What is Humanities?
Type of document Essay
3 Pages Subject area Art
Academic Level Undergraduate
Style MLA
Number of references 3
Order description:
Final Exam: For this exam, you are to write a short, 700 word essay about how your work this semester has informed (and/or changed) your understanding of humanity and of what it means to be human. You should write the essay with a focus of some kind, so you should start it with a conventional introduction that features a thesis, or a main argument or claim. That claim should appear near the bottom of the first paragraph, and should attempt to clarify a main point–a main idea that conveys to the reader your message. Then you can use subsequent paragraphs to support your main claim. As you write, you should cite/quote from at least three of the things we’ve read this semester. This way, you will show the reader that you’ve been able to connect your own thinking to your ideas in this course. Of course, the conclusion should wrap up your paper in some substantive way.
please use: Plato’s ‘The Republic’ as one of the lesson that was taught in class, including an example and quotes from ‘Oedipus the King’
translated by David Genre if applicable.
please use: Descartes ‘I am, I exist’ as another one of the lesson that was taught in class, including an example and quotes from the book ‘Hamlet’ by Shakespear. Also If applicable
Lastly, please use: Sartre ‘Existentialism is Humanism” as the last piece of the lesson that was taught in class, please include quotes.
Here is the link for the Republic by Plato: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.8.vii.html
Here is the video for the Republic by plato: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2afuTvUzBQ&t=2s (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
Here is a summary for the Republic by plato:
Plato’s allegory is a very brief work but it is packed with complexities. Here are a few important takeaways to help you connect his insights both to Oedipus and to Aristotle, the philosopher we’ll turn to next in our exploration of Greek culture:
- An allegory is a story intended to correspond in some way to true life. In Plato’s allegory, the cave corresponds to the way that we live our lives generally speaking and the space outside the cave–the real truth of the world–is a space that we achieve only in our minds when we have become enlightened. This corresponds to Plato’s theory of the forms, which stipulates that the world we are actually living in and know is actually just a representation of the world of truth. This is a world for Plato that can only be found in the mind, and in the mind’s view of a thing. So, for instance, right now I’m sitting at a desk, typing this, but for Plato, this desk that I’m sitting at is less real than the original idea of this desk that some designer somewhere had in his/her head before actually designing it. So don’t think that when you’re running around in some beautiful natural environment feeling enlightened that you’re like the prisoner who’s come out of the cave. That is not what Plato means.
- Plato’s allegory is interesting to relate to the character of Oedipus. For many readers, Oedipus suffered the worst fate that can befall a man–that’s certainly how Oedipus was interpreted by the viewers at the time. But the allegory gives us a way to see Oedipus’ final achievement of truth–the point at which he discovers who he really is–as an accomplishment. At that moment, he is kind of like the guy who has escaped from the cave and is in the painful light of the sun. It is difficult, and it will change him forever, but he has sought it at his own cost because the truth means that much to him.
- Finally, it is worth comparing the role of art in society to the role of the images on the wall in the cave. Plato is clearly disparaging art in this story. It is bad enough that these cave-dwellers must remain in the cave, but it is even worse that they have to be deceived by the images passing in front of them–that is active deception and it is very comparable to the role of art, which is to represent, or to re-present the world to the audience. Nevertheless, in order to make this point, Plato has to tell a story, which is a form of art in itself. So it is a work of art that criticizes the work of art, or the work that art does. This is important to remember when we turn to Aristotle, for whom art occupies a more positive space within society.
Here is the link from Descartes “I am, I exist” : only the first two mediations https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/descartes/1639/meditations.htm
Here is the summary for Desscartes “I am, I exist:
Here is a bit of commentary to help you connect Descartes’ thinking to Shakespeare’s:
–Descartes is notable as the founder of modern philosophy. Much of his thinking can be condensed in the simple opposition between the body and the mind. For Plato, perhaps it was more the body and the soul, or even the self and the world of higher forms, but for Descartes it’s the body and the mind.
–Within this way of thinking, the mind is always privileged over the body. Descartes says to himself that he can’t trust his sensations, because they might be deceiving him, so he has to reject them as a proof of his existence. Instead, he turns inward, to rely on the mind. Since he is thinking, or since he is a thinking being, he MUST exist. This radical privileging of the mind over the body has its problems, since it leaves out a big chunk of human experience, but it also goes hand in hand with Hamlet’s tendency to think about things instead of acting on them. This curious coincidence between Descartes and Shakespeare suggests that thinking was a big deal for the Renaissance as a whole. These were people who began to think about what the mind was capable of, apart from the place it occupied in the world. With Hamlet, you have a guy whose rightful responsibilities to his country, even his rightful responsibilities to his father are secondary to his responsibility to his own mind. That faithfulness to thinking–to making sure that thought has the priority over action–is a kind of template for a great deal of Renaissance thinking.
Here is the link for Sartre “Existentialism Is a Humanism”: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm
Here is the summary for Sartre “Existentialism Is a Humanism”:
Sartre never really defines existentialism fully, although he is perhaps closest when he states that for the existentialist, “existence comes before essence.” This is a difficult idea to unpack, but we can certainly relate it to how we make choices in daily life. For instance, in “essence,” I see myself as someone who makes good, healthy eating choices, or at least that’s my ideal. However, I just stuffed my face with three mini chocolate donuts–that was something I actually did. Sartre would thus say that’s because I was valuing my essence before my existence: I was thinking that it was ok to eat the donuts because I generally see myself as a healthy person. For Sartre, that’s not acceptable. For him, the only real moral measure of ourselves lies in what we are doing at the time. In a sense, it might be truer to say that for Sartre, essence is the same thing as existence, or the two are condensed into one. What I mean is that one’s existence, one’s real lived experience, is the only essence that one can know. I can only be sure in myself of what I do, I cannot rely on some idea I have of myself based on being a “good person” or generally following rules or morality, I can only rely on what I do to tell me who I really am.
–While existentialism is attacked for being too dour or pessimistic, Sartre sees just the opposite. This is because existentialism forces individuals to think much more carefully about each and every choice they make. Choices can’t be separated from “essence” so each choice I make defines me–it defines my relation to others, my morality and my sense of myself. This means that, if we practice existentialism they way that Sartre intends, we will instantly become much more careful in the choices we make, and more ethical as well.
–So, if this is a philsophy that emphasizes making ethical choices, where does the forlorness and despair come from? Well, the problem with always doing what is ethical is that one is always having to figure out what in fact is ethical, which makes it infinitely more difficult to act. Imagine being a regular person picking cereal in the cereal aisle. Maybe you’ll just buy whatever looks good to eat. Maybe you’ll put a bit more thought into and look for a label that says, “organic” or “whole grain” or something like that. But if you’re an existentialist, picking a cereal in the cereal aisle might take all day. You have to figure out the fiber content, the sugar content, reckon all that against how the cereal is made and where, so on and so forth. That experience is compounded of course by more momentous decisions, like how you raise your children, how you care for yourself, or for your elders. This sense of always having to be just in one’s dealings is also kind of a drag–it creates anxiety, and worry because you can’t hang it on anyone else–no pre-establised moral code, no religion, just you. And that’s scary.
