In the beginning there was Descartes. Or so there was at the start of this HCJ course. An early rationalist of the 17th Century and a key influence upon the Scientific Revolution, Descartes famously exposed, 'I think, therefore I am'. This was his fundamental truth, the basis of his entire rational philosophy, which sought to answer that ancient, ontological question. For him, the simple fact that this conundrum existed, that human beings wondered about their very existence, itself proved a state of physical existence within a material universe. Three hundred years on and this ideology was being challenged like never before.
Martin Heidegger, a German philosopher, refuted Descartes' way of thinking, instead stating that only ideas in themselves, exist. Phenomenology, a school of teaching originally founded by Edmund Husserl during the early twentieth Century, is that which believes essentially in the power of the mind. All objects exist only mentally, perceived by an immaterial consciousness, similar to Kant's theory on the noumenal world. The main difference between the two, perhaps, is Heidegger's belief in variable perception, whereby he said that the state of conscious registering of the 'world' around us is intentional. In other words, we each make the decision to perceive objects of our own accord, therefore meaning and ideas themselves are mere structures of subjective values.
Heidegger also believed that, quite correctly I think, ideas define a person's character, gifting an insight into one's logic and perspective. However, he stated that this one person is fundamentally a mixing bowl of those ideas belonging to his parents, his best friend, his lovers, his business partner, the guy he met at the poker tables in Vegas; in fact, all the people that this person has met and interacted with during the course of his life. It would stand to reason then that by this argument, there is a part of myself in every other person on the planet and vice versa. Perhaps then, Frigyes Karinthy's proposed theory should be scrapped in favour of the 'One Degree of Separation'!
So, the German philosopher did not believe in the concept of 'self', making him an existentialist. It begs the question, if there are no original ideas, that everyone is a like a cake, (made with the exact same ingredients but to different measurements), then where did the original ideas (those delicious ingredients) come from? Thus, although I agree that we are certainly heavily influenced by the people we meet, (particularly parents in my view), human beings must have a core, a 'self', which determines personality.
We can see that existentialism rocked the foundations of the Enlightenment and, in particular, Romanticism, both of which reinforced the importance of the self-willed individual. The philosophy also gave birth to several other areas of study, including anthropology and hermeneutics. The former explores the influential properties of society upon an individual, including traditional values and conventional practices, while the latter teaches a skeptical view of the world, attempting to reveal hidden meanings and perspectives in visual texts of everyday life.
At the heart of existentialism is the supposed answer to another burning ontological question: what is time? Kant proposed it as an absract constraint that the human mind adhered to in order to construct one's life; Einstein famously exposed it as the fourth dimension, physically existing but which cannot be perceived by our three-dimensional sight. In a somewhat Nietzschian manner to the unanswerable questions in life, existentialism merely decides: time is irrelevant. The three universally accepted 'strands' of time are represented as follows: past = guilt, present = dread, future = unknown. Existential morality teaches to forget the past, (what has happened is not important, because it cannot be reversed), and indifference to the future, (what will happen is only going to be affected by what happens now). Thus, the present, the here and now, is all that matters.
Existentialists also believe we should seek to become the authors of our own lives, (to achieve authenticity), although the school accepts it to be impossible to solely write our future. Others, as was already explained, will always have an impact and a bearing upon ourselves. In other words, we should try to become less inauthentic.
To my mind, it is impossible to ignore the past. That is human nature. But it would also be naive to do so; mistakes of the past can be learnt from, in order to make the present a healthier living. That is also human nature, not merely to survive, but live in healthy body and mind. And a healthier present, often relates to a better future.
Yes, become as 'less inauthentic' as possible. But do so in tribute to the past and for the benefit of the future.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Technology: Friend or Foe?
As discussed last week, the well-being of a nation is largely dependent upon its economic success. In his book, The New Industrial State, John Kenneth Galbraith states that Gross National Product (or GNP) is the most accurate measurement of a country's social health. The macroeconomy, (as opposed to the microeconomy), is the greatest 'driving force' that affects individual citizens; in other words, Galbraith is arguing that national success is down to the combined prosperity of large, international corporations, otherwise referred to as the technostructure. But is this entirely true?
Members of the technostructure, (including all levels of the social hierarchy), aim to adapt the goals of individual corporations to benefit themselves, as well as the country as a whole. Thus, the technostructure seeks to 'mould social prurpose'; an individual member's natural instincts to survive and prosper within society are married with the desire for self-fulfillment, gained in serving a 'greater purpose' than their own. So, the system effectively acts as a self sustaining 'ecosphere', in which both member and corporation are interdependent. The corporation seeks drive and direction through its members, and the members, in turn, are kept both healthy and motivated, thus improving their utility and again lending to the ultimate prosperity of the corporation. Of course, this analogy breaks down when the technostructure decides it must co-operate with others, (in the form of international trade), whereby it may further its economic success.
Over recent decades, the importance of technology to individual firms has become far more prevalent. Indeed, Galbraith argues that it is now vital to any large corporation and stands as one of three vital ingredients to the achievement of the technostructure's goals. The other two are specialists, who are required to have a full understanding as to the operation of the technology, and coordination, so as the corporations operate to their maximum potential.
But what are the fundamental goals of the technostructure? They are those that pertain to the upkeep of the entire nation's economic success, one of the two most important being corporate growth. This, Galbraith says, is usually achieved through sales (of either product or service) and ultimately leads to an expansion that opens more job opportunites and reduces the threat of contraction, which can cause substantial costs to firms. However, more important is the sustainment of the technostructure's autonomy, i.e. the security of survival. Prevention of loss comes before maximization of revenues, or else stockholders may become disillusioned and cease 'to remain quiescent' (pp.209, 1967). The protection of the autonomy is key and this is the sole purpose of profit, before growth can even be considered.
Technology is vital to maintaining maximum production levels, the upkeep of important, lawful administration, amongst other business factors, and has thus become essential for corporations to keep pace with both national and international competition. It eternally drives the macroeconomy forward, leaving those smaller firms, which cannot afford such resources, faltering in their wake. The question is, should this be the case?
Although it's hard to see how this may be resolved, my answer would be no. Consider that over the next fifty years, the progress of technology continues at such a rate that ultimately, human labour becomes unnecessary. Not only are our products created by robots, but their transport is controlled by computers, shelves are stocked automatically and tills are operated by machines. The only jobs that are required to be filled by ourselves are those of the deified 'specialists' and the theorists who teach them. Industry becomes unrecognisable and while I've used the example of product, the same theory may be applied to service as well. Fancy a nice, relaxing back massage from R2-D2?
Members simply become consumers, but of course, with no employment, how do they afford to consume at all? There seems to me to be a contradiction in goals here; while the technostructure aims to survive in an ever growing, competitive environment, it may end up doing so at the expense of previously employed members and thus, future trade, making future contractions an inevitability.
While this may be a bleak scenario (and one that is in no way a certainty), my point is that what seems to be a quick dismissal, on Galbraith's part, as to the importance of the microeconomy is somewhat debatable. Small businesses play their own part in the circular flow of income and in so doing, keep the economy thriving and I think their own protection is vital. Again, maybe just something for the coalition to keep in mind!
Members of the technostructure, (including all levels of the social hierarchy), aim to adapt the goals of individual corporations to benefit themselves, as well as the country as a whole. Thus, the technostructure seeks to 'mould social prurpose'; an individual member's natural instincts to survive and prosper within society are married with the desire for self-fulfillment, gained in serving a 'greater purpose' than their own. So, the system effectively acts as a self sustaining 'ecosphere', in which both member and corporation are interdependent. The corporation seeks drive and direction through its members, and the members, in turn, are kept both healthy and motivated, thus improving their utility and again lending to the ultimate prosperity of the corporation. Of course, this analogy breaks down when the technostructure decides it must co-operate with others, (in the form of international trade), whereby it may further its economic success.
Over recent decades, the importance of technology to individual firms has become far more prevalent. Indeed, Galbraith argues that it is now vital to any large corporation and stands as one of three vital ingredients to the achievement of the technostructure's goals. The other two are specialists, who are required to have a full understanding as to the operation of the technology, and coordination, so as the corporations operate to their maximum potential.
But what are the fundamental goals of the technostructure? They are those that pertain to the upkeep of the entire nation's economic success, one of the two most important being corporate growth. This, Galbraith says, is usually achieved through sales (of either product or service) and ultimately leads to an expansion that opens more job opportunites and reduces the threat of contraction, which can cause substantial costs to firms. However, more important is the sustainment of the technostructure's autonomy, i.e. the security of survival. Prevention of loss comes before maximization of revenues, or else stockholders may become disillusioned and cease 'to remain quiescent' (pp.209, 1967). The protection of the autonomy is key and this is the sole purpose of profit, before growth can even be considered.
Technology is vital to maintaining maximum production levels, the upkeep of important, lawful administration, amongst other business factors, and has thus become essential for corporations to keep pace with both national and international competition. It eternally drives the macroeconomy forward, leaving those smaller firms, which cannot afford such resources, faltering in their wake. The question is, should this be the case?
Although it's hard to see how this may be resolved, my answer would be no. Consider that over the next fifty years, the progress of technology continues at such a rate that ultimately, human labour becomes unnecessary. Not only are our products created by robots, but their transport is controlled by computers, shelves are stocked automatically and tills are operated by machines. The only jobs that are required to be filled by ourselves are those of the deified 'specialists' and the theorists who teach them. Industry becomes unrecognisable and while I've used the example of product, the same theory may be applied to service as well. Fancy a nice, relaxing back massage from R2-D2?
Members simply become consumers, but of course, with no employment, how do they afford to consume at all? There seems to me to be a contradiction in goals here; while the technostructure aims to survive in an ever growing, competitive environment, it may end up doing so at the expense of previously employed members and thus, future trade, making future contractions an inevitability.
While this may be a bleak scenario (and one that is in no way a certainty), my point is that what seems to be a quick dismissal, on Galbraith's part, as to the importance of the microeconomy is somewhat debatable. Small businesses play their own part in the circular flow of income and in so doing, keep the economy thriving and I think their own protection is vital. Again, maybe just something for the coalition to keep in mind!
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Juggling with Economics
As demonstrated by the recent economic crises that have hit nations across the globe, the wellbeing of individual countries is greatly (and arguably wholly) reliant upon governments' monetary and fiscal policies. Monetary policy involves the supply of money, largely concerning interest rates (i.e. the price of money itself, constituting the difference in the nominal value of government bonds), which rise or fall to tackle potentially harmful inflation, as borrowers must compensate lenders for future economic risks. Fiscal policy, on the other hand, concerns taxation and government spending.
This week's lecture included an exploration into the ultimate reasons behind taxation. The popular belief is that it simply acts as a financial resource used to pay off government debt, however, a more insightful view, according to followers of economist John Maynard Keynes, is that taxation is a means of regulating aggregate demand within the economy. Thus, it directs consumer behaviour and strengthens weakened areas of the markets.
Economists talk of an invisible unit of measurement through which one may determine an individual's 'value' to his or her country's economy. This is called utility. The 'runaway train' scenario was also discussed in the lecture: a train carrying hundreds of people, out of control, is heading for an unfinished bridge. You stand by a lever that can change the train's direction, carrying it to safety. However, on the alternate tracks stands a man who can neither hear or see the oncoming train. What do you do? By my reckoning, on the face of things, saving hundreds and sacrificing one would seem the best option and on an economist level, this would make me a utilitarian. I have chosen to save more 'utility units', which in the future could be of great value to the economy, rather than the relatively low value of a man who is apparently deaf and blind; of course, this is all hypothetical!
By a dictionary definition, money is merely a means of exchange that may be used to better one's utility. It is, in itself though, almost completely worthless and may be described as 'transparent'. Alfred Marshall, however, (and I agree on this point), believed in what he named as the Money Effect, which described the very real, psychological effect that money (or at the very least, the concept of money) has on real people. It dismissed the transparency of money and I think that goverments of today realised this to be true; that money has a great, albeit irrational, control over the masses and so grants a form of power.
Today, juggling with the economics of a nation is vital to any government. Economists and philosophers of the 19th Century in particular have analysed the importance of maintaining a healthy economy. Thomas Robert Malthus introduced the 'iron law of population', which stated that agricultural wealth may only double itself at any one time, whereas the population of a given country grows far more steeply; it grows geometrically. Thus, famine and poverty are very real threats that face nations all the time. As well as interest rates and taxation, governments utilise what is known as the credit creation ratio, which banks use to expand the money supply by manifesting a percentage of the value of an individual payment, (in the UK this stands at 1:10). So for every £1 received, the bank in question has £10 to lend to other customers.
Clearly, dealing with the economy is a very delicate balancing act, in which a wrong decision may have catastrophic consequences, (demonstrated by Germany's hyper-inflation in the 1920s, after its government decided merely to print more money in response to the vast debts accumulated during the First Worold War). It would seem that our own current climate will prove to be an uphill challenge for the coalition.
This week's lecture included an exploration into the ultimate reasons behind taxation. The popular belief is that it simply acts as a financial resource used to pay off government debt, however, a more insightful view, according to followers of economist John Maynard Keynes, is that taxation is a means of regulating aggregate demand within the economy. Thus, it directs consumer behaviour and strengthens weakened areas of the markets.
Economists talk of an invisible unit of measurement through which one may determine an individual's 'value' to his or her country's economy. This is called utility. The 'runaway train' scenario was also discussed in the lecture: a train carrying hundreds of people, out of control, is heading for an unfinished bridge. You stand by a lever that can change the train's direction, carrying it to safety. However, on the alternate tracks stands a man who can neither hear or see the oncoming train. What do you do? By my reckoning, on the face of things, saving hundreds and sacrificing one would seem the best option and on an economist level, this would make me a utilitarian. I have chosen to save more 'utility units', which in the future could be of great value to the economy, rather than the relatively low value of a man who is apparently deaf and blind; of course, this is all hypothetical!
By a dictionary definition, money is merely a means of exchange that may be used to better one's utility. It is, in itself though, almost completely worthless and may be described as 'transparent'. Alfred Marshall, however, (and I agree on this point), believed in what he named as the Money Effect, which described the very real, psychological effect that money (or at the very least, the concept of money) has on real people. It dismissed the transparency of money and I think that goverments of today realised this to be true; that money has a great, albeit irrational, control over the masses and so grants a form of power.
Today, juggling with the economics of a nation is vital to any government. Economists and philosophers of the 19th Century in particular have analysed the importance of maintaining a healthy economy. Thomas Robert Malthus introduced the 'iron law of population', which stated that agricultural wealth may only double itself at any one time, whereas the population of a given country grows far more steeply; it grows geometrically. Thus, famine and poverty are very real threats that face nations all the time. As well as interest rates and taxation, governments utilise what is known as the credit creation ratio, which banks use to expand the money supply by manifesting a percentage of the value of an individual payment, (in the UK this stands at 1:10). So for every £1 received, the bank in question has £10 to lend to other customers.
Clearly, dealing with the economy is a very delicate balancing act, in which a wrong decision may have catastrophic consequences, (demonstrated by Germany's hyper-inflation in the 1920s, after its government decided merely to print more money in response to the vast debts accumulated during the First Worold War). It would seem that our own current climate will prove to be an uphill challenge for the coalition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)