Application: Kuhn, the Core, and Paradigms

Application: Is the justification of the Core Curriculum of Columbia College the justification of a paradigm?

To me, the justification of the Core Curriculum is a justification of a paradigm. To Kuhn, a paradigm is a pattern or a larger model for how to address a body of work or a topic; specifically, Kuhn deals with scientific paradigms and what it means for the collective knowledge of a paradigm to exist as scientific support for something. His definition of a scientific paradigm is "universally recognized scientific achievements that, for a time, provide model problems and solutions for a community of practitioners."

If we take the scientific element out of that definition, we can see how easily that same definition fits into the justification for the Core Curriculum. The Core, especially LitHum and CC, attempts to provide broad knowledge and methods for addressing contemporary problems and issues in society, and it does this by teaching certain material that provides example "problems and solutions" in much the same way as a scientific paradigm. The Global Core teaches us how to deal with contemporary global problems or view problems through a global lens. The science requirement of the Core most closely fits with Kuhn's traditional idea, but it does much the same in providing a quantitative and empirical lens through which we can approach some problems. LitHum and CC deal more with social and moral issues, providing examples through text and philosophy, but they function exactly as Kuhn argues by giving such "model problems and solutions for a community" - the fact that we study "the Great Books" gives further weight because these texts are "universally recognized" as being broadly applicable in society.

Application: DuBois and the Veil

Application 2: Dubois spoke of the ‘Veil’ between Caucasian and African-Americans. Does something similar exist with respect to Muslims?

I argue that something similar to the Veil between Caucasians and African-Americans exists between people and Muslims, although I think that we cannot put it into exactly the same terms that DuBois used.

DuBois described the veil between Caucasians and African-Americans in a number of different ways. First, it was the actually color difference between Caucasians and African-Americans; white skin compared to the literal darker skin of African-Americans creates a color difference. In this way, there exists a veil between people and some Muslims, because the majority of Muslims come from countries in the Middle East and have specific ethnic traits and different colors skin. However, not all Muslims are Middle Eastern; Muhammad Ali, for example, was a black Muslim, and there are other Muslims who are white. So, the color difference, while potentially a factor to a veil, isn't a complete factor.

Second, DuBois argued that the veil between Caucasians and African-Americans existed because Caucasians didn't see African-Americans as true citizens or Americans or even people. I think that this certainly exists between some people and Muslims - religious discrimination, judgement, and persecution, especially under Trump, creates a sense of antagonism toward Muslims that is encouraged by society, creating a veil between people and Muslims as a social group.

Finally, DuBois put that the veil also came from African-Americans' inability to see themselves outside of what Caucasians saw them as - the double-consciousness element of the veil. I absolutely think this is an element for Muslims in the world, considering that they are constantly scrutinized and have to be aware and conscious of that scrutiny in order to go about their lives. In this way, I do believe that something very similar exists for Muslims in America, and in most of the Western world.

Tentative Answer - Freud's Third Wound

3. Freud called his theory of the unconscious a ‘third wound’ to man’s self-esteem (pride). the first two were administered by Copernicus and Darwin. What might he have meant?

Looking back at history, the wound that Copernicus administered to man's self-esteem was his development of a heliocentric model of the solar system that contrasted to the geocentric model of the solar system that was in common use. This generally conflicted with what was accepted at the time in addition to conflicting with scripture. The idea that the Earth was not the center of the solar system affected man's idea that he was the counterpoint of the universe, which undermined man's superiority and status (thus affecting his self-esteem). 

Darwin's wound to man's self-esteem was his development of an evolutionary model that connects humans to other species, arguing that humans were evolved from lesser animals rather than created by a god. This also impacted man's relationship with scripture and divinity. As such, both of these first two wounds affected man's self-esteem by removing him from the 'center of the universe' and from the 'center of the earth' in terms of how significant man was in each sphere. 

Freud's theory of the unconscious was a third wound in this regard because it questioned man's free will and freedom over his own mind and actions. The idea that there was an unconscious that dictated some amount of action affected man's self-esteem in that it prevented man from being in complete control and having complete free will.

Tentative Answer: Arendt

Arendt is often credited with reemphasizing the ideas of the Greek polis and using them to evaluate the contemporary world. How does the concept of ‘action’, support that view.

Arendt believes in action as political involvement and engagement. This idea is similar to Aristotle’s belief of active participation as a common good and an act that will most benefit the polis in its entirety. For Aristotle, engagement in politics is key in creating a unified polis that is not alienated from the rest of the citizens and can together form a common good. Similarly, Arendt also believes in this idea of political engagement in order to form a unified community. Arendt also challenges Marx in the belief of labor. While Marx believes a revolution is necessary to overthrow capitalism, Arendt believes in active participation as being key to achieving the most good for society.,

Tentative Answer - Weber's Elements of Legitimacy

4. Weber makes a distinction between various types of ‘legitimacy’ (beliefs that justify a leader’s authority in the minds of the led). They were ‘traditional’, ‘charismatic’ and ‘rational-legal’. How would you apply this typology to contemporary leaders? Whom do you think Weber would call ‘charismatic’ today.

Weber's three distinct forms of legitimacy with regard to authority bring to mind three very different kinds of leaders. First, Weber's traditional authority, authority that is legitimized because "it has always existed, etc.," points to a leader like the Queen of England (or the royal family as a whole). While they have no true political authority in the current system of progressive democratic government because they are the remnants of a monarchial system that was dissolved, they still have traditional authority in that people look to them because "they have always been there" are the royal family. People accept the Queen and the royal family because it carries the tradition of authority.

Charismatic authority, as Weber puts it, applies to individuals who convince their followers to follow them because of some amount of personal charisma, rather than traditional or legal structures that legitimize their authority. This, really, applies to leaders such as demagogues and populist leaders; they apply their ability to rally the masses to their cause (or to them as individuals) in order to gain a following that legitimizes their authority simply because of the numbers. Weber would point to a leader such as Trump or a cult leader as example of charismatic leadership that was legitimized by such charisma.

Finally, Weber's example of rational-legal authority and legitimacy is based on legal rules and systems put in place through what we call government - this is the most structured form of legitimacy, in that we can point to exactly why a leader has authority because of such legal structures. A leader such as this would be someone who holds the office of President of the United States; through an election process, the President was elected and given legitimized authority because of the country's republican government system that is in place.

Tentative Answer - Marx and the Morality of the Classes

2. Are the bourgeoisie evil for Marx? Are the proletariat good?

I don't believe that Marx's philosophy on capitalism and labor really even addresses whether or not the bourgeoisie are evil or whether the proletariat are good. For Marx, the root of evil lies in the system of capitalism because it requires individuals to sell their labor in such a way that demeans and devalues them as persons. While the bourgeoisie plays into that system and takes advantage of capitalism in such a way that places them in a better economic system at the expense of the proletariat, Marx doesn't seem to weigh in on the inherent good or evil qualities of the bourgeoisie  or the proletariat.

With that said, the bourgeoisie does take advantage of capitalism in such a way that forces the proletariat to sell their labor in a way that diminishes their value as humans - playing into such an exploitative appears to be an "evil" action. Marx's solution to this practice of exploitation and playing into the system of capitalism was a total class struggle that ends with the proletariat rising up as one and removing the system of capitalism itself from society, thus removing the class barriers and exploitative systems that oppress the proletariat. Again, while this appears to be a "good" action on the part of the proletariat, Marx argues that this is just the inevitable result of capitalism, as a catalyst for social change and the development of class consciousness ultimately manifesting into total class struggle.

Application Question: Marx

Are you ‘alienated’ from your ‘species being’? As a student, or on a job you have or had

Alienation from one's species being refers to a disassociation from one's human identity. Marx argues that capitalism strips one's sense of purpose and individuality. To put effort into labor and devote life into labor, under a capitalist society, leads to this alienation of species being when a divergence forms between the laborer and labor. Personally, I have experienced this time of alienation from species being as a teenager who worked as McDonalds. Upon entering the job I was excited to have a my first job but I quickly became hostile towards the prospect of going to work or working. I stayed only in order to make money and the product I made had no value to me or significance; I was merely doing labor for labor’s sake. I grew weary and tired very quickly from working and my species being was disassociating from me when I could no longer find any reason, other than money, for continuing to work there. This differs from my time as a student currently. As a student I feel that what I am doing, such as the courses I am taking, are meaningful and building towards, what I believe, is my purpose. Going to my classes does not feel like an estrangement from my identity, but it reinforces it.