Do works of art and essays have value in themselves or do they only acquire value after they gain recognition form third parties?

Let me start with an example. Consider for a minute Thomas Hobbes' Magnum Ops The Leviathan. His most famous work is widely considered to be a master piece of Western Philosophy and one of the most important essays ever written on the topic of Political Philosophy. The recognition it enjoys comes from academic philosophers around the world ho make sure that the work is constantly discussed, debated and thought to philosophy studenDivine Comedy, of which the same things could be said, except in the field of literature instead of philosophy. Thirdly, consider Leonardo da Vinci's most famous painting, the Mona Lisa. Every day thousands of people pay good money and stand in a big line just to be able to look for some instants at da Vinci's centenary creation. It is praised by many as one of the landmarks of painting and is one of the most famous work of art of all time. You can probably find a copy of it in almost every introduction to art history book ever published.

ts. Now consider Dante's

            One of the things these three works have in common is that they all enjoy nearly universal levels of recognition in their respective fields. They are celebrated to the extent that for someone to say that they are not as good as most people say they are sounds like sacrilege. Now imagine for an instant that none of these three works ever came to public knowledge. That, in an alternative version of history, Thomas Hobbes' died before he was able to publish The Leviathan, that Dante's enemies managed to prevent the publication of his work and that the Mona Lisa was bought by a private collector and kept inside of a mansion away from the sights of the outside world until now. In this alternative version of history, none of these three masterpieces ever got any recognition whatsoever. They were produced and then forgotten, like it happens to so many other works, less fortunate than these ones. One must wonder then if, deprived from recognition, the three works could still be considered as universal master pieces. In other words, would they still have the same intrinsic value?

            I believe they would have the same intrinsic value, even though they wouldn't have the same monetary value or the same value of public recognition. Yet none of these things seem to be intrinsically necessary for a work of art or an essay to have genuine value, a type of value that exists in itself, independent of third party recognition. After all, a work of philosophy's true purpose should be to shed light into difficult questions, and it could still do this without ever attaining recognition by a considerable number of people. Similarly, Dante's Divine Comedy and Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa succeed in invoking different kinds of beauty, literary and visual, regardless of the fact of being read or seen by a number of people. They are beautiful, even if no one reads or sees them, the same way a splendid looking flower can be marvelously beautiful even if its hidden somewhere in the deeps of the Amazon jungle or a woman might be beautiful even if she is hidden under a veil. The woman in the example doesn't cease to be beautiful just because her beauty is hidden beneath a veil. Her beauty is not attained when the veil is lifted, since it was there all along. The same exact thing could be said about the Mona Lisa or the Divine Comedy. Even if people couldn't see the Mona Lisa because it was hidden in a private mansion, that doesn't mean that the Mona Lisa would stop to be beautiful. Likewise, if the Divine Comedy was hidden from public knowledge by Dante's enemies, that wouldn't mean that it was any less accomplished as a work of art. And if the public suddenly discovered these works of art the recognition wouldn't confer them value, rather, their value would simply become apparent for the first time to the general public.   

            It seems then that it is reasonable to claim that there is such a thing as an intrinsic value to works of art and essays, that is independent from the recognition conferred upon them by the public. In the case of works of art this inherent quality might be associated with beauty, whereas in the case of essays it could be associated with truth or knowledge.

As a conclusion, even if it had never been read by anyone but the writer, Thomas Hobbes' The Leviathan would still be his Magnum Ops. Even if the verses of the Divine Comedy had never become globally celebrated, it would still be just as good as a work of literature. And if the Mona Lisa hadn't found its place in the world, being viewed by millions every year, it would still be just as beautiful and thus just as inherently valuable.

            As a final note, I must add that even in spite of the conclusions put forward by this essay, it must be acknowledged that the reach and level of recognition of a work of art or essay can produce certain results that would not happen if that work remained unknown. In other words, a great work can produce a legacy that necessarily relies on its recognition and the impact it has on society. For example, Hobbes' Leviathan was instrumental in creating a whole current in political philosophy. Dante's Divine Comedy on the other hand had an important contribution to the formation of the Italian language, just like William Shakespeare's body of work did for the English language. Another good example is Marx work that ultimately had a big impact on the geo-politics of the twenty first century, which wouldn't have happened if it had remained confined to a small circle of people. Widespread reach and recognition can thus produce a legacy for the work of art or philosophy that would otherwise never come into existence.

Yet even in spite of this  fact it should not be forgotten that the intrinsic value of any work is not dependent on anyone or anything but itself.

Fundamentals

One thing you learn at university is that you should start every essay by saying what it is that you are going to argue and why you find the need to do so. This last part is especially true when it comes to dissertations of any kind, where it is you, the student, who has to come up with the title by yourself. In sum, you're supposed to convince the reader that what you are going to say next matters for a reason. In a way, this is what this article is about. I shall simply call it, fundamentals.

            Let me try to be a little bit clearer. A question that haunts me is why do I even bother to write? Why am I writing this article right now? Why do I write any article at all? When I was at uni this didn't seem like a question at all. I wrote because I was supposed to, I didn't have any other choice. If I didn't write, I would fail and never graduate. So when you are a student, writing is absolutely logical, since it fulfills a very clear, and essential purpose. The problem is, I'm not a student any more. The same could be said about a teacher or a researcher (they are often the same person anyway) at University. The teacher writes in order to receive a paycheck at the end of the month. He doesn't need any more justification than that because that alone would be good enough. Once again, we see that in the teacher's case writing is both logical and essential.

            When you leave the realm of academia however, things begin to get a little bit tricky. A little bit less obvious. There is of course the professional writer, who writes for money. The professional writer gets paid to write and this is what justifies his work. As long as he gets money, as long as he can make a living out of it, writing in his case is justified. This mostly applies to the writers of stories though. After all, how many non academic philosophers out there get paid for their work? Very few if any I would say. You have all those self-help writers of course but I don't wanna discuss that here because I have trouble even calling them writers at all.

            Things get even trickier when money is out of the equation. You are then left with lunatics like me, that write even though they don't have any single objective purposes in mind while they write. No one is ever going to pay me for writing this, that is a certainty. And here I am, wasting yet another hot afternoon in Rio typing at this keyboard. And even I wonder, why do I bother to do it?

            That being said, I'm hardly the only one in this position. Think about all the bloggers typing out their thoughts right now throughout the virtual, multilingual hyperspace twenty first centurers inhabit part-time. Filing their blogs with stories and thoughts, documenting either their lives or their interests with the help of this new technology. And you gotta wonder, why do they all do it?

            Assuming that we aren't all crazy, there must be something to it. Something that goes beyond the need to get good grades or to get a paycheck at the end of the month. Maybe money isn't everything after all, especially when it comes to writers. This one realization alone shouldn't be underestimated since it seems to disprove the theory that money validates someone as a worthy writer. After all, if money isn't everything a writer is after then even if he doesn't get any money that can't possibly mean that he has failed in his intent. After all it wasn't money he was after in the first place, so how can he be blamed for not getting money with his work? One can't possibly be deemed as a failure by not achieving what one isn't after.

            Yet, if it isn't money what people like me are after, what is it then? One option is that they simply want to share the events of their lives, their interests or their thoughts with other people, mostly people that are relatively close to them like friends, family and other acquaintances but maybe total strangers too. I shall call this the purpose of sharing.

            I shall now talk about yet another reason that drives me and others like me to write. This reason is just as powerful, if not more, than the previous one. I shall call it the purpose of recognition. Not a lot needs to be said about this reason in order to be understood, such is the instant familiarity most people will feel in relation to it. It is part of human nature to desire the recognition of our peers, be that for our virtues or our actions. Everyone wants to feel important and appreciated by the other members of our species. So one of the reasons that leads anyone to produce something beautiful or meaningful is precisely to attain the admiration of others. In some extreme cases, one can even hope to see his or her name in the history books, and thus achieve great glory and even, to some extent, conquer immortality itself.

            I believe that there is yet one last reason I must mention, even if this one is the most obscure of all. It has to do with some kind of inner value that can be attributed either to the work produced or to the very act of producing the work. It could be argued that these things alone could have enough value as to justify the activity of writing by the writer, and thus vindicate his efforts independently of any other persons. In sum, I would like to argue that in some cases writing has value even if no one else ever reads what has been written, and the writer is a worthy writer even if no one else gets to read what he writes. 

            I hope to have proven here that there are other aspects to writing, other ways to vindicate the writer rather than getting paid to write something. If not, I believe that I have at least been successful at casting a shadow of doubt on what I believe is a misconception that finds at least some degree of popularity in our society, the conception that the only valuable writings are those that someone is willing to pay for. 

Twenty First Century Writer

I'm writing this now. I've written a bunch of things in the past. In primary school, when I barely knew how to write, I was already writing stories and many other things. And then I kept writing. I wrote through middle school and high school. I would write things and a teacher would tell me if they were right or wrong, if they were good or bad. I did al kinds of writing growing up like most of us do. Some people never get the hang of it, others like me become fascinated by it. Maybe I'm a lousy writer, that's a definite possibility. Or maybe I'm a decent one, I don't really know. What is certain is that here I am, a 28 year old, sitting on a chair in a hot afternoon in Rio and still writing. I wrote through most of my twenties. In many different countries. I wrote to graduate from University. I even wrote a novel. And here I am now, writing again.

            Some people my age have never read a whole book in their lives. Most people my age have never written a whole book so far. Most people in the planet never get to write a book ever. A few write for a living, others, like myself, mostly just write because they want to. They never get a penny for it.

            I'm not sure I truly knew what I meant when I told people that I wanted to be a writer. I think I meant that I wanted to be a professional writer. To write novels and get paid to write them. So far I wrote one novel and I'm not even sure I like it. To be honest, I'm not even sure if it's any good. Maybe I'm a lousy writer after all, I don't know. All my friends and family tell me I'm a good writer but they wouldn't tell me the truth if I were a terrible one. So I don't really know. I'm not even sure if I want to be a writer anymore.

            Not so long ago when people asked me what I did for a living I would tell them I was a writer. That I was writing my first novel. Now I don't tell them I'm a writer anymore. They used to look at me funny because it's not everyday that you meet a writer. People won't even take you seriously until you publish your first book. 

            I finished my first novel six months ago. It took me about an year and a half to write it. Some times I think it sucks. Some times I think that it's ok. I think I stopped being a writer then. I don't even know what I am now. When people ask me what I do now sometimes I say I'm unemployed. That's probably the closest thing to the truth. It doesn't sound that good. I spent twenty six years of my life studying to be unemployed. That's pretty pathetic.

            So I'm writing this now and I'm unemployed. I feel like I don't even have the right to write it. It doesn't really matter. It's not like a lot of people will read it. One or two people maybe. Some of my loyal friends and readers. Maybe one or two people will read this and when they do they won't know what to make of it. Maybe next time they won't read it, maybe next time I'll write an article and no one will read it. It will just lay there, virgin, unexplored, uncharted, unknown. Words in a computer screen, in a tablet, on a kindle, lost in the oblivion of information. It will be as if it has never existed.

            I feel that the big question here is "who do I write for?" Do I write for myself? Do I write for the people I know, my friends and family? Do I write for the whole of humanity? I feel that many people feel that a writer's only goal should be writing for money. Once a guy told me that a writer is someone who gets paid to write. This was in Poland. That was probably one of the most depressing things I ever heard anyone say to me, anywhere, anytime. I want to believe that he is wrong. I want to believe that there is more to it than that. I want to believe that what I'm doing right now is not completely pointless. I want to believe that somebody other than me is reading this right now, or five minutes from now, or an hour from now, or tomorrow, or the following year. I wanna believe that you are reading every word and that you are feeling what I'm feeling as I write them. Maybe you too would like to be a writer and in that case I hope that you are braver than me and you keep writing just because you want to write, even if no one else cares.

Why the Protesters in Brazil are Wrong

   

In a globalized world such as ours, there is a tendency for important, localized events to become global every once in a while. This seems to be the case in the current situation in Brazil. Most people around the world seem to be taking the protester’s side in this case. Personally, I think this is a mistake, and I would like to explain why I think that way.

            One of my big issues with the protesters is that they seem to be uncertain about what they are actually protesting against. In reality, this whole affair originated as a specific protest against the rise of public transportation fares. So far so good. After all, the people had the right to protest against the rise of prices in an area that is of vital importance to them. Regardless of being right or wrong, at the very least they had a specific complaint in mind. It was a request that could be easily understood: lower the price of bus tickets to their former rates!

The problem however, is that this reasonable, easily understandable request, became something much more generic and, consequentially, more confusing and less clear. This is true to the extent that most people observing these events from all four corners of the world can’t even figure out what exactly the protests in Brazil are about. If not, read the article below and note how in the comments section people can’t even agree on what the object of  the protest is:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/21/brazil-protests-president-emergency-meeting

I believe this is a huge problem since when a protest loses its focus it also tends to lose its legitimacy. After all, what are the protests in Brazil really about? At first, people were protesting against the raise in public-transportation fares. Clear enough. As a result, previous prices were reinstated as The Guardian reports. So, one would think that the protests would cease because the initial request of the people was fulfilled. Yet this is obviously not the case here.

In fact, it seems that the protests become bigger and meaner every day that passes. Logically, one can only conclude that this is because the original protest has mutated into a different, more complex creature. And this is when things get messy. At this moment the protests in Brazil are not about bus fares any more. They are about the Confederations Cup, the World Cup and the 2016 summer Olympics. Not only that, they’re about the corruption in Brazilian politics, the rise of inflation in Brazil, the lack of security and any other things that are wrong in the country.

As a result of the diversification of the motives of the revolt, what we have now is an all-encompassing massive popular protest. This is what the Brazilian government has to deal with at this point.

Let us now consider the criticisms against the three big sporting competitions: the 2013 FIFA Confederations Cup, the 2014 FIFA World Cup and the 2016 summer Olympics.

The most common form of criticism against these competitions is directed towards the Brazilian government for having allowed these competitions to take place in Brazil. The protesters argue that the money devoted to the organizing of these competitions would have been better spent in areas like education and healthcare.

This is a quite objective and reasonable claim. I would even go further and say that this is a claim that I could embrace myself. I think however that some further considerations should also be taken into account.

First, it should be noted that undertaking these efforts will give prestige and visibility to the country. Investing money on healthcare and education is crucial, but this doesn’t mean that culture should be altogether discarded. In fact, I would argue that a truly prosperous and successful country in not simply a country that can feed and educate its citizens. It should do more than that. It should go beyond. It should make its residents proud to live within its borders. This is something that food and shelter alone cannot guarantee but that culture and sports are adept at achieving in conjunction with the former.   

Secondly, it is nothing short of wishful thinking to assume that the problems regarding education and healthcare in Brazil are directly related to the Confederations Cup/World Cup and Olympics, and that they would be solved if these competitions didn’t occur in Brazil in this period. The truth is that even if these competitions weren’t held in Brazil public education and healthcare would still be just as bad. These are deep structural problems and need long-term solutions in order to be solved. The lack of capacity of the Brazilian people to think long-term is more harmful to the country than one hundred FIFA world cups.

Finally, it is important to consider that, in any case, these demonstrations came too late. Had they occurred earlier, at the time when Brazil was still applying to host these competitions, I would have welcomed them and praised them. The Brazilian people would have demonstrated seriousness and democratic spirit by actively trying to shift the country’s decision making. But these demonstrations are happening now, precisely when the confederations cup is taking place! The protesters cannot possibly achieve anything good at this point. In reality, what the Brazilian people is effectively doing is telling the world that they are not able to uphold their commitments, which is essentially what organizing a first-tier international event amounts to. They are telling the world, in the way of convoluted and at times even violent protests that Brazil is a third world country incapable of exercising the sort of leadership in the world stage that one would expect from a country with its size, population and resources.   

Sources:

-The Guardian

-MARCA

Towards the Ideal of Utopia

I 

            The aim of this essay it to present the core ideas of what the author believes should be regarded as the goal that mankind should aspire to in terms of political institutions. I shall begin by defying the common concept that something that can be seen as a utopia is not worth pursuing because it is too perfect and therefore too unrealistic. After I do this, I will give an outlook of my concept of utopian politics by naming four fundamental political choices that will create a reasonably palpable political model.

            Most people tend to dismiss what we can call utopia for it is commonly accepted that utopian ideals are unachievable and thus, a waste of time. A pragmatic approach would suggest that the best course of action is to ignore the utopian ideals and strive towards more pragmatic, more easily achievable political configurations.

            In this essay, however, I feel compelled to do precisely the opposite of what the more pragmatic will probably suggest. Here I shall dare to dream about a society that is, indeed, in my eyes close to ideal. I do this because, unlike many, I do not see utopia as something beyond our reach. I see it as an ideal that should indeed guide us towards what we should and can become as a species.

            Any type of society, one could argue, can be seen as the combination of its people and its institutions. This is well exemplified in the famous historical acronym S.P.Q.R. that stood for “the people and the senate of Rome.” Henceforth, any ideal of utopia should, in theory, cover both the composition and culture of a certain people as well as its institutions. I should say that, in this particular paper, I will concern myself with the latter.

        II 

            I shall begin with the issue of political economy. Obviously, this is a central subject in political philosophy and indeed entire libraries have been written about it. Here, I will but dedicate a handful of paragraphs which however should be enough to state my point of view on the matter, leaving its intricacies to future efforts. It cannot go unsaid that this is essentially a highly controversial theme and it is close to impossible to state which is the ideal economic model. I will opt for the highest level of simplicity and identify the two fundamental poles of philosophical thought on the matter. As it is widely acknowledged, these are capitalism and socialism.

            I believe that the “ideal” economic model lies precisely in the “middle of the road,” or somewhere near. That is, the answer is neither pure capitalism nor pure socialism, but instead a compromise between the two. This has been called in Britain “the third way” and it has been applied with great success in many different areas all over northern Europe. Practical application of this model has shown that it can provide both efficiency and fairness at the same time, unlike pure versions of capitalism and socialism. Capitalism can provide economic efficiency, but it severely lacks in fundamental social justice. Socialism, on the other hand, provides a decent amount of fairness and economic equality, but this is achieved at the cost of economic efficiency which ends up harming the population to a considerable extent. The “third way,” on the other hand, is like capitalism and socialism’s hybrid child, adopting the best qualities of each and discarding their deficiencies.

            It can be argued, then, that “the third way” is in fact a product of economic evolution, being a step ahead of the pure models of the past.  Obviously, extremists from the right or left will be all too willing to dispute this conclusion which, in my opinion, is clear and obvious.  In this essay, however, it is not my intention to try to dispute their possible lines of criticism.

           

Next, I would like to examine the social aspect of political institutions. Again, we find two fundamental poles that serve as the two extremities of a continuum. On the left side we can find extreme social liberals and on the right side we can find the conservative extremists.

            An ideal example of this can be found in the North American traditional dichotomy between Democrats and Republicans, with the first party embracing liberal ideals and the second party rejecting them in favor of more “conservative” notions.  To use only a few examples, in the following aspects Democrats adopt liberal views while Republicans tend to take the opposite stance: gay marriage, homosexuality, feminist notions, abortion, religious tolerance, racism, and anti-Semitism. I tend to prefer the liberal point of view on these matters and reject the conservative point of view, although I think that to a considerable extent being a liberal or a conservative is a matter of personal preference and should be respected.

            I will however state that there is an exception to the rule of acceptance of other people’s personal views. That is I think that all dialogue should be open to everyone, and everyone should enjoy equal rights before the law and in civil society. In other words, it is my view that discrimination should be exiled from the society and politics of any system or institution that aspires to be a utopia, or rather, that aspires to be as perfect as possible.

           

Thirdly, it is necessary to tackle the topic of the forms of government, a topic that has been at the core of political thought since the dawn of political philosophy.

            In this essay I prefer to overlook the classical division of forms of government as it was devised by the classics: Monarchy (ruling by one man); Aristocracy (ruling by a few); and Democracy (ruling by the people).

            In line with a more modern philosophical tradition, I will only adopt the concept of Democracy and compare it to a “modern” concept such as a dictatorship.

            Democracy is ruling by the people, whereas a dictatorship is the ruling by one single leader, or a group of select leaders, on behalf of the people. There are evidently a number of sub-types of democracies and dictatorships but instead of going into detail, I prefer to focus on the essential divide between democracies and dictatorships.

            I believe that the most fundamental difference between democratic and dictatorial forms of government lie in one single and most important concept: liberty. And whereas democracies tend to guarantee this important good to their citizens, dictators are adept at denying their subjects freedom. For this reason alone, democracy must be considered a highly desirable element for any sort of political institution. 

           

Finally, I would like to focus on a different sort of dichotomy that has, thus far, been relatively neglected in political philosophy. It consists in the contrast between national forms of government and supra-national institutions, or, in other words, between nationalism and universalism. Herein lays the core of my notion of utopia. In fact, one of the main goals of this essay is to introduce the embryonic concept of a political utopia devoid of national content; that is, one that embraces the idea of humankind in place of that of a specific nation.

            Why should the political nucleus be, at all times, the nation? Why can’t we devise political institutions that are all inclusive, and that are designed to serve the whole of mankind instead of only a fraction of it? I would argue that an all-inclusive republic is better than one that is limited to a specific set of people. I dare suggest, then, that a post-nationalistic conception of politics should be the underlying idea for a utopian set of political institutions. In other words, if we were to devise a system of government that is as perfect as a system of government can be, such a political framework should include all humans and not just a particular type of humans, if not in practice, at least in theory. It should go beyond the idea of the nation-state, thus overcoming its many shortcomings that more often than not follow from its short-sightedness.

            The fundamental problem with nationalism lies in its tendency to create an in-group/out-group dynamic. The consequences of this fundamental mistake can range from inconsequential to catastrophic. In the twentieth century alone, unfortunately, we have seen all too well what might happen in the worst case-scenarios. In Nazi Germany the dynamic was Arians and Jews; in Yugoslavia it was Serbs and Croats and Muslims, in Rwanda it was Hutus and Tutsis and in the world wars it was Germans, Britons, French, North-Americans, Japanese, Russians, Austrians and son-on. The nationalistic way of understanding the world in the twentieth century has led to strife and massacres, and some groups have repeatedly slaughtered others. All of this has been done in the name of the nation or the ethnicity. At the dawn of the twentieth-first century we should look back and wonder if we want history to repeat itself in this new century.

            Assuming that the answer is no, it is imperative that we find an alternative to nationalism. Fortunately, the answer is simple and is already upon us. The question is just “are we willing to take this opportunity and save us from ourselves?” The answer is in international organizations and supra-national forms of governance such as the United Nations, the African Union or the European Union. These organizations and others that will be born in the future can help us to overcome the differences imposed on humankind by nationalities and hopefully, lead the way into a future less nationalistic and much more humane.    

 III

            The concept of an ideal set of political institutions advanced in this essay is then based on four fundamental concepts: a compromise between socialism and capitalism, social liberalism, democracy and universalism. It is my belief that a combination of those guiding g principles would go a long way towards producing a set of institutions that could best serve our kind. These principles, together, would drive us towards a utopia; that is, a society as good as any society can be.

            This essay alone, as any theoretical work, doesn’t have the power to implement the ideas that it fosters. However, I do believe that it should serve as a tool to implement such ideas in the minds of the people of our kind, who can, then, by their actions, turn these ideas into actions. That is the way toward utopia as I see it.

            To summarize, in this essay I sought to defend the notion that utopia should be something that we are willing to pursue as the maximum possible achievement as a society. We should not turn from utopia because it is too perfect; rather, we should stride toward it for that reason. I then tried to identify the main aspects that configure any set of political institutions, reaching the conclusion that they can be understood in terms of fundamental dichotomies.  I then indicated which side, if any, of these dichotomies should be pursued in order to create the best set of political institutions.  Out of the ideas outlined in the course of this paper, that which is perhaps most relevant for its unorthodox nature is the idea that a near-perfect form of government would have to be constructed from a universalistic rather than a nationalistic view of politics and mankind.