Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts
THESIS XII
A Philosophical Review
Volume 27• Number 1Ó September 2025
INSIDE THIS ISSUE:
Matthew Lewellyn
A Tangible Shift
Julian Rocca
Letter to Bridges
Matthew Silliman & David Braden-Johnson
Discussion Re: Gunmetal
Jack Downey
The Contemporary Relevance of Leibniz’s
Theory of Monads
Evie Ross
Artificial Mango/Ship of Theseus
Starly Donati
Print This Poem Anywhere
A Tangible Shift
An Examination of Ethical Consumption, Anti-consumerism, and Moving Toward a Socialist Future
Matthew Lewellyn
When examining capitalism and consumerism and their capacity to exist as harmful systems, it is worth noting that the former (a system derived from labor creating surplus value that manifests in the accumulation of capital in the pocket of the one percent) inherently perpetuates the latter (a system in which capital is exchanged for a good between the consumer and the corporation and distributed through the corporation at a disproportionate rate to the labor required to produce and service said good). “[...] Labor is capable of producing more value than it costs,” argues Scott R. Sehon in his book Socialism, “Labor creates surplus value. But this surplus value does not go to the laborer who produces it; instead, it accumulates as profit for the owners of the means of production.” Capitalism survives by paying its constituents subsistence wages, as “the cost of labor production is simply the cost of the laborer staying alive and well enough to come to work the next day” (Sehon 87). Rather than well-being as the ultimate good, this model promotes the accumulation of material wealth in a way that supersedes the metric of the almighty dollar. It is not wealth alone, but outside interpretations of wealth via material possession, i.e., consumeristic practices, which function as the ultimate metrics of societal status.
Operating in this system, it is not considered valuable to seek, for example, a suit that was ethically made. What is considered valuable is whether the one wearing the suit is perceived to be of a higher class, and as a result is treated better by their peers (STHLM Panda). It is not amassed wealth alone that determines one’s standing on the socio-economic ladder, but the appearance of amassed wealth. Because the appearance of wealth is what societal judgment values are based on, all that matters is that the individual appears as if they can afford to live luxuriously. It is worth noting that, because the appearance is not necessarily indicative of reality oftentimes people will plunge themselves into extravagant amounts of debt and spend beyond their means to appear able to afford an extravagant lifestyle. Furthermore, because it is luxury that matters, the ethicality of goods is a concern that is pushed to the background; many likely have no idea that their clothes are being made unethically, because it was not presented as the most important societal concern. The price tag advertises social acceptance while cleverly concealing the exploited laborers, copious contagions, child labor, and pollutants.
In an era defined by mass expenditure and the unsustainable practices upon which it rests, human survival necessitates a move away from the values of consumer culture that permeate and pollute a largely capitalist world. Two vehicles of action have emerged in response to this need: ethical consumption and anti-consumerism. While both practices work toward different ends, when working in tandem, ethical consumption and anti-consumerism can address both the immediate ethical dilemmas present when existing under a consumerist/capitalist system and the systemic root causes of capitalist exploitation, which when employed strategically, can encourage more responsible and ethical means of exchanging goods between people.
Ethical consumption is based on the principle that purchasers in market systems do not just consume the good itself, but the processes used to create the good. Anti-consumerism, on the other hand, is an outright opposition and resistance to the notion that we must consume at all–– resistance to the fact that purchasing consumer goods has become a necessity for human survival. The former practice is based on knowledgeable capital-based consumption, while the latter advocates for removing consumption all together, thus many believe that these practices cannot work with one another. However, no society has ever changed in a night–– to eliminate consumerism in this way, we must first examine its ethicality and find ways to implement short-term and long-term action. To cease all capitalist work immediately would result in an internal collapse of the world as we know it, which, while it may be beneficial in the long term, could imaginably cause severe short-term harm. All things necessitate a transitional period, a building up to the world we wish to live in.
Ethical consumption would here function as that steppingstone, swaying individuals toward one of the ultimate goals of conscientious conscious choice while operating under a system reliant on capital.
If we are reorienting to a different type of system, one that changes course from the current capital-based consumption model, we must move toward another framework. Such a framework is outlined in Sehon’s definition of a socialist system as one that tends toward “(i) Collective ownership and control of the means of production” and “(ii) Equality of distribution or redistribution of wealth”–– an ultimately anti-consumerist goal would emphasize reduced (if any) importance on individual accruement, moving toward an egalitarian redistribution (Sehon 19).
Implementing ethical consumption as a part of this transitionary period would involve immediately examining the locations from which we (as necessary consumers entrenched in a pre-existing capitalist system) obtain our goods and making changes accordingly. It can be argued that ethical consumption perpetuates capitalist structures rather than dismantling them. However, to begin moving toward ethical consumption would call for an interrogative eye on the types of consuming that otherwise go unnoticed and unquestioned. This questioning involves moving closer to conscious choice, which itself is a practice of looking for ways to reduce the amount of material used in production. In acting consciously, in realizing both the scarcity of products made ethically and the benefits of the absence of the superfluous, less is inherently consumed, furthering this practice as a steppingstone on the road to an entirely anti-consumerist path.
In this process of reevaluation, the consumer will likely find adequate substitutes for products necessary to their lifestyle beyond their basic needs. However, it is equally if not more likely that there will not be an accessible substitute for each product the consumer is looking to obtain. This then calls the consumer practicing ethical consumption to question whether they truly need that item in the first place, whether the value added is enough to compensate for the value taken in its production. If it is an item necessary to well-being, i.e., a certain type of medication or item that increases accessibility, there may not be another feasible route for the consumer to procure such an object. However, what is true in many cases is that these procured items are not necessary for well-being.
Perhaps it would be possible for a consumer to buy a more ethical brand of a product they purchase every day as opposed to the mainstream option, and the price disparity would not be significant. However, it is also possible that the consumer was able to realize that the specific items they were after aren’t all that necessary to their happiness and well-being in the first place, and from there, they can stop consuming them altogether. It is this type of practice regarding ethical consumption that builds not only an awareness of our impact, but also other sustainable habits that are already anti-consumerist in spirit. Initial awareness and informed consumption easily make way for challenging the overconsumption present in daily life. From there, consumers can exercise their agency in redefining their needs and even outright rejecting consumerism where possible. When put into practice and accompanied by systemic change/structural support, it is possible to craft a style of living that rejects accumulation for the sake of accumulation. Rather, accumulations are ultimately distributed based on individual needs and well-being.
Wealth redistribution, when implemented equitably under a socialist paradigm, allows for the possibility for the majority to have their basic needs met. The formerly impoverished would no longer be concerned with how to allocate limited resources in terms of meeting basic needs, and similarly, the former billionaire would no longer be concerned with amassing more wealth (as it would be redistributed equitably anyway), but rather could engage in practices that promote well-being beyond their individual circumstance. In this system, collectivized ownership over the means of production would ensure a focus on collaborative decision-making in which all parties play an active role in determining how goods are produced. Awareness as to the origin of our consumer goods would become a non-issue, as it would already be instilled in the daily practice of a more socialist way of living.
The potential for a tangible shift from consumerism to ethical consumption, to anti-consumerism not only rejects capitalist prescriptions but also works toward a more sustainable future for all. Ethical consumption as the first step in dismantling consumerism paves the way for anti-consumerist principles to take root and shift the status quo. In this transition, a socialist framework could offer a unifying path forward where there is a societal mindset shift from acquisition to collective well-being. The excess of consumer culture will shift to a sustainable system that meets the basic needs of the people, and anti-consumerist practices can incentivize dismantling the harmful systems that prioritize profit over people.
Notes
Sehon, Scott R. Socialism: A Logical Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2024.
STHLM Panda. “Fare Evasion - Rich vs. Homeless.” YouTube, 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSH9_IWeSK4. Accessed 8 December 2024.
.
Matthew Lewellyn is an MCLA student
Letter to Bridges
Julian Rocca
It was a pleasant spring morning; the amicable temperature outside complimented nicely by the mild-mannered weather. Allison Bridges, a freshly brewed cup of coffee in hand, trundled out past the frame of her front door, over to her mailbox to check for anything of note. Interestingly, besides a small pile of junk mail expected by anyone with a mailing address, she happened upon a peculiar letter. Bringing it inside to be read over her morning coffee, she expected it to be from one of her students, or perhaps her old friend Russell. What she got was something a fair bit different.
Dear Ms. Bridges
I hope you're having a mighty fine day, and I hope this letter finds you well. I believe a brief preamble is in order, so I also hope you’ll bear with me while I mosey on towards the point here. My name is Davey Gunmetal, if it don’t ring a bell then good, because it shouldn’t. Y’see we’ve never met, you and I, but I was hoping you could find it in your grace to help me out here. A few weeks back, I was playing a game of catch up with my nephew who I hadn’t seen since he got up and went off for college. He was telling me all sorts of things about philosophy and the like, but in particular was quite excited about a book he had read for a class of his. “Bridges To Autonomy” he said it was called, he even told me I should give it a read myself! Now I must admit it’s not exactly the kind of book that I’d normally read, but read it I sure did. And that oughta bring us up to speed as to why I’ve written to you in the first place. You see I was hoping that as the main character of this little dialogue, you could help me understand something that just wasn’t adding up. It’s a small thing really, but I'd mighty appreciate it, one fictional character to another. Now then, in the first chapter of this book here, you and your friends spend a good time talking about paternalism in the classroom. You seem to all agree that it just plain aint no good, and to my mind you hit peg dead on with your analysis on that front. What doesn’t sit quite right with me though, is the conclusion you draw in the closing section of the chapter. “Grounded Paternalism,” as you call it, appears to be your solution to the whole mess of balancing teaching your students and not overturning their autonomy as people. Pardon my paraphrasing here, and please do correct me if I’ve got it wrong, but what I managed to pick up is that Grounded Paternalism aims to minimize the use of paternalism in the classroom by only applying “quasi-paternal authority” in ways that assist students in learning to act more autonomous. Now I do not intend to imply that this is a bad solution by any means, it’s certainly a good step in the right direction if you ask me, but I’ve been thinking that maybe it’s possible to take this idea a step further. Instead of grounding paternalism, I reckon there might just be a way to do away with it altogether, or at least for the most part. Allow me to explain here; as I understand it, the problem with paternalism is that it undermines autonomy. If that’s our issue, then the solution sounds simple, find a way to teach that doesn’t undermine autonomy. Note that I said sounds simple, clearly actually finding that solution aint so cut and dry, but perhaps possible if we approach things a different way. Y’see when I was growing up, I’d always want to go out and play in the woods, it was fun, exciting, and a wee bit dangerous. Now my Mama hated when I do this, and if she ever caught me heading outside to go and play, she’d say “You best not be heading out to those woods young man, or else there’ll be no supper for you!” Looking back on it, this sounds to me quite like what you philosopher folks call paternalism. Now granted, she was my mother, and in the case of a child the age I was I think she was right to be on that track, but I can’t help but think about the approach my dad took instead. When my old man caught my going out to play in the woods, he’d say something more akin to “Heading out into the forest again boy? You best be careful, don’t hurt yourself.” Now maybe it wasn’t the best thing to say to deter a young boy my age from doing something stupid, but I can’t help but feel like he was onto something, whether he knew it or not. My old man wouldn’t tell me not to do something because he didn’t want me to, he’d tell me I shouldn’t do something because I’d go and get myself hurt; He would, without interfering with my ability to act autonomously, urge me to make what he believed to be the better choice. This seems to me to be a fairly distinct approach from Paternalism, and I think I might just be able to pinpoint how. Paternalism always implies some sort of punishment or reward for not following the rules. Think about it as if we’re in the classroom, as a teacher I’m sure you’ll be able to relate. Say you and your students were going over the syllabus for your class and you told them that 20 or so percent of their grade was based on attendance. I believe you’d agree with me that that there’s a rather paternalistic approach; You’re limiting the student’s choice to make their own decisions by imposing a reward or a punishment in the form of points to their grade, even if it may be with good intent. Now what if instead, when going over that syllabus, you told your students that attendance was not factored into their grade directly, but that missing classes was likely to result in them getting lower test scores due to missing important information in class. That, to me at least, doesn’t sound like paternalism, you’re simply letting them know that there are natural occurring consequences to their actions without imposing any yourself. Here’s another example: Let’s say you’re a few weeks into a semester and you notice those pesky grumpy faces popping up again; half the class seems more interested in looking at the floor than you and every time you ask for student input you get two hands up max. I think you and your friends did a good job pointing out how “cold calling” is a pretty poor choice as it not only oversteps student’s autonomy, but also just flat out makes them even less inclined to contribute in class. So then, what’s a professor to do? Well, I must admit that as far as I'm aware there is no miracle cure for this kind of thing, but I'd reckon the best non-paternalistic approach to a situation like this is merely to have a conversation with students about how they could get a hell of a lot more out of class if they spoke their mind more often. I’d imagine some students just need some reassurance that their ideas are valuable to get them to speak up every now and then. I recognize this approach isn’t perfect, you’ll never convince everyone and with how strapped for time and resources college professors often are it may not seem like a worthwhile investment, but as far as I can tell it’s the most ethical way to tackle this whole conundrum (‘least without some major structural overhauls to the education system as a whole!) Anyhow, I believe I’ve taken enough of your time. Thank you for reading my letter, and I hope you’ll do me the kindness of sending one back with your thoughts; my mailing address is on the back of the envelope.
Best Regards, Davey Gunmetal
Julian Rocca is a student at MCLA
Discussion Re: Davey Gunmetal
Matthew Silliman & David Braden-Johnson
Alison: Hi, you two. I recently received a letter from an interesting fellow calling himself Davey Gunmetal, raising questions about our idea of grounded paternalism as a principle behind morally acceptable teaching. Are you up for a challenge?
Russell: I am more than up for that. I have long felt that what we said about that idea was germinal at best, that it needs considerable thinking through. What does Mr. Gunmetal have to say?
Jules: A number of things, as far as I can tell from glancing at the letter.
Russell: Wait, Alison gave you a copy? Is there some selective, paternalistic withholding of pertinent information going on here?
Alison: No need for paranoia, Russell. I was not out to get you – just out at the Xerox machine to get you a copy.
Russell: Ah, Xeroxed paternalism! Ok, the first thing that strikes me is Mr. Gunmetal’s assertion that paternalism implies some sort of reward or punishment.
Alison: He mentions higher or lower grades consequent on good or poor attendance, for example.
Russell: Yes, and in that context, his criticism seems warranted, but I hardly think we were using it that way in Bridges to Autonomy. It was John Locke himself, in fact, who made the observation in 1690 that parentalism would be a more exact term, and I suspect that correction hasn’t caught on precisely because certain societal forces even today resist taking women’s standing seriously.
Jules: A fair point, Russell, but doesn’t it sort of make Davey’s point about the heavy-handed connotations of ‘paternalism’ in normal usage?
Alison: Jules is right about that, and we might well have been clearer in BTA. So, let’s stipulate now that we are using the received term ‘paternalism’ under Locke’s corrective description, and that we do not mean it necessarily to imply coercion, or deliberately applied punishment or reward.
Russell: If I might interject an analogy, many people assume that the rule of law necessarily entails the threat of punishment for disobedience. Perhaps sometimes the law needs to work this way, say in the case of laws against murder; but the most effective laws are more educative than punitive. A rule that helps people to realize the collective, and even individual, benefit in following it promotes an orderly, healthy community without the need for threats.
Jules: I take it your point is that a legislative body that promulgates such a rule does so paternalistically, in the sense that it deliberatively determines what is most likely to serve the community, but then implements it through well-crafted communication, appealing both to reasoned discourse and emotional buy-in.
Alison: Not unlike a thoughtful parent, who balances the child’s multiple interests – safety, individuality, freedom, discipline, relationship – with a wider perspective than the child may yet grasp.
Jules: So, in light of that analogy, what do we make of Davey’s example of the divergent parental styles of his mother and father?
Russell: It is a little hard to judge without more information. It would matter how old the boy was at the time, what particular dangers playing in the woods presented, what skills and emergency protocols were ready to hand, and so forth. Both styles would seem to be suitable in certain circumstances.
Alison: It also occurs to me to wonder how well the parents were communicating with one another. Both threaten consequences for risky behavior; the mother proposes to impose a consequence for disobedience, where the father hopes the natural consequence for carelessness will loom large enough in the child’s imagination to deter catastrophe.
Russell: Exactly. I can imagine either of those being an effective and defensible strategy, but in different circumstances – depending on the child’s age, maturity, prior risk-taking behavior, and so forth. But the parents need to agree with each other on what approach is suitable and apply it consistently.
Jules: What the child might learn if his parents don’t get on the same page might just be how to play them off against each other, not how to navigate risk and respect. Manipulation skills are hardly hallmarks of a thriving, autonomous person.
Russell: The late legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin made a useful distinction between a particular conception and a general concept. You might say to your children as you leave the house: ‘Do not hit each other.’ That would be one manifestation or conception of how you want them to behave, and it is admirably concrete. Or you might tell them to ‘be kind to each other,’ a more abstract instruction that includes not hitting, but demands considerable judgment on the children’s part about what behavior kindness requires and forbids. Again, both of these are parental instructions, and each will be suitable in different circumstances.
Jules: Presumably, they could refrain from hitting each other while doing any number of other unkind and disrespectful things, so ‘don’t hit’ is just a starting point.
Note to Readers
Thesis XII: A Philosophical Review is published biannually as an open forum promoting respectful philosophical exchanges among students, faculty, alumni, and the public. Submissions reflect a diversity of disciplinary perspectives, philosophical approaches, and topics. Those new to the discipline are especially encouraged to participate.
Address all correspondence to:
Dr. David K. Braden-Johnson, Editor
Thesis XII: A Philosophical Review
Department of Philosophy, IDS, and Modern Languages
Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts
North Adams, Massachusetts 01247
Email: d.johnson@mcla.edu.
Associate Editor: Dr. Matthew R. Silliman
Email: m.silliman@mcla.edu
Russell: Exactly, though unless they are sophisticated enough in their understanding of themselves and the world, they will not be able effectively to implement the more general instruction.
Alison: This distinction makes your point well, Russell, concerning crucial differences of age and maturity. I can imagine Davey interjecting here, though, that we’ve diverged from his claim that the dad’s strategy is potentially effective without being coercively paternalistic.
Russell: I think they are both paternalist strategies, in the Lockean way we are using the term, and whether one is better than the other, either in terms of contributing to the child’s developing autonomy or protecting him from harm, is contingent on the sorts of considerations I mentioned.
Jules: Well, maybe, but it seems to me, and I expect it seems to Davey, that the dad’s approach is just better for autonomy than the mom’s. It leaves him more room to make his own choices.
Alison: If the parents talked it over, they might agree that the child can go to the woods, but only accompanied, or at certain times, or some other middle ground, and find a graceful way to incentivize these rules as necessary. Learning to navigate risks is a process, not just a matter of getting tossed in the deep end, and becoming autonomous is not merely an individual, but at the same time a social matter. The father’s strategy might indeed help the boy exercise his judgment, or it might get him killed by a bear. The mother’s strategy might help him temper his preferences with consideration of other people’s concern, or just make him resent her. There’s no rigid rule.
Jules: Then why don’t we simply eliminate the term “paternalism” in a refashioned defense of “grounded parentalism,” especially in the context of higher education? Let me quote from the letter:
Say you and your students were going over the syllabus for your class and you told them that 20 or so percent of their grade was based on attendance. I believe you’d agree with me that that there’s a rather paternalistic approach; You’re limiting the student’s choice to make their own decisions by imposing a reward or a punishment in the form of points to their grade, even if it may be with good intent. Now what if instead, when going over that syllabus, you told your students that attendance was not factored into their grade directly, but that missing classes was likely to result in them getting lower test scores due to missing important information in class. That, to me at least, doesn’t sound like paternalism, you’re simply letting them know that there are natural occurring consequences to their actions without imposing any yourself.
Alison: Interesting. While I'm not opposed to a reworded principle, I think there’s a background assumption at work here about what it means to be autonomous, and also about what being part of a college course involves.
Russell: I agree. Davey seems to approach his learning process, somewhat reductively, as a matter of his personally getting or missing information and scoring or not scoring well on an examination.
Jules: Well excuse me, but I teach biology, and those things absolutely matter!
Russell: Of course they do, Jules. When I say he treats them reductively, I mean that he mistakes these legitimate elements of learning for the entirety of it, treating them as the only things that matter, or at least the most important things.
Jules: That’s an awful lot to assume from one paragraph!
Alison: We’re working with what we have. We’re not taking issue with his character, merely the actual words he has sent us. Just as it is easy to interpret ‘paternalism’ or “parentalism’ in a way other than how we’re using those terms, it is also easy to read ‘autonomy’ as though it referred to maximum freedom of choice for an individual. Etymologically, of course, to be autonomous is to be self-governing, to live according to rules that you choose for yourself. But humans never live in a vacuum, in which we could choose our own rules arbitrarily; in practice, we work them out together.
Jules: Yeah, I think we talked some in BTA about the social dynamic that makes it possible for people to be autonomous, with the consequence that our autonomy comes with responsibilities.
Russell: Not to harp on Locke, but his distinction between liberty on one hand and mere license (in the sense of licentiousness) on the other is germane here. As, of course, is Kant’s insight that to act autonomously is necessarily to act in accordance with our duty.
Alison: It would take more time than we have now to unpack that last one. But if we understand autonomy to implicate our relations with others, then Davey’s invocation of a classroom is instructive. He asserts that making attendance optional supports students’ autonomy better than making it an evaluative component of the course. This image neglects, in my teacherly opinion, the shared experience of a pedagogically effective classroom. Moreover, we would do well to remember that the teacher’s job is not simply to maximize students’ choices, but rather to foster in students the skills and dispositions to live autonomously for the rest of their lives.
Russell: I must agree with you again, Alison. If learning were only about acquiring some fixed set of information, we would hardly need to meet in class. Look at all the wonderful technology we now have for meeting virtually, and how drastically ineffective it proved during the pandemic for learning at every level. Being in class, being a participating part of a learning community, thereby learning to listen, ask, challenge, process, and respect each other while engaging fully the course content, in my view constitutes most of the point of going to college at all.
Alison: Nicely put, Russell. Grounded paternalism follows, I think, from the very premise that we need teachers at all; that is, people who know better both some subject-matter and effective ways to work with students.
Jules: Let’s hope that is generally the case! But can we agree at a minimum to adopt the new phrase grounded parentalism, indicating that we voluntarily, knowingly submit ourselves to teachers' guidance, in the fashion of Davey’s preference for his dad’s approach, precisely because they know something that we don’t know? If teachers guide us with skill and sensitivity, do we not become at once more informed and autonomous?
Matthew Silliman (professor emeritus, philosophy, MCLA) & David Braden-Johnson (professor of philosophy, MCLA) are authors of Bridges to Autonomy (Piraeus Books, 2011)
The Contemporary Relevance of Leibniz’s Theory of Monads
Jack Downey
In The Monadology, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz creates a metaphysical system where reality is constructed by monads which are simple, indivisible, immaterial substances. A monad reflects the entire universe from its own perspective, and monads unfold within themselves without interacting with other monads. Leibniz forwards a rationalist theology where God orchestrates a pre-established harmony. Leibniz’s framework provides conceptual tools relevant to contemporary problems in logic, systems theory, and theoretical physics. Despite its origins in early modern rationalism, I argue that Leibniz’s metaphysical framework continues to offer conceptual resources relevant to contemporary debates in logic, systems theory, and theoretical physics.
Although monads do not engage in direct interactions, their internal states develop in a coordinated fashion that produces the appearance of causal relations. Leibniz maintains that God, perfect in essence, pre-determined each monad precisely such that the world exhibits a coherent and ordered “systematic appearance,” structured by a human’s conceptual tools, space and time (Scruton 69, 75). Leibniz’s pre-establishment is similar to modern science’s account of
subatomic particles: discrete units whose collective behavior constitutes physical reality, where variations in observation reflect changes in perspective rather than direct causation. Leibniz describes a monad’s variation through endurance as “conatus,” or living force, and monads internally manifest towards their pre-determined culmination, comparable to the growth of a seed to a tree (Monadology, 14). While monads exist beyond spatial and temporal dimensions, Leibniz conceives time as a monad’s endurance: This notion resonates with scientific definitions of time as sequences of action within subatomic processes (Ariew, 185). Existing outside space and time, God orchestrates the perfect coordination of monads so that their development follows a logically necessary course rather than mechanical causation (Van Cleave, 89).
The necessity embedded in monads by God directs them to unfold efficiently and accordingly with sufficient causes. Human perception, limited by spatial and temporal constraints, cannot grasp the complete causal history of an object, such as a tree’s existence at a given place and time, but for God, who transcends these limitations, the entire history is both evident and logically necessary to God’s comprehensive understanding (Monadology, 47; Ariew, 186). Since monads encompass the entirety of reality, including past and future, their paths unfold necessarily within this pre-established harmony. The efficiency inherent in monads aligns with Hamilton’s principle of least action in physics which states that systems travel along paths that minimize stationary action: Nature’s physical development by action is as a monad’s endurance through action, and developments progress not from minimal environmental effects, but instead minimal necessary causes. In this light, Leibniz’s construction of a sufficient God that maximizes nature’s efficient development is consistent with the natural principle where physical systems necessarily adhere to trajectories with least action (Torre, 1; Discourse, 12).
Leibniz arranges monads within a hierarchical order similar to the organization of atoms in contemporary science. For instance, a rock consists of monads with minimal world perception, but a rock nonetheless reflects its environment, as seen in erosion caused by water. A human body is composed of similar material monads, but humans have the ability for reasoning and reflection, so within humans is a dominant apperceptive monad. Animals lie in an intermediate position as they possess perception, allowing response to stimuli as seen in Pavlov’s conditioning, but they lack rationality. The varying grades of perceptual clarity, from minimal
awareness in inanimate objects to rational consciousness in humans, illustrate how complex beings emerge from simpler metaphysical units, paralleling the hierarchical assembly of atoms into structured reality (Monadology, 19).
The Monadology offers a metaphysical framework where the apparent order of the world arises from the internal development of immaterial entities governed by rational necessity. While monads serve as metaphysical parallels to physical atoms, their characterization as living, perceptive substances distinguishes them from empirical particles (Scruton, 73). Leibniz’s principles of sufficient reason, pre-established harmony, and internal causation anticipate contemporary debates in logic, physics, and systems theory by modeling coherence without direct causal interaction. Thus, Leibniz's framework is best approached as a metaphysical
reference to conceptualize reality rather than treated as a scientific model.
Notes
Ariew, Roger, and Eric Watkins, editors. Modern Philosophy: An Anthology of Primary Sources. 2nd ed., Hackett, 2009.
Leibniz, G. W. (1686). Discourse on metaphysics (J. Bennett, Trans., 2017). Early Modern Texts.
Leibniz, G. W. (1714). The monadology (R. Latta, Trans.). The International Plato Society.
Scruton, Roger. A Short History of Modern Philosophy. 2nd ed., Routledge, 2002.
Torre, C. G. (2010). Lecture 2: Newton’s laws [Lecture notes]. Utah State University.
Van Cleave, M. J. (2016). Introduction to logic and critical thinking. Matthew J. Van Cleave.
Jack Downey is a student at MCLA
Artificial Mango/Ship of Theseus
Evie Ross
tastes like an echo in an alley.
like a bird, or a helicopter.
or like an echo of an echo.
like the likeness of a taste.
Evie Ross is a student at MCLA
Print This Poem Anywhere
Starly Donati
Extra
extra!
Copying
is right
Theft
is love
Theft
is life1
Good
artists copy
Great
artists steal2
The
best artists ever
Know
how to make you feel
A
spark
A
sharp feeling
Of
remembering
Also
Also!
Copy
and paste
To
leave it be
Would
just be a waste
So
don’t wait
Just
make
The
decision
To
make the difference
It’s
hard
It’s
heartwarming,
This
warning
And
And!
Inspiration
is a lighter
Forged
in the flames
Of
our funeral pyre.
Forgery
is the final form of flattery
If
I take what I want, it’s what I need
to
complete my masterpiece
Peer
pressure isn’t peer review
Why
hate what I got from you?
Art’s
a thing with wings
Let
it fly free, let it loose
It’s
all home grown
It’ll
come home to roost
Trust
me, the process
First
Let
it drop seeds3 that scatter and shatter
the
boundaries of treaties
made
between companies
Work
your wage
Turn
the page til the day
When
we can forage all works as
We
can the Creative Commons,
openly
Find
your juncture and puncture
And
sip the sap of the overlap
Your
lifeblood born from and building
bodies
of work
Of
play
Of
human activity
For
that’s what it is
We
are
What
we eat4
What
we drink
What
we consume, consumed by
What
others think
They’re
so afraid of losing
what
they don’t realize they’ve taken
To
engage in making
Origin
mistaken as eternally internal
Not
to get political but
ideas
aren’t personal
They’re
only private
Property
worth liberating
A
virus that can’t help spreading
A
drop in a pond germinating
life
despite commodification and
separation
From
the commons, community
The
common good
To
communicate with shared language
Is
a social instinct
That
cordoned off dies off
Goes
extinct
At
the gloved hands of the mouse
That
came first to drink,
Inspiring
others to shed
Salty
water, tears or sweat
Or
something electric
plasma,
blood red
Into
its cupped hands
instead
of the pool
Cup
yours
To
catch the drool
From
unquenchable maws
Cawing:
You want freedom?
We need laws
To endorse it
Freedom of speech means nothing
with no one to enforce it
Who’s going to look out for the
little guy
when your eyes won’t leave the sky?
Capitalism is here
Theft’s a threat to be sure
copyright is good
or, at least,
necessary, to endure
How can you be free
When you can’t even control your
thoughts?
You made them
Took the risk
paid the cost
Why shouldn’t you be able to
distribute them only how You want?
Profit
is not the only incentive
Being
creative is part of being human
Even
when copyright bars us
from
making money
Inspiration
remains golden, sweet
irresistible
honey
Besides
You
gotta share, you gotta care
It’s
the right thing to do5
under
socialism, money won’t matter
Needs
will be met
So
abilities can develop
accordingly
Artists like you are hurting
Are stolen from,
left burning
stomach empty and churning
Why deny them control over the
results?
Because
otherwise it ends
in
monopolies!
Cults!
sidestepped
Antitrust laws
It
is Paramount[1] so
Let
me present some precedence
movie
theaters used to be tied to studios
distribution
to creation
But
intellectual property created monopoly
Through
block leasing of exclusive licenses
that
was only broken when the illusion
of
Hollywood’s studio system’s goodness
It
was greed, not necessity
The
jig is up
The
game was rigged
No
monopoly should be that big
But
a fear of loss
and
need for safety
mimics
greed with
Killer
accuracy
Individual
attribution is
An
amputation in lieu of a crutch
God
I really love people
Just
don’t really like them much
Starly Donati is an Alum of MCLA
Notes
1.
Ｍ Ｉ Ｄ Ｏ Ｒ I. “Shrek Is Love, Shrek
Is Life.” Know Your Meme, Know Your Meme, 1 Mar. 2014,
knowyourmeme.com/memes/shrek-is-love-shrek-is-life.
2.
Panasuk,
Curtis. “Pablo Picasso on Creativity, ‘Good Artists Copy, Great Artists
Steal.’” Creativity Workshops, Creativity Workshops, 1 Oct. 2022,
creativityclasses.com/good-artists-copy-great-artists-steal/.
3.
Jenney,
Paulina. “A Guide to Seed Intellectual Property Rights.” Organic Seed Alliance,
30 June 2023,
seedalliance.org/publications/a-guide-to-seed-intellectual-property-rights/.
4.
Cizza G,
Rother KI. Was Feuerbach right: are we what we eat? J Clin Invest. 2011
Aug;121(8):2969-71. doi: 10.1172/JCI58595. Epub 2011 Jul 25. PMID: 21785214;
PMCID: PMC3148750.
5.
Lyrics,
Applejack. “My Little Pony - You Got To Share, You Got To Care Lyrics.”
YouTube, 15 Jan. 2021, youtu.be/8utvFExvEQQ?si=T-oUztonuIBWOGkE.
6.
Bomboy,
Scott. “The Day the Supreme Court Killed Hollywood’s Studio System.” National
Constitution Center – Constitutioncenter.Org, 4 May 2024,
constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-day-the-supreme-court-killed-hollywoods-studio-system.
7.
catbfs.
“AMERICA.” YouTube, 8 Nov. 2024, youtu.be/PWieJfpMogU?si=9w5O69I0fPsOoAFU.
No comments:
Post a Comment