Test Yourself: Are You Part of the Precariat?

Do you have an unstable income, frequent changes of residence, or a changing relationship? Is your future full of question marks? If so, you may be part of the fragile state class, also known as the precariat.

The precariat is a growing class of workers who experience insecurity, unpredictability, and a lack of social protections. Freelancers, part-time workers, independent contractors, and anyone who juggles multiple jobs to make ends meet belong to this new class. But how do you know if you're part of the precariat?

Question 1: Is Your Income Inconsistent?

A clear sign of being part of the fragile class is inconsistent income. Are your monthly earnings unpredictable, with some months being better than others? Do you find it difficult to predict your future earnings due to irregular job opportunities? If so, you may be walking the fragile path of life.

Question 2: Do You Lack Job Benefits?

Traditional employment often comes with benefits such as health insurance, retirement plans, and paid vacation. If you find yourself without these safety nets, you may be part of the precariat. The lack of benefits leaves employees exposed to unexpected expenses and an uncertain future.

Question 3: Is Job Security an Illusion?

Stability in the workplace is a rare thing for the fragile class, whether by choice or by compulsion. Constantly bouncing between contracts or short-term gigs can leave you unsure about your professional future, even if things are going great and you're making good money. If job security feels more like an elusive dream than reality, you're likely experiencing the fractures in the modern work landscape.

Question 4: When Was the Last Time You Saw the Horizon?

Planning for the future becomes a challenge when work is not secure. The lack of stable employment can hinder your ability to plan ahead with confidence. If you have no way to even begin to think about where you will be in a few years, you are in the fragile realm.

Question 5: Do You Lack a Social Safety Net?

Without the support of traditional employment benefits, members of the fragile class often find themselves without a reliable social safety net. In times of illness, emergencies, or unexpected events, the lack of safety nets can exacerbate the challenges of an already unstable work situation. In addition, hard working hours and frequent changes of environment leave many young people cut off from social circles that can provide support and a sense of worth.

Question 6: Does Instability and Uncertainty Disrupt Your Personal Life?

Instability and uncertainty take a psychological toll on us. The difficulty of looking and planning ahead and the dependence on changing working conditions burden our ability to experience well-being and a sense of security. Social isolation and a sense of social competitiveness exacerbate the difficult challenge of the fragile class, and something in it is really starting to crack.

If you answered "yes" to any of these questions, you may be part of the precariat. Don't be ashamed - it's not your fault. It's just the social, economic, and occupational structure of today. Until it changes, many like you will continue to be fragile.

Sartre on Love and Freedom

Jean-Paul Sartre was one of the most prominent philosophers of the 20th century, known for his existentialist philosophy that emphasized human existence and freedom. Sartre believed that individuals must create their own meanings in life and that they are free to make choices that shape their existence, and this starts with love.

According to Sartre, love and freedom are closely interconnected. Love is not just a feeling or emotion but rather a choice that one makes. Love is the act of choosing to commit oneself to another person, and in doing so, one is giving up a certain degree of freedom. This is because when you love someone, you are taking their needs and desires into consideration and making compromises for the sake of the relationship.

Free love

However, Sartre also believed that love should not be seen as a way of escaping freedom. People often use love as a way of seeking fulfillment and meaning in their lives, but Sartre argued that this is a misguided approach. Love should not be seen as a way of filling a void in one's life but rather as a way of affirming one's own freedom and the freedom of the other person.

In Sartre's view, the freedom of the individual is paramount, and love should never be used as a means of dominating or controlling another person. Love should be based on mutual respect and recognition of each other's freedom. Sartre believed that true love is only possible when two individuals come together as equals, with each person affirming the other's freedom.

Bad romance

Sartre's view on love and freedom is highly relevant today, where romantic relationships often involve power dynamics and control. Many people enter into relationships seeking love as a way of filling a void in their lives, but this approach can lead to disappointment and even abuse. Sartre's philosophy suggests that love should be based on mutual respect and recognition of each other's freedom, and that true love is only possible when two individuals come together as equals.

Sartre's philosophy on love and freedom can also be applied to other areas of life beyond romantic relationships. In any situation where one person has power over another, it is important to recognize and respect the other person's freedom. This includes relationships between employers and employees, between parents and children, and between governments and citizens.

See also:

Existence precedes essence

Sartre's Concept of Bad Faith Explained

10 Thinkers and Writers Who Wrote from Jail

Being imprisoned does not necessarily mean that one's ideas and creativity are also locked up. In fact, jail can offer intellectuals the chance to throw themselves into inspired writing. Over the years, many thinkers and writers have produced some of their best works while incarcerated. Here are some of the most influential and famous thinkers and writers who wrote from jail:

1.Martin Luther King Jr. - Letter from Birmingham Jail: Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested in 1963 during a protest in Birmingham, Alabama. While serving his sentence, he wrote the famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail," which became one of the most important documents of the civil rights movement.

2.Oscar Wilde - De Profundis: Oscar Wilde, a famous writer and playwright, was sentenced to two years in prison in 1895 for homosexual activities. While in prison, he wrote "De Profundis," a letter to his lover that reflects on his life, his experience in prison, and his spirituality.

3.Antonio Gramsci - Prison Notebooks: Antonio Gramsci was an Italian Marxist philosopher and politician who was imprisoned by Mussolini's fascist regime in 1926. During his time in prison, he wrote the "Prison Notebooks," a collection of essays and notes that became a seminal work of Marxist theory.

4.Dietrich Bonhoeffer - Letters and Papers from Prison: Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German theologian and pastor, was arrested in 1943 for his involvement in a plot to assassinate Hitler. While in prison, he wrote numerous letters and papers, which were later compiled and published as "Letters and Papers from Prison." These writings reflect on his faith and his resistance to the Nazi regime.

5.Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o - Detained: A Writer's Prison Diary: Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o, a Kenyan writer and activist, was imprisoned without trial in 1978 for his criticism of the Kenyan government. While in prison, he wrote "Detained: A Writer's Prison Diary," a memoir that reflects on his experiences in detention and his commitment to social justice.

6.Boethius - Consolation of Philosophy: Boethius was a Roman philosopher and statesman who was imprisoned and sentenced to death in 524 AD. While in prison, he wrote "Consolation of Philosophy," a philosophical treatise that explores the nature of happiness, free will, and the relationship between God and man.

7.Jawaharlal Nehru - The Discovery of India: Jawaharlal Nehru was an Indian independence activist and the first Prime Minister of India. He was imprisoned multiple times by the British colonial authorities. During one of his prison terms in the 1940s, he wrote "The Discovery of India," a book that explores India's rich history and culture.

8.Jean Genet - Miracle of the Rose: Jean Genet was a French writer and playwright who spent much of his early life in prison. While in prison, he wrote "Miracle of the Rose," a novel that draws on his experiences in detention and explores themes of love, death, and redemption.

9.Socrates - The Apology: Socrates was an ancient Greek philosopher who was sentenced to death in 399 BC for corrupting the youth of Athens and impiety. While in prison, he wrote "The Apology," a dialogue that defends his philosophy and actions against the charges brought against him.

10.Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn - The Gulag Archipelago: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was a Russian writer and dissident who was imprisoned in the Soviet Union for his critical views of the government. While in prison, he wrote "The Gulag Archipelago," a three-volume work that exposes the brutality and corruption of the Soviet prison system.

 

5 Thinkers that had something to say about the place of universities in society

Universities have been a cornerstone of society for centuries, serving as centers of intellectual development and producing generations of skilled professionals. However, the role and place of universities in society has been a topic of debate among philosophers and thinkers. Here we’ll briefly discusses five prominent figures who spoke about the place of universities in society.

John Henry Newman

John Henry Newman, a 19th-century philosopher, believed that universities should be a place for intellectual pursuit and the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. Universities should not be seen as a means to an end, but rather as an end in and of themselves. According to Newman, universities should not be driven by practical or utilitarian goals, but rather by the pursuit of truth and knowledge.

John Dewey

John Dewey, a 20th-century philosopher, viewed universities as institutions that should serve society. Dewey believed that universities should be a place where students could learn and apply knowledge to real-world problems. He believed that universities should not only focus on intellectual development but also on social development. According to Dewey, universities should be a place where students learn to be engaged citizens and contribute positively to society.

Martha Nussbaum

Martha Nussbaum, a contemporary philosopher, believes that universities should be a place for cultivating critical thinking and creativity. Nussbaum argues that universities should not only provide students with the skills and knowledge they need to succeed in the workforce, but also with the intellectual tools they need to be engaged citizens who can think critically and creatively. Nussbaum also believes that universities should be a place where diversity is celebrated and differences are respected.

Robert Maynard Hutchins

Robert Maynard Hutchins, a 20th-century thinker, believed that universities should be completely reformed. Hutchins argued that the current system of higher education was too focused on vocational training and not enough on intellectual development. He believed that universities should be a place where students could engage in intellectual inquiry and explore a wide range of subjects. According to Hutchins, universities should be a place where students learn to think critically and develop a love for learning.

Stanley Fish

Stanley Fish, a contemporary literary theorist, has a unique perspective on the place of universities in society. Fish argues that universities should not be trying to serve society or create engaged citizens, but rather should focus on providing a high-quality education for their students. He criticizes what he calls "boutique multiculturalism," the idea that universities should celebrate diversity and teach students to be tolerant and accepting of different cultures. Fish argues that this approach fails to provide students with a solid grounding in the liberal arts and instead encourages them to focus on their own individual experiences and identities.

Five Key Thinkers in Phenomenology

Phenomenology is a philosophical movement that originated in the early 20th century and focuses on the study of consciousness and the objects of direct experience. This philosophical movement owes to thinkers like Hegel but essentially started with Edmund Husserl (see: origins of phenomenology. Other prominent thinkers in the field of phenomenology include Martin Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and Emmanuel Levinas. Here is a brief review of their work with links to further learning.

Edmund Husserl: father of phenomenology

Edmund Husserl is considered the founder of phenomenology. His famous philosophical call was to go "back to things themselves and study of actual human experience. Husserl developed the concept of "intentionality," which refers to the fact that consciousness is always directed towards something. He also introduced the ideas of the "phenomenological reduction" and "Epoché" which are a method for bracketing out preconceptions and focusing on the immediate experience of phenomena. Here you can find a study guide to Husserl's thought. 

Martin Heidegger: being in the world

Martin Heidegger is one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century, and his work had a significant impact on phenomenology. He pointed out, after Husserl, that phenomenology should examine the phenomenon of existence itself, what he called the question of being. Heidegger is best known for his concepts of Dasein and "being-in-the-world," which emphasizes the inseparability of human beings from their environment. He also developed the idea of "ontological difference," which asserts that there is a fundamental distinction between beings and the being of beings. Another influential thought by Heidegger is that of "being-towards-death" which means the meaning of our life is determined by our relationship with our death. Here you can find an introduction to Martin Heidegger's Philosophy

Jean-Paul Sartre: existence precedes essence

Jean-Paul Sartre was a French philosopher who was heavily influenced by both Husserl and Heidegger. He is best known for his concept of "existentialism," which emphasizes the individual's freedom and responsibility in creating their own meaning in life. Sartre also developed the idea of "bad faith," which occurs when an individual denies their own freedom and acts inauthentically. One of Sartre's best known claims is that "existence precedes essence" meaning that the essence of out lives is not predetermined but left for us to decide if we like it or not.

Maurice Merleau-Ponty: the lived body

Maurice Merleau-Ponty was a French philosopher who was influenced by both Husserl and Heidegger. He is known for his concept of "phenomenological ontology," which asserts that the structure of human experience is fundamentally embodied and intersubjective. He also emphasized the importance of the "lived body" in our experience of the world. Merleau-Ponty was also influential in the thoght of human rights right after world war two.

Emmanuel Levinas: the face of the other

Emmanuel Levinas was a French philosopher who is known for his emphasis on the ethical implications of our relations with others. In other words, Levinas turned phenomenology and its questions of being into a study of ethical existence.Levinas developed the idea of "the face of the other," which emphasizes the infinite responsibility that we have towards others. In his later years he also introduced the concept of "substitution," which refers to the idea that we are responsible for the suffering of others. Here you can find a simple introduction to Levinas with additional articles.

More articles, explanation and summaries to be found in our What is Phenomenolgy page.

-

*This text was created with the aid of OpenAI’s GPT-3 model and modified by the author.

Freud's famous patients: best known case studies

Sigmund Freud is best known for his theoretical work on the human mind and for his development of theories about the unconscious mind and its influence on behavior. But Freud's theory did not come from nowhere but directly from his clinical practice. Freud's writings are therefore full of case studies explaining his way of reaching his conclusions. Some of these case studies are now Freud's most famous patients.

The case of Anna O.

One of the most famous case studies conducted by Freud was that of Anna O., also known as Bertha Pappenheim. Anna was a young woman who was suffering from symptoms including hallucinations, paralysis, and loss of speech. She was treated by Josef Breuer, a colleague of Freud's, who used a technique known as the "talking cure" to help her understand and express her thoughts and emotions. One interesting thing is Anna's sudden unexplained hydrophobia, which was revealed to be caused by her seeing her roommate's dog drinking out of her cup. This treatment proved to be effective and Anna eventually made a full recovery.

Little Hans

Another famous case study conducted by Freud was that of "Little Hans," a five-year-old boy who developed a phobia of horses. Through his analysis of the boy's behavior and dreams, Freud concluded that the phobia was caused by unconscious sexual desires. This case study helped to support Freud's theory of the Oedipus complex, which suggests that young children have sexual desires towards their opposite-sex parent. Little Hans' fear of his father was replaced by fear of horses, and once this was acknowledged the symptoms went away.

Dora

Another one of Freud's famous patients is a woman known as "Dora" who was suffering from hysteria. Through his analysis of Dora's symptoms and behavior, Freud concluded that her condition was caused by repressed desires and conflicts related to her sexuality. This case study helped to support Freud's theory of repression, which suggests that individuals may unconsciously repress unpleasant thoughts and feelings.

The Wolfman

Another famous case study conducted by Freud was that of the "Wolfman," a Russian man named Sergei Pankejeff who was suffering from anxiety and phobias. Through his analysis of the man's dreams and childhood experiences, Freud concluded that the root of his psychological problems was a repressed memory of a traumatic experience involving his parents. This case study helped to support Freud's theories of repression and the Oedipus complex, and provided further evidence for his belief in the role of the unconscious mind in shaping behavior. The Wolfman case remains one of the most well-known and controversial case studies in the history of psychology.

These case studies and the theories developed by Freud had a major influence on the field of psychology and continue to be studied and discussed by psychologists today. His work on the unconscious mind and its influence on behavior helped to pave the way for many of the treatment methods used in modern psychology, such as psychotherapy and cognitive behavioral therapy.

To dive deeper, see Best books to start reading Freud

-

*This text was created with the aid of OpenAI’s GPT-3 model and modified by the author.

Hegel's master-slave dialectic vs. Nietzsche's master and slave morality

Both Hegel and Nietzsche share a common metaphor of "slave" and "master" to relate their philosophical ideas. While having something in common, the two forms of argument differ from on another significantly. 

Hegel's master-slave dialectic (or lord–bondsman dialectic) is a concept from his book "Phenomenology of Spirit" in which he explores the concept of human consciousness and its evolution through history. Hegel argues that the human spirit progresses through a process called "dialectics". In the master-slave dicalectis, two individuals enter into a struggle for recognition in which one (the master) seeks to assert their superiority over the other (the slave). The slave, in turn, resists and ultimately overcomes the master through their labor, creating a new consciousness that incorporates both the master and the slave.

Nietzsche's master and slave morality, on the other hand, is a concept from his book "On the Genealogy of Morality" in which he explores the origins of morality. In this concept, Nietzsche argues that there are two types of morality: a "master morality," which is based on the values of the ruling class, and a "slave morality," which is based on the values of the oppressed class. The master morality is characterized by strength, power, and pride, while the slave morality is characterized by weakness, subservience, and resentment.

Master-Slacve dialectics and morality

While both Hegel and Nietzsche explore the concept of a power struggle between individuals, their ideas about this struggle differ in important ways. Hegel's master-slave dialectic is focused on the evolution of consciousness, while Nietzsche's master and slave morality is focused on the origins of morality. Additionally, Hegel's dialectic has a more positive outcome, with the slave ultimately overcoming the master and creating a new, higher consciousness, while Nietzsche's morality is more critical, with the slave morality being seen as a form of weakness and resentment.

*This text was created with the aid of OpenAI’s GPT-3 model and modified by the author.

What does Deconstruction have to do with Quantom Physics?

It is always a curious thing how physical theories about existence correlate with contemporary philosophical notions of it. One such example is the relation between Jacques Derrida's theory of Deconstruction and what is known as Quantum Mechanics or Quantum physics. While these two fields may seem unrelated at first glance, they actually have many common features and ideas that make them relevant to each other.

Quantum and deconstructive uncertainty

One of the key ideas that connects deconstruction and quantum mechanics is the concept of uncertainty and indeterminacy. Deconstruction, as a method of critical analysis, is concerned with exposing the underlying assumptions and biases that are inherent in texts and other forms of communication. This approach challenges the idea that language and other forms of communication can provide a complete and accurate representation of reality, and instead highlights the inherent uncertainty and indeterminacy that is always present in our attempts to understand and communicate about the world.

Similarly, quantum mechanics is based on the idea that there are fundamental limits to our ability to predict and control the behavior of subatomic particles, and that there is always a certain level of uncertainty and indeterminacy at the quantum level. This uncertainty is inherent in the behavior of subatomic particles, which can exhibit both wave-like and particle-like properties depending on how they are measured or observed.

Rethinking reality

Another way that deconstruction and quantum mechanics intersect is in their approach to understanding the fundamental nature of reality. Deconstruction challenges traditional ways of thinking and encourages us to question the assumptions and biases that shape our understanding of the world. This approach is similar to the way that quantum mechanics forces us to re-examine our assumptions about the nature of reality at the most fundamental level.

In conclusion, while deconstruction and quantum mechanics deal with very different fields, there are also many commonalities and points of overlap between them. By exploring these connections and similarities, we can gain a deeper understanding of both deconstruction and quantum mechanics, and their relevance to our broader understanding of the world.

*This text was created with the aid of OpenAI’s GPT-3 model and modified by the author.

Levinas, the Self and Altruism

For hundreds of years, at leas since Descartes' "cogito", philosophy has been preoccupied with the question of the "I", its essence, its place in the world and its relationship with reality. According to Emmanuel Levinas, all the ways in which Western philosophy formulated these questions, from Plato and Aristotle to Spinoza, Kierkegaard and Heidegger, always returned in the end to the self, what he called "egoism".

Levinas himself was looking for a way to understand who the self is that would not cut him off from the world but depend on his relationship with it, an altruistic way. Levinas, like many philosophers before him, searched for the one thing that makes us unique, makes us disposable and irreplaceable. What he found is not an existential "authenticity" of an "I" that stands on its own, but a "responsibility" and altruism that define the "I" as a relation to those other than it.

There is no me without a you

For Levinas, the "I" does not exist first and only then meets someone who is different from him, exists first of all "within himself" before he goes out into the world. In fact, it is the encounter with the other that makes us aware of ourselves, and this is because the other demands from us to be responsible towards him. This responsibility, the altruism, gives meaning to who we are in the world.

Love is something that makes us special and unique. It is true that every day people all over the world fall in love, but when it happens to us we feel that it is the most special thing that can be. Loving someone else means that we can no longer stay "within ourselves" and we have to understand ourselves from the relationship with the beloved. Love does not last long without commitment and responsibility and therefore to choose it is to choose who "I am".

Levinas' Difficult Altruism

In Levinas, the concept of altruism is linked to the concept of freedom. To be who we are we must be free, however freedom is not being "free as the spirit" but the ability to take meaningful actions in the world. In order for actions to have meaning for us, we must bear responsibility for them, say that these are "our" actions. That's why freedom "involves a responsibility that may surprise" (Totality and Infinity, p. 226), what Levinas calls "difficult freedom". It is the responsibility to others, and not the thought of ourselves, that makes us who we are.

See our introduction to Levinas

The Sociology of Karl Marx

Marx's sociology is always a critical sociology. He intends to produce not only an understanding but also a critique of modern western society (i.e., capitalism).  However, according to Marx, this criticism can't be based solely on abstract, timeless, or utopian moral ideals.  It has to be based as well on a thorough, concrete analysis of capitalist society, which will reveal its inner dynamics and the way in which it creates the objective possibilities for its own transcendence (through revolution).  Marx is always scornful of mere moralizing, and of socialists who, as he says somewhere, know nothing about capitalism except that it is bad.  He sees capitalism as a stage in a process of historical development, one whose emergence had a certain inner logic, even necessity, but which will just as necessarily give way to a different (and higher) kind of society.

Marx's criticism of capitalist (and pre-capitalist) societies is rooted in a powerful conception of human nature, even though Marx would never admit this. This conception involves not a fixed set of drives or instincts, but a set of capacities or possibilities, the realization of which makes people fully human. Human beings have the capacity to freely, consciously, and actively shape their lives in cooperation with others; this is precisely what makes them human.  As long as they are not able to do so, as long as they are the pawns of other persons or of impersonal natural or social forces beyond their control, they are not fully human.

For Marx, then, freedom, community, and human fulfillment all go together, and he expresses this unity in the idea of communism. History is the conflict-ridden and often contradictory process through which human beings develop and fully realize their nature.  Marx thus means his vision of human possibility not simply as an ahistorical abstraction, but as the goal toward which history is actually moving, albeit in indirect, unintended ways.

All hitherto existing societies, in contrast, are characterized in different ways by unfreedom, isolation, and the lack of fulfillment (or outright denial) of human possibilities.  This condition is captured in the term alienation or estrangement.  Although Marx rarely uses the term after writing The German Ideology in the mid-1840s, the concept remains crucial throughout his work.  Central to this concept is the idea that in all societies up to and including the present, human beings come to be dominated by their own creations­--including their system of social relationships.  Much of Marx's work analyzes the specific ways in which human beings are dominated by social forces that confront them as irresistible alien powers.  Alienation, however, is not inherent in the human condition; it is the product of certain forms of social organization and can be overcome.

Marx integrated his moral vision into a complex analysis of how history works and how societies fit together, which he and Engels sometimes called historical materialism, and into a detailed critique of capitalism.

Marx's writing can be divided into two periods.  From 1843 to 1848, he developed the basic outline of his thought, including his vision of human nature, a general conception of societies and how they change, and an ambitious agenda for a total analysis of modern societies.  From 1848 to nearly the end of his life (in 1883), he labored to complete one important part of this agenda, the critique of "political economy." At the same time, he poured immense effort into political writing of various kinds.

-

Summaries on Marx:

Karl Marx – The German Ideology – summary, review and analysis

A Short Summary of The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels

An Extended Summary of The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels (chapter 1, chapter 2, chapters 3 and 4)

Ideology according to Marx – definition and explanation

Marx's Materialist Theory of History - Summary and Explanation

Marx on Class Conflict - short summary and definition

Marx on Capitalism and Exploitation - Summary

Marx on Commodity - Summary and Explanation

Marx on Human Nature, Alienation and The Structures of Capitalist Society - summary

Karl Marx - The Dialectic and the Dialectical Method - Summary

Marx's Perception of History in The German Ideology: praxis, property and the division of labor

Marx's Perception of History in The German Ideology: relation of production, means of production

Marx's Perception of History in The German Ideology: dialectics and capitalism

Marx's The German Ideology: Alienation and Ideology – summary and analysis

Dialectical materialism - short definition