Philosophy. Viktor Frankls Mans Search for Meaning, Platos Theory of Forms - Essay Example

? Philosophy Mohammed Alsadoun Michael Boylan Direct logical dis Expand on one of your direct-dis evaluations in the second half of the course. Re-examining three premises in the reconstructed arguments in order to write either a pro or a con response to the argument’s conclusion. Be sure to show that you understand what the opposite side might say against your argument and counter-refute the hypothetical objector Logical fallacy There are some instances in life that are so horrible and terrible that they defy logic, and that logic cannot cope with them. Yet, when all is said and done, we use logic to understand basically everything, and especially to analyze arguments made in the cold light of day. Yes, we sometimes understand an emotional resposne to something, but this does not mean that we excuse it: we rely on logic to examine whether or not it is true, even if we know that there is an emotion behind it. With this in mind, one can evaluate Viktor Frankl’s most famous quote: “there are two races of men in this world, but only these two – the “race” of descent men, and the “race” of indecent men. Both are found everywhere, they penetrate into all groups of society. No group consists entirely of decent or indecent people,” (Frankl 43). This quotation comes from Viktor Frankl’s seminal book ‘Man’s Search for Meaning’ was written in 1946 and draws on his experiences in four different concentration camps but particularly during his time in Auschwitz, that great factory of mass murder where over 1.5 million Jews and other political prisoners were exterminated. Frankl had to suffer several of his family’s deaths including his pregnant wife while he had to continue labouring and blocking out the suffering from his mind. Frankl’s encounters with the terrible and almost unreal experiences in the concentration camps truly prove to be harrwoing reading. Yet he is constantly searching for catharsis and redemption in his experiences whilst continuing to understand the human psyche and how it manages to cope with such extreme and arbitrary cruelty. However he also realises that innately, man is a cruel persona and he manages to find even beauty in cruelty especially when those who are about to die leave with dignity and without fear. Frankl is also concerned with the effects of all this mass murder on the Germans themselves who also end up severely traumatized by their experiences. Indeed he has words of comfort for those who have to go through their own personal suffering to achieve some sort of understanding and catharsis, yet he is obviously much more sympathetic with what the camp inmates are going through. The experiences of those who are left in the starvation block are particularly harrwoing and disturbing as Frankl has to examine some of them who are very near death. Here one begins to understand the horror and torture that these person were going through with absolutely no chance of survival. Yet even with all of this emotional baggage that forms a part of this argument, that there are only two races of men, it falls on a philosopher to analyze if this is true. This contains within it some premises that may or may not be true: we will evaluate each of the individually. Because this is a short passage, some of these premises will only be implied instead of explicit, but I will argue where apropriate how they are implied. An examination of the underlying premises show that his original statement is in fact not true, logically speaking. One of the first premises of this statement, especially when viewed in the context of the book itself, is that one can significantly separate someone’s role in support of a system from their moral responsibility for that system’s actions. One of his fundamental points when making this statement is that there were some descent people among the gaurds at the prison camp where Frankl stayed. He even said as much in his book. This is an objection to the idea that there can be descent people among any group – no gaurd at a concentration camp can be called descent because of their moral failings in doing what they can to prevent the massacre. Frankl might reply that they were still descent because of being internally good people, or doing some nice things, or avoiding killings when they could – but this simply absolves them of their role, and is more like Stockholm syndrome than a real defense of the guards. The theoretical underpinning of this premise is that it is morally acceptable to be part of a terrible and destructive and murderous system if you internally object to it, or subvert it in small ways. It was the guards moral responsibility to opt out of murder, but they did not – so one cannot call them “descent.” Another basic premise of this argument is that circumstances are not necessary in considering the moral character of another human being. Frankl makes this very clear through his scathing attacks of some of the prisoners, the kapo who would go around beating up other prisoners and stealing their things. He judges them using the same moral ruler that he uses when judging the guards – a guard who is brutal, steals from prisoners and so on is indecent, while a guard who does not do those things, but acts like a nice person while murdering others is descent – likewise, a prisoner who steals and beats up people is indecent, while a prisoner who takes this brutality without response is descent. This, however, is an incredibly unfair way to judge anyone – the fact is that, logically speaking, we know that circumstance can play a crucial role in someone’s moral development. That is why children, for instance, are not treated as adults when they do something wrong – likewise with people who are insane. Frankl’s book goes into great and gory detail about the horrors that he faced as a member of the concentration camp, with brutality coming from all sides. He also recognizes that this brutality has a great impact on the prisoners, completely changing their personal make up, making them bitter and disillusioned – he said even when they were free they were unable to understand the idea of freedom from their long imprisonment (241). So while it may be tempting to portray prisoners who steal as indecent, it is impossible to really judge them, morally speaking. They have been horribly brutalized, to the point that could break anyone, and though some people broke in more constructive ways, this does not mean those people should be judged. A response to this argument from Frankl might be that morality is morality, and failing moral tests in extreme situations shows immorality. Though this is possibly fair, and the people who abused other prisoners were certainly not moral, this still shows an internal logical contradiction in Frankl’s work. He says that some guards can be descent people – that they are just swept up in a horrible situation and do their best to keep being good even though they are part of a terrible system. This chooses to take consideration of circumstance when making moral judgment, but then, when faced with prisoners who are bad, he chooses not to take circumstances into account when making moral judgment. So guards’ bad circumstances are allowed to affect the morality of their behavior, but prisoners’ are not. The theoretical point being argued here is: is morality absolute, or does it have to be judged in relation to circumstance. This is a question that has troubled many philosophers throughout all time – is it right to punish someone who is deranged? What if someone’s parents beat them? And so on and so on. These are not questions that can be answered here, but the fundamental problem is that Frankl’s argument takes both sides, which is logically inconsistent and thus incredibly problematic from a logical standpoint. Again, as mentioned before, the emotional side of this is completely different – one can understand how Frankl might feel that the prisoners should have behaved better – he was in their situation and did not turn evil, after all. But this does not make it logically coherent. The final premise of this argument is also only implied without being stated fully. This is the argument that moral character of a person is inherent to them, and immutable. He argues this by actively mimicking the language of the Nazi’s who oppressed him, who saw him as less than they were because of his race, something that to their eyes was immutable and unchangeable as well. By using the term race, he makes it seem like it is impossible for someone who is indecent to become descent, and almost acts as if what someone’s moral character ends up being is decreed from the circumstances of their birth. There are several logical problems with this: one is that we know from vast swathes of experience that someone’s upbringing and circumstance can have a significant impact on their moral character, their ability to feel empathy and so on. Furthermore, things like psychological treatment show that someone can be of a certain moral character and change it through a willingness to do so – people who are depressed can take medication, people who are alcoholic or drug addicted can seek counseling and treatment programs, and turn around who they are. It is difficult to imagine what Frankl’s reply to this assertion would be, other than possibly that he was using the term race for rhetorical effect, and to counter the racism that the Nazis had by making the fundamental division of their nature based on their morality rather than their actual race. But even if this is true it is a poor choice of words, and logically inconsistent with the rest of his work, which shows that the moral character of a person can change drastically depending on circumstance. People who came into the concentration camp as descent people often did not leave as descent people. So Frankl’s use of the term race, which implies an immutable unchangeable quality, is not necessarily a good description of what he is talking about in terms of moral character. Frankl’s assertion that there are two kinds of people, descent and not descent, rests on several unstated premises, that all, when logically and carefully examined, undermine what he actually says, because they fall apart logically. First, he says that someone can be good while being part of a terrible system – something that logically does not stand up. Second, he says that someone can be bad, and be judged as bad regardless of their circumstance – which is countered by his first premise. Finally, he implicitly argues that the moral quality of someone is unchangeable, something that he demonstrates to be untrue again and again and again. Logically, the premises of his argument do not add up to its conclusion. Fictive narrative philosophy. Expand upon one of your narrative(a different one from the argument examined in “A”) . In this expanded version, strive for greater development of character , scene, and /or dramatic action. To help keep you on track , use your previous responses to the pertinent “fictive- narrative philosophy feedback” section The philosophy of religion: The philosophy of religion All three monotheistic religions have something in common, they worship one God and he can said to be common to all of them. Although Islam may appear to be a religion which is more focused on wars and other similar confrontational issues, at the end of the day it is also a redemptory religion. However it must be admitted that ignorance on religion has exacerbated several of the problems in the Middle East, conflicts which have been going on for centuries and which seem to have no real end in sight. It is strange to note that confrontational problems continue to dominate the Middle East at such a level when the main philosophy of each religion is that of redemption and compassion. Christianity which has often been militant where Islam is concerned has actually been at cross purposes many a time with what Judaism represents. The philosophy of Judaism continues to be based on compassion and empathy although the coming of the Messiah still appears to be something which the Jews cannot come to terms with. Basically all three religions share a common purpose and it is important to note that although Islam calls for the retaking of Jerusalem, the Christians have also abused their position there for several centuries. Islam has consistently called for the conquering of Jerusalem at all costs as this is a holy city and the place where the prophet Muhammad had his base. Monotheism as a philosophy should arguable increase the possibility of religions to c-operate better and this is certainly the case with Judaism, Islam and Christianity. Naturally enough, each has a different outlook on redemption and perhaps the philosophy of Islam that all warriors go to Paradise could be seen as the biggest stumbling block to a proper reconciliation between religions. However the philosophy of redemption and forgiveness as practiced by Judaism and Christianity should also hold sway over militarism which is potentially damaging and harmful to future relations. The Middle East remains a powder keg of problems for various reasons, not least the lack of basic understanding on what is actually causing the problem and an unwillingness to be successful in solving it. All three religions have a monotheistic philosophy and should come together in an attempt to solve the conflict issues and not retreat into their respective shells to destroy any hope of a compromise. Obviously all this is easier said than done but when the philosophy of redemption is applied and implemented accordingly, this can have lasting effects on good relations in the area. The Jews cannot claim superiority by treating Arabs as outcasts or pariahs as this is not even permissible in their religion but this unfortunately happens. Christians also need to apply their own philosophy of religion to the Middle Eastern problem and attempt to find common ground with Muslims and Jews. Institutionalized racism on the part of Jews versus the Palestinians is also not something consonant with the Jewish faith and should definitely not be resorted to. All three religions have common ground and this should be built upon not dismantled for the hope of a peaceful solution in the Middle East. Plato’s Theory of Forms as fictive-narrative philosophy There was once a student who was trying and trying and trying to understand platonic theory of forms, because he had to do so to earn top marks in an end of the year exam. He believed he had finally gotten a grasp of it, and wrote the essay. Unfortunately, when he was done, he realized that his essay had many, many imperfections. He went over it again. It still was not perfect. This frustrated the student, who wanted to make a perfect essay to impress his professor. He worked extraordinarily hard, and eventually realized that all he had to do was move into the world of forms, and find the form of an essay about Plato’s theory of forms, bring it back, and use it. He found a way into the world of forms, and was suddenly astounded to see that there were innumerable objects, all so perfect, that he could not pick out form of an essay. He moved through the basic shapes easily, the perfect cube bowed out of his way, and the perfect sphere simply floated away. But then he got into other forms, and his progress was slowed. He ran into the room of perfect furniture, and to his surprise, found that he did not like any of them very much. He had seen two chairs on earth that he felt were basically perfect – one comfortable one for reading, one rigid one for working, but the perfect chair did not resemble either of these at all. And then he ran into the perfect woman – and found her nothing like his beloved back home, and passed her over as well. Finally he got to the room of essays, and found the perfect essay on Platonic forms. He got home, proud of his achievement, and turned it in. The professor scrawled only one note “B+, went into too much depth” Examples of Beauty and Circularity Plate based his theory with particular emphasis on the aspects of Beauty and Circularity which means that intrinsic beauty may only be appreciated when one can truly assess what this means in a spiritual context. The theory distinguishes between beauty as in the physical form and that which is spiritual. A typical example would be a beautiful object, or a beautiful woman for example and this will contrast with a piece of music which is held to be sublime. In this sense the form is abstract so Plato would assert that the musical beauty is of a more higher plane than that which is simply physical. This may also mean that everything which may be seen and is considered as beautiful may have to yield to that which cannot be seen as this has a deeper spiritual yearning than the physical. The concept of mind over matter is also instructive here as it demonstrates that beauty may not always be the same to every person and that it is also subjective. With the concept of Circularity, Plato turns full circle on issues such as the goodness of God and the all round supremacy of his being. This means that God remains all powerful in certain aspects and one must bow to his greatness and goodness without much ado. This also means that everyone must submit him/herself to God as the human being is inherently flawed and cannot take decisions properly without the influence of God who is all powerful. Plato also immersed this theory into the lives of politicians who may have taken the wrong decisions and were also faced with dilemmas on moral issues. This meant that singularity and decision making could not go on without God’s influence that is intrinsically an all powerful state with control over everything. Obviously this created certain reactions from the political establishment who could not seem to understand what Plato was actually going on about and could not comprehend the actual states of the forms. Feature of forms: The forms which have already been discussed are beauty and circularity but there are others which Plato goes into detail in his Republic. In fact Republic is actually an argument for the spiritual temperament of justice with Temperance and Justice being among the main values which the author espouses. However, the proper application of justice is something which Plato took great trouble over as he could not find a balance between the proper impartiality of justice and the actual implementation of it. The feature of the form of Courage is also intriguing in the sense that this state could be seen to be the highest form of bravery but this is also debatable. Here one can comment on the feature of such forms which remain slightly grey areas in this respect. In Republic, Plato argues that the true natures of the forms of Justice, Beauty, Courage and Temperance cannot actually be known and this exposed him to substantial amounts of criticism. Notwithstanding all this I tend to agree with his reasoning and his conclusions that form is the supreme state of mind and matter. Thus this means that Plato is right when he states that the realm of forms constitutes the real world Criticism: Such an innovative theory came in for a huge bout of criticism from the Athenian establishment for obvious reasons, not least due to the fact that Socrates applied certain elements of it to the family life which was so dear to the Athenians. With Socrates’ proposal to abolish the family and have children brought up by the state, the theory of forms received a substantial setback as it was meant to be a force for the good and ended up becoming a force for disorder and disquiet. The concept of the ideal state is something which could not really be put into practice and one could not compensate with what was viewed as the overriding force for good. Plato leaves a lot of grey areas when he defines Good as the major force over everything as this cannot be totally understood. His basic description of forms and how these interact is also rather strange and open ended although one can arrive to a proper conclusion when counter arguments are proposed. In fact there are several counter arguments to Plato’s theory not least, the argument that beauty is of a more spiritual than physical nature. Although one cannot argue that the overriding force of good is greater than anything else there are other states of mind and matter which may perhaps be closer to perfection than good itself. Conclusion: The Theory of Forms as a force for good Plato’s theory of Forms certainly appears to be a force for good in that it is built around values which emphasise that good. Although it is open to criticism on some points, it does not mean that it cannot be enacted in several scenarios throughout life and is a theory which is also beautiful in that it reinforces the spiritual nature of God who is all powerful. Works cited: Hammer R, The Jerusalem Anthology; The Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia, Jerusalem, 1995, Print Vaughan, Killibrew; Jerusalem in Bible and Archeology; Brill Leiden Boston 2003, Print Frankl V, Man’s Search for Meaning Beacon Press (2000), Print Cornford, Francis MacDonald (1957). Plato and Parmenides. New York: The Liberal Arts Press. Fine, Gail (1992). On Ideas: Aristotle's Criticism of Plato's Theory of Forms. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198235496.  Reviewed by Gerson, Lloyd P (1993). "Gail Fine, On Ideas. Aristotle's Criticism of Plato's Theory of Forms". Bryn Mawr Classical Review 04.05.25. Bryn Mawr Classical Review. Ross, Sir David (1951). Plato's Theory of Ideas. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cohen, Marc (2006). "Theory of Forms". Philosophy 320: History of Ancient Philosophy. University of Washington Philosophy Department Read More