Category Archives: Psykologi

How to Write a Good Essay

by Majken Hirche

Humans write, for the most part, to communicate with other humans, and this, of course, also goes for essay writing. It would therefore be productive to consider some aspects of human nature and written communication in relation to what humans perceive as good writing. Humans are curious , and when they read, they like to be presented with something new . Thus, good writing first of all offers new ideas, or at least new ways of looking at older ideas, to teach and please the curious mind. In addition, humans find simplicity difficult to resist: According to social psychologists, the human mind simply loves what is easy and dislikes what is difficult . It is therefore equally important to present the new ideas in a way that is appealing to the mind. Otherwise, what is the point of writing down new and exciting ideas, if no one bothers to read about them in the first place?

Humans are by nature highly curious species, and they grasp every opportunity to explore, investigate and learn something new whenever they can, simply because it gives them a sense of pleasure and reward . It is of no surprise then, that new ideas are likely to invoke a certain amount of interest in humans. Therefore, think of the idea as a vital fundament of writing, and the first element to develop before getting into the actual writing process.

New and exciting ideas do not come by themselves however. It takes time and effort, and lot of mental energy to create new ways of looking at things. Fortunately, a smart guy named Alex Osborn got a brilliant idea one day in 1939 , and created a tool to aid and trigger new ways of thinking: Alex gave us brainstorming. Brainstorming is basically a four step program with the following rules : 1) focus on quantity, and generate as many thoughts and ideas as possible in relation to a chosen subject; 2) withhold criticism, and focus on being open to everything that comes into mind, no matter how odd the ideas may seem; 3) generate unusual ideas by looking at the subject from new perspectives by suspending assumptions; 4) try to improve ideas by combining existing ideas to form a single and better idea.

The brainstorming should result in a list of (hopefully) good ideas, from which the best idea can be picked out, and once the really good idea is found, it is time to consider some other significant elements of good writing.

Simplicity delights the human mind, and it is therefore important to create a text that is easy to read. However, complex writing is often quick and easy, while simplicity takes time, but never the less, less is more, and it is important not to overcomplicate things. Thus, by exchanging foreign words or scientific terms for simpler words, and by keeping the sentences short, the good writer has already done half the work. The text also has to make sense though. Therefore, address the topic and say what is relevant, and say it in a well ordered and logic manner; this will prevent the human mind from thinking too hard, and will in turn release pleasing chemicals in the brain, thereby making the human mind feel good about what it reads . On the contrary, if the human mind has to spend too much energy on sorting things out, it becomes tired and will likely give up reading half way through, and think of the experience as bad. One last thing, also make sure that the grammar is in order, and that the text has been thoroughly worked over many times – as the clever people say; good writing is rewriting.

References

Greetham, B. (2001). Palgrave Study Guides: How to Write Better Essays. Palgrave Macmillan.

Kang, M. J., et al. (2009). The Wick in the Candle of Learning: Epistemic Curiosity activates Reward Circuitry and Enhances Memory. Psychological Science, 20(8): 963-73.

Willis, J. (2008). Teaching the Brain to Read: Strategies for Improving Fluency, Vocabulary, and Comprehension, ASCD.

Winkielman, P. & Cacioppo, J. T., 2001. Mind at Ease Puts a Smile on the Face: Psychophysiological Evidence That Processing Facilitation Elicits Positive Affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6): 989-1000.

A Summary of 12 Angry Men

by Majken Hirche

The room is dense with hot humid air and tense emotions, and apart from twelve arguing men, a large wooden table is the only object in the room: This is the setting in which the main part of the 1957 American film 12 Angry Men takes place, and a setting of which the film is highly notable. 12 Angry Men tells the story of a jury made up of twelve men deliberating the guilt or acquittal of a defendant who is faced with death sentence in case of a ‘guilty’ verdict. Immediately the story seems simple in action but below the surface an intense psychological drama takes place.

12 Angry Men opens with a court scene in which a jury, comprising twelve men, is being instructed by a judge: The men are to decide whether the defendant, a young boy from the slum, is guilty of stabbing his father to death. Their verdict must be unanimous, and in the event they find the accused guilty, death sentence is mandatory.  With these instructions and the final closing arguments in mind, the jurors recede to the jury room, and after a brief episode where the men get acquainted, it becomes apparent that they are already convinced that the defendant is guilty, and intend to end the hearing by voting without further discussion. However, in the preliminary vote one of the jurors, an architect played by a young Henry Fonda, votes ‘not guilty’: He wants to, at least, talk about the case before making a judgment because he thinks too much is at stake, that is, the life of a young boy. Subsequently, several of the other jurors become annoyed with him as they had hoped to end the case quickly and move on with life.

From here the story exclusively centers on how the men interact and influence each other as they deliberate on the case, and as a result of the interaction a number of psychological group processes develop: Influence of norms and need to belong , as well as dynamics of personal prejudice, are being introduced in the events taking place around the preliminary vote in the second scene of the film . In this scene, several of the jurors do not question the evidence, but readily assume that the young boy is guilty because of his social background, and especially one juror, a business man and troubled father, stands out as being particularly stubborn, opinionated and aggressive, and appears to be the strongest opponent to the idea of examining the evidence. Consequently, the prejudiced jurors influence the other jurors who feel that disagreeing would be going against the norms of the group.

In the face of antagonists and group pressure, the lone dissenting architect juror refuses to give in. Instead he faces the opponents with a calm and reasonable attitude, and by meticulous questioning the details of the evidence he challenges the stand of the group: Thus, like a true Lady Justice the architect juror stands out as an example of bravery, impartiality and fairness. And so, one by one the jurors realize that the evidence is flawed, despite their first assumptions, and the stand of the group subsequently reverses in favor of the young boy – with one exception: The aggressive business man juror, who, in spite of the questionable evidence, refuses to realize his argumentative shortcomings, and instead becomes agitated and hostile.

Here the story reaches its climax, and the architect juror suddenly realizes the reason why the business man juror has been acting offensive, and ‘like a self appointed public avenger’  all along: He is tortured by the memory of his son, who broke away from his rules, and consequently, they have not seen each other for two years. However, instead of facing his unfortunate personal circumstances, the business man juror seeks a personal vendetta redeemed with the death of the accused boy. A short argument between the men then follows until the business man juror breaks down in tears, and tears up a picture of him and his son: And finally, the verdict is now unanimous, and so, the story ends.

Although 12 Angry Men has been criticized of the somewhat unorthodox depiction of the examination methods used by the jurors to examine the evidence materials, the film has become part of many university curricula today ,  as an outstanding example of justice and democracy, human fallibility and the importance of debate. In 2007, the Library of Congress selected 12 Angry Men for preservation in the National Film Registry, as being ‘culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.’

References

Burton, C.E., 1988. Sociology and the Feature Film. Teaching Sociology 16 (July), 263-271.

McCambridge, J., 2004. 12 Angry Men: A Study in Dialogue. Journal of Management Education 27(3), 384-401.

Rose, R. (Author) and Lumet, S. (Director), 1957. 12 Angry Men. Twentieth Century Fox.

On Metaphors and Cognition

by Majken Hirche

A metaphor comprises a certain form of language expression. Basically, a metaphor can be defined as a figure of speech that implies a comparison between things or ideas by using ‘an image, story or tangible thing to represent a less tangible thing or some intangible quality or idea.’ As the definition above suggests, metaphors can be found in a wide variety of forms and contexts. However, it is beyond the scope of this paper to represent a complete outline of all known categories of metaphors, or to provide the reader with a long and diverse list of metaphor examples. Instead, this paper will focus on how metaphors in everyday language influence and shape the way we think and reason, as evidenced by a resent published paper  in the open access scientific journal PLoS ONE.

Before the cognitive revolution in the 1950’s a metaphor was exclusively understood as an element of literary, poetic or rhetoric language, and not as something that was generated in the realm of everyday language.  Today, however, we know that we use metaphorical expressions almost every time we speak and most often so, without realizing it.  In the light of this knowledge, psychologists and sociologists have been trying to understand the impact of metaphors on thinking and reasoning for a long time, but, the research area is extensive and complex, so solid answers have not yet been found. However, a recent study has now added another drop in the pool of metaphor research, taking us one step closer an understanding of metaphors in everyday language.

In February 2011, psychologists Paul Thibodeau and Lera Boroditsky from Stanford University published a paper , based on an experiment, in which they showed how metaphors affected peoples thinking and reasoning in relation to crime as a subject. In the experiment, 1.485 students were divided in two groups and asked to read a text from a report describing the crime in the fictional city of Addison. The groups were presented with different versions of the text, respectively, differing only in a single description: In version one, crime was described as ‘a beast’; in version two, crime was described as ‘a virus’.

The text was presented as following with the differences inserted in parenthesis:

‘Crime is a (wild beast preying on/virus infecting) the city of Addison. The crime rate in the once peaceful city has steadily increased over the past three years. In fact, these days it seems that crime is (lurking in/plaguing) every neighborhood. In 2004, 46,177 crimes were reported compared to more than 55,000 reported in 2007. The rise in violent crime is particularly alarming. In 2004, there were 330 murders in the city, in 2007, there were over 500.’

Subsequently, the students were asked to propose solutions on how to solve the crime problems and were given the following questions:

1) In your opinion, what does Addison need to do to reduce crime?
2) What is the role of a police officer in Addison?
3) Please copy the part of the report that was most influential.

The result of the questioning revealed that the students who read crime as ‘a virus’ were more inclined to propose solutions that involved prevention and treatment of crime by investigating causes of crime and instituting social reforms, and the students who read crime as ‘a beast’ were more inclined to fight back crime by ‘hiring police officers and building jails, to catch and cage the criminals […].’  In regard to what part of the report the students perceived as being the most influential, the answers generated a noticeable result: All of the students identified the crime statistics ‘as the most influential aspect of the report’ , and subsequently as the main cause of their proposed solutions.
In a following experiment, the researchers also showed that ‘virus’ and ‘beast’ only had an effect in writing: When the students talked about the metaphors before being presented with the text, this time without metaphors, the metaphors had no effect on how the students solved the crime problem. Moreover, the sequence of the metaphors also seemed to play a crucial role: In a last experiment, ‘beast’ and ‘virus’ were introduced in the end of the text close to the place where students were asked to propose solutions, and as in the previous experiment, the metaphors had no effect.

Now, what do these experiments tell us about metaphors in everyday language? First of all, the initial experiment suggests that even though they have a great impact on how we perceive the subject they represent, metaphors are virtually invisible to the receiver. It also suggests that a text containing numbers and statistics is good at blurring metaphors, possibly because numbers and statistics implicitly contain a metaphor about being objective and reliable, and therefore are regarded as strong evidence for reasoning. Third, a metaphor is highly context dependent, and seems to create ideas and a framework that is difficult to ignore, and when placed in the beginning of a text it even gains in strength as we read on, because the ideas the metaphor has created to begin with, somehow coerces the subsequent information into its framework.

Thus, metaphors are indeed more than just elements of literary and rhetorical language. They expand our capacity for thinking, and give us the sensation of understanding. However, metaphors also create unconscious captivity of our thinking – a captivity that seems to be very difficult to escape.

References

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M., (1980) Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.

Thibodeau, P. H. & Boroditsky, L., (2011). Metaphors We Think With: The Role of Metaphor in Reasoning. PloS ONE 6(2): e16782.

Love in Shakespeare’s Sonnets

by Majken Hirche

Adolescent development is synonymous with emotional development. It is a time in life where young people are inevitably bound to break away from parent influence and seek out individuation and identity of their own, and in this process, exploring love and searching for romantic partners are central themes to the minds of adolescents. Shakespeare’s sonnets offer a great opportunity for students to explore the emotional world of human nature and psychology, besides from introducing one of the most progressive, sophisticated and influential writers in the history of English literature. The sonnets introduce a range of perspectives on love and relations, among other themes, and show how love is a complex emotional phenomenon encompassing contradictory feelings and confusion in mind; themes that most adolescents can identify with. This lecture will invoke discussion and independent thinking about love, emotions and reason, and will focus on sonnet 116 in which we explore the first theme; love as perfect and ideal, and contrast it to sonnet 147 in which we explore the second theme; love as unhealthy and a disease. In between we will talk about the third theme; reason and emotion, inspired by sonnet 147. The students will contemplate love on their own, and relate their ideas to the poems. Some questions will be given the students to aid them in contemplating, and to show how the themes are related, e.g.: What are the differences and the similarities between the two descriptions of love in sonnet 116  and 147? What role does reason play in poem 147, if reason plays a role at all? In sonnet 147, there is a struggle of reason against emotion. Do emotions always lead us astray in love? What are the differences and similarities between reason and emotion, and what role do they play in thinking? Does reason and emotion affect the way we think about love, and if so, how?

Sonnet 116 presents love in an ideal form, and it does so by defining and defending the nature of love in a most dramatic way. The sonnet is rather straightforward in structure with each quatrain describing what love is in a concrete manner. In the first quatrain we are presented with the idea of love as loyal and unchanging in a world of change, even if the changes are encountered in the loved one (l.2-4). The changes in the loved one can be understood as; even if the lover is unfaithful (love is still standing). In quatrain two the poet uses seafaring metaphors to further emphasize the permanent, unbending and withstanding nature of true love, ‘being an ever-fixed mark’ (l.5), a ‘lighthouse’, that ‘is never shaken’ (l.6), even if it encounters a violent storm. The use of double negatives ‘never/ever’ in line five and six act as intensifiers, and add further to the dramatic scenery as well as underlining the constancy and dependability of love. The fixation on love as unwavering continues in quatrain two with the description of love as a steadfast ‘star to every wandering bark’ (l.7). Quatrain three introduces a timeless and ever lasting perspective of love, as love ‘alters not with [times] brief hours and weeks’ (l.11), and only some great and final apocalyptic destruction will make it cease to exist (l.12). Thus, the first theme for the students to identify is ideal love as expressed in this sonnet.

In sonnet 147 we now find the poet suffering at the mercy of love as it has taken over his body and mind like a maddening disease. Love is no longer overbearing and dependable, but rather yields its shadow in the shape of a self-perpetuating downwards spiral paving the way for self-destruction, disease and eventual death. The first line of quatrain one introduces an illness discourse that remains throughout the text, and thus becomes the sustaining theme of this sonnet: ‘Love is as a fever’, the poet asserts in line one, and continues to describe its unhealthy desiring nature feeding on the object of love, only to become ever more craving (l.2-4). In quatrain three love is furthermore characterized as inflicting insanity making the poet a mental patient beyond cure (l.9-12), only capable of bewildering speech: ‘My thoughts and my discourse as madmen’s are, At random from the truth vainly express’d’ (l.11-12). Thus, love is not only imposing somatic response, it also attacks the mind rendering the victim utterly helpless, and deprived of reason and clarity of mind. The ending lines, however, are somewhat ambiguous in nature in regard to whom or what they address: ‘For I have sworn thee fair and thought thee bright, Who art as black as hell, as dark as night’ (l.13-14). Given that sonnet 147 is taken out of a context, and studied isolated with sonnet 116, the most meaningful interpretation in this case would be to ascribe the characteristics to love. Thus, the poet seems to momentarily wake up from his state of insanity, confronting his prior beliefs to an extent where he destroys the fair and shimmering image of love. Thus, the second theme for the students to identify is unhealthy love.

In the chosen sonnets, love is ascribed different characteristics which can be seen as two extremes on a continuum representing feelings of love. Thus, read together, the poems are almost bipolar in nature, leaving out all other facets of love that might be found on the continuum. In sonnet 147, quatrain two, line 5-8, however, the poet seems to know in the back of his mind that he is overindulging the feelings of pain and despair, and could he only hold on to reason, there might be an escape from darkness and hell – and perhaps even other ways of looking at love itself. This last statement is rhetorical towards the students and underlines the third theme of this lecture: Reason and emotion.

Understanding English literature as a whole begins by gaining a greater insight in the history of English language and literature. Shakespeare is, so far, one of the most influential writers in English literature. His sonnets encompass progressive and sophisticated writing and thinking, and it diverged significantly from conventional sonnet writing at that time, thereby paving the way for modern writing and thinking in future English literature. The sonnets have influenced modern romantic poets in particular

Massekultur i krise

Den digitale revolution og eksplosionen i de sociale mediers popularitet har afstedkommet en udvikling, hvor vi hver især er koblet op til netop de ting, der interesserer os personligt. Men jo mere vi individualiserer vores kulturelle univers, des mere fragmenteret bliver den fælles kultur også.

af Ryan Smith

Da den konservative kulturordfører Rasmus Jarlov for nylig skulle forklare sit syn på kulturstøtte i Politiken, henviste han blandt andet til, hvad markedet kan bære, og hvor meget man som kunstner kan tjene på at udbyde forskellige kulturtilbud til offentligheden. Begge disse størrelser befinder sig imidlertid i en rivende udvikling, hvor de netop i disse år vokser som aldrig før.

Den homogene massekultur er på vej i opløsning og erstattes i tiltagende grad af små, individualiserede kulturlommer. Den moderne teknologi har i dag vævet millioner af mennesker tættere ind i kulturlivet, end de nogensinde før har været. Men deres kulturliv er tunet fuldstændig ind på netop deres smag og interesser, og det udvander interessen for den brede fælleskultur.

I mediebranchen er man udmærket klar over problematikken. Der findes i princippet et publikum til ethvert kulturtilbud, du kan tænke på. Uanset hvor nichepræget et kulturtilbud er, så skal der nok være et publikum derude. Det handler bare om at komme ud til forbrugeren. Før i tiden så vi, at distributionsleddet fungerede som flaskehals for, hvor meget nichekultur der kunne udbydes til publikum. Men den digitale revolution har gjort både produktion og distribution billigere, og derfor ser vi flere og flere forbrugere melde sig ud af den fælles massekultur og melde sig ind i deres egne små kulturlommer. Publikummet til ikoniske produktioner som Matador, Gone With the Wind og James Bond er dermed en størrelse, der er på kontinuerlig skrump, og i branchen er det således en truisme, at Michael Jacksons Thriller aldrig vil blive overgået, da der aldrig igen vil samles så stort et publikum om én udgivelse.

Tv-serier uden tv
Egentlig var der intet unikt ved Thriller og slutningen af det 20. århundrede. Bevæger man sig baglæns i det 20. århundrede, bliver tendensen til massekultur blot stærkere: I Elvis Presley, Humphrey Bogart og Marilyn Monroe fandt underholdningsindustrien ikoner, der fungerede som signatur for en hel tid. I et historisk perspektiv er det nutiden, der er unik. Vi har sandsynligvis altid haft meget forskellige smagspræferencer, og i psykologien taler man om, at den slags er evolutionært betinget. På grund af fortidens distributionsmetoder har vi bare ikke kunnet udbyde hele viften af nichekultur før nu. Det har været for dyrt for industrien at gøre alle 100 % tilfreds, så i stedet har man sigtet efter at gøre alle 50-60 % tilfreds gennem det konstante udbud af ufarlig massekultur.

Væk er de tider, hvor hele og halve generationer ivrigt sad bænket ved skærmen hver onsdag for at fange det seneste afsnit af Gensyn med Brideshead. Nu om dage forventer vi, at serierne ruller over skærmen, når seeren selv har tid. Tv er efterhånden gået hen og blevet et elendigt medie til tv-serier, og de store produktioners tid er overstået. Se blot på HBO’s Rome: En stort anlagt tv-serie, der havde det hele, men som måtte aflyses efter blot to sæsoner, i erkendelsen af at tv ikke længere kan bære så store produktionsomkostninger.

Alligevel vil tv-serierne dog næppe afgå ved døden. Der findes stadig en besynderlig behovs-situation, der bunder i, at familierne alligevel har behov for at tilbringe tid sammen. Børnene vil ofte ikke indrømme det, særligt ikke når de bliver teenagere, men familierne har behov for noget at samles om. DR’s X-Factor har gjort det bedst i nyere tid. Alle ser med – mor, far og børnene fra 0 til 16 år. Far ville typisk aldrig se X-Factor alene. De små børn ville se tegnefilm, og de større ville se realityshows som Paradise Hotel, hvad de da også gør, når de er alene eller sammen med venner.

Men de ser det. Alle er samlet foran tossekassen. Årsagen er, at det er “godt nok” til alle, og hele familien er sammen om noget. Men selvom tv-serien nok skal overleve, så er det alligevel usikre tider for de store producenter: Det, vi er vidne til nu, er den reelle udfoldelse af vores smags-variation inden for kunst og underholdning. De store spillere – DR, TV2, pladeindustrien, Nordisk Film – og for så vidt også Politiken og Berlingske Tidende – er nervøse. Hele deres fundament og set-up hviler på store hits. For dem er de små beløb, man kan tjene i yderområderne, uinteressante, men samtidig er det her, væksten foregår.

Vi lever således ikke alene i en tid, hvor massekulturen er i krise; vi lever også i en tid, hvor det legitime grundlag for statsstøttet massekultur som DR og det Kongelige Teater er i fuld færd med at blive udhulet.

Anmeldelse: The Stuff of Thought

af Robin Engelhardt

Steven Pinkers bog The Stuff of Thought – Language as a Window into Human Nature, er klart værd at læse. Pinker er kendt for at have populariseret sprogforskningen og den evolutionære psykologi. Hans mest berømte bog (og bedste til dato) er The Language Instinct fra 1994, hvori han (ligesom Noam Chomsky havde gjort tidligere) argumenterer for, at mennesker er født med en iboende evne til at have et sprog. Til forskel for Chomsky anerkender Pinker dog, at den naturlige udvælgelse kan forklare denne evne. Derfor er Pinker intellektuelt allieret med folk som Edward O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins og Daniel Dennett i mange evolutionære debatter, selvom hans tone er mere afdæmpet.

Mens The Language Instinct satte et helt forskningsfelt på landkortet, og blev til en vejviser for mange gode forskeres intellektuelle arbejde i de følgende år, har Pinkers senere bøger, som f.eks. How the Mind Works og The Blank Slate været lidt slatne i det. Som en god ven og hjerneforsker sagde til mig: ”Det er som at få besøg af en brugtvognsforhandler. Tror han virkelig at jeg hopper på den?!”

Pinkers nyeste bog, The Stuff of Thought, har mere at byde på. Den koncentrerer sig om sprogets relation til menneskers tanker. Han diskuterer problemet omkring den sproglige determinisme, aka Sapir-Whorf hypotensen, der i sin rabiate version siger at sprog og tanke er ét, dvs. at man kun kan tænke det som kan formuleres. Pinker giver eksempler på, hvorfor det ikke kan være rigtigt, selvom han indrømmer, at en mere blød version af hypotesen kunne gå an.

Pinker kommer godt rundt I de mange emner, som han mestrer. Metaforer, udsagnsord (han kalder os mennesker ’verbivores’), mentale koncepter, hvorfor vi bander, hvordan vi underholder, overtaler og synes nogle ting er bare sjove. Der er virkelig mange gode indsigter i denne bog. Så alt I alt må jeg tage hatten af for denne forsker og forfatter, der så enestående er i stand til at formidle bevidsthedforskningen, og skrive om sprog på en så morsom, klog og klar måde.

Steven Pinker
The Stuff of Thought – Language as a Window into Human Nature
500 sider, Penguin Books, 2007

Buddhistisk ontologi, del 5: Buddhisme og eksistentialisme

af Ryan Smith

Et spørgsmål, som uundgåeligt vil interessere det mere eksistentielt-mindede vestlige publikum, der lader til at være tiltrukket af buddhismens budskab, er følgende: Hvad er forskellen på buddhisme og eksistentialisme?

Det tyvende århundredes eksistentialisme sagde, at vi skulle realisere eller aktualisere os selv i denne verden, og at vores tanker og ”what-ifs” ikke betyder noget, men at kun vores handlinger gælder for noget. Som Jean-Paul Sartre sagde i sin berømte forelæsning Eksistentialisme er en humanisme: “Der er ingen virkelighed, som står uden for handling … en person eksisterer kun for så vidt som vedkommende realiserer sig selv og er derfor intet andet end summen af sine handlinger.” Ingen af de klassiske forsvarsmekanismer gælder ifølge Sartre. Hvis man påstår, at man kunne have skrevet en god bog, fordi man var en begavet, litterært sindet akademiker, men at man aldrig fik gjort det, fordi man var nødt til at arbejde 12 timer om dagen for at forsørge sin familie, så er denne urealiserede mulighed lige så uvirkelig, som hvis man slet ikke kunne skrive eller læse til at begynde med. Ifølge Sartre er der ingen som helst forskel på de to; begge er uvirkelige ikke-bøger, eftersom de ikke er realiseret i eksistensen.

For så vidt som Sartre knytter ”det virkelige” til handlinger, og ikke til tanker eller følelser, så lyder Sartres lære jo egentlig meget buddhistisk. Men der, hvor de to skilles, er der, hvor Sartre og det tyvende århundredes eksistentialister mener, at (selv)realiseringen i eksistensen i bund og grund er et opbyggeligt projekt. Som Sartre videre siger: ”Prousts geni er summen af Prousts værker.” Her mener Sartre, at Proust har fundet ind til sig selv gennem produktionen af sin litteratur. Med Sartres ord, så har Proust har malet et ”selvportræt” gennem sine handlinger, og der er intet uden for disse handlinger. Men ifølge buddhismen har Proust netop ikke fundet ind til sin sande personlighed ved at opbygge et klart genkendeligt forfatterskab, hvori Proust gang på gang udtrykker bestemte temaer. Fra et Mahayana-buddhistisk synspunkt er den ultimative sandhed nemlig karakteriseret ved, at mennesker ikke har individuel eksistens. Som vi husker, så kan verden ifølge Mahayana opleves på to måder: Fra et konventionelt synspunkt, som er den måde, vi normalt oplever verden på. Her har mennesker individuel eksistens; Sartre er Sartre, Proust er Proust. Men samtidig så kan verden også opleves ud fra det ultimative synspunkt, og her har ingen mennesker individuel eksistens; Sartre er en del af Proust, Proust er en del af Sartre. De er gensidigt opstået, og tomme for individuel eksistens og karakteristika.

Buddhisterne mener derfor, at for så vidt som Proust oplever sig selv som ”den store forfatter Proust”, så klynger Proust sig stadigt stærkere til illusionen om den konventionelle sandhed og den dualistiske opfattelse af verden, som ifølge buddhismen er årsagen til broderparten af menneskelig lidelse.* Ifølge buddhismen kommer Proust således længere væk fra sin sande natur (som er, at han er en uadskillelig del af alt andet, der eksisterer), hvis Proust tænker, at han har ”realiseret sig selv” og ”efterladt et selvportræt” gennem sit forfatterskab.

* Det er dog også muligt (om end usandsynligt), at Proust opfattede sig selv som tom for individuel eksistens og iboende karakteristika og sine værker som gensidigt opstået ud af alt, hvad der eksisterer, og ikke blot sit eget talent. I så fald ville buddhismen ikke klandre Proust, men kun eksistentialisternes udlægning af ham.

Forskellen er altså, at mens både buddhismen og eksistentialismen knytter ’det, som er virkeligt’ til faktiske handlinger og afviser tanker om hypotetiske handlinger som illusoriske, så sidder eksistentialisterne stadig fast i en dualistisk verdensopfattelse, hvor personer har individuel eksistens og iboende karakteristika. Ligeledes taler Sartre i Eksistentialisme er en humanisme om ”Prousts geni” som en konstant størrelse, hvilket buddhismen ville afvise, fordi det ville være at tro på, at ting kunne opretholde sig selv via deres egen karma: Selvom Proust er død, så ville karma’en af ”Prousts geni” ifølge Sartre være konstant. Det ville buddhismen afvise som ’eternalisme’, dvs. troen på, at tingene er permanente. Buddhismen ville i stedet mene, at idet Sartre taler om ”Prousts geni”, så er han selv med til at ændre dens karma ved at tilbyde et nyt perspektiv på Proust, og således vil det, hver gang nogen tænker eller føler noget om Proust, ændre opfattelsen af Proust, da hverken Proust eller hans værker besidder iboende karakteristika eller individuel eksistens.

Idehistorie: Det aktive og det passive dydsbegreb

af Pernille Sørensen, cand.mag.

I vor del af verden er det historisk set lykkedes kristenheden at monopolisere dydsbegrebet, og at definere det som en passiv tilstand. Men at dyden skulle være passiv er ikke nødvendigvis givet på forhånd. F.eks. står dén forestilling i skærende kontrast til ældre, aktive, romerske dyder som Firmitas (fuldbyrdelse) Industria (virkelyst), eller til rænessancens dydsforestilling, Virtú, der var blottet for moralistisk syre og i stedet defineredes som evnen til at handle på en måde som opnår værdifulde resultater. Således ser vi f.eks. Dante tilskrive Virtú til Djævelen såvel som til Helgengerne. I dette tilfælde består Djævelens Virtú i hans evne til at beherske tågen og vindene, men i dag ville vi næppe sig, at Djævelen var dydig.

Forestillingen om dyden som et passiv lever ubesværet videre i dag. F.eks. mener en af mine venner, at rettigheder ikke kan defineres positivt/handlende, men kun negativt/passivt. Derfor har han sit besvær med den del af menneskerettighederne som siger, at alle mennesker har ret til en uddannelse, altså en positiv ret der nødvendigvis må gøre indhug i de klassiske negative frihedsrettigheder. Ligeledes ser man I en generel politisk kontekst en vis akavethed i forbindelse med den aktive dyd, f.eks. på den radikal-humanistiske venstrefløj hvor man efterhånden har oparbejdet sit eget sekulære synderegister, såsom diskrimination, isolationsfængsling osv., men også på den liberalistiske højrefløj hvor man traditionelt ser statslig indgriben af enhver af som et onde.

Endelig kan man spore en vis berøringsangst overfor den aktive dyd, især hos kvinder eller hos mænd med traditionelt feminine psyker. Det er, tænker man, sikrere at indordne sig under større autoriteter, end simpelthen at handle for sig selv. Man ser tydeligt disse mennesker behandle dyden som et passiv, idet de hellere vil misse med øjnene, gøre sig til og håbe på det bedste, end de vil udvise Virtú og handle i overensstemmelse med deres værdier.