Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 June 25

= June 25 =

Existentialism is a Humanism
Could anyone explain what Sartre is getting at when he says that man, "in choosing for himself he chooses for all men." I don't understand how it could be said that my choice is a dictum, so to speak; that what I do necessarily affirms the superiority or desirability of it. Am I taking him too literally? I can see how my choice might be a tacit distinction of its inherent superiority, but doesn't that seem a little arrogant? Doesn't what Sartre is saying make it impossible just to let other people alone in their freedom--why does my freedom have to impose anything on them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.73.103.253 (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that the same as John Donne's idea: No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. – after saying the bell tolls for you if you think it does? Seeing it as a dictum is one point of view, another is the ripple effect; not necessarily a hierarchical thing – and contrarily, everyone is his/her own centre at the same time. They are choosing even while you are choosing and being chosen for. You could also say then, that people may be in their freedom (whatever that is), but not alone in it. Julia Rossi (talk) 13:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I read it this way: If god exists, then by choosing something, he thereby grants it value. If god existed, and he was a communist, or married, then communism or marriage would be the best thing.  That's where they derive their value.  But, since god doesn't exist, the only value that a choice has derives from being chosen by me.  I realize, then, my deep responsibility every time I choose, and that in choosing for myself, I'm imparting the only value a thing has.  I'm thereby giving it value, not just for myself, but also for the thing (in the same way that god would be making the thing valuable, if he existed).  Since I'm putting value in the thing, I should remember the effects that my choices and actions have on others, every time I choose.


 * That's my reading, anyway, and I would certainly also appreciate hearing others' thoughts on the matter. I asked a similar question once, but clio told me to go read Being and Nothingness.  Hardly helpful.   Llamabr (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Consider the opposite - suppose we 'choose for others' - ie an attempt to define others - this belittles their freedom if we believe that the thing most in touch with a things destiny is the thing itself.
 * So with a sense of finality I could say that by choosing for ourselfs/choosing ourselfs we allow others to do the same - giving them the freedom to their own destiny.. No idea if this was what satre meant.87.102.86.73 (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, Sartre was certainly not trying to restrict the freedom on others to define themselves through their choices. I wouldn't read him as saying that when I choose, others better do as I do.  Rather, we all feel this responsibility when choosing.  So, it's not a freedom limiting philosophy, but rather one that challenges each of us to confront our total and complete freedom.  Or, as I say, that's my reading. Llamabr (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it echoes Kants categorical imperative: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. Obviously Sartre doesn't dig on the whole universal law deal, but "in choosing for all men" I believe he means the choices we make should be the kind of choices that we think would be right--under those circumstances--for anyone to make, and not to treat ourselves as exceptions. We must hold ourselves to the same standard that we hold others, and so the choices that we make should be the same choices we would hope others to make in our shoes. --Shaggorama (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Zimbabwe
Why is Zimbabwe in such a media spotlight right now? I realize that there's all this hubbub over the election of Mugabe and such but it's not like this is the first thing to ever be controversial in Africa or Zimbabwe. Is there some key component that I'm just missing? Something that has just lit up the media the way something else in some other African country couldn't? Dismas |(talk) 08:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The country has been heading downhill fast for probably near a decade now. The history has Mr. Mugabe, a Communist, performing recollectivizations. This involved taking land from many of the white farmers, mostly meeting them out to cronies in his own party (and even when not, giving it to people who couldn't work the land). This caused massive food shortages in a country that used to be at the front of Africa, literally starving thousands, and displaced millions. Inflation has quite literally hit numbers in the range of 10,000,000% per year. It was naturally quite unpopular.
 * To boot, Mr. Mugabe and his party was in power via strong armed tactics, including falsifying elections, beating up and killing opponents, arresting journalists who dissented, creating arbitrary laws, etc. The situation has been around for a while, but it has slowly gained momentum as more of the Western press has covered it.
 * The thing that's really brought this into the mainstream was a recent election, where Mr. Mugabe had the lack of wisdom to actually post the poll results from each voting location, convinced he would win. He didn't, and he lost so badly that even a runoff probably wasn't necessary, but the government fudged the figures a little until it was. The government has frequently arrested and beat up the opposition leader with no justification, and killed his followers.
 * In short, a) the abuse is in an election, which got the press's attention because it was a fraud which absolutely no one could deny, b) it's been going on for a while, and gained some momentum, and c) the abuse and poverty in the country has gotten considerably worse.
 * As for why this particular country is being noticed: in fact, it's being noticed much less than it would if it were in other parts of the world, by my analysis. However, Africa is changing, and it's not as easy to get away with obvious dictatorship as it used to be, especially when it so thoroughly destroys one of the best economies in the region. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree in part with your analysis, Spartan. Certainly Mugabe is an absolutely terrible leader, but that is not why Zimbabwe is so prominently in the news. Compare for example the case of Hosni Mubarak, the president of Egypt; virtually all the criticisms of Mugabe apply to Mubarak - economic mismanagement, corruption, strong armed tactics, throwing political opponents in jail, arbitrary laws etc. Yet when Mubarak staged fake elections a few years back and jailed Ayman Nour for having the audacity to run against him, the outrage in the West was not at all comparable to what we see now (even though, in general, the Western press is far more interested in the Middle East than in sub-saharan Africa). The reason is that Mubarak is our ally, while Mugabe attempts to defy Western influence. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Two other reasons for the prominence of Zimbabwe in the news are that 1) the country started out in such a promising direction when it gained majority rule in 1980, and 2) Zimbabwe was something of a model for South Africa when South Africa achieved majority rule under the ANC in 1994, and Zimbabwe's ruler, Mugabe, still seems to enjoy the support of South Africa's ruler, Mbeki. When Zimbabwe achieved majority rule, its ruling party adopted a policy of racial reconciliation and tolerance for the white minority and, to some extent, for the political opposition.  Zimbabwe's economy was thriving, and it seemed to be a beacon of hope for the rest of Africa, particularly South Africa.  However, as the years have gone by, the ruling party has abandoned this tolerance, ruined the country's economy, and become increasingly ruthless in its efforts to monopolize power.  The country is in the news because of its horrific and tragic fall from grace.  Few other countries have gone so quickly from being a shining model to being an utter hellhole.  To a lesser extent, the country may be in the news because it was a model for South Africa, which seems to have followed in its footsteps.  Also, its troubles are spilling over into South Africa because so many Zimbabweans have become refugees in South Africa, and the growth in their numbers helped to spark the recent riots there.  Furthermore, South African president Thabo Mbeki's support for Zimbabwe's Mugabe is an ominous sign for the future of South Africa, the latest beacon of hope for the continent.  Marco polo (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * @194.171.56.13: while the "ally" factor certainly plays a large part, one must not forget that Mubarek might have cheated, but the level of the crime was significantly less. The economic downturn in Zimbabwe has been spectacular, while anything in Egypt cannot even compare. And, of course, Mubarek has mostly refrained from killing his opponents, at least that we know of. I think you will fine newspapers worldwide will mostly agree with this analysis: even the newspapers in SA are harshly critical of Mugabe. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thank you all for your responses. Dismas |(talk) 19:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What's the connection between Mbeki and Mugabe then, that the support should be there at all? Julia Rossi (talk) 04:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Commentary on BBC Radio 4 yesterday put it down largely to an imbalance in revolutionary credentials. Mugabe had - and has - an unrivalled status as a freedom fighter against colonial oppression amongst African leaders, and the commentator speculated that this dissuaded Mbeki from open criticism, because that might lead to a backlash which would undermine his own position.  One quote (if I recall it correctly) was "Mugabe went to jail for 10 years.  Mbeki went to... Sussex University."  --  Ka renjc 23:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Diversity and discrimination
Imagine that you have a team of say young people and want to hire an extra person. You know that if you hire an older employee, he will probably not fit and you want everyone to feel ok in your company. Is the preference for a young employee in such situation a form of discrimination? The example could also be adapted to other categories. GoingOnTracks (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes it is discrimination, and in many countries it is illegal. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The United States has a concept of bona fide occupational qualifications, which can be used to make hiring selections that would otherwise be discriminatory, and other countries often have similar concepts. It's difficult to see how requiring an employee to be sufficiently hip would qualify as such, though age can be a permissible BFOQ. &mdash; Lomn 13:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Disqualifying a person because he or she is too old to "fit" with the team is no different from disqualifying a person because his or her racial background would not "fit." While members of the team are free to exclude the older person from drinking excursions after work (which the older person probably wouldn't want to attend anyway), there is no reason why they can't interact in a professional way with the older person at work.  If the team would nonetheless be uncomfortable with the older person at work, then it is a matter of simple prejudice, not much different from racial prejudice, which in the United States is illegal as a basis for hiring decisions.  Marco polo (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This question and answers makes me think about an additional question: does disqualifying a candidate just based in gut feeling a legitimate criterion? Any candidate is either black or white or male or old or young or married or single ... But suppose that the employer don't care about this things and trust his own guts. Does the law contemplate such cases? 80.58.205.37 (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're running a business or running for political office you can disqualify a candidate based on whatever you want. Just don't tell anybody you didn't like his tattoo. Mac Davis (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Due to being completely subjective, a gut feeling can't (legally) qualify as a valid reason for anything, employment included. A disqualification based on gut feeling is therefore not due to prejudice or discrimination of the person itself and its characteristics, but due to a subjective sentiment, which is basically just like saying you fired someone because you didn't like them, for no apparent (valid) reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishtar Dark (talk • contribs) 17:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently not liking somebody is different from not liking a woman, a black man, or an old person. Mac Davis (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. What didn't you like about Ishtar's explanation? I understood it as: a gut feeling won't be an acceptable argument if the ex-employee tried to take legal action against you and it applies to anyone. Did you perhaps miss the "not"? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In any case, it's also worth pointing out it cuts both ways. Not liking a man because he's a man is the same as not liking a woman because she's a woman. Not liking a white man because he's white is the same as not liking a black man because he's black. Not liking an old person because he or she is old, is the same as not liking a young person because he or she is young. All of these are examples of prejudice or discrimination. (People often seem to miss this in arguments since they suggest minorities or women are protected classes but discrimination for race/gender applies whatever the race or gender). Nil Einne (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that firing someone without reason is the same as not hiring someone without reason. You don't have to provide any explanation about why you didn't do anything, just why you did something. As Mac Davis pointed above: go on with your gut feeling is OK, just don't tell why you met this decision, since it can be always construed as discriminatory since it could be a characteristic of a protected class. 80.58.205.37 (talk) 11:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are hiring people for your small business you'll probably get away with it. Just hiring people you come fine along with is perhaps a legit way of making things work. However, if you are a HR manager for a corporation, what sense does it make not hiring people that you don't like? Possibly others will like this people and they can be useful for the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.K. (talk • contribs) 12:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)