Germany Reborn by Herman Goering (review)

 

The book Germany Reborn by Hermann Goering is one that seeks to provide an insight into the workings of Nazi Germany. Its main target is the foreign audience, especially those that seem to be critical of the way that the new German government is handling matters in the country. It is important to note that this book is pertinent and it can be a partially useful source because it provides an insight into the manner through which the Nazi Party has essentially transformed the German society into one that is more desirable than during the Weimar Republic.

One of the major features of this book is that it addresses the rise of the Nazi Party and its coming to power in Germany. Goering goes into detail concerning the reasons behind the formation of the party and the manner through which Adolf Hitler was able to rise swiftly within its ranks to become its leader (Goering, 1934). It further undertakes to make sure that there is the promotion of a scenario where there is a discussion of the manner through which the party came to power, for which, despite its being unconventional and perhaps even through the threat of violence, Goering is unapologetic.

Moreover, Goering considers the massive economic and social progress that has been made since the beginning of Nazi rule. He notes that in the months since the coming to power of the Nazi Party, unemployment has not only been halved, but there has also been the effective planning of infrastructure projects that will soon be taking place. Furthermore, there has been the development of a situation where the punishing premium rates by insurance companies have been reduced and the cost of land has been stabilized through the intervention of government.

Goering also addresses the role of the police in the book. He takes credit for the creation of the secret police or the Gestapo, considering it a powerful tool to not only prevent dissent against the state, but also any subversive activities that might be undertaken by anarchists and communists. This shows the manner through which Goering, and the Nazi Party, look upon communists as a direct threat to society that needs to be destroyed. He is also an individual that equates Jews to communists and seems to suggest that the latter is a Jewish conspiracy to undermine European society.

Goering also takes on an anti-Jewish stance and promotes the idea that they are subversive to German society. He therefore suggests that the removal of their influence over German society is a critical need in order to prevent its corruption. He states that there has been a blossoming of German cultural life since the subversive influences of the Jews have been removed from society; essentially looking at the process as purification.

In conclusion, Germany Reborn is a source that should be looked upon with partial skepticism. This is because it is essentially an attempt to ensure that Nazi propaganda is spread not only in Germany, but also in other European countries. Finally, it can also be considered to be a reflection of the vision for a German society that the Nazi Party has as well as the genuine beliefs of an individual that is the second most powerful person in the country at the time.

The Last Knight by Norman Cantor

 

The Last Knight by Norman Cantor is one that seeks to show the life that was led by John of Gaunt. This is an individual who, despite never having worn the crown of England, played an important part in its history. His influence was based mainly on the considerable wealth that he controlled based on his marriage to Blanche of Lancaster. His lifestyle can be compared to that of modern billionaires, and this is a critical aspect of the book, because Cantor seeks to show that John was an individual that not only had considerable wealth, but was also an individual that had a lifestyle to fit his status in society (Cantor 12). Like a considerable number of his contemporaries, and in a similar way to the billionaires of the modern world, John is an individual who did not show any interest in bringing about change in society, because the established economic and social system favored him greatly. This paper seeks to show that the lifestyle of the aristocrats in the Middle Ages was similar to that of billionaires in the modern world.

John of Gaunt was the wealthiest individual in the whole of England during his time, controlling a lot of land in the country. Most of this wealth came from his wife, Blanche of Lancaster, the daughter of the first Duke of Lancaster. This, in addition to his status as a prince, ensured that John had both the wealth and status to go with it and he used both of these to further his ambitions on the continent. The rents that he collected from his landholdings made it possible for his to have a lifestyle that far surpassed his contemporaries, because he also had control over a considerable number of peasants who worked the land. John, like the billionaires of the modern world, was extremely close to power, and this was by virtue of his being both the son and an uncle to a king. A result of this situation was that he ended up in a situation where he was able to influence the events taking place in England, especially during the minority of his nephew, Richard II, often acting as a moderating influence in the turbulent political system (Cantor 195). John had three marriages, and the first two were strategically placed in such a way that ensured that placed him in alliances with powerful and wealthy families. This is similar to modern billionaires, who tend to marry among themselves or to powerful individuals in society as a means of maintaining their wealth and status. John of Gaunt also controlled a substantial part of the wealth, which was based on land ownership, in England, and this can be compared to the way that modern billionaires control a majority of the wealth in the world today.

It is also essential to consider that John of Gaunt is depicted as an individual that is willing to make use of his considerable wealth for personal gain. He failed to enhance the lives of the peasants who lived in his lands and were a major source of his income. Instead, he undertook the task of pursuing his personal ambitions on the continent, as seen in his seeking to gain the Castilian crown through his wife, Constance, the daughter of Peter of Castile, following the latter’s death. Cantor presents an image of John that is considerably complicated, because it shows that he was an individual that was extremely chivalrous, yet also had tendencies towards arrogance, and the promotion of social stratification through the lack of consideration for the poor. This is a lifestyle and character that is reminiscent with modern billionaires; who often seek to make sure that they undertake a diversity of extravagant activities, and lack consideration for the poor around them. Even though the billionaires in the modern world have the ability to change society for the better, they do not undertake the action, and this can be considered to be a means through which they can be able to maintain the status quo, where they remain at the top of the social hierarchy (Cantor 199). Like John of Gaunt, the billionaires in the modern world tend to promote the continued oppression of the poor through the provision of low wages, while at the same time employing thousands of people. The aristocracy of the Middle Ages, exemplified by John, can be considered the precursors of the billionaires of the modern world, because they had similar lifestyles and attitudes.

Norman Cantor successfully shows that there is not much difference between the aristocrats of the Middle Ages and modern billionaires. He shows the despite being the richest people of their time and earning considerable revenues, they did not care about the poor in their society. Instead, they sought to promote the status quo, in such a way that there is little difference between the poor in the Middle Ages and the modern world, with the latter being in a worse off situation than their counterparts.

The Philosophical Aspects of the Lion King Film

 

The Lion King is a film that has been extremely influential on many individuals, especially among young people. However, it is often easy for individuals to dismiss the significance of this film, because at first glance, it seems to only be a journey by a young cub towards the attainment of justice not only for his father, but also his family and people as well. A deeper look reveals a number of worldviews and philosophies, which play a critical role in making sure that there is a greater understanding of the world. One of the most significant factors concerning the Lion King is that it essentially shows the various philosophies, especially religious and ethical ones, which are prevalent around the world. The Lion King is closely related to philosophical values based on ethics, religion, and nature, which will be discussed in this paper.

The Lion King is closely tied to religious philosophy, and this is especially the case when it comes to the way that it handles the issue of destiny. Most religions in the world often seek to address human destiny, and this is one of the reasons why it is critical to make sure that there is the advancement of various doctrines to describe it. This film contains a number of Christian religious philosophies which are addressed in a number of ways throughout its course. However, while Christianity is quite dominant, it also shows a number of worldviews that contain other religious overtones, which play a critical role in bringing about a greater understanding of the situation at hand. For example, Scar, the brother of Mufasa, and Simba’s uncle, is the main antagonist of the film, whose personality is presented as an evil force which has to be overcome. Mufasa, on the other hand, is the representation of the ultimate goodness, and his presence in parts of the film, especially after his death, represents hope for Simba. After Mufasa is tricked to his death through Scar’s machinations, the latter essentially convinces Simba that he murdered his father, making the cub flee, and leaving Scar as the ruler of the animal kingdom (Reinhartz 14). However, Scar’s rule is one that is not only evil, but also destructive, to such an extent that the entire kingdom ends up suffering. A consequence is that Simba ends up returning to take his rightful place as ruler and all is restored to its former glory. The example above is one that can be considered to be based on religious philosophy, so that Mufasa represents God, Simba represents his son or an incarnation of him, and Scar is the representative of evil, or even the devil.

Another prominent element in this film is the idea of the afterlife. The latter case is also one based on religious philosophy, which involves a process where there is the promotion of a situation where there is need to bring about an understanding of what happens when an individual dies. This is a lesson that is expounded upon by Mufasa, when teaching Simba about the circle of life. He teaches Simba that although lions eat the antelope, when lions in turn die, they end up turning into grass, which in turn feeds the antelope. In this way, Mufasa’s lesson essentially notes that nothing in nature goes to waste, and there is need for each of the creatures within it to take on their role responsibly so that the circle is not interfered with. While Mufasa does not tell his son where the soul goes when an individual dies, later in the film, Mufasa appears to Simba in the form of a storm cloud, encouraging him to take on his rightful place as ruler of the animal kingdom. Therefore, the idea that the soul goes somewhere following death is an important aspect of religious philosophy, and it is addressed, albeit briefly in the film, through Mufasa’s later appearance. It promotes the idea that the souls of the dead are constantly watching over those that they have left behind (Fadner 4). Moreover, it allows for the development of a better understanding of the way through which religions understand the meaning of death, and how they seek to give hope to their adherents that there is an afterlife.

Ethical philosophy also plays an important role in this film. This is especially the case considering that the various characters within it display varying ethical values, which are representations of the realities in the world. For example, Mufasa is an example of a highly ethical leader, who only seeks to ensure the best for his people (Lu 3). He is portrayed as a wise leader, as seen through the lesson that he gives Simba concerning the circle of life, and the reason to make sure that there is the establishment of a balance within the animal kingdom. His rule essentially serves as an example and a beacon of hope for Simba, who seeks to emulate him. However, there are instances in the film where unethical leadership can also be seen, as in the case of Scar, who is an individual that seems to be more focused on amassing power and satisfying his greed than in the welfare of his people. Scar, along with his hyena allies, because of their ineffective rule, ends up devastating the animal kingdom, to such an extent that it leads to a situation where the natural balance is interfered with. The excessive hunting to satisfy the needs of the Scar and his allies ends up leading to a disaster, which also makes the people come to the realization that they need another ruler like Mufasa in order for the kingdom to survive. The return of Simba, and his challenge to Scar’s rule can be considered an important event because it not only leads to the return of just rule, but also one of a leader that is ethical in his approach to leading his kingdom.

In conclusion, Lion King is a film that has a considerable number of philosophical stances. Most of these are related to religious philosophy and the manner through which it has an everyday effect on the lives of individuals. The characters in the film are reflections of human character, and these span the entire spectrum of personalities. All of these are related to the way that humans live, and the film promotes the philosophies that aim at describing these characteristics and their ethical consequences.

Rousseau's Advocacy of the General Will

 

The general will is considered to be the will that is held by an entire society in a bid to ensure that its common interests are protected. It is a central tenet in the political philosophy of Rousseau, and an essential concept when it comes to the idea of what a republican should be in the contemporary world. Rousseau seeks to ensure that there is a distinction between the general will and that of disparate groups, and argues that freedom and authority are not contradictory, and are instead complementary because they involve the protection of individuals within the state. Furthermore, he suggests that legitimate laws tend to be those that are developed based on the general will of the public; meaning that laws are created because the people will it rather than their rulers. Therefore, when it comes to obeying the law, it is essential that all citizens of the republic do so because they are essentially seeking to make sure that they advance a situation where they obey themselves as members of their respective political communities. Rousseau argues that the general will is an essential aspect of a republican political community because it ensures that individuals are better able to exercise their freedoms without the interference of government because the people are the essential basis of the said government.

The general will is not just an ideal, but is instead essentially the power that is held by citizen in their capacity the political community of the state. Rousseau’s take on the general will is one that considers it based on the political aspects rather than the universal ones that was previously the case. The general will is based on the need by individuals within the state to make sure that they are able to make decisions based on their sense of justice; essentially voting based on their conscience. It is under such circumstances that individuals are able to become conscious of their personal interests as part of the political community, which ensures that they are able to tap into their individual conscience and come up with ways through which they can serve the public good. The interests of individuals are therefore translated to those of the republic as a whole, which promotes a situation where as citizens serve the state, they are essentially serving themselves as well. Under such circumstances, Rousseau argues that the general will is right, although he is also critical of those individuals who put feelings at a lower level than reason. Therefore, the political will is one that seeks to express the will of the people while at the same time showing their feelings of affection or attachment to their own political communities.

In his conception of the general will, Rousseau seems to promote the idea that all individuals are capable of seeking the common good. Under such circumstances, they end up being morally bound to ensure that they achieve a unanimous decision that is good for their entire political community. Therefore, in the ideal republic, the members of the political community often seek to make sure that they develop laws that express the general will. Even in those situations where they might be wrong, it is implied that the development of laws still seeks to achieve justice, and under such circumstances, rather than following the interests of individuals or certain groups, it ends up following the general will of the people. When an individual goes against the laws that have been created by the general will, he or she is going against both the instituted government, and their higher interests as part of the political community. Thus, when an individual is forced to follow the law, it is a means of “forcing him to be free”. The general will is a means through which the freedom of individuals in society is guaranteed and maintained at all times for the good of all the individuals within it.

Despite the considerable debate that has been sparked by Rousseau’s advocacy of the general will, it is pertinent to note that his main concern is the preservation of autonomy and civil liberty that is enjoyed by individuals. Based on his definition of the general will, the government is created based on the general will and it does not have free reign over the people because they are eventually the ultimate authority within the republic. Thus, the government is only legitimate under circumstances where it is made subordinate to the will of the people, meaning that a government that does not follow the general will is not legitimate. The government has to be subordinated to the law because the latter is an expression of the general will of the people. A failure by government to abide by the law means that it has made itself a separate political body and is no longer a part of the political community that is based on the general will of the people.

Blaise Pascal, Immanuel Kant, and William James on God

 

Among the most important common beliefs that were held by Blaise Pascal, Immanuel Kant, and William James is that we cannot know or prove that God exists. However, these individuals also offered justifications for their decision to believe that God exists. In this paper, there will be a comparison and contrast of their various stances in order to determine the individual that offers the best and worst justification for the belief that God exists.

One of the most significant arguments made by Pascal is based on the Expectation Rule, which essentially suggests that no matter the smallness of the probability that God exists, as long as it is in the positive, it will ensure that there is the advancement of the belief that God exists over the one that suggests the opposite. Having reason to believe that the proposition that God exists is true ensures that there is the promotion of means to bring about the rational belief of that existence. This is a situation which can ensure that there is precedence over any evidential strength to the contrary because it is based on the assumption that because an entity is believed to exist in a positive manner, it is the rational action to state that it is true. Pascal makes use of the rational argument to promote his belief in the existence of God and this is to such an extent that he considers the formation of the belief that God exists is the rational thing to do even in a situation where there is little likelihood of this circumstance being true. His argument considers that having a belief in a proposition is important because it allows the proposition to take precedence over any evidential strength even though it lacks any evidential support.

James, on the other hand, is of the opinion that belief should be based on an act of faith rather than seeking out evidence concerning the belief. He proposes that one of the most important strategies that can be employed in the process of making sure that there is the advancement of belief is to seek out the truth by any means possible, even at the risk of error. James is extremely critical of such ideas as Clifford’s Rule, which advance the need to ensure that there is the avoidance of all error in the process of finding truths. Instead, he advances the idea that it is essential to consider that errors are inevitable in the process of finding truths because the avoidance of errors can lead to a situation where there is a risk that there will be a loss of certain truths. He further suggests that there are certain instances where facts cannot be developed at all unless there is an element of faith in the process. James provides the example of the manner through which social organisms coexist as a means of showing that belief is a strong factor in the functioning of any social institution. This is especially considering that individuals often undertake their own duties in the society in the faith that others are doing the same. A consequence is that faith remains a prerequisite when it comes to functioning in any cooperative environment.

Kant sees faith as being a means through which it becomes possible for individuals to engage with their will, and this is unlike knowledge. Having faith is a process that involves the commitment of individuals to morality and this is to such an extent that it not only involves the affirmation of the commitment, but also a free act of faith that ensures that individuals have bound themselves to morality. Kant sees morality as inevitably leading to religion and that it is essential that the latter exists because it allows individuals to have access to morality. This stance can be interpreted as Kant’s belief that moral law depends wholly on the existence of God, and that religion serves the function of making sure that individuals stick to a strict moral code. Therefore, in this situation, religion seems to exist as a means of making sure that individuals are bound to morality, and this is in such a way that one cannot exist without the other; essentially affirming the existence of God.

In conclusion, the comparison of the beliefs of the philosophers above concerning the existence of God shows that Kant’s justification is the most convincing. This is because he promotes the idea that morality cannot exist without religion, and that they both rely on one another to function effectively. A belief in the existence of a Supreme Being is important because it encourages individuals to ensure that they undertake to observe morality because without such a belief, they will not have the motivation to coexist with others peacefully. Pascal’s wager, on the other hand, can be considered the least convincing because he does not offer any substantial evidence other than one based on belief, which ensures that it is the easiest argument for the existence of God that can be challenged.