Derrick Jarman's film: Wittgenstein

Derrick Jarman's film, Wittgenstein, illustrates the entire life of Ludwig Wittgenstein including all the major turning points in this significant philosopher’s life and the many struggles he faced during his lifetime. But the question has to be asked as to whether Jarman does Wittgenstein justice by demonstrating his revolutionary ideas of philosophy and developing our understanding why some consider him to be one of the greatest philosophers of the twentieth century. 

After watching Jarman’s portrayal of Wittgenstein you immediately realise the troubled life he led. What is apparent is the frustration that he experienced in his attempts to find himself. You witness the doubts he has with himself and the usefulness of philosophy, and the various quests he undertakes, such as fighting in World War I and teaching in schools, in the hope that he will find answers. Jarman brilliantly conveys that Wittgenstein from a young age displayed the makings of a genius and many important philosophers of the time, such as Bertrand Russell, recognised his philosophical potential. But Wittgenstein had difficulties in meeting these expectations and the biggest problem was that he had such innovative ideas yet he could not express them in an appropriate way. Jarman provides useful insight as to why Wittgenstein was highly critical of himself and that he consequently experienced periodic depression and contemplated suicide. All of which is essential in gaining a full of appreciation of his contributions to philosophy and offers an explanation why he only published just one slim book, Tractatus. The film demonstrates how his ideas of language were completely ground-breaking and how at first some could not understand them and believed he was purely insane. Nonetheless, they too eventually grasped his brilliance. It shows how philosophy impacted his whole life and was not simply just his work.

Conversely, to gain a full comprehension of the film it demands a basic knowledge of Wittgenstein’s work. Additionally, it could be argued that some of Wittgenstein’s greatness is lost in the unique and quirky way the film was directed. By concentrating much of the film on the complex and unstable nature of Wittgenstein for some viewers his ideas may lose their impact and that is the depiction of Wittgenstein they are left with after the film has finished. Furthermore, Jarman could have delved deeper into the theories of Wittgenstein and their influence on various studies so that we gained a greater understanding of his significance.

Ultimately, we believe that Jarman’s film is an incredibly useful insight into the life of Ludwig Wittgenstein. It conveys the wisdom and greatness of Wittgenstein in a way that would attract a whole new audience and educate those who are unaware of his philosophical notions. It aids those who are studying his ideas to gain a greater understanding by having knowledge of his mentality. It condenses his whole life into a 70 minute film yet it provides a truthful portrayal of the life he led and his important theories.

 Beth and Danniella

Can SItuation Ethics be seen as a good theory to follow?

Situation ethics was devised by Joseph Fletcher and is right or wrong actions depending on the situation. In situation ethics there are no universal moral rules or rights because the outcome of the action depends on the situation. It states that sometimes other moral principles can be set aside in certain situations if the idea of love is best served. Paul Tillich (a famous philosopher) said “Love is the ultimate law” this analogy is based on agape love meaning unconditional and the scholar Fletcher believed that by forming an ethical system based on ‘Love Thy Neighbour’ as this was taught by Jesus in the bible . Situational ethics is a teleological theory because it is concerned with outcome or consequences of the action being carried out. Sometimes in situation ethics the end can justify the mean but this depends on whether the situation is intrinsically bad. Fletcher believed that moral decisions made should be based on the quote ‘Love Thy Neighbour’ and that the theory / analogy does not only apply to religious people as every consequence can be good or bad. This type of ethics also requires the individual to genuinely care and want to do good and therefore simple rationality isn’t the human way to go. It also takes into account the overriding superiority of the actual human entity rather than the rules acting as the governing authority. The following are the working principles of situation ethics.

A strength of situation ethics is that is a teleological argument and this  means that the action can change according to the situation the person has been put in rather that being the same every time because teleological refers to the idea of relative morality. Fletcher also argues that the consequences are the most important element of the action because it can affect people/ the person. The action itself can be seen as unimportant as long as it brings the most loving outcome.

Situation Ethics put’s people before rules and this follows the working principle, Personalism. As Jesus said, ‘Sabbath was made for man not man for Sabbath’ meaning that the Sabbath day should be a time for man rather than just to follow strict rules. This is important as it prevents people being forced into following rules. Also the fact that people come first is something that most people would agree with and find preferential. This gives an override option for situations where rules do not seem appropriate. An example of this can be rape; a girl has been forced into sexual activity against her will. Fletcher would argue that abortion can be seen as the most loving thing for the girl. The family and the girl may feel it is the right thing to do even though they believe abortion is wrong. However, this can cause issues.

Situation ethics is relevant to both secular and religious beliefs. Fletcher based the theory on Jesus’ teachings, although the ethic requires no grounded belief in God.  The theory follows the fundamental principle of ‘love thy neighbour’ and many of the parables which demonstrate agape, preached by Jesus, such as the parable of the ‘Good Samaritan’. It can also be said that Jesus taught the same flexible morality, ‘man was made for Sabbath, not Sabbath for man’.

Another strength of Situation Ethics, particularly in the ever-changing 21^st century, is that it is current and up to date because it is flexible and shows concern with producing the most loving outcome. Advancements have been made in medical science and are still being made for example, procedures such as stem cell research and genetic engineering may offer dilemmas for religious believers; they may agree that the foetuses have sanctity of life, and shouldn’t be used even if it helps people. However, Situation Ethics would say that it is acceptable, as long as it produces a loving outcome, helping and saving people. Where elements of Natural Law and other strict laws in religion may not directly address current issues, leaving decision making difficult, Situation Ethics stays relevant as it can always be applied to an individual case, always based on the outcome of agape love.

Situation ethics can be seen as independent, and this means  that you can make your own choices and do not have to restrict yourself to rules laid down by religious institutions which may be outdated and unsuited to today’s society and this type of decisions occur in everyday life.  This is good as it means that people do not have to feel pressured to make certain decisions which they may not want to and do not feel pressured to follow Biblical teachings, and they can decide what is best according to the idea of agape love (love for humanity) and this means ensuring the best outcome according to the situation. Situation ethics also avoids conflict of duty ass one experiences in absolutist systems. Where moral rules collide, situation ethics gives a way of resolving the conflict and this is Love.

A weakness of situation ethics is that you cannot always predict the long term consequences of actions. Therefore an action may have good intentions but it may still result in a bad outcome and, this can stop people from doing good as they fear the outcome. For example, Nina Rosenstand (a famous philosopher) gives the example of the neighbour who decided to turn on the heating in his friend’s house so it would be warm when he returned from holiday, accidentally set the house on fire. The neighbour’s intentions could be seen as good and therefore driven by love, but it failed to produce a loving outcome. This shows a slaw in situation ethics as the consequences of the actions can be difficult to predict. Also situation ethics can be seen as unsuitable for everyone because atheists and those of other faiths might not want to follow the example of Jesus.

A major weakness to Situation Ethics was the Church and its criticisms. The Church believed that strict rules like the Ten Commandments had been in place for so long that there was no need now to change them, as they contained wisdom which had been in place for thousands of years. These rules are necessary to keep order in the world, as many would argue that without rules we would descend into moral chaos. Some people in the religious sector criticised situation Ethics as they believe human beings couldn’t act without our emotions guiding our actions. Furthermore, they say that Situation Ethics isolates the Church because it allows people to make decisions independently, rather than turning to the Church for help.

Situation ethics is concerned with acting for the greatest amount of love and we could say that it will always be acting for good. However, it fails to take into account each person’s individual subjective nature. For example, one person may consider acting to save the life of a loved one to be the most loving thing, whereas another may think that euthanasia could be acting for the greatest love. This could also have the effect of justifying ‘crimes’ which one person may consider to be loving, but another might consider to be wrong  and this can be seen in one of the fundamental principles; Love is the only rule. The problem with this is that it allows the individual to do anything in the name of love – there are no rules to say that someone has done the wrong thing. each person can make a different decision in the same  circumstances to someone else and this shows that there is a big flaw in the ethical ideology of Situation ethics, showing it is not a practical ethic for today’s society.

Situation ethics is a good theory because it can be seen as universal, as it is a non-christian view. However, situation ethics allows people to abuse the idea of love. An alternative to situation ethics is Bernard Hoose’s proportionalism. He believed that situation ethics failed by not having any rules apart from acting out of love. Hoose’s combined situation ethics with natural law. This means it is not deontological in nature but it gives guidance to what to do in certain situations therefore, it does not leave each person as a moral decision maker that is considered to be isolated.

 

EO.

Wittgenstein film review

This is certainly a shockingly playful biopic about one of the 20th century most intellectual, and fabulously gay, philosophers. Derek Jarman is able to captivate the audience throughout Wittgenstein’s journey to discover a true success.

 The film, 'Wittgenstein', is unbelievable. Whether unbelievable is seen as a positive description or a negative one, is up to you.

 The 70minutes production, which included theatrical elements, explores Wittgenstein's idea, the 'Language Game', a well-known principle which has been implicated and still used in the classroom today. Unfortunately, the philosopher’s theory came at a cost, as years of discovery and research into a whole ‘new world’ led to a series of mental issues developed later in his life.

The audience are able to follow his reasons and logic behind his theory. This gave the audience a lot to think about; though it is complicated to get through at first, it is certainly interesting once you get the hang of it.

Wittgenstein tried to solve all of philosophy's problems. He dismissed the idea that language is one way or another separate and equivalent to reality and argued that without understanding the concept of something, you opinions and definitions are meaningless.

Jarman portrays a very thin line from genius to absolute lunacy. The film is a direct echo of Wittgenstein’s personality. In some ways, the philosopher reminds me of the overly intellectual Physician, Sheldon Cooper, from the ‘Big Bang Theory’.

 

The performance has been praised and considered “remarkable” by his biographer, Ray Monk.

Personally, the film failed to provide me with a useful insight into one of the greatest philosophers and his theory of Language Games. Although, his revolutionary ideas affect disciplines as diverse as philosophy of mind, psychology, the natural sciences, linguistics, mathematics, logic and the arts, there were certain scenes I completely lost track in what was going on.

Don’t get me wrong, Jarman’s show on Wittgenstein is perfect in terms of understanding his childhood and adulthood as the writer seemed too focused on his psychological issues as oppose to his philosophical ideas. Even so, the film was performed by the characters superbly, which is good enough for me.

Bravo.

 

 

Ludwig Wittgenstein

Ludwig Wittgenstein (26 April 1889 – 29 April 1951) was an Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic, the philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of language. From 1939–1947, Wittgenstein taught at the University of Cambridge and Philosopher Bertrand Russell described him as "the most perfect example I have ever known of genius as traditionally conceived; passionate, profound, intense, and dominating.”

The film directed by Derek Jarman provided an insightful portrayal of his life and story. We felt that the acting gave a realistic representation of how Wittgenstein would have discovered his ideas and theory, and showed the true human nature of his discoveries. Throughout the play it shows how his philosophical work had affected his various relationships which we feel shows a different aspect to his character and allows the audience to see how his work was perceived by many around him. It also realistically showed that Wittgenstein would have faced struggles and criticism in his work, even from those he valued as friends allowing the audience to see how he would have been constantly trying to justify his ideas.

However the play also had some negative aspects as we feel that it was very focused on his psychological state, which is portrayed as unstable at points, rather than his philosophical ideas and theories. This distracts from the essential points that he is trying to make which can make Wittgenstein seem less significant. Another choice by Jarman was to portray Wittgenstein’s character as erratic where this may not have been completely true and for many this may influence their view of Wittgenstein.

Overall the style of the play can seem rather distracting from the character of Wittgenstein, but the portrayal of the events of his life and his story provides an accurate account of Wittgenstein’s life.  

 

Emma and Ella 

Just because its Christmas

Just because it’s Christmas

The Catholic Church has designated the four weeks preceding Christmas as Advent, a time to “prepare the way of the Lord” for His coming as our King and Saviour.

It seems fitting that Advent is the beginning of the liturgical calendar, for it is a season of spiritual preparation marked by an eager longing for the birth of Our Saviour Jesus Christ. There are age-old Advent practices, some of which are mentioned in this FAITH FACT, which will help children and families live closer to Christ. The practices are time-tested and prove. A family’s strong and living faith will become their heritage and a mode to reinforce the religious practices cantered in the liturgy.

“When there are empty mangers to fill with straw for small sacrifices, when the Mary candle is a daily reminder on the dinner table, when Advent hymns are sung in the candlelight of a graceful Advent wreath, children are not anxious to celebrate Christmas before time. That would offend their sense of honour. Older children who make Nativity sets, cut Old Testament symbols to decorate a Jesse tree, or prepare costumes for a Christmas play will find Advent all too short a time to prepare for the coming of Christ the King.” These are hopeful thoughts as we prepare to incorporate some of these liturgical activities into our home life during Advent to enable us to truly celebrate Christmas. It is a shame that many do not fast during Advent, because without a fast there can really be no feast at Christmas. Traditionally, all great feasts have been preceded by a time of fasting, which makes the feast itself more joyful. Sadly, Advent today has supplanted by "the Christmas shopping season," so that by Christmas Day, many people no longer enjoy the feast.. Fasting and other forms of penance, such as prayer and alms giving, help to purify our hearts and prepare us for the celebration of Christmas. The Church especially encourages participation at weekday Masses during Advent, because in the Eucharist we find the source and goal of our Advent preparation: Christ Himself, whose sacrifice reconciles us with God.

So it seems many Catholics change there lifestyle for 24 days in December, they pray more often seeking help and guidance as they put their needs second for the purpose of helping others, in order to strengthen their faith and as an act of kindness and goodwill, so surely these small acts performed make a huge difference on the world, this is why December is seen as a time of harmony and love. 

But, if our faith is strong enough to guide us through these 24 days of goodwill, then why don't we continue for the following 341 days? would is make the world a better place? in my opinion yes.

The simplest things can make the biggest difference, every Christmas at my school, in our religious classes we fill shoe boxes with gifts for a charity called Samaritan purse, this is a gift of love and gives hope to the developing world. The smallest item can put the biggest smile on a child's face. This is an example of helping others and making a difference, imagine if we could do this every month? image how many lives we could change?

God gave us Jesus as a gift, so that we could grow closer to God, and we should carry on the celebration and live out the teachings of the bible in every day that we live, as a thank you to god for giving us the greatest gift.

Faith and goodwill should be part of every day life, not just for Christmas.

A.S

Does the end always justify the means?

Utilitarianism is a theory that states an action which brings about the greatest good for the greatest number of people, is morally right. Jeremy Bentham, who devised this theory, said that this principle will help you come to the decision of whether an action is good or bad. Bentham saw pleasure as the ultimate goal for ethics. His aim was to maximise pleasure and minimise pain. John Mills developed this theory focusing on maximising the general happiness. Taking Bentham’s and Mill’s statements of utilitarianism into consideration, it asserts that any action can be justified as long as it brings about more pleasure than pain. This tells us that sometimes the end does justify the means. The ‘end’ being the outcome of our actions and the ‘means’ being the actions taken in order to reach this result. This phrase refers to the morality of an action. It means that the morality of an action is based only on the outcome, not on the action itself. 

If we followed this idiom, we would be acting on the idea that if you need a specific outcome, the way we get there is not important. Can the benefits of something, as the final result, outweigh the harm caused during the process? This is what causes disputes on whether or not we can justify the means by the end. Utilitarianism suggests that an action is morally right if it brings about the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This suggests that the means (actions) are not important if the outcome produces the greatest good for the greatest number. We could say that this supports the idea that the ends do justify the means. However, in the process of reaching an aimed goal, there might be many damages produced, causing pain. Pain goes against the theory of utilitarianism as the idea is to minimise pain whilst maximising pleasure. Even if the outcome produces maximum happiness for many people, what happens to the people hurt in the process? There will always be a minority that are not satisfied as their needs are not met; which is a major flaw in the system of utilitarianism. 

There are many examples of this e.g. abortion. If a woman has fallen pregnant unintentionally for various reasons such as rape, it is not expected of her to keep the baby. It could be a very mentally challenging act if she was to give birth to, and raise the child. In this case, the blameless conclusion would be to abort this baby. However, the actions that cause the loss of the baby are seen as morally wrong. Therefore, just because the conclusion of a decision may be good, the actions that enabled this conclusion may not be so good.


AC