Heidegger has been a massive influence on a number of great philosophers, and is not short of controversy himself with his links to the Nazis. As such you may wonder what all the fuss is about but have a slight apprehension about engaging with his justifiably intimidating texts. There is however a way for you to get your head round the basics of his work through these set of articles by Simon Critchley who lays out a clear outline of what Heidegger’s most influential work, Being and Time, looks to achieve:
Work-life balance. Working to live. Working yourself into an early grave. Where do fit on this scale? It’s an interesting question as to what the right level of work is and how each type of work brings it’s own rewards and costs, including contributing to or restricting us in relation to who we imagine ourselves to be. Below is an article that is as interesting for the parts I disagree with as those that I agree with and ultimately it’s a great piece for provoking a multitude of reactions, many of which instigate a cascade of philosophical thoughts on the nature of work:
Colonialism and Plato
Thanks to Victor for some inspiration on how to start this discussion thread. This begins with Glaucon and Socrates discussing the idea of justice and Socrates moving toward looking at how it can be judged in a large state, so that this can be shrunk down to see how it might occur in an individual. Victor pointed out how Plato here is using the growth of a country and its accompanying need for more resources to justify the invasion of nearby countries and the need for an army:
Socrates: And the country which was enough to support the original inhabitants will be too small now, and not enough?
Glaucon: Quite true.
S: Then a slice of our neighbours’ land will be wanted by us for pasture and tillage, and they will want a slice of ours, if, like ourselves, they exceed the limit of necessity, and give themselves up to the unlimited accumulation of wealth?
G: That, Socrates, will be inevitable.
S: And so we shall go to war, Glaucon. Shall we not?
G: Most certainly, he replied.
S: Then without determining as yet whether war does good or harm, thus much we may affirm, that now we have discovered war to be derived from causes which are also the causes of almost all the evils in States, private as well as public.
S: And our State must once more enlarge; and this time the enlargement will be nothing short of a whole army, which will have to go out and fight with the invaders for all that we have, as well as for the things and persons whom we were describing above.
G: Why? he said; are they not capable of defending themselves?
S: No, I said; not if we were right in the principle which was acknowledged by all of us when we were framing the State: the principle, as you will remember, was that one man cannot practise many arts with success.
G: Very true, he said.
S: But is not war an art?
(Aristotle; Plato (2009-01-25). The Works of Plato & Aristotle – 35 Works (Kindle Locations 17003-17012). C&C Web Press. Kindle Edition.)
Victor described this perspective would generate a cold-war like tension, and could provoke a discussion on trade, post-colonialism, development and the role of the military. Whilst viewing the actions in themselves as unjust Victor did seem to suggest that the honesty of Plato’s perspective is at least preferable to making up “fake chemical-weapon carrying lorries to justify it”.
My instant reaction to all of the above is a series of questions that arise that may generate debate on this topic:
- Will there ever be a time when the field of politics can see beyond humans competing over resources?
- Is the military the only or best tool for dominating other states or spheres of influence in the modern day?
- Does Plato believe even in his time that continual expansion is a must for states to survive?
Any ideas, further questions or observations raised by any of this are welcome….
The point of this section of my blog is to introduce an area opening up space for discussions based on a variety of topics. The idea was suggested by a good friend of mine, Victor. As we have lived closely in Nepal we wanted somewhere where we could dissect ideas in an open way whilst still living a distance apart. As such I challenged him to find a topic worth discussing from Plato’s Republic which he has been reading and I have recently read as we would be able to both refer to it. However the point is not to have read the text, but to use it as a stimulus and a reference point to lead down different angles coming from the discussion so don’t feel afraid to join in if you haven’t read the book but can think of something to say on the topic (or any of the hopefully following topics…). If you can think of anything you want to add feel free to get in touch and we can put something up. So shortly will follow the first topic…