There Is More than One Way to Do It: Fostering an Interdisciplinary Approach to the Politics of Sexuality

In this paper, I engage with Michel Foucault’s philosophy of sexuality, specifically the discursive method articulated in The History of Sexuality, Vol.1. Drawing primarily from the work of Sigmund Freud (1905), Antonio Gramsci (1931), Ian Craib (1997), as well as prominent York University scholars John O’Neill (1995) and Loree Erikson (2000), the paper uncovers some of the politically debilitating philosophical assumptions on which Foucault’s work is predicated, and which prevent his text (as well as other postmodern theories of sexuality) from producing a radical, inclusive and liberating politics of sexuality. The paper does not seek to discredit the validity, utility or profundity of Foucault’s constructionist theories — rather, the main objective of the essay is to encourage psychoanalytic, social constructionist, historical and scientific approaches to sexual theory. I suggest that to understand the complex phenomenon of sexuality and promote an inclusive, radical politics of sexuality, theorists need to approach the study of sexuality from multiple perspectives

The Moral Functions of Resentment

Resentment is a much more complex emotion than it may appear at a first glance. It may play a crucial role in determining how a victim reacts to a wrong done to him or her. As it impacts human choice and judgment, it may influence the lives of the victim and the wrongdoer alike. Because it is manifested in actions that affect others, its significance cannot be underestimated, and its nature and moral function must be understood. Although resentment is commonly attributed to a list of negative or “evil” emotions, a further analysis must be made before it is dismissed as being absolutely morally wrong. This essay will examine and juxtapose several alternative views of resentment, as presented by Nietzsche, Butler, Oakley, and Strawson in their respective works

Polishing a Crystal: Understanding Plato’s Allegory of the Cave

Behold! He was born into chains and constrained to a chair. His head was held still, looking forwards. The world flickered as shadows on the wall in front of him. These shadows were life as he understood it; but he is being released. He is now being dragged out of this shadowy reality and into the light of actual objects. His eyes must adapt to the painful sunlight. And, once they have and he can see clearly the world as it is around him, he must return to the world of shadows. This is the philosopher. Plato’s allegory of the cave, summarized above, expresses Socrates’ understanding of the philosopher, his role in society, and the experience one needs to become a philosopher. Here, we will offer an interpretation of this famous allegory from Plato’s Republic to uncover the nature of the philosopher according to Socrates. To do so, we will examine the life experiences of the philosopher; his guiding principles and how he must come to arrive at them; and the practical use of philosophy within the polis. Moreover, we will examine these points with careful reference to the allegory of the cave and thereby reveal the allegory’s powerful ability to express Socrates’ notion of the philosopher

FREE WILL REIMAGINED

God is omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent, which means he is all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful, respectively. A common objection to the existence of God is the existence of evil, because it implies that God is not all-good. However, the problem of evil can be explained by his desire for humans to be free moral agents. This paper will discuss how free will justifies the existence of evil and how this kind of free will can occur alongside a limitless God. These points will be understood by examining Immanuel Kant’s views on moral freedom, J. L. Mackie’s objections, Richard Swinburne’s defense of free will, John Hick’s arguments about divine guidance, and how these theories relate to modern monotheistic religions

Positivism in Twin Studies

Positivism is a philosophy of knowledge that influences the majority of sciences. However, usingpositivistic approach as the sole method of ascertaining knowledge leads to a few problems.This essay will demonstrate the problems with positivism as a philosophy of science usingpsychology; specifically twin studies within psychology. This essay will provide a brief overviewof the problems with positivism and how those problems are reflected in Twin Studies withinpsychology