‘The Revolt of the Masses’ by José Ortega Y Gasset

/in /by

Summary of ‘The Revolt of the Masses’ by José Ortega Y Gasset

Chapter Ten: Primitivism and History

In this chapter, Gasset addresses the problem of primitivism and how to avoid it. He states that civilization is continuously threatened by primitive ideas (Gasset 61). Consequently, it is erroneous for the mass-man to think that civilization can sustain itself. It must be upheld, lest it slides into primeval nature (Gasset 61). The question, therefore, is how to prevent the invading jungle of nature. Gasset insists that the answer lies in history (63). It is only through historical knowledge that we can preserve and advance civilization. The author, however, cautions that this does not mean falling back into history, but rather recognizing it so that we may escape it and avoid previous mistakes (Gasset 66). An example of mass-men is given which includes the fascists and Bolshevists (Gasset 64). The author finds it inconceivable that fascists should embrace the same ideas that were triumphed over by liberalism. Such a move is labeled as primitive and retrogressive. Eventually, fascism is bound to be defeated by liberalism yet again (Gasset 65). Therefore, Gasset is against this primitive thinking by the mass-men and urges them to embrace history to uphold and advance civilization.

Chapter Eleven: The Self-Satisfied Age

            The problem presented in this chapter is that of the self-satisfied man. This is the typical expression of the mass-man. He is born into a life of abundance hence resulting in the impression that life is easy and plentiful without limitation. This allows him a sensation of power (Gasset 68). He, therefore, attains a sense of excellence which leads him to avoid subjection to judgment. With such character, he feels that he can intervene in all matters. Gasset compares such a person to a spoilt child or one born into a hereditary aristocracy (69). The latter, having worked for nothing, is forced to fit into the shoes of his ancestors. He can, therefore, never be himself and is subjected to a life of degeneration. Hence, a self-satisfied person cannot advance. This is a threat to civilization. Gasset affirms that over-abundance instills a sense of false-confidence and hence atrophying in people (70). He further offers examples of how the self-satisfied mass-man has made sports the center of his life and no longer pays attention to dressing. (Gasset 70). Such a man is labeled barbaric and uncivilized. People should, therefore, always be aware of the self-satisfied man as posing a danger to civilization.

Chapter Twelve: The Barbarism Of “Specialisation”

This chapter studies the mechanisms that produce the mass-man facilitated by the nineteenth-century civilization (Gasset 76). Liberal democracy and technicism are singled out as the mechanisms of that production. Technicism is the focus of this chapter. In the nineteenth century, the scientist is considered the typical mass-man since science is the root of civilization (Gasset 77). He is also considered superior in society due to his vast knowledge. However, scientists begin to specialize, and by the end of the 19th century, a typical scientist is only equipped with one science (Gasset 78). Despite the limited knowledge, the specialized scientist considers himself to be knowledgeable. Men with little knowledge can finally advance in science without studying its entirety. Gasset refers to such scientists as learned ignoramus (79). By falsely considering themselves learned, they do not subject themselves to the court of appeal. The result is the stupidity of thought, judgment, and action hence resulting in primitivism and barbarism (Gasset 80). It is for this reason that Gasset denounces specialization. Instead, he insists on the importance of consulting the history and entirety of science to sustain it and hence sustain civilization

Work Cited

Gasset, José Ortega Y. The revolt of the masses. WW Norton & Company, 1930, pp. 61-81.

Substance by Aristotle

/in /by

 

Introduction

The concept of substance is significant to Aristotle’s metaphysics. To understand why this is the case, one must first consider the three sciences that make up the science of metaphysics. These include the science of entity for what it is, the science of God, and the science of substance (Marias, 2012). The three are closely tied resulting in Aristotle’s conclusion that metaphysics is a single science. The science of entity studies different entities and regards the highest entity as God. This is an entity that is completely self-sufficient, hence, earning the title; ‘the highest entity’. The science that concerns itself with this entity is the highest science. This is the theological science or the science of God. Finally, all the entities find unity in substance. Substance permits the expression of entities and, consequently, that of being. Hence, Aristotle asserts that substance is the basic meaning of being. This relationship shows how substance features in Aristotle’s philosophy. All entities share the nature of being and the fundamental analogous unity of being is substance. Hence, all entities are substances.

Substances

In Aristotle’s metaphysics, a substance is a thing in itself. It is independent of others, hence exists in itself (Marias, 2012). This differs from the common understanding of the word such as when we refer to goods or property. Neither does it refer to the value of something such as when we talk of a man of substance. Instead, substances are viewed as things that consist of possibilities of each thing. For instance, we may consider ‘smooth.’ This is a word that describes the texture of a thing. Hence smooth cannot exist in itself. Therefore, it is disqualified as a substance. In this case, the substance is the thing it describes such as a stone. The stone makes smoothness possible. Qualities such as smooth are referred to as ‘accidents’ and are supported by substances. Another example is color. If we talk of a green leaf, the color green is made possible by the leaf hence it is dependent on the leaf. The color green is an accident while the leaf is a substance. Earlier on in the introduction, it was mentioned that substance is the analogous unity of being. It is important, therefore, to understand this relationship between being and substance.

Relationship between Being and Substance

            Being is the analogical nature of the entity. There are many different types of entities. In addition to the highest entity as mentioned earlier, there exist others including natural things and mathematical objects. Natural things are physical objects which contain the principle of motion within themselves, such as a tree, man, or a certain animal. Mathematical objects, on the other hand, do not exist as things but instead only exist in the mind (Aristotle, 2013). Regardless of the differences, all these entities share one thing in common. This is being. There are four modes of being including being by essence or by accident, by categories, true being or false beings, and potential and actual beings. These different modes share one thing in common; substance. Therefore, an understanding of being facilitates comprehension of substance.

Being by Essence or by Accident

            An entity can either be a being per se or by accident. For instance, we may describe a man as living and having athletic capabilities. This example enables us to distinguish between essence and accident. Life is a man’s essence. Without life, then there can be no man. On the other hand, athletic capabilities are gained by accident. In other words, prowess in athletics does not define a man in the same way that life does. However, whether by essence or accident, a being possesses substance. Life is possessed by a substance which in this case is a person. Similarly, the athletic capability cannot exist without a person as the substance. There are different modes of predicating a being. These are referred to as categories.

Categories

            The mode of categories permits us to observe the concept of substance openly. Aristotle offers several categories of being including substance, quality, quantity, place, relation, position, time, action, state, and passivity (Marias, 2012). All these categories share ‘substance’ in common. Suppose one asks: “what is the height?” In such a case one may answer, ‘6 ft.’ as the height. Placing aside the correctness of the answer, it is right to say that ‘6 ft.’ falls under the category of quantity. However, without substance, the ‘6’ does not make sense. In this case, the substance is represented by the word ‘is’ in the question. ‘Is’ may represent a man, a tree, a pole, or any other substance. In a different example, one may ask: “where is it?” If the answer is “it is in class”, then class falls under the ‘place’ category. ‘Is’ on the other hand represents the substance, whether a book or pen. Hence, all these categories only possess meaning when they refer to substance.

True Beings and False Beings

            Beings can either exist as true or false beings (Marias, 2012). The terms, in this case, are not applied in the commonly known sense. Instead of the common use of judgment to determine the trueness and falseness of terms, Aristotle refers to a specific thing. For instance, we may consider a common trend where a cake is baked to resemble objects such as a bottle. If we assume that great detail is put into the cake, then one might be convinced that it is a bottle at first glance. In such a case, the bottle is a false being as it shows a being other than its own. However, it is still a true being as a cake. Like in other modes, it is important to note that the beings described as true or false are substances.

The Potential and the Actual

            Beings can either exist as potential or actual. Aristotle offers us several examples such as that of a seed (Marias, 2012). Although it is a seed in actuality, it has the potential to become a tree. The same case applies to a bird’s egg. The egg is the actual while the bird is the potential. The same case applies to a child who has the potential of becoming a man. Aristotle, therefore, asserts that entities have an actual and a potential mode. This is the concept underlying the principle of motion which allows for potential entities to be achieved. Notably, one cannot describe these modes without mentioning substances, which in this case, are seed and tree, egg and bird, and child and man.

As explained above, substances are common to the different modes of being. Hence, the concept is central to Aristotle’s metaphysics. The study of modes of beings correlates to the different modes of substances. A different point of approach to understanding substances is by studying the various theories of substance to grasp the concept better. One of these is the theory of matter and form.

Theory of Matter and Form

            This theory explains the ontological structure of substance. Aristotle formulates it as a result of difficulties in classifying substances. One of the classes, the primary substances, is the individual things which are substances in the strictest sense such as a man, a tree, or a rock. The second class, secondary substances, is slightly problematic as it does not refer to individuals but instead to a collection. For instance, when one talks of trees in a general context, this does not refer to a separate thing. To clarify this issue, Aristotle explained that a substance is a compound of two elements: matter and form (Aristotle, 2013). Matter is defined as ‘what a thing is made of’ while form is ‘what makes the thing what it is.’ An example of a table is given, whereby the matter is wood, while the form is that of a table (Marias, 2012). Similarly if one considers a metal pole, the matter of the pole is metal and the form is that of a pole. This theory allows for the accounting of secondary substances such as species. Aristotle concludes that these are abstract ingredients of each separate thing. For instance, the species man is present in each individual man as the abstract form. Hence, they qualify as secondary substances.

Theory of Motion

            This theory explains motions within substances. It was earlier stated that substances consist of the possibility of each thing. In different wording, substances consist of the principle of motion (Marias, 2012). Like in many terms used in Aristotle’s philosophy, ‘motion’ has a different meaning in this case from our everyday use. It is closely related to the potential and actual modes of being as earlier explained. Hence, substances have an actual form and a potential form that constitutes motion. An oak tree is the potential form of its seed. Hence a seed possesses motion. Aristotle cautions that such motion is subject to reality rather than pure possibilities. An oak seed can only become an oak tree and not an animal, for instance, once it experiences motion. The same case applies to an egg. Once it turns to a bird, then it has experienced motion. Hence, substances experience motion from one mode to another. The only exception to this rule is God, who is pure actuality and uniquely referred to as the unmoved mover.

Theory of the Causes

            Through this theory, Aristotle makes substances to be known by their causes and principles. According to the theory, there are four causes of a substance. These include material, formal, efficient, and final causes (Marias, 2012). The material cause is the matter that a substance is made of. This was expounded in the theory of matter and form. The formal cause is also called the form. It determines the substance. The efficient cause is associated with the motion. It is the factor that initiates motion from the potential to actual substance. The final cause is the end substance or the purpose of the substance. If we consider the simple example of a table, then the material cause is the wood, the formal cause is the table, the efficient cause is a carpenter, and the final cause is also table. Notably, the formal and final causes coincide regularly. A different example is that of a pot. The material cause, in this case, is clay. The form is that of a pot while the efficient cause is the potter. Finally, the final cause is the pot.

Essence and Substance

            Aristotle took his time to distinguish between essence and substance. The term essence is used when describing the different modes of being. Hence, as earlier mentioned, a substance or entity can possess being by essence or by accident. Life is an essence in man but life is not a substance. Aristotle feels the need to expound on this. He clarifies that essence is what makes it possible for substances to exist (Aristotle, 2013). We can go further and ask ourselves; what is the essence of man? Modern science has already established that man is closely related to other animals that are mammals. However, various things set him aside from such animals. These include rationality and the ability to speak. Hence man is made possible by his rationality. Consequently, it is correct to state that man’s essence is his rationality. Similarly, a plant’s existence is made possible by its ability to carry out photosynthesis. Hence, photosynthesis is the essence of plants. These examples show both the distinction and relationship between essence and substance. Essence makes it possible for a substance to exist.

God as the Absolute Substance

            Various aspects of substance have been articulated including matter and form, motion, and causes. These aspects, however, introduce various problems. On the center stage is the problem of motion. If every substance consists of potential and actual mode, then events can be traced backward whereby we conclude that A was caused by B and B was caused by C and so on. If that’s the case, then we would keep moving back to infinity. Aristotle argues that this is impossible (Marias, 2012). Accordingly, there must have been a beginning to this motion. He refers to the beginning as God. God is pure actuality and the prime mover. This mover is neither moved nor does it move. Hence, God does not possess potentiality. However, this presents a second problem, that of matter and form. It was earlier indicated that a substance consists of matter and form. Matter is potential that actuates itself by adopting a form (Marias, 2012). But if God has no potentiality, then he cannot possess matter. Hence, God is pure form and also the absolute substance. Also, the Aristotelian God is absolutely self-sufficient and hence the highest entity. Since he is the prime mover, he makes it possible for the universe to exist. Consequently, it is important to distinguish him from the Christian God who is considered as the active creator of the universe.

Conclusion

            Substance is central to Aristotle’s metaphysics. The different types of entities described by the philosopher have one thing in common; they are all substances. Hence, this calls for an understanding of several aspects including the different modes of being and the various theories outlined in his explanation of substance. Such theories are that of matter and form, the theory of motion and that of causes. Aristotle’s metaphysics culminates in the description of God as the plenary substance and absolute entity. Notably, the substance theory succeeded in laying the groundwork for other sciences such as physics and offers an alternative understanding of God from a logical point of view rather than a religious one.

References

Aristotle (2013). The Metaphysics. Courier Corporation.

Marias, J. (2012). History of Philosophy. Courier Corporation.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

/in /by

 

The Context Surrounding the Case

This case is a consolidation of four different cases centered on the violation of the Fifth Amendment. The focus is placed on Ernesto Miranda as the petitioner. Miranda is convicted of kidnapping and rape in an Arizona state court (Miranda v. Arizona Podcast). This is amidst objection by the defense attorney that the defendant’s right to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments had been violated (Miranda v. Arizona [Oyez]). Among other things, the Fifth Amendment protects the accused against self-incrimination. Furthermore, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused a right to be assisted by counsel. Contrary to this, the police had obtained a written confession from Miranda without adequately informing him of these rights. Following the court verdict, the defense attorney moves to appeal in the Supreme Court of Arizona. The decision of the state court is upheld with the ruling that these rights were not violated since Miranda failed to specifically request for counsel. Miranda’s attorney then appeals to the United States Supreme Court resulting in Miranda v. Arizona (1966). It is worth noting that before this case, the US Supreme Court ruling on a similar case, Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), had held that accused persons have a right to counsel during police interrogations (Miranda v. Arizona). The question in Miranda’s case is whether the protection against self-incrimination extends to police interrogations.

The Outcome of the Case and its Implications

The US Supreme court ruled 5-4 in favor of Miranda. The main ruling was that statements obtained during custodial interrogations are inadmissible in a court of law unless the prosecution proves that there were procedural safeguards against self-incrimination (Miranda v. Arizona). This ruling was controversial. In its effort to safeguard the US adversarial system of Justice, many feared that it frustrated the prosecution efforts. In their view, this judicial precedent created a leeway that the accused could use to escape prosecution and walk free. Judge Earl Warren and his colleagues aimed to dispel these fears. In the court ruling, Warren clarified that the decision was aimed at protecting the Fifth Amendment (Miranda v. Arizona). In many previous cases, written confessions had been obtained through coercion, physical violence, intimidation, and promises such as immunity. Furthermore, the police custody environment was found to be intimidating for the accused. These factors are sufficient to discredit written statements. This ruling allows the accused to remain silent if they wish. It also promotes the assumption of innocence until proven guilty. While many believe that this ruling strengthened the judicial system, others feel that it was an unnecessary interpretation of the Fifth Amendment which hinders police work.

Liberal and Conservative Perspectives

The Miranda v. Arizona (1966) judicial precedent reflects a liberal view. The liberal ideology in the US is closely associated with the promotion of various individual freedoms, equality, and social justice. Before this legislation, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments were mainly applied by the rich and educated. In contrast to the less-privileged citizen, such people had a proper understanding of their rights. They could also afford counsel to guide them through the legal process. Miranda’s attorney argued on these grounds, that there was a need to safeguard the rights of every citizen despite socio-economic status. This included adequately informing them of their rights and providing them with legal representation hence promoting freedom and equality. The precedent fails to reflect conservative views. Conservatism is closely associated with the preservation of American traditions and values. Consequently, a law that appears to benefit suspected criminals is unlikely to appeal to conservatives. Richard Nixon, a staunch conservative, strongly opposed this decision in his 1968 campaigns for the presidency.

 

 

Works Cited

“Miranda v. Arizona.” Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, Accessed Apr. 6, 2020, www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/384/436.

“Miranda v. Arizona.” Oyez, Accessed Apr. 6, 2020, www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759.

“Miranda v. Arizona Podcast.” United States Courts, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Accessed  Apr. 6, 2020, www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/supreme-court-landmarks/miranda-v-arizona-podcast.

 

 

 

Qatari Business Law

/in /by

 

 

Question One

Each partner in a general partnership qualifies to be a manager. However, the partners may agree to delegate this role to one or more partners. The chosen partner is likely to be the biggest shareholder, reputable, and trustworthy. In some cases, an outsider may also qualify to be a manager. This must be a natural person and the partners have to agree.

Question Two

Limited Partners are prohibited from leading management roles because of several reasons. First, such partners have limited liability hence they don’t have much to lose from their decision except their contribution to the partnership. Secondly, this avoids the confusion that may arise from the participation of a limited partner in management. Finally, a limited partner is not as trustable as a general partner due to the latter’s unlimited liability.

Question Three

Allowing a non-Qatari to be a limited partner encourages foreign investment, given that the main role of a limited partner is to contribute capital.

Question Four

One of the similarities between a general partnership and a limited liability company lies in the capital required for establishment. Both forms of business have no minimum capital requirement for establishment. Another similarity is that both require a memorandum of association to be drawn up indicating details such as the names of the partners (State of Qatar 10).

Question Five

The requirement that one of the partners must be a Qatari citizen who owns 51% of the partnership has several disadvantages. Among them is that this law discourages foreign investment. A foreigner who wishes to establish a general partnership in Qatar is forced to look for a Qatari partner and grant them majority shares. Also, foreigners face the difficulty of forging business relationships with Qataris especially given that a general partnership is also built on trust.

 

Work Cited

State of Qatar. Law No. (5) of 2002. Retrieved on 30 Mar. 2020 from www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/qa/qa020en.pdf

Gene Therapy Strategies for Peripheral Neuropathies

/in /by

 

Peripheral neuropathy is a common neurodegenerative disease mainly resulting from the degeneration of axons. The condition can be hereditary or acquired (DiAntonio, 2019). It is commonly observed in patients with diabetes or those undergoing chemotherapy. It is characterized by dysesthesias such as crawling skin, numbness, tingling, and chronic pain. Unfortunately, peripheral neuropathy lacks a cure with current interventions relying on the treatment of symptoms. However, the understanding of the pathophysiology of the neuron disorder has revealed gene therapy as a possible treatment. Various gene therapy strategies for peripheral neuropathy have been discovered while others are still under clinical trials.

One of the gene therapies targets SARM 1 (Sterile Alpha and TIR Motif Containing 1), which is a protein-coding gene that plays a key role in axon degeneration. Studies show that SARM 1 protein is activated in the event of axon injury whether by crushing, cutting or drug damage (Washington University School of Medicine, 2019). The protein then triggers axon self-destruction. This gene therapy, therefore, aims to inhibit the mechanism of SARM 1. According to Washington University of Medicine (2019), successful tests in mice involved using a non-disease-causing virus to deliver a mutated form of SARM 1 which instead blocks axon destruction. Although not conclusive in human trials, this achievement in viral gene therapy indicates promising results.

Another gene therapy targets the Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF), a protein encoded by the HGF gene. It is multifunctional with angiogenic and neurotrophic properties (Nho, B., Lee, Lee, Ko, Lee, & Kim, 2018). HGF is chosen for its analgesic properties and functions in the sensory neuron survivability. In this case, a plasmid DNA (pCK-HGF-X7/VM202) is used to express two isoforms of human HGF. VM202 is delivered into the body via intramuscular injection, hence, increasing the expression of HGF in Dorsal Root Ganglia (DRG), sciatic nerve, and muscle. According to successful tests in mice carried out by Nho et al. (2018), it alleviates neuropathic pain associated with allodynia and hyperalgesia. This is achieved through suppression of pain-related factors in the DRG including transcription factor 3 and Colony Stimulating Factor 1 (CSF1).

A different gene therapy strategy has been developed for dealing with Gap Junction Protein Beta 1 (GJB1) gene mutations. This gene encodes the protein connexin-32 which plays a major role in neural communication. Its mutations may result in Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type X (CMT1X) characterized by demyelinated Schwann cells. Kagiava et al. (2016) undertook studies in GJBI-null mice to treat demyelinating peripheral neuropathy. The method involved using lumbar intrathecal injection to deliver GJB1. Furthermore, lentiviral vector was the mode of delivery. The intervention improved the expression of connexin-32 in approximately half of the Schwann cells in both peripheral nerves and lumbar spinal roots.

Gene delivery is an important consideration in gene therapy strategies. In addition to the use of lentiviral vectors, non-viral neuron-targeted nanoparticles may also be used in delivery. In a gene therapy study, Lopes, Gonçalves, Gomes, Saraiva, & Pego (2017) explored the viability of Thiolated Trimethyl Chitosan (TMCSH) nanoparticles to deliver Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF) aimed at treating peripheral nerve injury. BDNF protein is crucial in peripheral nerve regeneration and was delivered through minimally invasive intramuscular injection. Lopes et al. (2017) were successful in proving that nanoparticles are viable in gene therapy for peripheral neuropathies.

There are several gene therapy strategies for peripheral neuropathy. Some of these include the targeting of SARM 1 protein to inhibit axon self-destruction, administering HGF to relieve peripheral neuropathic pain, and intrathecal injection of GJB1 to promote the myelination of Schwann cells. Furthermore, the delivery of gene therapy via nanoparticle mediation is viable.

 

References

DiAntonio, A. (2019). Axon degeneration: mechanistic insights lead to therapeutic opportunities for the prevention and treatment of peripheral neuropathy. Pain, 160, 17-22.

Kagiava, A., Sargiannidou, I., Theophilidis, G., Karaiskos, C., Richter, J., Bashiardes, S., … & Kleopa, K. A. (2016). Intrathecal gene therapy rescues a model of demyelinating peripheral neuropathy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(17), E2421-E2429.

Lopes, C. D., Gonçalves, N. P., Gomes, C. P., Saraiva, M. J., & Pego, A. P. (2017). BDNF gene delivery mediated by neuron-targeted nanoparticles is neuroprotective in peripheral nerve injury. Biomaterials, 121, 83-96.

Nho, B., Lee, J., Lee, J., Ko, K. R., Lee, S. J., & Kim, S. (2018). Effective control of neuropathic pain by transient expression of hepatocyte growth factor in a mouse chronic constriction injury model. The FASEB Journal, 32(9), 5119-5131.

Washington University School of Medicine. (2019, January 17). Gene therapy blocks peripheral nerve damage in mice: Lays groundwork for developing treatments for peripheral neuropathy, other nerve diseases. ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 29, 2020 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190117142144.htm