Group 8

REMEMBER: every time you make a post, be sure to choose the label "Group 8" so that your post ends up in the proper place. If you don't do this, your post won't appear in your group and you won't get credit for it.
Also: if you put a link in your posting: highlight it to select it, then click on the "link" tool on the toolbar. (Click image below to enlarge).

For links in comments: enter the following HTML code into the comment box: 

<a href="www.google.com">Home</a> 

Change "www.google.com" to whatever website you want to link to. Change "Home" to whatever text you want to display as the link.

Kafka's an Imperial Message

Kafka's parables are easy to read and enjoy, however sometimes very hard to give a meaning. This case is valid also for "An Imperial Message".One way to interpret this parable is to analyze it by thinking about social system in the society and looking at the story from the messenger's perspective. Other way to interpret the story from the perspective of the man waiting the message.

Messenger is described as striving hard to move through the crowds, to find his way out of the palace. However, even with the help of sun in his breast, which is an indicator that his mission is directly ordered by the emperor himself, he cannot achieve to get himself out of the palace. The content of his message he carries gains importance here. Emperor is dying, and he is sending a last message to a commoner. I'd like to think that this message contains his wishes about the ruling of the country after his death, and probably he is thinking of giving a commoner great power, a high status, or even naming him his heir. When messenger is set off on his journey, his progress is blocked all these other officials and probably nobles, royal structures and bureaucracy. In my opinion, this situation tells us how hard it is to change the 'system', even for an emperor. No one puts extra effort in preventing the messenger from delivering his message. They are just there, just like the stairs and doors. The emperor's order to grant a commoner a great power out of nowhere, is denied by the system itself. A quick shift in power in society cannot happen just with an order, even if the order is issued by the highest ranked member of the society.

When the parable is examined from the point of view of the man waiting for the message, the parable seems to tell the imaginative nature of man. We often dream about things that have slight chance of happening. We imagine how the life would be if they happened. We may even think we deserve all those things. The man waiting by the window is just like another ordinary person. He is probably aware of the fact that a messenger from the emperor will never arrive, his life won't gain any further significance and it won't be any better; but he is an escapist. When life gets boring and we do not enjoy it any longer, it is expected to dream of an another one, a better one.

As you can see, the parable can be interpreted in two completely different ways. One is about the so-called 'system', and the other one is about human nature. Although these two concepts are related to each other, there is not much common ground on how they're examined in this parable. Kafka's parables are short, and tell simple to follow stories. However, they can always be interpreted in many ways. This is due to fact that they are not completely realistic stories, and Kafka avoids stating their moral directly.

Third Essay

Hello everyone,

I believe that this is going to be our last blog entry. First of all I would like to say that I am thankful to everybody who has contributed to this blog and helped me by their comments.

My last essay is going to be one of the parables of Kafka: On Parables.

The reason I have chosen this one is highly likely because of its catchy name; anyhow in this short essay written by Franz Kafka, he begins his essay with the strict statement where Kafka says that "the wise are always merely parables and of no use in daily life". So far these words are not open the any interpretation since Kafka gives his opinion where he his speaking in a certain language not leaving any chance of interpretation (commentary) to the reader. In his parable, Kafka points out that when a "sage says: 'Go, over', he does not mean that we should cross" some actual place, instead the sage means some place "that he cannot designate" either. Thus, Kafka claims that the parables told by the wise man are containing ambiguity since they are not aware of the conclusion. Therefore these parables would help us "in the very least".

In the second part of the parable, the impression of the parables on the audience of this essay is somewhat changed. Franz Kafka has played a mind game on the readers. In this part the claim of the another man is perfectly valid based on the comments made on parables in the first paragraph. Words like "parables" in parables, in fact may be parables themselves. Somewhat like a recursive call using the operand "parables". The second man approves the idea of the first man and he has got the idea of what is a parable. However at the end of the story the first man says "No, in reality" therefore again gives the impression to the audience that the parables are not in use of daily life.

The another man's interpretation about the parables is that he is not really understanding what the second man is saying. Since the sages do not want us to follow the parables, (Go, over - not clear) the second man gets the idea. The second man's interpretation on the parables is that they are "words of wise" and that they have "no use in daily life".

"On Parables" is one of in depth works of Franz Kafka. His work covers many themes about truth and knowledge. It is an essay that forces the reader to think more than once in order to understand what Kafka is saying.

Documentary: The Corporation

I recommend watching this documentary, The Corporation. It brings one's attention to a lot many of things going on in the world's economies of today.

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa3wyaEe9vE

Full Documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y888wVY5hzw

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat

The Paris commune was a collection of radical leftists who ruled Paris after the fall of Napoleon from   8th March to 28th March 1871. Marx, as a part of the commune, called it a "dictatorship of the proletariat." The following article sums up the meaning of this phrase in the context of the revolutionary period in Europe's history.
Dictatorship of the Proletariat

Men of Economics

Here are some interesting links that compare the ideas of Adam Smith and Karl Marx:

Link1

Link2

The following links clarify the difference between the two great thinkers of the science Economics. However throughout my research I have learned that there was a third important economist known as John Maynard Keynesian. I thought you guys might want to check why he is an important person for the sake of economics:

Link3(including Keynes)

Political Theory - Karl Marx

This long video is very useful to learn the political theory of Karl Marx and to see historical development of Karl Marx ideas on society and politics.

Politics to Marx, like religion, is a manifestation of economics and the material world. All of history and the governance of humanity was a struggle between the “bourgeoisie” and the “proletariat.” In the beginning, people bartered and traded and lived in collective communities. Then, with farms came personal property. With currency came capitalism and the exploitation of workers for the profit of the property owners. Workers unjustly sold pieces of their lives for less than it was worth, creating surplus value which equates to profits for owners.

Distribution of Wealth

Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx have their own opinions about the human nature. Based on these opinions, they form their ideal society. One of the main aspects to be discussed creating an ideal society is the economy. There are terms, calculations, charts etc. that help us better model the economy. However, most of the time these fail to address the common people, but there is a single term that I think we can all understand: distribution of wealth. Nowadays, everywhere in the world there are discussions about whether the wealth is distributed fairly or not. I think it is a fair discussion, since the rich, a minority, holds most of the economic power. For example, in the US, 1% of the society is believed to hold the 40% of the entire nation's wealth.

Here is a video showing the wealth distribution in the US.

Wealth Inequality in America

Market Economy: Crash Course Government and Politics

This crash course, Market Economy: Crash Course Government and Politics , explains the role of government in the market place very well. It's only of around 9 mins and brings ones attention to a lot of stuff such as why government promotes competition? Why is it essential for government to intervene in the market? Why would it be a bad idea to have completely free economy? etc.

Laissez Faire

Hello everyone,

Just like the invisible hand, another important concept in capitalism economics is the laissez-faire. It is a concept proclaimed by Adam Smith. As we know laissez-faire is a product of the enlightenment idea. The concept defends the idea of unleashing the human potential throughout a system where the restrictions of the government are unhindered. Adam Smith had the similar thought where laissez-faire is a moral program and the market is the instrument for ensuring the natural laws.

Two Sides to Adam Smith

In this video, there is different ideas are mentioned by speaker and give brief ideas about the Adam Smith and also related to ideas economy and moral sentiments. I think it will useful for us.

Ideas Economy mens that innovation will explore the role of governments, corporations and individuals as drivers of innovation and will develop prescriptions that lead to lasting progress and prosperity. Conference attendees will engage in a lively examination of current political and economic policies around the world, develop a keen understanding of how the forces of globalization affect the ways companies innovate and manage innovation, and discuss what individuals can do, not only to energize their own creative and intellectual potential, but to develop jobs, improve company earnings, and contribute to economic growth around the world.

A Quote On Human Nature

Adam Smith has expressed many controversial quotes. One of these that I find quite interesting is this one: 

"Man is an animal that makes bargains: no other animal does this - no dog exchanges bones with another."

I think everyone would agree that people (most of them at least) tend to want more. When one need is satisfied, another one occurs, therefore we begin to look for a solution to that one. However, we usually forget that even animals have a drive for wanting more. For example, in a pack of wolves males fight each other to become the alpha male. So what is the difference between humans and animals while searching for more? We are open to make bargains and negotiate with others, whereas animals try to subdue each other only with their physical attributes. In a conflict, we can easily work out a solution that would partly benefit to everyone, therefore we can all rise for the moment, then plot against each other.

Adam Smith's Differing Views on the Division of Labour

Adam Smith's views on the division of labour are known to be contradictory. On the one hand, he extols the efficiency and innovation a division of labour can bring and on the other, he criticises it to be just an exercise of the body and not the mind. Stating, that it degenerates bodies of people. Well, I found this paper, specifically pages 127 - 135, on the matter and the interesting part is that it includes Marx's critique of these antagonistic theories:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2552544?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

The Perspective of Author on Characters

While I was reading the Macbeth book which was written by Shakespeare, the characters were more powerful when I was reading. In addition, while reading the scenes or speeches between the characters the place and people around is not same as the movie. I imagined the same scene differently according to the written book and movie.

Therefore, we can infer that when we are imagine something there is lots of factors that affected our imagine way. For instance, the speeches between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth has very important differences between the book and movie. So, reader can easily change his mind after watched the film. In the movie, characters are more emotional, critical position than book. However, characters on the book is more powerful and stronger in my opinion because of the words that chosen by Shakespeare.

Once a filmmaker decides upon settings and characters, we’re limited to seeing those characters and settings through their eyes. 
However, 500 different readers of the same book may have 500 different ideas of a character’s appearance. And if an actor doesn’t measure up to what you imagined when reading the book, there’s some disappointment.

Second Short Essay

In the play Macbeth, written by Shakespeare, when Macbeth approached his wife, Lady Macbeth, and told her that he had decided not to murder Duncan, his wife makes an infamous speech which leads to Macbeth changing his mind and proceeding on to murder Duncan. While reading this speech in the play, I had an image in my mind as if Lady Macbeth was giving the speech in a controlling and compulsive manner towards Macbeth. It seemed as if, she was angry and was openly expressing her anger in a strong manner. This image of this scene didn’t fit well in my mind, considering the era in which the play was written and the time which it was portraying because in that time, women didn’t have enough liberty to approach their partners in such a manner. Hence, something seemed out of place to me.

On the contrary, when I watched the film by Roman Polanski, it effectively clarified the image that I had inaccurately built up in my mind. The character of Lady Macbeth, in the film, had effectively portrayed that she was approaching Macbeth by expressing feelings of love, telling him how much hurt she had been, being soft spoken, and trying to invoke the feelings of pride, ego, and manhood of Macbeth. And this clarified the initial image that I had built up in my mind.

Since, by watching the film, my imagination of the original play, by Shakespeare, became much clearer than it was before watching the film, and scenes like this had settled that which earlier seemed out of place to me, I consider it an effective adaptation of the original play by Shakespeare.    

Macbeth v. Macduff Battle Scene

In the film Macbeth, directed by Roman Polanski, the scene of Macbeth fighting Macduff did justice to the entire context of the play. In that scene we see Macbeth, buoyed by the witches’ prophecy that he will not die at the hands anyone “born from a woman”, get ready to fight Macduff. His arrogance is short-lived though, as he is informed that Macduff was born via a caesarian section and therefore is not “born from a woman.” We see Macbeth’s expressions change suddenly and he delivers a soliloquy cursing the witches and their prophecy. Regardless, he vows not to back down and battles Macduff. Unsure and fearful at first but as the battle progresses, he comes into his own and gives Macduff a challenge before eventually being killed rather unceremoniously. 

The change of expressions on Macbeth’s face at hearing that Macduff is not born of woman is a very important element in the movie in the sense that we get an illustration of just how much Macbeth relied on the prophecy, to be sure of his success. But this was also juxtaposed with Macbeth’s mistrust of the prophecy itself. So, we are led inside Macbeth’s conflicted mind. Throughout the play, it is evident that, more than his lack of trust in the witches, he wants to believe them. This is exactly how he gets played into their hands, his wife’s and his own ambitions. Therefore, what this scene of heartbreak illustrates is Macbeth’s realisation of something, some part of him knew all along: the fickle nature of the prophecy. 

The impressive part of the battle scene is that Macbeth firm in the knowledge of his impending doom, chooses to fight anyway. This is the first time we see Macbeth go against the prophecy of the witches. Arguably, this is his bravest act in the entire play. We can clearly see Macbeth is afraid because in the scene we see him moving back from the charging Macduff. Yet he fights. This is an act of courage. In the actual fight scene, it seems as though the prophecy and the rest of the context of the play are suspended. This represents the tautologic nature of the play as we are introduced to Macbeth’s character in a battle scene and we see his demise in one as well. Furthermore, Macbeth holds true to his nature of being a decisive fighter as he is intrepid in the middle of battle. But when he is wounded and overpowered, he reaches for his fallen crown and puts it on his head. This looks like an act of a desperate man: in the realisation that he is going to die, he reaches for the one thing that held power once. Or it can be interpreted as Macbeth refusing to let go of the arrogance and power the title of King afforded him. Nevertheless, his death comes as the most unceremonious of beheadings on the stairwell he once climbed to murder a King. 

Macbeth vs Mcduff Fighting Scene

Roman Polanski's interpretation of Macbeth is a must to watch for all Shakespeare lovers. It achieves to capture the ambiance and characterization in the play quite successfully. One of the scenes I particularly enjoyed was the duel between Macbeth and Mcduff at the end of the movie. The reasons of my liking are the way it reflects the contrast between Macbeth and Mcduff, and (although this is not completely related to the play) the realistic choreography that it presents.

It is easy to spot that Macbeth and Mcduff have somewhat opposite personalities. Macbeth craves power, betrays his oaths and kin, and slaughters innocents. On the other hand Mcduff is a man of honor. He is courageous and loyal. Most importantly he even prioritizes his duty as a loyal subject to the royalty over his duty to his family. He is almost anti-Macbeth. That means in general their duel should also represent the contrast and conflict between good and evil. Therefore, more specifically based on the character traits we have, the final confrontation between the two can be interpreted as a delivery of punishment, with Macbeth symbolizing the criminal and the guilt, and Mcduff symbolizing the justice. I assume that Polanski also thought of this situation in the manner I do, and decided to portray the scene like a public trial. When Mcduff challenges Macbeth, everyone else backs off, and it is just between him and Macbeth. Mcduff plays the inquisitor role, and as he pushes Macbeth back, he questions Macbeth’s actions in the public's eye. He finally kills Macbeth, meaning that he found Macbeth guilty of the charges and executed the appropriate punishment. The crowd cheers, as they think justice has been served. This portrayal and idea represent their characters and the public's view about them perfectly.

The other aspect of the scene I most enjoyed was the realism in the choreography in the sword-fighting moments. Numerous movies exaggerate such scenes so much that it becomes painful to watch. Often you see characters jumping and flipping, showing flexibility that the armor they are wearing must prevent. These are all done to create an exciting and fast-paced scene, so that the audience does not get bored while watching it. However, real sword-fighting, where you fight for your life, does not involve such elements. Every blow should be impactful, filled with emotion and audience must get nervous for the outcome of the match instead of enjoying the fancy moves. Polanski achieved this by focusing on the character contrast rather than the flashy choreography. Also, it must be noted Macbeth has a semi-realistic setting, therefore I would aspect fighting to be done exactly it was done in medieval Scotland. This was accomplished too, as Mcduff delivers his final blow not to the armor itself, but through a hole in the armor, which is actually a huge detail since in many movies armors have no functionality rather than mesmerizing the audience.

Ernst Cassirer and Descartes

Descartes has come up with an instrumental view of knowledge. He has studied “mathematics because of the certainty and the evidence of its reasoning” (page 4), “held oratory in high regard and was enamored of poetry” (page 4) and also natural sciences. For the sake of explaining ones knowledge Descartes has referred to his studies. Cassirer has done his doctoral work on analysis of Descartes on mathematics and natural sciences. We know that Kant as well had referenced his thoughts on enlightenment from ideas of Descartes. Kant has benefitted from Descartes’s works on philosophy.

Cassirer has worked on the products of Descartes for explaining his ideas. Cassirer says, “Knowledge is not merely applied as an instrument and employed unreservedly as such, but time and again with growing insistence the question of the justification of this use of knowledge and the quality of the instrument arises”. Here Cassirer mentions that instruments for explaining knowledge are important in the quality. It is important on choosing the suitable instruments besides the amount. Quality is important rather than the quantity. Descartes also mentions a similar idea in his Discourse on Method that instruments that are chosen for explaining knowledge carries a great importance.

The search for knowledge throughout the instruments leads Descartes and his followers to face the situation of epistemological skepticism. In short, it means for someone needs to have true valid reasons for believing in something. The idea of belief because of feeling that way is against the idea of epistemological skepticism. In his book Descartes has defended the idea of skepticism while he was in the search of the idea of believing god. Descartes has came up with the thought where he is not perfect and neither any other living creature is perfect therefore there must exist something that is perfect. Descartes has proved the existence of god with the argument he has made. Throughout his book Descartes has proven all of his thoughts similar to how he has defended the existence of god.

What Science Says About Race and Genetics?

According to Descartes, all humans are the same, but lets see what science has to say about it.

What Science Says About Race and Genetics

Descartes & Religion

Through out the history, religion and the church made lots of impression to the people. Especially to the researchers and the researches that they didn't join. Humankind want to improve their life and change their mind in some of times in history. In lots of countries, scientists made lots of researches and gave the chance to the public and the way to think more like positivistic and in science base. However, the impression of the religious sites didn't give chance to them and makes people more fool. Descartes, made lots of researches in different topics and helped to the people to think more critically in their times. Descartes was the most important person for shown for this cases. For instance, the research about the polynomials makes a huge change in the math history and give chance to the researchers to think in both negative and positive side in mathematically conditions.

Descartes, made an important research about metaphysics which the catholic churches in France these years wanted to stop the research and didn't like these scientific prevents. Because, in these years churches had very important and bad impact on the people and never wanted to change the religious system.

Finally, Descartes was the very important person about the mathematic and metaphysics also for lots of other research topics. Descartes is a figure for the changing the mind of these ages.