365... Tech

@ Kat Again, sorry for being quite a bit late with advise. Your argument is grounded in other philosopher's ideas, but almost too grounded. Your basis for explaining is very much in an accordance to other's ideas. I believe you would benefit from building off of what Heidegger or Marx said, rather than using it as the entire basis for expressing your point. Think somewhat back to the explicatios, where we had to choose a quote and explain it logically to arrive at a conclusion. Quote Marx, explain what he's saying, and use it to build on top of an argument you are personally pushing You could also benefit from having a more structured introduction, expressing your views rather than Heidegger's initially, and using Heidegger to support in the body portion of your essay. The same goes for your conclusion. It's a little ironic the situation we have here. I just state ideas, with little founding, whereas you overstate your foundings,and understate your ideas. You obviously have a great grasp of the text, but use that foundation to push, rather than restate. All the best, Nic

Nicolas Peress 1/21/09 Dr. Matthews Freedom and Human Nature Alienation: The Antithesis of Purpose A fundamental issue in the pursuit of philosophical thinking is the concept of alienation. The question arises, does being human necessarily mean to be alienated? However, that is hardly the case, since there are various doctrines of thought that obviate this inherent feeling of alienation. Rather, one may want to posit that this alienation is a self-fulfilling clause of a certain category of _meta_physical language, which is far from being necessarily essential to the human condition. The root of this concept of alienation may stem from the evidence of death. Fundamentally, people feel as if they are at odds with the world, and everyone else, because they know they will die, alone, and the world will move on without them. In order to eliminate this feeling of alienation, some people seek recourse in the infinite and attempt at unity through a variety of means; religion, art, sexuality, murder, and revolution, often combining them ad infinitum. They need a manner in which to relate themselves to the world beyond their certain death, and that need manifests itself through the concept of purpose. When we lack purpose, we lack a cause to which we can devote our lives in order for our efforts, or existence, or essence to perdure beyond our finitude. Lamenting upon what ‘could’ be our purpose, serves only to delay action, and perpetuate alienation. For the longest time in history, it has been inferred that we are born with a purpose to our being, a purpose that defines our lives, which stems out of a devout faith in God. “When we think of God as the creator, we are thinking of him, most of the time, as a supernal artisan…so that when God creates he knows precisely what he is creating” (Sartre, 307). We did not need to know our purpose individually, we had faith in God to administer our destiny, and in such we felt one, because we were part of a larger landscape, living in this world, working towards the kingdom of God. We were all one, all brothers and sisters, all children of God, loving God, and working for God. Ultimately, that was the purpose of our being in this world, as an interdependent force of life in submission to the supreme ‘Architect.’ There was no inquiry into individual purpose, for there lacked an individualistic approach to life and to existence. The angst of the finitude of one’s existence was tempered by acceptance, since the soul was eternal and upon the death of our physical body, we would proceed to live with God in Heaven. In this, the existential dilemma at the root of alienation was absent, and inherently alienation was not an issue, which may serve to prove the point of it not being a necessary condition of man. However, with the advent of the 19th century, the existence of God came into question, and in the absence of the plan of ‘the Architect of our existence’, in this and the next world, the problem of alienation began to arise. Hobbes describes man in the “state of nature” as a rat in a race for survival, where anyone will kill anybody for anything. Consequently is discredited the previously accepted idea that we are fundamentally one through God, and therefore is also discredited our purpose to serve our pre-supposed creator. Marxism, which emerges in the mid 19th century, then serves to justify and explain our condition and therefore, our purpose.  “The mode of production of material life determines the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness” (Karl Marx, Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy). In accordance with this socio- economist mindset, we are in fact alienated from others, because of the impact of the exploitative capitalist system. The bourgeoisie exploits and enslaves the worker, by using their labor to create value, which labor is only compensated to the level necessary to replenish itself for the next day, while the bourgeoisie itself experiences a different world and life than that of the proletariat. In this scheme, in order to be able to ‘morally’ justify this exploitation, the oppressors must not be able to empathize with the oppressed, and in doing so, must distance and alienate themselves from their victim. However, despite this alienation between classes, one can look to one’s class peers to experience some form of unity. You are not alone, because there are the millions of working men, worldwide, who experience the same manner of life that you do. The bourgeoisie maintains its supremacy by trying to alienate you from one another, prevent the Union, in fear that once the working class unites, the communist revolution may begin, and once it has succeeded, there will be no classes, and there will be no discerning socio- economic factors, that pits man against man. “WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!” (Marx, 177) However, by the end of the 19th century and in the first half of the 20th century, not everyone agreed that the structure of our life is necessarily pre-determined, either by God or by socio-economic factors. From Nietzsche on, a school of thought arose that posited that in fact, the world may lack inherent purpose. Existentialism, as it was later called, mistakenly became synonymous with pessimism and nihilism, for once the meaninglessness of the world is realized, one’s disposition towards living could undoubtedly become that of despair, and apathy. This existential dilemma is the basis for the problem of alienation, as we know it now, for those who despair and who lack purpose define their essence in nothingness, and therefore self- fulfill their own finitude, for why should someone hope to achieve something in their life if it is pointless? That problem perpetuated itself through decades of existentialist philosophers, seeking to orient themselves in a world lacking apparent order. If before, there was an idea of karma that good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people, with the death of God, and of the inherent order orienting people’s lives, we entered into a world where anything can happen to anyone, without any reason. In that world, first mapped by Kafka and Dostoevsky, tragedy can strike at any time, and put anyone in a scenario where they must confront head on the absurdity of the world. Once in that world, there is no way to orient yourself, and you end up falling in the throes of absurdity, and of the abysmal essence of despair. Yet one might posit that this is only the case if you maintain a reactive life, trying to live pretending there is a meaning, when in reality, if you do not give a defined meaning to your life, and your actions, it is like trying to speak when you don’t even know that there is such a thing as language. We are now past the determinist theologies, in a situation where as individuals, in order to do, we must redefine our essence by and for ourselves. As Sartre said in his essay “Existentialism and Humanism,” “For if every way to a solution is barred, one would have to regard any action in this world as entirely ineffective, and one would arrive at a contemplative philosophy. Moreover since contemplation is a luxury, this would only be another bourgeois philosophy,”(Sartre, 305) therefore, being able to lament, and cry about how unfair and ridiculously depressing the world is, is but a petty luxury that only those who don’t need to commit to action can afford. In order to become productive again, define our essence and forsake the alienation, the despair, the petty bourgeois luxury of depression, one must define one’s purpose, and in a world with no apparent inherent meaning, anything one desires can then become the purpose of one’s life. Our initial sense of purpose may be conditioned by socio-economic factors, such as the dominant religion of our culture, or what role we may play in the functioning of our society; beliefs and roles which we hold on to subconsciously because we need this minimal guidance to maintain our low-effort, low-responsibility, lazy, reactive life_style_. However, this conditioning is easily dismantled by a few hours of self- examination and once we do so, we have the choice to either try to maintain this reactive life_style_, without self-assigned purpose, or we may choose to become proactive and condition ourselves into authentic consciousness. If we maintain reactive life_style_s we are but slaves to factors that determine who we are without regard to whom we want to make ourselves to be. This acceptance of one’s condition, is prominent in religion, and is a big rationale for Marx to say “religion is the opium of the people,” which allows people not to care and just drift into meaninglessness and servitude. When we allow ourselves to maintain this drift, unmoored, we may feel as if all is okay, when in reality we are just blind and much like in Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, when the seeker leaves the cave and enters into the light of the sun, he is at first unable to see. Initially, he can only see the shadows of which he was accustomed to in the cave, but, as he comes to terms with the sun, and the truth, he will no longer need to see the world through the negative space of the shadows, or through false apparitions of reflections, but will rather confront the empirical facts of the world. He will begin to see himself, not in reflection or as shadows, but in being, and will contemplate himself as he is. He will see that he is the master of his destiny, and that of those around him. When he returns to the cave, it will all seem so much darker, and more hopeless than before having seen the light when he was still content in the cave. He will be alienated from others in the cave, because he now knows of its darkness and false truth. But if
... read more »

1/21/09 Dr. Matthews Freedom and Human Nature Alienation: The Antithesis of Purpose A fundamental issue in the pursuit of philosophical thinking is the concept of alienation. The question arises, does being human necessarily mean to be alienated? However, that is hardly the case, since there are various doctrines of thought that obviate this inherent feeling of alienation. Rather, one may want to posit that this alienation is a self-fulfilling clause of a certain category of _meta_physical language, which is far from being necessarily essential to the human condition. The root of this concept of alienation may stem from the evidence of death. Fundamentally, people feel as if they are at odds with the world, and everyone else, because they know they will die, alone, and the world will move on without them. In order to eliminate this feeling of alienation, some people seek recourse in the infinite and attempt at unity through a variety of means; religion, art, sexuality, murder, and revolution, often combining them ad infinitum. They need a manner in which to relate themselves to the world beyond their certain death, and that need manifests itself through the concept of purpose. When we lack purpose, we lack a cause to which we can devote our lives in order for our efforts, or existence, or essence to perdure beyond our finitude. Lamenting upon what ‘could’ be our purpose, serves only to delay action, and perpetuate alienation. For the longest time in history, it has been inferred that we are born with a purpose to our being, a purpose that defines our lives, which stems out of a devout faith in God. “When we think of God as the creator, we are thinking of him, most of the time, as a supernal artisan…so that when God creates he knows precisely what he is creating” (Sartre, 307). We did not need to know our purpose individually, we had faith in God to administer our destiny, and in such we felt one, because we were part of a larger landscape, living in this world, working towards the kingdom of God. We were all one, all brothers and sisters, all children of God, loving God, and working for God. Ultimately, that was the purpose of our being in this world, as an interdependent force of life in submission to the supreme ‘Architect.’ There was no inquiry into individual purpose, for there lacked an individualistic approach to life and to existence. The angst of the finitude of one’s existence was tempered by acceptance, since the soul was eternal and upon the death of our physical body, we would proceed to live with God in Heaven. In this, the existential dilemma at the root of alienation was absent, and inherently alienation was not an issue, which may serve to prove the point of it not being a necessary condition of man. However, with the advent of the 19th century, the existence of God came into question, and in the absence of the plan of ‘the Architect of our existence’, in this and the next world, the problem of alienation began to arise. Hobbes describes man in the “state of nature” as a rat in a race for survival, where anyone will kill anybody for anything. Consequently is discredited the previously accepted idea that we are fundamentally one through God, and therefore is also discredited our purpose to serve our pre-supposed creator. Marxism, which emerges in the mid 19th century, then serves to justify and explain our condition and therefore, our purpose.  “The mode of production of material life determines the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness” (Karl Marx, Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy). In accordance with this socio- economist mindset, we are in fact alienated from others, because of the impact of the exploitative capitalist system. The bourgeoisie exploits and enslaves the worker, by using their labor to create value, which labor is only compensated to the level necessary to replenish itself for the next day, while the bourgeoisie itself experiences a different world and life than that of the proletariat. In this scheme, in order to be able to ‘morally’ justify this exploitation, the oppressors must not be able to empathize with the oppressed, and in doing so, must distance and alienate themselves from their victim. However, despite this alienation between classes, one can look to one’s class peers to experience some form of unity. You are not alone, because there are the millions of working men, worldwide, who experience the same manner of life that you do. The bourgeoisie maintains its supremacy by trying to alienate you from one another, prevent the Union, in fear that once the working class unites, the communist revolution may begin, and once it has succeeded, there will be no classes, and there will be no discerning socio- economic factors, that pits man against man. “WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!” (Marx, 177) However, by the end of the 19th century and in the first half of the 20th century, not everyone agreed that the structure of our life is necessarily pre-determined, either by God or by socio-economic factors. From Nietzsche on, a school of thought arose that posited that in fact, the world may lack inherent purpose. Existentialism, as it was later called, mistakenly became synonymous with pessimism and nihilism, for once the meaninglessness of the world is realized, one’s disposition towards living could undoubtedly become that of despair, and apathy. This existential dilemma is the basis for the problem of alienation, as we know it now, for those who despair and who lack purpose define their essence in nothingness, and therefore self- fulfill their own finitude, for why should someone hope to achieve something in their life if it is pointless? That problem perpetuated itself through decades of existentialist philosophers, seeking to orient themselves in a world lacking apparent order. If before, there was an idea of karma that good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people, with the death of God, and of the inherent order orienting people’s lives, we entered into a world where anything can happen to anyone, without any reason. In that world, first mapped by Kafka and Dostoevsky, tragedy can strike at any time, and put anyone in a scenario where they must confront head on the absurdity of the world. Once in that world, there is no way to orient yourself, and you end up falling in the throes of absurdity, and of the abysmal essence of despair. Yet one might posit that this is only the case if you maintain a reactive life, trying to live pretending there is a meaning, when in reality, if you do not give a defined meaning to your life, and your actions, it is like trying to speak when you don’t even know that there is such a thing as language. We are now past the determinist theologies, in a situation where as individuals, in order to do, we must redefine our essence by and for ourselves. As Sartre said in his essay “Existentialism and Humanism,” “For if every way to a solution is barred, one would have to regard any action in this world as entirely ineffective, and one would arrive at a contemplative philosophy. Moreover since contemplation is a luxury, this would only be another bourgeois philosophy,”(Sartre, 305) therefore, being able to lament, and cry about how unfair and ridiculously depressing the world is, is but a petty luxury that only those who don’t need to commit to action can afford. In order to become productive again, define our essence and forsake the alienation, the despair, the petty bourgeois luxury of depression, one must define one’s purpose, and in a world with no apparent inherent meaning, anything one desires can then become the purpose of one’s life. Our initial sense of purpose may be conditioned by socio-economic factors, such as the dominant religion of our culture, or what role we may play in the functioning of our society; beliefs and roles which we hold on to subconsciously because we need this minimal guidance to maintain our low-effort, low-responsibility, lazy, reactive life_style_. However, this conditioning is easily dismantled by a few hours of self- examination and once we do so, we have the choice to either try to maintain this reactive life_style_, without self-assigned purpose, or we may choose to become proactive and condition ourselves into authentic consciousness. If we maintain reactive life_style_s we are but slaves to factors that determine who we are without regard to whom we want to make ourselves to be. This acceptance of one’s condition, is prominent in religion, and is a big rationale for Marx to say “religion is the opium of the people,” which allows people not to care and just drift into meaninglessness and servitude. When we allow ourselves to maintain this drift, unmoored, we may feel as if all is okay, when in reality we are just blind and much like in
... read more »

Nick, I take your point and I would like to note that then my argument becomes an issue of noesis and dianoesis, where I'm the one who's got the dianoesis, and the listener has to sustain themselves on intuition. I think that since this is not my presentation, but simply my essay, for the sake of academic rigor, i will maintain the long and lecture-like tone of this paper. However, for the presentation itself I will strongly consider your comments. Thanks! - Rron K.

I concur with Nick for Katie's pushing rather than restating. That said, here is my final paper: Rron Karahoda Dr. Matthews Freedom and Human Nature Final Draft Alienation: Man is Made to Jump His Own Borders The human species is the only species that is known to deliberate on its own existence. Being thus removed from the savage plane of survival, that plane which is concerned only with the survival of one's self, man's existence as an advanced being alienates man from all of existence. He is alienated from other existences in that the level on which man operates is far beyond that of other animals, and so prevents him from functioning or perceiving existence as an animal would. As man is, he is equipped with the capability to think and reflect critically, that is, to deliberate. In doing so, man complicates his own existence by inquiring into the nature of existence. This inquiry is also known as that field of study called _meta_physics and is representative of man's ability to deliberate. As the aim of an inquiry is to come to a conclusion, it can thusly be said that it is necessary for man to recognize his alienation and further deliberate on the neutralization of his alienation, which I will term as being his *naturalization* if he is indeed to be human. Before one can study how it is that man comes to be alienated, a concession must be made to admit the existence of alienation. Martin Heidegger inquires into the nature of _meta_physics in his “What is _meta_physics” and defines two aspects of reality as being 'the something' and 'the nothing'. His argument is that by conceding the one, you differentiate it; that is, you make it distinct, and so necessitate the concession of the other. Heidegger makes the argument that all understanding of 'the something' comes when parts of the nothing start to be labeled and given form, and that because of this process, man is only capable of perceiving 'the nothing' while affected by an overwhelming mood such as profound boredom. The existence of man's alienation comes from the concession that there is some truth or answer to the questions that man's deliberative mind asks. So it is in being able to ask and by asking that man is recognized to be inherently alienated, but it is also by this inquiry that man is able to concede his own alienation. In asking for an answer, man concedes that there is a question, or a problem that needs to be solved, and as man and his being is the subject, man concedes that he is his own problem to be solved. The answer to these inquiries would lead to the “naturalization of man” and it is from this basis that one must concede the state of alienation. In order for one to consider either the alienation or the naturalization of man, one must concede both. As the response to _meta_physics is philosophy, the response to an inquiry into the nature of man's existence and his alienation would be a system of beliefs, or a way by which to deal with and flourish under the circumstances of man's existence. In order to flourish, man must fully comprehend the nature of his alienation and it is in Thomas Hobbes' “Leviathan” that one sees the most elaborate de_script_ion of said alienation. Thomas Hobbes outlines what he calls the state of nature, and it is there that man has a right to everything. Man has a right to everything in that while in the state of nature, there is no law and so all things are allowed. Hobbes says that man's directing force is an internal urge to be content and so whilst in the state of nature, man is inclined to take everything that appears to fulfill this urge without regard for any further consequences. Man becomes unhappy and ends up fashioning government as a system of concession in exchange for contentedness. It is at the point at which man starts taking from others or preventing others that man starts to recognize his state of alienation. Were man an animal, he would be satisfied with the pleasures of such a brutish being; to survive would be all that mattered, but man is not satisfied, and in being so, his state of existence is alienated from the state of nature and placed into the state of civilization. The state of civilization is an imposed set of rules that prevent us from doing harm, and so man's level of contentment becomes equatable to the amount of sorrow that is prevented by the system in place. Man however, is still further alienated from this state of civilization as man does continually break the law. The treatment of government as an entity separate from man's instinctual urges only serves to separate man from that aspect of his nature which desires, and in doing so alienates man from himself. It can be said that man requires dignity because he refuses to be shepherded by an outside force, yet also refuses to rot away without the usage of his own faculties and so strives to lead a life worth living.Thusly we see that it is in man's nature to react to his inherent alienation. Man is made distinct  by utilizing his faculties, which are the inherent mechanism for man's alienation, so as to act against that which alienates him; man's discontentment within the state of nature as well in the state of civilization. It is thus shewn that man is built to recognize and respond to his own alienation by turning to a system of beliefs. The mechanist at this point is likely to make the case that man has no mind and is acting on a set of pre-existing conditions that cause these reactions and that man works as any other machine; completing the infinite cause-effect chain that is existence. If *the uniformity of law, *as described by Elliot, is to be applied upon the state of man then man's alienation is utterly clear. In the mechanist's world, man is unaware of what laws, or functions of nature, control him and so cannot accurately predict what any section of humanity is to do. Man's scientific tools map the natural world but still cannot explain the brain. In this man is alienated from the law-governed state of existence put forth by the mechanist. Secondly, the issue arises as to what end is man working towards? Can man be shaped by his knowledge of his alienation if he is subject to laws and rules? As matter is affected by observation on a subatomic level as is outlined within the rules of quantum mechanics, so too is man changed when his knowledge allows him to inquire into the nature of laws. He is no longer like the rest of the animal kingdom in that he may conceive of these natural laws, and that this knowledge has an effect that is not measurable in any other being but man. Man is thus alienated from himself for he does not know his own end, yet can comprehend of his own end. If one is to speak in terms of forces, man can be considered as a *causa sui* of alienation because it is within man's inherent ability to comprehend and because of his inevitable inquiry into how it is that things come to be that man is attributed the position of the agent force for his own alienation. Man does not choose to be alienated, as he is thoroughly estranged at the moment of his conception, but it is man's choice or man's inevitable reaction as dictated by the law of uniformity, as to what to do with the knowledge that his being has made him aware of. At a moment of choice and deliberation as brought to light by man's awareness, three factors are to be considered and these are: the thesis, the antithesis, and the synthesis as outlined by the circumstance. Man's naturalization is man's inherent goal, for that is why he inquires into the nature of being. However it is this inquiry that makes man unsure of his state of being and so it can be said that _meta_physics (for that is the study of being) is the antithesis to man's assuredness; the heuristics that man employs are thrown into question, and at its most fundamental man's greatest heuristic is his system of beliefs; his philosophy. Sartre speaks of man as his own determinator, and in having deliberated and made the choices that he has, man has fundamentally developed his own alienation parallel to his beliefs. As all men can choose for themselves, man is subject to philosophical variation. So it is revealed that man's thesis is his philosophy, and that this dynamic between thesis and antithesis is that which propagates and makes known man's alienation. The resulting “answer” begot from this is yet another philosophy which in turn has its own antithesis. In this one is reminded of the story of *eros* in which *eros*is birthed to need and resource and is in a continual struggle to attain both, but cannot. Man inherently inquires and inherently answers, and so it is in this that man's nature is fully revealed. The philosopher's plight is man's plight, and so man must learn to flourish even under such a condition. Thus man's nature has been revealed to include alienation as a necessary aspect of man's being but that to be truly human is to inquire, deliberate and answer, for all of eternity. Man's alienation need be recognized for that recognition is of man's capability, and is fundamental to making those positive choices which direct man towards his naturalization. Word count: 1597 Cheers!

That said, here is my final paper: Rron Karahoda Dr. Matthews Freedom and Human Nature Final Draft Alienation: Man is Made to Jump His Own Borders The human species is the only species that is known to deliberate on its own existence. Being thus removed from the savage plane of survival, that plane which is concerned only with the survival of one's self, man's existence as an advanced being alienates man from all of existence. He is alienated from other existences in that the level on which man operates is far beyond that of other animals, and so prevents him from functioning or perceiving existence as an animal would. As man is, he is equipped with the capability to think and reflect critically, that is, to deliberate. In doing so, man complicates his own existence by inquiring into the nature of existence. This inquiry is also known as that field of study called _meta_physics and is representative of man's ability to deliberate. As the aim of an inquiry is to come to a conclusion, it can thusly be said that it is necessary for man to recognize his alienation and further deliberate on the neutralization of his alienation, which I will term as being his * naturalization* if he is indeed to be human. Before one can study how it is that man comes to be alienated, a concession must be made to admit the existence of alienation. Martin Heidegger inquires into the nature of _meta_physics in his “What is _meta_physics” and defines two aspects of reality as being 'the something' and 'the nothing'. His argument is that by conceding the one, you differentiate it; that is, you make it distinct, and so necessitate the concession of the other. Heidegger makes the argument that all understanding of 'the something' comes when parts of the nothing start to be labeled and given form, and that because of this process, man is only capable of perceiving 'the nothing' while affected by an overwhelming mood such as profound boredom. The existence of man's alienation comes from the concession that there is some truth or answer to the questions that man's deliberative mind asks. So it is in being able to ask and by asking that man is recognized to be inherently alienated, but it is also by this inquiry that man is able to concede his own alienation. In asking for an answer, man concedes that there is a question, or a problem that needs to be solved, and as man and his being is the subject, man concedes that he is his own problem to be solved. The answer to these inquiries would lead to the “naturalization of man” and it is from this basis that one must concede the state of alienation. In order for one to consider either the alienation or the naturalization of man, one must concede both. As the response to _meta_physics is philosophy, the response to an inquiry into the nature of man's existence and his alienation would be a system of beliefs, or a way by which to deal with and flourish under the circumstances of man's existence. In order to flourish, man must fully comprehend the nature of his alienation and it is in Thomas Hobbes' “Leviathan” that one sees the most elaborate de_script_ion of said alienation. Thomas Hobbes outlines what he calls the state of nature, and it is there that man has a right to everything. Man has a right to everything in that while in the state of nature, there is no law and so all things are allowed. Hobbes says that man's directing force is an internal urge to be content and so whilst in the state of nature, man is inclined to take everything that appears to fulfill this urge without regard for any further consequences. Man becomes unhappy and ends up fashioning government as a system of concession in exchange for contentedness. It is at the point at which man starts taking from others or preventing others that man starts to recognize his state of alienation. Were man an animal, he would be satisfied with the pleasures of such a brutish being; to survive would be all that mattered, but man is not satisfied, and in being so, his state of existence is alienated from the state of nature and placed into the state of civilization. The state of civilization is an imposed set of rules that prevent us from doing harm, and so man's level of contentment becomes equatable to the amount of sorrow that is prevented by the system in place. Man however, is still further alienated from this state of civilization as man does continually break the law. The treatment of government as an entity separate from man's instinctual urges only serves to separate man from that aspect of his nature which desires, and in doing so alienates man from himself. It can be said that man requires dignity because he refuses to be shepherded by an outside force, yet also refuses to rot away without the usage of his own faculties and so strives to lead a life worth living.Thusly we see that it is in man's nature to react to his inherent alienation. Man is made distinct  by utilizing his faculties, which are the inherent mechanism for man's alienation, so as to act against that which alienates him; man's discontentment within the state of nature as well in the state of civilization. It is thus shewn that man is built to recognize and respond to his own alienation by turning to a system of beliefs. The mechanist at this point is likely to make the case that man has no mind and is acting on a set of pre-existing conditions that cause these reactions and that man works as any other machine; completing the infinite cause-effect chain that is existence. If *the uniformity of law, *as described by Elliot, is to be applied upon the state of man then man's alienation is utterly clear. In the mechanist's world, man is unaware of what laws, or functions of nature, control him and so cannot accurately predict what any section of humanity is to do. Man's scientific tools map the natural world but still cannot explain the brain. In this man is alienated from the law-governed state of existence put forth by the mechanist. Secondly, the issue arises as to what end is man working towards? Can man be shaped by his knowledge of his alienation if he is subject to laws and rules? As matter is affected by observation on a subatomic level as is outlined within the rules of quantum mechanics, so too is man changed when his knowledge allows him to inquire into the nature of laws. He is no longer like the rest of the animal kingdom in that he may conceive of these natural laws, and that this knowledge has an effect that is not measurable in any other being but man. Man is thus alienated from himself for he does not know his own end, yet can comprehend of his own end. If one is to speak in terms of forces, man can be considered as a *causa sui* of alienation because it is within man's inherent ability to comprehend and because of his inevitable inquiry into how it is that things come to be that man is attributed the position of the agent force for his own alienation. Man does not choose to be alienated, as he is thoroughly estranged at the moment of his conception, but it is man's choice or man's inevitable reaction as dictated by the law of uniformity, as to what to do with the knowledge that his being has made him aware of. At a moment of choice and deliberation as brought to light by man's awareness, three factors are to be considered and these are: the thesis, the antithesis, and the synthesis as outlined by the circumstance. Man's naturalization is man's inherent goal, for that is why he inquires into the nature of being. However it is this inquiry that makes man unsure of his state of being and so it can be said that _meta_physics (for that is the study of being) is the antithesis to man's assuredness; the heuristics that man employs are thrown into question, and at its most fundamental man's greatest heuristic is his system of beliefs; his philosophy. Sartre speaks of man as his own determinator, and in having deliberated and made the choices that he has, man has fundamentally developed his own alienation parallel to his beliefs. As all men can choose for themselves, man is subject to philosophical variation. So it is revealed that man's thesis is his philosophy, and that this dynamic between thesis and antithesis is that which propagates and makes known man's alienation. The resulting “answer” begot from this is yet another philosophy which in turn has its own antithesis. In this one is reminded of the story of *eros* in which *eros*is birthed to need and resource and is in a continual struggle to attain both, but cannot. Man inherently inquires and inherently answers, and so it is in this that man's nature is fully revealed. The philosopher's plight is man's plight, and so man must learn to flourish even under such a condition. Thus man's nature has been revealed to include alienation as a necessary aspect of man's being but that to be truly human is to inquire, deliberate and answer, for all of eternity. Man's alienation need be recognized for that
... read more »