Hey Anastasia ! First of all I’d like to think you for your post ! I’ve seen the Irrational Man as well and had a good laugh when comparing our philosophy class to Abe Lucas’s one.
More seriously, I agree with you when you say that killing is not the enhancement of humanity. I think it resembles Nietzsche’s slavish forces that negate instead of affirming life. Indeed, the act of killing, even though it could be interpreted as the victory of the will to power over all human and moral values, is also the negation of oneself. Suppressing another’s existence can only be done if you negate the Humanity of this other whom you kill. You dehumanize the Other, and therefore alienate yourself as well. You exclude one from Humanity’s circle, but in the same movement you also exclude yourself from it.
From a mere sociological perspective, killing has always been prohibited inside one’s society, for the very simple reason that it is ensures the survival of society. This universal prohibition has always been in use in order for social order to perdure. It is only the enemy, the Other, the one who is not quite human, not quite like myself, who can be killed.
Therefore, I think that killing is the loss of one’s humanity. In some ways, it is Kierkegaard’s suspension of the theological. Abe kills because he is persuaded it is the right thing to do. He has faith he is doing society a favor. He almost believes it is his sacred mission to prevent other people from getting hurt because of that unfair judge. And yet, when he kills him, he has lost his humanity, or rather, he cannot live in society anymore. He has ignored its rules, has broken them knowingly, and has to pay the price. Feeling unconcerned by social codes and its most sacred rules, he is not fit to live in it anymore, as Abraham who cannot be understood by anyone after he has agreed to sacrifice his son. He is not quite human any more.
Hi Anastasia ! Your post is very interesting, I like the bridges you made between the Irrational Man, Badlands and Nietzsches. You ask a question of society, and it reminds me, the series, Dexter (okay, sorry for this reference). But, Dexter kills people whose are unpunished criminals, to enhance the society, and actually it can be considered as an enhance for people. I don't say we have to kill people who are killer, because if we do that it would be the war by everybody against everybody. Moreover, your last question is very disturbing, but I think you are right to ask it, so "Is killing never enhancing humanity?" Very difficult question, but yes and no (Oh my god, I'l doing a SciencesPo answer, but anyway). For some people a person who has committed a crime have to pay it, and sometimes by her own death, it is why the death penalty still exist. We can consider killing people whose are a danger for the society, as a serial killer, a rapist, enhance it. However, and it is my point of view, first and firemost, we do not have to render justice by our way, and actually, it is what happen in the Irrational man. In fact we have a system of justice, so we are not suppose to do our own justice. Moreover, I am against the death penalty, I consider that killing people to render the justice is to become a killer. I am not saying the culprit do not have to be punish, on the contrary, but no with is own life. To summarize, killing is definitively not a good way to enhance the society, in spite of I understand sometimes it appears as the solution.
Hey Anastasia, when I saw your post was about ‚Irrational Man’ I was preparing myself for a rant over how bad the movie was and was therefore pumped to read it. Now I am sitting here quite surprised and intrigued that you actually liked it... I wonder if I missed the point of the movie and if it is simply my inability to understand the movie. Besides that I find the dialogues and acting terrible, I thought the whole existentialist theme was rather forced and banal. I went to see the movie because I like our existentialism class and thought it could give me some further insight or a different perspective. However, I feel like they made no effort at all to dive into existentialist thought and was therefore quite disappointed. The references to existentialist thinkers were mere name-dropping: If the lectures in the movie were about means of transport instead of existentialism, the equivalent to what Abe said in his lectures and in general would be something like „Today we are going to talk about cars. Cars have 4 wheels“. Nevertheless, I accept the fact that there are people out there – like yourself – who actually enjoyed the movie.
Regarding your thoughts on the movie: Don’t you think the emphasis in the movie was more about the justice that would ensue by killing the judge? Or do you think it was more about ‚the act of killing’ itself? I think the movie didn’t explain sufficiently how ‘the act of killing’ would enhance Abe’s will to live; it was more about the justice that would ensue from the murder. I believe we would need to differentiate these two things more clearly and look at them separately (i.e. on the one hand look at ‚the benefits of a murder’ - e.g. from a utilitarian POV - and on the other hand look at ‚the act of killing’ itself and how this could enhance our will to live). The film sort of mixed these two things and therefore didn’t really elaborate on ‚the act of killing’ itself. Or am I missing something here? Did they actually elaborate on how ‚the act of killing’ enhanced his will to live (besides that he found a purpose in his life... which, honestly, he could have found in other things as well)?
Hey Anastasia ! First of all I’d like to think you for your post ! I’ve seen the Irrational Man as well and had a good laugh when comparing our philosophy class to Abe Lucas’s one.
ReplyDeleteMore seriously, I agree with you when you say that killing is not the enhancement of humanity. I think it resembles Nietzsche’s slavish forces that negate instead of affirming life. Indeed, the act of killing, even though it could be interpreted as the victory of the will to power over all human and moral values, is also the negation of oneself. Suppressing another’s existence can only be done if you negate the Humanity of this other whom you kill. You dehumanize the Other, and therefore alienate yourself as well. You exclude one from Humanity’s circle, but in the same movement you also exclude yourself from it.
From a mere sociological perspective, killing has always been prohibited inside one’s society, for the very simple reason that it is ensures the survival of society. This universal prohibition has always been in use in order for social order to perdure. It is only the enemy, the Other, the one who is not quite human, not quite like myself, who can be killed.
Therefore, I think that killing is the loss of one’s humanity. In some ways, it is Kierkegaard’s suspension of the theological. Abe kills because he is persuaded it is the right thing to do. He has faith he is doing society a favor. He almost believes it is his sacred mission to prevent other people from getting hurt because of that unfair judge. And yet, when he kills him, he has lost his humanity, or rather, he cannot live in society anymore. He has ignored its rules, has broken them knowingly, and has to pay the price. Feeling unconcerned by social codes and its most sacred rules, he is not fit to live in it anymore, as Abraham who cannot be understood by anyone after he has agreed to sacrifice his son. He is not quite human any more.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Anastasia ! Your post is very interesting, I like the bridges you made between the Irrational Man, Badlands and Nietzsches.
ReplyDeleteYou ask a question of society, and it reminds me, the series, Dexter (okay, sorry for this reference). But, Dexter kills people whose are unpunished criminals, to enhance the society, and actually it can be considered as an enhance for people. I don't say we have to kill people who are killer, because if we do that it would be the war by everybody against everybody.
Moreover, your last question is very disturbing, but I think you are right to ask it, so "Is killing never enhancing humanity?" Very difficult question, but yes and no (Oh my god, I'l doing a SciencesPo answer, but anyway). For some people a person who has committed a crime have to pay it, and sometimes by her own death, it is why the death penalty still exist. We can consider killing people whose are a danger for the society, as a serial killer, a rapist, enhance it.
However, and it is my point of view, first and firemost, we do not have to render justice by our way, and actually, it is what happen in the Irrational man. In fact we have a system of justice, so we are not suppose to do our own justice. Moreover, I am against the death penalty, I consider that killing people to render the justice is to become a killer. I am not saying the culprit do not have to be punish, on the contrary, but no with is own life.
To summarize, killing is definitively not a good way to enhance the society, in spite of I understand sometimes it appears as the solution.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey Anastasia, when I saw your post was about ‚Irrational Man’ I was preparing myself for a rant over how bad the movie was and was therefore pumped to read it. Now I am sitting here quite surprised and intrigued that you actually liked it... I wonder if I missed the point of the movie and if it is simply my inability to understand the movie. Besides that I find the dialogues and acting terrible, I thought the whole existentialist theme was rather forced and banal. I went to see the movie because I like our existentialism class and thought it could give me some further insight or a different perspective. However, I feel like they made no effort at all to dive into existentialist thought and was therefore quite disappointed. The references to existentialist thinkers were mere name-dropping: If the lectures in the movie were about means of transport instead of existentialism, the equivalent to what Abe said in his lectures and in general would be something like „Today we are going to talk about cars. Cars have 4 wheels“.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, I accept the fact that there are people out there – like yourself – who actually enjoyed the movie.
Regarding your thoughts on the movie: Don’t you think the emphasis in the movie was more about the justice that would ensue by killing the judge? Or do you think it was more about ‚the act of killing’ itself? I think the movie didn’t explain sufficiently how ‘the act of killing’ would enhance Abe’s will to live; it was more about the justice that would ensue from the murder. I believe we would need to differentiate these two things more clearly and look at them separately (i.e. on the one hand look at ‚the benefits of a murder’ - e.g. from a utilitarian POV - and on the other hand look at ‚the act of killing’ itself and how this could enhance our will to live). The film sort of mixed these two things and therefore didn’t really elaborate on ‚the act of killing’ itself. Or am I missing something here? Did they actually elaborate on how ‚the act of killing’ enhanced his will to live (besides that he found a purpose in his life... which, honestly, he could have found in other things as well)?