Of Personal Identity

Hume believes that the self is an illusion or a fiction. What is his argument? Do you find it convincing? Why or why not?

Perception is a main focus of Hume’s during this excerpt. He talks of a theory that other philosophers say that “we are every moment intimately conscious of what we call our self” and while this happens we are aware of its perfect identity and simplicity. Hume also says that pain and pleasure, grief and joy, passions and sensations succeed each other and are never experienced at the same time and since these are distinguishable and separate from each other have no need of a thing to support their existence. He says he can never find himself as he is while most intimately in himself to see anything other than perception which I think can also be experiences. And the only time he is removed from his perceptions is when he sleeps and he does not exist and further from that the only way possibly to not exist at all is by death. He believes that collectively the human race is a bundle of perceptions. Through these perceptions or experiences people are able to find their identity.

When people find their identity through experiences they are then shared with others which help people relate to each other through these shared perceptions. He also talks about how memories do not necessarily produce personal identity as they do help discover personal identity.

This idea that who we are as people is based off of perception is somewhat believable theory. People may say that perception is reality and then in that case to what I think Hume is trying to say would be completely true because as my mind perceives then that would have to be true. But in a way I can say that I do not necessarily agree because I have had many different perceptions of many different things and while they may influence to a certain extent of what I believe and what I do they do not necessarily make me who I am. To say that I am constricted only to my perceptions almost makes me feel as though I am selling myself short. I think where I would differ from Hume is that while I do believe perception/experiences influence decisions also thought separate from perception makes a difference in decision making. You are as much intimately conscious of yourself as you are with your perception and with yourself and your perceptions that makes you who you are.

Is there Art in War?

War is a despicable thing. As Sun Tzu states in The Art of War “The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.” and I couldn’t agree more with him. But sometimes war is a necessary tool in which to create a safer society or to extinguish a threat to innocent people around the world.

Now would I think that Tolstoy would consider war in itself to be an art in itself? No, I do not and I also do not think war in itself is art because of how Tolstoy deems art as the individuality of the feelings transmitted. But I do think the intricacies of war: the senior leaders, the commanders of battalions, and the small unit leaders and their passing of knowledge and wisdom with the ensuing destruction on a battlefield are art.

The activity of art as Tolstoy says is “receiving through his sense of hearing or sight another man’s expression of feeling, is capable of experiencing the emotion which moved the man who expressed it” and I see this is evident through personal experience during my stint in the military. The leaders I had through training leading up to a combat deployment would describe prior experiences they had in battle and through these shared experiences with words and emotion used were able to give us invaluable lessons towards learning how to stay alive and also while staying alive help us learn to defeat the enemy. These men, the leaders my fellow brothers and I had used their words and emotion to make us better warriors and I cannot say any different but what they did was art. The art for me comes from the fact that what they imparted to us took root in our hearts it became real and we were experiencing what they had experienced.

The second aspect of war that I believe is art is the destruction on the battlefield. For me there is almost no greater raw emotion creator than bombs and bullets raining down on a field of battle. The reason I consider this to be art is, behind every bomb, missile or bullet being sent down range is a man or woman pulling a trigger. Someone on one side of each exchange is inspiring fear, awe, anger, sadness, terror, and bravery and the people on the other are sharing those same feelings. Although this is a very brutal and savage display of art I believe it is art none the less and no one involved in these confrontations leaves the encounter unscathed emotionally or physically in some way.

I see art as a flower blooming, a tree blossoming, a baby being born, a shared happy experience from another person who has found success in some aspect of their life and really anywhere that life can be seen flourishing in a happy healthy way. But on the opposite side I can see art as being destructive power held in the hands few to be wrought only in dire circumstances to keep an evil held at bay and that is why I believe that in war there is art.

What is art? Leo Tolstoy

Tolstoy uses the test of infectiousness, not only as a descriptive measure for what should count as art, but also as a standard for good art (#28-32). What does he mean by this standard? How does he suggest we apply this test to evaluate art? Is this a useful proposal for evaluating the quality of art? If you disagree with this proposal, how would you challenge it?

Art is a way of connecting people together, as Tolstoy states “The activity of art is based on the fact that a man, receiving through his sense of hearing or sight another man’s expression of feeling, is capable of experiencing the emotion which moved the man who expressed it.” This quote I feel gives us a clear picture of the idea that Tolstoy is trying to express in his writing. The idea that art is a way of connecting people through written word, paintings, or talking. Then there is the impact that the art has on others whether it be strong or weak. The scale on which we can tell how strong or weak the art is depends on the sincerity of the person creating the art and then on top of that how well the person receiving the art is able to connect to the person portraying the art. So if the person creating the art is sincere and one or more people are able to connect to the art and feel what the author of the art is feeling then we can consider it to be very strong art. Now on the other hand Tolstoy also believes that there is counterfeit art, this being as Tolstoy states “if the work does not transmit the artist’s peculiarity of feeling and is therefore not individual, if it is unintelligibly expressed, or if ti has not proceeded from the author’s inner need for expression – it is not a work of art.”

I believe that Tolstoy’s depiction of what art is is pretty spot on. The thought that art is what connects people to others rings true for me. My thinking when I think on art is that whoever is creating it is sharing their thoughts and beliefs or the struggles they may be encountering at any point in their life. For example there is a mini series that was shown on HBO called Generation Kill about the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I believe that according to Tolstoy that this is art because it is clearly creating a picture of what Marines went through when they went to war and many people who either served in Iraq or Afghanistan in the last 12 years can clearly connect to what is being depicted in the show. Although the depictions include death, sadness, some perverseness, and the ugliness of war many people can connect to it because of the shared feelings they themselves encountered when serving overseas in the war. I believe art is common feelings shared and how the author of the art is connected the the perceiver of the art. So I do agree with how Tolstoy interprets what art is.