Some Thoughts On David Lewis

David Lewis argues that even though time travel is possible, you cannot go back in time and kill your grandfather before his original date of death. Lewis gives an example about a boy who is called Tim. In Lewis’ article “The Paradoxes of Time Travel”, Tim goes back in time with his time machine and he wants to kill his grandfather. In 1921, all conditions are available to kill grandfather. However, Lewis argues that Tim cannot kill his grandfather because we know that grandfather lived and got children and grandchild, he earned money which paid Tim’s time machine expenses later, then grandfather died in 1957. So to speak, grandfather lived in 1921. According to Lewis, if we argue that Tim can kill grandfather in “new 1921” which is in Tim’s extended personal time, then in the external time there would be one “original 1921” which is same with “new 1921”, and Tim both kills and not kill grandfather in 1921. Since this is impossible to do, Tim cannot kill grandfather and change the past. David Lewis uses the terms external and personal time, while he is claiming his arguments in the article. We can say that for everyday people there is an external time which is compatible with their personal time, on the other hand for time traveller his/her personal time is not compatible with external time. Even though, for Tim it seems possible to kill his grandfather in his personal time when he comes back in 1921, this situation is not compatible with external time which has one and only 1921 that grandfather lived.[1]

Based on Tim’s example, David Lewis concludes that we cannot change the past and also the future. Since the facts in the past include that “ Tim did not kill his grandfather in 1921”, they do not include this fact at the same time: “ Tim went back and killed his grandfather in 1921”.  I think, Lewis’ arguments are indeed convincing in his model in view of external and personal time, otherwise they would be logically contradictory when we claim Tim can kill the grandfather who is the father of Tim’s parent. I would want to add an example to this claim of unchangeable past and future. Let’s suppose, I (call B) and my friend (call C) have a time machine, hence we can go back and forth through time. First I decide to go to 27 May 2021 which is my birthday and I am pretty sure that future B won’t be at home and she will celebrate her 30th birthday outside. I assume that future B still lives in the same home as I live now and she will hopefully have more stuff in the house compared to my current furnitures. I travel to 27 May 2021 at 10pm and as I presupposed 30th years old B is not in the home and before she comes back from her birthday party, I collect all money and sell furnitures, electronic devices, then I return back to now with a lot of money. Then my friend C travels to 27 May 2021 at 8pm and C finds future B’s home fully furnished. C collects all money in the house and sells furnitures, electronic devices, then C returns back to now with a lot of money. For the sake of the part I want to focus, I skip the possibly problematic but irrelevant parts for now such as being able to sell all stuff in two hours, to carry money by time travel, to be identical or mentally in continuity with me and future B. Still, this scenario seems to have a problem, though. How can we sell the same stuff twice? In my view, even this is not as problematic as Lewis’ grandfather paradox, the logic could be the same. Like as Tim cannot kill his grandfather in 1921 because grandfather died in 1957, I cannot sell the stuff in the house when I will be in 27 May 2021 at 10pm because in our scenario C sells the stuff in 27 May 2021 at 8pm and I would have found an empty house. If there is any need for further explanation, I can say that in keeping with my imaginary 27 May 2021 day scenario, this is how things are going on: 27 May 2021 future B leaves home before 8pm, at 8pm C comes and acts in accordance with scenario explained above, at 10pm B comes and finds an empty house, 28 May 2021 after midnight future B comes and finds an empty house unfortunately. This probably would not be the best gift for future B from present B in her birthday, anyways on the basis of Lewis’ argumentation I can claim that in future at 10pm I have to find the house as it has been already robbed by C. This is why I am convinced by David Lewis’ argument and I agree with him about his claim: “ Not that past moments are special; no more can anyone change the present or the future.”[2]

As I mentioned before, Lewis’ argument works for his model, but we can have other time models which can contradict with Lewis’ argumentation. Branching time model could support the idea of time travel but still it is debatable whether travelling through branches and changing events in different branches can be counted as changing past or future? I cannot say I totally object the claim that creating a new branch in a history is not a change, unlike David Lewis. On the other hand, I am definitely sure that presentism claims that there cannot be anything as time travel, since there is no time except present time. Hence, it is impossible to travel through time because there is no past or future.[3]

 

—————————————————–

 

[1]Lewis (1976, p. 149, 150).

[2]Ibid, p. 150.

[3]Markosian (2004, p. 49).

 

REFERENCES

Lewis, D. (1976). The Paradoxes of Time Travel. North American Philosophical Publications.

Markosian, N. (2004). A Defense of Presentism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

The Moral Standing of Animals

 

         People’s opinion which paves the way to act as custodians of the world is a common separatist view that emphasizes the capacity for rational insight setting us apart from animals. Since we can police the world whereas animals cannot, we assume the responsibility of taking care of companion animals and we exploit them by eating, killing, experiments. But, do animals count at all as subjects of moral consideration? If they have moral status, what is our moral relation to them?

         There are different views about this topic. One of them is consequentialist view which claims that moral status depends on capacity to feel pleasure and pain. Therefore, moral status depends on sentience. Animals above a certain level of evolutionary development are morally considerable. Peter Singer’s “expanding circle ” of moral concern extends to all animals that are sentient. Preferring humans to animals because they are human and sentient is an arbitrary prejudice akin to racism or sexism. According to this view, we ought to care more about a kitten than human in an irreversible persistent vegetative state.

        On the other hand, some people think that animals have no moral status. This means that nothing we do to animals ethically matters. Animal experimentation is like throwing away garden waste. Proponents of this view have to be consistent. If a frog has no moral status, then whale has no. 

        Kantian view states that moral mistreatment of animals reflects badly on one’s own moral character. But, is our character the sole focus of the motivation to treat animals well? According to Kantianism, moral status attaches to those with inherent rational dignity. And also, connecting rights holding to self-consciousness, rationality, etc. leads to problem of favouring smart to dumb animals. Animals cannot control over the discharge of the obligation, but later we will draw a distinction between having a right and knowing that you do.

         Virtue ethicists approache rightness by considering what a virtuous agent would judge to be right. Like Kant, but virtue ethicists will object that maltreating animals only displays a vicious character if it is wrong. Virtue ethics is a partialist view, according to partialists, people have basic reasons to favour their ” nearest and dearest”. Virtue ethicists also point to the different kinds of harm that are possible for creatures of different degrees of biological and psychological sophistication. This may help the question; why do we care more about whales than worms?

         Many people claim that animals are also right holders. Is right holding one directional? Must the rights bearer qualify as holders or exert some control over the right? You can have a right without being able to understand that you are. A rights holder does not need to have the “concept” of a right. So, there are second order rights that only become applicable to those protected by rights who understand that they are, and have the concept of a right. In this case, animals could only be first order rights holder. They cannot form the concept of a right, so have no access to the second order rights. Rights holding does not demand a stringent criteron of moral status. Since they just have general rights and we would enforce their second order rights, does this suggest the custodian or trustee model? The legal device of a trust  is a kind of contract. We can take a gander at standard account of right; X has a right, if X has an interest of sufficient importance to place Y under an obligation to respect that interest.

          In our own human case, rights protect us from being sacrificed for the greater good. I, personally, do not have to save other people’s lives while sacrificing myself, but what about animals?  Or can animals show consent? Are there experiments in which their willing participation shows consent? They have a general negative right not to be interfered with based on  their physical and mental integrity. Animal experimentations are researches on lower animals for the sake of higher animals including people. Alan Thomas claims that we are obliged to reduce our dependence on laboratory animals as much as possible. And we have a general duty not to harm non-human nature unnecessarily. But, what are the lines for “as much as possible” and “unnecessary”? 

           For example, we have dietitians that say eating animals is necessary for health when it is a recommended daily portion. On the other hand, animals eat each other and we are not obliged to police nature. Given our animal nature and our relations to other animals, is eating them wrong? Eating meat is not biologically necessary, moreover the industrialised production of animal products is extremely cruel.

          We can have obligations towards them, even if these obligations do not correlate with a right directly. Although, some of them can be more clear to put an end to the discussion, most of them are still open to claim opposite views about animals. We have to come to the point that we will discuss what is necessary for people, or how it is possible to not use animals in experiments. It is not just about valuing a rat over a person, it is also about drawing the line between values.

 

*This article is compiled by the lecture notes of Alan Thomas.

 

 

Happiness and Duty

            Aristotle’s ethical concerns and Kant’s ethical accounts have some similarities. One of them is the power of reason. Reason looms large in both Aristotle and Kant’s ethics. However, Aristotle and Kant separate from each other in the subject matter of the good life. Aristotle follows a teleological way with regard to Kant and Kant has nothing to do with aims, emotions, and virtues. He queries people’s intentions rather than their purposes. Aristotle’s understanding of ethics leads him up to Eudaimonia and Kant emphasizes the priority of duty to happiness.

            In order to explain the similarities and differences between the two ethical standpoints we have to look at the mainstays of them. Both Aristotle and Kant questioned the issue of morality. According to Aristotle, man has to live a life in accordance with arete. Aristotle explains the term arete by the help of another term “the Golden Mean”. Arete means virtue and virtue has to be proper and mean. For example, Aristotle states bravery between the foolhardiness which is a quality of a man who can take risks and put his life in danger and cowardice which is a deficiency of a man who is in some situations that need taking risks. Like bravery, every other moral and intellectual virtue lie between the two vices which are excess and deficiency and this is called “the Golden Mean”. According to Aristotle, in a complete life if man leads a life in conformity with reason and he fulfills his proper function, then by the help of this fulfillment soul becomes active. If this activity of soul has accordance with complete arete, man could reach the happiness, eudaimonia.

              As rational beings, we have a capacity to think and this is our distinction from other beings. We can make rational choices and we do this because of our soul’s rational part governing thoughts and producing reasons. In that case, Aristotle argues that people have to fulfill their proper function which is thinking, reasoning, being rational etc. and in order to reach the absolute aim which is happiness for them; they have to activate their soul with complete virtues. This can be called virtue ethics and it is easy to understand that this kind of view is a teleological view.

             On the other hand, Kant’s ethics is not teleological and also it does not interest in emotions such as happiness, pleasure, honor. From the viewpoint of Kant, human is a rational being as Aristotle thinks, too. As Aristotle’s ethics gives an importance to reason, Kant questions the fundamental intentions of actions. Nigel Warburton explains this with a few sentences: “ Morality for Kant wasn’t just about what you do, but about why you do it. Those who do the right thing don’t do it simply because of how they feel: the decision has to be based on reason, reason that tells you what your duty is, regardless of how you happen to feel.”[1] As it is mentioned above, we are rational animals and because of this rationality we are allowed to make decisions. Then Kant carries the issue a step further and claims that view:  universally applicable morality.

             According to Kant, there are imperatives which can be explained like that something that will urge you to compel to something. Imperatives have two subcategories that are hypothetical and categorical. Hypothetical imperatives are about attaining a goal and they are separated in two titles which are problematic (about wishes, possibilities) and assertoric( about facts, actuality). Categorical imperatives are not about hypothetical imperatives’ subjects, aims or goals. The article which is “Duty is Prior to Happiness” states categorical imperatives in that sentence: “Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”[2] Here, maxim refers to general norms, principles that will tell you to do. As we can say the sentence implies the interrogation of actions’ ability to become a universal law. If the action which is taken by someone is not suitable to become a general law for all people, Kant says don’t act like that. In other words, if the action is not true for all people, it can’t be true for anyone. The universality of categorical imperatives has risen from this understanding.

             In order to make explanations clear, I will try to describe a situation which shows the distinction between the duty and inclination. Let’s imagine, one of your best friends has some troubles in her life and she tells you these to receive your feedbacks about the subject. You know that she talks to you because she needs to hear that she didn’t do anything wrong and there was nothing she could do to make things better. However, you think that your friend is not so objective about herself and you have to lie to her in order to feel her better. Don’t you think that this is a harmless lie? Besides, it can work and your friend may feel better, so in this situation lying to friend seems better than telling your actual opinions. According to Kant, it does not. Even if there will be a helpful consequence, people don’t have to lie. Although the intention has arisen from a helpful aim according to you, you have to do your duty. There is one critical question which is that would I recommend this as a general law? If you say that I recommend lying as a general law for all people in all situations, then you can lie to your friend. But, if your response is no, then you have to say what you think to your friend without concerning the consequences. Maybe we perform the true act or our duty, our friend will be sad and we will feel terrible. One can prefer to behave accordingly and she can choose her duty rather than her happiness for one situation, but according to Kant duty is always prior to happiness. Kant’s ethics doesn’t have any concern about aims/ends, even if this aim would be happiness.

            This kind of ethical philosophy seems very well-supported to deny its reality in terms of its universality and comprehensiveness. There is no exception for any condition and Kant’s ethics is hard to break, because it puts human’s ability to govern reason in the center. However, there are some questions in my mind about its universality. First of all, although people are rational and all of them have a right to make choices based on their reasons, sometimes people make wrong decisions or they just choose an option for themselves instinctively. I think there are some situations which we have to experience them and in these times we may make decisions that we don’t do in a normal day. To exaggerate I will put one’s life aside and I will present this kind of situation. If one person encounters an incident which his life is in danger, I think when the time comes to make a decision he gives priority to his life rather than his duty as a human. What I want to say is that even if I accept the universality and reason-based quality of  Kant’s account, is human being really rational as much as it is acknowledged?

             My other conflict is that according to Kant’s morality before the action we have to ask a question ourselves about the universalizability of this action and if the answer is negative then we don’t act, but what will happen if I say yes? Let’s imagine I am the wealthiest person in my town and I am a person like who don’t repay people when she borrows money. Besides, when I think this behavior as a general law it does not annoy me and I don’t care what happens if other people act like me. This example can be diversified with other human qualities such as being strong, selfish, mean, brutal, etc. In order to think that everyone answers the main question with most reasonable response, we have to live in a world which everybody is equal and just. Because when I say that I must be nice to other people since I don’t want this as a natural law, I am afraid of other people’s behavior to me and I think that one day they will ride rough over me.

             There is one last thing that I want to explain my opinion while comparing Aristotle’s ethics and Kant’s morality. In Aristotle’s account we can realize that if people want to reach eudaimonia, they have to behave according to their complete virtues, they have to develop the right kind of character which is more actual and they have to lead a life in conformity with reason. There is an aim which is happiness. On the contrary Kant’s philosophy doesn’t pursue a goal and it says that if there was another aim rather than duty, this fails your morality. This position can be interpreted as a fair statement because in such a situation nobody acts for interests of himself/herself. However, I think there might be a problem about the aims such as being good or being just. What will happen if I have a goal to be a better person? Probably Kant says that a good person is the one who acts according to his duty or maybe he does not describe such a person, but there will always be one problem even if I just behave proparly. Because at this time I just want to live a life which I only pursue my duties, then this will be my aim at the end.

             From a broad perspective, Aristotle’s understanding of morality looks more like a route which provides personal development and it sounds like a modern term. Actualizing yourself, reaching success and making it for its own sake. Although we separate Kant from Aristotle in many points, duty is a thing that we want it for its own sake, too. Besides, Kant’s ethics provides us a chance to evaluate actions which is a difficult issue in many ethical understandings. Because Kant puts conditions, aims and inclinations away and judges actions according to one criterion. On the contrary we don’t have this kind of attitude in Aristotle’s morality because as I mentioned above it is more about the individual as one who has its own purposes and its soul.

——————————————————————–

[1] Warburton (2012, p. 115).

[2] Kant (1998, p. 227).

REFERENCES

Warburton, N. (2012) A Little History of Philosophy, Padstow, Cornwall: Yale University Press.

Kant, I. (1998) The Metaphysical Principles of Virtue, selections in J. A. Gould (ed.), “Duty is Prior to Happiness,” Classical Philosophical Questions, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Isaac

       

       One can understand philosophers such as Aristotle and Kant, but it is far more difficult to understand Abraham. We can put forward some arguments against these philosophers’ opinions and we can argue that there are some weaknesses in their philosophy. But, can we assess someone’s opinions without having a comprehensive understanding about him? Or, is there any possibility to understand faith of Abraham?

        Since we can’t understand this faith and we could not witness the event, maybe there is a way to become close to this faith and it would be the effort to think Isaac.

Since we can’t reach the most significant moment of a knight of faith who is Abraham, we can hark back to the event and then we can eulogize Abraham by remembering, thinking. Before all things, what did he think when he was given the demand of God? Did he think of Sarah? Did he think about the people who were around him? If he thought one of these kinds of questions once, I wonder how Abraham answered this question. Was there any chance to explain people why Abraham killed his own son, after Abraham made his duty for God? It would be a big crime both in the manner of ethics and religion. Abraham would be a murderer or a sinner.

        Was faith something exponible for Abraham? If it was not, Abraham would be judged by most of the people who heard the event. What if faith was something which is not exponible but comprehensible thing? Do we have anything has a similarity with that? One can say emotions have a kind of similar feature with faith in this sense. However, even the most powerful emotion leads us we know we will have some consequences after our actions. Besides, we know there are many people know same emotions as we experience. However, the issue comes to the faith no one can explain how it feels, no one can give an example and no one can know she has same faith with other person. We can only feel, if we are lucky.

        There is another question in my mind while I am searching the cause behind Abraham’s faith. Could Sarah do this kind of duty if she was in Abraham’s stead? The last question brings us to a more important issue: What makes Abraham a knight of faith? When we think of Sarah’s position, can we argue that Sarah couldn’t do Abraham’s mission, since she was a mother or she didn’t have the faith Abraham had?  I, Johannes De Silentio, as a person who tries to understand Abraham, thought the event many times in many different ways and I believe we are more close to Isaac than Abraham. We cannot imagine ourselves in Abraham’s stead, but we can imagine ourselves as in the position of Isaac more easily. Maybe there is not any person who can run the risk of Abraham took, even if God demands to kill his son. But, one can take Isaac’s position into consideration. Therefore, we can observe the event in the Isaac’s perspective for the last time.

          It was early in the morning when Abraham came to take Isaac, they left their tents, and Sarah watched them from the window as far as Isaac saw. They rode for three days towards somewhere Isaac didn’t know and Abraham didn’t say a word. On the morning of the fourth day, Isaac saw a mountain in the distance and he realized that this is the place where Abraham took him. Abraham stopped, laid his hand on Isaac’s head and started to say something. Isaac kneeled and listened to him. These words were the most impressive ones Isaac had ever heard. They were inspirational and encouraging. They were floating in a passion river first and then they came to Isaac’s ears. However, they were totally the words of a mad person. They couldn’t have any chance to become possible because they were screaming the biggest sin. Abraham, the father of many, who was the most merciful person Isaac had ever known, was talking about killing his son in the name of God. Although, Isaac couldn’t believe what his father was saying, he felt the indispensability of the words and the power in his father’s hand on his head. He wanted to escape from Abraham and words’ intense sphere of influence, but he couldn’t move even his finger. Abraham laid him down and he prepared his knife. There was no resentment in Isaac’s soul, he couldn’t understand Abraham, but will something change whether he ran or cried? No, because Isaac saw Abraham’s faith in his eyes.[1]                                                                                                               

         Before the child is to be weaned, the mother had to be steadfast and this resoluteness affects breast deeply, since the relation between the mother and her body is complicated and very strong, few can be vouchsafed the pride to understand the connection between them. Although the child cries unbearably, the mother’s psychology dries her breast and breast cannot lactate because of its accord to mother. How fortunate the one who lives with her body harmonizingly![2]

    

---

 

[1] Kierkegaard (1983, p. 10).

 

[2] Ibid, p. 11.

 

 

 

REFERENCES

 

Kierkegaard, N. (1983) Fear and Trembling / Repetitions, translated by H. V. Hong and E. H. Hong, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

İlham Dİlman’ın Mutluluk Üzerİne Düşüncelerİ

                                                                                                 Bildiğimiz şeyler arasında bir düzen arıyoruz ki                                                                                                         bilip de gözden kaçırdığımız  şekilleri tekrar seçebilelim.                                                  

                                                                                                                     

Felsefe Tartışmaları’ndaki 1990 yılı yayımlı makalesinde, okuyucuları mutluluk üzerine felsefi bir sohbete davet eden İlham Dilman hepimizin bildiği şeylerden bahsedeceğini ve bize yeni bir şey söyleyemeyeceğini belirterek yazısına başlıyor. “Mutluluk Nedir?” adlı makalesine başlarken kullandığı bu alçak gönüllü sözler, Dilman’ın kendine has felsefe yapma tarzından ileri geliyor denilebilir. Dilman’ın makalede üzerinde durduğu noktalar, kişisel problemlerimizle felsefe sorunlarının iç içe geçtiği yerlere işaret ettiği için okuyucuda tanıdık bir his ve sohbet havası yaratmaktadır. Makalenin en önemli yanı, mutluluk üzerine yapılan bu felsefe sohbetinin konuya getirdiği yeni bakış açısıdır. Bu yazıda, Dilman’ın mutluluk üzerine düşüncelerini irdelemeye ve aklımda oluşan sorulara aynı çerçeve içerisinde cevaplar bulmaya çalışacağım.

 

Makalede bir kaç defa tekrarlanan doku-desen benzetmesi, bahsettiğim yeni bakış açısının çıkış noktası diyebilirim. İlham Dilman bir çok kez “insan hayatının dokusunda desenlenen mutluluk” tan(1990, s.82) bahsediyor. Kulağa oldukça hoş gelen bu açıklamanın, İlham Dilman’ın özgün Wittgenstein yorumu olduğunu düşünüyorum. Eğer Wittgenstein’ın Felsefi Soruşturmalar kitabında keder için yaptığı açıklama Türkçeye “‘Keder’ hayatımızın dokusunda değişik şekillerle tekrarlanan bir deseni tanımlar”(Wittgestein 2001, s.174) şeklinde çevrilebilirse, Dilman’ın mutluluk için kullandığı doku-desen benzetmesi daha anlamlı hale gelir diye düşünüyorum. Peki, Dilman Wittgenstein’ın keder için yaptığı bu tanımla kendi mutluluk anlayışı arasında nasıl bir bağlantı kuruyor? Bu noktayı açıklayabilmek için, Wittgenstein’ın özgün metinde desen kelimesi için “pattern” sözcüğünü kullandığını belirtmeliyim. Yani, hayatımızın dokusunda oluşan mutluluk aslında değişik şekillerde tekrarlanan bir “pattern” ı ifade ediyor. Bu “pattern” ın oluşması için zamana gereksinim duyduğumuzu belirten Dilman, keder ve mutluluk arasındaki benzerliği onların desenlenebilmesi için gerekli olan süre olarak tanımlıyor. Zaman olmadan, değişik şekillerde karşımıza çıkan anlar ve sonradan aynı desenin parçaları olarak adlandıracağımız farklı parçalar bir bütün olarak nitelendirilemezler. Çünkü tek tek yaşadığımız ve İlham Dilman’ın deyimiyle “ışıklı fakat gelip geçen anlar” zaman içinde anlamlanır. Başka bir şekilde denilebilir ki, hayatımızın dokusunda yer alan anlar hep orada bulunur ve anlamlı bir bütün olabilmeleri için bir desen oluşturmaları gerekir. Bu desen de mekan boyutunda değil, zaman boyutunda oluşan bir desendir. Tam olarak makalesinde bu şekilde ifade etmediği için Dilman’ın tanımı bu olur muydu bilemiyorum ancak en geniş şekliyle diyebilirim ki, deseni oluşturan anların birbirleriyle olan birlikteliği, desenin ve parçalarının insanın hayatı süresince aynı doku içinde zamanla farklı şekillerde oluşması ve bu desenin oluşturduğu anlamlı bütün mutluluk olarak ifade edilebilir.

 

Genel olarak, hayat dokumuzda zaman içinde desenlenen bir mutluluktan bahsettiğimizi kabul edip düşünmeye devam edelim. Peki, tek tek anlar ya da olaylar dediğimiz bu parçalar neyi ifade ediyor ve deseni nasıl oluşturuyorlar? Dilman’ın makalesinden anlaşılıyor ki kendini tanıyan, ne istediğini bilen, bunların sonucunda ilgilendiği şeylere kendini veren ve sadece isteklerinin doyurulmasını amaçlamayıp tam tersine onları yapmakta varlığını bulan ve tatmin eden kişiler mutlu olurlar. Bu anlayışa göre Dilman’ın neye mutluluk demediği de ortaya çıkıyor. Sadece isteklerin doyurulması, hırs ve arzu peşinde koşulması, kişinin kendiyle bağ kurmadan edindiği boş hevesler Dilman’ın mutluluk anlayışının dışında kalıyor denilebilir. Bu noktada, birçok kişi için mutlulukla aynı anlama gelen hazların durumunu düşünmek gerekiyor. Hazları, en basit ifadeyle insanların hoşuna gidip onlara zevk veren anlar olarak açıklayabiliriz. Öyleyse, hazlar da hayatımızın dokusunda desenlenip mutluluğu oluşturur diyebilir miyiz? Eğer bu soruya vereceğimiz cevap hayır ise, o zaman mutluluk ve haz arasında bir fark olduğu düşünülebilir mi? Dilman’ın hazların hayat dokumuzda bir desen oluşturup oluşturamayacağı sorusuna olumlu yönde bir cevap vereceğini düşünmüyorum. Daha doğrusu, hazların mutluluk deseni yaratması için kişinin hayatında olan önce ve sonraki diğer anlarla bir bağlantısı olması, genel desen içinde anlamlanması ve bu hazların insanın kendi varlığıyla ve değerleriyle ilişki içinde olması gerekiyor. Dilman’ın ışıklı fakat gelip geçen anlar diye belirttiği durum hazları kapsıyor olabilir, ancak hazların yaşandıkları an verdikleri doygunluk ya da coşku durumu bir mutluluk deseni yaratmak için yeterli olmayacaktır.

 

Dilman’ın anlattığı şekliyle oluşan bir mutluluk, kaynağını kişinin kendisinden almalıdır. Tabi bunun için sadece doğal isteklerin tatmini yeterli değildir. İnsanın kendi kendisiyle ilişkisi, hesaplaşması ya da iç çelişkilerinin üzerine eğilmesi sonucu farkına vardığı istekleri ve ilgileri vardır. Diğer türlüsü zenginlik ve derinlikten uzak bir hayat olacağı gibi, aynı zamanda da dışarıya açık değildir. Çünkü Dilman’ın üzerinde durduğu gibi kendi mutluluğunu oluşturan insan pasif biri değildir. Bu kişi, diğer insanlarla ve dış dünyayla ilişkisi ya da alışverişi olan, kendinden başkalarına bir şey katan ve yaptıklarının bilincinde olduğu için onların sorumluluğunu alabilen biridir. Ayrıca böyle biri haz almadığı bir durumdan mutluluk duyduğunu da söyleyebilir. Örneğin, başkasının iyiliği için sıkıntılara katlanan birini düşünelim. Bu kişinin sıkıntılardan haz almadığını da varsayalım, ancak kişi yine de bundan mutluluk duyabilir. Bu çeşit bir mutluluk anlayışı belli bir olgunluk ve ödün vermeyi gerektirir. Ne pahasına olursa olsun isteklerin doyurulması mutluluk olamaz. Dilman’a göre başkasının iyiliği için sıkıntıya katlanan bu insan, diğerinin mutluluğundan mutlu olabilen biridir ve açıkça görülüyor ki bu mutluluk anlayışıyla haz odaklı bir mutluluk anlayışı birbiriyle örtüşmemektedir.

 

Bu noktada Thomas Nagel’ın düşüncelerinin İlham Dilman’ı daha iyi anlamak için yararlı olabileceğini düşünüyorum. “The Possibility of Altruism” adlı kitabında Thomas Nagel(1970) şunları söylüyor: Fedakarlık ilkesi, kişinin kendisini diğerleri arasında biri olarak kavramasıyla bağlantılıdır. Bu fikir, kendini ‘ben’ ve aynı anda herhangi biri olarak görebilme kapasitesinden doğar. Nasıl ki kendi iyiliğimizi istiyorsak ve bu bizim motivasyonumuz olabiliyorsa, başkalarının iyiliğini istememiz de bizim asıl motivasyonumuz olabilir. Çünkü kendini algılayan ve bunun farkında olan kişi aynı şekilde diğer insanların da kendisiyle eşit derecede var olduğunu bilir. Bir kişinin kendi hakkında öngörülü bir şekilde isteklerde bulunması normal karşılanırken, aynı düşünme şekli diğer insanlara yöneltildiğinde burada bir sorun varmış gibi algılansa da, bütün olay kişinin kendisini diğerleri arasında eşit bir varoluşta görebilmesi fikriyle ilgilidir. Fedakarlık da bu algılama biçiminden gelir. Dilman(1990) ve Nagel’ın(1970) ortak olarak üzerinde durduğu ortak görüş ise, bir şeyi yapma motivasyonumuzun sadece doğal isteklerimizi doyurmaktan ileri gelemeyeceği yönünde. Kısaca denilebilir ki, Nagel’a göre fedakarlık kendini diğerleri arasında algılayabilen biri için mümkündür ve bu durum, Dilman’ın bencil ve haz odaklı bir anlayıştan ayrıştırdığı mutlulukla örtüşmektedir.

 

Burada şöyle bir soru aklımıza gelebilir: Bu tarz bir mutluluk anlayışı genel olarak insanın bazı güç ve kapasitelerine mi bağlıdır? İlham Dilman’ın, kişinin kendisi üzerine eğilmesi ve bilinçli hareketlerle isteklerini bulması, yaptıklarının sorumluluğunu alması konusundaki görüşlerine değinmeye çalıştım. Bu açıdan bakılırsa, pasif bir bekleyişten çok, aktif bir yaşantıya vurgu yapılıyor. Böyle bir hayatı oluşturmak ve onun sorumluluğunu alıp olgunlaşmak belli bir kapasite ölçüsünde mümkündür denilebilir, ancak Dilman’ın bunu herkeste olan bir kapasite olarak göreceğini düşünüyorum. Çünkü burada bahsedilen çaba, sadece mutluluk elde etmek için değil kişinin hayatını anlamlandırması için gerekli olan çabadır. Yani, bazılarının sahip olabildiği bir yetenekten değil, genel anlamda insanda olan bir yeterlilikten bahsediyoruz. Diyelim ki böyle bir yeterliliği kabul ettik ve mutluluk elde etmek için uğraşıyoruz, o zaman bizim dışımızda gelişen ve bize mutluluk veren durumların varlığını da düşünmek zorundayız. Bu noktada İlhan İnan’ın sorusu üzerinde düşünmemiz gerekiyor: Mutluluk başımıza gelen bir şey midir? İlham Dilman’ın mutluluk konusunda pasif bir bekleyişten yana olmadığını vurgulamıştım ve herhangi bir fatalizm anlayışına da gönderme yapmadığını varsayarsak, karşılaştığımız mutluluk veren anları ya da tesadüfleri nasıl açıklayabiliriz? Sanırım şöyle bir yorum yapmak yanlış olmayacaktır; mutluluk veren tesadüflerin bizim mutluluk dediğimiz deseni oluşturması için yine de yaşadığımız başka anlarla ve kişiliğimizle bağlantılı olarak bize bir şey ifade etmesi gerekir. Daha önce hiç üzerinde düşünmediğimiz ya da varlığından dahi haberdar olmadığımız bir durumla karşılaştığımızı ve bundan mutluluk duyduğumuzu düşünelim. İlgi alanları, zevkler ya da kişinin kendi ile ilgili bilmedikleri tesadüfen keşfedilip o insana mutluluk getirebilir ama yine de bunların beni mutlu ediyor olması, benim kişiliğimden ve bu keşfin bana verdiği mutluluk da içinde bulunduğu dokudan bağımsız değildir.

 

Genel bir bakış açısıyla diyebilirim ki, İlham Dilman’ın mutluluk anlayışının kaynağında kişinin kendisiyle olan ilişkisi vardır ve mutluluk bu ilişkinin derinliğiyle şekillenip, varlığımızın diğer insanlarla ve dış dünyayla olan iletişimiyle aktifleşir. Ancak mutluluğu bu şekilde kurgulayan birinin hayatında acı ve kedere de çokça yer vardır. Çünkü yaşamının derinliği arttıkça kişinin mutsuzluğa hedef olacak zenginlikleri de kaçınılmaz olarak artar. Ya da Dilman’ın ifadeleriyle denilebilir ki, kişi mutsuzluklara hedef haline gelir. Hayatında mutluluk dediği şeyin paradan, güçten ya da hırslarını tatmin etmekten ibaret olduğunu söyleyen birine göre, diğerinin çok yönlü ve katmanlı mutluluk anlayışının kaybedecek ya da yara alacak daha çok değeri vardır. O halde Dilman’ın mutluluk dediği, bir çeşit risk alma durumu mudur? Burada bahsedilen mutluluk anlayışının risk içerdiğini görmezden gelemeyiz ve bu şartlar altında mutluluk adına tam bir kazanım olamayacağı endişesine kapılabiliriz. Bir insan değer verdiği şeyleri kaybetme riskini düşünmeden göze alamayacağına göre, Dilman’ın mutluluk anlayışı olanaklı yapısını gittikçe kaybediyor gibi gözükebilir. Bu noktada belirtilmesi gereken, Dilman’ın dolaylı olarak da olsa bu çeşit bir risk alma durumunu mutluluk için gerekli koşul olarak gösterdiğidir. Eğer riski göze alıp, sonucunda karşılaşacağı zorluklarla savaşma gücünü kendinde gören ve hayatı süresince bu olaylarla baş etmeye çalışan biri, belirli bir olgunluğa erişir ve zaten bu sürecin kendisi hayatımızın dokusunda mutluluğun desenlenmesi için gerekli sürenin kendisidir. Tek başına bir anın bizi mutlu etmesinden daha çok, onun öncesinde ve sonrasında yaşanan diğer anlarla bağlantısının ve hepsinin birlikteliğinin bu deseni oluşturduğunu söyleyebiliriz. Bir kişinin zamanla değişen hayatı ve çoğalan yaşanmışlıkları aslında öncesinde olanları ve sonrasında olacakları da anlamlandırıyor. Bu yüzden farklı parçaların bir deseni oluşturduğu ve bu desenin de zamanla değişebileceği yorumunu yapabiliriz. Bu parçalar arasında bir anlam ararken, yeni eklenen parçayla desen giderek belirginleşebilir ya da değişebilir. Belirli bir desen yakaladığımızı düşündüğümüzde, yeni bir an o desene uymuyor gibi gözükebilir ve bazen baktığımızda birbirinden kopuk ve alakasız tek tek anlar gözümüze çarpabilir. Mutluluk arayışı işte bu yüzden dışarıda peşinden koştuğumuz bir heves değil, kendi içimizde oluşturup anlamlandırmaya çalıştığımız bir desendir. Ve işte bu yüzden: “Bildiğimiz şeyler arasında bir düzen arıyoruz ki bilip de gözden kaçırdığımız şekilleri tekrar seçebilelim.”                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

KAYNAKÇA

1. Dilman, İ. (1990) “Mutluluk Nedir?”, Felsefe Tartışmaları, sayı: 7, s. 79-87.

2. Wittgenstein, L. (2001) Philosophical Investigations, çev. G.E.M. Anscombe, P.M.S Hacker, Joachim Schulte, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

3. Nagel, T. (1970) The Possibility of Altruism, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

 

KAÇIK

Director: Aslı Ildır

Cast: Buket Gülbeyaz

April, 2013

The short film ” Kaçık”  gives an unaccustomed answer to one of the most well known and tense questions that people encounter at least once nowadays. Generally we are subjected of this question in business life, but day by day people are being compelled to feel the pressure of the right answer. In my view, the reason of the pressure is the impossibility of the accurate answer because it looks interrogating your skills, but it actually touches your character at the same time.  ” Why should we choose you?”. One question starts numerous competition among people and with ourselves.

Before I talk about the basic problems that the question contains, I want to mention the details which are chosen by director consciously. First of all, we just see the candidate, even if there is another woman who asks the question. On the surface this can seem reasonable because the candidate is the person who is protagonist. However, in reality our feelings say exactly the opposite. We are thousands of candidates waiting for the same question and trying to prove ourselves in their eyes. We are waiting to be chosen by others. We are trying to find the most impressive answers in waiting rooms. We are anonymous and we have to meet the expectations. Does this sound like a description of a main character? Obviously, the director is against this cent-ration of the ones who have right to ask question, even if this question does not mean anything indeed. Since Aslı Ildır, the director,  gives the right to object to her character, we are alienated at the question.

Another thing which obviously catches the eyes is the panty hose with ladder. The first thing that comes to mind is the idea of imperfection. In addition to this, the word “kaçık” means both ladder and freak in Turkish. Hence, we can say that here we have a double meaning for the title of the short film, so, and does the director try to say that the woman is crazy ? If she does, then it would be easier to understand woman’s reaction to the question, because we do not have to try to find a reason of action. However, after the question woman starts answering with, the word, “çünkü” (which means because in Turkish) and she rips her panty hose up as a continuation of her sentence. She has a reason to this action.

Why is this question so important? Why do we care it? Isn’t it a kind of question which does not need a real answer? Or, is there anybody who really tries to give an answer to this question? Everything is predetermined and we feel like if we want to be successful in the interview we have to say that cliche words. In the internet, there are many tips and videos about the best way to answer this question. If the question pursues a goal to know the candidate better, then it cannot achieve this aim objectively. But if the question tries to standardize the people which will be chosen, then it can work. Maybe, the woman in the short film is just against this fictional and artificial game which she has to play in order to get a job. Because these kind of situations demand perfection and always prompt us to hide our defects. Hence, the subject exceeds its aim which is knowing your suitability for job, it becomes a formality you give convenient answers to the questions from your memory. You know the template and you try to realize it in the interview. You are not there as you are, you are there as an employee model which fits the one in other people’s mind.

LA VILLE BLEUE

                   

           “La Ville Bleue” is an exhibition which is comprised of two artists’ cooperation. Carole Sionnet’s photographs and Pier Gajewski’s illustrations are represented together as one piece of artwork, and actually these pieces compose a creative project: their imaginary “ Blue City”. In the exhibition we can see the total map of the Blue City and some works from fifteen quarters of this city such as Japan, Amsterdam, Seoul, Berlin and in the main İstanbul.                                                                                                                                                

Artists mostly use colours and ideas in mind which belongs to the city or belongs to our opinions, common beliefs about the images which is reflected from the city. For example; bicycle for Amsterdam, mosques and bosphorus for İstanbul, huge, glass covered building for Europe cities, reflection of Fernsehturm for Berlin, cherry tree and red colour for Japan.                                                                                                                                      

My first impression is that the illustrations and pictures are very simple to perceive,  although the concept is different and feasible to interpretation. And the map of the city is puzzling as might be expected, because original city maps were used by artists and all quarters were combined as neighbours. However, beyond this kind of technical details, viewers are welcomed by very familiar images. As I mentioned before, this exhibition includes İstanbul part of the total project and we encounter artworks that show mosques, streets, ferries from İstanbul. Artists choose to combine photos from somewhere/someone and drawings which are associated with them. This kind of choice thought me in two ways; firstly I expect a kind of disconnectedness between  the photos and illustrations because it is mentioned that artists worked on drawings and photos separately. Secondly, I am curious about the producing process of photos and drawings. Are they planned beforehand and created around an idea? Or, did Sionnet or Gajewski make herself/himself work which inspires the other artist’ s work? Most probably, the second one is true because the connection between photos and illustrations seems like an intuitive connection. For some works I can say that the spirit in photo and drawing is the same and this feels like there is one artist which makes both of them. For example, the old man&turkish coffee and the old man&sea with İstanbul view are good ones according to my view. Because when I see first one, I immediately think the man who makes a turkish coffee to earn money in one of the back street’ s of Eminönü and in second artwork I look the man’s face and I imagine the old man while he is sitting the sea side and watching İstanbul where he was young and happy at once time. In my point of view, these two and some photos from exhibition have such an organic connection between digital picture and handmade drawing. This exhibition is not the first one which shows us such connections between the art forms and when the artists experience these kind of new ways and togetherness, I come up with a question in my mind: Is there any necessity to be an organic in aggregated forms in artwork? If the artist does not concern an issue, is there any loss in the meaning of artwork? From my interview with Turkish artist Ece Gökalp, she says “ The issue about being organic in your aggregated artworks changes according to your project, most of my works are not organic. In my early projects I was obsessed with story telling and Idrew illustrations on photos without concerning the organic association of totality. I was going on my way just caring about free association.”                                                                                                                                  

The name of the exhibition is not so surprising because of this imaginary city is surrounded by sea, metaphorically the attempt to remove the borders and drawing the lines over again can be a symbol for a kind of peace movement. Although there is no reference in pictures or photos to the political/environmental/sociological concerns directly, I can say that the representation of different cities’ physical union opens a door into universal perception for lots of distinctness. At this point the exhibition can be read as a kind of call to perceive different cities, different feelings, societies, living spaces, streets,and people who are affected from these places where they do live in.                                                                                                                                               

In conclusion, “La Ville Bleue” is an exhibition which shows you a city including the world, and it makes this not in a superficial way, contrary in a detailed, emotional way. The scenes are familiar but they are not cliche because all of them have an emotional, humane basement. 

 

REFERENCES

Gökalp, E. (28.03.2013,Interview)

expectations

        

My project is arised from kind of a confrontation with my prejudice to contemporary artworks. First of all I realized that many people have such attitudes and I started to interrogate this subject. I diagnosed my prejudice at first; it was expectation. Then I wanted to observe other people, but while we were talking they always said same and stereotyped opinions and this was seemed fake to me. At this point I thought that catching their reactions could be a better idea and I decided to make interviews with people just after they see the video which I shot.                                                                                                                                                                          

I spent many time to think the video because I didn’t decide the characteristic of the video. I might  choose to fictionalise a video which I really believe that it is an artwork and people act as  they encounter an artwork or the video could be very ridiculous to make comments. Up to the first option, I was not able to separate people’s real opinions from their fake opinions, so it won’t be objective to evaluate. However, in second option I couldn’t know what I will have in my hand after people watch the video, even they can go without saying something. Anyhow I chose the second option and made a nonsense video without an aim and a message. I showed it to people and I did not ask them any question after they watch it. I want to emphasize this point, I did not say anything and I did not manipulate them. I shot all interviews and I planned to montage them without any intervention to them, because they are seemed to have a point by nature.                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

As I said at first, I was a prejudice to contemporary artworks because I expected art to criticize something or at least according to my view it had to have a point for its audience. When I don’t understand an artwork and even I don’t know I like it or not, I try to reach the artist’s own statement for his/her own work and sometimes I encounter the most frustrated explanation for me: “ I just wanted to do it and I did, there is nothing more than that.”  This was an unbelievable thing for me but then I changed my view because I thought that I was so restrictive about the most unlimited thing ever. Most probably I was limiting myself while expecting something from art. Maybe I have to let it be and then I enjoy it.                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

While I am montaging the video and interviews, I had no plan in my mind I just wanted to show people saying something. But, then I realized that people give same reactions more or less and I also wanted to show this. I cut all interviews’ first part and added them together and put them in opening. Then other part comes. At this part people try to make comments about a trivial video and they obviously push themselves to say something. At the end one of them says kind of negative opinion about contemporary art, the other mocks with the video.                                                                                                                                                                                            

I think this mini project can show that people have some opinions in their mind which become conditioned about the contemporary art. At least I interpret my own project as like that at one side people mostly push themselves to reach the message or they are looking for something as if art demands something from them, on the other hand people can think that they don’t understand this kind of art. So many things like these can be found in people’s reactions to contemporary art.

WORKING TITLE

 

One of the most popular art topics and a debate subject for philosophy, or just an everyday issue for modern people is one word; freedom. Irina Arnaut’ s video “Working Title”  may not directly interrogate this subject,  but the reason why  I choose it as a starting point is that freedom both associates some details in the video and gives them a fountainhead.

         The scene we watch pages of a book or many books shows us a page that has a title as  “Am I Free?”  ( Working Title, 02.25). I take this kind of ‘free’ as ‘ will’. If we think ourselves as people who are in a journey ( Working Title, 13.50), we can think that this journey is a kind of creative process. In other words, we create ourselves in this journey. The biggest power of us to make it is will or freedom. Maybe I can explain my opinion more dramatic but imaginable way. Our all struggle turns a body from flesh,bones and blood to human being. The pages we see in the scene also include some photos of human body, cranium and hand bones. Then we create ourselves with our decisions. This sounds like a little bit existentialist opinion, and I completely want to arrive to this. “ Human freedom involves our capacity to pause between the stimulus and response and, in that pause, to choose the one response toward which we wish to throw our weight. The capacity to create ourselves, based upon this freedom, is inseparable from consciousness or self-awareness. ” ( May, 1975, p.100). Rollo May who is an existentialist also takes place in the video,or rather we see his book while Irina is reading it. Then  I link these opinions with the part which Arnaut speaks while she has little shining stars on her face. She says ‘ I just feel natural and healthy.I just feel I am really living up to my potential… One day I just began to shine since that day I have been shining more and more, and I really believe that everyone is capable of it.’ ( Working Title, 02.54). I interpret these sentences as an awareness stage that she experienced. She may realize that every person can make her/himself and this is our power to create ourselves and our freedom to achieve our real identities.

       On the other hand when I examine the video in the bird’s eye view,  I want to discuss another topic about the process of artworks.  I linger on a question at first; how can an artwork which is planned in details and designed elaborately reflect the reality or can we find any kind of sincerity in there when we look for ? I want to refer to Friedrich Schiller using the word “ sentimentalisch”  to describe thoughtful, troubled modern  poet (we can generalize it for all kind of artists). As we see in the video, the process of an artwork is fictionalised of course but what is the point which the artist criticized? I always draw a parallel between the art and life in general , because of this kind of view I conclude that there is a critic of losing naturality in our own lives. When I use a big word as ‘ life’, I firstly mention our lives as individuals. I think that our feelings, thoughts, potentials, decisions, passions make us in some way and I wonder their naturality. Do we really be ourselves? Or like a sentimentalisch artist creating a work,  are our lives envisaged by some things except our own personality?

       If the part between 09.05 and 09.50 would not be in the video, I don’t broach the subject of being woman especially, or being a woman artist. However this part allows us to inquire about our perception of beauty, body, and gender roles in art. After I take note of this ,I realize another detail in the video; the ribbon of balloons. At some scenes, there are white ribbons dangling from the ceiling and they always remind me woman body “ as an object in the video, or art.“

      In conclusion I want to mention a small part of video between 11.55 and 12.28 because I am a person who acts in theater and  I find this part brilliant. When she starts to take a bow, firstly we take something naturally. Then the movement becomes more and more fast and this breaks the normal perception of it. This affects the viewer. We feel that something does not work on its normal way and there is something which is not “natural”. At the same time these kind of gestures which are out of their own rhythm give the message to the audience fastly and efficiently.

 

REFERENCES

Arnaut,I.(2012). Working Title

May, R. (1975). The Courage to Create. New York: W.W.Norton & Company,Inc.

Pamuk,O.(2010). The Naive and the Sentimental Novelist.United States: Vintage Books