Within philosophy there are two very different perceptions on reality that can inform a multitude of different disciplines whether it be ethics, sociology or politics, these two diametrically opposed philosophies are essentialism and relativism. The Greek philosopher Plato believed that all things within the universe had a realized and defined place within it meaning that, for an example, an apple was inherently an apple. Plato’s successor Aristotle maintained a different belief declaring that, to continue the previously used example, an apple was not truly an apple, but it is only identified as such by humans because we’ve seen a great many things that have such qualities and we categorized as such. This is the fundamental argument between essentialism and relativism within philosophy, albeit rather simplified.

Oftentimes essentialism is favored by most religions because their deity or deities are the creators of all and can thus give all things that they create those essential properties, such as morality for example. In Medieval Europe the catholic church would avoid using Aristotle’s work because his relativist views would undermine the authority of God on morality and would thus undermine the authority of the church.  Relativism is far more appreciated in the modern day because it provides a less rigid world view that can better explain all the profound differences around the world. There are many examples of these two ideas being debated during the modern day but i believe one of the best examples can be found in the form of morality. Both schools of thought find varying success in the modern world when being applied to morality, with relativism it is far easier to understand the difference in moral principle around the globe, whereas moral essentialism can’t easily explain away the differentiation in moral principles as easily.

The debate between essentialism and relativism even extends down to every single individual person and their own conception. French enlightenment thinker René Descartes coined the famous philosophical phrase “I think, therefore I am” establishing that no one can truly know or prove that anything exists in the universe, but one’s ability to ponder the possibility of one’s existence is proof of existence in and of itself. Descartes’ legendary phrase is an example of essentialism being applied to the self, one does not need to compare oneself to anything to be or exist one just is because they can think. There is a relativist position on the conception of the self of course and that comes from renowned German idealist philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel asserted that to merely think does not proves one’s existence or provide identity, instead only be comparing oneself to others can existence and actualization be truly achieved. Essentialism and relativism can be incredibly complex like in the contest between Descartes’ and Hegel’s views but are incredibly important to a great many ideas that we find ourselves and our society wrestling with in the modern day. It’s honestly pretty funny that after 2300 years of thought on this very subject and we as humans still haven’t come to a basic consensus on the basic nature of anything around, but it sure is interesting to try.

Western civilizations have supported and uplifted the individual all throughout each nation’s respective histories, ranging from the democratic and republican systems of Rome to the free market system that we see in the U.S today. I’ve always found the philosophy of individualism to be far more appealing than collectivism because it provides ample personal liberties to all, allowing for far greater personal growth and accomplishments. A great many artistic and scientific achievements in the west have come about as a result of supporting talented individuals and allowing them to push the boundaries of human imagination and discovery, through the patronage of great artists such as Leonardo DaVinci and Sandro Botticelli and great thinkers such as Johannes Kepler and Sir Issac Newton.

However the philosophy of individualism does have a few pointed flaws such as its disincentivization of achieving the greater good and selflessness, while also allowing for people to become slaves to themselves rather than society as a whole. Through valuing the individual over the greater good in some circumstances has caused entire provinces of the world to be conquered by a multitude of aggressive civilizations such as the Mongols because some provinces and nations attempted to throw other civilizations under the bus to protect their own but this would only allow the aggressors to boost their momentum and to continue to achieve victories until vast swaths of land had been conquered. Becoming a slave to oneself is probably the greatest issue with individualism as I see it because it causes people to become subject to their own desires and whims and entirely unable to surpass these carnal desires to become a better person. I believe that being a slave to yourself is far more destructive to being a slave to others, because in one situation you don’t even have the ability to control your will or attitude which causes one to feel entirely powerless and demoralized.

Some of my easiest philosophical readings came from western philosophers like Plato, Nietzsche and Locke, and they still influence my views and beliefs a great deal to this day. Protecting the individual is most in line with natural rights and thus oppresses and infringes upon the rights of the fewest people which is the ideal situation. Even with the shortcomings of individualism however I still find myself leaning towards it over collectivism as a beautiful ideal to achieve and fully realize in society because it would help many individuals reach their greatest potentials and will improve society as a whole as a result.

One year ago Nivea, a german skincare company, started an advertising campaign for their new deoderant brand that was trying to exagerate the importance of keeping white clothes clean of imperfections using their deoderant.

Now the inappropriate nature of this advertisement is most likely readilly apparent to us Americans because of the racially charged climate we live in now, that allows us to better understand the offensive nature of this advertisement. The slogan “White is Purity” caused some minority groups to perceive the ad as white supremacist because of this tagline. Nivea clearly misunderstood their audience because the chosen slogan to be advertised in the U.S was so racially charged and able to misconstrued in the U.S.

Nivea also attempted to appeal to pathos by showing an ideal bright and well lit backdrop to accentuate the “purity” of white, but this ended up backfiring on them because of the poorly chosen slogan. It doesn’t quite help dissuade critics from believing this to be a white supremacist message when the model in question is a standard European woman.

Because Nivea did not properly understand their target audience all of their attempts at appeals ended up backfiring on them and further dug their own grave. Shortly after this ad was posted Nivea decided to pull it down while also issuing an apology to the general public, their public statement being,  “We are deeply sorry to anyone who may take offense to this specific post. After realizing that the post is misleading, it was immediately withdrawn,”. The insensitivity of this ad had cause Nivea to lose some public good will and caused them to take a hit to their credibility as a company. It shows just how important it is to make proper appeals, while also being knowledgable of your target audience, elsewise you’ll end up diggin yourself into a hole, rather than boosting your reputation up as intended.

Sony’s games division was not very successful, comparatively to their other main competitor within the market, Microsoft’s Xbox 360. However, in 2013 Sony released the Playstation 4 alongside Microsoft’s Xbox One; and what proceed was a brilliant advertising campaign by Sony and an equally awful one by Microsoft.

The advertisement Greatness Awaits by Sony is a one minute and thirty second commercial that showcases all that the new Playstation has to offer, arousing excitement and appealing to pathos, asks the watcher a series of hyperbolic rhetorical questions to pique an interest in what they are showing and it understands the core audience of the Playstation and directly appeals to them.

The commercial appeals to pathos through its exciting visuals that cause the watcher to become interested in the product. When the primary speaker within the commercial addresses the audience directly it also makes the commercial more engaging and exciting to keep the watcher watching. The over the top tone off the commercial also creates a more exciting and interesting commercial even though it might be a bit absurdist in nature. The commercial will directly appeal to those who are interested in video games, by creating excitement for the experiences that await them should they buy the console, as well as creating an exuberant tone that core gamers are incredibly receptive to.

The rhetorical questions asked throughout the video by the primary speaker are entirely absurd in nature, but they do cause the audience to become interested in what the commercial is trying to sell you. The questions asked to the audience are entirely hyperbolic, but when the watcher is exposed to the final shot of the commercial the absurd rhetorical questions are almost justified when the watcher views the surreal scene before them. The imagery and one take cinematography in the advertisement continue to add on to the energetic and exciting tone of the commercial and only continue to make the commercial more successful in its appeals to pathos through the emotion of excitement.

The final exemplary aspect of this commercial is that it understands the core audience that they are trying to sell the Playstation to, those being gamers. As a result of understanding the audience that they are trying to persuade it makes the pathos implemented in this advertisement all the more effective. One pathos appeal won’t work with a different audience so it is paramount that an advertisement understands its audience so that it can most effectively appeal to the emotions of its audience.

“A man with a why can endure any how”- Friederich Nietzsche

“In the U.S today the A report released today from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that suicide rates for women 45 to 64 increased nearly 60% between 2000 and 2016. For men of the same age the suicide rate increased almost 37% over that time.”,according to the Wall Street Journal. The sharp rise in suicides among the age demographic of Baby Boomers and Generation Xers is a recent phenomenon, the like of which hasn’t been seen before in human history. This issue in society is one that psychologist Viktor Frankl identifies as a resultant of the existential vacuum.

The existential vacuum is a psychological problem that manifests in individuals who have not yet found or have lost meaning in their lives. In Frankl’s seminal book “Man’s Search for Meaning” Frankl asserts that there is no universal meaning to all, but meaning does exist and is tailored to each individual person. Drawing from his experiences in a concentration camp during World War 2, Frankl analyzes how some are able to endure such profound suffering while others are unable to do the same. Towards the end of his magnum opus Frankl introduces the psychological study of logotherapy.

Logotherapy seeks to find the individual meaning and purpose to people’s lives through working with the patient. Frankl observed that the existential vacuum had come into prevalence within the U.S shortly after World War 2 as a societal phenomenon, and while the existential vacuum had existed before it was never so widespread. Frankl noted that the existential vacuum could arise from being unable to establish any particular purpose in life for his patients and that oftentimes people chasing pleasure would ironically never find it, instead finding an existential vacuum.

Today in the U.S we as a society tend to fixate and focus and superfluous things that might bring us short-term pleasure, but will never give us true satisfaction and meaning. I hypothesize that the societal phenomenon that Frankl observed is becoming an even more sweeping issue throughout society, as seen in the rising discontentment and suicides among the Baby Boomer and Generation X groups, two groups who had grown up in the shadow of the rising existential vacuum. Due to these poor souls being unable to discover the why, they are left unable to endure any how, but I believe that if our society focuses on long-term contentment rather than short lived pleasures we can eliminate this issue and stop the unfortunate upward trend in the suicides of middle-aged men and women.

Smartphones have radically changed the way the most people in the United States operate in their day to day lives, but has it been for the better? Jean Twenge answers this question in her article “Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?” by asserting that Millennials and Generation Z have had their development severely stunted as a result of smartphone usage.

Twenge cites data that displays a rise in anti-social behavior among teenagers, but I would argue that smartphones are only a correlate to this anti-social behavior and not the cause. Social media and other electronic entertainment act as platforms to keep teenagers entertained because they act as alternatives for social interactions. Loneliness is also not necessarily caused by smartphones but is a result of social media, particularly Instagram, psychological studies cite teens comparing their lives to the lives of others being a primary cause of teens feeling dejected and lonely.

I don’t really believe that the Millennials and Generation Z are going to be “lost to smartphones”; I’m instead worried about Generation Alpha, a generation that has access to smartphones when they’re as young as 4 years old. I believe the more dangerous issue when it comes to smartphone usage is the development of a dependence upon smartphones. Seeing as Generation Alpha will have only known a world with smartphones, they might not truly be able to function as well without them, however this pitfall could be avoided by having parents simply not allow their children access to their phones until they know their children are properly independent of the devices.

I believe that smartphones are the least of my generation’s problems, a far more dangerous and profound issue being the lack of meaning that is permeating through society. This existential vacuum as it were, causes people to engage in destructive lifestyle choices and can even lead to severe depression should it not be rectified. Generation X is presently being profoundly affected by this issue and I belive that if we as a society do not recognize and fix the issue smartphones will be the least of my generations problems.

At the age of thirteen years old the greatest samurai in Japanese history had risen to prominence after he had defeated his first foe in one on one combat, this boy’s name was Miyamoto Musashi. Musashi was a samurai who lived around the early Edo period of Japanese history who would later go on to author a book titled The Book of Five Rings that would convey his knowledge of martial arts to those who were interested.

Musashi first dicussed the idea of martial arts not just being a means of defeating opponents in combat but rather a lifestyle of discipline and hard work that one must live to succeed. Musashi believes that without proper discipline within martial arts and life one will fall victim to their own personal desires and whims and will never truly have control over their lives. Musashi felt that one of the most important factors to one’s success within combat and life was to dedicate oneself to a reasonably disciplined lifestyle.

Similarly to the beloved martial artist Bruce Lee, Musashi then also discussed the importance of one remaining fluid and adpaptable within combat. Being adaptable and versatile in combat, similar to the nature of water, is paramount to succeeding in any combat encounter because it provides one with the ability to change when the situation calls for it. Musashi used a personal anecdote to convey his teaching by recollecting on a duel he had with a samurai master, this very master had perfected all traditional combat technique and was incredibly regimented; it appeared impossible for Musashi to best this master of the craft. Mushashi then thought on the issue and decided to show up late to the duel, the master was so lurid at the insolent display of Musashi that he was unable to concentrate on the fight and made a fatal mistake that cost him his life. The samurai master’s rigidity and Musashi’s adaptability is what brought Musashi his victory and showss that by being versatile and clever one can beat even the greatest of opponents.

Musashi also discussed the importance of removing all bias from one’s perception of the world to eliminate all mental obstructions that leads one astray from the truth. Should one remove all personal biases and interpretations of the world based on personal experience they will be able to view what truly is without any obstruction. Without the obstruction of bias one can react flawlessly within combat , due to a lack of participation and can truly understand the world. This idea came from Musashi’s belief in Zen Buddhism, a common religion among the upper class in japanese society at the time, which he dedicated most of his time to towards the end of his life along with teaching pupils of martial arts.

In recent years the quality of rhetoric in the U.S has degenerated significantly due to a decline in civil discourse as well as an increase in ad hominem attacks against political opposition. Ironically partisanship has decreased within the U.S in the past decade, yet people are more politically polarized than ever before.

As a result of this political polarization people on both the left and the right have stopped truly listening to the other side causing most involve in politics to primarily appeal to their base and effectively abandon attempts to listen to or to appeal to the other side. Without the need for politicians and political activists to maintain a civil discourse with their opposition these groups will then be disingenuous with how they present their opposition. As these political actors create more straw men of their opponents the general population that follows them will actually believe their opponents to be the caricatures, and as a result of this will refuse to listen to their opponents because they believe them to be so deplorable.

In France during the late 18th century tensions between the aristocracy and the common people were at an all time high, the common people of France merely desired more representation within the aristocratic government, but the aristocracy refused to hear their pleas. As a result, the common people of France had begun the French Revolution in 1789 and had begun to attack French institutions. The noble French revolution would eventually degenerate into the Reign of Terror because of the Jacobin party and Maximilen Robespiere, who would create a dichotomy between the French common people and the aristocracy through disingenuous and caustic rhetoric. Through the use of divisive rhetoric meant to polarize society and the disdain each side showed for the other, a tumultuous situation would escalate into a revolution and, eventually a reign of terror.

The rhetoric permeating throughout U.S politics today will cause more polarization because of the disingenuous and disparaging rhetoric used, which would ultimately create a less open and tolerant political climate in the U.S. To rectify the issues with rhetoric and political polarization in the U.S we must avoid making disingenuous characterization of our political opponents and should avoid falling into the trap of confirmation bias.