Philosophy

Reality of Law & Justice using Jacques Derrida

Justice has become a buzzword since the incidents in Ferguson. George Floyd’s situation turned it into an absolute 💣. Scrolling through either Instagram, Twitter or Snapchat, we are destined to see one of these ‘Justice for’ posts, as if that will bring about some sort of outcome. People are becoming more infuriated with the American Justice system and it lack of ability to provide legitimate results of ‘Justice’. Would it be too much to say that Justice is unattainable for the American system? This system which is based on the notion of Whiteness- was never built to produce social wide justice but rather justice for the ruling class or culture? People of Color have been subjected to violence & second-class treatment birthed by a system of forceful actions & blind operations, which fails to see the human element of individuals. The Law has proven to be effective for one people but not others. As calls for Justice turn to Activism , we see the climate of Riots & protest give rise. These become documentable and violent environments, where the call for Justice turns into Police officers beating, spraying and injuring Citizens. Is this what the Justice is? Is this what the Law wants?

Western thought is based on the basis of ‘word is bond’ ie: Truth of my statement, my word, action is valid through & through, from exteriority to interiority. This notion found it’s legitimacy throughout various structures of power in the Western World such as the world of Laws & Justice. I will address the complexities & attached legitimacy ascribed to these two concepts as the most untouchable, irreversible, and formulated conception of modern life. Need for example? I am glad to color this for you. Let’s depict the legitimacy of a law & justice. In the 1960’s South, Jim Crow, garnered the effect of being the ‘rule of the land’. I’m sure, you remember the unthinkable climate: the separation of bathrooms, drinking fountains, public domains, intolerances, etc. These perversions are the legitimacy of the law, to say, to be legitimized by the current political/power structure of the time, is all that was necessary for the perversion of said Justice. I will not dive into this concept for now but rather analyze it at a later time. The variances and disparities in Justice are due to the perversion of its nature into a universal institution that constitutes social relations. To preface, I make it very clear that I will be cross analyzing Law as a component of Justice and find the means for its True-est sense,root & definition. I argue that without the mysticism of Law, Justice is merely a proponent of Equity and thus is unattainable and non-existent due to it’s root’s in custom & subjective truth.

Let us begin trying to understand the objective of Law as set forth by Derrida. We must understand the applicability of Law, as Rules, traces in every capacity of life and that is justly so. The problem then arises as the applicability of Law as a proponent of justice because of Justice’s applicability. Justice is a Legal and Political term burdened as the median of ‘right’ & ‘wrong’. Derrida finds a hole in this logic, “There is something decayed or rotten in law, which condemns it or ruins it in advance. Law is condemned, ruined, in ruins, ruinous, if we can risk a sentence of death on the subject of law, especially when it’s a question of the death penalty. “ Derrida’s use of ‘condemned’ reason, ‘express(es) disapproval typically in public’, which raises to me the relatability & necessity for law. To a bystander, Law & Justice are synonymous yet in-turn, the rule of Law would be the ‘arm of justice’. But very wisely, Derrida is capable of disarming justice by raising ‘a sentence of death’. Death is an innate feature. nature which should not be a decision set-forth by humans. Yet, this is the highest penalty that is offered by Law(s) and the Justice System but how is death justifiable?

In the authoritative eye it is said, ‘aha yes! Justice lives, we have stopped crime’. But we must not forget the experience of the subjected, who’s justification for such crime may encounter a different Justice. His mother is dying, he must steal from the Bank in order to pay for her treatment. Is this not a justifiable action? As a human, is there no sense of Justice or Heart? In the eyes of the Law no there is NOT. This is the most accurate picture of Law in its glory. Law is violent. Let us remember the words of Derrida, “The word “enforceability” reminds us that there is I no such thing as law (droit) that doesn’t imply in itself, a priori, in the analytic structure of its concept, the possibility of being “enforced,”applied by force.”. We begin to understand the difference(s) between Droit and Justice, Law AND ONLY LAW is enforceable and must be done this way! Law roots itself & conceals itself with the roots of Justice,yes. This rooting gives droit a sense of legitimacy in order to constitute the underlyings of Social Institutions. Though, it’s true that Law needs Justice, it is also true that Justice needs Law, ‘Justice without force is contradictory, as there are always the wicked; force without justice is accused of wrong. And so it is necessary to put justice and force together; and, for this, to make sure that what is just be strong, or what is strong just.” For the Public (reader), it’s more important than ever, to understand that these are synonymous. Justice can only be found through the use of Force and that this Force is applicable universally. Violence that is put-forth by Law is coined by Derrida as, ‘law-preserving violence’. Our example of the Death Penalty fits , for Justice to be accepted in this system it must be forceful, ‘yes, death will relinquish all faults’, thinks the Law.

I wish to stay consistent & analyze the statement, ‘force without Justice is accused wrong’. We understand force as the very foundation and legitimacy for droit(law). Force when organically enacted is un-welcomed, to say, unnecessary force is un-welcomed by most. Ontologically, force, says that force is unnecessary, instead is strong-manned onto Justice to assert its own Authority. No individual wishes to secede their Liberties & Freedom to a sovereign much less if such sovereign forcefully took these away, there would be anarchy! This said action would not be able to live the test of time. But yet let me illustrate differently, this same sovereign, introduces legislation that would ‘improve National Security’. The Patriot Act, which forcefully surveillances all communication of American Citizens was said to be ‘for the security of the nation’. Force is never welcomed but only gains legitimacy when attached to Justice. These action’s create the problem for Law, as Derrida says, ‘The notion of threat is important here but also difficult, for the threat doesn’t come from outside. Law is both threatened and threatened by itself.” The legitimacy of Law is cemented, (most) individuals obey the law, and yes, it does its job or stabilizing society. Yet, there are revolts, protests, outcries to the very actions performed by law and where does this stem? I add that the foundation of the threat for law is founded in Force and it’s perverted reliance on Justice. We understand what Law is without Justice but not what Justice is without Law!

I wish to raise the question, ‘What is Justice without Force?’ Derrida offers an adequate amount of answers but I wish to skip fluff & understand Justice at its root. With the help of Pascal and Montaigne, Derrida reveals the ‘essence & ‘mystical foundation’, “one man says that the essence of justice is the authority of the legislator, another that it is the convenience of the king, another that it is current custom; and the latter is closest to the truth: simple reason tells us that nothing is just in itself; everything crumbles with time. Custom is the sole basis for equity, for the simple reason that it is received; it is the mystical foundation of its authority. Whoever traces it to its source annihilates it.” Aha! An easy answer. Justice is a derivative, not of Law or society but of Custom and Equity. Equity mind you, is the closest concept which Humans can reach ‘all-knowing’ See , to be universally just, is impossible, there is no way to dictate the right answer for all Individuals. Instead, we can understand that Justice is found in the basis of Custom, Custom allows for the factionalized nature of Human to be reached. What do you mean? Humans live in tribes, factions, people who believe what we believe, this is who we would rather spend our time with correct? These are the people who we form our stream of thought, opinions, etc. Thus, let me play a thought experiment, a handshake.

A tradition which revolves from custom , it was acceptable to simply shake a hand when introducing yourself to another individual. For many, this is the just way to introduce oneself but for others, it’s a hand-grasp and a snap. The old vs new generation, each action constitutes and communicates the identical message but the action itself is different. For the new generation, it may be labeled as ‘disrespectful’ or ‘unprofessional’ but this is the very basis of Derrida’s argument. That there will be differences throughout people(s) and Law does not encompass this mystical foundation of authority per say Law does not even hold legitimate authority. How can you say that? Derrida offers us this conclusion through his concept of Deconstruction, “Deconstruction is justice. It is perhaps because law (droit) (which I will consistently try to distinguish from justice) is constructible, in a sense that goes beyond the opposition between convention and nature, it is perhaps insofar as it goes beyond this opposition that it is constructible and so deconstructible and, what’s more, that it makes deconstruction possible, or at least the practice of deconstruction that, fundamentally, always proceeds to questions of droit and to the subject of droit. (1) The deconstructibility of law (droit), of legality, legitimacy or legitimation (for example) makes deconstruction possible. (2) The undeconstructibility of justice also makes deconstruction possible, indeed is inseparable from it. (3) The result: deconstruction takes place in the interval that separates the undeconstructibility of justice from the deconstructibility of droit (authority, legitimacy, and so on). See, I think to first understand Derrida, I must set forth the scenario of Private v Public and I believe that Law is a proponent of the Public. The basis of Justice is the Private as I have already explained with my latter analogy, the just decision between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ lives within the realms of separate factions. We can enter the public domain & understand the foundation of Law but not enter the Private and understand the rationale of said Justice, correct? Yes I believe so. To attempt and deconstruct Justice would be the attempt to deconstruct and delletimaze a set group of individuals and as stated NOT EVEN LAW can do that. The legitimacy set forth by Law is to use force to stop the influx and spread of the criminal. This is why there is a necessity for Violence, but also this proves the illegitimacy of Law. For us to be able to dissect Law and understand it’s foundation, the process, it proves that it is simply a ‘constructed truth’ in relation to a Social Power Dynamic such as a legislator.

The law is a corrupt power which creates division within Institutions by igniting seeds of tyranny & revolution which contradicts the set purpose.As I have mentioned, Law is a perverted extension of Justic while Justice is an extension of equity & custom. Thus where does Justice live if not in the Public? When speaking of the preservation of violence brought bylaw, Derrida says, “Does this mean we must stop at this opposition between private and public to protect a domain of non-violence …‘ [to] prove that a non-violent elimination of conflicts is possible in the private world when it is ruled by the culture of heart, cordial courtesy, sympathy, love of peace, trust’ .. not only private relations but. certain public relations as in the general proletarian strike that speaks about, which is a strike that would not attempt to end a state and a new droit; or again certain diplomatic relations in a manner analogous to private relations, certain ambition settle conflicts peacefully and without treaties. Arbitration is non-violent.’ And here we can understand the notion of the Private in relation with Justice. See I wish to focus on , ‘ the culture of heart, cordial courtesy, sympathy, love of peace, trust’, what does this mean for Derrida? I believe he is suggesting the realm of Justice that is only attainable here. Rather, these may be tools which reach the goal of Justice and are tools which droit is incapable of attaining. This culture of sympathy,trust and love- where would this live in the Law? It would not, certainly not, because the law is incapable of feeling these emotions. Instead it is completely fixated on correcting & disciplining said Criminals of Society. Oh but Justice, has ambition but ambition settle conflicts peacefully through heart. The solution is arbitration, the finality of Justice, the ability to discourse as a Human, with all encompassing realities of emotion — this is the manifestation of Justice. But why must I reiterate, that this is not alive in the public? Possibly linked to Human Nature, maybe we are incapable of reaching such peaceful relations. The inscription of Law into Justice has unfortunately created duality for both concepts. With the belief that Law itself could possibly be universal, Justice suffered the same though — but Derrida keeps us grounded- ‘this universality is in contradiction with God himself, that is, with the one who decides the legitimacy of means and the justice of ends over and above reason and even above Violence… no justice, no responsibility except in exposing oneself to all risks, beyond certitude and good conscience’ And here I conclude, Justice is clearly attainable. Said by both Derrida and myself, it is utterly heartbreaking. The reality of it is that the perverted universality of Justice is contrary to God , who is said to be the ‘King of Justice’. By insisting that Justice be a universal concept, destinal violence, violence of destiny is manifested. The only un-doing is to allow for justice to survive in its proper ecosystem of the Private. The private, allows for ‘truth’, to say ‘subjective truth’ to live on because It is an essence of custom that sustains the belief that can be manifested in the society of such Faction. Not to drift too far but to continue with Violence, Law also follows Justice into the realm of the Private by fruition of Violence but we must understand the Subjectivity of said Laws perpetuates just actions. Anything that happens in the Private can be designated as Justice while anything in the Public is Violence.

Through the analyzation of Derrida and the deconstructing of Justice, we are able to understand the seeds for both Law and Justice. We can now understand the truth that the Western World has rooted itself in a blind.murderous, and wrong institutions. The notion of a ‘universal truth’ creates an illegitimate and corrupt Power that is the Law. From this , stems Violence which is ambitious and must spread the Truth. It does this with it’s backing with Justice, by ‘ thinking of the greater good’, with a simple notion of this manner, Violence is able to be perpetuated. Derrida and myself offer Deconstruction to fully understand these concepts. From this, Law itself is illegitimate based in an unacceptable root in Society but Justice is not. Deconstruction creates the realities of the Private and Public which exemplify the root of Custom of Justice for us and illustrates the reality of this. Justice is only attainable in a Faction, stemming from Culture and nothing else. The universality of Western thought carries itself into the realm of the Private killing all sense of Justice. Justice is not real, It can only be real in homogeneity or Utopia and in reality , neither is true. With the massiveness of universality and the public interfering to the private world , we are doomed.

Whiteness vs. Blackness - Analysis of Michel Foucault & Fred Moten

⁠

To what extent is the Panopticon a suitable analogy for power?

⁠

⁠

Panopticon in a Prison

I must first make an assertion about two concepts which will be used throughout this blog- Power & power . For our purpose will be referred to as: Whiteness and Blackness. Let me begin by constructing the parameters for these concepts, they both hold ‘power’ in different matters , modes, & can be reconciled in differently. Thankfully, there are patrons who will guide us in our understanding of these conceptions as well as their relationship and exercise, namely Fred Moten & Michael Foucault. Fred Moten’s, The Undercommons Fugitive Planning & Black Study, will serve for us as the guide through Blackness and Michael Foucault’s Discipline & Punish, will serve as the guide through Whiteness.

I must preface both concepts for my own reason and the pleasure of the reader. Blackness, Motenian power, is the spirit of ALL Black people z w, the life of ALL Black people, the re-categorization of power. Excuse Me? Yes, this Blackness, birthed from Slavery became the social death for Blacks, this is the key distinction in our analyzation of Power. To continue, Whiteness, the Foucaultnian Power is the spirit of all Whites- privilege & fantasy. Now, we must understand White’s have not suffered this death instead been the operator’s of atrocities. I must note, Whiteness is conception of Moten and will be used wisely but now that we are organized, I will argue that together Moten and Foucault reveal variances in the concept of Power & it’s operationality in society which is found in analyzation of modern institutions, disciplines and human relations — which creates separate realities of existence for Individuals which gridlocks Politics.

Michel Foucault’s Discipline and Punish, is a clear analyzation of Power and it’s own evolution from a tribal sense to a sophisticated creature in modern life. His analysis though through, is fallacious, his operative is in a tone of Whiteness, a single oriented view of Power or rather the ability to have Power. Let me begin by introducing the infancy of Punishment as an instrument of Power, “laws that define the crime and lay down the penalties must be clear, ‘so that each member of society may distinguish criminal actions from virtuous action’”. Here, Foucault offers the root of Punishment, the best medicine for an ill soul. For Foucault, Punishment will always have the ability to be correct & be corrective by setting precedent for the actions of members of society. Though accurate in his initial analyzation he forgets to mention, the manipulability & inaccuracy of such tool for Power such as the Law. His notion of the ‘hands of the king’ as the vector of Power create(s) unease, reason can be seen throughout History, where Power is used maliciously. May I color an example? During the Reagan Administration in California, there was an Open-Carry law which permitted for all individuals to carry Arms. Justly, a colored-group, exercised their liberty & found their exercise — shutdown. Reason? Reversal of a Law because of Fear from the group in Power- Whites. Their reaction to this exercise served as a distinguishment of action, Law(s) only serve those with Power. And this created a necessary evolution for Power to conceal itself so it could continuously serve the ‘virtuous’ & penalize the ‘criminal’. This punishment, as seen , is simply reactionary to the demands of the ‘virtuous’ , as it champions such behaviour. Power as an organism is innate with humans and thus seeks to control.

This simple deconstruction adds speculation and reason as to the shift for Power & Punishment. For Foucault, this is where ‘the gaze [became alert] everywhere’, where the domain of Power expanded into its true ecosystem, Society. From the Laws & Prisons to every facet of life, Power has become ubiquitous and Foucault alludes to this, “there is no risk, therefore, that the increase of power created by the panoptic machine may degenerate into tyranny; the disciplinary mechanism will be democratically controlled, since it will be constantly accessible ‘ to the great tribunal committee of the world’ … it has become a transparent building in which the exercise of power may be supervised by society as a whole” . This shift to Panoptic Power is the justification and the solidification of the White Dominance in the Western world. How? In American History, the realm of Power and it’s different levels is attributed to color of Skin, the darker you get, the less you have. Thus this ‘democratically controlled’ mechanism can only be thought of through the realm of Social Classes and in our reality, the White Person rules. So with this in mind, I can begin the dissection, the Panopticon is the embodiment of Ubiquity and thus serves my latter analogy of the United States. The Founder’s of this nation rooted Power into the seed of the State as the ultimate Sovereign. This Power vested in their commitment to creating a Democratic society. Unknowingly they released Whiteness into the roots of societies and with Time was able to continuously mature to a Tyrannical ideology, White Power. Now here, we can understand Power , capital P is to be synonymous with Whiteness, as it is the Ubiquity that Foucault points out. Now, please, keep in my mind my analogy of the United States which will link Foucault’s word’s well. When faced with this evolution , Foucault creates the solution for Power, “How will power, by increasing it’s forces, be able to increase those in society instead of confiscating or impeding them? The solution is that the productive increase can be assured only if, on the one hand, it can be exercised in the foundations of society & if it functions outside the sudden, violent forms of sovereignty.” Not to expand too much on one point but I must drill this into your mind, as it is the only way in which you will understand.

Using Foucault as our Guide, we must first accept that his thought is not for the United States, instead I am using his concepts of Power to better understand the American society we are placed in. We may also manipulate Foucault, to say that the very foundation of the United States was to ‘function outside the violent forms of sovereignty’’ & against the ‘exercise of the sword’ and the solution? Democracy,Modernity, Liberalism. The principles of the United States which are rooted in the Constitution of the State and guide action internally. A political structure such as democracy can be dissected to be transparent & true but instead acts in accordance as the Panoptican. Transparent, easily accessible, & knowledgeable. The Panopticon as a structure is centralized ,observant and observable , and intelligent. Foucault alludes to Power and Knowledge as having ‘the ability to observe others’, & this relationship provides us with a sustainable thought. The United States has become the proponent of ‘Democracy’ in the world, often exceeding and overstepping precedent in order to ‘ spread the Liberal Democrat thought’ but why? The heavy prosperity brought forth by the Democracy, Modernity, Liberalism in the United States prompted for the spread of these Ideologies as if they were the fix to the world’s problems or as Foucault would say the ‘general function’. See, I wish to tie this together for you, the Founding Fathers of the United States created as Foucault would refer to as ‘bio-political’ state, a knowledgeable form of power. How? Let us begin our analyzation of Micro-Powers or Institutions which stem from the Founding of the Nation. I will rely on the Prison System of the United States to juncture my theory that Whiteness is rooted in the seeds of the United States.

As Foucault has mentioned, laws benefit the virtuous actions of Society. Let us then analyze, “ The coextensive apparatus of Police power must bear ‘over everything’…in order for this [power] to be exercised it had to be given the instrument of permanent, exhaustive ,omnipresent surveillance … [the] police added this disciplinary function to the auxiliary of justice in its pursuit of criminals and as an instrument for political supervision of plots, movements or revolts.” Here is a main function of Power at work in the United States. The police are the epitome of Power in American Society, as they are seen as an extension of the law which is set to distinguish ‘violent action from virtuous action’. As their power is also ubiquitous, every town/city has an extension of this power. But interesting that Foucault says ‘disciplinary function to the auxiliary of Justice’, a disciplinary Mechanism which is ubiquitous is the definition of the Panoptic Power and Whiteness. Now how does this Whiteness support Justice, as the police are set to be? Already laid out for you, the Black Panthers who acted legally on a Law but had their action ‘just action’ overturned. SO, restriction of liberty is Justice? OK got it, let us take this further. The United States has gone through a stage of rampant Police Violence- innocent murders and exploitation of Liberties to name a few perversions. This Police Violence has been mostly perpetrated on People of Color by White Officers, extensions of the Panoptic mode of Power, and this notion sets us with more thought. The social death from Slavery, remember?

Whites never suffered this, they had never been put in a position of a minority in the United States but yet Blacks did. Their arrival on this land was met with a death- a subjection, a loss of personal freedoms , & humanity. These losses gave the Foundation of such country the ability to dissociate these Individuals from society and deem them unequal target(s) who embody criminality for the ‘violence of Power & Discipline’. The police as a tool of the Panopticon is meant to continually feed the ‘political supervision’ and as stated the politics of the United States is a democracy. This violence is meant , not to reiterate, to keep the Founding spirit alive. The proponent of Whiteness, Whites, their ability to hold power, this is what can be extracted from this analyzation of Police Power. To further my dissection, Foucault says these techniques are to ‘adjust the multiplicity of men’ , keeping them in Power. “that is why discipline fixes; it arrests or regulates movements; it clears up confusion; it dissipates compact groupings of individuals wandering [about in unpredictable ways]”. Those individuals, those groups, People of Color, the discipline of Power urges to weed away those who do not fit. BY encompassing all embodiments, previous evolutions of Power such as Police Violence, Punishment & Discipline- the ruling class is able to control, arrest and regulate the operation of Individuals. In the United States, 56% of the incarcerated- are People of Color, this is a clear indicator of Panoptic power at work. A spirit that is all knowing, everywhere and able to dictate who is able to Operate, Live and prosper in the realms of Normal Society. This Normal Society, is the vision and dream of Whiteness, where there is a commonality between People, where Power can roam without having to work meaning that Power need(s) not to be exercised. A utopia sums up my thoughts, where Homogeneity and Privilege is the culture of Justice but this can never be real as we can simply analyze the upheaval in the United States. I wish to transition into my next author, Fred Moten ,who will offer to us the power for People of Color and how that is operational in Society.

Fred Moten , offers us a completely different view for Individuals and for power in society but especially American Society. His dissection of the ‘undercommons’ is the world in which we will dwell into to understand power & colored existence. Before I continue, let me preface once again by saying that Moten would have labeled Foucaultnian power not only as Whiteness but also as the ‘Commons’ which serve as the ‘Normal’ or Normalization of Society. Where life is seen to be perfect, where social life is actualized — a luxury that is only operational by Whites. Let me also say, because of the Foucaultnian Power, which means to dissipate any ‘wandering individual’ this has forced blacks into ‘ enclosure… [where they are] always at war, always in hiding’ . Now here we can better understand the Motenian power of Blackness which lives in the realm known as the Undercommons. Yes, we can finally understand! For Moten, this setting is the realm of power a termed coined as blackness, that is only manifested in the Undercommons. Let Moten illustrate this realm for you, “ we are the general antagonism to politics, we are disruption and consent to disruption. We preserve ,upheaval! Sent to fulfill by abolishing, to renew by unsettling, to open the enclosure whose immeasurable finality is inversely proportional to its actual area, we got politics surrounded. We cannot represent ourselves. We can’t be represented” .( Moten) Revolution! This is power for blackness, the ability to preserve the previous done perversion. Through the mutual debt of Slacery which all black encompass, the responsibility of the undercommons is to ‘falsify the institution’ of Power. The Foucauldian Power of Whiteness, the constant chase of the criminal has pushed Blacks to an ‘enclosure’ but within something is brewing. Moten transitions to say in the heading of ‘ The University and the Undercommons: ‘ The only possible relationship to the university today is a Criminal One ‘. But why does he choose this? Let us then analyze this heading together as I believe it will make the reading of this essay much more pleasurable. Notice, how, the Panoptic Mode of Power is obsessed with the notion of the Criminal for Moten, here is a Social Institution whose purpose is to manipulate and correct and Individual. Furthermore, on a more minut level let us not forget that the University is an institution of knowledge and as I have said that Power such as the Panoptican is vested on Knowledge much like the Democratic politics of the United States which I have alluded to. And what about it? So Black are forever succumbed to capital P, power? No of course not, I believe the Undercommons are ‘ the questioning of knowledge which always ends in restoration’, a place where the knowledge is manipulated to advance & create a harmonious environment. As Moten says about the University, ‘it is a place of refuge and it cannot be accepted that the university is a place of enlightenment’ . See I point back that the University is an Institution where Blacks & Blackness can prevail and Study and Plan.

To Study other people, to understand the operators of this Power and create a term of Social credit.I will return to this very shortly. For Moten, this Study is very important, as it is the simple action of the University and Knowledge but also has a social coin to it. When speaking about the Black(s) or Maroons in study, he says, “They study without an end, plan without a pause, rebel without a policy, conserve without a patrimony. They Study in the university and the university forces them under, relegates them to the study of those without interests, without credit … They never graduate. They just ain’t ready. They’re building something there, down there… Mutual Debt”.(Moten)This study is done in the escape of the criminalization of Violence set forth by the Panoptic Power. See, the power here is the ability to revolt without interference from the Police Power. They can revolt through thought, thought of the debt owed through the social death, here in the undercommons, they can counter the experience of the Black Panthers. They can create not policy, but rather an idea, a ‘study without an end’, that could possibly manifest itself in the realm of Commonality. Studying the oppressor’s they learn the seed’s of Power without being in sight of the Panoptican. Notice how Moten says ‘ forces them under’, this is much a tool of the Panoptican , the University as its Institution, centralizes itself so it can assert its legitimacy. But yet, it creates the Undercommons which is means to undermine its legitimacy. The study that is important is how to redeem their Debt, how they will be able to have a realm of Existence and acceptance in Society. Moten alludes to the answer to the study for Blacks, “ Hapticality, the touch of the undercommons, the interiority of sentiment, the feel of what is to come is here, Hapticality, the capacity to feel though others, for others to feel through you, for you to feel the feeling, this feeling of the shipped is not regulated, at least no successfully”( Moten). The answer of the Revolution and the arm of power for Blacks. The essence of Blackness is the ability to be human and not necessarily a proponent or body of Power. By escaping the gaze of Commonality, Blacks were able to perpetuate a thought and create an embracive community known as the Undercommons. This gaze along with the social debt allowed for no-representation that ultimately created its own Sovereignty , Love. See, this is extremely interesting, even within the world of Power, there is a community of Individuals that exists in a different life. Constantly being criminalized, victimized, and ostracized and thus has been placed in a realm of Revolt and enclosure. But within this Realm, they were able to undermine the component of Knowledge and perverse Power to advance their Agenda of receiving credit. What does this all mean? Through the violence of Power and the revolt of Love, what can be learned?

Well for Moten , “what’s left is politics but even the politics of the commons.. Can only be a politics of ends.. [there must be] a regulatory end of the common”( Moten). The continuity of the commons or let’s say the Power of Whiteness is ultimately leading to an ends. What sort of ends? Well, I am sure a simple analyzation of the United States will serve our purpose. In 2019, the United States at a midst of a Civil War- with the race relations high and Power exceeding its justification ( Trump Impeachment), it is evident that the essence of the Founder’s is having a detrimental effect on American Society. See, if Police Violence is to be continued, this politics of Power, then there will be an imbalance and revolt will prevail. For the more violence, force that is perpetuated by Whiteness , the ability that Blackness has to study and revolt. But what would you say if I offered a solution? A politic of Love. See, the study of the Undercommons, the revolt to Power, underlies and finds progress in Politics. Once again as stated by Fred Moten, “the Undercommons’ is a box, and if you open it you can enter into our world” . The rule of the Common must end, and those perpetrators of Power must open the box to the Undercommons and release Love. This is the only answer to the gridlocking of Politics in the United States. By having a separation of Factions based on Skin Color is only creating an imbalance in Power but also in Social progress. The State must encompass empathy into its own study of its citizens to even consider Politics.

• Power is whiteness, power is blackness= the capitalization of P is to resemble the power ascribed to each

Analysis of Self with the help of Nietzsche - Good and Bad

⁠

Friedrich Nietzsche – The Top 7 Books to Read | Philosophy Break

⁠

The metaphysical question of the ages, the self, what has happened and what is this ? Friedrich Nietzsche sets a depressive yet truthful view on it,” We are unknown to ourselves, we knowers: and for a good reason. We have never sought ourselves — how then should it happen that we find ourselves one day?” Truthful, we have never truthfully explored the self through our own ambitions & will, rather we act accordingly to societal ideals or based on the idea supposed by ideologies. This has condemned the self to the nihilistic idea of life, in constant rejection and depression of ‘all bad’ acts and forever conforming to normaties. “As you get older, you’ll understand”,is what is uttered, but what does that mean? How does time magically give man infinite wisdom or understanding? If man lives in constant, then how will he ever grow? This is merely impossible, everything must be put into question and analyzed, if not, then life is better to be lived blindly. As Socrates said, “ The unexamined life is not worth living”, this is almost synonymous with Nietzsche, the self is a system which must not be manipulated and perceived through external stimuli but rather harvested through internal methodology. I argue that Nietzsche sees the self as a real system which has been hazed through the idea of ‘good’ and bad’ which have caused humans to hate the actual self and strive for a ‘higher being’, searching in unnecessary places, yet it can be saved through realization of the will and in the end achieve self-acceptance.

The convolution of the self has been brought about from ‘external’ stimuli which are an ends of living outside the state of nature, in society. The particulars in which I speak of is the terms of ‘good’ and ‘bad’, which has perversed the operation of man. From these two simple terms, there has been confusion in the sense which guides man and allows him to act under his own power but from where do they stem? Nietszche’s conceptualization of ‘Morality’ can be simply put as the ‘master’ and ‘slave’ , where the operational layout of human morality is scaled. Instead of a numerical scale, the scale operates in ‘good’ through ‘bad’ and no in between, thus, we must understand the relation of these terms. The attributes of ‘good’ relate to the morality of the Master and ‘bad’ to the morality of the Slave, I will first analyze the set forth difficulties of ‘Master Morality’. The origins are as such, “he aristocratic, the powerful, the high stationed, the high-minded, who have felt they themselves were good, and that their actions were good, of the first order, in contradistinction to all the low, low-minded, vulgar and the plebian [and thus they] created values for their own profit” . Those nobles, the ‘Kardashians’ if you will, the figure’s which are illuminated, who’s ‘perfection’ is praised for they are some sort of enigma which every living person must strive to be. These are the people who have constructed the scale of human actions, the individuals which objectively see themselves from a higher order and thus laugh and pity you. These humans, revere themselves, they find the origin of value within themselves, and they receive this sense of fullness. This fullness from themselves revokes fear in those who are not of this caste, for they long to live the way the nobles do. For all that we see of the Kardashians their seemingly perfect lives, vacationing in the Bahamas, while we are stuck working at UPS 4am-4pm everyday. This creates a journey for those of the ‘lower order’, a never-ending pursuit, to become like the nobles, to reject anything in our true manner that does not help in the journey towards our end. This ‘good’, is farther from the definition, this becomes lost in translation as this is the convolution itself. What is dubbed ‘good’ is no more than ill, this is the unnecessary place which keeps us from our acceptance. Through the initiation of this cycle the ‘actual-self ‘ can be successfully suppressed according to Nietszsche.

From this conceptualization of ‘master morality’, a disgusting creature known as the ‘higher self’, an organism which makes man live in denial of the ‘true self’ has risen. The latter is both the attractive end & unfortunate result of the journey set forth by the nobles. See, man has now unfortunately “[lost] the hope in man, the will to be man- we are tired of man.”. And this tiredness is rooted in resentment, yes resentment for the nobles, for they have caused the feeling that we they are why we feel ‘bad’ & resentment to that the realization that we will never attain this ‘higher self’. This creature has convoluted the will to be a man, we no longer want to be our lying, lazy, true-self instead we revert to out contorted facade made for & by external stimuli. To introduce the term of slave morality’, Nietszche states, “And the slave morality need a typical of resentment birthing… the condition of its existence an external and objective world, it requires objective stimuli to be capable of action at all- it is a reaction”. The cause for resentment is by creatures who are ‘ deprived the proper outlet of action’, meaning that when we live under this conception we “ say no to [very outset] of what is [outside and different] from itself” The state of reaction is never proper for humans, as we demand action of one’s own utility and will. Contrary to the current state, where we must ‘react’ to the noble’s ranking of what is good & bad and then act on a specific action. The difference in these morality, is that the aristocratic found ‘affirmation [in its] own demands’, while the slave, rejects his own demands as foreign to the sought out ‘higher-self’. As hopefully depicted, this creates an inner turmoil for the slave. The slave is in constant denial of one’s actuality and is in a sense operating in death- the absence of autonomy. This ‘denial’ is us searching in the ‘ Kardashian Will’ something which is unattainable by our fleshy self and thus the slave is in a mode of eternal self-deprication.

The development of this rejection- in demand and improper outlet of willful actions could be associated with the ‘conscience’. A domain, a mechanism, which is the last validation on willful actions- Nietschze says, “in this sphere of the law of contract we find the cradle of the whole moral world of the ideas of ‘guilty’ “guilt” “ consciensce”…”. In this contract, not only do we see the birth of conscience but also understand ‘slave morality’ for in this- suffering produces happiness, for the person in pain receives a reward. From this suffering, not only does man find the capability to enjoy this pity but also attain sort of social status. From this birth of conscience, we can receive insight into the sickness which comes from this creature. But now, we mustn’t dwell much into that, for that is what resentment, conscience, and slave morality wish us to do, dwell. Notice, that I have now used will and Nietschze says, “ the will to power is the real essence of life” The power to be man, to be us and act accordingly to our desires with no care, is the true conception to life. See instead of reacting to the nobles’ conception of ‘good ‘, Nietszche says, “The active man, the attacking, aggressive man is always a hundred degrees nearer [truth] than man who reacts; for he has no need to adopt tactics, of making false and biassed valuations of self “ Man must stray away from the ‘guilt’ and ‘debt’ and become active , to not be cruel to our animal self , and begin to nature because in this mode he is acting in the, aristocratic morality, they find no need to punish themselves and submit to the will of guilt, where we lie to ourselves and punish ourselves for acting naturally. Nietsczhe’s idea of truth was simple, to accept your flesh and live because there is no other life that you could possibly live. The contrast which Nieszsche uses is of the Greeks, “ they [used] the god’s as simple buffers against the ‘bad conscience’- so that they could enjoy their ‘freedom of soul’” The Greeks, the most ‘’noble’ race in the recollection of civilisation , were in themselves the closest to animal. They would partake in the most ‘bad acts’, adultery, perversion, homosexuality but yet they felt no sense of guilt they understood that these action were theirs, these acts regardless of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are willful actions. The creature, ‘higher self’, is an unattainable end’s that only convulates the true self and sickens man to the point of death.

The will is the salvation to the conception of ‘slave morality’, the will is the only conception which allows us to denote the socially constructed values of ‘good’ and ‘bad’, instead of acting accordingly in spite of the nobles, man must act willfully from nature, free of resentment and rejection. Nietschze alludes to this, “ [man must]open their eyes to their own selves, and to learn to distinguish between ‘true’ and ‘false’ in their own selves” Now that man has been able to act according to his own demand, the process of self-acceptance has now begun. See, this disregard and death to the ‘higher-self’ has put an end to resentment. No longer infatuated with the end, we are no longer teleological creatures, we are now active and living creatures. This activity is the will- of personhood. The understood difference is this, this will is not set-forth, like an agenda but rather sought-out and attained through this manifestation.

The self will always be a system that is not understood, and will always be questioned and analyzed. The self can be critiqued, either through internal or external stimuli. Nietszche believed both to be true, that these external stimuli, the noble, the creator of the ‘master morality’ and good, created man to fall ill. The categorization of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ force man to act contrary to his nature and not indulge in his own desires. Instead, when man is faced with a decision he stops and ask: “ is this good”, “ what will others think”, and this conception is a creature known as the ‘higher self’. The nobles created this in man, the ‘higher self’ brews from man’s hate and pity for his animal self. The detriment known as bad conscience is the byproduct of the social contract that man signed to partake in civilization. Evidently, through this ‘bad conscience’, the proponent of suffering makes man active and allows him to be saved. The will is thusly created to allow man to indulge once again in his natural desires and dictate his own conception of both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ through a more comforting internal mechanism. The validation brought through external stimuli brews conclusion to the self and brings nihilism to man. We can love ourselves and accept who we are through our realization of will but only through suffering.

Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.

Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (

CtrlP

) instead.