The Unmoved Movie

Defining ‘woman’ faces a few problems as there is little agreement or an objective form of femininity that can accurately described.  Being a female is not enough to define woman for though a person may have female genitalia and function, they do not consider themselves to be women, “One is not born but becomes a woman,” (Second Sex). If being a female is not a sufficient condition to be a woman, then determining what the necessary condition is would be the next step.  However, de Beauvoir finds femininity to be a lofty and hardly definitive concept, “It is frequently described in vague and dazzling terms that seem to have been borrowed from the vocabulary of the seers,” (Second Sex).   There would need to be a form of femininity to look towards but a clear image cannot be conjured. For these reasons de Beauvoir rejects either explanation of what woman is but still holds that the word possesses content.  Males do not have a need to define themselves, she finds as what a man is appears to be obvious to anyone.  He is considered the default of humans based on word usage: mankind and the use of man to refer to humans.  As he has made himself the subjugator of women, he is the one to be idealized making himself the positive.  This leaves woman to be the Other of man.

The woman’s position as the Other presents a unique obstacle towards obtaining solidarity not shared by different Others.  Women have a difficult time banding together for three reasons: they have always existed with their One (man), they cannot exist without their One (though modern medicine may pose some challenges to that), and they exist within all other groups.  There could not have been a time where men lived in the own corner of the world, women in theirs, and then happened upon each other.  This is unlike the production of the Other in de Beauvoir’s examples of the Negro or the Jew, “the two groups concerned have often been originally independent; they may have been formerly unaware of each other’s existence… But a historical event has resulted in the subjugation of the weaker by the stronger,” (Second Sex). Through biological necessity, man and woman have always been intertwined; one needs the other to continue the species.  The people called the white One and the black Other do not need each other to prolong their groups survival.   Because of this mutual dependency, women (and men) will be found within every group not using gender as a criterion: economic class, race, ethnicity, geographic location, religion, social ladder rung, etc. 

“for man represents both the positive and the neutral, as is indicated by the common use of man to designate human beings in general; whereas woman represents only the negative, defined by limiting criteria, without reciprocity”

This is off topic but I thought it would be interesting to point out that biological study does not support this conception of men and women’s’ relationship to each other: women can be seen as the neutral and both have what would be called positive and negative qualities. From observing prenatal development, the female sex is somewhat the default state.  A typical fetus has gonads and both systems that develop into complex genitalia.  When no sex hormones are present, the system that would create male genitalia withers away.  It is only through the presence of the SRY gene (from the y-chromosome) that androgens in sufficient quantities are made available which stimulate growth of the male system and the withering of the female.  Each sex starts with the beginnings of both systems and by the presence of either another x or a y-chromosome, one system grows and the other withers. 

Language cannot accurately represent Nature for language is nothing more than associations of phenomena with arbitrary symbols arranged in arbitrary patterns, what Nietzsche (aptly) considers illusions. In creating these illusions, Nietzsche finds us using multiple metaphors and mistaking the final product to be something real. As he puts it, “To begin with, a nerve stimulus is transferred into an image: first metaphor. The image, in turn, is imitated in a sound: second metaphor,” (On Truth and Lies).  The words one speaks are copies of copies: an incomplete copy of an image in the mind which is only an incomplete copy of external phenomena.  As he rightly points out, these copies do not share any connection, “each time there is a complete overleaping of one sphere, right into the middle of an entirely new and different one,” (On Truth and Lies).  His account of the number of metaphors is more generous than biology demonstrates. Take hearing for example.  First, air waves travel and enter the ear canal which are then magnified by the shape.  Second, these air waves hit a membrane.  Third, this membrane causes one bone to strike another that in turn causes movement of a third bone.  Fourth, the third bone’s movement creates waves in a fluid filled canal.  Fifth, the fluid waves stimulate hair fibers that excite their attached nerve. Sixth, summarized information from the stimulation is sent through several areas of the brain until it reaches the primary auditory cortex.  Finally, the information bounces around a few different areas which allow us to perceive the sound. Air waves-mechanical movement-fluid waves-chemical and electrical impulses are all the metaphors that result in perception which we then turn into an arbitrary symbol, about 5 or 6 metaphors away instead of 2.  Of course, in a discussion such as this, few people would claim that the word they use to describe something and the thing they are describing are the same.  But in everyday use, the mistake most likely occurs.  If a person were to point at a tree and ask another what it is, that person will most likely say, “tree.”  The person would have been more correct to imitate the questioner by pointing at the tree and saying, “that is what it is.” 

Concepts, products of human psychology and language, are anthropomorphisms which are taken as absolutes.  Humans, when observing the world, find there to be too much stimulation that cannot be properly managed.  To make up for this abundance of information, we look at repeating instances of something, find commonalities, and create an archetypal image of the phenomena that is used to compare new instances and determine what the thing is.  Nietzsche uses leaves as an example: upon observing a particular leaf then a series of leaves, we strip away what makes each leaf unique and find what makes them the same.  We call this concept the leaf. In his words, “Every word instantly becomes a concept precisely insofar as it is not supposed to serve as a reminder of the unique and entirely individual original experience to which it owes its origin; but rather, a word becomes a concept insofar as it simultaneously has to fit countless more or less similar cases,” (On Truth and Lies).  Language, in a way, demands this activity for language would prove to burdensome if each individual leaf (or any particular instance) required its own word.  Neither Nietzsche nor I fault a person for creating this concept, but the fault is warranted when the person erroneously concludes an existence outside the mind of the form of leaf of which the other leaves partake.  From this analysis of concept formation, Nietzsche concludes truth to be a form of deception, “Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions- they are metaphors that have become worn out and have been drained of sensuous force,” (On Truth and Lies).  After the long series of metaphors to perception and the melting down of innumerable particulars to create a blended, artificial image, we claim to know the essence of a thing.  Through such a process, we have so far removed ourselves from the thing which stimulated us that Nietzsche is appalled should we be joyful in proclaiming truth. 

Under this model of language, perception, and concept formation, Nietzsche is not convinced by our apparent need to discover truth, an attempt to turn the world into man. From this, he supports the life of the artist over the life of the scientist.  While the artist is irrational, they shall find more joy in their work.  The scientist and the artist each make the world into something it is not, but the scientist believes his lies while the artist knows their proclamations to be deceptive.  The scientist is self-limiting in making all their discovers conform to the fixed edifice of scientific knowledge.  But the artist knows that all perception and language are fiction, not fact, and gains unlimited creative potential.  Once one knows life is fiction, it can be written into any story imaginable, “That immense framework and planking of concepts to which the needy man clings his whole life long in order to preserve himself is nothing but a scaffolding and toy for the most audacious feats of the liberated intellect,” (On Truth and Lies).    While the world becomes the liberated intellect’s canvas, Nietzsche does place a limitation on aesthetic creativity: one may deceive so long as without injuring oneself.    Though an important point to remember if we want our artistic careers to last, I wonder about potential implications that may harm his project.  This line itself is not enough to support a full attack, but opens the door to speculation of other claims. If we can deceive ourselves to the point of injury while others are successfully unharmed, then perhaps some us are just more incorrect that others.  They mistake reality for something so far removed that it leads to poor judgments, resulting in harm.  This possibility makes me wonder if Nietzsche would agree that some people get closer to the mark when trying to explain the ‘truth’ of reality.  If there exist degrees of deception, then I don’t know if he has dissuaded me from being a scientist over an artist.  Why would the scientist not be a noble pursuit, if he can ever increase his accuracy? Word Count:

The first of the errors Nietzsche has observed is to deceive ourselves and reverse causality.  By reversing causality, we mistake the cause for the effect and the effect for the cause. Here is one of his examples: “The newspaper reader says: this party destroys itself by making such a mistake. My higher politics says: a party which makes such mistakes has reached its end; it has lost its sureness of instinct.”  One would normal claim that the mistake caused the party to be ruined but Nietzsche determines that the real cause of their destruction was that they were in a ruinous state, otherwise the party would not have made such a fatal mistake.  After describing this error, Nietzsche uses it to criticize all of religion and morality, calling their formula the “great original sin of reason.”  The formula he refers to is: do x actions and do not do y actions to become happy. By living virtuously, one will become happy.  Nietzsche believes this formula commits the great error of reversing causality: virtuous living is a product of a happy person.  A happy person instinctively performs certain actions and shies away from others.

            I fully appreciate his criticism of confusing cause and effect; however, I wonder if some of the disagreement arises from lack of specificity in the defined system and start and end systems.  I will use his example to demonstrate my concern.  He states that it is wrong to say the mistake caused the ruin of the political party; that it was the ruinous state which caused this mistake. Both can be correct depending upon how specific one is in describing the events.  He is correct that the current state lead to a predisposition for the mistake but if we were to add specificity to the newspaper’s version, ‘this party destroys itself in the public eye by making such a mistake’, then one can see why the mistake can exist as the cause for such an end.  Nietzsche is right to question our understanding of causality though some confusion may exist simply from poor communication of meaning. 

            Nietzsche’s second part within his discussion of confusing cause and effect is to relate this confusion to religion and morality while promoting his ‘ethics of instinct’.  At best, his attempt his hasty.  For the purpose of this writing, I shall grant that virtue is the product of a happy disposition (instinct being the determinant of morality) but his refutation of religion and traditional morality is grossly underdeveloped.  His account states that one cannot perform certain actions and become happy, one must be happy and follow their instincts.  Except, Nietzsche does not provide an explanation for the origin of these instincts.  With nothing to go on, I must surmise that instincts are either something one is born with or gained through experience (or some combination of the two).

If instincts are something we are just born with, then he would have to conclude that some people are happy and others are not without room for change. However, he does not do this as he states, “Every mistake in every sense is the effect of the degeneration of instinct, of the disintegration of the will,” (Four Great Errors).  Through this, he admits that experience plays some role in instinctual behavior, otherwise how could someone stray from them? Because he allows some influence from experience and religious doctrine/moral codes are a part of experience, Nietzsche does not have sufficient reason to toss them out completely.

Word Count 581

As punishment for his defiance of the gods and passions for life, Sisyphus is sentenced to the underworld, forced to roll a stone uphill only to watch it come back down.  Condemned to endless, futile toiling, serves as Camus’ model to illustrate a rebellious happiness in spite of the absurd life. Camus begins by making awareness of one’s fate the first step to achieving the absurd victory, “If this myth is tragic, that is because its hero is conscious,” (Myth of Sisyphus). By gaining consciousness of his fate, Sisyphus may know the full effect of the punishment; it would not be as great of a torture if he could hold onto hope.  Once awareness emerges, a few options open up to determine if he shall be victorious over his fate or be defeated.  Melancholy and hopeless longing for happiness prove that the torture has broken Sisyphus’ spirit, resulting in defeat. Something more powerful shall be necessary for victory over fate itself: scorn.  “The lucidity that was to constitute his torture at the same time crowns his victory. There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.,” (Myth of Sisyphus).  Rebellious through contempt for his captives, Camus finds Sisyphus raising himself above his toiling.  Once victory has been seized, happiness may come.  Possessing the power to surmount fate provides the power to “conclude that all is well”.

Camus’ recognition of the power of scorn is the project’s greatest achievement, but his attempt to demonstrate Sisyphus’ happiness is lacking and at times contradictory.  By holding onto such contempt for his punishment and overlords, he proves himself to be unbroken.  The endless rolling of the stone has not been enough to beat him into the despair that ensures his defeat.  Instead, Sisyphus laughs at the gods’ ineptitude.  Their ultimate torture is unworthy of him and his contempt allows him to endure victoriously.  Sisyphus emerges undefeated but at the cost of a pleasant life.  For Camus, victory is dependent on scorn and happiness is dependent upon victory. But, scorn and happiness are incompatible, creating a dilemma for Sisyphus’ supposed happiness. While empowering, living with such contempt produces a wretched condition.  Scorn is an intoxicant: fuel for exhilaration but poison for the mind.  Happiness does not emerge in such an intoxicated state, rendering the two incompatible.  Without scorn or victory, Camus’ account for happiness is little more than proclaiming that happiness can and should be chosen but for unknown reasons. 

 “One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”

Must I? Besides Camus’ lack of demonstration for the happy Sisyphus, there is an assumption that happiness is the proper state.  Despite the absurdity of life Camus proclaims, the happy life is the most deserving to be lived.  There has been a longtime fixation upon achieving happiness but such a fixation places harsh limitation on human potential.  Two of the greatest features possessed by humans are our capacity for variation and tenacity to strive.  With such a wide array of emotions and paths to walk, designating happiness as the sole life worthy of pursuit is disappointingly narrow-minded.  And what shall be left to do once the struggle for a permanent happy state has been achieved but to cut off the rest and wait to die? I say live as a traveler and walk whatever paths appear before you.

As a last bit of reflection, I would like to express how this particular writing revealed how variable truth can appear. The Myth of Sisyphus proved to be one of the most challenging readings for me to write about (in this class), not because the writing was difficult to understand but because my sporadic mood has resulted in wildly different interpretations in rapid succession. Due to certain unpleasant circumstances, my mood and general thoughts about living have had difficulty remaining consistent. With each change, I tackled the reading again, only to come up with a different answer than the previous attempt. Whether I found Camus to be an idiot or a genius, Sisyphus full of joy or woe, spite worthless or incredibly intoxicating, each ‘truth’ was held with just as much conviction as the others despite seemingly conflicting ideas. Each notion appeared so clear and distinct (for you Descartes lovers or haters out there) that I still cannot be sure of which interpretation I support more than the others. When I began doubting these convictions, I doubted any sense of intrinsic truth or at least by ability to discern it. Truth seemed to be whatever I was hoping for at the time. Word Count: 751