To preface this post, I consider myself a patriot of a particular kind, so it may be worthwhile to take everything I say with a grain of salt.
It is my view that the rebel is often the sincerest patriot. The rebel often has a vision for the country -- of what it is, of what it could be, and a willingness to do whatever it takes to push the country to live up to its true potential. The rebel is the person with the fortitude, the courage, and the conviction to not only stand up for his or her vision of the country, but take action, regardless of the hardship, to make that vision a reality. It is a nobility that is sorely lacking in American society today.
What, then, is patriotism, if its truest manifestation is in the rebel? Patriotism, then, is twofold. The first aspect is having a vision for the country -- an ideal version of the country that is equitable for all people involved. It is an unfortunate fact that this vision can be mistaken -- blinded by a particular ideaology or other firmly held belief that is neither based on reason, nor truly in the best interest of the country -- but those who hold such deeply flawed views can be at best a false patriot, and at worst a true danger to the real patriot, a person who is so blinded by their own perceived moral superiority that it is the obligation of the true patriot to reveal the true intentions of such person and work as hard as they can to ensure the security of the freedoms of the people against such scoundrels and charlatans.
The second, far more important aspect, is that patriotism is part of a relationship. The patriot only supports one's country as far as that country supports the patriot. When the government of the country does not meet the needs of the people, it is the responsibility, nay, the OBLIGATION of the patriot to work to correct that injustice. All potential avenues to right this injustice must be explored, and if it is found to be irreconcilable, the patriot has a duty to either out the current government by political means (voting in a new government), or by violent means (casting aside the shackles of the old regime by force to institute a new, more equitable government).
I'll throw in a few quotes, then leave this to the hounds for critique.
"A little rebellion now and then... is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government." -- Thomas Jefferson, rebel and politician
"Intelligent discontent is the mainspring of civilization. Progress is born of agitation. It is agitation or stagnation." -- Eugene V. Debs, labor activist and socialist
"No matter that patriotism is too often the refuge of scoundrels. Dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-raising remain the true duty of patriots." -- Barbara Ehrenreich, author, activist, and Democratic Socialist
"The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never allow us to bring about genuine change." -- Audre Lorde, poet and political activist
To end with a question: How might we distinguish the true patriots from those who simply spread hatred, fear, and/or indifference in the name of patriotism?
Sunday, February 28, 2010
A Response to "The Easy Way Out"
Sarah asked: "If there is such a need for shortcuts in society, how can we help allievate them? Are there any other things in our life that are decreasing our quality of health because of these shortcuts?"
I think one of the fundamental problems our society has that makes these sorts of short-cuts so tempting is the heavy emphasis we put on high productivity. We only have so much time in our days, so we, as a culture, want to get as much done as possible, lest we be seen as lazy and weak. This makes all sorts of short-cuts tempting to increase efficiency. Why sit at home and make yourself a nice, healthy breakfast when you can just drive through McDonald's and get a breakfast sandwich and a coffee? Why go to a library and read a book when you're a few clicks away to a summary of it on the internet? You can get more done by multitasking, or using these short cuts, and this is (wrongly, in my view) seen as virtuous.
These sorts of short-cuts, these easy ways out, are ultimately cheapening the value of our time and of our existence as human beings, and there are no quick or easy solutions to it. Nothing short of a major cultural shift will help to alleviate this powerful desire for ultra-efficiency, and as we have seen in our own society, it's usually the wealthy, the powerful and privileged individuals, who get to drive the cultural shift (there are too many examples to count on this -- heavy deregulation of industry, the Christian Right's take-over of conservatism, the Supreme Court ruling that corporations are people).
The only way to overcome these forces is to try to bring about a cultural shift in the opposite direction -- perhaps a campaign of civil disobedience, organized resistance to the unjust laws spewing forth from Congress and the Supreme Court, peaceful protests, sit-ins, strikes, and boycotts of corporations that violate international law and buy politicians to bend over to their will. Though I still insist that the option of armed resistance remain on the table -- as written in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." (Emphasis added)
Given the great many factors that would stand in opposition to such a grass-roots attempt at shifting the "mainstream" cultural values, and the general spirit of ignorance and complacency that has descended upon America and (most) Americans, while there is certainly virtue and value in attempting to resist these sorts of cultural forces, for any sort of campaign of this nature to be effective, it must be on a massive scale. I must admit, I have little hope of such a shift occurring until the number of people bracketed out of the system, alienated, used, abused, and ultimately cast aside by the corporations, becomes so great that the people have no choice but to rebel. For it is the poor who have nothing to lose (save their lives) and everything to gain (most importantly their dignity) from a revolution.
To end with a question: Given the cultural factors that push so many people in to these sorts of shortcuts, how likely is it that we, as a culture, will be able to overcome these forces before we have damaged the earth, and our government, beyond repair?
I think one of the fundamental problems our society has that makes these sorts of short-cuts so tempting is the heavy emphasis we put on high productivity. We only have so much time in our days, so we, as a culture, want to get as much done as possible, lest we be seen as lazy and weak. This makes all sorts of short-cuts tempting to increase efficiency. Why sit at home and make yourself a nice, healthy breakfast when you can just drive through McDonald's and get a breakfast sandwich and a coffee? Why go to a library and read a book when you're a few clicks away to a summary of it on the internet? You can get more done by multitasking, or using these short cuts, and this is (wrongly, in my view) seen as virtuous.
These sorts of short-cuts, these easy ways out, are ultimately cheapening the value of our time and of our existence as human beings, and there are no quick or easy solutions to it. Nothing short of a major cultural shift will help to alleviate this powerful desire for ultra-efficiency, and as we have seen in our own society, it's usually the wealthy, the powerful and privileged individuals, who get to drive the cultural shift (there are too many examples to count on this -- heavy deregulation of industry, the Christian Right's take-over of conservatism, the Supreme Court ruling that corporations are people).
The only way to overcome these forces is to try to bring about a cultural shift in the opposite direction -- perhaps a campaign of civil disobedience, organized resistance to the unjust laws spewing forth from Congress and the Supreme Court, peaceful protests, sit-ins, strikes, and boycotts of corporations that violate international law and buy politicians to bend over to their will. Though I still insist that the option of armed resistance remain on the table -- as written in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." (Emphasis added)
Given the great many factors that would stand in opposition to such a grass-roots attempt at shifting the "mainstream" cultural values, and the general spirit of ignorance and complacency that has descended upon America and (most) Americans, while there is certainly virtue and value in attempting to resist these sorts of cultural forces, for any sort of campaign of this nature to be effective, it must be on a massive scale. I must admit, I have little hope of such a shift occurring until the number of people bracketed out of the system, alienated, used, abused, and ultimately cast aside by the corporations, becomes so great that the people have no choice but to rebel. For it is the poor who have nothing to lose (save their lives) and everything to gain (most importantly their dignity) from a revolution.
To end with a question: Given the cultural factors that push so many people in to these sorts of shortcuts, how likely is it that we, as a culture, will be able to overcome these forces before we have damaged the earth, and our government, beyond repair?
Sunday, February 21, 2010
On the Morality of Revolution
I shall, in this post, put forward a radical proposition for the critique of my peers. Specifically, that a violent revolution is both a morally justified cause, and a necessity for the continued viability of the United States.
Why would a violent revolution ever be a morally justified cause? This is simple: there are times when government gets to the point that it is so corrupt, and the corruption is so ingrained into the system, that the only way to repair the damage is to dissolve the current government by means of force. There is a long history of violent rebellions against corrupt governments. Indeed, this very nation is the product of a violent rebellion. Revolution has long been the only choice left to people so oppressed by their governments that only by arms could the people seek to rectify the various injustices hefted upon them by their own government.
And what of the idea of revolution being our only choice? Like in Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and countless others, corruption has become ingrained into the very political system. Politics have become less about what is beneficial to the people and more about creating cults of personality around leaders, and a competition between liberals and conservatives to paint each other as the source of all the people's ills, even as politicians of both sides play the system and deny the people basic rights, such as health care, a decent living wage, and access to education, rights that other industrialized democracies (notably in Western and Northern Europe) recognized decades ago.
The system, as it currently exists, forces corruption. There is no way to get anywhere in the system without playing by their rules. It silences and marginalizes all opposition as "unpatriotic," "unAmerican." It has divided this country, and seeks to suck its very lifeblood out of the masses of people, for the benefit of the super-rich. It is unheeding of the will of the people, and must therefore be dissolved and replaced with a government that is responsive to the needs of the people, and works for the benefit of the governed, NOT the governors.
To end with a question: Is this idea, the idea of a violent revolution, morally justifiable? Or is it the choice of disillusioned and possibly delusional radicals, an option best left aside and never touched?
Why would a violent revolution ever be a morally justified cause? This is simple: there are times when government gets to the point that it is so corrupt, and the corruption is so ingrained into the system, that the only way to repair the damage is to dissolve the current government by means of force. There is a long history of violent rebellions against corrupt governments. Indeed, this very nation is the product of a violent rebellion. Revolution has long been the only choice left to people so oppressed by their governments that only by arms could the people seek to rectify the various injustices hefted upon them by their own government.
And what of the idea of revolution being our only choice? Like in Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and countless others, corruption has become ingrained into the very political system. Politics have become less about what is beneficial to the people and more about creating cults of personality around leaders, and a competition between liberals and conservatives to paint each other as the source of all the people's ills, even as politicians of both sides play the system and deny the people basic rights, such as health care, a decent living wage, and access to education, rights that other industrialized democracies (notably in Western and Northern Europe) recognized decades ago.
The system, as it currently exists, forces corruption. There is no way to get anywhere in the system without playing by their rules. It silences and marginalizes all opposition as "unpatriotic," "unAmerican." It has divided this country, and seeks to suck its very lifeblood out of the masses of people, for the benefit of the super-rich. It is unheeding of the will of the people, and must therefore be dissolved and replaced with a government that is responsive to the needs of the people, and works for the benefit of the governed, NOT the governors.
To end with a question: Is this idea, the idea of a violent revolution, morally justifiable? Or is it the choice of disillusioned and possibly delusional radicals, an option best left aside and never touched?
Supernaturalism and Morality
Shelby asked: "As Emily, and Professor Johnson, and Aristotle mentioned, sources of morality are never empirical. Therefore, aren't all of our world-views somewhat supernatural?"
I do not think this is the case. As I mentioned in class, it is very easy to argue that morality can in fact have an empirical basis. We consider murder to be wrong because we do not want a stranger to walk up to us and kill us. We consider lying to be wrong because, in order to make informed, rational decisions, we need to have accurate data, and lies give us incomplete or false data, and thus hinder our ability to make rational decisions. Even a pro-life versus pro-choice stance in terms of the abortion issue can have an empirical basis. Do we consider the fetus itself to be a new life? It's living tissue, to be sure, and genetically unique, but is it a human until it can survive on its own? That question could go either way, and there's certainly scientific evidence that could be drawn for both camps.
While I am drawing on examples, they illustrate a key point: morality can, in fact, have a purely naturalistic basis. This is not meant to imply that they DO, but it merely makes the case that it CAN, and that both naturalists and supernaturalists can have the same moral principles, and merely draw from a different body of evidence to back them up.
To end with a question: Can there be such a thing as a universal moral principle?
I do not think this is the case. As I mentioned in class, it is very easy to argue that morality can in fact have an empirical basis. We consider murder to be wrong because we do not want a stranger to walk up to us and kill us. We consider lying to be wrong because, in order to make informed, rational decisions, we need to have accurate data, and lies give us incomplete or false data, and thus hinder our ability to make rational decisions. Even a pro-life versus pro-choice stance in terms of the abortion issue can have an empirical basis. Do we consider the fetus itself to be a new life? It's living tissue, to be sure, and genetically unique, but is it a human until it can survive on its own? That question could go either way, and there's certainly scientific evidence that could be drawn for both camps.
While I am drawing on examples, they illustrate a key point: morality can, in fact, have a purely naturalistic basis. This is not meant to imply that they DO, but it merely makes the case that it CAN, and that both naturalists and supernaturalists can have the same moral principles, and merely draw from a different body of evidence to back them up.
To end with a question: Can there be such a thing as a universal moral principle?
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
In Defense of Idealism
In the Philosophy Toolkit, the claim is put forward that, in the debate of realism vs idealism, "the burden of proof rests with idealism." I would therefore like to begin a defense of idealism.
What is idealism? I think the debate might have been misframed in the toolkit. Idealists would not "outright reject the notion that we can know something about a world external to our own minds." Well, perhaps some would, but certainly not ALL. Idealism, as I understand it (and it may be wrong) would simply be the concept that there is some spiritual or otherwise otherworldly force that guides the world we know, be it a God, an all-consuming consciousness, or even a world of forms, as Plato suggested.
It would seem to me that idealism serves as a necessary counterbalance to claims of realists. Idealism gives us a necessary feeling of purpose, a reason to suppose that perhaps there is some larger guiding principle to our lives, be it a God or a collective unconscious that connects us in ways that we may not ever be consciously aware of. Realistic examination of the world can explain HOW it works, but it cannot offer an answer to WHY. Idealism serves this purpose.
Perhaps the greatest advantage to idealism is that it can serve as a guide to realism. With an ideal form, an ideal system of government, we can take the ideal and attempt to implement what we can in the real world. And would it not be just a tad idealistic to purpose theories on how the world functions, even if we then temper these ideas with comparisons to the real world?
Further, the claim that "common sense ... favor[s] a fallibilist version of realism" is, I think, an extremely tenuous claim. The very concept of "common sense" is steeped in sociocultural understandings that render the term practically useless in philosophical debate. What may be "common sense" to one philosopher may be utter rubbish to another. The claim would seem to only support a further implication of the weakness of idealism without any sort of substance to be made for the claim.
To end with a question: can the debate between two seemingly contradictory concepts, like realism vs idealism, ever be brought to a definitive victory for one side?
What is idealism? I think the debate might have been misframed in the toolkit. Idealists would not "outright reject the notion that we can know something about a world external to our own minds." Well, perhaps some would, but certainly not ALL. Idealism, as I understand it (and it may be wrong) would simply be the concept that there is some spiritual or otherwise otherworldly force that guides the world we know, be it a God, an all-consuming consciousness, or even a world of forms, as Plato suggested.
It would seem to me that idealism serves as a necessary counterbalance to claims of realists. Idealism gives us a necessary feeling of purpose, a reason to suppose that perhaps there is some larger guiding principle to our lives, be it a God or a collective unconscious that connects us in ways that we may not ever be consciously aware of. Realistic examination of the world can explain HOW it works, but it cannot offer an answer to WHY. Idealism serves this purpose.
Perhaps the greatest advantage to idealism is that it can serve as a guide to realism. With an ideal form, an ideal system of government, we can take the ideal and attempt to implement what we can in the real world. And would it not be just a tad idealistic to purpose theories on how the world functions, even if we then temper these ideas with comparisons to the real world?
Further, the claim that "common sense ... favor[s] a fallibilist version of realism" is, I think, an extremely tenuous claim. The very concept of "common sense" is steeped in sociocultural understandings that render the term practically useless in philosophical debate. What may be "common sense" to one philosopher may be utter rubbish to another. The claim would seem to only support a further implication of the weakness of idealism without any sort of substance to be made for the claim.
To end with a question: can the debate between two seemingly contradictory concepts, like realism vs idealism, ever be brought to a definitive victory for one side?
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Is Beauty Skin Deep?
Michelle asked, "What do you think about the saying Beauty is skin deep and do you believe it?" I absolutely do not believe it.
When we say that "beauty is skin deep," we are usually referring to someone's outward appearance, and silently judging them. Implicit in the claim that beauty is skin deep is a critique: "this person spends all their time looking good, so they must be stupid, or shallow, or lack *insert character trait that I clearly possess*." It is a defense mechanism, and it confuses what beauty truly means.
True beauty is about more than outward appearances. If it were not, we could not say that a novel, a poem, a figure of speech, a song, is beautiful. We clearly say that all of these can be beautiful, and thus beauty must mean more than simply outward appearances. In my humble estimation, true beauty, at least in terms of the evaluation of other humans, comes not from their outward appearance, but their inward experience. Beauty is not in the clothes that we wear, but in the things that we do, the way we feel, the way we act, the way we treat others. THAT is true beauty. It comes from those traits, as mentioned in my previous post, that speak to us in some way, and fill us with the joy and pleasure that we get from no other experience.
To end with a question: Is this a legitimate view on the nature of (human) beauty, or is it an overly-romanticized view on the subject that disconnects from reality?
When we say that "beauty is skin deep," we are usually referring to someone's outward appearance, and silently judging them. Implicit in the claim that beauty is skin deep is a critique: "this person spends all their time looking good, so they must be stupid, or shallow, or lack *insert character trait that I clearly possess*." It is a defense mechanism, and it confuses what beauty truly means.
True beauty is about more than outward appearances. If it were not, we could not say that a novel, a poem, a figure of speech, a song, is beautiful. We clearly say that all of these can be beautiful, and thus beauty must mean more than simply outward appearances. In my humble estimation, true beauty, at least in terms of the evaluation of other humans, comes not from their outward appearance, but their inward experience. Beauty is not in the clothes that we wear, but in the things that we do, the way we feel, the way we act, the way we treat others. THAT is true beauty. It comes from those traits, as mentioned in my previous post, that speak to us in some way, and fill us with the joy and pleasure that we get from no other experience.
To end with a question: Is this a legitimate view on the nature of (human) beauty, or is it an overly-romanticized view on the subject that disconnects from reality?
Beauty and the Aesthetic
Beauty has often been a hotly debated topic in philosophical discussions. What is the nature of beauty? How does it relate to the aesthetics? Does it all simply come down to taste? I would like to put forward the radical proposition that there are, in fact, objective standards of beauty, and that these standards are closely related to our aesthetic understanding.
First, what do I mean by the aesthetic understanding? No, I am not referring to Roger Scruton's book in any way. Rather, I refer to that emotion that we feel when we are presented with something we consider beautiful, that feeling of pleasure at the work, be it a song, a good book, a painting, or a sunset. I hate to use the term aesthetic emotion, but I feel it serves well here, as, unlike Bell, I am not suggesting that only certain "sensitive people" experience this emotion, but rather that it is a human universal, even if we do not have the precise words to describe it. It is a term of convenience to compensate for our language's lack.
What, then, are these standards of beauty? I could hardly dare to venture into such a topic in a mere blog post and with such a feeble mind as my own, though I shall attempt to find a starting point. Beauty is a trait of an object, be it sensory (as in auditory or visual) or mental (such as comes from reading a book), that connects with the viewer in some way. It is at once a universal and deeply personal experience, combining our individual likes and dislikes (inherent character traits) with our life experiences (learned character traits).
This may not, at first glance, seem to be a universal definition, as it does not point to any specific quality in a thing that makes it beautiful. But I believe it is the only FAIR way to account for beauty in a way that does not discount the individual, that allows two different people to see an object, and for one to say it is beautiful, and the other to say it is not (which is, itself, I believe, an incorrect usage. We SAY something IS beautiful, when what we really mean is that something is beautiful TO ME, this is beautiful according to MY perceptions and MY experience.). It is up to the individual, then, to define what these aspects may be. Or, to put it another way... beauty truly IS in the eye of the beholder.
To end with a question: Is it possible for a term, such as beauty, to have a definition that is both universal and subjective, as I have attempted to show?
First, what do I mean by the aesthetic understanding? No, I am not referring to Roger Scruton's book in any way. Rather, I refer to that emotion that we feel when we are presented with something we consider beautiful, that feeling of pleasure at the work, be it a song, a good book, a painting, or a sunset. I hate to use the term aesthetic emotion, but I feel it serves well here, as, unlike Bell, I am not suggesting that only certain "sensitive people" experience this emotion, but rather that it is a human universal, even if we do not have the precise words to describe it. It is a term of convenience to compensate for our language's lack.
What, then, are these standards of beauty? I could hardly dare to venture into such a topic in a mere blog post and with such a feeble mind as my own, though I shall attempt to find a starting point. Beauty is a trait of an object, be it sensory (as in auditory or visual) or mental (such as comes from reading a book), that connects with the viewer in some way. It is at once a universal and deeply personal experience, combining our individual likes and dislikes (inherent character traits) with our life experiences (learned character traits).
This may not, at first glance, seem to be a universal definition, as it does not point to any specific quality in a thing that makes it beautiful. But I believe it is the only FAIR way to account for beauty in a way that does not discount the individual, that allows two different people to see an object, and for one to say it is beautiful, and the other to say it is not (which is, itself, I believe, an incorrect usage. We SAY something IS beautiful, when what we really mean is that something is beautiful TO ME, this is beautiful according to MY perceptions and MY experience.). It is up to the individual, then, to define what these aspects may be. Or, to put it another way... beauty truly IS in the eye of the beholder.
To end with a question: Is it possible for a term, such as beauty, to have a definition that is both universal and subjective, as I have attempted to show?
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
The Nature of the War on Terror
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/its-the-economy-undergraduate/
I read this article today, and found it rather disheartening. Perhaps I hold a personal bias, knowing not one, but two men who, in a few short months, will be deployed to these wars that have seemed to have dropped completely from our radar as we stress over the economy and health care reform. It is not that these domestic causes are unworthy of our attention. It is merely that we forget that we are at war at our peril.
I won't be counting this as an official blog post for the week, though I will end with a question: how often do you, personally, think about, or talk about, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and should we be having a louder, bigger public dialogue about them?
I read this article today, and found it rather disheartening. Perhaps I hold a personal bias, knowing not one, but two men who, in a few short months, will be deployed to these wars that have seemed to have dropped completely from our radar as we stress over the economy and health care reform. It is not that these domestic causes are unworthy of our attention. It is merely that we forget that we are at war at our peril.
I won't be counting this as an official blog post for the week, though I will end with a question: how often do you, personally, think about, or talk about, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and should we be having a louder, bigger public dialogue about them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)