The Science of Well Being - A Summary

Course - The Science of Well Being (Link)
Teacher - Laurie Santos


NYTimes had this article on how a happiness course in Yale is the most popular course in campus and how it is available on coursera as well. Immediately, I was hooked. My motivation was not that I am unhappy but the following - 

• I wanted to understand what makes us happy. If there is a science behind it, I definitely wanted to know.
• If in the process of learning, I can become happier, then why not? 

With this, I immediately enrolled in the course and finished it last week. Overall, I think the course is very well structured and covers both theoretical aspects with practical activities to really make one happy. I will admit that I did not follow the practical activities (called rewirements) to the dot. However, although Dr. Santos claims that "Knowing is not half the battle", it is definitely non-zero and my attempts to get better on them continues on.  

The course is structured in two parts. Every week, we go over some of the theoretical aspects of the science. At the same time, there are exercises such as make more social connections, or meditate for 10 mins. These exercise are designed to bring us more happiness as there is enough evidence to suggest that they really do. In this post, I will summarize the theoretical aspects of this course. 

Warning - This will be a long post.

--------

What makes us happy? (or  Misconceptions about happiness)

This is a good question to begin this exercise. Here are some common responses and before starting the course, I would also agree to few of them 

• Good Job
• Money
• True Love
• Awesome stuff (car, big tv etc)
• Good Body
• Perfect grades (for those in school/college)

But in reality, none of the above actually makes us happy. There are studies that have shown over and over that we believe that the above make us happy but actually they do not. 

The only exception is money. Money in the initial phase does make us happy, as in, there is a threshold. If your money increases towards that threshold, it indeed gives us happiness but beyond that any increase in money does not increase in happiness.  This threshold exists to take care of our existential needs, better health care, access to clean water, air, house etc.  But once we start earning more than threshold and even if we continue to increase our earning, it makes no difference in our happiness. 

Summary - We are putting our efforts in wrong things, we are prioritizing misleading goals. We believe that such things will make us happy but they do not. 

Reference reading - The How of happiness by Sonja Lyubomomirsky

Why we prioritize wrong happiness goals? Why are our expectations so bad?

This is a very good question as we truly believed that good jobs, money, good body will bring us happiness but they do not. Why is that? The answer lies in Miswanting.

Miswanting - This act of being mistaken about what and how much you're going to like these things in the future.

(Term coined by Tim Wilson and Dan Gilbert)

To really understand miswanting, we need to understand that our mind has certain annoying features. These features distract us from prioritizing things correctly. They mislead us to what will make us happy. 

Annoying feature #1 - Mind's strongest intuitions are often totally wrong.

There are various visual illusions out there, example Muller-Lyer illusion and Shepard tables, where mind tricks us to believe that what is opposite of the real thing. We do not realize because our mind's convictions are really strong about these. 

Annoying feature #2 - Minds do not think in terms of absolutes.

This is really important as our mind always think in comparative reference point.  

• Study - A nice study shows that for every rise of a dollar in income, our mind's perception on what is required to be happy goes up by 1.4$.  
• Study - Social Media : Facebook use leads to low self esteem. 
• Another experiment, two control options
• Option 1 - You get 50K$, others get 25K$ 
• Option 2 - You get 100k$, others get 250K
• 56% prefer option 1.
• Study - TV: TV makes you assume that average wealth of people around you is higher.  More TV watching leads to more happiness.
• Study - TV: Each extra hr of TV makes you spend 4$ higher more than average. 

Our minds are always comparing our worth with other people or other reference points. TV, social media makes these comparisons very easy. 

Annoying feature #3 - Our minds are built to get used to stuff 

Also known as Perceptual Adaptation or Hedonic Adaptation.

Hedonic adaptation - The process of getting accustomed to positive and /or to negative stimuli such that over time, we get used to it.

As we get better job, higher salaries, with time, once they stick around, it becomes the new normal. Our mind adapts to it.  Hence, they no longer give us the same feeling of happiness as we thought they would give us. 

Wonderful things wanes with repetition - Dan Gilbert

Annoying feature #4 - We don't realize that our minds are built to get used to stuff.

This is really the worse one because we don't even realize this self evident truth. When we strive towards a goal, we expect that once achieved, it will have a positive impact on our happiness.  But our minds suffer from Impact Bias, namely - 

• Intensity of impact: We overestimate the overall increase in happiness once we achieve the goal.
• Duration of impact: We overestimate how long will the impact lead to increase in happiness.

In addition,  more experience of impact bias, that is same event happening again and again, does not make it any better.  That is, our minds is blind to this bias and hence there is no learning either. Example, as our salaries improve, it does not mean that we become happier.  The fact that when it increased last time did not lead to increment in happiness does not make us any wiser, we strongly believe that this next increment will make us happier. 

What leads to this impact bias? 

Focalism - When we think about the event, we only focus on that event, but not everything else. This results in the bias.

Adaptability - Our brains are very adaptable. Hence, when events happen, say bad events, we tend to cope up with them. It is a human intrinsic quality.

Reference reading - Stumbling on Happiness by Dan Gilbert

How to get out of Hedonic adaptation? What are strategies to reset our expectations?

From last section, we realize that we need to prevent the mind from tricking us into miswanting. In this section, we discuss certain ways to thwart the Hedonic adaption.

1. Savoring - The act of stepping out of an experience to review and to appreciate it. 
2. Negative visualization - Visualize the scenario of what will happen if the goal is not met. How bad will it be? Yes, you will be upset for some time but it is not really the end of this world. Is the present really that bad? This helps break the mind out of the Hedonic adaptation.
3. Make this day your last day - This is not necessarily the last day of your life but let's say the last day of the present. Example - last day of this job. 
4. Gratitude - the quality of being thankful and a tendency to show appreciation of what one has. It has shown that merely writing down 5 things that one is grateful for once a week makes people happy.

Reference Point - Reference point is a salient and often irrelevant standard against which all subsequent information is compared.

Reference point impact our happiness as our brain is comparing our state to this point to deduce happiness. We do not realize how much impact this does on our happiness. We need to constantly recalibrate this point to realize our true happiness. 

• Concretely re-experience: Try to to back to a place (physically) where you were some time ago. Example - go back to a previous job's office. Remember your state when you where there and what your expectations were at that point of time. Compare this to present and how much it meant at that point of time.
• Concretely observe: Say, you want to visit a place or get to a point. Actually go and visit that place and see if really matches with your expectation. Grass is always greener on the other side. We think that it will make us very happy once we reach a place X but in reality, it may not be true. So, actually, trying out that X for some time calibrates this expectation.
• Avoid Social comparisons: This is more important in today's world than ever. There are few techniques to realize this - 
• Stop Technique - Whenever you realize that your mind is comparing to others, just tell yourself to stop it. One has to be little vigilant for this.
• Gratitude also helps a lot in stopping social comparison. If mind is in a state of gratitude, it does less comparison.
• Get rid of social media accounts :)
• Interrupt your consumption/comparison: When one listens to a favorite song in a loop, one starts to enjoy it less with every repetition. Same goes with favorite dish. If you like something, take it intermittently, give some gap between occurrences.  
• Interesting corollary to above point is that, if you do not like something, do all of it one go instead of in piece-meals. 
• Add variety to your consumption: Variety brings new experiences. Also, vary the time between your favorite activity, say having donuts. Make things dynamic.

What stuff really increase our happiness?

Primarily, we can divide the stuff into two categories - 

1. Better Wanting - Wanting the right parts of what we already want.
2. Wanting things that we do not want - could be both known or unknown to us.

Category 1: Better Wanting

#1 Signature Strengths - Get a job that make use of your signature strengths. 

Signature strengths are strengths that (a) you are really good at and (b) Recognized by others as well.

#2 Flow - Find things/activities/jobs that give you a Flow.

Flow - The mental state in which a person performing an activity fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment.

The main features of Flow are - 

• Challenging but attainable goals.
• Strong focussed concentration.
• Activity is intrinsically rewarding.
• Feeling of serenity.
• Loss of self conscious.
• Lack of any physical needs

How to achieve flow -

Flow is achieved when we set out to accomplish voluntarily that is difficult and worthwhile. Typically, it does not distinguish between leisure and work. Since it is voluntary, it takes both one and the same. 

Intrinsic motivation - Engaging in a behavior because you enjoy the activity itself. 

Extrinsic motivation can undermine intrinsic motivation Focus on grades (external) undermines learning (intrinsic). 

Activities that has intrinsic motivation helps with in achieving flow. 

#3 Growth mindset 

Growth Mindset - The belief that intelligence can be trained, basic abilities can be developed through dedication and hard work.

As opposed to fixed mindset which says that intelligence and traits are fixed traits. In fixed mindset, difficult tasks do not lead to change with time. In growth mindset, performance increases over time. One can learn to get to a growth mindset. 

Category 2: Wanting the stuff that we don't realize

#1 Kindness

Opportunities to be more kind to others. Studies show that happy people are more motivated to be kind. Consequently, happy people also act more kindly towards others. 

#2 Social connection

Happy people have strong close friends, strong family ties, better romantic ties. How much time you spend alone vs with friends/family/lover. Happy people spend more time in socializing. 

Also, social connections works with strangers too. Random talks with strangers increase happiness.  In general act of being with somebody leads to happiness.

#3 Time Affluence

Time Affluence = Feeling like you have enough time for doing things that you would like to do. 

Prioritizing time over money makes people happier. We should invest in time affluence. 

#4 Mind Control

Mind rarely sticks on the task that we are working on. Known as mind wandering.  Wandering mind is an unhappy mind. Meditation helps in controlling mind wandering.  Studies show that meditation helps in making brain tissue. Meditation makes us happier.

#5 Healthy Practices

- Exercise

- Sleep

This is largely self explanatory. 

How to put strategies into practice?

How to focus our energies to increase Kindness, Social Connection, Time Affluence, Mind Control and Healthy Practices. 

Strategy - Situation Support

• Fix bad environment - Get rid of stuff that is tempting to you. Clean your workplace. Throw out the sugary stuff that you don't really need.
• Promote healthy environment - Have fruits visible and open. Have a social group to share positive things. Start a meditation group.

Strategy - Goal Setting

• Goal Specificity -  The degree of quantitative precision with which a goal is specified. Create goals that are very specific. 
• Goal Visualization - Visualize the end of the goal. Use mental contrasting. Mental contrasting = A visualization technique involving first thinking of a positive future outcome followed by thinking of obstacles. 
• Goal planning - Implementation intention = A self regulatory strategy in the form of an "if-then" plan that can lead to better goal attainment

Strategy -  WOOP = Wish Outcome Obstacle Plan 

• Wish - Think about your Wish. What is the most important wish in life for today/next 4 weeks/this year? Isolate one important wish. Search for it. What is it that I want?
• Outcome -  What is the best outcome if I fulfill my wish? Search for this best outcome. Imagine and experience this best outcome. 
• Obstacle - Potential Obstacles that can hamper your accomplishment of goal. What stops me from this experience? What is my main inner obstacle? Can be a bad habit, inner behavior etc. Imagine the obstacle, experience it
•  Plan - Your If/Then Plan.  Muscle memory actions. Once you identify the obstacle, what can I do to overcome the obstacle. Go to details of this obstacle and create a plan for this, when you get to that obstacle.

Why WOOP works - 

• Cognitive : Links the future with the obstacle. And then the obstacle with the plan to overcome the obstacle. WOOP allows to trigger these non-cognitive response. Recognizing the obstacle is very important. and plan makes the implicit obstacle to explicit, 
• Motivational : It creates motivation which drives energy. 
• Feedback : Negative feedback (when you are not able to work towards the outcome) is not a threat, it s a mechanism to identify more obstacles and then put into a plan

Do WOOP every morning - 5 minutes uninterrupted and you will start to see the difference over time. 

Reference reading - Rethinking positive thinking by Gabriele Oettingen

----------

The psychological triggers of happiness are very different than the materialistic aspirations that we have. The course first deconstructs these materialistic views which we believe will give us happiness but in reality it is the opposite. The soft aspects such as exercise, gratitude, meditation are the real triggers for happiness. Once told, it appears to be evident. 

The challenge lies in how we orient ourselves to optimize for these latent aspects. WOOP is one such framework for it. Fixing situations, setting right goals are all methods to achieve happiness. While knowing is not half the battle, atleast with knowing and acknowledging, one can take steps in the right direction. 

The above is a cheat sheet. I would recommend everyone to take the course and go over the process on their own. It is worth it. 

Cornel West, Anthony Appiah on Traditions and Human Responsibility

Let It Be: How Anthony Appiah and Cornel West view the need of ahistorical (traditional) criteria for deciding human responsibility.

We are the sum total of our experiences. To blindly look away from our traditions would mean to ignore who we really are. To just live inside them would mean no progress. We need to accept us as who we are and should strive to make it better. In this essay, I argue how both Cornel West and Anthony Appiah put forth this perspective and ask us to understand human responsibility by keeping an ambivalent attitude towards our traditions.

In the chapter, Prophetic Pragmatisms [1], Cornel West argues for a new for a pragmatist philosophy, namely Prophetic Pragmatism. He writes - “Prophetic Pragmatism conceives of philosophy as historically circumscribed quest for wisdom that puts forward new interpretations of the world based on past traditions in order to promote existential sustenance and political relevance.” He argues that while traditions may be burdensome, prejudiced, and dogmatic, they can also be identified with rationality, critique and resistance. He further adds that traditions are also malleable and dynamic. The progress that we see around us has happened within notions of our traditions. Traditions that were in path of progress were first questioned and later circumvented creating way for new traditions. In West's words - “Innovation presupposes some tradition and inaugurates another tradition”. Critique and self-criticism are vital to the concept of prophetic pragmatism. Cornel West writes - “The mark of the prophet is to speak the truth in love with courage – come what may”. Thus, as we must listen, we must question as well.

Anthony Appiah looks at the phenomenon of globalization and argues against the argument that it is a threat to homogeneity. He argues - “Cultures are made of continuities and changes, and the identity of a society can survive through these changes, just as individual survives the alterations of Jacques's 'seven ages of man'”. Calling cultural purity to be an oxymoron, he argues that since the invention of trade, our societies have always been impacted by each other. Trade of spices invented new forms of cooking, silk trade route changed how people dress. So, McDonalds and Levis are just new products of trade and hence we should not treat them as threats to homogeneity. He argues further - “... you already live a cosmopolitan life, enriched by literature, art, and film that come from many places, and contain influences from many more”. Thus, we are already impacted by traditions surrounding us. To stop changing would mean stop being who we really are.

Cornel West and Anthony Appiah are standing together in the middle, arguing against the ends of a rope. Cornel West wants us to shun the Emersonian principle of breaking all traditions and past activities, the one extreme. Similarly, Anthony Appiah cautions us against the other extreme view taken by cultural purists who argue to “Don't ever change”. Together they, ask for a balanced, middle ground approach, a “let-it-be” solution wherein you accept the good, and strive to better things that are not so good.

References:

[1] Pragmatism: A Reader. Pg 401.

[2] Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers. By Kwame Anthony Appiah.

Butler, Emerson on Improvisation, Creativity and Self-Invention

Comparing Judith Butler and Ralph Waldo Emerson on : Improvisation, Creativity and Self-Invention.

Judith Butler in Undoing Gender [1], writes “[Gender] is a practice of improvisation within a scene of constraint.” Judith elaborates her argument by giving examples from different movements, such as feminism and queer theory, and argues how one is an improvisation of the other. She elaborates on how these movements while working under the norms of society have pushed society's boundaries, in particular its understanding of the gender. In this essay, i argue how Judith's views of these gender movements and their evolution are actually an application of Emerson's ideas of non-conformity.

Emerson, in his essay on Self Reliance [2], brings up the notion of improvisation and creativity from the perspective of an individual. According to Emerson, the constraint to improvisation comes through society's need to conform to its practices. He writes - “Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of everyone of its members. Society is a joint stock company, in which the members agree, for the better securing of his bread to each shareholder, to surrender the liberty and culture of the eater. The virtue in most request is conformity.”

Emerson goes on further and argues - “Whoso should be a man, must be a nonconformist. ... Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind”. One can only be great if he practices what he truly believes in and does so without any fear or guilt. According to Emerson, this is the only way man should exist. He writes - “Speak what you think now in hard words and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it i contradict everything you said to-day. - 'Ah, so you shall be misunderstood.' - Is it so bad then to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood and Socrates and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood”.

Today's gender movements can be seen as an application of non-conformity to the current society's norms with respect to gender, sex and human anatomy. In [1], Judith argues that earlier, till at-least a couple of decades ago, application of gender discrimination was limited to discrimination against women. But over time, gender discrimination has evolved to include various other problems such as gender identity, queer theory, gay rights and many other forms of discrimination, each trying to correct a very niche convention. Furthermore, she claims that it is not that we have solved the problem of discrimination against women and have now moved to other forms of discriminations. She writes that “... these stories [different gender discriminations] are continuing to happen in simultaneous and overlapping ways as we tell them. They happen, in part, through the complex ways they are taken up by each of these movements and theoretical practices”.

These gender movements are built on their own self-reliance and hence may not agree with each other. These movements, sometimes, are at odds in their principles, such as between queer theory and intersex activism on categorization of gender, or they may not see eye to eye on instruments of improvisation, for example – in usage of technology in reproduction or sex change, but at their core they have a common mission. Judith writes - “The task of all of these movements seems to me to be about distinguishing among the norms and conventions that permit people to breathe, to desire, to love, and to live, and those norms and conventions that restrict or eviscerate the conditions of life itself.” Thus, Judith argues on how these gender movements question and push society's conventions while strivings for freedoms to live and love.

In conclusion, Judith's views on improvisation of gender movements through history is an application of Emerson's philosophy of Self-Reliance in the context of Gender. Judith's analysis of these different gender movements can be seen as each being non-conformist to its past and each at the risk of being misunderstood, is trying to fight for society's freedom to live.

References:

[1] Undoing Gender, 2004, Judith Butler.

[2]Essays: First Series, Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Nietzsche, Horkheimer and Adorno: Illusion of progress

In this essay, i compare Horkheimer and Adorno's views on progress as a trap with Nietzsche's essays. I argue that while the two views do conclude that the progress is indeed an illusion, and also argue that the cause behind such entrapment is indeed systemic, however the rationality behind their arguments is quite different.

In Dialectic of Enlightenment[1], Horkheimer and Adorno wrote - “The curse of irresistible progress is irresistible regression”. According to them, freedom and justice, the two intended outcomes of progress, are actually dialectical concepts. In [2], Horkheimer says “The more freedom, the less justice and the more justice, the less freedom”. In [1], they argue that justice, which eventually gives way to law, uses equivalence as an instrument to ensure fairness. This equivalence or conformity, imposes restrictions on our behavior and thus limiting our freedoms.

Nietzsche, in his second essay in Genealogy of morals [3], argues similarly. He writes - “The size of a 'step forward' can even be estimated by a measure of everything that had to be sacrificed to it” According to him, every progressive action is accompanied with a loss of utility and purpose. With every progress, humanity sacrifices something from its past. He argues that this sacrifice further estranges us from what we truly are and thus progress is actually regressive.

However, the two sources differ in the cause of this entrapment of progress. According to Horkheimer and Adorno, the cause lies in our complete reliance on enlightenment. They argue that enlightenment, by connecting every existing thing to every other thing, in other words by including everything under its umbrella, takes mythical proportions and thus blinds itself to its own pitfalls. For example, in an industry, division of labor, a direct consequence of enlightenment rationale to increase production, forces fixation of skill-set of its workers and hence limiting their development.

However, for Nietzsche, the reasons are altogether different. He argues that the essence of life is 'its will to power' [3]. Progress is regressive in Nietzsche's world as progress tries to negate man's ability to wield power. Aggression is the fundamental behavior of mankind. Progress, especially progress in the field of law and justice, denies mankind the ability to freely exercise his aggression. To elaborate more on this point, Nietzsche writes “If the power and the self-confidence of a community keeps growing, the criminal law also grows constantly milder. Every weakening and deeper jeopardizing of the community brings its harsher forms of criminal law to light once again”. We can see its echoes in our current legal system which has evolved to safeguard the weaker community against the stronger one.

Thus, even though both Horkheimer and Adorno, and Nietzsche do agree that progress is indeed regressive, their rationale is entirely different. For Nietzsche, the regressiveness comes because progress imposes limitation on our instincts; our failure to properly discharge our instincts internalizes this guilt into bad conscience which ultimately slows down our progress. Thus the root cause for the progress trap is its failure in understanding what our true instincts are. Horkheimer and Adorno instead puts the blame on our blind obedience to enlightenment which, similar to mythology, does not leave any room for any other school of thought. In the absence of any self-evaluating or self-corrective measures, progress under enlightenment goes unchecked and eventually is regressive.

References:

[1] Dialectic of Enlightenment, Max Horkheimer and Adorno

[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBaY09Qi-w0

[3] Genealogy of Morals, Friedrich Nietzsche.  

Freud, Woolf: Art as a palliative measure

In this essay, i discuss Freud's notion of art as a “palliative measure” and examine it along with Virgina Woolf's writing. I argue that while i am in agreement that art is indeed palliative, however, it serves various other purposes, some of them go beyond mere pain relief, even help us in being more civilized.

Sigmund Freud in Civilization and its discontents [1] claims that “The life imposed on us is too hard for us to bear: it brings too much pain, too many disappointments...”. He claims that arts offers a means to make life more bearable. Arts provide a mental and intellectual stimulation that we forego our inherent suffering associated with our existence.

According to Freud, art plays different roles in alleviating us from our pain. In the hands of the artist, creator of the art, art makes one discover the joy in the process of invention, to create something anew, to reach to boundaries previously unknown. However, Freud writes -”The weakness of this method, however, lies in the fact that it can not be employed universally, as it is accessible only to the few”. But Freud addresses this limitation, by highlighting another aspect of art wherein the viewer, audience of the artwork, can still derive satisfaction using his own imagination. The artwork allows him to escape the quotidian reality and provides a sensory illusion making him forget the perennially existential pain.

Virginia Woolf faced a lot of suffering in her early life. When she was only a teenager, she had to deal with loss of her mother and half-sister causing her nervous breakdowns and depression [2]. For her, writing, her art, was definitely palliative. Her stream-of-consciousness style of narration is highly inventive. Writing helped her cope up with her bouts of illnesses. As readers of her work, we are all drawn towards the tiny delightful observations, the innocence and clarity of her characters, the charm and ease in her depiction of complex relationships, that we forget ourselves.  Hence, Woolf's art aligns with Freud's view – Both the artist and its audience are transported to a completely different world thus serving the “palliative effect”.

However, Freud does not go in depth on the artwork itself or about the nature of the art. In addition to forgetting pain, art can be used to explain our origins, to understand who we are and where do we come from like in the case of Darwin. Art could be used to put forth a new model of society or it can serve a means to raise awareness about various political and social issues.

For example, in To The Lighthouse, Virgina Woolf uses her novel to comment about the Victorian prejudice prevalent in her time, where women were considered inferior to men. Mr. Tansley, a self-made man from humble beginnings, remarks to Lily in [3] “... women can't paint can't write”. Later in the novel, at the dinner table, he thinks to himself - “They never got anything worth having from one year's end to another. They did nothing but talk, talk, talk, eat, eat, eat. It was the women's fault”. Virgina through Mr. Tansley is critiquing this condescending attitude that men had at her time. Being a women herself, she had to overcome such biases. By writing about it, she is raising the social consciousness of her readers, a notion not everybody will find inviting. She is using her art as means to depict inherent inequalities in our society and hence contributing, in her own way, in shaping up what kind of civilization we want to be.

In summary, while art indeed offers us an immediate solace against a cynical world, its impact is not merely limited to it. Sometimes, the artwork can also cause pain, to few, for a short while, but in the grand scheme it has the potential to shape what we want to be, thereby making us better. 

References:

[1] Civilization And Its Discontents, Sigmund Freud, 1930

[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Woolf

[3] To The Lighthouse, Virgina Woolf

Darwin, Nietzsche: Utilitarianism and Romanticism

Darwin and Nietzsche : Influence of Utilitarianism and Romanticism in their works

In this essay, I will highlight how both Darwin and Nietzsche rejected the ideas of Utilitarianism in their works and how they evolved Romanticism into a philosophy of existentialism and nature.

Utilitarianism is defined as “Developing a rational scheme for evaluating all practices and beliefs without recourse to any essences or substances, avoiding as scrupulously as possible all those things that cannot be measured” [1]. Charles Darwin, a biologist by profession, draws his thesis of Natural Selection [2] based on his observations of nature. Darwin argues that progress is possible due to slow, tiny developments happening everywhere around us and at all times. In [2], he further argues that natural selection is constantly biasing itself towards that is good, rejecting what is bad and at all times it is striving for its own existence. However, he writes - “We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the long lapse of ages, and then so imperfect is our view into long past geological ages, that we only see that the forms of life are now different from what they formerly were”. Darwin is making a case that both humanity and nature is guided by the principles of “Struggle for Existence” and “Natural Selection”, and it is quite impossible to measure either of them. In its implicit connotations, Darwin is thus discarding the utilitarianism theory.

Nietzsche also draws his thesis based on observations but instead of focussing on nature, like Darwin, he looks back into man's past and observes the pattern of development that has happened so far. In his essay on guilt and bad conscience [3], Nietzsche rejects that the notion of punishment to a culprit was conceived as an act of repayment. He also rejects that punishment was created to prevent the “criminal” from further such actions or to protect the society. Nietzsche rejects all these rational ideas by distinguishing the origin of punishment and the purpose of punishment. Utilitarianism often treats both of them in togetherness and applies the rational scheme retroactively, thereby misleading the purpose to be its origin.

Nietzsche instead argues for a more existential approach and based on how history has unfolded, he writes - “Watching suffering makes people feel good; creating suffering makes them feel even better—that’s a harsh principle, but an old, powerful, and human, all-too-human major principle” . Nietzsche is thus in agreement with the ideas of Romanticism which places emotion, feeling and spontaneous reactions at the center of our progress. Romanticism criticizes the over-indulgence of “rationality” in our day to day flow of human life. Nietzsche even goes one step further and claims - “Only something which has no history is capable of being defined.”

Similarly, Darwin also places more emphasis on man's feelings. Darwin claims that the rational thought itself has evolved from man's conscience and habitual convictions. In the Descent of Man [4], he argues - “Nevertheless, the first foundation or origin of the moral sense lies in the social instincts, including sympathy; and these instincts no doubt were primarily gained, as in the case of lower animals, through natural selection”.

Both, Darwin and Neitzsche, thus, strongly believed that the evolution of humanity and nature has been a process, a series of developments. One can only look at and observe the patterns that could have resulted in the change but it is almost impossible to measure them. Both expanded the view of Romanticism by looking underneath man's moral choices; In Darwin's case it was the principle natural selection while in Nietzsche it was tracing man's transition starting from its origins. Both the thinkers advocated for a more observation based approach – in other words an existential approach.

References:

[1] Prof. Roth, Lecture – ReImagining the World.

[2] Charles Dawin, On the Origin of Species.

[3] Friedrich Nietzsche, Guilt, Bad Conscience, and Related Matters, Genealogy of Morals

[4] Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man.

Marx, Flaubert and Historical Progress

Comparison of Role of Historical Progress in the ideas of Marx and Flaubert

Flaubert and Marx were very much cognizant of historical progress during their time; they were both a child of the age of enlightenment. However, their works show a stark difference in how each one of them interpreted the historical progress. Flaubert, through his novel, Madame Bovary [1], shows the danger in taking any philosophy, in particular Romanticism, to its extreme. Flaubert warns that be it enlightenment or romanticism, when taken up by ordinary people, it can have unintended catastrophic consequences if they do not understand the ideology correctly. Karl Marx, on the other hand, in his essay The Communist Manifesto [2], believes that enlightenment by the masses can only be achieved through an extreme, in this case, the abolition of private property; he argues that a revolutionary struggle which results in giving equal power to everyone is the only way to achieve freedom for all.

In Madame Bovary, Flaubert shows how ordinary people practice enlightenment through Monsieur Homais. In Chapter 11, section II [2], Mosnieur Homais, who is by law not allowed to sell drugs as he does not has the correct license, and Charles Bovary, who is a dull, average doctor, convince Hippolyte that they will straighten his club foot but the operation goes horribly wrong. To prevent Hippolyte from dying,  Dr Canivet is called who scolds Charles and says “These are the inventions of Paris! These are the ideas of those gentry of the capital! It is like strabismus, chloroform, lithotrity, a heap of monstrosities that the Government ought to prohibit. But they want to do the clever, and they cram you with remedies without troubling about the consequences. We are not so clever, not we! We are not savants, coxcombs, fops! “. Thus, through this whole Hippolyte sub-plot, Flaubert is drawing attention that these inventions of enlightened people  when applied by masses can lead to disastrous results.

Flaubert also warns about the extremism of Romanticism through the novel's central protagonist, Madame Bovary.  Emma Bovary is blinded by the idea of romanticism, in section III, she becomes a reckless spendthrift, greedy and develops a possessive attitude of Leon. She is negligent of her duties especially to her daughter. Being unable to separate fantasy from reality, she becomes too much in debt that she finally forces herself to commit suicide. Through the novel Madame Bovary, Flaubert, shows a step by step deconstruction of an extremist romanticist; the novel is actually a social commentary on the deluded personal culture prevalent in Flaubert's period.

In contrast, Karl Marx, argues for an extremist response to achieve true enlightenment. Having witnessed the abolition of Feudal property by the bourgeoise, the French revolution had failed to provide any power to proletariat. The bourgeoise had merely replaced feudal powers, the labor class continued to be exploited. Marx through his study, goes back into the history, and argues [2] that “The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles.” To abolish all class struggles, Marx advocates an extremist viewpoint to abolish all forms of private property. He proposes Communism as the answer and writes “There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc. that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.".

Marx further argues that no matter how one sees history, there is one common thread to our entire existence - “... the exploitation of one part of society by the other.” He advocates for a revolutionary measure, he writes - “The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.”

Thus, Marx uses historical developments as a vehicle to make his case for an extremist action to solve class struggle problems. While, Flaubert uses real, the then prevalent, developments to highlight ill-effects if any one ideology, be enlightenment or romanticism is taken to an extreme.

References

1. Madame Bovary, Gustave Flaubert
          
2. The  Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
   
   

Kant, Karl and Enlightenment

Kant in “What is Enlightenment” [1] defines Enlightenment as man’s application of himself, of his own understanding, without the guidance of another. Kant does not define the nature of this application or if it has positive or negative outcomes; according to him a man’s actions has to be based on his own reasons and he should have the freedom to do so; as long as these conditions are met, as per Kant, rest everything would fall in place. 

Karl Marx is a figure of Enlightenment as he is able to derive at his political thought based on his own understanding and rationale.  In the Communist Manifesto [2], before stating the 10 generally applicable measures in the second section, Marx explains the rationale on why he believes in those measures. In the first section of [2], titled “Bourgeois and Proletarians”, Marx gives an historical account on bourgeois has reached the current state and dissects the motives behind previous revolutions. Marx digs deep into the thesis of “free competition” and “capital”, he reflects on their origins and their consequences and he ties them to the notion of “private property” through his own rationale.

Even in Estranged Labor [3], Marx skillfully links how if we work (labor) for an output that we ourselves can’t relate to, cant feel proud about it or if we can’t enjoy it, we are loosing part of ourselves. Marx argues -  “… estranged labor makes man’s species-life a means to his physical existence”.  Marx was one of the first to reason that both the act of production and the output of production is fundamentally linked to our humanly existence which is much more than a mere physical (animal) existence. Thus, even though you and I may not agree with Marx’s ideologies and his calls to action but Marx still is definitely a figure of Enlightenment as he has to come to his conclusions based on his own reason.

However, there does exist some key fundamental differences between Kant and Marx about the process of enlightenment. According to Kant, few individuals can behave passively while they are employed under the government and their obedience in this situation is imperative. Kant also argues that it is in the interest of the commonwealth [1]. Such a notion is fundamentally opposed by Karl Marx. According to Marx, such form of obedience constitutes estranged labor and is unacceptable. 

Furthermore, there is no public-private dichotomy in Marx’s ideology. In The private realm will always instill a subservient attitude and it imposes restrictions on man’s freedom. In Kant’s views, it is acceptable if the ruling class, like the prince, grants freedom to its subjects in public sphere. Kant writes in [1], “A prince who does not regard it as beneath him to say that he considers it his duty, in religious matters, not to prescribe anything to his people, but to allow them complete freedom, a prince who thus even declines to accept the presumptuous title of tolerant, is himself enlightened”. Marx who came in a much later time than Kant has already witnessed that the bourgeois has already thrown out the feudal class and has replaced them. Marx argues that such a model is impractical because as long as there is concentration of power in the hands of few, as long as there exists private property, a man’s greed will not allow space for such public freedom. There will always be a suppression of such freedom and hence would prevent mankind to become enlightened.

Thus, both Kant and Marx agree that man must apply his own reason and should be free to do so. However, they differ in the process of going about it. Kant’s is a slow progressive model which allows for both ruling class and common men to co-exist while Marx is a more revolutionary model which realizes that the co-existence will never result in complete enlightenment. 

References

[1] An Answer to the Question: "What is Enlightenment?" by Immanuel Kant.

[2] The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

[3] Estranged Labour, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 by Karl Marx

Modern and Postmodern Philosophy

Modern and Postmodern philosophy
Coursera website - https://class.coursera.org/modernpostmodern-002/class/index
Teacher: Prof. Michael S. Roth
Wesleyan University


It was a conversation with Justin, few months back, which got me interested into this course. He had shared the course link and i was generally looking for something more academic in this area for quite some time. Instinctively I had signed up. Today marks the end of this 14 week journey, and i have enjoyed it immensely.

To the people who ask why study philosophy, my answer is simple - To understand what is philosophy, what is modern philosophy and what is postmodern? I had never posed the why this course question to myself because i knew very well that i was doing it just to satiate my curiosity.


Since i read Kant's essay on What is  Enlightenment, i was hooked. Last 14 weeks were spent planning everything around this course. To give you an idea, i was reading Madame Bovary on the flight from India to US, not a good idea in hindsight as i was sleep deprived and under a mild headache - not the best time to read Flaubert. Ankur and Somnath invited me to join them for an evening visit to a beautiful cave in Bentonville but i had to skip as i wanted to finish readings on Karl Marx. The 10 day Sikkim trek made me read two weeks of reading compressed in one week with assignment and the very first thing that i did on internet  after coming down to Yuksom was to check my assignment's grade.  Infact, on the way to Bagdogra, i was reading Emerson (oh, what a joy that was! ) and even tried to read Focault at Tshoka but that turned out to be a disaster. As of now, my Kindle is not working properly as it got wet while hiking in rain. I watched the lectures on  Virginia Woolf  from the food court of Garuda mall while waiting for Parul before going to the film - Lunch box. You might not believe but i had planned for that time slot three days in advance. It has been worth every effort.  It has been a joy, an informative experience.


Before i show-off what i have read, i want to record my thoughts on some of the key takeaways. In other words, beyond the curiosity argument, why should anyone take this course?

~ With every philosopher you read, you agree with some of their points and disagree with others. But there are some who just sweep you off your feet and provide such a radical view-point that you had not thought of before. This by itself would be a good enough reason - new perspectives and outlooks. But we are reading the best of philosophers and here, you  find yourself agreeing with their radical theory. Your mind says to you - "Indeed, this makes sense! whoa".  Each one has their own set of philosophers that has done this to them. For me, it happened with Nietzsche and Freud. There is also the opposite effect where you say - "Really, what trash is this. " For me, i would not call anything trash but i would say - "I beg to differ, agree to disagree. But it was good to know the counter viewpoint".  For me, the former case happened much more.

~ The other very important takeaway has been the method of delivery by these authors. While reading some sentences in their text, i was just floored by the way each thought was conveyed, how the right word was chosen and the kind of feeling it emoted once the sentence was over. In numerous cases, i had to just re-read a line just to fully appreciate the magnitude of its construction and effect. Particular examples here were Rousseau, Marx and Emerson.

~ Historical perspective : The course starts with authors writing in 18th century and ends with some of the contemporary philosophers. Even with a limited set of readings, one can witness the change in the kind of work that has been the focussed and how the society/culture of that decade or century had shaped their respective works. I am always fascinated by history and this course does a great job in providing historical perspectives.

~ To The Lighthouse, Madame Bovary : To The Lighthouse is ranked 15th in Modern's list of 100 books of all time. It was always there on my TODO list. The book deserves its place in that list. Madame Bovary is considered to be one of the greatest novel every written; it is also one of the most influential novels ever written. I took the Greek and Roman mythology course just because they were reading Odyssey. This course had two books. Jokes apart, both these books are phenomenal read.


~ Failed attempts - I had tried to read some essay of Nietzsche in past but had failed to make sense of him in any way. (It was not easy this time either, at least the first time.) I was never interested in Freud's Interpretation of Dreams but wanted to read something more significant by him. Kant, Darwin and Emerson were all dreams unfulfilled. So, this course presented an excellent opportunity to cover all of them in one go.

~Professor Michael S. Roth as the teacher is very good. His enthusiasm, passion is viral, you can not escape it. Also, his understanding and ability to break down these texts into simple terms and convey the "really real" (haha) makes it very easy to follow the course. Also, in general the coursera online course format is quite good.


Things that i read as part of this course, along with one line on key takeaway.

1. Immanuel Kant - What is Enlightenment?
A short essay that explains Kantian meaning of enlightenment and it can be said that it kickstarted the whole modern philosophy. Enlightenment especially Kant's definition is referred throughout the course by many others.

2. Jean Jacques Rousseau - Discourse on the Arts and Sciences.
He argues that all arts and sciences are bad, man should go back to the stone age and live peacefully there. A difficult read but Rousseau's language is brilliant. Difficult to agree with him.

3. Jean Jacques Rousseau - Discourse on the Origins of Inequality
I did not complete this one, it was too long for me.


4. Karl Marx - Estranged Labor.
Brilliant. This text shocked me as it was so right. I have to re-read it and keep it at the back of my mind.

5. Karl Marx - The Communist Manifesto.
Very very good. If i was born at that time, i would have believed in Communism. I agree with Marx's diagnosis but find his solution, aka communism, difficult to digest, in particular now as we have seen how it breaks down.

6. Gustave Flaubert - Madame Bovary
A dig at Romanticism, Enlightenment, bourgeoise and many others, all happening under a story that is equally enchanting.

7. Charles Darwin - Struggle for Existence and Natural Selection from The Origin of Species, and Conclusion from The Descent of Man.
Very informative read. The text is anyways cult, so another "Been there done that". What insights for that age!

8. Charles Baudelaire  - Paris Spleen.
Prose poems - a completely new form of literature for me. Felt like reading Gulzar in English; a lot of emphasis on imagery.

9. Friedrich Nietzsche - Essay 2 in Genealogy of Morals.
Radical thought but very well argued. What is even shocking is that i agree with his line of thinking. The other two essays are a must  read now.

10. Sigmund Freud - Civilization and its discontents
Again very radical. You may not agree with all his points but when you do, you know something about yourself that you didn't knew before.

11. Virginia Woolf - To the Lighthouse.
Absolutely brilliant - Has to be read again. The last five pages of Act 1 is one of the best pieces of literature ever written.

12. Ralph Waldo Emerson - Self-Reliance from the book Essays: First Series.
Pure joy to read. I am an Emerson fan from now on.

13. Ludwig Wittgenstein, - Selections from his book Philosophical Investigations.
His bio on wikipedia was equally interesting to his text. Changes how you see at language. I have to read again to get its full grasp.

14. Horkheimer and Adorno - Chapter 1 from Dialectics of Enlightenment.
Quite difficult to follow. A lot of tirades and then the meaning comes. But when it comes, it comes with shock, grief and doom.

15. Michel Foucault - The Great Confinement from the book Madness and Civilization.
Man, this is all crazy! Foucalt rips apart the prison system and calls it madness.

16. Michel Foucault - What is Enlightenment.
I have no idea what this text meant until i saw the video lectures. Very very difficult to follow him.

17. Alison Bechdel, Fun home - A tragicomic story.
A graphic novel + memoir combination. Though, it was an optional read, i read it. Enjoyed the story, and the graphics.  But not as good as the two other works of fiction in this course.

18. Judith Butler - Introduction from Undoing Gender.
First time read - Made no sense. Second time read - interesting. Third time read - She is so right! Again, very difficult to follow.

19. Slavoj Zizek - You May.
"A philosopher's job is not to find answers but to ask the right questions" - Zizek. A very interesting character and the text.

20. Richard Rorty - Postmodern Bourgeoise Liberalism from the book Pragmatism - A Reader.
Pragmatism by itself is an interesting take. Other essays should be read from this book.

21. Cornell West - Prophetic Pragmatism from Pragmatism - A Reader.
Very interesting. West also brings it under the religious context but in his own terms.

22. Bruno Latour - Why has critique run out of steam?
Starting under how republicans trash the global warming theory, a spectacular take on critique and  how it needs to progress so that it survives.

23. Anthony Appiah  - Cosmopolitan Contamination from the book Cosmopiltanism.
I didn't agree with some of his arguments on globalization but it was a still quite informative. Easy to follow.



Follow up readings -
(I am too afraid to start this list as it is a long one)

1. Nietzsche - The other two essays in Genalogy of Morals and his other writings.
2. Anthony Appiah - Finish the book Cosmopolitanism.
3. Pragmatist - A Reader. Read few more essays especially by Dewey and the one on justice.
4. John Stuart Mill's On Liberty. On my reading list for quite some time.
5. Some more essays by Zizek.  General curiosity here.
6. Couple of more essays from Foucault's Madness and civilization, just want to know how else we are mad.
7. Order, and Finish Paris Spleen by Baudelaire.
8. Finish Rousseau's discourse on inequality someday.
9. Want to read Joyce to get more of stream-of-consciousness.
10. To the Lighthouse has to be read but not anytime soon.

Judith Butler : Undoing Gender

Undoing Gender: Introduction

By Judith Butler

The Hegelian tradition links desire with recognition, claiming that desire is always a desire for recognition and that it is only through the experience of recognition that any of us becomes constituted as socially viable beings

Indeed, the capacity to develop a critical relation to these norms presupposes a distance from them, an ability to suspend or defer the need for them, even as there is a desire for norms that might let one live. The critical relation depends as well on a capacity, invariably collective, to articulate an alternative, minority version of sustaining norms or ideals that enable me to act. If I am someone who cannot be without doing, then the conditions of my doing are, in part, the conditions of my existence.
I may feel that without some recognizability I cannot live. But I may also feel that the terms by which I am recognized make life unlivable. This is the juncture from which critique emerges, where critique is understood as an interrogation of the terms by which life is constrained in order to open up the possibility of different modes of living; in other words, not to celebrate difference as such but to establish more inclusive conditions for sheltering and maintaining life that resists models of assimilation. 

I believe, however, that it would be a mistake to subscribe to a progressive notion of history in which various frameworks are understood to succeed and supplant one another. There is no story to be told about how one moves from feminist to queer to trans. The reason there is no story to be told is that none of these stories are the past; these stories are continuing to happen in simultaneous and overlapping ways as we tell them. They happen, in part, through the complex ways they are taken up by each of these movements and theoretical practices.

Indeed, individuals rely on institutions of social support in order to exercise self-determination with respect to what body and what gender to have and maintain, so that self-determination becomes a plausible concept only in the context of a social world that supports and enables that exercise of agency. Conversely (and as a consequence), it turns out that changing the institutions by which humanly viable choice is established and maintained is a prerequisite for the exercise of self-determination. 

The critique of gender norms must be situated within the context of lives as they are lived and must be guided by the question of what maximizes the possibili- ties for a livable life, what minimizes the possibility of unbearable life or, indeed, social or literal death.

Gender likewise figures as a precondition for the production and maintenance of legible humanity.

The point is emphatically not to extend the “right to life” to any and all people who want to make this claim on behalf of mute embryos, but rather to understand how the “viability” of a woman’s life depends upon an exercise of bod- ily autonomy and on social conditions that enable that autonomy.

There is always a dimension of ourselves and our relation to others that we cannot know, and this not-knowing persists with us as a condition of existence and, indeed, of survivability.
Norms do not exercise a final or fatalistic control, at least, not always. The fact that desire is not fully determined corresponds with the psychoanalytic understanding that sexuality is never fully captured by any regulation. Rather, it is characterized by displacement, it can exceed regulation, take on new forms in response to regulation, even turn around and make it sexy. In this sense, sexuality is never fully reducible to the “effect” of this or that operation of regulatory power.