Readings + Responses Flashcards
how does Johannes react when Cordelia announces her address to the store vendor
turns away, does not want to deprive himself of the surprise
how does Johannes describe his love affairs
creative periods, involve acquired skills (dancing, French)
what is Johannes plan
1) Cordelia femininity neutralized through indirect ridicule
2) Cordelia comes close to losing it
3) she throws herself onto him
4) femininity awakes, she belongs to him
what was the purpose of engagement for Johannes
engagement is ethically ambiguous, gives Cordelia the impression of barriers being broken but doesn’t require Johannes to bear more critical repercussions
how does Johannes view aesthetic vs ethical
beneath the sky of aestithic, everything Is light, pleasant and fleeting
when ethics comes along everything becomes hard, angular and an unending ennui
what is poeticizing oneself out of a girl
enjoy the final pleasures and remain an aesthete, passing the ethical responsibilities relationships of that stature require
what is a requirement for love for johannesd
deception, all love is deception and must end in deception
what does Johannes guarantee his girls
perfect treatment other than the final deception, but this is consistent with his beliefs as either the girl or the boy will be deceived in the end
who does author a compare to don Giovani
hercules, reportedly slept with 50 daughters in a single night
difference between Hercules and Don Giovanni
hercules loves many and it is accidental when he loves another
Don Giovanni does not love the soul but the sensual, he is faithless
what makes Johannes a seducer but not giovanni
Giovanni lacks reflection and consciousness - he is a deceiver and a desirer, and that desire acts seductively
what does author a mean by his eternal starting is his eternal stopping
decisions presuppose stress so author a never thinks about them and focuses entirely on maximizing the present
hegels logic
inner is the outer, if a shitty painter consoles themselves with the notion that their head is full od good ideas, that claim is meaningless
what is MacIntyres first problem with Either or
if we choose our ethical framework without reason, why are we bound to them? what would prevent someone with a principle in that manner from simply adopting the principles whenever he pleased and changing them whenever he pleased. If that was the case, how is this a moral framework?
How can that which we choose for no reason have any authority over us?
What is macintyres second problem with either or
Kierkegaard is mixing two ideologies,
1) the (radical) ideology that people can freely choose their own morals
2) the idea that morals are universal
this is shown with the ethical, as after he has made his decision he follows the laws of a universal morality without a second glance at the aesthetic
basically the ethical version is too similar to Kant’s philosophy suggesting that if the rules of mortality are rational then they must be the same for all rational beings, which does not align with the philosophy used throughout the book suggesting that people can choose their own morality
how does Macintyre describe morality
conduct of rules which are neither theological nor legal
how does Macintyre view ethical vs aesthetic
not a choice of good or evil, it is a choice whether or not to choose in terms of good and evil
difference between aesthetic in ethic in terms of past present future
aesthetic rooted in present, ethics bound by past and future
what is the circulant problem
if someone who has not made the decision were to be presented with the choice between the ethical and the aesthetic, they would be unable to choose - if they aligned with the logic provided by either the ethical or the aesthetic then they have essentially already chosen and the base assumption of them having not made the decision yet is broken
what do you think of macintyres first problem
disagree, I think people do not choose their moral philosophy based on rational reasons but rather based on upbringing and subconscious mental wiring. One could not simply rotate through moral philosophies as it would not fundamentally sit right with them. One would feel lost with themselves and the feeling of moral imbalance would ultimately be a worse outcome than the outcome of whatever shifting one’s moral philosophy was originally for
what do you think of macintyres second problem
????
