Second Blogpost - Theme 2: Critical media studies
During the seminar we discussed the questions from another perspective.
Nominalism liberated the human and changed the structure. With the first approach the king was considered as chosen by God. The new approach that was applied saw all humans as the same, physically.
But after a while nominalism went to the opposite direction and became a movement which preserved status quo.
It states that it is neither right or wrong that wild animals eat other animals. It is the circle of life and nature. But in a human society we let our sense perception and moral take over to set us free. Basically, we must find tools that can liberate our way of thinking.
Human rights is not in our physical perception, it is something that we create in the light of being. We need a vision to set ourselves free.
Benjamin was positive to the reproduction of the arts because he thought it would lead to a more democratic society.
He thought that the reproduction and the technical advancements in our society have made it possible to let everyone influence the subculture.
Kings control technology no more directly than do merchants: it is as democratic as the economic system* with which it evolved. Technology is the essence of this knowledge (Adorno and Horkheimer’s Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944))
Adorno and Horkheimer had a different point of view than Benjamin after their move to the States. They believed that the americans were fooled by the superficial mass culture the same way as people being fooled by propaganda in Germany. They experienced the society very similar to how we experience it today (K.West in All falls down for instance). We are all chasing superficial phony illusions.
We also discussed Platonic realism. The allegory of the Cave by Plato illustrates his theory of ideas, that all existing objects and properties of a certain kind are part of a common idea. He makes a difference between the material world, where the objects we can observe with our senses are, and the world of ideas, where the ideas are.
For instance, that the objects in the real world are only imperfect representations of the real existing things, the ideas, the same way that a triangle drawn by hand must always be an imperfect representation of the mathematically defined triangle. Knowledge of the ideas get through to gain knowledge about the idea of the good, which is the highest of all ideas.
I also found the nominalism an interesting topic to discuss. I can see why nominalism was first seen as a liberating movement since it questioned the hierarchy in the society. There are no biological differences between human which is why everyone should be seen as what they are, a human. But as you said, nominalism turned out to be far from a liberating movement, since it just confirmed status quo rather than working against it.
SvaraRaderaWe discussed a lot of the same things in our seminar group, and came to a lot of the same conclusions. I would have liked you to bring up some more of what you actually thought about it all, give some examples, and make the post a bit more personal.
SvaraRaderaAbout plato's cave and that the objects in the real world are only imperfect representations of the real existing things, a very interesting thought, and definitely something we spoke about as well!
Hola,
SvaraRaderaVery interesting reflection, you used a lot of examples, that made the reading more interesting.
I agree on the point that we, humans, chase superficial phone illusions and that we are driven by those. And this is what makes the enlightenment interesting is that up to a certain point, when we become aware that the illusion we are chasing to is an illusion, we just stop running after and find an other one that we are not aware of and keep chasing it. Are we condemned to chase illusion for the rest of our humanity time ?
In your last point you are saying that theory is the perfect representation and that practice in the imperfect one ? Interesting reflection...
Hi! I found your reflection very interesting. Reading a thought of yours "But in a human society we let our sense perception and moral take over to set us free" - I find this thought rather paradoxical. Can we ever feel or be free living in a society? For each society it is crucial to have rules, laws, etc, otherwise, how this particular society would survive, right? You say that "We need a vision to set ourselves free" but will the vision of being free will make us free? It will be just another imitation which never ends. I think here you touched really thought-provoking ideas which is really interesting! Thank you !
SvaraRaderaI wish the first big chunk of your post was more of a flowing, consistent whole with more examples than just separate sentences. Other than that, I find your thoughts on Platonic realism very helpful! I assume you give Human rights as an example of a man-made concept, such as those Adorno and Holkheimer believed to be the only way out of the constant cycle of reproduction of knowledge that already exists in nature... Thanks for the read!
SvaraRaderaHi,
SvaraRaderait seems like both you and me got caught up in the discussion of nominalism! I however believe it is more complex than you describe it. Nominalism might have the intention of liberating human and society of categorisation and generalisation, but at the same time, this would cause an social environment without any social of technological progress. I think we need some structures and systems to understand the world, but also to find a purpose to strive for betterment. I believe nominalism would erase morals and values - but together with that, we would also lose the qualities that characterises civilisation.
SvaraRaderaI think the Kanye West reference was very thought-provoking, a good example of how we are chasing superficial illusions (could they be considered as myths as well?), something I guess derives from our wish to find our place in the world. When we reach our goal, we are still not satisfied. Are we lacking an overall goal in the Western society today? As JaHaPe mentioned, when we realize we are chasing an illusion, we just find a different one to chase. So how do we overcome this problem? Is the overall goal to be free? If we by revolutionary means would erase our modern society – what would replace it? You are mentioning how Benjamin raises how everyone in society today can influence the substructure – but does it really matter if the superstructure is still controlled by such a small fraction of society (according to Oxfam the richest 62 persons are as wealthy as half of worlds population).
I think your first post was a bit hard to follow. The quotes, for instance, ought to be clearer and above all have references so that the reader knows where they come from.
SvaraRaderaYour reflection, however, is easier to follow and I feel that we get to see more of your own reflections and opinions in it. You have also included sources, which is great! You bring up some good points, as one can see in the comments above.
Thank you for your brilliant reflections! You made some strong statements and managed to even justify them in the context, even though I would have happily read a bit more about the arguments behind your statements. For example, this sentence related to nominalism: "Human rights is not in our physical perception, it is something that we create in the light of being. We need a vision to set ourselves free. " – I would have liked to see more discussion around this "need for a vision" since it is fascinatingly abstract concept here. Also, I find it extremely interesting to think about the rules of nature – who are we to say what they are and who they concern?
SvaraRaderaKeep up the good work! :)