bored-philosopher-corner

[bored-philosopher-corner]

PhD Journal - 09 11 2024

The paradox of Libet’s experiment : the proof of free will

How do we prove we have free will, as fully conscious agents? This question has puzzled philosophers, neuroscientists, and thinkers for centuries. The concept of free will—the ability to make choices independent of external determinants—sits at the heart of our understanding of human agency and responsibility. In this article, we will explore the intersection of philosophical ideas and scientific experiments, focusing on the groundbreaking work of Benjamin Libet and its implications for our understanding of free will.

We find that there is quite a lot of philosophical foundation to ground and think about the concept of free will. Philosophers like Descartes, Kant, and Sartre have grappled with the notion of free will. Descartes emphasized the importance of human consciousness and rationality, while Kant argued for the autonomy of moral agents. Sartre, on the other hand, posited that humans are condemned to be free, bearing the weight of complete responsibility for their actions. These philosophical perspectives provide a rich backdrop for our inquiry into the nature of free will. Within this thought process exists the debate of compatibilism versus incompatibilism. The debate between compatibilists and incompatibilists further complicates our understanding of free will. Compatibilists argue that free will can coexist with determinism, suggesting that our choices, while influenced by prior states and events, still allow for meaningful autonomy. Incompatibilists, however, contend that true free will is incompatible with determinism, asserting that for our choices to be genuinely free, they must not be determined by preceding events.

In the ongoing debate about free will, I align myself with the philosophy of compatibilism. This perspective recognizes that while our actions are undoubtedly influenced by a multitude of factors—such as our historical, social, economic, psychological, emotional, and academic backgrounds—we still possess the ability to make conscious decisions. Compatibilism allows for a nuanced understanding of human behavior, where individuals are seen as agents capable of acting according to their preferences, belief systems, and personal knowledge. It acknowledges that we can choose to act through or against our biases, driven by our will to navigate the complex interplay of influences that shape our lives.

In the 1980s, neuroscientist Benjamin Libet conducted experiments to investigate the timing of conscious intention and brain activity. Participants were asked to move their fingers at a time of their choosing while Libet measured the brain's readiness potential, an electrical signal indicating the brain's preparation for movement. Libet conducted experiments showing that brain activity related to movement (the readiness potential) occurs before the conscious intention to move. This suggests that the brain initiates actions before we are consciously aware of deciding to perform them. Participants in his experiments reported that they felt free to move whenever they wished and were not compelled to act. This introspective feeling of free will was a crucial part of his experimental design and interpretation. If participants had felt compelled to move, it would have undermined the validity of the experiments, as the subjective experience of free will was essential to Libet's conclusions. The experiments sought to demonstrate that the conscious decision to act follows the brain's initiation of that action, rather than being the instigator. Libet also proposed the concept of "veto power," suggesting that while the initiation of actions might be unconscious, the conscious mind has the ability to veto or inhibit these actions. This idea adds another layer to the debate about free will and conscious intention.

In Libet's studies, participants were indeed required to be willing and cooperative, meaning they needed to perform the task as instructed, which involved moving their finger at a time of their choosing. This cooperation ensured that the data collected was relevant to the question Libet was investigating: the timing of conscious intention relative to the brain's readiness potential. If participants were uncooperative or deliberately chose not to move, it would have skewed the results and made it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions about the relationship between brain activity and conscious intention. Cooperative participants who chose to move were essential for Libet to observe and measure the precise timing of brain activity and conscious intention. This helped to substantiate his theory that the brain initiates actions before we become consciously aware of deciding to perform them.

In the context of Libet's experiments, if participants didn't feel compelled to move their finger "at will" and chose not to move, it could indeed be interpreted as evidence of free will. This refusal to act would suggest that participants have the conscious ability to veto or inhibit a movement initiated by unconscious brain activity. Libet himself proposed the concept of "free won't," the idea that while the brain might initiate an action unconsciously, the conscious mind can still choose to stop it. This implies that the conscious mind has a sort of veto power over the actions initiated by the brain, allowing for a form of free will to be exercised in deciding whether or not to complete the action. The concept of "free won't," or the ability to consciously veto an action initiated by unconscious brain activity, supports the idea that we do have some level of control and agency over our actions. This nuanced understanding indicates that while our decisions may be influenced by unconscious processes, we still possess the capacity to exercise conscious choice and control.

Libet's experiments, which reveal that the brain initiates actions before conscious intention, pose an intriguing challenge to traditional notions of free will. However, from a compatibilist perspective, these findings do not negate the existence of free will. Instead, they highlight the intricate relationship between unconscious brain processes and conscious decision-making. The concept of "free won't," where individuals retain the power to veto or inhibit actions initiated by the brain, aligns well with compatibilism. This nuanced understanding supports the idea that while unconscious processes may influence our actions, we retain the capacity for conscious control and intentionality.

Libet's experiments present a unique paradox when it comes to proving the existence of free will. On the one hand, the experiments show that the brain's readiness potential—an unconscious signal—precedes the conscious intention to move. This finding challenges the traditional notion of free will, suggesting that our actions may be initiated by unconscious processes before we become aware of them. However, the concept of "free won't" adds a layer of complexity to this paradox. Libet proposed that while the brain may initiate actions unconsciously, individuals have the conscious ability to veto or inhibit these actions. This idea suggests that we do possess a form of free will, even if it's not in the way we traditionally understand it.

The paradox posed by Libet’s experiment stands as such: On the one hand, there is proof of free will through our actions. Indeed, if participants move their finger, the readiness potential precedes the conscious decision, which seems to argue against traditional free will. On the other hand, there is also proof of free will through our inaction. Because, if participants choose not to move, their conscious veto demonstrates an exercise of free will. This paradoxical nature of Libet's findings highlights the complexity of studying free will. It suggests that free will may not be about the initiation of actions but rather about the conscious ability to control and inhibit those actions. This perspective aligns with compatibilism, which posits that free will can coexist with deterministic processes.

By examining both the movement and non-movement of participants, we see that free will might exist in the nuanced interplay between unconscious brain activity and conscious control. This understanding encourages us to rethink the nature of free will, moving beyond binary notions of free vs. determined actions.

In embracing compatibilism, we acknowledge the complexity of human agency. By integrating the insights from Libet's experiments with philosophical perspectives on free will, we gain a richer understanding of the interplay between unconscious influences and conscious choices. The paradox in Libet's experiments does not provide a straightforward answer to the question of free will. Instead, it invites us to embrace the complexity of human consciousness and agency. It challenges us to consider that free will might be more about our ability to consciously influence and control our actions rather than solely about initiating them. This approach not only deepens our understanding of free will but also affirms the profound capacity for human autonomy and responsibility.

[bored-philosopher-corner]

PhD Journal - 27 10 2024

I was reading this article on Aristotle's ideas on human and animal rational abilities, and some things the author wrote struck me.

He wrote "The world, however, looks very different to humans. Things can appear red or painful to an animal, but not noble or unjust", I simply think this is untrue in many ways.

The statement seems to dismiss the possibility that animals can perceive qualities beyond basic sensory or emotional experiences. While it’s true that human perception of concepts like nobility or justice is deeply tied to our social structures and language, it’s a bit presumptive to assume animals don’t have their own complex experiences or social behaviors that might parallel some of our more abstract ideas.

For example, certain animals exhibit behaviors that suggest a sense of fairness or altruism. Elephants have been observed mourning their dead, which could indicate some level of emotional complexity that goes beyond just pain or pleasure. Similarly, primates have shown behaviors that suggest a rudimentary sense of justice or fairness.

Dismissing these possibilities might be limiting our understanding of animal cognition and consciousness.

I think that we can't know what is going on truly in another's mind, whether it might be a human or an animal, an if we presume that other people have the same notion of what is just or unjust as we do, then why not presume animals also have that ability or that notion? It wouldn't be that much of a stretch either.

Indeed, assuming we can know with certainty what is going on in another's mind—whether human or animal—is a profound leap. My understanding about assuming that other people share our notions of justice and injustice opens up a fascinating angle: if we grant this assumption to humans, it’s a small step to extend it to animals as well.

Different cultures and individuals can have varied perceptions of justice, shaped by their experiences, social structures, and personal beliefs. Similarly, animals, with their own social structures and behaviors, may possess their own notions of fairness or injustice that we simply don't fully understand yet. Observations of animals showing empathy, cooperation, and even mourning behavior hint at complexities in their social interactions and emotions that may parallel human experiences in some way.

Moreover, Aristotle’s idea that humans are “social/political animals” highlights our inherent need for community and governance, but it also suggests that social structures aren't unique to humans. Many animals exhibit social and political behaviors within their groups. Take wolves, for example—they have complex social hierarchies and cooperation mechanisms. Elephants demonstrate empathy and mourning, which indicate an awareness of right and wrong within their social context.

Assuming that humans, as animals, are the only ones capable of moral reasoning ignores the nuanced behaviors of other species. The same principles that govern human social and ethical behavior can often be observed in the animal kingdom, albeit in different forms. So, it's quite reasonable to propose that animals might have their own versions of what is morally right or wrong based on their social structures and interactions.

Recognizing that animals might have their own notions of right and wrong, based on their social behaviors, encourages us to approach them with greater empathy and respect. It challenges us to rethink our interactions with all creatures, fostering a sense of shared existence.

Greater consideration for animals and insects can lead to more compassionate and protective actions on our part. This might mean advocating for their habitats, reducing our ecological footprint, and ensuring that our advancements do not come at the expense of their well-being. Embracing this perspective not only enriches our ethical frameworks but also enhances the way we coexist with the natural world.

Further along in this article, the author wrote "This story commits Aristotle to the claim that non-human animals are incapable of restraint. Nothing we have said so far suggests a view about animal cognition without restraint. One possibility is that, without restraint, the perceptual/imaginative stream has no effect on behavior, as a car's engine does not power its wheels when the car is stuck in neutral. But that account seems absurd, since animals get around just fine without rational cognition and therefore without restraint". Which, I still find myself conflicting with. I would argue that animals have some imagination, some phantasia in the aristotelian sense, like, say, squirells who imagine a hard winter and pile up, or bears who eat a lot before hibernating in preparation, having had phantasmata, of a hard winter.

I would think this personal interpretation aligns with a nuanced understanding of Aristotle. Aristotle did acknowledge that animals possess phantasia (imagination), which allows them to perceive and respond to their environment in complex ways. This phantasia involves the ability to form images or representations of things not immediately present, influencing behavior.

When Aristotle discusses animals and restraint, he distinguishes between rational restraint (unique to humans) and non-rational restraint. Humans use rational deliberation to exercise restraint, while animals rely on a form of non-rational restraint guided by phantasia.

Examples like squirrels hoarding nuts or bears preparing for hibernation illustrate that animals anticipate future needs based on imagined scenarios (phantasmata). This anticipation shapes their behavior, indicating that animals do have a form of cognitive processing that impacts their actions, albeit different from human rationality.

However, while it's traditionally thought that animals operate on instinct and phantasia rather than rational planning, recent studies suggest that some animals do engage in what appears to be foresight and planning. Squirrels caching nuts and bears preparing for hibernation might indeed involve more complex decision-making processes. These behaviors could indicate a form of non-human rationality, shaped by environmental cues and learned experiences. It’s a fascinating area where philosophy and ethology intersect, challenging our understanding of cognition across species.

The idea that animals may exhibit a form of rational behavior—distinct from human rationality—opens up fascinating possibilities. It challenges us to consider cognition on a broader spectrum, recognizing that animals might plan and make decisions in ways we don’t fully understand.

By acknowledging our limitations as humans in comprehending animal cognition, we invite a more nuanced appreciation of their capabilities. This perspective underscores the importance of approaching animal behavior with humility and curiosity.

Later, the writer stated : "he comparison to animals is still explicit: appearances cause movement in humans against their better judgment, in animals because they have no better judgment". Still, I find it difficult to agree with such a statement. For, from my experience and understanding, we see animals hesitate, like humans, out of doubt, out of fear, because they, like us, don't have enough information to be sure of their movements.

Observing animal behavior often reveals moments of hesitation, suggesting a level of decision-making complexity akin to human doubt and uncertainty. Animals, like humans, can exhibit caution and deliberation when faced with unclear situations, indicating that they do possess forms of judgment that guide their actions.

This implies that animals’ responses aren't merely automatic reactions to stimuli but involve a form of assessment based on available information. Thus, dismissing their actions as lacking "better judgment" underestimates their cognitive abilities.

The author continues, stating that "When Aristotle claims that animals acquire experience (empeiria), I think he means to tell this kind of story. He makes that claim in the opening chapter of the Metaphysics, in yet another comparison between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. Humans have craft (technê) and reasoning (logismos) to help them get by, while beasts do not. Beasts live by their imagination, memory and apparently a small share of experience: But anyway, the other [animals] live by imaginings and memories, and have a small share of experience (empeiria), but humankind [lives] also by craft and reasoning". I still find myself disagreeing with this.

Indeed, I'd argue we should challenge such an interpretation. Bees producing honey, birds communicating through song, and animals using strategies to overcome obstacles all suggest a level of technê (craft) and practical reasoning in animals. Aristotle's distinctions might reflect the perspectives of his time, but contemporary ethology shows that animals possess complex skills, problem-solving abilities, and social behaviors that go beyond mere imagination and memory.

Bees, for instance, exhibit sophisticated behaviors in honey production, which involves communication through the waggle dance and precise construction skills. Birds, like parrots, use vocalizations that serve meaningful social functions, similar to human language. Many animals demonstrate problem-solving skills and the ability to devise and execute plans, reflecting a form of reasoning.

I would, in the end, perhaps argue that we should ackowledge modern perspectives, which might highlight the evolution of thought and encourage readers to reflect on how our understanding has progressed. It’s a way to show the growth of knowledge and the necessity of questioning and adapting ancient ideas to contemporary insights. Because, not acknowledging modern perspectives on animal cognition could indeed limit the relevance and adaptability of Aristotle's thoughts today. To truly honor the evolution of knowledge, it's essential to integrate current understandings while recognizing the historical significance of past thinkers.

[bored-philosopher-corner]

Phd Journal - 25 10 2024

I recently read about the concept of digital immortality, in a social science, probably more specifically communication, thesis. It is a fascinating concept, both because it is highly interesting and deeply of our time, and also, at the same time and in the same expansive manner, deeply troubling for a plethora of reasons.

Digital immortality, storing our minds, our memories, the aspects of our personalities in a digital format to, so to speak, live on after our deaths, the deaths of our physical self, brings up questions about identity, consciousness and what it means to be humans. As a student of philosophy, the ethical implications are massive. Who controls these digital selves? How do we protect the privacy and the dignity of these entities, if and when they might exist, if it even is the correct terminology. What happens to our relationships with the dead and the living? All those questions are unsettling. I've thus found myself thinking that it was deeply related with transhumanism and transhumanists' want to enhance human beings, to...somehow, defy death itself. Transhumanists strive to transcend human limitations, by aiming to preserve consciousness and personality digitally, they envision a future where mortality is less definitive and rather is more of a state to be navigated and perhaps even overcome. However, does the/a digital version of ourselves truly represent our identity?

The metaphor or "defying" death captures another problem altogether : it's not just about exetnding life, but rather more about transforming our very nature.

Indeed, if human-beings were one day, in the future, digitally immortal, it would change not only the human-nature ; if there is such a thing as human nature, thinkers have been discussing this idea for thousands of years and there are still not one but many definitions of the concept of human nature ; but it would also potentially change the nature of Artificial Inetlligence. Which would be an entirely new concern. If, human-beings achieve true digital immortality, it could redefine what is means to be human and AI. The blending of human consciousness with AI could lead to a new kind of entity, neither fully human nor fully AI. Which poses new ethical and metaphysical challenges. As a student of ethics, I consider that human-beings cannot serve as tools, which would be deeply unethical, human-beings cannot be means to others' ends, which is very kantien, but I like his deontology. While AIs are by their very nature tools and can be used to further one's ends. Kant's categorical imperative champions the inherent dignity and worth of human-beings, emphasising that they should never be treated merely as means to an end. AIs, on the other hand, are specifically designed to serve as tools to facilitate human activities, according to some definition. This disctinction is fundamental between beings with intrisnict value and those created for a specific utility. All of which, when considering digital immortality, is a fine line to thread. Whith digital immortality, human-beings who become thus immortal would then be...what? They were, when living, moral agents, according to Kant's terms ; which I would like to use in my research ; and then, in their "false death", since they become immortal digitally, they would be AI-like or AI-powered, and thus somewhat tool-like? I see here that if a digitally immortal human-being, once a moral agent, becomes more AI-like, they moght straddle a complex line between their previous agency and being a tool, which, if they still have their consciousness while digitally immortal might pose a problem, but then, we are facing the immense problem of defining consciousness. On one hand, theyr would retain a form of their identity and consciousness (with all of its problems), but on the other hand, they would lack the autonomy of a living human and potentially become a means to others' ends. This hybrid existence therefore challenges the traditional ethical frameworks we are accustomed to. Do these human beings who become immortal digitally still possess the inherent dignity Kant assigns to humans, or do they transition into a different category of existence altogether?

This concept of digital immortality redefines our understanding of moral agency and ethical responsibility in the age of advanced technology. Though, assuming digital immortality is a real thing, we are not even sure that we will maintain our consciousness. And even then, which one? The one we had at the moment of our death, a compilation of our memoried (which might differ entirely from consciousness altogether accoridng to some definition, and I would agree that memories are not the same as consciousness) ? What kind of consciousness could a person, who, say, once knew the feeling of ice-cold air on their skin, the way a feather could fall, how their cat liked to be pet, the way their grandma cut fruits, how to braid their own hair, etc. how could such a full person still be considered conscious during their…non-life in the digital realm so to speak ? Indeed... The richness of human experience—those sensory details, emotional moments, tactile memories—are almost impossible to digitize fully. Digital immortality might capture data, memories, or patterns, but it might fall short of preserving the authentic consciousness or the depth of human life. Consciousness isn't just a compilation of memories but the ongoing, dynamic experience of being alive, which involves emotions, perceptions, and interactions with the world in real-time. Those nuances—like the specific feel of ice-cold air or the unique way your grandma cut fruits—are tied to the physical and temporal presence, things a digital format might not replicate. This line of thought highlights the potential disconnect between the data-driven immortality and the living, breathing essence of a person.

Then, would it mean that the idea of digital immortality stems froms the idea that everything can be put into mathematical data, thus abandonning the incredibly important quality of the full experience of life we get from living it? The concept of digital immortality does seem to arise from the belief that all aspects of reality can be reduced to data. Phenomenology, however, argues that the essence of the human experience is richer than any data set. Digital immortality thus misses the depth and richness of actual lived experience, and who would want that for themselves or for anyone? If the irreplaceable and fundamental aspects of being human are our free will ; the ability to make choices and understand the implications of those choices is a cornerstone of our humanity, it allows us to forge our own paths and embrace our individuality ; our feelings of both the physical world and the emotional world ; of paramount importance because our physical and emotional experiences shape our lives in ways that are deeply personal and often indescribable, joy, sorrow, love, pain, the sense of smell, of hearing, etc.—all these emotions, feelings and senses create a rich tapestry of human experience ; and, to name only three, the fact that we constantly create ; the act of creating—whether through stories, music, art, or any other form of expression—embodies our need to understand and share our experiences, it connects us to one another and to our shared history ; then digital immortality means nothing to us, because it does not capture and does not permit free will, feelings and/or creation. Digital immortality reduces these rich, multifaceted aspects of humanity to mere data, stripping away the very essence of what makes us truly human. Without free will, we can't make authentic choices. Without our feelings and senses, we lose the depth and richness of our experiences. Without the ability to create, we forfeit a core part of our identity. In this sense, digital immortality transforms us from beings into tools, mere shadows of our former selves. We lose the dynamic, ongoing experience of life that defines human existence. So, while the idea of digital immortality may hold allure, it ultimately fails to capture the true essence of being human, reducing us to something far less.

I mean to say that digital immortality, by missing these core human qualities, ultimately renders us non-existent in the true sense of what it means to be human.

[bored-philosopher-corner]

Incel Culture and Feminism

The term “incels” (short for "involuntary celibates") are individuals, primarily men, who identify as unable to find romantic or sexual partners despite desiring them. This term originated in the 1990s and was initially used without negative connotations. However, over time, it has come to describe a subculture often associated with misogynistic and extremist views. Members of the incel community frequently express feelings of resentment and frustration towards women and society. Some incels believe that they are entitled to romantic or sexual relationships and view their lack of success in these areas as a significant injustice. Unfortunately, this ideology has been linked to several violent incidents. We might want to ask ourselves, before going further, why that is that so many people adopt this term for themselves and want to identify as an incel? It turns out that many individuals who identify as incels experience significant loneliness and a lack of social support. They often struggle with mental health issues such as depression, anxiety, and paranoia. These feelings of isolation and frustration can lead them to seek out online communities where they find others with similar experiences. This sense of belonging can be a powerful draw, even if the community fosters negative and harmful ideologies. We should want to know what sort of thought runs through their minds, their beliefs, how they view the world and the people around them. Incels often believe that they are unable to form romantic or sexual relationships due to factors beyond their control, such as genetic disadvantages or societal structures. They tend to view women as being only interested in physically attractive men (referred to as "Chads") and feel that they are unfairly excluded from the dating pool. This belief can lead to a sense of victimhood and resentment towards women and society. Incels primarily engage in online activities, participating in forums and communities where they share their frustrations and reinforce their beliefs. These discussions often include misogynistic and misanthropic content, and in some cases, incels have been linked to violent actions. The incel subculture is frequently described as being part of the online male supremacist ecosystem.

Over time, the term has become associated with a predominantly male subculture characterized by misogyny and extremism. The incel movement gained notoriety in the 2010s, particularly after several high-profile violent incidents involving self-identified incels. There are a lot of violent incidents associated with incels, in recent years we could mention a few. In 2016, in Isla Vista in California (USA), one of the most infamous incidents involved a 22-year-old man who killed six people and injured fourteen others before taking his own life. He left behind a manifesto expressing his hatred towards women and his frustration over being unable to find a romantic partner. In 2019 in the city of Toronto, Canada, a man drove a van into pedestrians, killing ten people and injuring sixteen. He identified himself as an incel and cited his frustration with women as a motive. In Ohio (USA) in 2019, a man was arrested for planning a mass shooting. He had been active in incel forums and had expressed a desire to kill women. We could also mention the incident of 2021 in Plymouth (UK), in which a 22-year-old man killed five people and injured three others before committing suicide. He had been involved with incel communities online and expressed hatred towards women. These tragedies, which are much more numerous and prevalent than the few we have cited, highlight the potential for violence within the incel community, driven by extreme misogynistic beliefs and a sense of entitlement.

On the other hand of the spectrum of political agendas, we find feminism. Feminism is a movement and ideology that advocates for the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. It seeks to address and dismantle the systemic inequalities and injustices faced by women and other marginalised genders. This ideology has some key aspects, such as equality, empowerment, and intersectionality. Indeed, feminism strives for equal rights and opportunities for all genders in various spheres, including education, employment, and politics, to mention a few. It focuses on empowering women and marginalised groups to have control over their lives and decisions. Modern feminism often emphasises intersectionality, recognising that different forms of discrimination (such as race, class, and sexuality) intersect and compound the experiences of oppression. The ideas and fights of feminism evolved throughout several waves and a few centuries. The first wave of feminism as we know and understand it comes from the 19th and early 20th centuries, it focused on legal issues, primarily women’s suffrage, the right to vote. Second-wave feminism was around in the 1960s and 1980s. This second era focused on addressing broader issues such as workplace discrimination, reproductive rights, and sexual liberation. Then, between 1990 and the early 2000s, third-wave feminism emphasised individuality and diversity, challenging the definitions of femininity and advocating for a more inclusive approach. And, of course, fourth-wave feminism (2010s-present) uses digital platforms to address issues like sexual harassment, body shaming, and gender-based violence, with a strong focus on intersectionality. We think feminism constitutes an important part of our everyday life as it stands. Indeed, feminism has played, and still plays, a crucial role in advancing women's rights and improving societal norms. It has led to significant legal and social changes, such as the right to vote, access to education, and workplace protections. Despite these advancements, gender inequality persists, making feminism still relevant and necessary today. Feminism brought significant changes in various aspects of society, regarding legal rights, workplace equality, reproductive rights, challenging social norms, and addressing violence. It has been instrumental in securing women's right to vote, own property and access education. It has also led to laws against gender discrimination and sexual harassment. The various feminist movements have fought for equal pay and opportunities in the workplace, leading to policies that promote gender equality in employment. Feminism has played a crucial role in advocating for women's reproductive rights, including access to contraception and safe abortion. The movement has challenged traditional gender roles and stereotypes, promoting a more inclusive and diverse understanding of gender. Feminist activism has raised awareness about domestic violence, sexual assault, and other forms of gender-based violence, leading to better support systems and legal protections for survivors.

A new and important part of feminism is intersectionality. And, thus, intersectional feminism is a framework that examines how various forms of discrimination (such as racism, sexism, classism, and others) intersect and compound each other. The term was coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989 to highlight how different aspects of a person's identity can combine to create unique experiences of oppression. A few concepts of intersectional feminism which we could investigate are the recognition of our multiple identities, the idea of compounded discrimination, inclusive advocacy, and the importance of historical context. Intersectional feminism recognizes that individuals have multiple, overlapping identities (e.g., race, gender, class, sexuality) that affect their experiences and opportunities. It acknowledges that people can face multiple forms of discrimination simultaneously, which can exacerbate their marginalization. Intersectional feminism aims to include and uplift the voices of those who experience overlapping forms of oppression, ensuring that feminist activism addresses the needs of all women, not just those from privileged backgrounds. This line of thought considers the historical and social contexts that have shaped the experiences of marginalized groups, recognizing that long-standing inequalities require comprehensive solutions. We think that intersectional feminism is crucial because it provides a more nuanced understanding of inequality and helps create more effective and inclusive policies and activism. By addressing the interconnected nature of social identities, intersectional feminism ensures that the fight for gender equality benefits everyone, especially those who are most marginalized.

Of course, we understand that there are fundamental differences and conflict between feminism and incel culture, which should be addressed. Indeed, we are faced here with an ideological conflict. Incels often view feminism as a threat, blaming it for their perceived social and romantic failures. They believe that feminist advancements have unfairly empowered women at the expense of men. The incel subculture has contributed to the spread of misogynistic and extremist ideologies, posing a threat to women’s safety and societal harmony. In response to this, feminism seeks to dismantle the very structures of inequality that incels blame for their issues. Feminists advocate for a society where all genders can thrive without discrimination or violence. Feminism has brought about positive changes, promoting equality and challenging harmful stereotypes. It continues to work towards a more just and inclusive society.

            What we want to put forward in this argument is the idea that there is a link between masculine violence and modern feminism. Masculine violence refers to aggressive behaviours and attitudes that are often rooted in traditional notions of masculinity, which emphasise dominance, control, and physical strength. This violence can manifest in various forms, including domestic abuse, sexual assault, and other forms of gender-based violence. There are cultural norms and social factors which explain, though do not excuse, such behaviour. Indeed, cultural norms and societal expectations often reinforce these behaviours by promoting the idea that men should be dominant and assertive. This can lead to a toxic environment where violence is seen as an acceptable way to assert power and control. Masculine violence has severe consequences for individuals and society, contributing to a cycle of abuse and perpetuating gender inequalities. It affects not only the victims but also the broader community by fostering fear and perpetuating harmful stereotypes. All the while modern feminism advocates for the social, political, and economic equality of all genders. It seeks to dismantle systemic inequalities and promote empowerment and inclusivity. As we understand, a key aspect of modern feminism is intersectionality, which examines how various forms of discrimination (such as racism, sexism, and classism) intersect and compound each other. This approach ensures that the movement addresses the needs of all marginalized groups. Feminists use digital platforms to raise awareness about issues like sexual harassment, body shaming, and gender-based violence². This has helped create a more inclusive and diverse understanding of gender.

            We know from experience that there exists an uncomfortable intersection of masculine violence and modern feminism. Indeed, modern feminism challenges the patriarchal structures that underpin masculine violence. By advocating for gender equality and challenging traditional gender roles, feminism seeks to create a society where violence is not seen as an acceptable way to assert power. Feminism also encourages the development of healthy masculinity, which rejects violence and promotes emotional expression, empathy, and respect for all genders. This approach aims to reduce the prevalence of masculine violence by addressing its root causes. Moreover, feminist activism has led to significant legal and social reforms aimed at protecting victims of gender-based violence and holding perpetrators accountable. These reforms include laws against domestic violence, sexual harassment, and other forms of abuse. Therefore, the rise of modern feminism, particularly intersectional feminism, represents a significant shift towards greater equality and inclusivity. By challenging traditional notions of masculinity and advocating for systemic change, feminism seeks to address the root causes of masculine violence and create a safer, more just society for all. Feminism as we understand and witness it correlates, somehow, with the rise of recent male violence for many reasons, which we are going to explore, such as that feminism is perceived to be a threat to traditional masculinity, the easy online radicalisation of young men, and the fact that they seem to face a crisis of identity in an evolving society, which leads to an increase of male violence in recent history. As feminism and intersectionality challenge traditional gender roles and promote equality, some men may perceive these changes as a threat to their traditional notions of masculinity and power. This perceived threat can lead to a backlash, manifesting in increased aggression and violence. The rise of digital platforms has allowed for the rapid spread of extremist ideologies, including those found in incel communities. These platforms can amplify feelings of resentment and entitlement among men who feel marginalised by the progress of feminist movements. The shift towards gender equality can create a crisis of identity for some men who have been socialised to believe in traditional masculine ideals. This crisis can lead to increased frustration and, in some cases, violent behaviour as a way to reassert their perceived loss of power. Several high-profile violent incidents have been linked to men who feel threatened by the rise of feminism and the changing social landscape. These acts of violence are often framed as revenge against women and society for perceived injustices. As we understand now, the rise of feminism and intersectionality has significantly challenged patriarchal structures, promoting greater equality and inclusivity. However, this progress can be perceived as a threat by those who adhere to traditional notions of masculinity, leading to a backlash and, in some cases, increased male violence. Addressing these issues requires a multifaceted approach, including promoting healthy masculinity, challenging harmful ideologies, and fostering inclusive dialogue.

            In other words, feminism as portrayed today, especially intersectional feminism, stands against incel culture, and can even help them, whoever they might be, wherever they might be, to understand themselves better and that patriarchy as a system is oppressive for the sake of its own survival. Rejecting such a system of oppression might liberate them from a culture of violence against minds and bodies, a culture of restriction, a culture that benefits no one and was never truly meant to benefit anyone. Incel culture is often characterized by extreme misogyny and exclusionary beliefs. Members of this community frequently express hatred towards women and blame them for their personal frustrations and failures. The ideologies promoted within incel communities are ethically problematic as they perpetuate harmful stereotypes, encourage violence, and undermine the dignity and rights of women. This culture often fosters a sense of entitlement and resentment, which can lead to real-world violence. Incel culture poses a significant threat to societal harmony and safety. The promotion of misogynistic and extremist views can lead to radicalization and violent actions. Addressing these issues requires a concerted effort to counter harmful ideologies and promote healthy, inclusive narratives. While, on the other side, Feminism and intersectionality are grounded in the principles of equality, justice, and inclusivity. They seek to dismantle systemic inequalities and promote the rights and well-being of all individuals, regardless of gender, race, class, or other intersecting identities. Intersectional feminism emphasizes the importance of recognizing and addressing the unique experiences and challenges faced by marginalized groups. This approach ensures that feminist activism is inclusive and empowers those who are often overlooked or marginalized. Feminism advocates for social, political, and economic justice, challenging structures that perpetuate discrimination and violence. Intersectional feminism, in particular, highlights the interconnected nature of various forms of oppression and works towards comprehensive solutions. We understand better now that everything separates incel culture from intersectional feminism. On the one hand, incel culture puts forward and defends principles of exclusion, the perpetuation of harm, or upholds misogynistic ideals. On the other hand, feminism and intersectional feminism promote equality, advocate for justice and inclusivity. Indeed, feminism and intersectionality are rooted in the principles of equality and inclusivity, seeking to uplift and empower all individuals. In contrast, incel culture is exclusionary and promotes harmful stereotypes and violence against women. Feminism advocates for justice and the dismantling of oppressive structures. Incel culture, on the other hand, perpetuates harm by fostering resentment and encouraging violent behaviour. Intersectional feminism emphasizes the importance of inclusivity and addressing the unique challenges faced by marginalized groups. Incel culture is inherently misogynistic and exclusionary, undermining the principles of equality and justice. Therefore, the ethical foundations of feminism and intersectionality stand in stark contrast to the harmful ideologies promoted within incel culture. By advocating for equality, justice, and inclusivity, feminism, and intersectionality work towards creating a more just and equitable society. Addressing the challenges posed by incel culture requires a multifaceted approach, including promoting healthy masculinity, countering harmful ideologies, and fostering inclusive dialogue.

The fundamental differences between incel culture and intersectional feminism underscore a significant ideological conflict. Incel culture is characterized by exclusionary and harmful beliefs, often rooted in misogyny and a sense of entitlement. In contrast, intersectional feminism is an inclusive movement that seeks justice and equality for all genders, recognizing the interconnected nature of various forms of oppression. Incel culture perpetuates misogyny and violence by fostering resentment towards women and society. This subculture often blames women for personal frustrations and failures, leading to a dangerous sense of victimhood and entitlement. The violent incidents associated with incel ideology highlight the real-world consequences of these harmful beliefs. Intersectional feminism aims to dismantle the systemic inequalities that underpin gender-based violence and discrimination. By advocating for equal rights and opportunities, feminism challenges traditional gender roles and promotes a more inclusive and just society. This movement recognizes that true equality requires addressing the unique experiences and challenges faced by marginalized groups. To create a more just and inclusive society, it is essential to address the root causes of masculine violence. This involves challenging cultural norms that promote dominance and control as aspects of traditional masculinity. Fostering healthy masculinity encourages emotional expression, empathy, and respect for all genders, reducing the prevalence of violence. Feminism challenges traditional gender roles by promoting the idea that all individuals, regardless of gender, should have the freedom to define their identities and pursue their goals without societal constraints. This shift towards gender equality can help reduce the backlash from those who feel threatened by changing social norms. Systemic change is crucial for addressing the root causes of gender-based violence and discrimination. Feminism advocates for legal and social reforms that protect victims, hold perpetrators accountable, and promote equality. These reforms include laws against domestic violence, sexual harassment, and other forms of abuse. By promoting equality and challenging harmful ideologies, feminism offers a path towards understanding and liberation from oppressive systems. Rejecting the patriarchal structures that perpetuate violence and discrimination can lead to a more inclusive and just society for all.

In summary, the ongoing struggle between incel culture and intersectional feminism highlights the need for a multifaceted approach to address gender-based violence and promote equality. By fostering healthy masculinity, challenging traditional gender roles, and advocating for systemic change, feminism provides a framework for creating a safer and more inclusive world.

[bored-philosopher-corner]

It‘s scary to see how very important european petitions get no visibility whatsoever. We had a basic income petition last year which failed because not enough people knew about it. Now we have a „tax the rich“ one that only lasts until october this year and only has around 250k out of 1 mio. signings.

Most EU people go through their every day life w/o knowing about them. There are no ads, no marketing…nothing. I know that costs money though one might think important petitions that lead to a better and progressive life would be supported by the government or ministries in some way, but nooooo

And why should they? It’s petitions that would help out the poor and middle class, but endanger capitalism and their exploitation, sooo: government and business leads for example.

So here the link for those who are interested:

[bored-philosopher-corner]

Lui ? C’est juste Ken

Le 11 mars 1961 marque la naissance de Ken. Mattel a pensé à donner à Barbie un confident, un ami, tout aussi bien qu’un petit ami, selon les différentes histoires que l’on peut imaginer avec cette poupée, la première à montrer l’étendue et la complexité du monde féminin au-delà de la mère, de la servante et de la nourrice. Le personnage de Kent est celui qui, aujourd’hui, est rendu particulièrement intéressant, une année après la sortie du film de Greta Gerwig qui a apporté un nouveau regard sur non seulement le personnage iconique de Barbie, et toutes ses itérations, mais aussi sur le personnage de Ken, souvent oublié, mis de côté, rejeté. Depuis son arrivée sur la scène de Barbie Land, Ken est un personnage secondaire, à la fois dans les histoires de Barbie et dans les jeux auxquels les enfants s’adonnent et imaginent pour ces personnages. Dans l’univers de Barbie™, le personnage de Ken accompagne Barbie dans ses aventures, mais n’a jamais les siennes propres. Jusqu’au film de G. Gerwig, Ken vivait par et pour Barbie, toujours au second plan, la suivant et l’aidant dans ses aventures. En 2023, Ken a découvert le libre arbitre, l’autonomie, la liberté de pensée et l’analyse critique à travers une crise existentielle que nous avons toutes et tous pu apprécier sur le grand écran. Ainsi que les conséquences que tout cela implique. Nous nous intéressons à l’évolution du personnage de Ken sur petit écran depuis Barbie dans Casse-Noisette (2001), reprenant le ballet de Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, jusqu’à Barbie dans La princesse de l’île (2007), ainsi qu’en prenant en considération le film de 2023. Ces films, que l’auteure connait mieux, marquent une certaine perception du personnage de Ken et des nombreux autres rôles masculins que l’on peut retrouver dans ces adaptations originales. En quoi l’exploration du personnage de Ken nous permet-elle de porter un regard nouveau sur la masculinité ? Nous commencerons par comprendre plus adéquatement les différents archétypes que peut incarner Ken et ses contreparties masculines à travers l’univers cinématique de Barbie™. Ce qui nous conduira à voir l’évolution du personnage du film de 2023 de la Dream House à la Mojo Dojo Casa House. Et alors, nous pourrons mieux comprendre que Ken peut nous permettre d’aborder certains thèmes philosophiques particuliers sous différents angles.

Les archétypes masculin : Ken et ses contreparties masculines

D’abord, nous devons nous figurer que, comme dans toute œuvre de fiction, les personnages de l’univers cinématique de Barbie correspondent à certains archétypes. Nous trouvons normalement les héros, les anti-héros, les adjuvant ou encore les opposants. Ce qui nous intéresse particulièrement, ici, n’est pas tant le fait que Ken est souvent perçu comme un adjuvant aux aventures extraordinaires de Barbie, mais bien plutôt qu’il représente souvent un idéal. Nous pouvons alors considérer Ken et les autres figures masculines des films de Barbie, dans le but de les comparer les uns aux autres et de voir non seulement les vertus mais les vices qui nous sont présentés.

Le roi

Pour commencer, il n’est pas inutile de rappeler que Ken, en tant qu’accompagnant les personnages incarnés par Barbie, n’est jamais lui-même roi. Cela étant dit, il peut en représenter de nombreuses qualités, ou être lui-même prince par exemple. Voyons d’abord les vertus de cet archétype souvent présenté dans l’univers de Barbie.  Cet archétype, s’il est réussi et positif sera moralement bon, cherchant à protéger les siens, mais aussi cherchera à apporter des bienfaits à ceux qu’il souhaite protéger. Nous pouvons alors dire que l’incarnation de Ken dans Raiponce (2002). En effet, il cherche à aider le personnage incarné par Barbie à trouver une trace de ses parents à travers la ville, mais aussi à échapper à sa détentrice. Dans ce film, le prince Stefan est également aidé par la suite par son père, le roi, qui l’aide à combattre Gothel et à rétablir la justice entre son royaume et le royaume voisin, où son roi et reine les véritables parents de Raiponce. Ici, Ken cherche à rétablir à la fois vérité et justice à travers son royaume et dans la vie de Barbie.

De l’autre côté, nous pouvons également comprendre qu’il existe des contreparties plus sombres, vicieuses, malveillantes de l’archétype du roi : ce serait le tyran. Là où nous comprenons que le roi cherche à apporter de nombreux bienfaits à ceux qui l’entoure et qu’il cherche à protéger, nous devons prendre le chemin inverse en ce qui concerne la figure du tyran. En effet, le tyran chercherait plutôt à détruire tout ce qui l’entoure. Personnage moralement corrompu ou mauvais et destructeur, le tyran est l’opposé du roi. Nous pouvons prendre pour exemple le Roi des Rats dans le Casse-Noisette (2001) de cet univers cinématique. En effet, dès les premiers instants où nous prenons connaissance de son existence, au même rythme que le personnage de Clara/Barbie, le Roi des Rats et ses sbires ont eu le temps de détruire les décorations du salon de la tante de cette-dernière. Mais encore, il n’hésite pas à réduire à néant tout ce qui se trouve sur son chemin, il enferme les fées du printemps, il change en pierre ceux de ses sujets qui l’importunent, maltraite la chauve-souris qui tente de le conseiller à travers le film, etc. Alors, nous pouvons comprendre que le Roi des Rats ne cherche que son propre intérêt, il est égoïste jusqu’à la moelle, il est mauvais avec ses sujets.

Le guerrier

Un autre archétype masculin que l’on peut souvent rencontrer en littérature, ou dans les œuvres de fiction est la figure du guerrier. Elle est souvent représentée comme une attitude devant l’existence faite d’excitation, de discipline, de motivation. Le guerrier est souvent représenté avec des caractéristiques positives. Il est souvent présenté comme courageux, déterminé ou protecteur. C’est un personnage qui incarne la force et la volonté de défendre ce qui est juste, ou de défendre une cause qui est juste. La figure du guerrier est une figure courageuse, un tel personnage est alors prêt à affronter de nombreux défis et dangers pour défendre une noble cause. C’est une figure de la détermination, qui fait preuve de persévérance et de résilience. Elle ne renonce pas face aux nombreux obstacles qui viennent obstruer son chemin. Nous comprenons également que la figure du guerrier est aussi une figure incarnant la protection, elle agit dans le but de veiller à la sécurité et au bien-être des autres. Le guerrier se doit d’être discipliné pour parvenir à ses buts, il est capable de suivre des plans et des stratégies pour atteindre ses objectifs. Plus particulièrement, et de manière intéressante chez cet archétype de l’univers de Barbie™, le guerrier, dans sa forme vertueuse, est moralement droit, il a le sens du devoir et est motivé par un fort sentiment de devoir et de responsabilité envers sa communauté ou la cause qu’il a choisi de défendre. Comme le personnage du Prince Eric dans la version du Casse-Noisette (2001) de l’univers de Barbie™ peut le montrer à travers ses actions mais aussi avec les discours qu’il peut tenir à Clara ou aux autres personnages qui ignorent sa véritable identité et auxquels il montre quel est son véritable caractère. En effet, le personnage du Prince Eric/Casse-Noisette défend les villageois et leurs enfants lorsque les gardes du roi des Rats sont envoyés les combattre car ils font partie de la résistance contre ce personnage tyrannique dont nous avons parlé plus haut. Il se montre résolu à combattre pour ce en quoi il croit, pour la liberté de son peuple, peu lui importe que personne ne le reconnaisse, ici cela est même un avantage pour lui puisqu’il peut montrer quelles sont ses qualités, son courage, sa persévérance, son habileté tactique contre les attaques des soldats du roi des Rats.

Cependant, et nous devons également considérer la forme déchue, la forme pernicieuse du guerrier dans ses aspects corrompus et négatifs. En effet, une fois que la forme du guerrier a été corrompue il est un personnage qui devient agressif, et cette agressivité peut conduire à des comportements destructeurs et violents. Ainsi le guerrier peut devenir inflexible, il refuse de s’adapter ou de changer de stratégie, même lorsque cela serait nécessaire pour atteindre son objectif, même de manière purement pragmatique. Nous comprenons alors que la figure du guerrier fait alors preuve d’une forme d’autoritarisme, le guerrier corrompu peut chercher à imposer ses vues et ses décisions sans tenir compet des opinions des autres. Le guerrier devient alors égoïste, il se concentre uniquement sur ses propres objectifs, ses propres besoins, ses propres désirs, négligeant ceux des autres, et ne leur laissant pas le choix. Il est alors insensible, il se focalise exclusivement sur la mission qu’il s’est donné, se renfermant ainsi sur lui-même, le rendant insensible au monde extérieur et aux besoins des autres. Comme le personnage de Rothbart le démontre dans la version cinématographique du Lac des Cygnes (2003). Dans cette histoire, Rothbart est le principal antagoniste, c’est un sorcier puissant aux pouvoirs maléfiques. Il est la contrepartie malveillante de la Reine des Fées, sa cousine. Rothbart cherche depuis toujours à détruire le pouvoir positif de sa cousine qui protège la Forêt Enchantée ainsi que ses habitants, à la fois les animaux et tous les êtres humains qu’il a précédemment changé en animaux. Rothbart utilise la magie noire pour tenter de contrôler la Forêt Enchantée, contre les désirs et les besoins de ses habitants. Son désir de pouvoir le pousse à commettre des actes plus cruels les uns que les autres, ainsi qu’à manipuler tous ceux qui l’entourent. Il manipulera sa fille, Odile, pour tromper les personnages de l’histoire et pour tenter de parvenir à ses fins. C’est un personnage qui est motivé par son désir de pouvoir et de vengeance. Il cherche à régner sur la Forêt Enchantée et à éliminer celles et ceux qui se mettent en travers de son chemin, ici il s’agit de la Reine des Fée, d’Odile, de Lila la licorne, ou encore d’Erasmus le troll.

Le magicien

Mais encore, nous n’en avons pas fini avec les archétypes incarnés par Ken au cours des nombreuses histoires de l’univers cinématographique de Barbie™. En effet, se présente alors ici l’archétype du magicien. Cet archétype est fascinant et complexe, représentant la transformation, la connaissance et la capacité d’influencer le monde grâce à ses compétences et une certaine sagesse. Le magicien est souvent perçu comme un innovateur, un visionnaire, un maître des arts cachés. Il incarne la capacité de voir au-delà des apparences et de comprendre les lois cachées qui régissent la réalité. Cet archétype symbolise alors le potentiel humain de transformation intérieure et la manifestation du changement dans le monde extérieur. L’archétype du magicien recèle certains aspects positifs comme la preuve d’une certaine sagesse, de créativité, de capacité de transformation ou encore de mentorat. En effet, le magicien possède une grande sagesse et utilise ses connaissances pour guider et conseiller les autres, il est très créatif, capable de trouver des solutions innovantes et de transformer les situations difficiles. Le magicien, comme nous devons bien le comprendre, a le pouvoir de transformer les situation et les personnes, apportant des changements positifs durables, il agit souvent comme un mentor, en partageant ses connaissances et en aidant les autres à développer leurs compétences. Comme le personnage de Derek, le cordonnier et flutiste, dans Le bal des douze princesses (2006) peut le montrer. En effet, le personnage de Derek peut être compris comme représentant l’archétype du magicien en raison de ses caractéristiques et de ses actions. Derek est un personnage ingénieux, il utilise ses compétences de cordonnier pour aider les princesses en créant des chaussures spéciales, et en les enchantant avec sa flute. Il est courageux, il montre un grand courage lorsqu’il affronte les dangers présentés par la Duchesse Rowena, qui tente de tuer le roi et les princesses pour devenir reine. Le personnage de Derek fait preuve d’une certaine sagesse et utilise ses connaissance à l’avantage de ses ami(e)s, il utilise ses connaissances et ses compétences pour résoudre des problèmes et aider les autres. Il est créatif et innovateur, il trouve des solutions créatives, comme les chaussons de danse magiques, pour aider les princesses à accéder et sortir du monde enchanté. Derek jour un rôle clé dans la transformation de la situation en aidant à renverser les plans de Rowena et à restaurer l’ordre, la justice et la liberté dans le royaume.

De l’autre côté, et comme pour tous les archétypes que nous mentionnons ici, il ne s’agirait pas d’oublier la part obscure du magicien. En effet, celui-ci peut devenir manipulateur, isolé, arrogant et obsédé par un objectif qui lui est propre. S’il passe dans ce versant corrompu, le magicien peut alors utiliser ses compétences pour manipuler les autres à des fins égoïstes ou destructrices, sa quête de connaissance et de maîtrise peut le conduire à l’isolement, le rendant distant et détaché des autres. La maîtrise de ses compétences peut le rendre arrogant, croyant qu’il est alors supérieur aux autres, il peut devenir obsédé par la quête de pouvoir et de connaissance, négligeant les aspects émotionnels et relationnels de la vie. Comme le personnage de Wenlock dans Le cheval magique (2005) peut en être le parfait exemple. En effet, Wenlock est le principal antagoniste de cette histoire de l’univers de Barbie™. Wenlock est présenté dès le départ comme un sorcier maléfique et a une apparence menaçante envers Annika/Barbie ainsi que ses parents et les personnages qu’il rencontre. Il possède des pouvoirs magiques puissants qu’il emplois pour transformer les parents de la princesse et leurs sujets en statues de pierres et pour jeter d’autres sorts sur les personnages. Wenlock est motivé par son désir de pouvoir et sa volonté de contrôle, il souhaite épouser Annika contre sa volonté et utilise sa magie pour tenter d’atteindre ses objectifs. Il utilise ses pouvoirs pour contrôler et manipuler les autres, en jetant des sorts ou en créant de nombreux obstacles aux protagonistes de l’histoire. Ainsi, nous comprenons que le personnage de Wenlock représente bien les aspects négatifs, corrompus de l’archétype du magicien. En effet, il utilise ses pouvoirs magiques pour manipuler et pour contrôler les autres à des fins égoïstes, il est destructeur en plus d’être manipulateur, il utilise sa magie de manière destructrice. Il est égoïste, il est centré sur ses propres désirs et ambitions, sans se soucier des conséquences de ses actions sur les autres. C’est une autre figure tyrannique de l’univers de Barbie™, il exerce son pouvoir et sa volonté par la force et la peur.

L’amant

Nous avons un dernier archétype à considérer en ce qui concerne les nombreuses représentations de Ken dans l’univers cinématographique de Barbie™ : celui de l’amant. En effet, l’archétype de l’amant représente la passion, l’émotion et la connexion profonde avec la vie et les autres. Les caractéristiques de cet archétype masculin sont la passion, la sensibilité, la créativité, le charisme et l’empathie. Nous pouvons alors comprendre que les personnages représentant un tel archétype sont profondément passionnés, qu’il s’agisse de relations, d’art, de nature ou de toute autre expérience de vie, cette passion inspire et motive. L’amant est extrèmement sensible aux émotions et aux sensations, ce qui lui permet de vivre des expériences intenses et enrichissantes. Les personnages répondant aux caractéristiques de cet archétype sont souvent très créatifs, trouvant de la beauté et de l’inspiration dans tout ce qui les entoure. Cette figure possède également un charisme naturel qui attire les autres et crée des connexions profondes et significatives. Sa capacité à ressentir profondément lui permet de comprendre et de sympathiser avec les émotions des autres. Comme, par exemple, le personnage d’Aidan dans Le cheval magique (2005) incarne plusieurs caractéristiques positives de l’archétype de l’amant. Il est passionné, il montre une grande passion pour aider Annika et sauver le royaume, sa détermination et son engagement sont évidents tout au long de leur quête. Il est également sensible aux besoins et aux émotions des autres, cela lui permet de créer des liens profonds et significatifs avec les autres personnages. Aidan possède un charisme naturel qui attire les autres personnages vers lui, son charme et sa personnalité chaleureuse facilitent la coopération et l’entraide. Aidan est également empathique, il comprend les défis et les peurs des autres personnages, le rendant encourageant dans son soutien. Aidant utilise son ingéniosité pour surmonter les obstacles et trouver des solutions aux problèmes que les protagonistes rencontrent durant leur aventure.

En revanche, il existe toujours une part corrompue de l’archétype de l’amant. En effet, cette fois les caractéristiques de cet archétype seront la dépendance, l’instabilité émotionnelle, l’égoïsme, la manipulation et la fuite de la réalité. Ce qui signifie que l’amant peut devenir dépendant des plaisirs et des sensations, cherchant constamment des expériences intenses pour se sentir vivant. Mais encore, sa sensibilité extrême peut le rendre vulnérable à des fluctuations émotionnelles importantes, passant rapidement de la joie à la tristesse. Parfois, l’amant peut se concentrer trop sur ses propres désirs et plaisirs, négligeant ainsi les besoins des autres. Il peut utiliser son charisme et sa sensibilité pour manipuler les émotions des autres pour obtenir ce qu’il veut. En cherchant constamment des expériences intenses, l’amant peut en réalité chercher à fuir les responsabilités et les réalités de la vie quotidienne. Comme le montre le personnage de Preminger dans Cœur de Princesse (2004), dans son incarnation de plusieurs caractéristiques négatives de l’archétype de l’amant. En effet, Preminger utilise son charme et son charisme pour manipuler les autres à des fins égoïstes, il tente de séduire la reine et de tromper les personnages pour atteindre ses objectifs. Il est également centré sur ses propres désirs et ambitions, cherchant à s’emparer du trône et du pouvoir sans se soucier des conséquences de ses actions pour les autres personnages. Preminger est obsédé par le luxe et le pouvoir, cherchant constamment à satisfaire ses propres plaisirs et désirs matériels. Sa quête de pouvoir le rend instable et imprévisible, il est prêt à tout pour obtenir ce qu’il veut, même à commettre des actes violents et cruels. Enfin, il refuse d’accepter la réalité de ses actions et leurs conséquences, vivant dans une illusion de grandeur et de contrôle.

2. De la Deam House à la Mojo Dojo Casa House

Dans un second temps, nous devons nous rendre compte en plus de détail du rôle crucial du personnage de Ken, ainsi que de son évolution, à travers le film de Greta Gerwig, Barbie (2023), au sein duquel il est l’objet d’une profonde transformation. Nous commencerons par revoir en quoi Ken est en général un accessoire aux aventures de Barbie, ce qui nous amènera à voir comment s’est opéré, au sein de Babrie Land, le renversement patriarcal, amenant à la fin à la réalisation de Ken de son besoin de complexité.

Un accessoire aux aventures de Barbie

Dans les aventures de Barbie, le personnage de Ken est souvent relégué au fond, il est là, mais nous pouvons ne pas penser à lui trop souvent. Dans le film Barbie (2023), le personnage est introduit de la manière qui suit : « Barbie has a great day everyday, but Ken only has a great day is Barbie looks at him ». Complètement accessoire, il est relégué sur le côté, le focus est mis sur Barbie et ses nombreuses incarnations. Alors, Ken est présenté comme un simple accessoire dans la vie de Barbie, comme peuvent l’être ses chaussures, ses barrettes, son téléphone ou sa voiture. Il n’a pas de véritable identité à laquelle nous pouvons l’associer, il n’a pas d’autre but que de servir Barbie du mieux qu’il peut, même si son travail, comme il le dit si bien, « is just beach ». Ainsi, il se retrouve constamment en quête de l’attention de Barbie et se sent incomplet sans elle, et jaloux des autres incarnations de Ken avec lesquels il entre en compétition tacite mais claire dès qu’il s’agit d’attirer l’attention de Barbie. Alors, nous comprenons que Ken est en relation de dépendance à Barbie, il est constamment en quête de l’attention et de l’approbation de celle-ci. Il se sent incomplet sans elle et son rôle est souvent limité à celui de compagnon de Barbie, sans véritable autonomie ou but personnel. Il chantera d’ailleurs avec les autres incarnation de Ken une chanson qui rend explicite son manque de profondeur : « I’m just Ken ».  Nous nous retrouvons alors face à un personnage qui manque cruellement de complexité. En effet, au début du film, Ken manque de profondeur, il est souvent relégué à des rôles secondaires et n’a pas l’opportunité de développer sa propre personnalité ou ses propres aspirations. Il n’a même pas sa propre maison, toutes les Dream Houses appartenant à diverses incarnations de Barbie. Le film progresse, et Ken aussi, il commence à réaliser son besoin de complexité et d’indépendance. Cette prise de conscience marque le début de sa transformation, à la fois à titre personnel mais aussi pour toutes les autres incarnations de Ken, et son évolution en tant que personnage �� part entière.

Renversement patriarcal

De cette manière, lors de son voyage dans le monde réel, Ken découvre le patriarcat et décide l’importer à Barbie Land à son retour. En effet, pendant que Barbie découvre de quoi est fait le monde réel et qui sont ses créateurs, Ken retourne à Barbie Land et le transforme en ce qu’il nomme « Kendom », ou toutes les incarnation du personnage de Ken prennent le pouvoir contre toutes les autres incarnations de Barbie qui se retrouvent alors, à leur tour, reléguées à des rôles subalternes. La découverte du patriarcat par Ken est à la fois comique et révélatrice. Au début, nous rencontrons le personnage de Ken comme naïf et assez curieux, ce qui le pousse à entreprendre son voyage dans le monde réel aux côtés de Barbie. En découvrant le patriarcat il est d’abord fasciné par l’idée de pouvoir et de domination ; à travers l’imagerie américaine des cow-boys ; concepts étrangers à Barbie Land. A son retour à Barbie Land, Ken tente d’adopter les comportements patriarcaux qu’il a pu observer, ce qui le conduit à de nombreuses situations absurdes. Il essaye de s’approprier des rôles et des attitudes qu’il ne comprend pas entièrement, comme lorsqu’il redécore les Dream Houses en Mojo Dojo Casa House pour y regarder des courses de chevaux ou des films de cow-boys.

Ce renversement temporaire du patriarcat à Barbie Land met en lumière les dynamiques de pouvoir et les insécurités de Ken. Mais il réalise rapidement que cette structure ne lui apporte par le bonheur, ou la satisfaction, qu’il cherchait au départ. Le renversement éphémère du patriarcat à Barbie Land est un moment clé de la narration transformative pour Ken et met en lumière plusieurs dynamiques importantes. En effet, Ken en découvrant le patriarcat, pense qu’adopter ces dynamiques de pouvoir lui apportera la validation et le respect qu’il recherche tant. Cependant, il se rend compte que le pouvoir seul ne peut pas combler ses anxiétés et insécurités. En essayant de reproduire le patriarcat du monde réel à Barbie Land, Ken et toutes les autres itérations du personnage prennent temporairement le contrôle, inversant les rôles traditionnels de Barbie Land où ce sont les Barbies qui dirigent. Cela met en lumière les absurdités et les injustices du patriarcat de manière satirique. Ken va réaliser que le patriarcat ne lui apporte ni bonheur ni satisfaction. Cette prise de conscience le pousse à réfléchir sur sa propre identité et sur ce qui est vraiment important pour lui. Finalement, Ken va se rendre compte que le patriarcat n’ets pas la solution à ses insécurités et à son besoin de validation. Il commencera alors à s’interroger quant à son identité et à son rôle en dehors de sa relation avec Barbie.

Le besoin de complexité

A la fin du film, Ken comprend qu’il doit trouver sa propre identité et ses passions en dehors de sa relation avec Barbie. Cette réalisation marque une étape importante dans son évolution en tant que personnage à part entière et non plus en tant que simple accessoire, le poussant à chercher une existence plus complexe et signification. Le personnage de Ken réalise qu’il ne plus définir simplement son existence uniquement par rapport à Barbie, cette prise de conscience le mène à explorer ses propres intérêts et passions, entre autres pour les chevaux qu’il a appris à particulièrement affectionner. Ainsi, il commence à comprendre l’importance de l’indépendance émotionnelle, en cherchant à se libérer de sa propre dépendance affective. Ken aspire ainsi à une vie plus complexe et significative dans laquelle il peut être lui-même sans avoir besoin de se conformer aux attentes des autres ou aux dynamiques de pouvoir qu’il a découvertes et tenter d’importer à Barbie Land sans succès. De cette manière, nous pouvons comprendre que Ken apprend que son identité ne doit pas dépendre de sa relation avec Barbie ou de la domination sur les autres, mais qu’elle doit plutôt venir et s’ancrer de la compréhension et de l’acceptation qu’il peut avoir de lui-même. Cette réalisation marque le début de son chemin vers l’autonomie. Ken se pose des questions sur ce qu’il veut vraiment dans sa vie, indépendamment de Barbie qui le pousse dans sa quête personnelle en lui disant que « It’s not Barbie and Ken. It’s Barbie. And it’s Ken. », lui donnant sa propre identité séparée d’elle, en reconnaissant pleinement son autonomie. Ainsi, Ken apprend à accepter ses propres faiblesses et insécurités, et à travailler pour devenir une personne plus complète et épanouie. Alors, en cherchant une existence plus riche et plus nuancée, Ken ouvre la porte à de nouvelles expériences et de nouvelles perspectives, ce qui enrichit son personnage et son développement personnel. Ken découvre qu’il est « Kenough ». 3. Ken et la philosophie

Alors, nous devons comprendre que le personnage de Ken, ainsi que ce qu’il représente dans l’univers cinématique de Barbie™, répond à un certain questionnement philosophique important pour les questions existentielles que nous pouvons nous poser et auxquelles nous pouvons répondre en comprenant comment Ken se place et évolue à travers ce que les interrogations philosophiques passées développent dans leurs propres argumentations. Nous commencerons alors par devoir mieux comprendre comment le personnage de Ken se place en tant que deuxième « sexe » dans l’univers de Barbie™, ce qui nous amènera à la question de la découverte de sens que le personnage semble rencontrer à travers sa crise existentielle, et ainsi nous pourrons mieux comprendre comme se développe sa quête de reconnaissance.

Le deuxième « sexe »

L’œuvre de Simonde de Beauvoir, Le deuxième sexe, publiée en 1949, est un ouvrage fondamental de la pensée féministe et de la philosophie existentialiste. Elle y analyse des thèmes comme l’Autre, notamment par le fait que les femmes ont été  historiquement définies comme « l’Autre » par rapport aux hommes, qui sont généralement considérés comme le standard, ou encore les thèmes de la liberté et de l’oppression, en explorant les différentes formes d’oppressions que les femmes subissent et en plaidant pour leur émancipation à travers, par exemple, le contrôle des naissance et l’accès au travail, ou encore en explorant des thèmes existentialistes, en affirmant que les femmes ne sont pas définies par leur biologie, mais bien plutôt par leurs actions et leurs choix, ou encore en critiquant et en déconstruisant les mythes et les stéréotypes de la féminité, montrant comment ils servent à maintenir les femmes dans une position subordonnée. Nous comprenons alors que le personnage de Ken, dans Barbie (2023), se trouve à cette place aussi, il est l’Autre de Barbie qui est le standard, il est mis de côté, il se trouve à une place de subordonné, il n’est pas valorisé pour tout ce qu’il apporte et pour tout ce qu’il est. Le personnage de Ken et les idées développées par Simone de Beauvoir peuvent ainsi être comparées pour explorer les dynamiques de genre et les questions de l’identité. Dans le film de Greta Gerwig, Ken découvre le patriarcat lorsqu’il quitte Barbie Land pour le monde réel. Cette découverte le fascine initialement, car il y voit une opportunité de pouvoir et de validation qu’il n’a jamais connue auparavant. Cependant, il réalise, comme nous avons pu le voir et le développer auparavant, que le patriarcat ne lui apporte pas le bonheur ou la satisfaction qu'il cherchait.

Simone de Beauvoir explore plusieurs thèmes dans son œuvre, Le deuxième sexe (1949), qui résonnent avec l’expérience de Ken. De Beauvoir analyse d’une part comment les femmes ont été historiquement définies comme « l’Autre » par rapport aux hommes. Et, dans le film de 2023, Ken se rend compte qu’il a toujours été défini par sa relation avec Barbie, comme l’Autre, comme un accessoire comme un autre, et non pas comme un individu à part entière. De plus, de Beauvoir plaide dans son œuvre pour l’émancipation des femmes à travers le contrôle des naissance et l’accès au travail. De son côté, Ken, à la fin du film, comprend qu’il doit trouver sa propre identité et ses propres passions en dehors de sa relation avec Barbie, ce qui marque alors une étape importante dans son évolution. Nous comprenons bien que Ken et les idées de de Beauvoir se rejoignent alors dans la quête d’une identité propre et d’une existence significative. Ken réalise que le patriarcat ne lui apporte pas la satisfaction qu’il espérait, tout comme de Beauvoir critique les structures sociales qu maintiennent les femmes dans des rôles inférieurs. Cette prise de conscience pousse Ken à chercher une existence plus complexe et significative, alignée avec les idées de liberté et d’autonomie prônées à travers l’œuvre de de Beauvoir.

Découverte du sens

Dans son œuvre, Masculin/Féminin (1996), Françoise Héritier développe une œuvre majeure en anthropologie et en études de genre. Elle y explore les mécanismes de la différence entre les sexes et propose des solutions pour parvenir à l’égalité. Elle développe plusieurs thèmes comme le concept de la « valence différentielle des sexes » ; qui désigne l’asymétrie fondamentale dans la valeur attribuée aux sexes dans les sociétés humaines, elle montre alors comment cette asymétrie est à la base des structures sociales et des relations de pouvoir ; elle examine les systèmes de parenté et les représentations symboliques ; démontrant ainsi que les différences de genre sont des constructions culturelles qui reposent sur des données biologiques élémentaires, elle analyse comment ces systèmes perpétuent les inégalités de genre ; ou encore elle explore les notions de fécondité et de stérilité et comment elles sont symboliquement liées à des concepts de pureté et d’impureté dans différentes cultures ; elle montre comment ces idées influencent les rôles de genre et les attentes sociales ; elle discute des théories anciennes sur la genèse et les rapports entre le sperme et le sang et comment ces idées ont façonnées les perceptions de la masculinité et de la féminité, enfin elle analyse la construction du genre à travers l’histoire à travers laquelle elle montre comment les rôles de genre sont façonnés par des facteurs sociaux, culturels et historiques. Nous devons à présent comprendre que la personnage de Ken et les idées développées par Françoise Héritier peuvent être comparées dans le but d’explorer les dynamiques de genre et la quête de sens.

En effet, dans le film Barbie (2023), Ken découvre le patriarcat et cela est pour lui une expérience fondamentale et transformative, comme nous avons pu le voir et le comprendre plus haut.  Françoise Héritier explore plusieurs thèmes dans Masculin/Féminin (1996) qui résonnent avec l’expérience de Ken. Héritier introduit dans son œuvre le concept de « valence différentielle des sexes », qui désigne l’asymétrie fondamentale dans la valeur attribuée aux sexes dans toutes les sociétés humaines. De son côté, Ken, en découvrant le patriarcat, expérimente une forme d'asymétrie, dans laquelle il cherche à s’émanciper de son rôle soumis à Barbie. L’autrice examine comment les systèmes de parenté et les représentations symboliques perpétuent les inégalités de genre et, Ken, en essayant de reproduire le patriarcat dans Babie Land, met en lumière les absurdités et les injustices de ces dynamiques de pouvoir. L’anthropologue démontre que les rôles de genre sont des constructions culturelles plutôt que des déterminations biologiques. Et, quant à lui, Ken, à la fin du film, comprend qu’il doit trouver sa propre identité et ses passions en dehors de sa relation avec Barbie, ce qui marque une étape importante dans son évolution. Ken et les idées de Françoise Héritier se rejoignent dans la quête d’une identité propre et d’une existence significative. Ken réalise que le patriarcat ne lui apporte rien, et l’enferme dans un rôle qu’il ne semble pas pleinement comprendre lui-même, tout comme Héritier critique les structures sociales qui maintiennent les femmes dans des rôles similaires à Ken au début du film, ou dans lesquels il enferme les Barbies au « Kendom ». Cette prise de conscience pousse alors Ken à chercher une existence plus complexe et significative, alignée avec les idées de liberté et d’autonomies mises en avant dans l’œuvre de Françoise Héritier.

Quête de reconnaissance

Pour finir, Nancy Fraser dans son ouvrage, Qu’est-ce que la justice sociale ? (2005), explore les concepts de reconnaissance et de redistribution pour définir une justice sociale complète. Elle y développe ses idées principales de reconnaissance en mettant en avant l’importance de la reconnaissance ; qui consiste à accorder un égal respect à tous les membres de la société, elle critique ainsi les injustices culturelles et symboliques qui marginalisent certains groupes en les privant de reconnaissance ; et en insistant sur la nécessité d’une redistribution équitable des ressources et des bien ; elle souligne que les inégalités économiques et matérielles doivent être corrigées pour atteindre une véritable justice sociale. Nancy Fraser fait se rencontrer et se confronter les notions de reconnaissance et de redistribution à travers son œuvre. Elle note que les politiques de reconnaissance et de redistribution peuvent parfois entrer en conflit. Par exemple, une politique de reconnaissance qui fige les identités, qui réifie les identités, culturelles peut venir contredire une politique de redistribution qui vise l’égalité économique. Pour elle, les concepts de reconnaissance et de redistribution ne sont pas à écarter l’un de l’autre, et peuvent trouver une sorte de réconciliation. En effet, elle propose une approche intégrée dans laquelle la reconnaissance et la redistribution sont perçues comme complémentaires. Pour elle une démocratie radicale doit reconnaitre le caractère multiculturel et sexué des sociétés modernes tout en s’engageant pour l’égalité économique et sociale.

De cette manière, nous pouvons comprendre les aventures du personnage de Ken (2023) à travers le prisme des idées déployées dans l’œuvre de Nancy Fraser. En effet, Ken est en recherche de reconnaissance, il cherche à être reconnu et respecté dans un monde où il se sent souvent, sinon toujours, marginalisé. Sa quête de reconnaissance le pousse alors à adopter des comportement misogynes et répondant aux demandes du patriarcat, pensant que cela lui apportera validation et pouvoir, bien qu’il reste tout aussi perdu à travers ce système. A la fin du film, Ken réalise que la reconnaissance qu’il cherche ne peut être obtenue par la domination ou le pouvoir. Il comprend qu’il doit trouver sa propre identité et ses propres passions, ce qui reflète la complexité des dynamiques de reconnaissance et de redistribution décrites dans l’œuvre de Fraser. Le personnage de Ken et les idées de Nancy Fraser sur la reconnaissance illustrent bien les défis et les réalisations de la quête de justice sociale. Ken, à travers son parcours, montre que la reconnaissance et la validation ne peuvent pas être acquises par la domination, mais plutôt par une compréhension et une acceptation de soi, alignées avec les principes de justice sociale de Fraser.

Pour conclure, nous avons pu explorer dans un premier temps les archétypes masculins dans l’univers cinématographique de Barbie, en se concentrant sur les différentes représentations de Ken et ses contreparties masculines. Nous avons explorer la figure du roi vertueux, et tyrannique,  à travers les exemple du prince Stefan et du roi des Rats. Nous avons rencontré la figure du guerrier vertueux, à travers l’exemple du prince Eric, ou du guerrier corrompu, à travers l’exemple de Rothbart. Nous avons poursuivi cette analyse des incarnations de Ken par la figure du magicien vertueux, comme Derek, ou corrompus, comme Wenlock. Enfin, nous avons pu remarquer que certain personnages reprenaient la figure de l’amant vertueux, comme Aidan, ou plein de vices, comme Preminger. Comprendre quels étaient les archétypes correspondant aux itérations de Ken dans l’univers de Barbie™ nous a permis de nous apercevoir des schéma vertueux et corrompus que peuvent suivre les personnages de cet univers et nous permet d’accepter leur évolution narrative. Ainsi, dans un second temps, nous avons vu quelle était l’évolution du personnage de Ken dans le film Barbie (2023) de Greta Gerwig. Nous avons pu voir qu’au début du film Ken était initialement présenté comme un simple accessoire dans la vie de Barbie, sans véritable identité ou but personnel. Mais, lors de son voyage dans le monde réel, Ken découvre le patriarcat et tente de l’importer à Barbie Land, transformant temporairement la société en “Kendom”. À la fin du film, Ken commence à explorer ses propres intérêts et à chercher une existence plus complexe et significative, marquant le début de son chemin vers l’autonomie et l’acceptation de lui-même. Ce qui nous a finalement permis de penser que le personnage de Ken avait plus à nous offrir lors de nos considérations philosophique. Nous avons comparé Ken aux idées de Simone de Beauvoir dans Le deuxième sexe (1949), où il est présenté comme “l’Autre” par rapport à Barbie, qui est le standard. Puis, nous avons pu comprendre que Françoise Héritier, dans Masculin/Féminin (1996), explore la “valence différentielle des sexes” et les constructions culturelles des rôles de genre. Enfin, Nancy Fraser, dans Qu’est-ce que la justice sociale ? (2005), explore les concepts de reconnaissance et de redistribution. Ken cherche la reconnaissance et adopte des comportements patriarcaux, mais réalise que la véritable reconnaissance vient de l’acceptation de soi et non de la domination.

Ainsi, l’exploration du personnage de Ken dans le film “Barbie” (2023) offre une perspective nouvelle sur la masculinité de plusieurs façons. En redéfinissant les rôles de genre. Ken, traditionnellement perçu comme un accessoire de Barbie, est présenté comme un individu cherchant sa propre identité et ses passions en dehors de sa relation avec Barbie. Cela remet en question les stéréotypes de genre et montre que la masculinité ne se définit pas uniquement par la relation avec les femmes ou par des rôles subordonnés. Ou encore en critiquant le système patriarcal. Cette prise de conscience met en lumière les limites et les effets néfastes du patriarcat, non seulement pour les femmes, mais aussi pour les hommes. Ce qui amène Ken à une quête de reconnaissance et d’identité. Cela souligne l’importance de la quête d’une identité propre et d’une existence significative, indépendamment des attentes sociétales. Et cela permet au personnage de Ken d’évoluer en tant que personne unique. Le parcours de Ken montre que la masculinité peut évoluer et s’adapter, en passant d’une position de subordination à une recherche d’autonomie et de liberté. Cette évolution encourage une vision plus flexible et inclusive de la masculinité, où les hommes peuvent exprimer leurs émotions et leurs vulnérabilités.

Alors, l’exploration du personnage de Ken permet de repenser la masculinité en mettant en avant la quête d’identité, la critique des structures patriarcales et l’importance de l’acceptation de soi.

_____________ Bibliographie :

Barbie :

Gerwig, Greta, Barbie, Mattel Films, 2023, 114 minutes.

Hurley, Owen, Barbie in the Nutcracker, Mattel Entertainment, 2001, 78 minutes.

_____, Barbie as Rapunzel, Mattel Entertainment, 2002, 83 minutes.

_____, Barbie of Swan Lake, Mattel Entertainment, 2003, 83 minutes.

Lau, William, Barbie as the Princess and the Pauper, Mattel Entertainment, 2004, 85 minutes.

Richardson, Greg, Barbie and the Magic of Pegasus, Mattel Entertainment, 2005, 85 minutes.

_____, Barbie in the 12 Dancing Princesses, Mattel Entertainment, 2006, 81 minutes.

Philosophie :

Beauvoir (de), Simone, Le deuxième sexe (I&II) (1949), Folio Essais, Gallimard, 1976.

Héritier, Françoise, Masculin/Féminin I : La pensée de la différence, Odile Jacobs, Essais Poches, 1996.

_____, Masculin/Féminin II : Dissoudre la hiérarchie, Odile Jacobs, Essais Poche, 2002.

Fraser, Nancy, Qu'est-ce que la justice sociale ? : Reconnaissance et redistribution, traduction d'Estelle Ferrarese, La Découverte, 2005.

[bored-philosopher-corner]

Phrόnêsis and the Precautionary Principle

As we evolve in the world as moral agents, as individuals, and as a part of diverse groups, we reflect in our daily lives practices of moral virtues: we are kind, courageous, disciplined, friendly. However, are those virtues enough in our ever-changing world? In a world where we need to consider the risks we are taking, as well as their consequences for us, and others. I argue that if one is to take risks, to consider the outcomes, negative, neutral or positive, of one’s actions, then one is responsible, morally, intellectually, emotionally, for one’s decisions and their consequences in their life, however many spheres the consequences are involving. I put forward the idea of a relational responsibility. Therefore, in such a world where every decision is intricately linked to the various spheres and relationships we engage in as individuals and as moral agents, what other virtue could we or should we be prepared to demonstrate? It seems that the virtue of phrόnêsis; of prudence, also understood as the wisdom of action, which is a practical disposition individual have towards their choices; is to be considered with attention. Indeed, the virtue of phrόnêsis is linked with what one can consider to be contingent, with what concerns human affairs (ϕρόυησις), this can be otherwise defined as a practical wisdom. Which signifies that phrόnêsis is a practice of wisdom, considering our action constituted in time, phrόnêsis is a vertu that any moral agent should have et which one should demonstrate the capacity in order to take into account of one’s actions in the present without forgetting those done in the past nor the many possible relational consequences they hold. I think the moral agent has to be cautious, prudent, in the sense that one’s understanding must be able to advise one on the actions and choices that are open. Ethics is, thus, only ever present, although moral agents act with deep concern for the future.

Since I am considering the Aristotelian principle of phrόnêsis, I consider closely the Nichomachean Ethics, Book VI in particular. According to the philosopher, phrόnêsis is an intellectual virtue, meaning that it participates to the excellence of the mind. A virtue is an acquired ability, a skill, a habit, une disposition de l’esprit for acting and feeling certain ways. It is the result of a practice, of exercises. Since phrόnêsis is considered as a virtue, it is, by its very own definition, the best habit within its specific field or kind of activity. One has to understand that phrόnêsis is a non-theoretical virtue, it intervenes, it prescribes, it deals with what can change or be brought inti existence, depending on what one does or doesn’t do.  It concerns things that we do ourselves and can control, such as things we decide on, choose, initiate, change, develop, stop, or any other action which variables absolutely depend on us and our decisions to evolve and change.

Understanding that phrόnêsis is a way of using our intellectual capacities, our lόgos, it is a way of reasoning or arguing about what to do. It is a deliberative sort of reasoning, meaning that it searches for and weighs arguments, their pros and cons, considering the particularities of a certain situation we might find ourselves in. As a deliberative capacity phrόnêsis is inherently attached ontologically to any other virtue, friendship, courage, justice, etc. Which signifies that we cannot be prudent without being ethically good. To act in an ethically good manner we have to act correctly, i.e.: we have to do what is both right, what is correct, and what is good. To be truly virtuous, as moral agents, our actions must come from a virtuous disposition and be done with the right reason or the right justification, and phrόnêsis is right reason in such a matter. Thus, phrόnêsis is in itself an ethical virtue, a virtue of character.

Therefore, phrόnêsis deliberates about how I should be just, fair, friendly, courageous, caring in relation to other people in the here and now, people with different needs, different wishes, different ways of thinking and perceiving the world, different ways of knowing who I am and what I could mean to them, while respecting their autonomy and thinking minds and wills, separate from mine as individuals and moral agents themselves. As such, there is no precept, no precise instruction on how to do it. This virtue does not try to manipulate, or persuade or seduce others, it presents its own thinking and reasons for deciding and acting in certain ways, as openly and transparently as possible to the mindful judgement of others and of the self, in order to show, to convince.

We understand that phrόnêsis is considering where others are, emotionally and intellectually, in their skills, their attitudes, in trying to find the right thing to do. However, phrόnêsis cannot use these circumstances in a manipulative manner, in setting some manipulative agenda, without ruining itself as a virtue. As such, phrόnêsis must know how to deal with egotistical, strategic, manipulative behaviour in others without becoming it, but also without letting such behaviour prevail in others. Which is why phrόnêsis is both ethical and intellectual. We would blame someone for forgetting or neglecting the intellectual exercise in dealing with others fairly, because abstaining consciously and voluntarily from deliberating the pros and cons on what to do would be considered an ethical deficiency, and because we would blame someone for deliberating merely in a clever fashion for other, probably unethical, purposes while dealing with others.

Moreover, phrόnêsis differs from pure rhetoric, because it searches openly for the best thing to do, weighing arguments, it is not deliberately persuasive. We think that true deliberation is more often than not open-ended. In such a way that the most important aspect of phrόnêsis is that it deals with particular circumstances in connection with acting.

Once we have understood that we needed the virtue of phrόnêsis in order to be better moral agents in the world, for ourselves and in our relations to others, we must think deeply about what every decision we make and our relational responsibility towards others, as individuals who are part of many interlapping and interwoven groups and ecosystems. There intervenes the Precautionary Principle.

The Precautionary Principle, also known as the precautionary approach, is a broad epistemological, philosophical approach to innovations, things, actions, choices, policies with potential for causing harm wen extensive scientific or specifically subject-related knowledge on the matter is lacking. It emphasises caution, pausing and reviewing before leaping into new innovations, ideas, policies, choices which may prove disastrous. The precautionary principle was promulgated in philosophy as a means to modify ethics so that the distant effects of one’s actions should be considered, thus prescribing that one should act in order for the effects of one’s actions to be compatible with the permanence of genuine human life. The precautionary principle makes us act in such a way that our present actions, choices, policies, innovations, etc. do not compromise the conditions for an indefinite continuation of humanity on Earth.  

There are three main motivations behind the postulation of a precautionary principle. First, it stems from a deep dissatisfaction with how decisions were made in the past: often, early warning have been disregarded, leading to significant damage, which could have been avoided by timely precautionary actions. This motivation for a precautionary principle rests on some inductive evidence that we should reform or even, replace our current practices of risk regulation, demanding that uncertainty must not be a reason for inaction. Secondly, it expresses specific moral concerns, usually pertaining to the environment, human health, and future generations. This second motivation is often related to the call for sustainability and sustainable development in order to not destroy important resources for short-time gains, but to leave future generations with an intact environment. Thirdly, precautionary principles are discussed as principles of rational choice under conditions of uncertainty and ignorance. Typically, rational decision theory is well suited for situations where we know the possible out-comes of our actions and can assign probabilities to them/ However, the situation is different for decision-theoretic uncertainty; which is where we know the possible outcomes but cannot assign anu or no meaningful and precise probabilities to them; or decision-theoretic ignorance; which is where we do not know the complete set of possible outcomes. Though, it is far from clear way is the most rational way to decide when we are lacking important information, and the stakes are high. Precautionary principles are one proposal to fill the gap.

There are three categories existing withing the idea of precautionary principles which are action-guiding principles; they tell us which course of action to choose given certain circumstances; there is also a set of epistemic principles; which tell us what we should reasonably believe under conditions of uncertainty; and procedural principles; which express requirements for decision-making and tell us how we should choose a certain course of action. These categories can overlap, such as when action or decision-guiding principles come with at least some indication for how they should be applied.

I would like to consider an interpretation of precautionary principles as action-guiding principles, which stresses that principles have to be interpreted and concretized depending on the specific context. Then, we could consider the precautionary principle to be a virtue principle, interpreting the precautionary principle by using cautiousness as a virtue. In this way, “cautious” is interpreted as a virtue term that refers to a property of an agent. It is possible to identify what the virtuous agent would do, either because it seems obvious, or because some agreement can be reached. Interpreting a precautionary principle as a virtue principle will avoid objections of extremism and paralysis, because it emphasizes balanced and context-sensitive decision-making. It is unlikely that the virtuous agent will choose courses of action which will, in the long term, have overall negative effects, or that are self-refuting. Another way to consider precautionary principles as action-guiding, is to think of precautionary principles as an alternative to maximin and other strategies for decision-making in situations where we lack the type of empirical evidence that one would need. Thus, according to this line of thinking, we could consider that one should take reasonable measures to prevent threats that are plausible and serious, having considered precautionary principles as reasonable measures. The seriousness of a threat relates to its potential for harm, as well as to whether or not the possible damage is seen as reversible or not, we should emphasize that reasonableness is a highly pragmatic and situation-specific concept. Reasonable responses should be effective, proportional to the nature of the threat, take a realistic attitude toward the threat, be cost-effective, and be applied consistently. This shows us that the question when a threat should count as plausible enough to warrant precautionary measures I very important for the application of an action-guiding precautionary principle.

Thus far we have understood that precautionary principles are a strategy we can all employ in our decision-making process, while seeking to anticipate and prevent harm to ourselves and others, to society or the environment in the face of uncertain risks. I suggest that we can easily integrate phrόnêsis into our understanding of precautionary principles and that it can be understood in a few aspects. Firstly, both concepts necessitate a deep, contextual understanding. Just as phrόnêsis requires a comprehensive grasp of the situation, the precautionary principle also demands a thorough understanding of the potential risks and benefits associated with a particular action or policy. This includes understanding the scientific, social and environmental contexts. Secondly, both emphasize ethical decision-making: while the precautionary principle is focused on preventing harm, phrόnêsis involves making decisions that are beneficial not just for the individual, but also for the community as a whole. Thirdly, prudence is a key aspect of both phrόnêsis and the precautionary principle. In situations of uncertainty or incomplete knowledge, both principles advocate for a cautious approach. Lastly, both are action oriented. They are not solely about theoretical understanding, but about applying that understanding to make real-world decisions. Therefore, we can understand the phrόnêsis is seen as providing a philosophical foundation for the precautionary principle. This relationship between phrόnêsis and the precautionary principle highlights the importance of practical wisdom in policy-making and decision-making processes.

[bored-philosopher-corner]

Late afternoon light, a fateless summer, hitting the painted wall, glazing over an unremarked time.

Words of another era facing the person I have become, unwilling to come back to a place filled with unspoken truths.

Spiderwebs anchored in some badly lit corner are catching long-lost dreams while decade-old clothes bruise my sense of self.

[bored-philosopher-corner]

You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.

Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values

[bored-philosopher-corner]

Mathematics is the language of the universe.

Its sole purpose is the understanding of it.

It yearns for the infinite, the universal and the absolute

It hopes to reach the stars by virtue of its beauty.

It creates a formula for truth in which we put all our faith.

It is poetry.

[bored-philosopher-corner]

They separated poetry from philosophy,

They wanted to build their pantheon,

Their gods looked like them, talked like them,

They made themselves into them.

But,

They forgot the meaning of everything.

Philosophy is the first science, a way of knowing the world,

It is the only way, the supreme way, the best way.

Philosophy is accepted as knowledge,

Universal.

But,

It is chained by flighty bounds to a slippery subject.

Poetry is the first prophecy, a way of understanding the world,

It is the only way, the supreme way, the best way.

Poetry is accepted as understanding,

Universal.

And,

They only go together, always hand in hand.

[bored-philosopher-corner]

Towards a Philosophy of Magick, Pt. 4: Paradigms

Presenting to notion of paradigms in magick and the issues surrounding them. Written 9-25-23.

“‘Explain this happening!’

‘It must have a ‘natural’ cause!’

‘It must have a ‘supernatural’ cause!’ } Let these two asses be set to grind corn.

May, might, must, should, probably, may be, we may safely assume, ought, it is hardly questionable, almost certainly—poor hacks! let them be turned out to grass!

Proof is only possible in mathematics, and mathematics is only a matter of arbitrary conventions.

And yet doubt is a good servant but a bad master; a perfect mistress, but a nagging wife.

“White is white” is the lash of the overseer: “white is black” is the watchword of the slave. The Master takes no heed.

The Chinese cannot help thinking that the octave has 5 notes.

The more necessary anything appears to my mind, the more certain it is that I only assert a limitation.

I slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms on awaking; I drank and danced all night with Doubt, and found her a virgin in the morning.” -Aleister Crowley, “The Book of Lies”, Ch. 46: “Chinese Music”

In the postscript to his seminal work “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, Thomas Kuhn (1962, 2012) defines the word “paradigm” in two different ways, both of which are important to our discussion.

1. “On the one hand, it stands for the entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques, and so on shared by the members of a given community.”

2. “On the other, it denotes one sort of element in that constellation, the concrete puzzle-solutions which, employed as models or examples, can replace explicit rules as a basis for the solution of the remaining puzzles of normal science.”

The first use of “paradigm” should be familiar to chaotes (practitioners of chaos magick) from the works of Peter J. Carroll, Phil Hine, et al. This definition describes a system of foundational beliefs, values, and techniques that informs both the theory and practice of magick and guides the interpretation of magickal events. To the degree that these foundational beliefs can be stated clearly and distinctly (by which I mean the system of axioms, definitions, symbols, and rules can be listed completely by some procedure), this is the denotative definition of the word “paradigm”, and thus “cashes out” part of the word’s total meaning. This definition of the word “paradigm” can be used in logical systems to denote the definitions, symbols, axioms, and transformation rules of the system.

However, it is important to note that such logical systems can never be complete, as proven by Kurt Gödel (1931). Any logical system sufficiently complex to say all the sorts of things we want to be able say in it will always include possible true statements that are unprovable within the system. In addition to this, no logical system can be used to prove its own consistency…that consistency must always be shown via a “metasystem” that stands outside/above the logical system in question, and of course the metasystem can only itself be proven consistent by a second metasystem for the first metasystem, and so on. This presents a fundamental logical limitation in any paradigm we choose. To a certain degree, our use of paraconsistent logic aids us in this issue, but the nasty issues at the heart of logic still remain, rendering any logical system we can devise necessarily limited in its scope.

The second usage of the word “paradigm” is, at least in my opinion, the more interesting. This usage presents paradigmatic shared examples that allow for a connotative definition (which “cashes out” the rest of the meaning of the word). We can’t state clearly and distinctly the notions contained in a paradigm using this definition. Instead we use our intuitions of similarity, of “family resemblance”, to recognize other similar examples that “fit” with our paradigmatic shared example.

Another important notion that Kuhn discusses is the “incommensurability” (which means “lacking a common unit of measurement”) of different paradigms. I will use two examples from the physical sciences taken from Kuhn’s text to express this sort of problem.

1. Consider the notion of “gravity” as used by Aristotle in his “On The Heavens” (~350 BCE, 2020) versus the usage by Isaac Newton in his “Principia” (1687, 2016). Aristotle’s concept was that massive objects had an intrinsic property which caused them to fall towards the center of the (geocentric) universe. It was their “nature” to fall in this way. As usual, Aristotle saw the issue teleologically…when he saw a falling rock, he saw an object moving towards its natural goal, the center of the universe. Newton, on the other hand, saw gravity as attraction between all massive bodies. When Newton saw a falling rock he saw two objects, the rock and the Earth, one much more massive than the other, being attracted to each other in proportion to their respective masses and the distance between them. Thus while the situation they observe is empirically nearly identical (one rock falling on Earth is much like another), their respective interpretations derived via their respective paradigms are different. Notably, both paradigms are empirically adequate in their shared contexts. Both describe the physical events addressed accurately and both will make similar predictions about falling rocks on Earth. But once the scale increases and we start talking about planets and stars instead of rocks on Earth, Aristotle’s predictions and Newton’s predictions will begin to differ in ways that make clear the differences in their respective notions of gravity.

2. Now let us consider the notion of “mass” used by Newton in his “Principia” (typified by the formula f=ma) versus the notion of mass used by Einstein in his “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” (1905) (typified by the formula E=mc²). For Newton, mass is conserved…the mass of an object does not change without some sort of equivalent physical change to the object (e.g. it is made hollow, cut in half and one half disposed of, or somehow changed into a lighter substance through chemical change). For Einstein, mass is relativistic; as it is accelerated towards the speed of light it converts to energy. Again, within their shared contexts (masses accelerated only to very small fractions of the speed of light) the descriptions and predictions of both systems will be more or less identical and empirically adequate. But once a new context is considered, that of accelerations of larger fractions of the speed of light, it is clear that two different notions of “mass” are really being talked about.

Notice two details here:

1. The paradigms and theories compared each use the same terminology and concepts to express their ideas, but they actually mean different things. Aristotle’s gravity is not that of Newton, and Newton’s mass is not that of Einstein. Compare the usage of the word “spirit” in different occult communities operating under different magickal paradigms.

2. The effectiveness and empirical adequacy of the compared theories are equal in some contexts but different in others. Aristotle’s theory holds true as long as your paradigm assumes a geocentric universe, but once the “Copernican Revolution” came along, suddenly the Earth was just one of many planets, and subsequently that model of gravity no longer explained the observations made by astronomers under the new paradigm. This created new problems and an accompanying change in the underlying paradigm, setting the stage for Newton to come along with a new model to explain massive bodies in motion under gravitation with each other. Similarly, Newton’s theory of mass only holds true beneath certain speeds, becoming unable to solve the problem of what happens when acceleration reaches sizable fractions of the speed of light. Thus it is clear that a change in perspective or the context of the issue under consideration can lead to a paradigm shift, which creates new sorts of problems to be solved by the field of study. The new sorts of problems can’t be solved under the theories developed under the old paradigm, so the stage becomes set for a new theory that will allow for solutions of the new problems.

An important consequence of the incommensurability of differing paradigms is that it is impossible to make a principled choice between two given paradigms that are both empirically adequate. This is because the arguments each side will give for why their paradigm is correct will be built on different assumptions, use different definitions of important terms, differ in their practice, and refer connotatively to different paradigmatic shared examples. This means we must use values from outside the paradigms in question to help us choose between those paradigms (more on these values in the section of this work on “Paradigmatic Values”), essentially creating a metaparadigm (a paradigm to talk about paradigms).

However, we are faced with the same logical problem given above…if I use a metaparadigm to justify my choice of paradigms, how do I justify my choice of metaparadigms? This problem is, as far as I know, insoluble. It is just turtles all the way down, with one metaparadigm justifying the next in the series forever. However, since each step in the series does in fact effectively ground the step after it, in my opinion the regress is not vicious any more than the summation of an infinite series is vicious just because we can never fully list the series. In any case, this problem is the same for any and all such logical systems, which means all of mathematics, science, and analytic philosophy has this problem, yet proofs are still proven, transistors still work, and P is still equal to P, so I think we will be alright here in the realm of magick.

In magick, paradigmatic differences are often expressed by the term “tradition”, but this is not quite correct, as several traditions (such as the constellation of traditions commonly called “witchcraft” in “Western” anglophone communities) can share a common paradigm and communities from within the same tradition (e.g. ceremonial magick) can actually turn out to be operating from very different paradigms. In fact, we often observe two members of the same tradition and community actually operating from very different paradigms that both happen to be equally empirically adequate within their respective contexts, and occasionally we find the same person operating from different paradigms at different times or, like some chaotes, engaging in purposeful manipulations of paradigms to pursue operational goals.

Thus, within magick, the behavior we actually observe is different from what we observe in the sciences (especially the physical sciences). What we instead observe is a distinction between what I will call paradigms of belief versus paradigms of practice. A paradigm of belief is a set of grounding ideas behind why and how magick works. A paradigm of practice is a set of operational beliefs that are used to accomplish magickal goals.

One paradigm of belief might, for example, hold that “The spirits of the Goetia are portions of the human brain.” (Aleister Crowley, 1904, 1995) while another may hold that spirits are a type of “discarnate intelligence” (Aleister Crowley, 1929, 1979), but people who operate within either paradigm of belief (or both at different times) may actually operate within the same paradigm of practice (in this case the standard evocation procedures common within ceremonial magick traditions descended from the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn on the one hand and the Grimoire Tradition/goetia on the other).

Conversely, different people who share the same paradigm of belief (e.g. magickal realism, where spirits and deities are actually spirits and deities and magick actually causes changes in the world) may operate within various paradigms of practice (e.g. the various methods of casting a magickal circle and creating sacred space practiced by the traditions of witchcraft descended from Gardnerian witchcraft versus the equivalent methods of ceremonial magicians descended from the Golden Dawn). This distinction between these two distinct kinds of magickal paradigms will prove important as we further develop our philosophy of magick.

This kind of variety of paradigmatic beliefs existing within a single field of study is typical of what Kuhn calls “pre-paradigm” periods of science. During these periods Kuhn claims practitioners within the overall community are forced to go back to basic principles again and again, thus limiting the possibility of progress within that field of study. Kuhn argues that what makes the progress within the physical sciences that has been observed within “Western” cultures over the centuries possible is that entire scientific communities have fallen in line—for various reasons both principled and pragmatic—behind a given paradigm, thus leaving the “pre-paradigm” state and entering the state of “standard science”. Under Kuhn’s analysis, the idiosyncratic nature of magick means that it would be very difficult for us (mages at large) to make significant progress in our field of study. However, I do not believe that this is the case. I think the idiosyncratic nature of magick is a feature, not a bug, and in the next section I will argue for why I believe this is the case.

Works Cited:

1. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, (The University of Chicago Press, 1962, 2012)

2. Kurt Gödel translated by B. Meltzer, On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems, (Dover Publications, New York 1962, 1992)

3. Aristotle translated by J. L. Stocks, On The Heavens, Retrieved from http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/heavens.2.ii.html

4. Isaac Newton translated by I. Bernard Cohen, Anne Whitman, and Julia Budenz, The Principia: The Authoritative Translation and Guide, (University of California Press 2016)

5. Albert Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, Retrieved from https://users.physics.ox.ac.uk/~rtaylor/teaching/specrel.pdf

6. Aleister Crowley, The Initiated Interpretation of Ceremonial Magic, published as part of The Goetia: The Lesser Key of Solomon the King, (Red Wheel/Weiser, LLC 1995)

7. Aleister Crowley, The Confessions of Aleister Crowley, (Routledge and Keegan Paul, 1979)

[bored-philosopher-corner]

absurd

suicide

my feelings

pouring out into an empty chasm but is also a cave

and echo chambers of my tiny island

i think

as long as something exists or is alive

it shall occupy

time and space, a tangible mass, efforts warranted

all to nurture and still we go nowhere,

or rather it is i alone

that goes nowhere

(kyskyskys) as long as youre alive youre an opportunity cost

im hunched over thinking typing this

im breathing with nowhere to go

nowhere to be my home

a pill so hard to swallow, a thought still so unfamiliar

to myself

and i am just a depressed black hole that has yet to accept

the ugliest of what real life could be

and tell me, if i am absurd, if i can never do right

why am i constantly making the wrong turns

if there are no bad men, only benighted people

i am making my own experience a living hell,

and you feel sorry for me, you detest me

because i am a mirror of inefficiency and wasted resource

you just want better for me

and i just want my next minute to refresh me,

forget.

(forget)

[bored-philosopher-corner]

Between Existence and Self-Destruction: In Search of Meaning and Action - An Essay

An individual state leading to a deep loss of meaning and a sense of the world's meaninglessness can be caused either by a series of fateful events leading to a strong sense of melancholy or by sudden insights into the insignificance of one's own existence while facing the universe's indifference.

In his 2000 essay "Melancholy and the Act", Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek explores the complex connections between melancholy and action in human psychology and the social context. He challenges the conventional idea of melancholy as a purely passive or paralyzing state, arguing instead for a more profound analysis of this emotional condition. Žižek claims that melancholy is a special form of pain and sadness, often considered a state of stagnation and powerlessness. Contrary to this common perception, he argues that melancholy contains an unrecognized potential for action.

According to Žižek, melancholy can be an internal catalyst that stimulates individuals to look beyond existing limits and norms, developing new perspectives. The crux of his argument lies in the idea that, paradoxically, melancholy involves a kind of activity. It can be a source of creativity, leading people to engage more deeply with their suffering and derive new insights and energy. This process can result in transformative actions, whether on a personal level through self-reflection and self-overcoming or on a societal level through the pursuit of change and innovation.

This realization can lead to a profound alienation from one's own existence, potentially extending to thoughts of suicide. It often arises from the incompatibility between expected outcomes or the meaning of life and the actual chaotic nature of existence. This discrepancy can cause deep uncertainty and frustrate the search for a concrete life purpose.

Romanian philosopher Emil Cioran often grappled with the question of whether life is worth living in his writings. The depressions and insomnia he suffered from an early age strongly influenced his first book, "On the Heights of Despair," published in 1934. Cioran was obsessed with the idea of suicide, critically engaging with it in his aphorisms and essays. He argued that contemplating suicide is necessary for leading a better life. By confronting suicide, we confront the profound suffering associated with existence. This humility enables us to change the deepest aspects of ourselves.

Simultaneously, it reminds us that our peculiar human ability to contemplate suicide elevates us above everything else in nature or heaven. Cioran believed that failure governs the world, similar to the capricious God of the Old Testament. Despite his pessimism, actual skepticism, and nihilism, Cioran remained joyous in a peculiar way. It is not a pessimism that can be traced back to simple origins, as individual origins themselves are questionable.Most people go about their daily routines without being aware of the profound absurdity and randomness of their lives. They live in a system of cause and effect that provides a certain predictability and security. These people rarely experience their lives as a tragedy.

French writer and philosopher Albert Camus notes that most human actions are based on a logical error that ultimately leads to a loss of meaning. This loss of meaning can lead to self-doubt and a deep sense of meaninglessness that weakens motivation for personal endeavors.

The idea of suicide as a response to the absurdity of life, however, is considered by Camus, in contrast to Cioran, as a surrender to the incomprehensibility of the world. He argues that a stronger and more authentic stance is to be aware of the absurdity of life and still choose to live. Suicide is seen as an admission of the inability to understand or endure life. Camus uses the metaphor of Sisyphus to illustrate how one can confront the absurdity of life. Sisyphus is condemned to roll a rock up the hill, only to see it roll down again repeatedly. Despite the apparent futility of this task and the absurdity of his existence, Sisyphus finds happiness and joy in this act. He rebels against the absurdity by despising it but simultaneously accepts it.

In the intricate web of existential musings we find a rich tapestry of perspectives on the human experience—ranging from the transformative potential within melancholy to the contemplation of suicide as a confrontation with life's inherent suffering, and finally, the defiant acceptance of the absurd. As we navigate this intellectual terrain, one overarching theme emerges: the profound beauty inherent in the struggle for meaning and the authentic experience of human existence.

Žižek urges us to reconsider melancholy not as a paralyzing force, but as a catalyst for innovation and societal change. Cioran's dark fascination with suicide invites us to confront the depths of our suffering, recognizing that in such confrontation lies the potential for profound transformation. In contrast, Camus advocates for a resilient defiance against the absurdity of life, finding joy in the very act of rebellion. Ultimately, these philosophical perspectives converge on a shared insight: that life's inherent absurdity need not lead to despair or resignation. Instead, the human spirit possesses the remarkable capacity to extract meaning from the seemingly chaotic and random nature of existence. In the daily struggle, in the pursuit of understanding and compassion, lies the essence of our shared humanity.

As we grapple with the existential questions posed by these philosophers, let us not merely dwell on the challenges and uncertainties but embrace the beauty of our collective journey. In the face of life's absurdities, we discover the resilience to persevere, the courage to confront our deepest fears, and the capacity to find solace in the shared human experience. The pursuit of meaning, in all its complexity, becomes a testament to the indomitable spirit that propels us forward, even in the shadow of existential uncertainty. In this view, it is crucial for people to continue living despite the absurdity of life and become aware of human conditions to develop compassion for the suffering of others.

Despite the apparent absurdity of life, beauty lies in the daily struggle and in the moments of genuine experience that human existence has to offer.

Davis Jahn

[bored-philosopher-corner]

What money can't buy: the Moral Limits of Markets (Micheal J. Sandel)

Sandel's lectures raise moral objections to market expansion, especially the commodification of certain "goods": surrogacy, military enlistment, and the wealth gap in democratic nations. Sandel takes a two-pronged attack on undesirable commodification: 1) coercion and 2) corruption. I found the appeal to corruption to be the more interesting but also finicky. (p 104) Sandel references utilitarian decision-making as a form of market-orientated thinking that degrades the goods. He specifically notes how each individual consequential consideration is flattened into pieces of utility. He calls this process, and the conversion into monetary terms a "translation" and posits that value can be lost in the process (p 105). I am partial to the argument, agreeing strongly with Sandel that commodification of certain goods degrades their value in the appraisal and is morally inappropriate, but I think that the nuance of each item, event, and being that we want to preserve by not commodifying will become an issue in defending the claim not to flatten their nuance. This is because as Sandel points out on page 106, the distinction between coercion and corruption is that coercion always appeals to consent while corruption appeals to multiple ideals from overlapping, conflicting, and simply differing ideologies -- ie the appeal against the wealth gap draws upon republican civic virtues that apply in self-government, surrogacy on the elusive definitions of parenthood that can differ between cultures, etc). How do we argue for the preservation of value nuance from multiple ideologies without flattening the nuances or committing to relativism in the process?

[bored-philosopher-corner]

"Create or be consumed"

"Create or be consumed" was a line I never paid much heed to, but now I can't help but mull over the thought. After all, thoughts are all I've been left with the past few days.

Being trapped within these four walls, I can't help but think of all the things I've consumed: endless art, the noise of the internet, and the books that always kept my feelings at bay. Creating was what I had been good at, after all. But after the great wave, after everyone became trapped, all we could do was consume. We consumed the ramblings of people online, the blaring music that washed away the thoughts in our minds, and the shows that had us on our seats, rooting for our favorites. We consumed until we became blind and angry, till hunger gleamed in our eyes.

I was so caught up in consumption that the thought of picking up a pencil terrified me, and a pencil shouldn't be terrifying now, should it? I have woken up from this bleary dream. If we continue this any longer, I fear what will be left of us.

To whoever is reading this, please, I beg you to create. To pick up that pencil once held by Leonardo da Vinci. To overlook is to bring regret upon yourself. Turn away from consumption, my dear readers, and be the ones amongst the few who dared to create.

[bored-philosopher-corner]

Imagine an alien sharing a cool human fact they just learned like ”hey guys did you know that the silvery markings on humans actually aren’t true stripes? They’re called stretch marks, they happen when the human is growing fast enough to actually outgrow their skin, which is apparently something that just fucking happens to almost all of them at some point of their life.”

and another one is like ”wait so you’re saying humans don’t have stripes.”

”actually they do, but the stripes are invisible. There’s genetic code that’d give them stripes but they’re just the same colour as the rest of the skin. So the visible stripes are not real stripes and the real stripes are invisible.”

”I swear if you tell me one more weird human thing today I’m beating your ass.”