The Three Great Sceptics and Universal Truths

The three great sceptics of the mid- to late 19th and early 20th centuries were essentially the ones to sound the death knell for the Enlightenment, being primarily about the ideals that it is the individual who should shape the world around them as opposed to allowing the world to shape the individual. Each teacher feeding into the subsequent one's ideals in some way shape or form.

The Three Great Sceptics were, in chronological order, Karl Marx (5 May 1818 – 14 March 1883), Friedrich Nietzsche (15 October, 1844 – 25 August, 1900) and Sigmund Freud (6 May 1856 – 23 September 1939). Each of these theorists in some way or another could be said to have engaged in some form of Epistemology, particularly subjective epistemology, which argues that knowledge is not necessarily possible to attain in the first place, in the case of Nietzsche to the extent where he would at times be accused of solipsism, the ideal that the only certainty is that one's own mind exists.

The Marxist and Nietzschean views can logically be said to largely clash with each other based on the grander scopes of their beliefs, Marxists believing that particular levels of democracy are the means by which to progress towards a Socialist society and thus the means by which humanity is to further develop, however it was believed that the style of democracy necessary for the restructuring of society was not that present within that time as it was the democracy governed by the rich and powerful, thus the proletariat never having the true opportunity for freedom. Marx (and Engels) put forth that the only way towards a true democracy would be for first a revolution to come and topple the existing governing by the bourgeoisie class and then for a new democratic order to arise.

Conversely Nietzsche was radically against the ideals of democracy, believing that only the strong and intelligent should lead and that this would be the true means by which the human race could evolve and develop. His belief was that the human race in itself must be destroyed as a means by which to lead the way to the next evolutionary steps of the individuals deemed worthy and tenacious enough to progress onto the next stage of existence which he termed the Ubermensch or overman. He advocated indulgence instead of abstinence as a means by which to truly experience life and progress to the next stage of existence. Of all the Sceptics, he could be said to be the most detached from any ideals of religion or morality as he was purely about the self and feeding the self. His ideals were primarily based within the ID, though it is apparent he did not believe in subconscious desires and merely conscious ones that were suppressed by misconceived preconceptions of enforced morality dictated by religion - "I condemn Christianity", he said this because he believed that Christianity, along with most other organised religion, had forced an intolerable doctrine upon the people that must be removed - "We must do philosophy with sledgehammers", with this Nietzsche was saying that everything should be smashed to pieces and built up from scratch, opening the possibilities to advance within humanity into the creation of the ubermensch.

This said, both are at odds with the Freudian theories owing to a lack of anthropological basis or a form of political framework to explain why particular individuals might experience the psychological ailments they suffer from. Whereas Nietzsche and Marx extensively researched various cultures and ritualistic systems and thus were fully aware that certain practices such as cannibalism and child marriage, whilst seen as abhorrent within our own culture, could be viewed as entirely normal within another culture. Therefore to simply categorise all under one specific set of rules to both Nietzscheans and Marxists would seem unreasonable and lacking in any truly empirical basis.

It is somewhat ironic that Sigmund Freud is considered one of the great sceptics, given that a huge amount of his theories are widely disregarded owing to a lack of sufficient empirical data.

All this said, each are regarded as Great Sceptics for the fact that their theories constantly challenged a vast majority of established ideals.

Marx's ideals of the ruling law being that of the ruling class and that the lower classes should rise up against the bourgeoisie greatly rivals a long-believed ideal put forth by Onosander that people will not follow one who is not of noble birth.

Schopenhauer's 'Will to Live', written a generation before Nietzsche, put forth the ideal that everything in the universe was striving towards the desire to exist and procreate and therefore above all else this was what was prioritised. Nietzsche's 'Will to Power' contested this ideal by putting forth the suggestion that in truth everything is striving for power. According to Nietzsche this can be seen in both the natural and man-made worlds in the act of warfare, mating rituals and the like, in which the individual will risk their life for the sake of honour, glory and power. Simply living is not enough for them, for quite often they will die for the sake of gaining immortality in the minds of others. The will to power also stands as an argument against the ideals of Utilitarianism and Platonism, desires for goodness and unity, because these ideals do not explain why humans have often such volatile and unpredictable natures.

Freud is probably regarded as the most radical and pessimistic of the Great Sceptics as he believed that humanity on the whole had no point to which they would advance towards and that they would simply constantly strive for sheer self-destruction and the destruction of others. This contests all theories placed forth, including those of Nietzsche and Marx, who contrarily believed that humanity could advance if it learned how specifically to do so. Strangely enough, despite being a self-proclaimed atheist, his theories on the status of being were steeped in the ideals of abstinence and self-control, reinforcing the ego through his techniques so as to better control the Id.

In all cases there would have been great contesting of the supposed universal truths in three sentences presented by Frege:

1 - That the Morning Star is the same as the Evening Star

2 - That the present King of France is not bald

3 - That there was no one on the road

The significance of these sentences is that all of them can be argued against being universal truths as follows:

1 - You would require prior knowledge and understanding of certain mechanics to know that this is actually fact

2 - This entirely depends upon the context of the time and each individuals knowledge of France at that time

3 - Although at any one time on any given road there may be no one on it, that does not mean that on another road there will not be someone. It also depends upon what you consider to be the road in question, whether it is just one particular stretch or the entirety of all roads connected up.

In each case the evidence for these statements can be disputed and as such can not be considered universally true.

Freud

Sigmund Freud is considered to be one of the most influential figures of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Born in Moravia in 1856, Freud proved himself over the course of his career both an impressive psychologist (being the one to create the term psychoanalysis) and a controversial theorist, many of his theories being either called into question at the time or as of now completely disregarded as insane or completely baseless.

However, it is important to note that regardless of how recognised within the context of psychological analysis, he is still a relevant historical figure in how he managed to shape a great many of our current perceptions, manners of speech and overall ideals of typical behaviour when isolated from the opinions of more learned experts.

The theories he held which can be called into question but for the most part seem to hold water are those of he tripartite mind (originally only bipartite as he had only initially theorised on the existence of the Id and Ego), which dictated that the mind is separated into three parts: The Id, the Ego and the Super Ego. These three sections he theorised operated as follows:

The Id - This was believed to be the unconscious desires. These would be the innermost primal, violent, sexual predilections, the central part of a man's soul that can not be directly contacted through normal means and constantly hungering for more. Supposedly through hypnosis Freud could draw this part out to attempt to gain greater insight to the patient's mind. However, it supposedly can not be reasoned with and it must simply be put to a more efficient and creative use or suppressed in some manner, though the latter was highly advised against as the consequences could be disastrous.

The Ego - This is the concious and logical, reasonable section of the mind, designed to regulate between the Id, Super Ego and outside world and supposedly the weakest of the three sections because of this fact, constantly under attack from the demands of all three and attempting to find a reasonable middle-ground between them all. Freud suggested that through his techniques he could help strengthen the resolve of the Ego so as to prevent a mental breakdown through the Ego failing.

The Super Ego - Believed to only come into existence subsequent to a person's formative years when they have become aware of the outside world and society's specific ideals, feeding off of these influences and twisting them so that they become less necessary regulations and beliefs and more demanding, impossible requirements that the Super-Ego imposes on your mind. Typically this is characterised as a form of policeman within the mind, ordering everything rigidly.

This theory was not new, hailing back to the time of Plato. However, the exact manifestations and arguments put forth on the matter differ dramatically. Plato theorised that it was the Rational side of the soul which controlled the mind, acting as a charioteer controlling the horses of the Spirited and Appetitive sides. Freud however believed that ultimately the Ego was more holding on for dear life, attempting to reign in wild stallions which could only be calmed for a time before the chariot would break.

The issue with this theory is that there is no determinate way of defining the existence of the Id in such a precise and clear-cut manner. Theorising on its existence is all very well, but to attempt to pin it down as anything tangible as Freud was suggesting was possible through his techniques does not seem logically plausible.

That said, this theory has been the influence for a great many works, particularly outstanding being those of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, in which the Ego and Id are physically represented in the titular characters and the Super-Ego in the investigators and L'age D'Or, in which the main male character appears to be the ultimate representation of everything which supposedly comprises the Id, being sexually ravenous and monstrously violent to all who are either perceived to or definitively do get in his way. It can be argued that the film is entirely devoid of a representation of the Ego, being purely of the extremes between the Id and Super Ego and the effects if the Ego were to completely deteriorate into nothingness.

However, at odds with his theory of the extremes being primarily in control was Wilhelm Reich, who believed in a more layered, less disparate soul, still in a tripartite form, but more inter-connected as opposed to being independent of each other; his belief was that on the surface everyone is reasonable and well-mannered, acting in a logical fashion; the second layer he believed to be the cruel, callous, selfish, irrational side of a human; however the third layer, at the very core, he believed all humans to be inherently good and decent, and that their innermost love superseded the violent nature.

In both cases these theories simultaneously have logic to them and could be laughed out of any medical council for being insane and nonsensical. The primary issue is finding a way to bridge the gap between what is logically definable and what is simply speculation on the composition of the psyche.

The theories of Freud's which do not really hold any water are theories such as penis envy, which had no logical explanation and seemed to simply be based in having had a little too much cocaine on a particular day and projecting his own acquired insecurities onto women. Furthermore his idea of the Oedipus Complex feels like a somewhat tacked on belief as it was suggested that it was a symptom typically only found in infants, whose perceptions of the world can not possibly extend past that of their parents and thus have no comprehension of any instinctual habits past personal, physical survival.

However, another theory of his which has wormed its way into society today and appears to hold a modicum of truth to it is the "Freudian Slip". This theory is that you may slip up on a word or sentence and reveal your true feelings or desires. For example, instead of saying "The moon is big tonight" you slip up and say "Your breasts are big tonight". However sometimes the slip can just be a slip, which coined the phrase "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar".

Ultimately you must take from Freud's teachings what you personally feel ring true. Some may believe that the Oedipus Complex is correct and the tripartite soul is complete rubbish. It is all down to the reader's/listener's discretion.

Modernism and Citizen Kane

Modernism, having primarily started in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (though the philosophies it was based in are widely regarded as having begun and ended between the 17th and 20th centuries), is a broadly nuanced and heavily reactionary movement. It can in some ways be seen as the result of the disenfranchisement with and dissolution of the Romanticist ideals for far more pragmatic and realistic beliefs. For example, the flowery and idealistic imagery and language of Byron and Shelley's poetry had fallen out of favour and a more functional, direct, matter-of-fact approach became the preferred direction for a great many, being pioneered by poets such as Ezra Pound and T.S. Elliot, whose production, together with other like-minded poets, of the imagist manifesto in 1912, established an entirely new era of straitforward, unobtuse poetry.

Of course to discuss modernism and where many of the ideals of modernism derive from it is necessary to look at some of the psychanalytical theories being presented at the time, chiefly by psychologists such as Sigmund Freud, who posited that all human endeavour is in some way linked to the self in primal, animalistic manners, so that the most complex and efforted works to the most simplistic, through to the completely convoluted and seemingly unlinked, could in some way be linked to primal, sexual desires and vies for dominance according to Freud. This can easily be seen as holding strength within the context of the time when you observe classical pieces such as The Rites of Spring by Stravinsky and Prokofiev's Dance of the Knights, both of which conjure up the images of powerful, empassioned, primal men and women, brutal and savage beasts vying for dominance. Visions of chaotic, driven, mad monsters, both overt and insidious filter through the mind.

It can be argued that both the writing and the music which evolved during this period developed out of a wish to become both something more and something less than what had come before. It developed out of the desire to be far more clear-cut and pure, without hiding behind metaphor, simile and hyperbole. This is outlined in the Imagist Manifesto, in which the authors specifically state that they wish for pieces "To use the language of common speech, but to employ always the exact word, not the nearly-exact, nor the merely decorative word". It can also be said that the movement developed from a desire to reconstruct and to some extent revitalise classical works into a far more accessible medium. Pieces such as Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelungen and James Joyce's Ulysses were reworkings of ancient Norse and Greek mythologies respectively, thus presenting them to the more common audience of the time (These pieces now holding high regard primarily within the upper classes).

The journalistic style of the time was typified by a far more vicious and cut-throat manner, further supporting Freud's theories of the self and desires for social and sexual dominance. It also plays into the ideals of a much more functional and subversive mindset in much of the modern world. Figures such as Alfred Harmsworth, aka Lord Northcliffe and William Randolph Hearst, who were the primary influences for the 1941 film Citizen Kane, were, for the most part, self-made business moguls, achieving heights of success through sheer tenacity and a desire for dominance within the publishing world. Political hunger and megalomania, along with conflicting, self-contradictory viewpoints displayed them as voracious men with the ability to manipulate their circumstances to suit their needs. William Randolph Hearst himself was a devilishly efficient publisher and reporter, prioritising within his own paper the fact that the systematic extermination of the Jews in Europe was happening, whereas all other newspapers attempted to downplay the news of the Holocaust. Both displayed a desire for power and glory, Hearst having been elected as the New York Democrat member of the House of Representatives between 1903 and 1907 and having vied for the positions of Mayor in both 1905 and 1909 and Governor in 1906. Alfred Harmsworth ascended from Lord to Baronet in 1904 and only a year later elevated to Baron, then in 1916, most likely as a consequence of his political influence through his exposure of the weakness in Prime Minister Herbert Henry Asquith's government and role in bringing David Lloyd George to power he was appointed Director for Propoganda, his anti-German publications being so powerful that a warship was sent to bomb his Elmwood country home in an attempt to assassinate him. Two years later he was made Viscount of St Peter's in the County of Kent. His and Hearst's levels of success, combined with their general attitudes, were the primary contributors towards the character of Citizen Kane, particularly aspects such as Hearst's long-lived affair with Marion Davies, his quests for power and glory, his pushes for a war between America and Spain (This particular part being mirrored almost completely within the film down to the line "You provide the prose poems, I'll provide the war", reflecting Hearst's "You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war), and his construction of a palacial mansion.

To actually examine Citizen Kane you need to analyse it in three different ways; cinematographically, psychologically and how it has been constructed through the derivation from various sources.

As a piece of cinema it has both its successes and its failures. It is effective at constructing a story through multiple source materials, every shot appears to have a purpose and there is no breakdown in coherency or contradictory information. That said certain scenes feel as though they last too long and outstay their welcome. Furthermore, the ending reveal of Rosebud being the name of the sled, although arguable as a misdirection for the audience, also feels as though Welles is saying that the audience is not intelligent enough to purely speculate on their own as to what Rosebud could truly be. From a directorial standpoint, I would have had it end on the journalists suggesting that Rosebud was something he had lost long ago and could never regain, and be done with that.

From a psychoanalytical standpoint, the character of Kane is very intriguing, his mind appearing to have been twisted from a very early point to firstly a man obsessed with success to any cost, feigning ideals which he would later disregard because to maintain them would mean the sacrifice of all that he was working towards and secondly a being that feeds upon love and yet can not reciprocate. All of this could logically be reasoned as being a consequence of his being taken from his parents against his will, thus meaning that he developed a far more hungry, yearning attitude, needing love and affirmation from all possible sources.

Kane's twisting of his own principles, as well as his complete disregard for them, can be viewed as, from a psychological standpoint, being the result of his hunger for success over-taking him and being incapable of recognising such a failing. . You could summarise it as that he is Charles Foster Kane and he will be granted every success he aims for, no matter how high the cost.

Throughout the film Kane almost constantly displays a methodical, thought out personality, but this can be seen to de-evolve when Susan Alexander leaves him and he tears apart their bedroom in a fit of primal, savage, unfettered rage. Through this scene it is being made clear to the audience that failure has become too great an enemy for his mind to take rationally.

His use of Rosebud as his dying word can be seen as a significant in that Rosebud signifies the point where not only did everything for him change, but also lost a life in which he knew both how to love and had unconditional love. Rosebud can be seen as signifying an instantaneous rise and fall of the emotional side of Kane.

As a collective representation of several real life source materials, particularly Hearst and Northcliffe, it is effective in combining the sources into a believable character whose sums do not contradict the intentions of the film itself; the character at times may contradict himself, but this is to affect and impress upon the audience that he is not above going against his previous statements. It is a powerful and effective legion of important figures used to outline that regardless of the level of power a man possesses, they can still have an unseemly and ignoble end.

It is interesting to note that Orson Welles himself appeared to follow a very similar path to Kane. He became self-destructive, lost his looks, aside from weight his image almost mirrored Kane's. It is rather strange how self-prophetic for Welles the film was.