Knowledge is true belief based on argument. — Plato, Theaetetus, 201 c-d “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” — Edmund Gettier, Analysis 23: 121–123,bronze winning essay from International Philosophy Olympiad 2014 by Janko Zekovic

Introduction

Imagine the following situation:

My friend wants to buy a car, so I’m having a conversation about it with him. In one moment I ask him about the color of my car. I might suppose that he’s embarrassed not to know it, but he doesn’t want to admit. Suddenly he says: ”Red.” I smile and say that it is right.

Let us consider the situation. Does he know the color, or he just had a guess? Is it the real knowledge?

He might believe and have an argument such as that red is my favorite color, but still it isn’t knowledge

since he has never seen my car. In these terms I will argue about the topic:

 

“Knowledge is true belief based on argument.” Plato

“Is justified true belief knowledge?” Edmund Gettier

Also I will consider the validity of arguments, the problem of true knowledge considering the material world as a source. I will compare rationalists and empiricists and give an overall conclusion about the subject.

Examining the words which correlate to knowledge: true, justified, belief, argument, validity

a) The paradox of lottery

Knowledge is said to be true, justified belief. How do we know whether something is true or not? How can we be sure of it? We can justify our belief, but to consider it as knowledge, it can be tricky. If I play the lottery ticket, I can say that I know I won’t get the numbers on a ticket as the odds are over 0,9999… not to get them. But I also know that the winner will be pulled out. Who knows? Maybe I am the winner. But, at the same time I know two things which are paradoxical. I can’t win and lose at the same time. What is here knowledge? My justified belief because of odds, or the true fact that there will be a winner? If I don’t win, can I say: “I knew it.”? I can’t, because there was a chance for me to win.

b) Epistemic luck

Does the knowledge exist without a person to acknowledge it? We can agree that the knowledge is true, justified belief, but we might not have it. How? I am the astrophysicist, and I’m searching for a new planet similar to Earth. My colleague is doing the same job, but separately and not in the same time. We both have justified belief that a few light years away there is planet which is equally distant from its sun as the Earth is, we suppose that the size is also similar … Simply, all parameters indicate that we are right. Next, I wait for clear night to see it through the telescope. I am astonished because I haven’t found the planet. Next day, my colleague finds it. How to explain this?

This is called an epistemic luck. I had a bad and my colleague a good one. What is the difference between me and him? He had an opportunity to gain a knowledge, and I didn’t. He has completed his theory and I haven’t. Let us summarize. This example goes along with the assumption that knowledge is true, justified belief. We both had justified belief, but we weren’t hundred percent sure. In order to join the word true, we had to search for a planet. We even had the arguments for believing. However, because of my bad epistemic luck I cant’ say I have knowledge of the planet now.

c) The criterion for knowledge

Imagine we say that there are not rich people because there is no one with 1 000 000 000 000 000 dollars, euros or any other valute? Can you say that there are not fast people because they can’t run 5 meters in 1 second? No, we must have certain criterion which is not exaggerated. If there is no man over three meters tall, it doesn’t mean that there are not tall people in this world. Furthermore, it cannot be true as it is impossible for a person to run 5 meters in one second or to be tall over three meters. So, it would be knowledge if these faculties were possible, because they would have been true. As they are not possible, not true ,they can’t consist a knowledge.

 

The validity of arguments and correlation with Plato and Descartes

When we believe in something, we believe because we have the good reasons for it. We have arguments. Yet, how to check the validity of our arguments? Can we know something without having the arguments? Knowledge can’t be just a base of information as the information can be true or not, and knowledge must be true, otherwise it would not be knowledge.. Why are the arguments so important? We can say that we ‘know’ something but it can be based on wrong arguments as you accidentally ‘acknowledge’ it ( typical example- school lesson). It is like puzzle. You can have a greater picture of what you are supposed to put together, yet to complete it for a real you have to put all the parts together. It is like you are doing the car puzzle and you miss the parts of the front wheel. It is not anymore a car but a wheel-missing car. The same works for knowledge. We can have greater perspective of it, but it is not completed. ( I will argue about this relativity later in the essay).

Plato gave an example which goes along with his philosophy and we can use it as an argument. Man was drawing over the sand the squares and triangles in order to show that a slave, who had never studied geometry before, knew to calculate complex length of them. He didn’t indicate the answers, he was just posing the questions. The slave got it right based on arguments and drawings in the sand. Having arguments is necessary to have a knowledge. Knowledge is true because of something and this ‘something’ must be an argument. If the argument is invalid, then the knowledge isn’t true, therefore we can’t even name it as a knowledge. I have discussed about Plato because I will make some comparison between rationalists and empiricists later in this essay.

How to have valid arguments which ‘carry’ the truth of knowledge? Descartes posed four steps how to gain episteme. First we start with the truths that are clear and indubious. Second, we split the problem in as many parts as we need to solve the problem ( analogy of posing the equation). Third, we identify the variables and solve them using the other parts of problem (analogy of solving the equation). And the last step is to check whether solution is appropriate. This is named as scientific method or deductive conclusioning. We start from something that cannot be false. Based on this fact, we gain the true knowledge. Why is this so important-to have a strong basis for knowledge? If someone asks us why we believe in something and consider it as true, you are supposed to give your reasons so:

How do you know R1? – Because of R2.

How do you know R2? – Because of R3.

…

How do you know Rn? – Because of Rn+1.

Imagine the facial expression of person who finds out that his or her acknowledgment of R99 is based on invalid arguments (R100). The whole knowledge is not anymore a knowledge. This is why Descartes posed these four steps. It is important that every link works. On every why, we must have valid because. If R1—–>R2 we cannot say we know R2, therefore we know R1.

The problem of episteme due to the external world-source of episteme

Could we be deluded? Descartes went to the point that even there is a demon who deludes us. Maybe an alien has put my brain in the computer and controls me. How to prove it is not true? How to deny this possibility? The fact is that I think to have certain knowledge, but I can’t reject this possibility no matter how unthinkable it might be. I don’t know whether I am writing this essay, I don’t know whether I am abroad. It seems scary that you can’t be sure of anything.

 

The major views of epistemology in philosophy are rationalism and empiricism. And their major preoccupation is the source of our episteme. Do we have innate ideas as rationalists thought or we gain episteme only through our experiences from the external world? How did the slave from Plato’s story come to the solution? According to rationalists- via innate ideas, an argument-the slave wasn’t taught. If we perceive things from the external world and acknowledge situations based on these things, we might only think it is true and categorize it as knowledge. This is the relativity I will talk about. Is the knowledge true, justified belief only in our world, which is full od delusions or it has to have a unique, overall truth? If we have a problem of material world, then we have a problem with our episteme.

Let consider three empiricists:

Locke argued about ideas and qualities. He asserts that primary qualities are representing things in their reality and secondary depend on our senses, perception. Berkeley opposed by asserting that we are only in touch with our ideas and material world cannot be proven to exist. Hume indicated the problem of causality and induction. Three different opinions.

Locke’s representative realism is the major objection of other empiricists. We can’t know whether the qualities we perceive are real, as we can’t prove the external world. And our senses might be the deceptive (consider the example od daltonism, or a person who is hallucinating- he/she sees what no other person sees, and yet that is ‘real’ for hallucinating people). Even though Berkeley considers that we are in touch only with our ideas, how to explain what we perceive? It can be delusion , but even then we perceive something which comes from the outside- it cannot be neglected. Hume’s main preoccupation is the problem of causality. If after A always comes B, do we have to make conclusion that A causes B.

If we see B and not A, do we have to assume that before B there was A, or if we see A do we have to make assumption there will be B? Do we know it? Is it true? It is only our experience which tells us that we know the relation between A and B. For any other person it is true, justified belief (therefore a knowledge) that fire will burn you every time you are so near to the candle. According to Hume, it doesn’t represent knowledge as we can’t be sure of causality. This leads to the problem of induction, as we tend to generalize things, and we must not do that. If you throw away a gamble and get number six 100 times, we can’t conclude that it will be still number six the very 101^st time. We do not know that.

Anyway, that is fine according to Hume, as we work perfectly in this world (positive thesis), no matter whether we are sure of our knowledge through perception. If I play with the coin in my room, when I put it in front of me, it looks round, and when I look at it at different angle, it might look elliptical. So, in one situation we have quality 1 of the coin, and in the other we have quality 2 of it. What is here knowledge? Is it round or is it elliptical? It doesn’t matter, because depending on situation, we can adjust our perception and knowledge of the coin.

Conclusion

We are like fish in a round aquarium. It perceives differently than we do because of the shape of aquarium . What is the straight line for us, it is not for the fish. Moreover, if it were rational, it would have created the laws for its ‘reality’ and it would work perfectly well in it. In Kant’s philosophy the perceptions are arranged in categories. These categories are a priori, and they seem like a keyhole of what we perceive. We can see what is inside the room, but through the shape of a keyhole-nothing more, nothing less. There are certain things we cannot know, which are transcendent according to Kant and other things we are often unsure of, but we do well with our knowledge.

We have considered so far the gaining of knowledge, its features, the truth of it, its source… And we have come to the conclusion that the knowledge is indeed true ,justified believe based on argument with emphasizing the word true, as it might be arguable in the means of reality and our perception.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filosofija umjetnosti,Maša Čelebić

S vremenom, nauka nam dokazuje da je sve u ovom svijetu, univerzumu, određeno nekim pravilima, sve se odvija po utvrđenom sistemu. Čovjek ga još nije spoznao, štoviše tek je počeo da ga proučava. On se nalazi u crnoj rupi pitanja i nepoznanica. U toj crnoj rupi čovjek stoji na jednom oblaku, koji ga drži da ne potone u beskrajnu tamu. Taj oblak je umjetnost. Umjetnost je čovjekovo utočište slobode. Ona čovjeku dopušta sve ono što mu religija i nauka zabranjuju, dopušta mu da zađe dublje u nepoznato, da istražuje i odgovara. Omogućava mu da zaobiđe paukovu mrežu normi i pravila koju neumorno pletu religija i nauka.

Zadatak filosofije je da ispita umjetnost kao takvu, da ispita suštinu njene neophodnosti. Ona istražuje odnos umjetnosti i individue, kako umjetnika, tako i onoga koji uživa u njoj. Umjetnost je filosofija sama za sebe, čulna filosofija, a umjetnik je filosof koji teži saznanju i traži odgovore, postavlja stavove, iskazuje shvatanja i na taj način ističe svoju genijalnost na sebi svojstven način, umjetnički. Svaki pojedinac umjetničko djelo doživljava na osnovu pređašnjeg iskustva i na osnovu duhovnog stanja u kojem se nalazi. Tu se ogleda sloboda koju umjetnost pruža, sloboda tumačenja, nema netačnih odgovora. U svako umjetničko djelo njegov tvorac teži da unese sebe, da pokaže svoja ośećanja, oslobađa se i otkriva. Albert Kami je dobro objasnio umjetničko djelo. On kaže: „Nečista svijest mora da prizna. Umjetničko djelo je ispovijest.“ Umjetničko djelo predstavlja umjetnika samog, grešnog čovjeka, koji daje sebe, razbija masku i stoji sam pred publikom, otkriven i nag. Njegov cilj je da predstavi, ne spoljašnji izgled stvari, nego njihov unutrašnji značaj, tvrdi Aristotel. Kvalitetno djelo se prepoznaje upravo po emociji, njenoj jačini i dubini i stručnosti u iskazivanju iste. Ako čovjek, koji uživa u djelu, uspije da prepozna umjetnikovu skrivenu i duboku emociju, pa i samog umjetnika, to umjetničko djelo je vrhunsko. Ali pored sve emocije koja je neophodna pri čulnoj filosofiji, potrebno je na pravi način istaći poruku, koju svako djelo mora da posjeduje. U slučaju da ta poruka nije istaknuta kako treba, djelo skreće sa pravog puta i odlazi drugim, što ne mora da znači da ide lošim putem, taj drugi put može da nas odvede drugom doživljaju koji nije suštinski, ali može biti bitan. Lijepo se može definisati na najrazličitije načine, a današnje shvatanje lijepog jeste da nešto u nama izaziva pozitivna ośećanja i prija našim čulima, lagano je i prijatno. Ako prihvatimo ovu definiciju pojma lijepog, onda moramo reći da umjetničko djelo, da bi bilo nevjerovatno i kvalitetno, ne mora nužno da bude lijepo, već mora da bude duboko i jako.

Ako je umjetnost tako slobodna i dopušta da se pređe iza granica, kako razlikovati umjetnost od pseudoumjetnosti? Umjetnost može biti djelo čovjeka ili same prirode, jasno je kako umjetničko djelo stvara čovijek, ali to može uraditi i sama priroda. Inače, sva priroda jeste umjetničko djelo, samo od nas zavisi da li smo mi sposobni da ga prepoznamo i prihvatimo. Ali umjetnost ne može biti djelo mašina koje u poslednje vrijeme preuzimaju čovjekove uloge. Dakle, sve što je djelo mašine nije prava umjetnost. Ali i pojedinac može odrediti svoju pseudoumjetnost na osnovu svojih shvatanja i stavova, umjetnost koju ne prihvata i ne vrednuje. Nijedna umjetnost nije objektivna, umjetnik mora prikazivati subjektivni doživljaj, jer je to način na koji umjetnici filosofiraju i uopšte opstaju. Svako opstaje na osnovu svoje imaginacije i mašte, jer na taj način dobija odgovore koje nema, na taj način funkcioniše. Neko ima veći, neko manji oblak na kojem stoji, neko ima sivi, neko crni, neko crveni… Umjetnici ne stoje na oblaku, oni žive u njemu, u njihovoj kreaciji, što ne znači da ne vide realnost, čak je u većini slučajeva mnogo bolje vide od onih koji imaju čist vidik. Taj oblak koji su sebi stvorili, zasnovan je na realnom svijetu jer se irealno nadovezuje na realno. Umjetnici idu korak dalje, oni sami sebi daju slobodu (čovjek ne može biti slobodan ako mu slobodu neko nudi, a pritom živi u svom zatvoru, mora prvo izaći iz njega da bi mogao prihvatiti ponuđeno), slobodu istraživanja, saznavanja i iskazivanja. Umjetnici se nalaze iznad običnih ljudi jer su sebe oslobodili, oni lete u visine, ali ih ti obični ljudi sputavaju, vuku ih za krila i vežu ih konopima jer sami ne mogu da polete, boje se visine i tuđeg uspjeha. Ljudi su po prirodi zli i pokvareni, ne trpe uspjehe drugih, zato čupaju, vuku i lome sve što drugi stvore. Pa čak i ako čovjek uspije da se oslobodi od sebe samoga, drugi će biti tu da ga zarobe i sputaju. Iz tog razloga taj oblak u kojem se nalaze umjetnici često biva ispunjen ogorčenošću, bolom, bijesom, osvetništvom i tegobom. Umjetnici u tom oblaku pojačanih ośećanja stvaraju svoja djela, iskazuju svoje nazadovoljstvo i jad, ali sa druge stane i pronalaze nadu.

U prirodi čovjeka je da traga za odgovorima, ali čovjek nije u stanju da odgovori na sve. Taman pošto nađemo jedan odgovor iz njega se roje nova pitanja, a mi zalazimo sve dublje u crnu rupu, nadajući se da je na njenom kraju svijetlo. Prolazimo kroz životni mulj, sileći sebe na svaki idući korak. Upravo je umjetnost ta koja nas pokreće, koja nam daje nadu, koja nam omogućava da opstanemo, koja prikazuje realnost kroz irealno, daje nam mogućnosti i otvara puteve. Umjetnost je neophodna da bi ova ništavna ljudska vrsta opstala u ovom nesaznatljivom svijetu, a filosofija je ta koja nam daje ključ vrata umjetnosti, tumači je i čini pristupačnijom i jasnijom.

 

 

 

Položaj čovjeka u svemiru,Katarina Živković

Položaj čovjeka u svemiru je vječito pitanje koje je specifično po tome što su isključivo pripadnici ljudskog roda jedini koji su u stanju da ga postave iz razloga što ljudska vrsta jedina ima moć kognitivnog razmišljanja i govora . Samim time, čovjek kad razmatra ovo pitanje, nema neko drugo mišljenje kao referencu, već razmatra ovo pitanje sa manje ili više subjektivne tačke gledišta.

Ovom pitanju se može pristupiti sa mnogo tačaka, i time odgovori izgledaju drugačije. Onaj koji se pita je, neizbježno, ljudsko biće i razlika je u tome da li on u odgovoru traži svojevrsno opravdanje, razlog svoje egzistencije ili pokušava da zauzme ulogu objektivnog posmatrača, gdje se subjektivna i psihološka pitanja čovjeka stavljaju po strani.

Kad se gleda sa objektivne strane, lako je doći do zaključka da je univerzum indiferentan prema kako ljudskom rodu, tako i prema svim ostalim živim bićima na planeti Zemlji. U svakom trenutku smo u milosti i nemilosti prirode. Zemlja se može posmatrati kao objekat u svemiru na kojem, sticajem okolnosti, postoji život i na kojem egzistira određen broj živih bića, čiji su životi toliko krhki, da se mogu prekinuti vrlo lako, iz bezbroj razloga. To tako, sasvim logično, funkcioniše milionima godina, i vjerovatno će funkcionisati još neko vrijeme.

Ovo bi mogao da bude jednostavan način da se život na Zemlji objasni nekom objektivnom posmatraču, npr. inteligentnom vanzemaljcu. Stvar je u tome što čovjek, iako sposoban da logički prihvati ovakvu istinu, teško može da je uzme kao jedinu tačku gledišta, jer ljudski rod nije homogena cjelina, već je sačinjen od individua, od kojih svaka ima jedinstveni pogled na stvarnost. Pitanje je prilično jednostavno ako onaj koji pita (čisti razum- kompjuter) nema nikakvu empatiju za ljudska bića. Svako ko je ima, boriće se sa ovim pitanjem na neki način, jer je ovo pitanje svrhe postojanja svakog čovjeka. Ljudskom biću je potreban cilj, svrha života. Čovjek može naći mnogo načina da se izbori sa ravnodušnosti svemira. Traganje za ovim odgovorom je dovelo do religija. Religija sa čovjeka skida breme potpune odgovornosti za svoju sudbinu, i daje mu nadu da svemir ipak nije potpuno ravnodušan prema njemu, da negdje postoji sistem pravde koji je tako nesavršen na Zemlji. Religija u tom smislu olakšava čovjeku da prevaziđe osjećaj straha od neizvjesnosti života. S druge strane, čovjek koji nije religiozan i dalje ima na umu da je samo jedna jedinka među milijardama. Međutim, čovjeku je i dalje potreban način da se izbori sa svojom smrtnošću, a nekada je to baš spoznaja da je univerzum indiferentan, i da svoj životni put, ili sudbinu, treba da kreira svojim naporima, koliko je to moguće. Smatram da je razum koji razlikuje čovjeka od svih ostalih bića u određenoj mjeri dar i prokletstvo. Zbog njega je čovjek uvjek u konfliktu sa sobom i drugima- čovjek je egzistencijom osuđen na preživljavanje bola i borbu, bez obzira na najrazličitije okolnosti. Idealan mir među ljudima je utopija, i nemoguć je iz razloga što su ljudi kao vrsta u osnovi životinje sa dodatkom razuma, koji je u kombinaciji sa animalnim instinktima krajnje nepredvidiv.

Po zahtjevu Karla Segana, američkog astrofizičara, 14.februara 1990.godine, NASA je naredila Voyageru 1 da, nakon obavljenog primarnog zadatka, okrene kameru ka našem Sunčevom sistemu.Voyager je poslao fotografiju Zemlje, koja je izgledala kao  „blijeda plava tačka, okačena o sunčevom zraku…” Citat iz njegove knjige opisuje relativnost veličine naše planete- našeg doživljaja nje i pogleda sa velike daljine.

,,Sa ovog udaljenog  mesta posmatranja, Zemlja možda izgleda beznačajna. Ali za nas je drugačije. Pogledajte ponovo tu tačku. To je ovde. To je dom. To smo mi. Na njoj… svi koje volite, svi koje poznajete, svi za koje ste ikada čuli, svako ljudsko biće koje je ikad postojalo – živelo je tu. Skup svih naših radosti i patnji, hiljade samouverenih religija, ideologija i ekonomskih doktrina, svaki lovac i svaki skupljač, svaki heroj i svaki plašljivac, svaki stvaralac i razarač civilizacije, svaki kralj i seljak, svaki mladi zaljubljeni par, svaka majka i svaki otac, dete puno nade, pronalazač i istraživač, svaki učitelj morala, svaki korumpirani političar, svaka superzvezda, svaki “vrhunski vođa”, svaki svetac i grešnik u istoriji naše vrste — svi smo živeli tamo: na čestici prašine zaklonjenoj zrakom Sunca.  

Zemlja je veoma mala scena u nepreglednoj kosmičkoj areni. Setite se reka krvi koju su prolili svi oni generali i vladari, da bi, u slavi i trijumfu, postali momentalni vladari delića tačke. Setite se beskrajnih okrutnosti počinjenih od strane stanovnika jednog ćoška piksela prema jedva prepoznatljivim stanovnicima nekog drugog ćoška, njihovih toliko čestih nesporazuma, tolike njihove želje da ubiju jedni druge, njihove žarke mržnje.

 

Naše zablude, naše umišljeno samouvažavanje, obmana da imamo neki privilegovani položaj u Svemiru su suočene sa ovom bledom tačkom. Naša planeta je usamljena mrlja prekrivena velikom kosmičkom tamom. U našoj bezizražajnosti u svom tom prostranstvu, ne postoji nikakav znak da će pomoć doći s nekog drugog mesta da nas izbavi od nas samih.

 

Zemlja je jedino mesto za koje znamo da sadrži život. Ne postoji ni jedno drugo mesto, bar ne u skoroj budućnosti, gde bi naša vrsta mogla migrirati. Posetiti, da. Naseliti, ne još. Sviđalo vam se ili ne, Zemlja je mesto gde se trenutno nalazimo.

 

Kažu da je astronomija pokorno iskustvo koje izgrađuje karakter. Verovanto ne postoji bolji pokazatelj glupavosti ljudske sujete od ove slike našeg sveta sa udaljenosti. Za mene, ona naglašava našu odgovornost da se jedni prema drugima odnosimo ljubaznije, i da sačuvamo i negujemo bledo-plavu tačku — jedini dom za koji znamo.”

 

 

Položaj čovjeka u kosmosu,Milica Bulatović

 Čovjek čovjeku je najveća tajna. Tako je uvijek bilo i uvijek će biti. Ponekad se zapitamo da li se uopšte vrijedi pitati, tražiti svjetlo u sebi, o sebi, a živjeti u vječnom mraku. Šta je čovjek? Koje je njegovo mjesto u svijetu? Kako je nastao i kako će skončani? I najvažnije, koja je svrha njegovog bivstvovanja? Sve su to pitanja koja se postavljaju već dva milenijuma, a umjesto odgovora dobija samo eho tišine. Ipak tišinu mogu razbiti učenja mnogih antropologa koji nisu prihvatili nerešivost enigme zvane ,,čovjek”.

Maks Šeler je jedan od najvećih filozofskih antropologa 20. vijeka, čuven po svom djelu ,,Položaj čovjeka u kosmosu”. Smatrao je da se čovjek od životinja izdvaja duhom koji obavlja mišljenje, stvaranje ideja, voljne akte, odluke, emocionalnost, čuđenje, vrednovanje, dobrotu, ljepotu. U osnovi duha su sloboda, koja čovjeka odvaja od svoje nagonske prirode, i samosvijest, koja mu omogućava da bude svjestan svojih svjesnih stanja i odluka i da može sebe prosuditi i sabrati. Šeler izdvaja pet osnovnih antropoloških ideja: homo sapiens (čovjek se po umu razlikuje od drugih bića), čovjek je božja tvorevina(Biblijsko tumačenje), homo naturalis(čovjek je prvo nagonsko, pa tek onda umno biće), čovjek je biće nedostataka(prirodne nedostatke teži nadoknaditi stvaranjem pomagala) i ideja natčovjeka (čovjek treba da zauzme poziciju Boga).

Helmut Plesner kaže da se čovjek otcijepio od svoje životinjske, biološke prirode, postidio svoje golotinje, i okrenuo od stvarnog ka mogućem svijetu. On napušta prirodu i stvara kulturu. Čovjek ništa ne uzima neposredno već sve posreduje kroz svijet, saznanje, jezik, rad i kulturu, i traži svoje novo utemeljenje u beskonačnom.

Arnold Gelen smatra da čovjek svoju posebnu poziciju u svijetu gradi na djelovanju, da djelajući postaje sam sebi svrha, zato što je on biće opterećeno svojim nedostacima, kojem je priroda uskratila mnogo toga što druge životinje imaju po rodjenu.

Žan Pol Sartr odgovor na pitanje čovjeka traži u fenomenu slobode – čovjek spoljašnji svijet doživljava kao masivan i težak pa je prinuđen da za sebe stvori svijet, ,,bivstvo za sebe”, kako bi ispunio svoje moguće projekte slobode; on je ono što čini, sam sebe određuje i odgovara za učinjeno.

I filozofi i naučnici, slažu se da je čovjek poseban, da se izdvaja iz svijeta životinja svojim intelektom, razumom, govorom, samosviješću. Čovjek, dakle, nije životinja? Ili možda jeste?

Ljudi su tvorci brojnih čuda tehnologije, uspjeli su da stvore civilizovani svijet, iz pećina se preselili u nebodere, lete nebom i komuniciraju sa jednog na drugi kraj planete. I taman kada pomislimo da je čovjek čudo prirode, sjetimo se svih ratova, zločina i mržnje, koju ljudska svijest ni do danas nije uspjela da prevaziđe. Paralelno sa najvećim ljudskim stvaranjima, stoje najveća razaranja.

U modernom svijetu glavna karakteristika urbanog čovjeka jeste njegova otuđenost, od svijeta i od čovjeka. ,, Čovjek je čovjeku vuk”, od Rimljana do danas to je najveća istina o čovjeku. U svijetu, kako životinjskom, tako i ljudskom, uvijek će vladati zakon jačeg, i čovjek mora da se bori. I bori se, i to protiv drugoga čovjeka. Zar to nije dovoljno pa da znamo da čovjek nije ništa drugo do najveća od svih životinja? Ako ih ne razumijemo, da li to znači da životinje ne komuniciraju, da nisu možda jednako sposobne za promišljanje isto kao i čovjek, ali one žive onako kako su stvorene da žive, u skladu sa prirodom i njenim zakonima, dok je čovjek kroz istoriju samo razvio svoju pohlepu, razvio je sliku o superiornom sebi, stavio se iznad prirode, iznad svega što ga okružuje, položio pravo na cijelu planetu. Živi u disharmoniji sa svim i svima oko sebe, nezadovoljan onim što jeste i onim što ima.

Jedino ako se vrati prirodi, čovjek će se vratiti svojoj suštini, iskonskoj i instinktivnoj. To je jedini način da on spozna samoga sebe. Bilo da hoda na dvije ili četiri noge, ili ne hoda uopšte, svako biće samo je dio prirode, dio svijeta u kome bivstvuje, svijeta koji je možda, a možda i nije stvorio njegov Tvorac, koji možda, a možda i ne odlučuje o našim sudbinama. To već nije na čovjeku da sazna.

                                          

                                                                                         

Istorija i sloboda,Tara Lutovac

          Sloboda je veličanstven pojam, savršen u svojoj jednostavnosti. U poslednje vrijeme, isuviše je zanemareno samo njeno značenje. Prolaskom vremena i mijenjanjem civilizacija, sloboda je pravo koje nam se daje po rođenju, pa shodno tome, ne cijeni se njena svrsihodnost, iako se u sadanjosti život bez nje ne može zamisliti.

       U svojoj najosnovnijoj formi i najužoj definiciji, sloboda implicira da čovjek nije rob i rođen da služi, već da živi. Sada se ona uzima zdravo za gotovo, ali se za nju nekada borilo i umiralo. Zbog nje su podizane bune i ustanci, zbog nje su se dešavali državni udari i revolucije. Pogledati gore i ne vidjeti nikog iznad sebe, biti sam svoj gospodar − taj uzvišeni osjećaj samosvijesti je bio cilj zbog kog su ljudi ginuli u masama. U sadašnjem društvu, iako je prvobitna definicija slobode u potpunosti održiva, više se ne može primjeniti zato što očigledne granice koje su postavljene da bi usmjerile naš način života nam polako oduzimaju slobodu misli. Sloboda misli je najneprocjenjivija stvar koju bilo koji pojedinac može imati, usađena je u samu srž našeg bića i određuje naš identitet. Iz termina koji je nekada važio u istoriji, sloboda prerasta u termin koji podrazumjeva uzdizanje nad materijalnim, iliti nepriznavanje ropstva pod potrebom za materijalnim. Postavlja se pitanje da li čovjek može postati rob sopstvenih shvatanja koja su nametnuta tokom socijalizacije. Ta shvatanja imaju potencijal da ugrožavaju našu slobodu govora i slobodu kretanja. Čak i sada, nagoveštaji našeg ropstva se ogledaju u granicama, porezima, pa čak i u školama u koje smo prisiljeni da idemo da bi bili produktivni članovi društva. Sa druge strane, kada bi svi bili slobodni, istinski slobodni, kada ne bi postojao nijedan vid hijerarhije, nastao bi haos, u svojoj primarnoj, iskrenoj, necivilizovanoj formi.

         Iz toga slijedi zaključak da apsolutna sloboda nije nešto čemu bi ljudi trebalo da teže. Ljudska svijest nije i vjerovatno nikada neće biti na nivou na kojem ćemo biti spremni da altruistički postupamo u skladu sa potrebama društva, opšteg dobra. Složena konsturkcija svijeta bi se raspala, što nam dokazuju mnogi pokušaji u istoriji kada se sloboda slavila na isti način na koji se opovrgavala.

 

,, Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains “ J.J. Rousseau,essay by Sanja Rakovic

                  

Freedom. Is freedom possible ? If the answer is yes, then we ask : How? If it is not, then we ask: Why ? Anyway, we have to ask why everywhere are ,,chains”, as Rousseau said.

In this essay I will try to answer to these questions . First, I will argue about the first part of this quote which refers on my first question and then I will argue about the second part of the quote which refers to the second question.

Is freedom possible? Jean – Paul Satre says: Yes. Then we ask: How? He said that the man was thrown into reality and he has possibility to make choices. A man, on his own way, decides what his plan for existence will be. The man has possibility to do . Then, it is right way. But, at the same time it is a difficult way. Man feels that he is responsible and that feeling of responsibility brings him fear and anxiety, and that feeling pull him through the darkness. He is lonely and he is responsible for himself. There are chains that Rousseau mentioned in quote above. And, there is a place which Sartre named “The Hell”: ,,Hell is other people “. That means that we are constantly in fear that we will not succeed in realizing our life-plan. However, this is not all. Man is not responsible only for himself : through his actions he is responsible for all mankind.

We have not come to the freedom yet. Where is then this freedom that Sartre was talking about? Sartre gives us one example: If man choose to marry and have children, then he thinks that is good for all people like for himself. We ask how? Sartre asserts that man always chooses good (what he think that is good for him) and at the same time he recommends it to all people. So, if he choose to marry and have children, then he thinks that is good for all mankind. So, our freedom lies in possibility to choose, to choose what we think that is the best for us. Since there is no God to define our essence and nothing in our life is not determined beforehand, we have to do that, Sartre said. Through his actions, man make his freedom and at the end he is mere freedom. Sartre appeal us to activism, to take our life in our hands because anyone else will not do that for us. We have possibility to make our life – plan and we have to accept that.

 

But, like we can see and even there exist one word which does not leave us . Chains, chains! To talk about freedom without this word is impossible. To talk abouth death without life, also.

Yes, we have possibility to choose our way through the life and that is freedom. But, where are there people who Satre named weak and the ones who are surrender? They are those for who cognition that we are free to choose is not enough. Again , there is responsibility. There is a fear of consequences. Then freedom looses it’s meaning in a deep, dark sea of fear. Fear from the consequences and responsability of our decision, fear from bad point and bad the end . Following Sartre, we can say that there are three cases and three different types of chains:

1) Responsibility for me. Chains are hard. I’ m not strong.

2) Responsibility for the others : Chains are hard. I’m not strong.

3) Responsibility for me and the others : Chains are too hard. I’m weak.

Therefore, we accept that chains are everywhere. We are ,,beings sick to death “ Kierkegaard said. We cannot isolate ourselves from the reality ( and even if we can) we cannot be satisfied with cognition that the man is free.

 

Also, we can argue about democracy and modern societies. Democracy which guarantees equal rights and freedom for every individual “on the paper”. What is freedom there and how in this context we can understand freedom?

Clearly, we cannot talk about absolute and pure freedom. The man born in one democratic society is also free. But he has to justify that freedom. He cannot do bad things, things which are not appropriate to the law of that society. He has to make balance between his wishes and his own sake for which we suppose that they could originate from his freedom. His actions have to correspond to the reality and with all that what is allowed in one society. For example, one person stole golden ring. It is something that is not allowed , that person did that and He or she was arrested. His/her freedom of choice here was to stole that ring, but then he/she lost his/her freedom of moving and her wrong choice was punished. Thus, there are conditions we have to fulfill, rules we have to respect and make balance . So, freedom can be determined in this way, too.

Through this essay I did not find the place and time where the man is free and where are not chains around him. They are always here but in different shapes : like form of responsibility, condition or rule. This Rousseau’s quote is one more example of true stories about human condition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

”Compassion is the basis of morality”-Schopenhauer,essay by Ivan Medenica

Morality is the way we behave towards others and without others morality is inexistent. It’s the unwritten law which we tend to follow in our social interactions and use it to measure other people and other people use it to measure us. Everybody has different perception of morality depending on their personal beliefs and experience so it is hard to precisely define it but the key is that for morality we need others and the will to interact with them.

A man without compassion would fail to understand others as good as one with it, compassion is useful because it helps us predict behavior of others and it helps us shift our point of view from ourselves to others. All humans have power to imagine, by imagining being in the place of the one we interact with we can make sure to act towards them as we would wish them to act towards us. Compassion is something most people lack and that is why there is so much injustice, if everyone was compassionate and aware of others open conflicts would cease to exist(nobody with compassion wants conflict because conflict leads to hate and hate leads to casualties, compassionate people don’t wish others to suffer therefore they don’t wish there to be casualties). If a person had others in mind while making all his decisions he would never act so as to do wrong to them because nobody really wants to be wronged, but not everyone puts themselves in the place of others because of factors such as greed, lust ,vengeance. It’s not only good for others when we’re acting with compassion because by satisfying others we satisfy ourselves, our ego gets the reward just as others praise us and thank us for our behavior and to a real human being this is enough to feel good. The problem is some humans find it more rewarding to be personally successful and to make good for themselves only so they ignore wishes and needs of others as if they don’t exist and some humans find it rewarding to harm others and these two types of humans, overly egocentric and hostile greatly lack compassion. We wouldn’t know compassion without lack of it because without uncompassionate people there would be too much peace in the world which is what humans don’t seem to want. Humans are much more compassionate on a personal level than on group based one, wars are examples for this, in war people are capable of dehumanizing their enemies and completely eliminating compassion, while murder on a personal level is harder to commit. Whichever the reason for war is and mostly it is conflict of interests between two or more groups of people there is no excuse for this elimination of compassion from our actions and thinking, whatever there is on this planet is not worth a human life when we look at it from the rational standpoint. Humans are and were in the state of war since their creation, we are in constant conflicts with ourselves and others and conflict seems to be in our nature, this is probably one of the reasons why we are so capable of eliminating compassion in certain situations. Nevertheless a real human being would act towards Kant’s categorical imperatives at all times and at all costs, despite our warrior nature an aware human being would always have others in mind when making a certain decision or action and not only because he puts himself in their place but because it is the right thing to do from whichever perspective you look at it. Morality is hard to define and varies from region to region, even from person to person but it can be stated that without at least some care towards others morality wouldn’t exist , immoral people are not only judged and hated by others they usually feel bad themselves or do not have the capability to feel joy because of their shallow minds, immoral man doesn’t understand joy beyond personal pleasure and that is just sad. One of the reasons why people are immoral is lack of knowledge, lack of knowledge on what other people have been through and in what kind of situation they are in, lack of knowledge how they genuinely feel and what they genuinely want. Society is too big for us to get to know everybody we meet and this is why we can’t act absolutely right towards others because we can only predict their wishes and feelings to some extent. In order to act morally towards others we need to know their true intentions and expectations which is hard because nobody acts truthfully at all situations and nobody gives us the real feedback, which we need to understand what they want from us. Lack of truth and genuine feedback(by genuine feedback I mean reacting the way you really want to without making sure your reaction is socially acceptable and without adapting it to the current situation/environment) is one of many difficulties we face when we try to act morally. Subjectivity is the key component of compassion but it can be an enemy to real moral action because sometimes when we put ourselves in the place of others and think from that perspective our thoughts are too much colored by our personal wishes so when we make a decision and think it’s moral it just might be immoral and too selfish without us realizing and this is hard to realize without genuine feedback. Compassion is something women(specifically birth giving ones) understand better than men because the mother-child bond which they have is one of the strongest among all bonds in human interactions. It is this kind of selfless care and devotion all of us should strive to achieve towards every other human being, by acting so we make it clear to others that we care. Biological purpose of a man is to live, love and reproduce, great majority of people attach to a partner at some point in their life and get to feel love, love is the pure concentrate of selflessness and compassion (compassion without selflessness is just selfish egoistic compassion which isn’t really compassion at all) and if we are all capable to feel love to a single human being we are capable of feeling love towards all human beings. Having in mind that great majority of people do feel love(ultimate compassion) and then act without it in their future decisions towards others makes humans quite hypocritical. I wouldn’t pose the question if compassion is necessary for morality because it’s logical that without care for others and their expectations and well-being there is no morale(although we do not need to explicitly care about someone to do right by them, we certainly are more efficient when we do). But since we live in a diverse world which contains in it some people who can’t feel emotions I am obliged to take them into consideration. Can a man be moral without the actual feeling of compassion , well without the ability to feel emotions we can still use our brains to think up the do’s and do not’s in our interactions, this kind of morale would be more of a mechanic one rather than real emotion-based(one would have to rationally predict if others will react positively or negatively to their actions, without shifting of the point of view due to inability to feel other’s emotions) but we can’t deny it’s existence ,I think the name utilitarian morale would fit it the best(it’s main purpose would be efficiency in social interactions). This mechanic, utilitarian, emotionless morale is harder to practice than emotion based one but at least it’s the proof that all humans with various kinds of emotional backgrounds(or lack of them) can act towards others morally(it can be practiced by those who do have emotions yet choose to reserve them for specific people only). Next to being compassionate, for acting morally it is useful to be rational and to make smart predictions of the outcome of our social interactions, the better we predict how others will be impacted by our actions the better we can exercise our moral codex in the future. Another flaw of compassion is that sometimes it’s the reason why we do not succeed to act morally, in cases such as giving advantage to family when searching to employ somebody(emotions without reason cause nepotism). Emotions can easily get out of control in certain situations and they need to be subdued to reason, this is why rationality while making decisions is necessary to be moral, sometimes we need to get past the emotional barrier to act rightfully and morally and reason is the means of transport we use to get past that barrier. Man is a social animal, we are pack animals and one can hardly survive when separated from the pack, this is why some(sadly not most) of us accept and practice morale(in it’s true meaning) which we either took from others or developed ourselves

Compassion isn’t the sole basis of morality, basis of morality is made both of compassion and rationality because in order to act morally towards others(so as to satisfy them and not to do them wrong) we need sense as much as we need emotions. Actually I’d reckon we need sense to act morally slightly more than we need emotions and although compassion is a useful compass in navigating the seas of social interactions it is not the only navigational tool.

 

 

“Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains”-J. J. Rousseau,essay by Aleksa Grgurovic

Introduction

Today we should all have equal rights. But, we know from our experience, that that is not true. There are people that are more “equal” then the others.

In this essay I will show how the idea of equality developed and changed through history. I will see why all people should have the same rights. I will also state my own opinion on how a society of equal rights should look like.

 

We are all equal

When a person is born, he or she is a “tabula rasa” (as empirics call it). It means that we are just blank pages in a book of our future lives. So our life, our experience is going to fill those pages, and it is up to us to bring the material. We are free to do everything we want. We could finish school we want, get the job we want, have some influence, prestige, live a happy life.

It would be really marvelous if it was that simple. Humans are not equal even when they are born. Some are born with more potential (talent), some are born is a wealthy family. And those reasons influence everyone’s character that truly makes everyone different. We act and live differently. We have different interests, hobbies, jobs, talents, skills etc.

People really cannot be the same, there are all sorts of them, but there are some level of equaly that can and should be reached.

 

Societies where everyone is free through history

We meet, for the first time, the idea of everyone being equal in ancient Greece. The Greeks divided the idea in two parts:

-equality in from of law,

-economical equality.

Through history many different nations tried to solve these two problems of equality. The equality in front of law was the first one to be solved (in theory), and the second problem has yet to be solved. Why is that? Are there always going to be the rich to rule, and the poor to be ruled? Is that how the world works? If you are wealthy then you play a significant role, you run a business or a country, then if are able to hire better lawyers, and then you are not even equal in front of law.

In SSSR the government tried to force everyone to be equal, and to take everyone’s wealth and see how that turned out to be.

In capitalism everyone has a fair chance in the market, but there are people that are better tradesmen then the others, and little by little their wealth grows and they gain a monopoly over the market. So even there equality is not to be found.

 

A plausible society of equal rights

Two humans can never be the same, so a society where everyone is totally equal can never be. But there is a level of equality that can be reached.

People differ based on their skills and talents. Based on those skills they should play a role in that society. If a person is a good plumber than that person should do that job, and if a person is a good leader than that person should be the leader (call that person however you like: king, president), and if there are not one but more people who have skills to lead the society then they should form a council. And the leaders should occasionally change, and people should change them. In that way despotism would be stopped.

The difficult thing would be to determine someone’s talent and how much the role based on that talent is appreciated, how much wealth would that person receive etc.

That is a difficult problem, indeed. Not everyone’s role is as important, as some would thing (maybe a king is the most important person). But that is not true. The truly important thing is the people, the citizens. Imagine a king ruling over deserted island, with no subjects. It sounds comical doesn’t it? A king with no people to rule over is not a real king.

So every person is important, and their role is important. Just look at the ants. Every ant has its own job and it fulfills it without complaining it. That is how it should be. And material prize that is given to a person should be based on the commitment of a person, and on the effort given by the person. That way people would not become lazy, but try their best to make a difference, and live a happy life.

Conclusion

We know that people are not equal, but they are all important. And society where there is no person more important than the others is a society closest to the ideal society where everyone is equal. That society is the limit that humans right now cannot overcome.