Legacy

After thinking about the discussion we had in class yesterday about the people of old money not associating with those with new money, the conclusion I came to is that it's not becuase of the money but because of social standing. I went to my friend's debutanate ball last week and part of the ceremony was announcing the debutante's mother, grandmother, and even a few great-grandmothers. The reason those who possess old money are united with one another and not with those of new money isn't because of the difference of when their money was gained but because of the past legacies that have been established between these families with old money.

Sunshine

As always, I picked the slowest line. While waitng to go through the security checkpoint, I realized the reason my line was so slow was because the security guy was talking to each and every person as they went through whereas all the other security people just quickly checked and kept the line going. I was a little aggravated and starting to worry about missing my flight when I finally reached the front of the line. I can't remember exactly what he said but it had to do with the sunshine, being from the sunshine state and having a wonderful day filled with sunshine. It sounded like something Rives would have said and was a nice little break from the stress that always comes with traveling through airports.

Marx is known for his views that private property should not exist. By private property, he means "private property, as the antithesis to social, collective property, exists only where the means of labour and the external conditions of labour belong to private individuals" (297-298). While reading this line, it reminded me of a poster I've seen. I was trying to find a picture of it but couldn't :( The poster is something about success leading to a good life with the background being a nice, big house on a large land of property with a long driveway that connects to an additional garage with about five really nice cars. If we followed Marx's way, this poster would not create motivation for anyone since, even with the additional work required to achieve that kind of success, they would just continue having equal things as everyone else.

Simplified

Marx seems to have a need to make everything sound more complex then it really is, such as when he is explaining the relationship between an employee and his employer. An example would be when he says, "he and the owner of money meet in the market, and enter into relations with each other on a footing of equality as owners of commodities, with the sole difference that one is a buyer, the other a seller" (265). All this simply means is someone getting hired.

Joe Clark = Ascetic Priest

Today in my education class, we watched part of the movie, Lean On Me, with Morgan Freeman. It's a movie about a failing inner city school being turned around with the help of new principle, Joe Clark. During his first speech, he tells his students that the only one to blame for their failures are themselves. As soon as I heard this, I thought of when Nietzsche talks about the ascetic priest, who believed that "you alone are to blame for yourself!" It looks like Joe Clark sides with the ascetic priest on this one.

While looking back over Nietzsche for my paper, I found a connection to Marx concerning the distinction of animals and humans. Marx believed that "man can be distinguished from the animal by consciousness, religion, or anything else you please" (107). Nietzsche didn't have quite as broad a perspective on our differences from the animals as Marx though. Nietzsche states that "the human soul in a higher sense acquire depth and become evil- and these are the two basic repects in which man has hitherto been superior to other beasts" (33). They both agree somewhat if you consider the consciousness and religion that Marx mentions as the depth that Nietzsche talks of, and you could say that Marx agrees with Nietzsche since Nietzsche's becoming evil would fall under Marx's "anything else you please," but this view of Marx's seems a bit too broad of a distinguishment of animals from humans.

Extinction vs. Freedom

In Marx there is a quote talking about how the bourgeoisie "compels all nations, on pain of extincition, to adopt the bougeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst" (162). This is the exact opposite of what Gandhi was fighting for in India, he believed that India needed freedom, which "will come only when we free ourselves of the domination of Western education, Western culture, and Western way of living" (88). So I wonder, what would happen to India if it were to rid itself of the Western ideal of the bougeois? Would it become extinct as Marx foretells or would it acquire the true freedom that Gandhi proclaimed it would?

What To Believe...

How are we suppose to trust Gandhi's word when he says, "wherever he finds that what I have said or written before runs contrary to what I am writing now, he should without hesitation reject the former" (215). In saying this, Gandhi makes it where he has nothing to hold him accountable to what he says. It makes you wonder what he would say now and if some of his beliefs would have changed...

Views of Society

It seems like Gandhi observes society as an important aspect of life in his essay on the Removal of Untouchability. This is the opposite of Nietzsche's view, who saw society as just a way to keep us caged up. Although he acknowledges the importance of society, he also realizes that a change is needed. In the essay he says, "Society will be better constituted than it is at present, and the impurity and hyposcrisy which infest it now will be dislodged" (233). Gandhi believes that through the varna system, society will be improved.