything in particular. Freud, who was an Anglo-American philosopher throughout the twentieth century, invented the idea of psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis, in Freud’s mind, was the answer to everything. In simple terms, it is much like having therapy, a conversation where a patient and a doctor discuss issues the patient is having, and the reasons for these issues. Freud believed in the unconsciousness mind, which he manifested in three different ways. The first being through every day trivial mistakes. The second, through reports of dreams and the third through symptoms of neurosis. Freud thought that free association in analysis, reveals the underlying pattern of the unconscious mind. It is sexual development that is key to this pattern. Infantile sexuality begins with an oral stage, followed by an anal stage and a phallic stage. This is named the Oedipus complex, which is a crucial development in each boy. Towards the end of his life, Freud replaced earlier ideas of the conscious and unconscious, with a threefold scheme of mind. In his book ‘The Ego and the Id’, Freud describes the three separate personality traits, the ego, the id and the super ego. Freud believed that the way to deal with the unconscious, is through the id. The reason for this is because in sleep, the ego switches off and in dreams the id is rampant. Ultimately, dreams show the complete truth.

Edmund Husserl, born in 1859 was born into a Jewish family and in many ways his life resembles that of Freud. Husserl was the founder of the 20th century philosophical school of phenomenology. Husserl’s interest in philosophy began by the lectures of Franz Brentano in Vienna between the years of 1884 and 1886. Brentano sought to relate Aristotelian philosophy of mind to contemporary experimental inquiry in his book ‘Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint’. In this book, it explains that the data of consciousness comes in two kinds. The first kind is physical phenomena, which are such things as colours and smells. The second is mental phenomena, which are things such as thoughts and immanent objects. The aim of phenomenology was the study of immediate data consciousness, without reference to anything consciousness may tell us about the extra-mental world. Husserl believed that it makes no difference whether the ideas we have represent the real world or whether they are hallucinations. He states that it makes no difference to his life whether the table in front of him is in fact really there or if it is actually a hallucination. Only consciousness has ‘absolute being’, all other forms of being are dependent on consciousness for their existence. 

Martin Heidegger, a pupil of Husserl, published Being and Time (Sein und Zeit) in 1927, a book that claimed that phenomenology up until then had been too half-hearted. The aim of the book was to examine the data of consciousness, but employed notions such as ‘subject’, ‘object’, ‘act’ and ‘content’. Heidegger proclaims in this book that it was the end of the metaphysical age, as many were doing in this period of high modernism. However, he believed that this change began in the 1790’s with Kant and the French Revolution. The primary idea in the metaphysical age was to make thoughts correspond with an underlaying substrata of independent reality, similar to Schopenhauer's Will, the universe as a thing in itself. Heidegger believes that truth is the agreement of knowledge without the use of objects. These ideas are similar to that of Aristotle and Kant, who believe that objects are prior to mind or can be mind dependent. Kant’s idea of the noumena and phenomena are reflected largely in the work of both Husserl and Heidegger. Both philosophers take away the noumena and keep the phenomena, hence the idea of ‘phenomenology’.

After Heidegger, there is no absolute truths, there are only subject truths which are either weak, convenient or practical. These are necessary to being, as for Heidegger, being is always concrete e.g. ‘being in the world’ or ‘being there’.
This can then bring us to the idea of Dasein. Dasein, comes from the German every day word which can mean ‘way of being’, and is used by Heidegger as meaning ‘being there’. Dasein is relative of the point of view of the perceiver. It is shown in your mood, and for Heidegger, he believes your mood is you. Heidegger emphasizes on the temporal nature of Dasein, that we should think of it not as a substance but as the unfolding of a life. From the outset, we find ourselves thrown into a physical, cultural, and historical context which can be called throwness. This is simply the idea that we are always thrown in to something. This can relate to the way that ‘being’ is always concrete. We are always ‘being’ at a particular time and being engaged in a specific task. Freedom and authenticity for Heidegger is by being completely absorbed in task. When you fully engage in a task, you no longer exist. Heidegger believes that boredom is ‘the problem of being’ and the opposite of boredom is Dasein. Dasein is not thinking, but caring. 

Heidegger’s project was to clear away all philosophical terminology and concepts since the time of Socrates. He wanted to liberate himself from any constraints of objectification to live an authentic life. In practical terms, to live a simple life in the forest. Ultimately, Heidegger hates everything modern. Similar to Neitzsche, Heidegger believes that Socrates corrupted western civilization.
Heidegger, although having some similar ideas to Kant, disagreed about Time. Kant believed that there was 12 types of time, whereas Heidegger thought there were only 3;

1. ‘Attunement’ - which is expressed as mood. This is often a reflection on the past, and is outside of Dasein. You reflect on these past moods and experiences, and often feel the emotion of guilt about things you have done previous. Ultimately Heidegger believes you should leave this past behind. 
2. ‘Being for itself ‘or ‘Being there’ - You care about the task in hand and you are doing your own thing. This is the present mode of Dasein.
3. ‘Directedness’ - This is the reflection on the future. It produces the mood of dread as you are in fear of what is going to happen in your future.
   
   Ultimately, the past is guilt, the present is boredom (unless it is obliterated by Dasein) and the future is fear. 

In contrast to the right wing existentialism of Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre, who was once a student of Heidegger, developed a form of existentialism that was far more left-wing. 
Sartre, similar to Hediegger, complained that Husserl had not taken the phenomenological reduction far enough. Sartre’s main work ‘Being and Nothingness’ attempts to remove the boundary of space and time from being. Being, for Sartre is what precedes and underlies all the different aspects of things that we encounter in consciousness. 
He believes that if we strip off all of the distinctions that consciousness has made, we are simply left with pure being. Being in itself is one of the key concepts focussed on in Being and Nothingness. The other, is for-itself which is related to human consciousness and refers to objects in the external world. Sartre believes that negation is the element which separates being in itself, and for itself. 

One main problem of human existence for Sartre is the desire of humans to attain being in itself, which he describes as wanting to be God. Ultimately, this is human natures longing to be in control of his life and destiny. Sartre thinks that the life of a human individual is not determined in advance. Human freedom is absolute and because of this, we try and hide it from ourselves and instead, adopt a role which is offered to us from outsiders such as society or religion. In the end, however, these efforts of concealing our freedom are bound to fail and we will end up double minded. This is the condition that Sartre refers to as ‘bad faith’. The alternative of this is to accept one’s freedom and the responsibility for ones own acts and life. In ‘Being and Nothingness’, another topic covered by Sartre is the idea of being-for-others. This relates to the way in which you are presented to other people, becoming nothing more than an object for them, often an object of envy or contempt. 

Jacques Derrida was a French philosopher who developed a form of semiotic analysis known as deconstruction. His work was associated with postmodern philosophy. In his work on deconstruction, Derrida proposed that the first task of deconstruction of philosophy and afterwards in literary texts, would be to overturn all the binary oppositions of metaphysics. Derrida attached great importance to the distinction between what is spoken and what is written, attacking what he calls ‘phonocentrism’, which relates to the overemphasis in Western civilization on the spoken word. This can relate to Heidegger and his idea that previous philosophers such as Socrates corrupted Western civilization with philosophical terminology. 

Philosophy 24/1/13

As followed are the notes taken from yesterday's Philosophy lecture. These are simply copied notes, so in the next week I will write up my own notes of the lecture. 


Existentialism

“Existence precedes essence” (Jean Paul Sartre, Being and nothingness)

The rejection of Descartes “I think therefore I am” 
becomes “I am therefore I think” 
which reduces to “I think” 
which reduces to “there are thoughts” .. but that is it.

This journey begins with Kant (Critique of Pure Reason) - “existence is not a predicate [result or conclusion or end or purpose] of consciousness (as descartes and plato thought)
Existence is a necessary precondition.
But consciousness is not a proof that existence anyway (against Descartes). Consciousness “just is” it is not the result of anything or the cause of anything in particular. 

See everybody as a composite. Illusion - Wittgenstein (The see of language).
Isolation tanks would make you go insane - Verification principle

How does consciousness arise? That’s a stupid question (i.e a religion, metaphysical or poetical).
How could there not be consciousness? What is the opposite of consciousness?  - unconsciousness, a mind without properties. The opposite of nothing is not something; just as the opposite of cat is not dog; the opposite of cat is not-cat.
They don’t see the past as a guide to the future

All you can do is examine the ‘texture’ of consciousness, which when viewed as a subject and not an object because its fascinating. 

Furthermore consciousness is not individual. There is no “I” as in “I think therefore I am’ - the transcendent cartesian ego. Freud tried to find ego but failed. When you think you’ve found the core of someones personality, it transforms into something else. 
The sense  of being is in one sense an illusion; but at the same time it is the only reality any actual living being has. In cartesian terms it could be that all experienced life is actually a ‘dream’ (though this is a category error, because a dream is a sub-category of consciousness, it is just superstitious to see the various levels of consciousness in sleep (or different brain states during consciousness) as particularly privileged. Sleep is part of existence as part of waking. When we wake, we are in recent neurology (science of the brain), many different levels of consciousness. 

Alpha state - brain wakes up. When you’ve had a dream but your not yet sure if your awake or not. It is another state of consciousness. Similar to twilight zone, when your watching TV or something similar. 

All consciousness is of the same character, dreams are simply a different mode of consciousness. A different state of awareness.


Husserl
Jewish. 
His book  “Psychology from an empirical (examining objects etc) standpoint” is the foundation text of modern phenomenology and it is an attempt to de-mystify psychology, which had its origins in Hegelian psudeo-science such as phrenology.
The essence of Hus’s phenomenology is the study of immediate “data (items) of consciousness” each one in isolation without reference to context.

Have to exist before you have essence.

He attempted to reverse this by trying to examine phenomena as they are presented to consciousness. Trying to see objects just as they are without any reference to the essence of the person.

It is an attempt to ‘experience‘ each moment as it really is, rather than what it ‘means‘ in relation to a broader system of belief.

For Hus there it makes no difference whether the ideas I am having represent the ‘real world’; or whether they are fiction or hallucinations. It makes no difference to my actual life whether or not the table in front of me is really there‘ or is an hallucination; and when I lean on it whether it is ‘really‘ supporting my weight; or whether this is another congruent hallucination as part of a Cartesian dream-world.

Hiedegger

The text itself, Being and Time, 1927 - Sein und Zeit
Obsessed with Kant- they see as someone who starts the process of destroying metaphysics in the COPR (Critique of Pure Reason)
He liked Hitler, but believed he didn’t go far enough. Hitler conquered Paris, but he should of destroyed it.

Heidegger proclaims in this book as so many were doing in this period of high modernism, end of the metaphysical age, from Plato to Husserl, though the change began in the 1790’s with Kant and the french revolution. The Logical Positivists in Vienna and Cambridge at the same time were saying the same thing. Everything was great in Greece until Socrates, with all these questions and the process of analytic (asking questions) gets you no where.
Before Husserl, people thought that objects were really there and they found the nature of an object.

In the metaphysical age objects exist independently of mind, they ‘subsist’ and the role of the mind is to understand the structure of reality as a kind of mirror. The ‘mission’ of philosophy (and poetry, music, science, theology) was to 

1. Establish the ‘reality’ of the existence of the ego as an object within an external world (Descartes Cogito)
2. To describe the nature of this reality (Science)

The primary idea therefore in the metaphysical age is to make thoughts correspond with an underlaying or hidden substrata of independently subsisting reality (such as Descartes ‘God’ or Schopenhauer ‘Will’ (universe as a thing in itself, like God, unknowable) or even Wittgensteins Facticity). Thoughts with correspond with reality are ‘truth statements’ - even subjective aesthetic intuitions (eg Keats, Beethoven, Schopenhauer, Romanticism etc). There is correspondence theory of truth whereby truth is a matter of matching the mind with independent reality.

“The truth is out there” --> Corny quote from Fox TV show the X-Files. Superstition and paranoia generally posits a hidden world waiting to be discovered (Science, positivism) or unknowable (Kant, romantic art, religion)

Truth is the agreement of knowledge with objects. Objects are eternal and prior to mind (Aristotle) or can be mind dependent (Kant) but they exist either way according to the metaphysicians. Even Kant. Kant’s project was not the rejection of metaphysics, but it’s re-foundation on the basis of active mind by the use of the noumena and phenomena. Husserl and Heidegger dispense with the noumena and keep the phenomena, hence “phenomenology”. I suppose you might call religion and art “noumenology” - using Kantian terms. Kant is refuted, and thus Schopenhauer is thus also refuted. There is no ‘Will’ (noumena of the universe as a thing in itself) there is only representation’ - i.e the subjective appearance of things, the ‘data of consciousness’. - If you take the Will out of the universe there is only representation.  

After Heidegger there is no absolute or highest truth. There are only subjective ‘weak truths’ and ‘practical truths’ or ‘convenient truths’ which are necessary to being, and being is always concrete and specific for Heidegger, always ‘being in the world’ or ‘being there’.
Dasein - being there (German - it’s an every day world. ‘It’s my thing that I’m into’ but also means ‘way of being’) Relative of the point of view of the perceiver. (See below points). Where is it? It’s in your mood. Mood has a big importance to Heidegger, previous to this mood was seen as trivial. For Heidegger, your mood is you. Whatever mood your in is you. 

 And these are always relative to the point of view of the perceiver and either entirely underground (e.g. second hand reports of phenomena given by others) or grounded in subjectivity, even in ‘mood’ or ‘emotion’ (contrary to logical positivism, where truth is grounded in verifiable facts)
*Ontology - being as a thing in itself. *

Truth is thus no longer a matter of matching thought to reality, but of making reality which is seen as true post-hoc. There is no idea of a ‘correct truth’ to which one teacher or one culture has access. There are many truths, specific to the desires and moods of each individual. Limited by the superego or cultural traditions and norms. Mood (emotional state) Is not trivial matter for Heidegger, but the contrete aspect of being.
*See 2nd paragraph above*
Santra - theory of the emotions

Heidegger’s project:

To clear away all philosophical terminology and throw away all philosophical concepts and systems since Socrates. To liberate himself from constraints of ‘objectification’ and metaphiscs (he did not much care what others did). Thus to live ‘an authentic life’ (no bullshit) - in practical terms to live a simple life in the forest. As a Nazi, he has a rousseau-esque loathing of industrial civilization, of cities and sought a life of isolation in the countryside. The whole Nazi ‘good life’ bag of tricks German romanticism, mountain-worship, Neitzsche, Wagner, fertile women, Lederhosen, Eurythmics, Strength through Joy, physical strength, real ale, ‘YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT’ - Heidegger comment. Organic food, new age-ism, astrology, vegetarianism etc. 

Hates everything modern.

Like Neitzsche, Heidegger believes Socrates corrupted western civilization Socrates-Plato-Aristotle is all a detour, a corruption and the invention of philosophical systems founded on the basic error of postulating a-priori an eternal world of objects existing in abstract extended Cartesian space-time. 

To do this he revives interest in the pre-socratic philosophers, especially Heraclitus. Part of the attraction in that these writers did not describe themselves as philosophers (Plato’s term), and wrote in plain, non-technical language. The project, seeing thought as a circumscribed epiphenomena of the intentional use of language, is reminiscent of George Orwell and also the later Wittgenstein.
Heidegger hated any philosophical words.

Heidegger invented an original set of terms in order to speculate about the exterior world.

Dasein

• Being there. Like Husserl, Heidegger is not interested in ‘consciousness’ which presupposes a-priori the existence of some ‘thing’ or thing from which consciousness arises in the process or the contemplation of those things. Instead Heidegger is interested in ‘being’, in ontology, not psychology. The ‘problem of being’ is his subject.
  
  Being is not abstract for H, but always concrete. ‘Being’ at a particular time and palce, and being engaged in a particular task (even just a task of thinking. We always are in the middle of some job or another. Freedom and authenticity for Heidegger is complete absorption in a task, such absorption does not mitigate existential pain (the function of music for Schopenhauer) but actually makes existence go away. When you are fully engaged in a task, you no longer exist.

 ‘Throwness’ - thrown in to something. 

Existence boredom. Boredom is ‘the problem of being’. The opposite of boredom is Dasein. Lack of boredom (engagement in Dasein) is non-existence.

Existence (Boredom) requires time. Without time there would be no boredom. With infinite time there would be infinite boredom. The perception of ‘lack of time’ creates a sense of unrgency, and forces a choice of Dasein.

Dasein is non-reflective, unthinking, instinctive - for example on a roller-coaster ride - it is all sensation and engagement in the moment. Reflection would create vertigo and paralysis; too much ‘thinking about the world’ instead of ‘being in the world or being there’.

Dasein is not thinking, but ‘caring. 

A vocabulary for intellectual activity - anti thinking, about doing and being, not analysis.

Judgements, choices, decisions, and formulation of concepts, are ways are ‘caring’ and ‘copying’.

From the start of life we are already engaged in an activity; this is throwness, against facticity or randomness - random assemblage of facts, as examined by phenomenology.

PART ONE OF THE BOOK (being and time)- DASEIN

“time is the boundary for the problem of being” Time is an element of being; time is like ‘the boundary of being’. It is not a thing in intself. Kant discovered the problem of non-linear time and Einstein condified the mutability of time as ‘space-time’. So space-time is the horizon/boundary of being.

The prepatory analysis of Dasein (being there0. Chapter one of Being and Time.

We find Dasein in ‘caring’ which means work. The example of the carpenter and the hammer ‘transparent being’. The ‘ready to hand’. The difference between the hammer and the carpenter is that the hammer has ‘being for’. It is not free. Humans who act as ‘being for’ (something or somebody else) are unfree, alienated and live in ‘bad faith’. 

More on time and the subjective experience of time. There are three aspects to time, this Heidegger shares from Kant and the mutability of time obviously references Einstein's relativity, and modernity generally.

Kant believed there was 12 types of time.  - typical metaphysics

1. ‘Attunement’ - expressed as ‘mood’. Reflection on the past produces ‘mood’. Outside of Dasein the normal mode of attunement (mood) is a vague ‘angst’ and the mood of guilt. 

1. ‘Being for itself’ or ‘Being there’ - caring about the task in hand (you are doing your thing). This is the present mode of Dasein. 

1. ‘Directedness’ - this reflection on the future. This produces the ‘mood’ of ‘dread’. Fear of the future.
   
   Basically PAST --> PRESENT --> FUTURE

BIOG - Rector of Freidberg University in 1930’s, was a dedicated member of the Nazi party - sanctioned book burning, and the removal of all Jews from the university including Husserl, who had been this teacher.

Post war never recanted his Nazi’sim and was banned from teaching. Thus he was not read until the 1960’s when he was popularized by his `french follower Jean Paul Sartre.

Satre - “Being and Nothingness’ - attempts to remove the boundary of space-time from being. Takes the same structure as Heidegger.

Past = GUILT
Present = BOREDOM (unless obliterated by Dasein)
Future = FEAR

Existentia (subjective, being for/by yourself) 
VS 
Existense (Objective, objectified, being for others)