Thursday 28 March 2013

Totalitarianism

Key question: 'Can good people commit evil acts?' How could this happen?

  • Focus on the 20th century where there was nearly 100 years of relative peace before World War One but then there were huge atrocities in Russia, China and especially Germany.
  • Totalitarian Regimes-Plato's Republic- against these ideas:Contract Theory, idea that the powers of the state should be limited (even by Hobbes). Liberalism personal freedom protected by the state.
  • Hannah Arendt argues that the 20th Century Totalitarian Regimes were different to anything that had come before the central purpose of Totalitarian Regimes was to destroy the individual. She was fascinated with the newness/strangeness of this new political model: ''Everything we know of Totalitarianism demonstrates a horrible originality- its very actions constitute a break with all our traditions.''
  • But she saw the imperalism as a precursor to Totalitarianism because it contained so many traits which the new regimes could use. One such trait of imperialism was the development of racism. Once established, ways of thinking and behaving that denied rights and therefore was available for Totalitarian Regimes to adopt. ( Eg. General Kitchener's actions in Boer War).
  • Our individuality makes us difficult to control and gather up into a collective movement. To destroy this individuality two methods are used:
  1. State terror
  2. Ideology
  • The purpose of the terror isn't just to murder vast numbers of people but to also destroy their individuality and ability to act against the government- not just to act, but even the thought of acting (Orwell).
  • Ideology compliments the policy of terror, it eliminates the capacity for individual thought and experience among the executioners themselves.
  • Ideology is also a type of specialist knowledge as Popper pointed 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 movement) gives them ' the total explanation of the past, the total knowledge of the present, and the reliable prediction of the future.' It frees you from common sense, blissful don't have to worry. This breakdown of the stable human world means loss of the institutional and psychological barriers that normally set limits to what is possible.
  • For Hannah Arendt the first move the Nazis made on the road to the 'Final Solution' was to deny Jewish people citizenship. Therefore making them stateless and with no 'natural rights'.
  • Society is fragile and can break down very quickly. In order to be civilised human beings we need to inhabit a man-made world of stable structures. Being part of society enables us to be civilised- gives us access to a shared reality.
Control of Language
  • Orwell was horrified by the capacity of Totalitarian Regimes to attempt to control minds, by manipulating language. Thought takes place in purely linguistic terms.Therefore, Control language, and you control thought and so 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 was to abolish racism. 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
What is your personal responsibility in a dictatorship?
  • Would I collaborate?
  • May 11 1960, Israeli secret service kidnapped Nazi fugitive Adolf Eichmann in Argentina and 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.
  • For the Israelis the trial had 3 purposes:
  1. Trying Eichmann for his crimes
  2. Educating the world about the nature and the extent of the Holocaust.
  3. Legitimising the Jewish State.
  • For Hannah Arendt it was a shock to see Eichmann since he was no monster, not what she expected him to be like. He claimed to be a law abiding citizen and so it became apparent that you don't have to possess great wickedness in order to commit great crimes. She believed that he did not think while he committed the crime- didn't make a choice. This thinking is crucial for existentialists. He claimed to just follow the rules- it was his required role/duty.
  • 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.
  • 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. 
  • Arendt responds - this was outrageous on the face of it and also incomprehensible since Kant’s moral philosophy is so closely bound up with man's 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’. 
    Arendt 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 - 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. 

Thursday 21 March 2013

Spring Trends Hair- for Absolute:ly


Absolute:ly nail Spring trends










Bureaucracies

  • The new industrial state= the system which satisfies everything that is a human need.
  • Max Vaber looked at the rise of bureaucracy. He believed that charisma is essential to gain bureaucratic power.
  • The main source of power is by having a legal routine authority (dividing and sorting out rules).
  • Keynes was concerned with over population. He believed that foreigners will come to wherever the money is. Government spending can defer the problem but isn't able to ultimately solve the problem. In order to forever defer the problem, money should just be printed according to Keynes because even inflation can be controlled.
The Depression

  • Capitalism collapsed in 1930s and so there was famine and mass unemployment. This meant that many went into the army. Keynes supported this military movement ( military Keynesianism).
  • 1950s was the era of American prosperity. Keynes is the great 'God'. The far left/ far right (including Heidegger, Sartre, Maoism and Franz Fanon etc) is 'beaucratic technological militaristic nihilism'.
  • Global fight between capitalists and workers.
  • America spend vast amounts of money on the military in order to keep people employed. This is the equivalent to the NHS in the UK.
  • Nihilism is prevalent for Western civilisation according to Heidegger. The most obvious form of nihilism being religion.
The new industrial state
  • 'The military Industrial Complex' (Eisenhower). Need to avoid conspiracy theories, people from elites naturally think the answer is to increase public spending but tell everyone it's being reduced.
  • People want an aristocracy not a democracy. A highly trained, intelligent bureaucrat is what's needed to run the country.
  • Heidegger suggests it to be a violent movement ( nuclear weapons-government spending).
Critiques of the managed society

  • Intellectual revival of Adam Smith and Hume (and Aristotle against Kant and German Idealism). Reaction against subjectivity and against existentialism. The importance of money as an objective measured of social worth and the point of social existence.
  1. Joesph Conrad- Heart of Darkness.
  2. Anthropology- reveals the essential irrationality of man, rejection of Rousseau's (and Marx/Engles) point of view of pre-historic human nature. The true human is a violent monster and females exists only to reproduce.
  3. Frazer- The Golden Bough- Real human nature is subordinate males.
  4. Vietnam- The first 'entirely bureaucratic technological' war, an 'automated death machine'. The end of the age of the nation state (the defeat of the USA). Also the end of the age of Enlightenment in terms of Heidegger.  

Wednesday 6 March 2013

Feature for Absolute:ly- How to get the look- Nicole Scherzinger





Creative Commons:myalexis' (flickr) 






Relationships feature for Absolute:ly

When I hear the phrase ‘just friends’ I instantly think of a stereotypical break-up scenario where either the guy or girl is being dumped with the classic line: “it’s not you, it’s me, but I hope that we can still be friends?” What does this really mean? I personally see this as being similar to the ‘no offence but…’ line. You know that you’re potentially going to hurt someone’s feelings with the comment that you’re about to say but to avoid any possible conflict you make your excuses first to soften the blow. In the same way people use can we be ‘just friends?’ as a way of ‘sugar coating’ a break-up. Deep down both sexes know that their relationship is beyond repair even to the point where friendship is an option.
I believe that it isn’t possible for both men and women to be on the same page when it comes to friendship; either sex can be left wanting more that other people feel they aren’t able to give. We are brainwashed by the film industry to believe that is it possible. For example, the handsome athlete that seems perfect on paper is often kicked to the curb when the leading star of the film realises it is her geeky best friend that holds the key to her heart. Give me a break.
So I went to the streets to find out what your opinions are.
Can men and women ever be friends?
 
YES
Chris Pearson,20

“Personally, I don’t make friends with others based on their sex. For example, I wouldn’t choose to talk to someone because I’m a guy and they’re a guy and stay away from girls. I believe that there are people that you just click with and enjoy their company. This connection can happen with anyone and real friendship can start at any point. Therefore, when I find this connection with someone I still want to be friends with them regardless of their gender.”


NO
Hannah Evans, 21

“I’ve had male friends in the past and none of them have lasted due to the simple fact that every time we grew close and were getting on really well, the guys would ruin it by interpreting my actions as being flirty. I acted the same with my old male friends, as I did with my girlfriends so why is it that the guys accused me of flirting and the girls obviously didn’t? If you ask me guys always mistake girl’s actions so I’m going to stick to female friendships in the future as it’s just embarrassing and awkward for all when men push your friendship boundaries and expect more.”

By Shona Race

Valentine's Day: Film Review for the 'New Winchester Review'

Image rights: New Line Cinema and Warner Bros. Productions


By Shona Race.
As part of the WINOL Valentines Day specials, we reviewed the 2010 film Valentine’s Day. Head over to Absolute:Ly Magazine for more Valentine’s features.


Released to coincide with Valentine’s Day in 2010, this star studded movie’s plot depicts different types of love, with each story intertwining. Stars such as Jessica Alba, Jennifer Garner, Bradley Cooper and Anne Hathaway only scratch the service of the huge assembled cast. Look out for an appearance by country singer, turned pop star Taylor Swift making her acting debut. I use the term acting very loosely.
There is no question that this style of film making will attract a host of teenage girls (and their reluctant boyfriends) all looking for a love filled cheese-fest for the holiday of love. Similar to those awful Christmas films you see every year, expect this film to be placed at the front of every shelf, and to be played at least twice on TV every February for years to come.
But with a film filled with such a fantastic range of world renowned actors and actresses, surely this film was destined to be a well-crafted piece of film making? Unfortunately not. The problem with this style of film is that the story does not take priority. Indeed, with the amount of big names, all wanting to have significant screen time it was always going to be a stretch to create a well written film.
The main issue of the film is that there is just too much going on, before you can connect or relate to one set of characters, you’re whisked off to the next story. Of course the stories do try to intertwine in a clever way, and sometimes this works well, but it’s just too tiring for the audience.
At just over two hours, Valentine’s Day definitely over stays its welcome, substituting character development and entertaining story, with a host of rushed mini stories. There a few decent performances here, including Bradley Cooper and Aston Kutcher, although they are nothing more than faces in the crowd.
However, having said all that, the target audience for this film will most likely overlook the shortcomings in the story telling and character development. Teenage girls will love all the eye candy on show. Chances are that the tears will be flowing by the end credits, with all stories being wrapped up in a nice, unrealistic bow.
For a film with Love as its central theme, this film left me feeling cold. The romantic feeling just isn’t there. It’s not enough to simply show two human beings saying that they love each other, but without depth behind their story, how are the audience expected to really connect?
In 2011 a similar styled film named  New Year’s Eve was released to coincide with, surprise surprise, New Year’s Eve. Like parody movies, it seems that it doesn’t matter how badly a film is reviewed by critics; people will still flock to the cinema and their DVD rental store to watch these types of movie. As long as they keep making money, I’m sure in the coming years we will see blockbusters such as “Mother’s Day” “Father’s Day” and maybe even “Chinese New Year”.
In conclusion, you know your film is poor when Taylor Lautner isn’t the weakest point.

3/10

 

Valentine's feature for Absolute:ly

I Heart Valentine’s Day

By Shona Race.
Valentine’s Day has always been an occasion which I have celebrated from a young age. Some of my earliest memories are making Valentine’s cards and heart cupcakes at nursery for my parents every February the 14th. It wasn’t until I reached my dreaded teenage years that I suddenly felt the pressure that Valentine’s Day brings. No longer was it deemed ‘cool’ to give and receive cards to your family and friends.
Having attended an all-girls school throughout these years I expect my pressure was even greater than most. This was because as soon as February came round there was no escaping the fast approaching day. Every girl who was in a relationship seized the chance to show off the presents that their doting partner had given them, some even brought their flowers and teddies into school. Not surprisingly, I began to resent the very thought of Valentine’s Day because I didn’t have a boyfriend and simply felt like I couldn’t join in with the Valentine’s Day craze.
My family however, relentlessly attempted to convert me back to the ‘fluffy’ side and as I grew out of my teenage angst years I realised that Valentine’s Day isn’t necessarily about love between a couple, it’s a day to celebrate love in general. This means that whether you are celebrating the love that you have for your friends or the love you have for your family, it is a day to simply remind the ones you care for, that you love them. Valentine’s Day wasn’t created as a day which is meant to make anyone feel lonely or unloved it is in fact celebrated for the opposite reasons.
Inevitably, there is an increasing amount of pressure to spend money on products such as chocolates and flowers which are advertised as being able to saying ‘I love you’ better than your loved one actually saying those three words. I however disagree. I believe that there is no need for over extravagant presents, just spending time with your loved ones is what the true nature of Valentine’s Day is about. Saying that, I still love it when my boyfriend surprises me every year with presents.
Personally, I don’t see what the harm is having a day centred on love when during the remaining 364 days of the year we are constantly reminded of negative facts of life such as war and poverty. So embrace Valentine’s Day for what it is and accept that you have the freedom to celebrate it how you want just as long as you are indulging yourself and others in love ( but also chocolates, jewellery and flowers are a nice touch too).

Creative Commons attribution to Caro Wallis

Nail Art Competition February 2013


I was very pleased with how this competition went. I asked for all applicants to tweet us a picture of their most creative nail designs in order to win a selection of nail varnishes. We had 4 entrees which all had stunning designs. Here is the lucky winner with her prize.


Using Twitter to submit the entrees was a great idea because it boosted promotion of the site and got us more followers for our Absolute:ly Twitter account.

Since then, I managed to get Prezzo vouchers just in time for Valentine's day but there was no takers and we currently have a comptition running at the moment where a lucky reader of Absolute:ly could win a free copy of the book 'Love by numbers' written by Dr. Luisa Dillner.

Existentialism

Existentialism the idea that there is no point to anything. If there isn’t any point to anything what's the point of living? We need guidance but the Existentialists say that there is no right or wrong.
Existentialists say you should make any decisions for yourself. t’s all about choice. 
To make a choice is at the heart of existentialism, violence is like a accelerated choice. Preferred to do something. Violence is the ultimate type of choice by Existentialists.
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: 'The rebel's weapon is the proof of his humanity. This irrepressible violence is man recreating himself'.

Key figures in Existentialism are:

Nietzsche: 'God is dead'- the end of certainty and we are faced with a crisis- we need something new to sustain us. This crisis is fantastic according to Nietzsche because it means freedom. It gives us the freedom to find a value for ourselves. When we believed in a superstructure such as Religion we were in the mindset of children (believe everything to be perfect/ have an answer) but the reality of life is that nothing is perfect i.e. 'God is dead'.

Plato believed there to be perfect forms in another world but Nietzsche believed that the world in which we live and experience life is the only world that exists. He believes that human nature isn't universal- our natures are different and it therefore follows that different people can find and follow different conceptions of excellence, different moralities. This is therefore opposing the position of natural rights (Locke) and Rousseau's view of general will (rules set out to guide us in life).

Nietzsche firmly believed that if we are all different and there is no absolute morality we must all have different morals and also have our own rules. Nobody gives us these morals, not even God. 

Ubermensch- The superman the overman, overcomes what has so far defined us as human. The ubermensch will overcome and ignore other values set out. Choice is crucial.

Heidegger: 'Being and Time' was highly influenced by Sartre's 'Being and Nothingness'. The book was about human existence and focused on what it means to exist and consequently the problems of human life.

Believed himself to not be an Existentialist. Said that we must question the nature of the being which causes us to question the nature of being.
There is reason in the world. But where does it come from? Existentialists say it's derived from and is about existence. 
He first asks what is it that exists? What is the basic beginning of existence? It is Dasein. Simply us, we are Dasein, it is in each of us.

Attacks Descartes and the Cartesian idea that the world is split into two substances:
1.       The mind
2.      The body
Heidegger believed this concept made it impossible to understand ourselves because when you talk about the mind and body we become stuck with the fact that we are our minds. How do we then get out of our minds and out into the world in itself? Hume says you can't, we'll never know everything. Billboard example. Anything in the future is unknowable, everything can be falsified. Instead of Hume's spectacle idea, Cartesian and Dualism, Heidegger believes 'Dasein' is the answer since 'Dasein' is ‘being in the world.’
Our existence is simply our interaction with the world. Our place in the world is not our existence, our existence is the interaction and engagement we make with the world. We make this through choice. You have to make a choice to engage with something and so 'Dasein' is your engagement with the world. Therefore existence is how you engage with the world. The most important thing that defines you is your next decision, it’s the choices you make. You are defined by your choices. 

Das Man
This is the inauthentic self- what Heidegger has in mind in a sort of social construal of the self. It is inauthentic because it is simply a social self, it is not one's own self at all.

Facticity are those parts of ourselves which are simply given- we are thrown into the world. Where you were born. All of the facts that have happened up to this point in your life is a person's facticity. If you are defined what has come before this moment you are Das Man, meaning you are imperfect. For the Existentialist the future is the most important decision, we are creatures of the possible.

Transcendence is my reaction to my facticity- our possibility which may not be realised. I am defined by my choices and I re-create myself but I am not defined by my past (crucial to Fanon).

Sartre's key idea was that existence precedes essence- we create our own purpose. E.g. Simone de Beauvoir: 'One is not born a woman, but becomes one.' We are defined by our own essence.

The Absurd- There is no guiding point/spirit, no teleological driving force- stuff happens, good and bad without reason and so life is in some way ridiclious and absurd.

Bad Faith
The life of a person isn’t determined in advance by God or moral laws according to Sartre. The only thing you cannot escape is the need to choose. People will try to avoid this freedom, however, since the possibility of recreating oneself is frightening.  This is 'Bad Faith'.
The alternative is to take responsibility for your actions and be defined by your choices.

Humanity for Sartre is:
1.      Abandonment- 'God is dead' (Nietzsche) we are alone and there is no one/thing to guide us on how to act.
2.      Anguish- Humans are fundamentally free 'condemned to be free' the responsibility of being free is enormous, no excuses we are the reason for being who we are. We cannot choose our past but we choose how to feel and act to every situation.
3.      Despair- This is the realisation that the world may prevent us from getting what we want, we are the totality of what we actually do.
Existentialism is the reaction to the realization that there is no reason to anything.
 His examples:
· Stare’s pupil ( a real example of a pupil in the Second World War, the choice for a boy to look after his mother whilst the Nazi’s were in France, or should he join the resistance and fight the Germans)
Obviously he loves his mother. But the only chance to get rid of the Nazi’s is to fight them.
Choice between his mother and joining the Free French.
Abandonment, Anguish and despair all felt due to this choice.
Sartre says 'you are free, therefore choose.' You define yourself by this choice. No right choice.
· Bad faith 
Most people think that because you have a certain role they have expectations of you. For example students are expected to go to lectures. But Sartre says No, you are radically free, you have no obligations. It’s a simple choice.
Sartre believes such people are making a metaphysical mistake by turning themselves into inert objects rather than being free beings.