wei999

[wei999]

We only say goodbye with words, I die a hundred times. You go back to her and I go back to black.

[wei999]

K

I still remember the distant afternoon when I saw his face for the first time. I saw his face and he blew my mind. I thought that was my so called love at the first sight, at last sight, at ever and ever sight. 

I thought I fell madly in love with him. 

....

All my memory fell unswept into oblivion.

[wei999]

Ideal of freedom: non-dominance

Philosophy, the art of wonder, begins with the desire to know, and the passion for philosophy leads people to questions that transcend the physical world. The study of philosophy is intriguing since it engages people actively to examine human life constructively, rendering the world meaningful in a positive way. Philosophy enables a world of unbounded possibilities, guiding humanity to a better end. One of the central questions that dominates the philosophical debates is what elements determine an ideal society where individuals and society can flourish. Many philosophers are intoxicated with the notion of a just society as condition for humanity to flourish. But what does a just society begin with? Freedom. Pettit explores the notion of freedom in the social and political life, and reconstruct the relations of ideas about freedom through an in-depth investigation into the ideal of freedom, giving his answer to how freedom can be achieved in both social and political spheres, promoting social and political justice to improve the life of people as a whole.The conception of freedom as non-dominance defines one of the most important arguments made in Just Freedom, a book that aspires to enlighten and unfetter humans philosophically from the predicament of dominance that exists in every sphere of life. Pettit’s conception of freedom as non-dominance departs from the traditional understanding of freedom as merely non-interference. The idea is that people have to escape from not only the operative control but also the reserve control. to be free.  The understanding of non-dominance as the guiding principle of freedom helps us make sense of our social relations with people and political relations to our government.  It can also help us reconcile with ourselves, increasing self-understanding. I assess the weakness of his argument. Firstly, dominance and non-dominance are a matter of degree. How to draw a line between dominance and non-dominance? Secondly, does dominance always constrain and non-dominance always liberate?Although I totally agree with Pettit’s idea that non-dominance provides condition for freedom, I highly doubt the practical feasibility of his argument to the pursuit of freedom. His ideal is simply a myth. Is it possible for individuals to live their life in the absence of dominance? I will argue to realize non-dominance is impossible. I will demonstrate that dominance is subconsciously omnipresent and structural, and it exists in every sphere of life. It is deeply embedded in every aspect of society without being perceived by people. It exists in culture, politics, society, the nature, the physical world and even in the mind of people, constraining people subconsciously. There is no escape from dominance, therefore freedom as non-dominance is impossible. Interdependence is what defines the world. Given the organizational structure of modern society based on interconnections between sectors, the dominance is only more complicated. I contend that dominance can only be reduced, and the ideal of freedom should be less dominance rather than non-dominance. Through my investigation, I will demonstrate the infeasibility of realization of non-dominance in every sphere of life. I will also elaborate on how dominance can be possibly reduced. Let it be noted that, if the feasibility of eliminating dominance is negated, the ideal of freedom based the absence of dominance will be a myth. If there is no way to escape from dominance to get to a condition defined by non-dominance, the hope to achieve the ideal of freedom as non-dominance is bleak. In this sense, freedom as non-dominance simply cannot be reached. If dominance exists everywhere in every sphere of human life, there is no place where freedom actually flourishes. In that scenario, Pettit simply sketches out an ideal freedom that is nearly impossible to be reached. The whole investigation of omnipresent dominance will be presented mainly in four spheres of human life: social, cultural, political and economical. The dominance is systematic. In addition, how dominance in these spheres can possibly be reduced will also be presented.Dominance through Technological RationalityPeople in democratic society believe that they have more political freedom than people living under authoritarian regimes for the fact that democracy is a mode of governance by the popular decision-making where citizens can freely express their political views through active political engagement. However, I will argue people in democracy are equally as manipulated as those living under authoritarian regimes. It is just a difference in the mechanisms of control for the fact that in authoritarian regimes dictators dominate while in democracy, dominance comes subconsciously in the disguises of technology development, entertainment, medias, education and market, shaping the political preference of citizens. And in democratic society, there is no way to escape from these subconscious dominances. First of all, technical rationality provides a good basis for the rationality of dominance. People in modern society are manipulated by technology which is designed to the advantage of ruling elites. The technical progress simply extends to a whole system of domination and coordination that already operates in concept and constructions of techniques, and the neutrality of technology cannot be maintained.  The elites legitimize and necessitate their dominant positions in society through the rationality that technology provide.  People takes their dominance for granted given their trust in technology advancement. The mentality of the public is manipulated by the rationality of technology. Automobiles, bombs and films is a totality that serves injustice.  For example, the inventions of radio, tv and film means more than technological advancement. They form a system that represents a culture through which dominance is projected. For illustration, the mass media can be understood as instrument of control through dispersing interest-vested information. Elites create and shape culture through these technological mediums, influencing the mentality of public. The most powerful sectors of industry, such as steel, petroleum, electricity and chemicals align with the culture monopoly, producing political and economic influence on public, perpetuating their advantaged positions. Technology helps ‘culture producers’ keep in with the true wielders of power, ensuring their sphere of mass society.  The interconnections and interdependence characterize the whole sphere of dominance, and the power sectors are intertwined. As a result, the unity of the culture industry witnesses the emergent unity of politics and dominance and the whole world is passed through the filter of that technology industry and culture industry.  Marcuse observed that contemporary society of technology rational is totalitarian, for the economic-technical coordination which operates through the manipulation of needs by invested interests. People cannot escape from this delicately designed dominance since it comes subconsciously and legitimized through technologies. Technological rationality is translated to political reality. In this sense, freedom as non-dominance is simply a myth since the dominance constitutes the whole mental life of public. It is impossible to get rid of technologies that serve as the mediums of dominance, leading to the impossibility to get rid of dominance that comes from technological rationality. Therefore, it is impossible to reach the ideal of freedom as non-dominance.   Dominance in Industrial SocietyThe dominance operates systematically through the mechanisms of industrial society, such as the market. The advanced industrial society preconditions and shapes the character of human needs, pushing people to submit to the facts of life instead of reason. The industrial society simply creates the needs which anchor its social control on individuals. The capitalist system that takes away individual freedom subconsciously consolidates the dominance of elites that infiltrates to every sphere of human life. The dominance of the industrial society and market not only determine the trajectory of politics, it also shapes people’s life, both private and public. The advanced industrial society confronts several problems that constrain individuals both socially and politically. Firstly, As Marcuse famously put it, the advanced industrial society is a political universe which shapes the entire universe of discourse and action, intellectual and material culture. The culture, politics and the economy merge into an omnipresent system which swallows up all alternatives, and the productivity and growth potential of the system stabilize the society and contain people within the delicate framework of domination.  Furthermore, one of the central components of industrial society is the market. And the conception of market is closely tied to the middleclass mentality, which convinces people that ‘desire of wealth’ is a natural motivation. Through the creation of rich and poor dichotomy, inequality emerges and extends to every sphere of life.  The rich can dominate the market and the poor, and the dominance of rich is made legitimized for the general opinion that market economy promotes that rich are hard-working while the poor are lazy. The middleclass society is incomplete with market. However, the market here we talk about is not simply goods exchange, but a practice based on institutional prerequisites.  In the guise of affluence and liberty, the market refines modern slavery. For example, when people are watching TV episodes, there are always advertisements interjected that attract the attention of the audience. It is a sign of the promotion of consumerism. Consumerism leads people to material desire. Think about how consumerism functions within the framework of industrial society. The capitalists encourage people to buy excessively in order to make profits through promoting consumerism. Consumers in order to purchase their desired products, contribute the labor to the capitalists in exchange for money. In this sense, the consumers are exploited twice by the capitalists who are like parasites hooked on both the labor and money of the consumers. The cycle perpetuates the unfair relations between capitalists and the mass, keeping the capitalists at an advantaged position of dominance while enslaving the mass through labor and material exploitation. The economic forces and relationships as structured by those advantaged dominate people, perpetuating the mass in a daily struggle for material existence. In an advanced industrial society where the market operates maturely based on the design of those elites, there is no way for the mass to escape from the dominance. The system itself perpetuates and legitimizes the dominance. People are constrained and contained in the dominance of the advanced industrial society. In this sense, to escape from the dominance of modern industrial society is highly unlikely. Therefore, the ideal of freedom as non-dominance is called into question in reality.Dominance through Values and IdeasIt is assumed that people have the freedom of thought and rationality, so people can freely shape their character and life course independently according to their free will integrated with their self-conception which is constituted by their thoughts. However, I will say although people do have free will, it is limited by the dominance of institutions and society. External influences coming from society dominates and shapes their will, defining the life course of individuals. Although people think they can make our life choices independently, such as which school is good to go and which career path is good to choose, I think life decisions that people make are dependent on the dominance of society. First of all, the public opinions and established social norms and values dominate the way people are expected to behave.   Rational individuals usually make their decisions based on what is judged to be good for them. The public opinions and social norms provide basis for goodness. People think they are autonomous in terms of making decisions based on who they want to be. However, functional societal pressure and social norms that define how people view them shape their choices. The public opinions and established norms dominate individuality in this sense, reducing their freedom of life. Secondly, the conception of good is dependent on the dominance of elites. As Nietzsche famously puts it, it is always the rulers who determine the conception of good.  For example, in the Song and Qing Dynasty of China, foot binding was considered as good for the fact that elites really appreciated it. Initially, only girls in affluently and elite families practiced feet-binding. Then for the popularity of foot-binding among elites, the mass started to do it since they thought it was good for them for the fact that elites thought it was good to do so too. As a result, the tradition extends to republic era until it ended under the communist rule. The communist party ruler simply for the sake of social reforms, resists superstition and backwardness. They consider it to be backwards and not good. Then the tradition ended for the fact that the communist elites think it was not good. Furthermore, the ruling ideas of society also dominate the way people live. But where do ruling ideas of society come from? Marx thinks that the ruling class defines the ruling ideas in society, influencing individuals to behave in a way to their advantages. It is the ideas of dominance. Marx holds it that the ruling ideas not only shape ruling material force of society, it also represents the intellectual force which renders ideas in the form of universality.  The ruling ideas, as the mental products of the class with means of material production, also represent as the only rational and universally valid one. And those ruling ideas are usually interest-vested to those advantages of elites. For example, in Chinese universities and high schools, students who are majoring in humanities, such as literature and philosophy, are socially and academically discriminated. Usually, high school fresh men are faced with two academic tracks as they further their studies: Science track and humanity track. Generally, those students who go for humanity track are socially perceived as academically incapable students while the ones who continue with the science track will be praised as smart. There is even a popular belief in China that if you are good at math, you can do whatever you want. The importance of math is represented in every school curriculum. Is math really more socially valued than philosophy? The root of the unequal treatment stems from the ruling ideas of China. The communist government engineered the systematic discrimination against the studies of humanities for their priority in technological modernization. Then math as the ideal subject to study at the school became the ruling idea in China under the intellectual force in modern China. It renders math as the only rational and universally valid subject to give priority to study. The ruling idea fulfilled the political needs of the ruling class to strengthen their rule. Most of Chinese college students ended up in science major, and they think they choose it naturally. Actually it is in fact the ruling idea dominates their choice to major in math. Education is also a medium that strengthened the ruling ideas of society. The ruling class through their control of education system, integrating their ideas in school curriculum, dominates the way people think and act. In addition, the dominance on individuals is also found inevitable in the serious world. Serious world is the world where human inventions, words, customs and values are given facts that pose values as ready-made things.  The serious world presented itself for people to respect and obey, defining the model that dominates the way individuals live their life. Given the fact that the life of people is already sketched out in the serious world, they are only able to exercise their limited freedom within the universe set up before them, being cast into the world and losing their individuality. For example, a lot of students take philosophy as a major not for their desire to know, but for preparation of the law school and the medical school. Why do they care to be even a doctor or lawyer? Because in the serious world, lawyers and doctors are seen as very advantaged positions in society. To be a lawyer and a doctor are given-facts for people who want to secure their elite positions in society. Therefore, the dominance of the seriously subconsciously influences how individuals make their life decisions.Conclusion and ProspectPeople are never independent from dominance and it is impossible to escape from dominance that exists in every sphere of human life. The dominance is structurally embedded in the way society functions. The mass is manipulated at the advantage of the elites, and the elites design a whole set of societal mechanisms that perpetuate the dominance that constrains and contains people. I argue Pettit’s ideal of freedom as non-dominance, it is simply a myth that cannot possibly be achieved. The whole structure of dominance is so delicately designed, and the components of the structure are so interconnected that it exists in every sphere of human life. There is no way to escape. His ideal of freedom as non-dominance sounds intriguing but never feasible. Let us restructure the relations of thoughts about the notion of the individual freedom based on Marcuse’s conception. The economic freedom means independence from the economic forces and relationships as well as daily struggle for existence, the political freedom refers to liberation of the individuals from politics over which they have no effective control and intellectual freedom stands for the restoration of individual thought that is absorbed by mass communication and indoctrination.  Based on my arguments and command of evidence, it is impossible to invalidate those structural dominance overnight. What we can do is to think and contemplate about what we can do to reduce the structural dominance to increase freedom to some extent. We should also bear in mind that to merely study philosophy is not enough. We should integrate our knowledge with the reality to a meaningful whole that inspires humanity and brings positive impacts on human life, and in this sense the study of social-political philosophy can serve humanity through the promotion of ideals, not only of freedom, but also justice and equality.

[wei999]

Identity

People classify themselves based on identities. The conception of identity is both social and political, and it can be socially constructed and politically manipulated. Identity is both inclusive and exclusive and can be seen either as a connector or a divider. People with the same identity are united around their conceptually shared understanding of who they are, and the commonality and within-group solidarity can connect them to the same end. Identity can also be seen as a singular classification that alienates and excludes the people who are in other affiliations, creating the otherness. In identity and violence, Sen argues that identity can be a source of richness and warmth as well as of violence and terror. As Sen points out, the conception of pluralistic identities unites us around our shared humanity while a singular conception of identity can be the cause of violence. When identities are pluralistic, we can see ourselves as members as various groups, and we belong and connect to all of them. For example, based on the different personal experiences and social roles, a person can be recognized in different groups based on his political view, gender, profession, cultural background and citizenship. The sense of pluralistic identities is contributive to social cohesion that promotes connections between people and communities, creating more peace. Sen also explains the dangers of a singular self-recognition, which are violence and terrorism. For example, Sen raises the problem of Islamic fundamentalism. Sen mentions that Al Qaeda is taking advantage of the militant Islamic identity to recruit terrorists targeting at the Westerners. Therefore, a singular identity can be seen as the cause of violence since it can breed the hatred against the other. Sen further argues that the identity is based on choices rather than self-realization, which is to say identities can be intentionally chosen, although within the constraints of the given circumstances. We constantly make choices about the priorities to be attached to our different affiliations and associations. Therefore, we determine our identity and everything that is attached to the identity. A singular identity can be avoided, and violence also can be. We have the freedom to choose and go for as many identities as we can, making the community more inclusive, promoting peace and cohesion. Sen later extends his philosophical inquiry well beyond the conception of identity to the division between the East and the West in relation to democracy. Although the nature of democracy is often perceived as western given its historical linkage to the Ancient Greece, Sen holds it that for three reasons it is confusing to define democracy as western. Firstly, there is the classificatory arbitrariness of defining civilizations in largely racial terms. Secondly, there is no evidence that shows the direct relevance between Greek experience in electoral governance and democracy in other countries. Furthermore, because democracy is more about government by discussion based on public deliberation and reasoning, it is problematic to define the mode of governance as western since this kind of governance actually is found recorded outside the west as well. I think it is true that the freedom of individuals to commit themselves to pluralistic identities encourages cohesion and peace. First of all, let it be noted that the plurality of identities encourages social integration that connects people across various backgrounds together. Identity provides a common ground that connects people in terms of interactions and conversations, fostering mutual understanding and value-based conversations. Not only does having more identities mean having more common grounds with people, it also means more opportunities to reach out and communicate with people. Having more identities means that there are more ties that connect you and other people in the world together. Therefore, with more people you can easily start conversations with, the mutual understanding between people and communities will increase. More interactions and communications mean more cohesion and community integration. I identify myself as a Rock and Roll fan, and talking to Rock and Roll fans from other cultures increase my understanding of other cultures. It is the commonality, Rock and Roll, that connects me and those people together. Therefore, I think having the pluralistic identities increases social integration and community-based understanding. I also endorse that identities are formed and chosen instead of being discovered. For example, with Rock and Roll fan being my identity, I did not discover that I love Rock and Roll. I intentionally listened to Rock and Roll in order to be a Rock and Roll fan because I think it is cool. Therefore, the freedom to choose multiple identities is proven as a ideal path to make more connections with people out there in the world, increasing social cohesion and mutual understanding.I also agree to Sen that in certain circumstances the emphasis on a singular identity is identified as a factor that divides people and might lead to violence. For example, most of the conflicts in the world that breeds sufferings and hatred revolve around identities. People conflict over disagreement. People disagree with each other based on their different religious identities, political identities, racial identities and social identities. Therefore, people disagree over different identities. For example, although India is a secular country where people enjoy religious freedom and different religions are equally treated based on its constitution, as Modi elected as the prime minister of India, anti-Muslim sentiments started to sweep across India as the result of the rise of Hindu Nationalism. Religion-based conflicts happened more than before Modi was elected. Violence against the Muslim population in India also increased as the Hindu nationalism sentiments started to rise. The situation in Kashmir also deteriorated as the clash between Muslim and Hindu intensified. Therefore, it can be concluded that the emphasis on a singular identity will divide society and alienate people, encouraging violence. Furthermore, I think Sen is justifiable in saying that democracy is not necessarily western by nature. I think democracy is cultural and practical rather than political. From my perspective, what matters the most in the essence of democracy is the collective decision-making procedure which engages the citizens meaningfully into the political process. For example, the constitution of North Korea defines itself as a democratic republic where suffrage is guaranteed to all citizens aged over 17. However, in practices, it is an authoritarian regime by its core since it limits the freedom and violates the political rights without restraints of its citizens. Democracy should be practiced rather than allegedly claimed. We can define any place where democracy is practiced as democratic since it is a culture. And this culture is not only limited to the west. There are even some tributes in Africa that share the democratic features in their political practices. The democratic mode of governance in the African tribes are never taught by the westerners. The democratic political culture was formed in the process and shaped in the practices. The tribal people make decisions based on popular discussions, and democracy is shaped in the process. And this kind of governance based on discussion can happen anywhere, it is not only limited to the West. It can even happen in a small village in Tibet. Therefore I think it is true that democracy is not necessary an entire western construction.  

[wei999]

Dewey

Dewey addresses the importance of education particularly in its social function and political function. First of all, Dewey defines education as the means of social continuity of life. Education is understood as a way to communicate beliefs and knowledge to create consensus and common end that can regulate social activities among the members in society. Education is also a kind of social arrangement that creates meaningful shared experiences. Education, as a shaping, forming and molding activity, also renders society a meaningful environment that encourages educational growth in younger generations, promoting the continuous self-renewal of society. Furthermore, Dewey also amplifies the political significance of education, especially in a democratic context. Dewey first identifies two important features in democratically constituted society as the recognition of mutual interests and the continuous readjustments in social habits. He points out that in order to realize a form of social life with mutually interpenetrated interests and readjustments, education is needed. Because Dewey deems democracy as constituted in voluntary disposition and a mode of associated living of conjoint communicated experience where the popular decision-making process is emphasized, he thinks education as the best way to help citizens meaningfully and informedly engage in the popular decision-making process. Later, he also discusses the institutional dimension of education by referring to the school system. He make inquiries into what education at school should really prepare people for, elaborating on education for leisure and education for labor. He points out there are two types of education: liberal education that aims to train individuals for intellectual investigations and apprentice education that enhances labor productivity.  I would argue Dewey is justifiable in his view that education encourages societal progress that enhances democracy. First of all, the successful operation of democracy is based on the informed engagement of citizens, and education is the only way to produce informed citizens that can contribute meaningfully. The essence of democracy is the collective decision-making process, and I think only educated citizens can participate in the process meaningfully. Here I will illustrate the idea by citing two democratic countries for comparison. Although India and the United States are equally democratic in terms of their political process, the United States has absolute advantages over India in terms of democracy efficiency. Thirty-three percent of the citizens in India have gone through high school education while in the United States ninety-ninth percent of citizens have received high school diplomas. I would argue the lack of educated citizens that can engage in the decision-making process meaningfully in an informed manner is the cause of the poor democratic performance in India. Furthermore, education raises political awareness that informs citizens of their political responsibility to engage in politics. Not only does education foster the knowledge base necessary for meaningful democratic engagement, it also raises awareness of the importance of political engagement in a democratic context. For illustration, based on NSLVE report, 51.8 percent of college seniors vote while only 42.8 percent freshmen vote. According to what the participation rate has shown, college seniors are more politically aware than freshmen that they engagement more in democracy in terms of voting. Theoretically, college seniors receive three more years of higher education than college freshmen. Therefore, education can foster political awareness and inform citizens of their responsibility to vote. In conclusion, I would argue Dewey is right. Education informs individuals and integrates them into a meaningful whole that shapes the future of democracy by encouraging them to engage more in politics in an informed manner.

[wei999]

Mill

In On Liberty, Mill first talks about the development of the concept of liberty and addresses the historical relevance of the contested relationship between the individual liberty and the state. Mill defines political liberty in ancient Greece as the “protection against the tyranny of political rulers”. In order to limit the power of the governors and to protect individual liberty, two methods are suggested. First of all, fellow citizens should gain immunities called “ political liberties or rights” which the rulers should respect. Furthermore, constitutional checks should be developed to confine the power of the state. However, later Mill points out that as the result of social and political progress, there is a tendency for democratic republics to dominate a large portion of the earth’s surface.  A democratic republic is often understood as a “self-government” where people exert their own political power over themselves to determine their own fate. The importance of the popular accountability in the political decision-making process is also addressed in a democratic republic. However, Mill expresses his concerns on the democratic expansion and raises some social and political problems that might arise as democracy expands. Foremost, Mill elaborates on the notion of “the tyranny of the majority” in democratic context. It has both political and social implications. In political sphere, “the tranny of the majority” operates through the acts of public authority in democratic regimes. Political decisions in electoral democracy generally favor the opinions of the majority rather than the few. Therefore, the majority dominates the few. “The tyranny of majority” also has broader social connotations, which are the tyranny of prevailing opinion and feeling and the tyranny of social conducts. Mill points out that society itself is a tyrant and even more formidable than other kinds of political oppression given its deep penetration into every aspect of life. The collective opinion and social norms act as a form of social control that interferences individual independence. I would argue that Mill is unreasonable in his conception of advancing democracy as a threat to freedom. First of all, if democracy is the tyranny of majority, then authoritarianism as the alternative of democracy, is the tyrant of the one against all. based on democracy peace theory, the expansion of democracy brings peace to the world given the fact that democracy does not fight each other. And peace is the prerequisite for individual freedom since political and social needs that arise in political instability constrain the freedom of individuals. Therefore, the expansion of democracy paves the way for peace, building the foundation and shaping the conditions for individuals to exert their freedom. For example, given the need to fight the war in Afghanistan, more soldiers are recruited to the military base and they relatively lose their freedom of movement. But if without the need to fight the war, there will be less need for military recruitment. People will have more freedom to choose what they want to do. Therefore, the advancement of democracy encourages peace, providing people with a peaceful social and political condition to enjoy their freedom. Furthermore, the advancement of democracy also means the retreat of authoritarian regimes. Generally, authoritarian regimes have a tendency to control the thought and perception of individuals in order to sustain their unjustified rule. For example, in China the central authoritarian government deems people who have different political views as a threat to their rule and put them in concentration camp whereas in the U.S. everyone can enjoy the freedom of thought and speech given the legitimacy of democratic regime. Although there is still the problem of the tyranny of majority in politics in democratic countries, compared to their authoritarian counterparts, people at least can engage in the political process regardless of the outcomes. In authoritarian regimes, one dictator rules everything, and people are excluded from the decision-making process. Therefore, as democracy advances and authoritarianism retreats, people can actually enjoy more freedom than they did given the notion of freedom as the essential feature of democracy. Based on the two reasons above, I think Mill’s view that the advancement of democracy poses a threat on freedom is unreasonable.

[wei999]

Ties of Ambivalence: US-Iranian Relations and the War on Terror

The analysis explores the changing bilateral relations between Iran and the U.S. in the context of the war on terror. The bilateral relations in this period were ambivalent, given that cooperation and treacheries coexisted. This analysis addresses how the complexity of the past and regional strategic interests connected U.S. and Iran, together in terms of secret cooperation in the earliest stage of war on terror, it also offers an insight to how the relations between the two changed responding to their strategic interests in the face of a fragile and instable post-Saddam Iraq. Both historical dynamics and political dynamics are examined for a view of the bilateral relations. Three questions are explored: How did the U.S. interests and Iranian interests shape their bilateral relations on war on terrors? And how did the bilateral relations evolve and unfold based on their respective interests? And how the collapse of Saddam regime has changed their relations? These myths are resolved with reference to the historical background of both the Iraq war and the Iran-Iraq war. This analysis is done by descriptive studies with the relevant history as the fundamental frame of reference. The analysis of US-Iranian relations during war on terror will unfold around: Afghanistan, the Iraq war, Post-Saddam era. The goal of the research is to provide U.S. foreign policymakers a basic insight that can inform them in developing more coherent policies toward Iran. The analytical framework is buttressed by its historical background. The central argument of the paper is that the US-Iranian relations relevant to the context of the war on terror can be mainly categorized into two phases: the phase of secret cooperation in the early stage of the war on terror, in the context of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the treachery that ensued their transient cooperation as a grand bargain was offered by Tehran to Washington. The secret ties of amity evinced through the cooperation between U.S. and Iran that derived from their common grounds in early stage of the war on terror were very fragile. Despite the secret cooperation between the two in the early stage of the Iraq war, Bush also defined Iran as a part of Axis of Evil given Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and its supports for terrorist groups. The ambivalent relations in this special period will be encapsulated in two analytical narratives in which their changing bilateral relations and their strategic calculations that defined the relations will be illustrated and examined: their cooperation in Iraq, Afghanistan and the turning point. The Complexity of Hatred: the U.S. , Iran and SaddamThe capricious U.S.-Iranian relations that unfolded with both cooperation and defection started from September 11th of 2001, a day that marks the significant change in the trajectory of the fate of the great nation. The World Trade Towers were relentlessly destroyed among the horror of a series of organized terrorist attacks administered by Al Qaeda with  their leader Osama Bin Laden. The American consensus of Iraq as their enemy also took shape in this aftermath of terrorist attacks based on the insistence of Bush that Saddam had been exporting terrorism in conjunction with Al Qaeda, resulting in the war on terror that defined the primary goal of the U.S..  On January 29, 2002, Bush coined the term of ‘Axis of Evil’ : Iraq, Iran and North Korea, the sponsors of terrorism and seekers of weapons of mass destruction. The axis of evil threatens the peace of the world. War against terror, crucial to the international security of the U.S.  was launched in 2003. But Iraq also has a long-standing history of rivalry with Iran. On September 22, 1980, a catastrophic decision was made by the opportunistic leader of Iraq, Saddam to invade Iran as the result of persistent border clashes and Iran’s propaganda campaigns.  The Iran-Iraqi war broke out in the great ambition of Saddam who wanted to take advantages of a weak and instable Iran, as torn by revolution, sanctions along with international isolation, to achieve his hegemony over the Persian Gulf. Saddam attacked Iran also for that he wanted to gain control of the oil fields as well as the Shatt al Arab waterway.   The seeds of Iranian hatred towards Iraq were therefore deeply planted in this war.  However, aside from the fact that Iranians find Iraq to be blamed in this unjust war, the U.S. was also integrated in the Iranian grievances. During the Iran-Iraqi war, the U.S. , given its long-standing rivalry with Iran especially in the aftermath of hostage crisis and its desires to weaken its rival in Persian Gulf, inevitably decided to side with Iraq to fight against Iran. Under the Washington’s calculation that it could not allow Iraq to fall under the radical clerical regime, the U.S. gravely undermined Iranians. The American supports to Baghdad came in form of intelligence data, economic aids worth of several billion dollars, non-U.S. origin weaponry, as well as special operation training. Not only did this war confirm Iraq officially as the rival of Iran, it also amplified the Iranian dissensions towards the U.S.. Analysis The Cooperation between the Enemies Afghanistan The relations in the earliest stage of the war on terror were cooperative given their overlapping interests to overthrow Taliban in Afghanistan. Opportunities for unprecedented cooperation between U.S. and Iran emerged out of the war on terror. After the 9.11, Iranians unexpectedly expressed their regrets towards 9.11. Not only did the Majlis set up a commission to review foreign policy and to manage direct talks with the U.S., Tehran also signaled its secret desire to help.   Iran was seen as a prime candidate for cooperation given their overlapping interests on the war on terror. Powell commented that ‘ I hope that the Iranian people’s recently expressed desire for a freer, more open, and more prosperous society will give our two countries an opportunity to identify areas where our mutual interests converge and where we can work together constructively for our mutual benefits.’   In the first place, Iran was invited through a message from U.S. via the Swiss to join the ‘War on Terror’ given its significance as a vital regional actor in terms of facilitating the information exchanges and the sharing of tactical information between Washington and Tehran in this special context.   Not only in this sense could Washington engage Iran strategically, it could also divert Tehran from its nuclear development.  Secondly, after 9.11, Iran devoted deeper commitments in the Afghanistan talks at UN, where the Iranians met with the Americans and agreed on the offerings of search-and-rescue help and information exchanges. In the third place, right after the 9.11, not only did Iran back the Northern Alliance, it also helped the U.S. in Afghanistan to install Hamid Karzai.   On the American side, cooperation basically came with the emergence of a more nuanced U.S. approach to Iran. The U.S. kindness manifested itself in form of relaxation of sanctions on Iran and the adoption of phased engagement. The U.S. foreign policy towards Iran was reassessed as Powell believed 9-11 provided a good opportunity to ‘reset the clock’.  In the first place, Richard Hass attempted to curb the renewal of the ILSA, claiming that the sanctions were ineffective and unnecessary, trying to forward a two-year extension to the Congress. Further, he also tried to integrate Iran back to world economy by suggesting to turn down the U.S. opposition to World Trade Organization. IraqThe war on terror not only aims to defend American interests in the Middle East, it also aspires through the liberation of Iraq from Hussein’s terror to demonstrate to the world that the U.S.  is capable to dominate Iraq both militarily and politically, warning against other rogue states that might hurt U.S. interests. Saddam Hussein was deemed as a fascist and targeted as a dangerous tyrant who possessed weapons of mass destruction that needed to be gotten rid of from the world stage. Bush claimed that Americans with the Iraq war,  for the triumph of democracy and tolerance, were helping the Iraqi people build a decent and democratic society where a place of torture chambers and mass graves would be transformed into a nation of laws and free institution, facilitating at the same time the Middle East to be a region of freedom and peace, curbing international terrorism.  Came with the war on terrors was also the best opportunity for Iranians to take on revenges against Saddam for his misdeeds in Iran-Iraq war. This time, the interests of the U.S.  and Iran, overlapped and intersected once again. Firstly, the Washington’s calculation was that, it could through the war seek to occupy Iraq to profit itself from controlling Iraqi oil and attempting to install a pro-American government to maximize its strategic influence in the middle east. Secondly, Bush believed that the regime change in Iraq would fundamentally affect the regime in Iran in a way that inspires Iranians to rise up changing their government, further stabilizing the region. Bush believed that it would ‘ result in a change of way of doing things, not only in Iraq but also in Iran’.  Iran’s projection of itself as the future regional hegemon as the power balance changes after the collapse of the Saddam regime along with the desire for revenge encourages Tehran to side with Washington this time. Based on the fact that the U.S. was also in conflict with Afghanistan, and Iran was also a fierce opponent of Taliban, given the common enemy, Iran further strengthened its position with Washington. The mutually constituent interests of Washington and Tehran inevitably brought this pair of old enemies at the same table to fight against their common enemy to maximize their political and strategic interests in the Persian Gulf, although at the secret front.  Not only were the interests that brought the two enemies together, the Iranian assistance in Afghanistan that was proved both valuable and timely was also a crucial factor that determined the plead for cooperation.  Washington was confident in securing the Iranian help given the fact that the Americans believed Geneva talks had fully convinced Iranians that the invasion was not a threat and it was instead very advantageous. Washington also offered Tehran another incentive in terms of eliminating its long-term foe the MEK.  Since gaining the cooperation of critical regional actors is seen as a good strategy to defeat Iraq, a message with critical information about Al Qaeda and the Taliban was sent via Swiss by Washington in order to invite Tehran to join the campaign of war on terror, laying the foundation for the sustained cooperation  Although Tehran did not have diplomatic relations with Washington, based on the calculation of Tehran that the political vacuum in Iraq would provide a great platform for it to spread its political influence in Iraq to achieve its great ambition, Iran had secretly agreed to help the American forces in Iraq in terms of sharing tactical intelligence as well as aids to American citizens in Iran. It also does Washington a favor to oust the most US wanted a Lebanese to leave the country.  In reciprocity, Bush administration assured that the U.S. would respect the territorial integrity if Iran. Barry Rosen commented: “ I believe the US government is doing this only because of the events of September 11.”  A Turning PointThe relations between U.S. and Iran in the phase can be defined as treacherous as well.  Bush coined the term ‘Axis of evil’ that comprises of Iraq, Iran and North Korean in his State of Union address . Bush defined Iran as a strategic threat the Americans face that is promoting an extreme form of religion and a destabilizing force that creates instability that leads to adverse consequences for the west, especially given its sponsorship for terrorists coupled with its pursuit of the nuclear weapons.   First of all, since the beginning of the 2003 war in Iraq, Iran was often identified by the U.S. as the supporter of insurgency movements in Iraq. Dating back to 2004, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld complained about Iran’s provision of financial supports and weapons to the insurgents in Iraq. Secondly, Iran was also recognized by the U.S. as the sponsor of terrorism. In 2002, Israelis intercepted a ship loaded in the Iranian port of Kish that carried 50 tons of arms bound for the Gaza Strip and Palestinian Authority, raising international concerns about Iranian trafficking in arms to terrorists.  This accident substantiated that Iran supported the rogue groups, reinforcing its image as a support of other Islamist revolutionary movements.  Given Iran as a part of Axis of evil, at the Tokyo donor conference, although the U.S. officials were approached by the Iranians and told that Tehran wanted to continue the cooperation and was willing to improve its relations with the U.S. the Pentagon’s media began to highlight the Iranian transgressions and its growing assistance of Al Qaeda.   A sharper turning point came with the fall of Saddam when Iran found itself encircled by America. Bush announced ‘Mission Accomplished’, and Tehran found it imperative to reach out to the U.S. since it just felt that its regime was on stake. After the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Khatami government tried to explore the conditions for peace dialogues through bargaining with Americans.  Iranians set forth a framework agenda for comprehensive talks that was later known as ‘ a Grand Bargain’, in which Iranians brought everything to the forefront, such as its sponsorship of terrorism, its involvement in Iraq, its nuclear development and the middle east peace process, seeking for mutual respect with U.S.  This indicated Tehran’s willingness to end its hostility with U.S. and further moderation of its own behaviors. It was very authoritative and authentic.  However, Bush administration simply held it that the military pressure in Iraq and Afghanistan could simply force Tehran to reflect upon its behaviors and its relationship with U.S. In this sense, Tehran was seen as containable and vulnerable to external forces.  This document was simply dismissed. Americans thought they could simply get what they wanted by removing Saddam and through military pressure. The war in Iraq could be also contagious to Iran. Not only was this document sadly rejected, the Swiss, who delivered the proposal to the American was also punished. A few days after its delivery, Washington rebuked Guldimann and the Swiss government for overstepping its diplomatic mandate.  Another reconciliatory opportunity just slipped away. In the face of diplomatic failure between Tehran and Washington, Parsi commented that ‘strengthened the hands of those in Iran who believe the only way to compel the U.S. to talk or deal with Iran is not by sending peace offers but by being a nuisance’  . Responding to the Washington’s rejection for reconciliation, Tehran decided to strengthen its strategic power in Post-Saddam Iraq. Not only has it decided to fill the vacuum in Iraq, the Al Qaeda in Iran also administered terrorist attacks in Riyadh, killing eight Americans and 26 Saudis.  The prospects for the improvements of U.S.-Iranian relations were eliminated. The Rise of Shia in a Post-Saddam Middle EastAlthough the Saddam regime was terminated within three weeks   since the start of the military operations, the insurgency in Iraq was still found to be developing. Three years after the initial invasion, the insurgency in Iraq, under the pressure of former Baathists, nationalists and imported Jihad fighters, simply cannot be terminated in spite of the presence of 140,000 US troops. The insurgency was mainly kept going by Sunni Iraqis and foreign fighters, including those from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the middle east. Although the Shias are the majority of Iran and Iraq, they only make up less than 15 percent of Muslims in the world. The militant Sunni community that took dominance in Iraq under Saddam or even before, is both anti-Shia and anti-American, aiming to prevent Iraq from transiting to a US-dominated regime at the same time to restore its power.   Saudi reformist Mansour remarked that ‘the most dangerous phenomenon is not the war between Sunni insurgents and American forces in Iraq, but the Sunni-Shiite sectarian strife.’  The instability and chaos in Iraq provided a great opportunity for Iran to project its Shia power to Iraq, not only as a way to retaliate U.S., but also for its own interests. Although Tehran repeatedly denied any meddling in Iraq’s internal affairs, it is still believed that it has strong relations with the new Iraqi Shia leadership in power, including the majority of ministers, the prime minister and the parliament members. On the first official visit of al-Maliki to Tehran, Tehran offered to help the prime minister establish security and stability in Iraq. Thus was reasonable for the Iranians to take advantage of the political instability in Iraq to project their Shia power to establish their security. Ahmadinejad confirmed that ‘We will give our full assistance to the Iraqi government to establish security in Iraq. Strengthening security in Iraq means strengthening security and stability in the region.’   And the Iraqi side responded positively to Teheran ‘The trip is to confirm the establishment of friendly and balanced relations based on common interest and respect of the sovereignty of the two countries without any interference in internal affairs.’   As the Prime Minster Blair accused, Tehran meddled further in Iraq by helping the Shia militias by its sophisticated bombings.   The Iranians also stabbed in the back of the American troops through roadside bombs that smashed American troops into pieces. Border aggressions were also reported by the Iraqi Defense Ministry in May 2006. As the chaos in Iraq going and the U.S. troops mired in Iraq, it can be concluded that the void is left by the Americans and Iraqis for the Iranians to fill. The regional order in the Middle East was transformed forever but not the way as Washington had anticipated. The political vacuums in Iraq left by the U.S. were translated into the political power of Iranian Shias. By topping Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration successfully empowered the Shia majority of Iran by providing them with the perfect opportunity to launch a broad Shia revival. The relations between Iran and the U.S. were thus redefined by the legacy of the Iraq War. Since 2003, Iran has officially played a constructive role in Iraq, also being the first country to send an official delegation to Baghdad for talks with the Iraqi governing council, in effect recognizing the authority that the U.S. had put in power.  Washington was dissatisfied not only with the Iran’s growth of regional power  but also with the fact that Iran was believed to be a supporter of insurgents, criminal gangs, and militias in Iraq; However, it should be Washington’s failure not to anticipate Iran’s influence in Iraq Initially, Washington expected the Iraqi nationalism to serve as a bulwark against Iran. However, the ‘bulwark’ was proved porous to Shia identity in many ways. The demise of Saddam and the collapse of the Sunni wall rescued Iranian Shias from their hostile Sunni neighbor: Iraq. They turned Iraq to a political battle ground where they fought to spread their Shia influence. ‘Today, Iraqi Shiites worry far more about the Sunnis' domination than about Tehran's influence in Baghdad .’ And the Sunni countries used Shia revival as an excuse to resist the domestic political reforms that the U.S. had called for. If bringing democracy to the Middle East means the empowerment of Shias and a more powerful Iran, Washington would have stuck to Sunni dictatorship.  Washington changed the power balance in the middle east in a way that hurts its own interests. The achievements of Iran through its Shia revival also complicated US-Iranian relations in my aspects. Although it can be said the Iraq war benefitted the Iranian Shias in terms of the U.S-led regime changes in Kabul and Baghdad, Washington could also hinder Tehran’s greater ambition of consolidating their influence in Iraq. The presence of U.S. troops in the region unfortunately threatens Iran as well. Their short-term interests were in disagreement as well considering the fact that as Washington wants out of the mess, Tehran is happy to see U.S. forces mired there. A policy of controlled chaos in Iraq as a way to keep the U.S. government bogged down and dampen its enthusiasm for seeking regime changes was also developed by Tehran.   Initially, Tehran cooperated secretly with Washington in order to take advantages of Washington in the face of a weak, instable and fragile Iraq. Tehran’s calculus changed drastically after the collapse of the Saddam regime. Tehran’s short-term interests no longer aligned with Washington. Iran’s presence in Tehran is also a lot stronger with the presence of Shias. The aftermath of the Iraq war left Washington’s calls for regime changes discredited. Iran has also grown confident enough that it is a stronger power than it was before the Iraq war.  The escalated tensions between Tehran and Washington indicate the fact that Tehran believe that the Iraq war had empowered it politically to an extent that it can confront U.S. directly with nuclear threats.But there is still a prospect for the convergence of U.S. and Iranian long-term interests since both of them want lasting stability there. As for Washington, it will need a reason to withdraw. And Tehran holds that only the stability in the backyard will secure its position back home and its influence throughout the region. As Abbas pointed out, ‘Chaos in Iraq does not help Iranian national interest. If your neighbor’s house is on fire, it means your home is also in danger.’  In a word, as Leverett and Mann commented, ‘Tehran is well positioned to defend its interests in Iraq unilaterally as America flounders. Similarly, Iran will not accept strategically meaningful limits on its nuclear capabilities for a package of economic and technological goodies. Iran will only cooperate with the U.S., whether in Iraq or on the nuclear issue, as part of a broader rapprochement addressing its core security concerns. ’  For the stability in Iraq, Iraqi refugees in Iran who act for Iraqi Shiite interests are trying to convince the Iranian leadership to cooperate with Washington, pushing up further negotiations since Washington and Tehran are seen as the pillars of their power. Iranian publics are also concerned with the sanctity of the holy cities in Iraq. However, it is believed that Iran will only seek stability in Iraq when it can no longer benefit from the manipulated chaos there, which is to say, when it no longer perceives U.S. presence as a threat. ConclusionThe U.S.-Iranian relations in the context of war on terror are defined by the coexistence of cooperation and treachery. The relations in this timeframe are found to be very capricious as their strategic calculations varied during different stages of war on terror. As the analysis concluded, it was found out that the decisive factors that determine US-Iranian relations at different stages are mainly their strategic interests. And in the context of the earliest stage of war on terror, given the fact that U.S. interest and Iranian interests overlapped and intersected given their common interests in Afghanistan and their common enemy Saddam, the bilateral relations between the two should be best described as “secret partnership” that is defined by covert cooperation between the two. At the same time, the allegations of Bush on Iran’s possession of WMD and sponsorship of terrorist activities defined their relations as treacherous as well. Furthermore, despite their brief cooperation in Afghanistan and Iraq, with the collapse of the Saddam regime, as Bush announced ‘Mission Accomplished’, Iran felt insecure due to the American encirclement around, proposing ‘ A Grand Bargain’, marking a significant turning point of U.S.-Iranian relations. Finally, the regional balance in the middle east changed drastically, giving great advantages to the Iranian Shias who projected their Shia power successful. The rise of Shias in the Middle East was a factor that shapes the post-Saddam U.S.- Iranian relations as well. In conclusion, the special relationship between Iran and U.S. during this period is defined by the coexistence of cooperation and strife.  In Afghanistan, they mainly cooperated through information exchanges.  In Iraq, they secretly cooperated and defected each other. In the aftermath of the collapse of Saddam, as Iran felt insecure with the American encirclement, Tehran reached out to Washington with a grand bargain for peace dialogues and negotiations. As the grand bargain was declined by Washington, a turning point of the brief friendly U.S.-Iranian relations came. The peace prospects were simply eliminated. Tehran was convinced that they needed to further develop their political power in Iraq as Saddam fell since U.S. was simply unreliable, laying a foundational for the Shia revival in Iraq and the rise of Iran as a regional hegemon. A good diplomatic opportunity for U.S.-Iranian rapprochement was wasted for the wrong calculations of Bush administration. Washington failed to develop a coherent set of policies towards Iran. The research paper offers further implications for U.S. foreign policy decision-makers to develop sophisticated policies towards Iran, defending U.S. interests at home and abroad.

[wei999]

the minute i was thinking to hold you back

[wei999]

Virtue Consequentialism

Two theoretical varieties of virtue consequentialism as spelled out and developed by Moore and Driver will be compared and contrasted. The conceptions of the two views will be examined and explained in excruciating details and their weakness and strength will be equally evaluated. The objections to each and the advantages to each will also be closely assessed and illustrated after which I will put forward my argument in defense of Driver’s view.In the first place, the conceptions of both will be explained to lay the solid foundation for the evaluative process of both and arguments that will follow. As Moore points out clearly in Principia Ethica, “ a virtue may be defined as an habitual disposition to perform certain actions, which generally produce the best results.”  This argument is mainly based on his conception of consequentialism about moral duties. Generally speaking, Moore indicates that whether to consider a habitual disposition as a virtue or not is determined by if its results are better than the results of its alternatives or not. That is to say, an act is only morally necessitated that if and only if its consequences are more advantageous than those of any of its alternatives. The need for the maximization of utility is emphasized in Moore’s conception. However, Driver counters that a character trait that helps people better off should be counted as a virtue. In Driver’s approach to virtues, the aspect of ‘change’ is addressed. Basically, what gives rise to a virtue is in fact is dependent on the evaluation of the results as whether better or not in given circumstances. And evaluative standards for what constitute the better are constantly being shaped and reshaped by the changes in norms and standards as social and environmental circumstances vary. What is understood as the most optimal result is in fluid and in flux as well as constantly being shaped and reshaped by political and social forces. Driver holds it that what is being more important in virtue consequentialism is that the component of change. The scale as indicated in this approach is based on a comparison of percent. Which is to say the relative advantage matters the most. She also claims that virtue requires sometimes no relevant knowledge. The conceptual differences between the two approaches will also be discussed here. Moore’s conception is static while Driver’s conception is more adaptative and flexible. Moore’s view is also more demanding than Driver’s view. The maximization of utility is favored in Moore’s view while more dynamics are accommodated in Driver’s view. Secondly, the objections against each claim and their relative advantages will be respectively outlined in this paragraph. As for Moore, it was said that to understand virtue consequentialism in a maximizing way can be somehow a mistake given the fact that this will be over-demanding.  Secondly, to deny a character trait that cannot sufficiently attain the best result as a virtue is basically wrong. Further, if go with Moore’s view, there can simply be no virtue if it cannot be decided which result of virtues is the best. When the results of character traits are equally good, people cannot determine which one is the best. Fourthly, it can also provide wrong guidance where the bearer mistakenly takes one virtue more productive than other alternatives where in fact it is not the case due to the difficulty in result evaluation. However, there are also advantages attached to this conception. Moore’s approach is straightforward and unambiguous. The criteria is evident. When certain conditions are fulfilled and the results of character traits are compared, the trait that leads to the best consequence can easily stand out to be virtue. Regarding Driver’s mistakes, the main problem is that given the flexibility in the circumstances, variables in determining a character trait to be taken as a virtue or not are just too many. It fails to take into account various factors, such as luck, mental state and intention. It also sometimes gives false justification of doing the right things for wrong reasons. But the advantages of this approach is also evident as marked by its flexibility and diversity. This approach can also accommodate more definitions of virtues. It is also less demanding since it can accommodate more scenarios and more options for the agents. Last but not least, I would argue Driver’s conception to be stronger based on the reasons as follows. Firstly, her approach is less demanding than Moore’s view. Moore is basically denying any other character traits that produce not the best outcome to be not a virtue, it is definitely too demanding. For example, having the virtue of bravery is good. And when there is no other alternative to this trait, we simply cannot compare the consequences of being brave with the consequences of other traits. Therefore we cannot determine whether being brave is a virtue or not. Driver is also too absolute in saying that only the virtue with the best result is a virtue while alternatives which are less than best are not. For illustration, one person has the courage at full scale to do challenging things and he succeeds on a full scale while the other person only has fifty percent courage and succeeds on a half scale. Based on the result that maximizes, only the courage at full scale is virtue compared to the half scale. However, in fact being courageous even if not at a full scale is also a virtue. Further, in Moore’s approach when the results of character traits are equally good, people cannot determine which one is the best. The miscalculations of which trait will bring up the best consequences also make the view less defensible. For example, some people expect to be telling pleasant lies to get the favor of others while in reality it happens that those who have entrenched honesty win more hearts. Someone might simply miscalculate the consequences where the traits do not usually lead to. Therefore they fail to be virtuous based on miscalculations.Driver is more defensible since she basically means that, the virtue that brings up a relatively better result can be seen as a virtue. This gives rise to more possibilities of being virtuous which should be encouraged. For example, there might be some cases where traits that are traditionally not considered as morally virtuous can be accounted as virtuous using this approach. For example, a person is one hundred percent being honest with others and loves to tell the truths that might hurt people’s feelings. As a result of his blunt honesty, people sometimes dislike him for being overly straightforward. On the contrary, there is a person who likes to tell lies to compliment others. People actually love the one who tells complimentary lies better than those who tell unpleasant truths. Based on the result, the dishonestly actually helps people better off in terms of getting pleased while honesty in this case really does not. In this sense, dishonesty can be also seen as a virtue since it helps people better off. Driver’s simply approach can accommodate more diverse character traits and more ways of doing things. Furthermore, the element of change, which is in fact a very important point to put into consideration is also addressed in this approach. It is also very significant that it adapts and responds well to the changing circumstances. For example, in some society back in the days when DNA paternity testing was not widely available, being a virgin is thought as a virtue. In this sense marrying a virgin helps people better off since they can the virgins bear their own kids. But as the technology advances, being a virgin is not necessarily needed to be thought as a virtue since being a virgin does not help people better off. Technology in facts helps better. Therefore more flexibility is given in this approach.  So I would find Driver’s view to be stronger and convincing.Once again based in a wind scenario, the animals just based on their phronesis rush to some holes to hide to get the hardness through. After they come out from the holes, nothing actually changes for their betterment. Based on the measurement of betterment, I can conclude the Nous is more defensible than Phronesis. Also, one of the constraints found in phronesis is that phronesis are not sufficiently to account for the values in the outcomes of practices. For example, a worker works proficiently in a toy factory where he operates the machines to produce cheap products. He works diligently but only produces things of low values. On the contrary, while a professor is giving lectures in a proficient on a course that he might have taught for more than ten times, he is educating the students who might have the potential to make technological innovations that can push the world forward. Both are proficient in terms of their own characteristic traits. However, the values in their constant efforts are just different. Based on outcomes, a professor that has taught students who later become the pusher of technology and science should be having more eudaimonia than the workers. However, in phronesis, it is not the case since both are doing proficiently well in their own field. They are equally good at their characteristic trait and entrenched disposition. Therefore I contend that phronesis is not as defensible as the nous.

[wei999]

Aristotelian Conceptions of Eudaimonia

As the fundamental frame of reference for Aristotelian ethics, the book, Nicomachean Ethic is a highly influential philosophical work that still shapes the philosophy academic debates today. Its influence resonates meaningfully in society in terms of informing people and give guidance for them to be virtuous for the need of eudemonia. Some ethical and moral norms in society also find its relevance in this book. Aristotle’s ethics as a virtue theory, is teleological, based on the hierarchy of goods where ends and goods are nested with each other.  Eudaimonia, the need of humans to be happy and to flourish, also finds its historical relevance in this book. Although definition on Eudaimonia is spelled out by Aristotle in this book, Aristotle still exhibits his indecision between two conceptions of eudaimonia, one comprehensive while the other is more intellectualist. Foremost, the two competing conceptions of Eudaimonia will be illustrated and explained as follows. To begin with, Aristotle stretches the outline of the concept of eudaimonia by arguing that eudaimonia can be understood in relation to the characteristic function of human beings. This outline is generally concerned with the function theory. However, there is an ambiguity arising the understanding of the human characteristic function. The puzzle here is that, Aristotle argues for the importance of a practical life of rational activity as the most important characteristic on the one hand, and the significance of intelligence as the most distinguished characteristic on the other hand.  One conception is practical while the other is theoretical. The first conception based on practical reasons, phronesis, which addresses the virtues of character give more importance to the role of virtuous practices. Phronesis, also known as practical virtue, stands for a type of wisdom relevant to practical action.  However, the other conception, which is based on theoretical reason, that is to say, nous, is concerned more with the virtues of the intellect. Nous is equated to intellect and represents the faculty of the human mind that helps people understand what is real.  Therefore, the role of the faculty of the intellect, that is so say, contemplation, in attaining eudaimonia is emphasized. The interpretations of the two conceptions will be provided as follows. In the practical conception of eudaimonia, nous, Aristotle holds it that what it means to do good for people is basically to exercise his characteristic activity well. For example, the characteristic of a factory worker who works on streamline production is to work based on procedures as set out in the work manual. Based on the characteristic, to exercise his activity at best is to work assiduously according to the work manual on what he is assigned to do. The element of contemplating is downplayed in this sense. As a worker, he does not necessarily need to think about the best way to operate the streamline factory. He only should performance as in terms of making things proficiently on the streamline, caring less about the way he should work while trying to work as proficient as he can in doing routine and repetitious work. So it is concluded by the conception that as long as the man is fulfilling his practical activities to his best, he has a good characteristic function that leads to his eudaimonia. On the contrary, when it comes to the theoretical conception of eudemonia, which indicates that a man should best live a life based on reasons, two aspects are stressed. Firstly, humans should be able to follow reason and let the reasons guide them, which means to be receptive reason. Secondly, humans should themselves reason well, which is to say to be able to have contemplation using the faculty of the intellect. The excellent use of reasons and the need to live with reasons are underlined in this conception. For example, worker in a streamline factory cannot sufficiently attain their eudaimonia by merely doing what is being required on the worker manual. They have to use the faculty of the intellect to reason and to contemplate what will be the best and efficient way to make things done better in a thoughtful manner. So in conclusion, one is more based on the nous while the other is more about phronesis. Secondly, the conceptual linkages that connect the parts of the soul, reason, the intellectual and character virtues will be elaborated and illustrated as follows. The foundation of understanding this philosophical chain is to bear in mind that there are three types of soul, which are the nutritive soul, the sensible soul and the rational soul.  To put it simple, soul comprises of two broad elements, which are the non-rational element and the rational element. Every part of the soul builds on each other. The nutritive soul and the sensible soul are the non-rational elements that possessed not only by humans but also by animals, while the rational soul as the rational element is the feature that only resides in human life. The nutritive soul is relevant to growth and sustainability, the sensible soul as the soul of perception, allows creatures to perceive the world and the rational soul aids humans in reasoning in terms of both passive intellect and active intellect. The former allows humans to develop their knowledge base while the latter encourages the actual process of thinking. With reference back to the Nous-Phronesis conceptions, the connections of all these parts will be elaborated. The line is drawn between the virtues of Phronesis and Nous based on virtues of the character being the irrational part of the soul while the intellectual virtues categorized as the rational part of the soul. In fact, in order to achieve the excellence, the means is required, which is neither deficient nor excessive. Also for a more integrated approach to eudemonia, it is addressed in the chain that nous ( theoretical aspect of eudaimonia )can provide a foundation for phronesis, and phronesis ( practical aspect of eudaimonia ) helps people grow virtuously integrated with their reflective perception to help them adjust their behaviors to attain better ends. Then eudaimonia can be attained. For example, a writer wants to write well and gets his eudaimonia, he firstly should study theories of writing, that is the nous component, also the reason of writing. Later, he will develop his writing skills to write well through excruciating practices, that is phronesis. At the same time as he writes, he will perceive his writing quality and reflect upon how to write well in a reflective manner. Then he can attain personal growth and attain eudaimonia, which lays his foundation for eudaimonia.  Furthermore, I will argue for my stance of Nous being a more defensible conception of eudaimonia based on the following reasons and examples. Also the weakness of Phronesis approach will also be laid out in order to strengthen the validity of my argument. To begin with, I think the faculty of the intellect is only found in humans, and it is also what distinguishes humans from animals. Humans can reason on phenomena and to either protect or utilize the consequences as the phenomena lead to while animals simply cannot. They can simplify the model and then distill the theory that later help them navigate things to their own advantage. The guidance of knowledge can sufficiently benefit people to get their own eudaimonia. For example, while the wind blows hard, people can use their intellect to figure it out how they can use the force of nature to their own advantage instead of complaining about the wind that blows. People figure out the way to turn the forces of wind into electric power as a clean resource. Then wind turbines are invented. As the wind power is sufficiently utilized by wind turbines to generate electricity to benefit people, people reach their relative eudaimonia. On the contrary, given the fact that animals barely have the faculty of the intellectual, their reasoning skills are limited. 

[wei999]

Spinoza

Spinoza is a necessitarian who thinks everything that happens happens necessarily. Evidence is listed as follows. Everything happens for necessity rather than contingency.In proposition 29, Spinoza claims that nothing in nature is contingent, but all things are from the necessity of the divine nature determined to exist and to act in definite way. In the proposition, Spinoza claims that the existence of god is necessary, not contingent. And the divine nature is also considered as absolutely determined. Further, let it be noted that, God is the cause of all the modes, and god also determines how the things should act. It is impossible for things to determine themselves, also impossible to render them undetermined. Spinoza also illustrates the distinction between ‘Natura Naturans’ and ‘Natura Naturata’. By “ Natura Naturans”, it means that things in themselves must be conceived through themselves.  “Natura Naturata” we understand that things that follow god’s nature are in god and they can not be conceived without god.  In conclusion, it can be said that God is the cause and things that are dependent on God follow the determined divine nature as ordained by God. And God determines how the things should unfold. So everything exists and acts in a definite way from the necessity of God’s nature. So things that happen happen necessarily.  (pp.349-350) In proposition 33, Spinoza says that things could not have been produced by God in any other way or in any other order than is the case.Given the fact that everything happens from the necessity of God’s nature and things are determined to exist and act in definite way as ordained by God, if things could be determined to act in a different way, the order of Nature will be totally different. And the God’s nature can be other than it now is. As the result, there would have been two or more gods. Therefore, things could not have been produced by God in any other way or in any other order than is the case.A thing is termed necessary either by reason of its essence or by reason of its cause. A thing is coined impossible if its essence or definition involves a contradiction or there is no external cause determined to bring into existence. A things is termed contingent for the deficiency of our knowledge, which is to say we do not know whether the essence of a thing involves a contradiction or not, so that we cannot make judgement as to its existence. Will pertains to the essence of God, it would follow this perfection that things could not have been created by God in any other way or in any other order. A departure from the order of nature as ordained by god will be accused of imperfection and inconstancy. From God’s perfection and to his decrees, no imperfection will be permitted.  And if God has willed and conceived differently concerning nature, he would have a different intellect and a different will from that which he now has. So it is not possible for things to be presented in any other order than is the case.  (pp.353-355)In conclusion, everything that happens happens necessarily and only happen in the order as ordained by God. And God acts solely from the necessity of his own nature. Why We Think Something that Happens Does Not Happen Necessarily We think something that happens does not happen necessarily due to misconceptions about God in our minds. First of all, we think God has made everything for man’s sake and has made man so that man should worship God. Men are convinced that everything that is created is created on their behalf. If not, then things need to be corrected. This developed further into superstition and became deep-rooted in the minds of men.  Secondly, we are ignorant of the causes of things, and we have the conscious desire to seek our advantages. So we often look for the causes of things. And then we also strive to understand and explain the final causes of all things to show that nature does not do things in vain. That is to say nothing is not to man’s own advantage. Law of nature is not fully conceived. Thirdly, we think the governor of Nature has endowed us the human freedom. (pp.356-358) Ariew, Roger and Eric Watkins. Modern Philosophy: An Anthology of Primary Sources. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, 2019.

[wei999]

Descartes Meditation

1.There are five purposes in Meditation. First of all, in the first meditation, Descartes’s purpose is to convince readers to doubt things, helping them withdraw their minds from senses as well as prejudice (pp.81-82). Secondly, Descartes elaborates on the distinction of mind and body, drawing a line between the body and the intellect (p.83). Thirdly, Descartes reasons on the existence of God. Furthermore, he approaches on the nature of truth and falsity in the fourth meditation. In addition, in the fifth meditation, Descartes explains the relevance between geometrical demonstrations and the knowledge of God. Finally, in the sixth meditation, the imagination is distinguished from understanding (84) . Descartes’s ambition is to replace Aristotelian science with a new science. He attempted to challenge the Aristotelian approach to knowledge which relies on senses by emphasizing rationalism through his assertion of the intellect as the means to secure knowledge. Overall, Meditation can be seen as a process of methodological doubt where Descartes seeks to rebuild knowledge. In Meditations, seven problems are discussed. Skepticism, the existence and nature of self, the existence of God, the possibility of error, the nature of truth, the distinction between mind and body, and the essence and existence of bodies. (p.20). How Descartes’s argumentations and demonstrations address his big purposes in each section will be evaluated with relevant evidence as laid out in its overall structure. 2.  My reasoning that led me to these purposes:1. Meditation One: Concerning Those Things That Can Be Called Into Doubto Descartes first points out that the foundation of his knowledge can be false and the senses can be deceptive. o Descartes touches on the Dream Problem, and he later points out that there are certain things are not imaginary and true representations of real things (p.87).o The concept of “ Extended Things”.o An evil genius good at deception and a good god that represents truth. 2. Meditation Two: Concerning The Nature of Human Mind: That It is Better Known Than The Bodyo God instills reality in human mindso A thinking thing. I am, I exist: the distinction between body(bounded) and soul(thought exists) (p.92).o Imagination pertains to the knowledge that I have of myself. Not confined within truths. Perception of wax through mind instead of imagination: an inspection on the part of the mind alone. However, mind is prone to errors.o Conclusion: B are not perceived by the senses or by the faculty of imagination, but by the intellect alone, and that they are not perceived through their being touched or seen, but only through their being understood, I manifestly know that nothing can be perceived more easily and more evidently than my own mind. (Page 97).- Meditation Three: Concerning God that He Existso Things that were true but later found out to be doubtful ( Senses ) VS True things that are clearly and distinctly perceived ( Things outside me ) (p.98) Truth VS Falsity, Volitions Affects and Judgements.o God as the cause of ideas: Reality so great so it is not in me - infinite(p.101)o Extended Things VS a thinking thing- Meditation Four: Concerning the True and Falseo Judgement: no falsity on god but myself can err ( a lack of knowledge ) (p.112)o the faculty of knowing that is in me and the faculty of choosing.  ( intellect – judgement ) - Meditation Six: Concerning the Existence of Material Things, and the Real Distinction between Mind and Body

[wei999]

Locke

According to Locke, we could not know what the word red means if we have never experienced anything red. Ideas come from experience, the idea of red can only be conceptualized by people who have experienced red. The word of red can be defined by the idea of redness as produced by sensation and reflection. The outline of his argument is basically, firstly he explains how ideas are formed by elaborating on the role of sensation and reflection. A word like “red”, which stands for a simple idea, is simply indefinable. In addition, its meaning cannot be constructed by other ideas; the meaning of “red” can only be understood by appealing to the experience that gives us the idea.Sensation and Reflection Firstly, let it be clarified that idea is the object of thinking. Therefore, the color of red is an object of thinking. Locke thinks that all ideas come from sensation or reflection, and all the materials of reason knowledge are founded on experience. Our understanding is based on the sensation and perception of external sensible objects and the reflection by the internal operations of our minds. Our sensation of external objects conveys into the mind several perceptions of things. (p.653) The operations of our own mind help us reflect and understand ideas. The different acting of our own minds, internal senses, help us reach distinct ideas. In a word, reflections and sensation combined lead to ideas. External material things as the objects of sensation and the operations of our own minds within as the objects of reflections begin our ideas. (p.654) External objects nurture the mind with ideas of sensible qualities which produce different perceptions in us, and the operations of our mind furnishes the understanding. There are also several modes, combinations, and relations of ideas. And ideas can be enlarged by understanding. Locke also holds it that, first of all, having ideas is equal to perception. The soul begins to have ideas when it begins to perceive. The actual thinking is essential to the soul and inseparable from it.  Furthermore, when a man begins to have ideas, he first has sensation. After he gets sensation, then through the operations of mind such as perception, remembering, reasoning, we develop ideas. Simple and Complex ideasFurthermore, Locke says that there are simple and complex ideas. Ideas produced by senses are simple and unmixed. Simple ideas are by nature uncompounded. Mind can neither make nor destroy ideas, but with the aid of sensation and reflection, simple ideas can be united to an infinite variety, producing new complex ideas. Therefore, if we have simple ideas, we can frame the ideas of things that we have never experienced by imagination and conception. A blind man can have ideas of colors. (p.664) But the thing is the idea of red is a simple idea. Therefore it can only be acquired through experience.Ariew, Roger and Eric Watkins. Modern Philosophy: An Anthology of Primary Sources. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, 2019. 

[wei999]

Hume

Freedom and Determinism:the doctrine of necessity: all events (including all human actions) are entirely the result of prior causes. Basically, Hume indicates the impossibility of a coherent notion of causal necessity that is weaker than absolute necessity but stronger than being implied by a true universally quantified proposition whose antecedent. On his account, causal laws are just the most general and basic contingent truths about how the world goes. Reasoning: One object or event followed another, not that one was produced by another. Since the relation of cause and effect is unknown, inference and reasoning are important. Our idea of necessity and causation arises entirely from the uniformity observable in the operations of nature, where similar objects are constantly conjoined together and the mind is determined by custom to infer the one from the appearance of the other. Our notion of necessity comes from the observation of conjunction of similar objects and the consequent inference from one to another.(p.1131). Beyond the constant conjunction of similar objects and the consequent inference from one to the other, we have no notion of any necessity or connection.The free will problem should be understood in terms of his views about the concepts of “liberty” and “necessity”. He says that human actions manifest uniformity: people draw inference about actions. Necessary connections between cause and effect.He provides an argument for determinism through giving an account on his understanding of necessity. He points out that we discover the causation of things by seeing the conjunction of things. Induction by instinct. The notion of causation. Inference comes first. Apply the notion of necessity to the free will debate. Human actions are as predictable as the physical world. Uniformity of the behaviors and predictability. Reasoning of physical things and reasoning of people’s actions.1.doctrine of necessity: Matter is actuated by a necessary force and that every natural effect is so precisely determined by the energy of its cause that no other effect, in such particular circumstances, could possibly have resulted from it. (p.1130)In order to reconcile project regarding the question of liberty and necessity, Hume firstly explains the concepts of liberty and necessity. “By liberty, then, we can only mean a power of acting or not acting according to the determinations of the will.” (p.1140) He then proceeds to the definition of necessity. He points out necessity consists either in the constant conjunction of like objects or in the inference of the understanding from one object to another. (p.1141) Necessity belongs to the will of man and we can draw inferences concerning human actions and that those inferences are founded on the experienced union of like actions with like motives, inclinations, and circumstances. On Liberty: It may be said, for instance, that if voluntary actions are subjected to the same laws of necessity with the operations of matter, there is a continued chain of necessary causes, pre-ordained and pre-determined, reaching from the original cause of all to every single volition of every human creature. No contingency anywhere in the universe, no indifference, no liberty. While we act, we are at the same time acted upon. The ultimate Author of all our volitions is the Creator of the world, who first bestowed motion on this immense machine and placed all beings in that particular position from which every subsequent event, by an inevitable necessity, must result. Ariew, Roger and Eric Watkins. Modern Philosophy: An Anthology of Primary Sources. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, 2019.