Ideas about the meaning of life (Part II)

First submitted to Philosophy of Religion course instructor, 2012:

Does true “knowledge” come only from our logical minds, or does it come from learned experience? Or, as according to Immanuel Kant, is knowledge limited to appearances (that which we can see and observe)?

I find most acceptable the idea that true knowledge comes mainly from what we can work out in our logical minds. The outlook that I find most engaging and plausible is the idea of rationalism, especially the thoughts put forth by Plato. In the mathematical world, facts can almost always be worked out in terms of absolutes. Things can be proven or disproved; ideas are not just theoretical. With this equation, we come to conclusions that provide very concrete proof. This “proof” is stronger than prediction in many cases.

However, I think that in human knowledge, there are different ways of knowing. And I accept that for each individual, “knowing” something often is a combination of blending proven facts (truths) and evidence, also with lived experience and perception. While I like the rationalist argument and think it supports human knowledge the strongest in terms of absolute truth, I also give credit to those known things gathered from lived experiences (empiricism), because often this “knowledge” is just as valid.

Another important topic in philosophy is finding a way to define and sum up the nature of mind and self, and what makes a person an individual. For many centuries, philosophers have asked the question of what makes us who we are. I believe fine line exists between mind and body and it’s sometimes difficult to identify which part has more control. Ultimately, as rational human beings, I would say that we are mostly guided by our minds. However, I see that most people recognize another individual by associating that person, the essence of that person, their personality, and everything that defines that person with his or her physical being. Therefore, when it comes to identity I mostly accept the Body Theory.  However, there is a romantic, spiritual part of me that believes that all people might have a soul that lives on, even after our human body dies away, and for that reason, I appreciate the Soul Theory, as well.

I would say that most people accept the Body Theory because we are used to identifying an individual by what they look like physically. In our minds, we tie actions, ideas, and achievements to a person’s form. The Illusion Theory I find to be hard to accept because while people do grow and change, this growth or change doesn’t mean we start all over again being an entirely different physical identity. It just means a shift or an evolution.

The Memory Theory, too, has flaws. Mainly because just because a person could, again, change or grow simply because he/she loses his/her memory, it doesn’t mean other, outside persons wouldn’t consider them the same person essentially because he/she still has the same physical body. Characteristics of that person would still physically be the same, even if the person’s memory was wiped completely clean. For this reason, I think the Body Theory is the most applicable to human experience; as the book says, “same body, same person.”

A third important conversation in philosophy is the debate over the existence of God. After an early life of religious instruction, much self-reflection and critical thinking on this topic, and after considerations raised by our book and readings from the class website, I still find that there is no definitive proof one way or the other whether God exists or not, and that embracing or rejecting the idea of a higher power is purely a personal process that is largely dependent on one’s upbringing, culture, life experiences and world view.

Personally, I believe in the possibility of an existence of a higher power because I believe that I have witnessed and experienced certain moments in life so great, or so otherwise inexplicable, that, to me there’s no other answer as to how or why they occurred. However, I don’t really believe in what thinkers such as William Paley (argument from design or intelligent design) or St. Thomas Aquinas (governance and order to the natural world by divinity) have put forth as “proof” that there must be a God, because in both of these cases I think the arguments are inherently too simplistic. They don’t PROVE anything, they just offer a quick and easy observation for the ways of nature. Without any single, solitary, physical, or observable proof, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove the existence of God. Period.

On an outside note, I have recently been following the thoughts of Arizona State University professor and atheist Lawrence M. Krauss who has been active in the discussions about the discovery of the Higgs Boson particle, a discovery made by researchers of physics of what could be one of the “original” particles that led to the creation and formation of our universe. Many are calling this little particle the “God particle,” and claiming that its mere existence must solidly, scientifically prove that God, in fact, does NOT exist, because the finding of this particle supports the Big Bang theory.

While it’s a fun explanation to entertain, it isn’t a perfect answer. If the Big Bang theory is correct, then our Biblical explanation of the start of the world found in the Book of Genesis (Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve) must not be correct. Fine and sure; plenty of scholars have already argued this story’s implausibility all over the place. But how can these thinkers really accept as absolute truth that the mere existence of this particle fully disproves the existence of a greater power? In support of the idea of God, couldn’t someone else just come along and say: “Well, who created that particle?”

The big question of What’s it all about? can have a multitude of answers, depending on the individual. Personally, in my talks with friends, colleagues, students, and acquaintances, I have heard all kinds of different ideas for Why we are here. Some people believe that humans, as a part of nature, were solely designed just to procreate; to keep advancing our race and to assure perpetuation of our species. Other people believe that the meaning of life is to accrue as much capital and as much power as is necessary to be called “successful.” Still others are on a quest for “happiness;” and others still believe that the purpose of existence is to serve other people and make them happy and comfortable.

I can accept the things that other people have different priorities and values and different ideas about the “meaning” of life. I like a particular reading entitled “Feminist Philosophy and Visions of the Future.” To summarize: if we want to become a more ethically responsible, civil, advanced society, we need to collectively shift our values and our thinking to a set of ideas and practices that are more humane, egalitarian, eco-conscious, nurturing and supportive. This will mean putting an end to tyranny and oppression, and eventually putting an end to war and competitiveness. I’m not sure exactly how we’ll do this, but I think that it is the right direction for humans  to work towards in order to advance our race. It only holds us back when any people of the world are suffering, scared, abused, neglected or have to go without fulfillment of their basic needs.


Michel Foucault Overview

 (Part 1 of Sexual Personae Research, first submitted 03/05/2008)

Michel Foucault was an out-gay philosopher, theorist, activist and professor. He held an academic chair at the College de France and also taught at UC Berkeley. He was born in 1926 and died in 1984 of health complications that were AIDs-related.

Foucault is known as a structuralist, even though he rejected the label, and his writings are often associated with the postmodern movement. His writings on sexuality, mechanisms of control and his opinions and critiques on social institutions are widely read and examined in sociology courses, women’s studies classes, queer theory classes, as well as media arts and communications theory courses.

Foucault was concerned about the ways in which human sexuality was discussed in dialogues in the Western world, and also the ways in which it was policed and controlled – even in speaking about sex and sexuality.

In the first volume of History of Sexuality: The Will to Knowledge, (part of a trilogy, along with volumes The Use of Pleasure, Histoire de la sexualite, II: l’usage des plaisirs) and The Care of the Self ) Foucault examines how the Western world, since the 17th century, seized the discussion, freedom, exploration and education about sex and sexuality, and “closeted” it.

In An Introduction, Foucault discusses the ways that speech about sex and sexuality were controlled. He notes that to openly discuss sex, for most of the last three centuries, was an act of subversion. Foucault was also concerned about the ways that any sexual activity that occurred outside of prescribed norms was subjugated – relegated to the status of being bad, evil, dirty, taboo – not ordained. According to Foucault the purpose of this control over the knowledge and talk of sex and sexuality was policed and monitored as a mechanism of control to support the needs of building a capitalist state.

As Foucault explains, sex had to be controlled because free sex is the antithesis of being productive. Essentially, the capitalists and great profiteers needed the working public to cease in their diversions, and focus on the means of production. So sex became closed into a tiny, private space that had to be silenced in the public sphere. Foucault says that prior to the Victorian ages, sex had been out in the open: men, women and children talked about the functions of bodies freely in parlors and public spaces. With the change, sex was moved “into the parents’ bedroom,” Foucault says – and only one kind was recognized as holy, legal, normal and productive, that of the heterosexual married couple. Any acts that fell out of this sphere were marked as taboo.

Foucault goes further explaining that there had to be an authority for such censor, and that’s where the church comes in. The “wrong” or “bad” forms of sexual conduct were relegated to the realm of sin. And, he says, something that was ushered in as a way to manage sin around 1695/the early 17th century, was the church’s new strange obsession with the idea of confession. But to be acceptable, confession was not simply a personal acknowledgement of sin – a person had to do it verbally in front of a member of clergy. And the weird preoccupation was that the parishioner was encouraged to go into great detail. It is almost like the beginning of voyeurism in film or in art – the “sinner” would be encouraged to sit down with his or her priest and go into the minutest of details confessing their acts, but not only acts – the details of their fantasies, their daydreams, if they had an “impure thought” or a “dirty dream.” Dwelling on the details was almost a way of the church psychoanalyzing the person for his or her sexual sin, and also, immediately prescribing a way to correct that sin (do a dozen Hail Mary’s, or drink Holy Water, or recite The Lord’s Prayer).

This led to all sorts of ways that sexual feelings and desires suddenly became weighted with guilt. Foucault says this was a systematic method of controlling and suppressing desire – leading the populace to only participate in those behaviors that were approved by the church and approved by patriarchal social structures.

Foucault was a critical theorist whose ideas about the ways in which human sexuality is constructed, shaped and controlled have opened doors for provocative discussions about everything ranging from sex in art, to gender identification to sexual politics and control. However, some critics find it a weakness that so much of Foucault’s thoughts are based on experience, or patterns from history, instead of empirical research.

Scientia Sexualis

… is considered the Western approach to sex studies. 19th century discourses of sex transformed sex into a search of discovering the truth. Scientific discourse on sex regularize it, interpreting it without taking into consideration the human response to sex, but rather interpreting it as a means of reproduction, our experience of it not being much different from animals’ experience of it. It depicts sex from a distant, observatory perspective. 19the century discourses combined this scientific approach with matters of morality. Sexuality was viewed as an innate drive or natural force. Throughout the 19th century, sex has been incorporated into two distinct orders of knowledge: a biology of reproduction and a medicine of sex (Foucault) There was no union between these two orders. Foucault argues that this gap exemplifies “that the aim of such a discourse was not to state the truth but to prevent its very emergence.”

Sexual scientific theories of the time reinforced society’s existing oppression of women. They enforced gender separations, claiming that women were not as developed as men.  Many of the centuries sexologists, such as Havelock Ellis, considered women’s sexuality to be weaker than the man’s, and “less fulfilling” (Irvine, 7). Women were considered to be passion-less, and reproduction was considered the defining point of a woman’s sexuality. In Ellis book, Studies in the Psychology of Sex, he argued that differences the sexes were biological, with male sexuality being simple and aggressive, and women being mysterious and passive. Because women had a more intricate sexual anatomy consisting of her clitoris, vagina and internal organs, a female’s sexual response was more complex than a male’s. He argues that needed to be more aggressive in courting the female in order to conquer female reservations. This ideology will play into the creation of hard core cinema.

Moreover, the study of the differences of the genders led to an examination of sexual nature. 19th century views on sexuality relied on biological determination.  Therefore anything that strayed from the classical biological structure, like homosexuality, was considered aberration from the norm (Coleman, L Gooren, and Ross). All sexuality was categorized as either natural normal or deviated.

Discussion Questions:

How does Foucault conceive that those in power maintain this hold? How does the “repressive hypothesis” fit into his ideas about sexuality and its relationship to power?

How does Foucault see sexuality being yielded to maintain power and form alliances and divisions? How long, does Foucault hypothesize, has this system been in power?

What does Foucault mean when he speaks of sex and sexuality as social constructs?

Works Consulted

Foucault, Michel. The History of  Sexuality, Volume 1. “Part One: We ‘Other Victorians’” Random House, Inc. London. 1978. Vintage Books, New York 1990. p. 1-15.

Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality, Volume 1. “Part Two: The Repressive Hypothesis” Random House, Inc. London. 1978. Vintage Books, New York 1990. p. 15-35.

“The History of Sexuality: An Introduction, Volume 1.” Sparknotes. Accessed Feb. 25, 2009.<>