Re: more wonders

June 1, 2004

Dear Phoebe,

zozie@... wrote:

>In a message dated 5/27/04 4:25:15 PM, Dan writes:

>

><< I agree entirely. This is, imo, what is right about fundamentalism. It

>speaks to the reason why I believe that, if the American regime is to be

>

>preserved, it will be preserved in large measure as a result of American

>Christian fundamentalism. And if the cost is a few crusades, so be it. >>

>

>What happens to the huge number of people who are NOT Christian

>fundamentalists in your scenario? Are they to be, as in Medieval times,

compelled to accept

>and attest to the beliefs of the regime?

>

There was a time when the expression of atheistic or " secular humanist "

attitudes in America was subject to informal - but very effective -

social censure. To be the " village atheist " was not a good thing. It

wasn't necessary for the expression of such views to be against the law

- it just wasn't done. People who had their doubts kept them to

themselves, or between themselves and a few close friends, perhaps. I

consider this to have been a healthy solution to the problem. I don't

have the book in front of me, but I seem to recall a story told by de

Tocqueville about an American bailiff who is confronted with the problem

of swearing in a witness who didn't believe in God. He asked the judge

what to do. The judge was perplexed because he had never run across a

witness who claimed not to believe in God.

I will also mention that the American regime has never demanded that

everyone espouse the very same religion, and I would not ask for that

either.

> And, since human nature seems to

>have changed little over millenia, will many not simply mumble the phrases in

>public but privately (and doubtless secretly) practice something entirely

>different?

>

That's OK. One can't ask for more than that. A little hypocrisy in the

service of the society is a fine thing, imo. Do you say everything you

think? I don't either.

> And will that not just perpetuate the pattern, since belief is a

>combustible and will eventually explode when confined under pressure? Another

long

>round of upheavals thus awaits us.

>

Of course it does. I consider that to be part of the permanent human

political condition. As you say, human nature has changed little or not

at all. Peace may be the natural human condition, but war is an

expectable interlude. I don't know what the new age will bring, but

there is no reason to believe that it will bring permanent peace. Jung

certainly does not promise any such thing. So, imo, the old truth

remains the truth: if you want peace, prepare for war.

>

>Seems to me we still don't get it quite right -- how to balance all these

>different saints on the head of a radio-active pinhead.

>

>Interesting discussion. And I, for one, appreciate that so far it has been

>discussion and not personal attacks. The above paragraph is a real question,

not

>meant to be divisive. How do you see those crusades you mention being some

>sort of solution?

>

Perhaps in sort of the same way that Athens was good for Sparta, and

vice versa. They serve to define and strengthen each other. Perhaps a

certain amount of adversity is good for the human animal, as it

apparently is for the human individual. To finally achieve, if it could

be called an achievement, a state of universal and permanent peace,

prosperity, safety and entertainment would be very bad for human beings,

imo.

Maybe I should also say that I don't necessarily consider Islamic

fundamentalism to be dehumanizing and " evil, " as I did the Soviet

regime. Islamic fundamentalism represents, to be sure, the enemy of my

country, and I would treat it as such, but it does not follow that it is

simply evil.

Regards,

Dan

>

>Best,

>phoebe

>

June 2, 2004

Dear ,

So you would not consider a social or political system, be it based upon

" religious " values or not, which fettered, enslaved or punished freedom of

speech, action or made proscriptive gender distinctions " evil " in any way?

I take it then that you are not fully agreed with the United States

constitution? Or that if you are, it can only apply to certain people, that

the freedoms it proclaims are not - as it claims - self evident at a

fundamental human level?

.

June 2, 2004

Dear ,

G Heyward wrote:

> Dear ,

>

> So you would not consider a social or political system, be it based upon

> " religious " values or not, which fettered, enslaved or punished freedom of

> speech, action or made proscriptive gender distinctions " evil " in any way?

No.

I think you know my views on this question already, so I must assume that you

want me to air them further on this forum :-). Very well.

Rule of law is not evil. Rule of law is necessary. Those who demand perfect

justice from laws and from a regime are mischievous (at best), because any

given set of laws is virtually certain to be imperfect, and indeed probably

quite imperfect. Demand for perfect justice tends to make people

immoderately dissatisfied with their laws, and more inclined to disobey them -

which is imo most likely to result in less justice, not more. " Civil

disobedience " is a contradiction in terms. There is no such thing as civil

disobedience. What there is is revolution. Revolution is a serious thing.

Otherwise, there is law breaking.

The city lives or dies on the basis of shared, received opinion, while the

philosopher as philosopher cares most about discovering the truth.

Discovering the truth requires questioning the received opinion, the shared

opinion of the city. If the philosopher is permitted to do this -

especially in public, where the spirited young men can hear him and admire him -

public confidence in the necessary body of shared opinion is likely

to be shaken. People will start to wonder if there really are going to be 77

virgins (or whatever it is) waiting for them after they die fighting for

the city, after listening to the philosopher.

Thus is there is a " tension " (as certain political philosophers with a gift for

ironic underestimation have put it) between the interests of

philosopher - the lover of truth - and the city. To make matters more complex,

the philosopher is arguably the highest form of man - the exemplar of

the best that the type " man " has to offer. The best man is by virtue of his

virtue a threat to the city upon which all men - including the philosopher

himself - depend upon for survival. God will have His little jokes.

People - especially the older common people - understand all of this

intuitively, and hence are likely to look squiggly-eyed at the philosopher (and

the sophist - but the people cannot distinguish the two). Aristotle states that

the philosopher's non-philosophic " allies " are most likely to be the

gentlemen, not the people. Aristophanes, in _The Clouds_, speaks for the people

contra the philosopher, specifically contra Socrates. In that play, a

corrupt old man sends his son to Socrates' " thinkery " to learn to be a sharp

lawyer, so that he (the corrupt old father) can weasel out of paying his

debts. Instead, the son learns to beat up on his father. Moral corruption leads

to acceptance of philosophy/sophistry contra the law, which leads to

more moral corruption and the attacking of the old ways - a vicious circle.

What to do? One solution - the Spartan solution - is to disallow entirely any

public questioning of the laws. As Leo Strauss points out, Socrates

would have been killed at birth in Sparta. However, because laws are imperfect

and sometimes must be questioned, Spartan law makes a necessary

exception. Men over sixty may question the laws exclusively among their age

peers, when no young men are around. Public philosophizing would not be

tolerated.

Another solution is represented by Athens, a rather corrupt, easy going and

somewhat unstable (but beautiful) city where all sorts of things are

tolerated: money making, man-boy love, idleness, democracy, free speech, art,

boozing, sophists - and philosophy (OK, they killed Socrates finally,

but they tolerated him for seventy years). Where all things are permitted,

excellence is permitted too.

Yet another solution is the medieval " town-gown " solution, where philosophy

literally and figuratively has its place, and where it is tolerated as

long as it stays in that place. I don't see why this is not a near-ideal

solution to the problem.

The modern attempt at a solution involves the effort to resolve the " tension "

between philosophy and the city by making philosophy friendly and

acceptable to the city. I know of two ways in which this has been attempted: (1)

Philosophy offers the public a " deal " : tolerate philosophy, tolerate

our free inquiry, and we will use what we learn to ease your suffering - to cure

diseases, increase crop yields, control the weather, etc. We will use

philosophy to ease man's estate. This offer results in what I consider to be one

of the funniest passages in philosophy that I have come across,

Descartes' vow (at the end of _Discourse on Method_) to devote himself to the

healing art:

" I will just say that I have resolved not to employ the time which remains to me

in life in any other matter than in endeavoring to acquire some

knowledge of nature, which shall be of such a kind that it will enable us to

arrive at the rules of Medicine more assured than those which have as yet

been attained.... "

(In the previous paragraph, Descartes has defended his decision to write in

French rather than Latin - 'nuff said).

This turns out to be a Pyrrhic victory for philosophy, because philosophy is

reduced to " science. " Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

The other modern attempt (2) at reconciling philosophy to the city of which I am

aware appears to be by means of simple declaration: " Congress shall

make no law... " We just teach people to believe - we inculcate the belief - that

free inquiry is an unmitigated and unalloyed public good, as long as

it does not lead people to break the law (which European monarch was it who

said, " Say what you please, but obey the law " ?). A risky strategy. (The

motto of Faber College in the film _Animal House_ is " Knowledge is Good, " lol.)

It works as long as the people are not morally corrupt. What happens

when they are? The American founders were, imo, correct in maintaining that the

sort of republic that they founded depended upon a moral and religious

populace to succeed (see Washington's second inaugural address). This is why I

believe that, if the republic - and liberal democracy generally - is to

be saved, fundamentalist Christians and other seriously religious people will be

instrumental in saving it. We Americans are now on the wrong track,

and will end up like " old Europe " if we don't watch it. Free, decent, secular -

pick any two.

>

> I take it then that you are not fully agreed with the United States

> constitution? Or that if you are, it can only apply to certain people, that

> the freedoms it proclaims are not - as it claims - self evident at a

> fundamental human level?

The constitution is one thing, the Declaration of Independence something else.

There are arguments about which is indeed the founding document

(although convention has settled on the DOI). One Indiana Senator referred to

the DOI as " a self-evident lie. " Not all lies are bad, of course. The

DOI claims of universality does often, it seems to me, put us Americans in an

embarrassing bind.

What appears self-evident to me is that government is legitimized by justice,

not by consent of the governed. What legitimizes rule is ruling well.

Consent of the governed is a practical necessity - you can't govern people who

are rioting all the time, and there are always more of them than there

are of the aristoi - but it is nothing more than that. The notion that every

adult, at every time and place, has some natural right to a vote is imo

self-evident nonsense. I have personally had the experience of explaining to

severely and profoundly retarded, institutionalized adults about their

" right to vote, " and quite a comedy it was, too. Enfranchising everybody was a

big mistake.

There is more than one legitimate form of government, and different forms of

government are suited to different peoples at different times. I do not

assume that modern liberal democracy as practiced in and by the USA is right for

everybody. I have, to repeat, no gripe against Islamic law for

Muslims (for example) as long as they keep it to themselves. Further, I do not

blame Muslims for objecting to incursions by corrupt aspects of

contemporary Western culture - for example, Hollywood movies that teach

secularism, greed, feminism, filial disobedience, substance abuse and the

like. They have a perfect right to reject all that.

There is no doubt that, had I lived as myself as a middle aged adult in 1776, I

would have been a Tory. British rule of the American colonies was just

not that bad (that whirring sound you hear is my DAR grandmother spinning in her

grave). My suspicion is that a group of very smart Englishmen saw an

opportunity, unlikely to be repeated, for an experiment in government, and they

took it.

The above is my opinion. None of it can be justly taken to mean that I am not

now loyal to my own.

Regards,

Dan

>

> .

>

> " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may

be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. "

>

> H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama

>

June 3, 2004

Dear Machiavelli...oh excuse me, Socrates, no I mean Dan,

I personally don't think much of philosophers if they think much as expressed

here. .Further, in all seriousness who really needs any one telling one what to

do?. So let's scratch philosophers as the highest anything and leave them in

their ivory tower and let them come out when they want to join in.

Paradox, ambivalence is what's bothering us, old friend. The rule of law is

compatible with the freedom of the individual and he expresses it if he must by

" civil disobedience " . he knows he will be punished by society, but considers

that the price of integrity.Freedom and the rule of law have always been

opposites. We shape both to where it becomes feasible.Human beings have learned

to compromise.

What is " received opinion " Does it come from on high...the philosophers as king?

Philosophers may discover truths but not The Truth, for one thing. And excuse

me, who elected them to speak for the rest of society?Does having a Ph.D in

philosophy (redundant I know)make someone more able to govern than anyone

else?Does it make a better person?

Yeh, there's that nasty word 'elected " again. This post cannot not even go

back in Plato's time, It is

a mythical kingdom fantasized. Most of the human race , especially the educated

part, would send anyone with these views packing, and I think they would be

right.The perfect society has never appeared in reality.

Representative government and equality under the law isn't perfect, but it sure

beats any rule by so called " wise men " It is the understanding of what a human

being really is that separates these two points of view. He is not a robot one

winds up, feeds and clothes and sends to dull work,.the drones, while the

educated and moneyed decide what is best for everyone (excluding themselves)

The highest form of man is not a philosopher, It is a responsible man dedicated

to the freedom of the individual under the rule of law, while realizing he does

not live in a perfect world.. His education may come from his search for truth,

from his love of man, or for his wish to live in peace with his neighbor.He may

have personal beliefs or he may not, but he treats everyone with justice.

The " people " are you and me, Dan. They consist of garbage collectors,

professors,Mc workers, CEO and politicians , Mc workers and all

manner of achievements.They want to be the best they can be and not be ordered

around by someone who knows best...philosopher...indeed???

This is a very contrary view.

Dan: " Enfranchising everybody was a big mistake. "

And who is going to decide who can vote? An I.A. test? " a poll tax? property

owners? all those who make a good salary? the philosopher? Yes we do exclude

some people from the privilege of voting:felons, non citizens prisoners...anyone

else? Elections are it .That's because one human life is worth as much an any

other. That to most human being is justice

Now all this corruption. We are ankle deep in it. Agreed. But it arises from the

human soul in all manner of conditions and all manner of people. We are not

going to change human nature or have a nation of only philosophers. We will have

to do the best in the society we have, made up of good, evil smart dumb and all

manner of in betweens. That is the only way to reduce corruption to a mass that

is controllable.Allow these people, all of them to decide when they have had

enough corruption , and want a different group of elected people.

Dan said:

" This is why I believe that, if the republic - and liberal democracy generally

- is to

be saved, fundamentalist Christians and other seriously religious people will be

instrumental in saving it. We Americans are now on the wrong track,

and will end up like " old Europe " if we don't watch it. "

Well, old Europe has made it this far. I doubt it will sink into the sea, or

become obsolete.

It will change and continue to change as a result of outside forces. I wouldn't

mind living in any of the so called old Europe, indeed I have, and found a much

civilized country, at the moment dedicated to the rule of law.By the way

" liberal democracy " and " fundamentalism " are oxymorons. Impossible to have both

at the same time.

It is folly to believe that religious fanatics can be the impetus to a free

society. We don't need to be saved. (some people as it happens think we already

have been) This is a new era, not the Middle Ages when fanaticism ran loose. We

are not on the wrong track at all. We are on a very human track, good sometimes,

bad at other times, incorruptible occasionally, corruptible generally.I for one

do not desire safety above freedom and I doubt many people who have experienced

any form of dictatorship whether Hussein or philosophers would stand for it very

long.

We could have a perfect society, any time. All we have to do is make us all

perfect. That is the only way.But in reality we are instead human beings of all

sorts who demand a right to be in charge to some measure of their own lives.

There is no perfection on this planet.

N0 way envisioned by anyone who does not understand human nature will ever work

for very long. Heaven, maybe, paradise with its 77 virgins maybe, but not here

on this planet.Take the philosophers home, enjoy them and all lofty thoughts,

let them continue their search for their perceived truth, but keep them out of

any governing body, please.And no preaching is allowed them unless attendance is

voluntary.

It is 2001 and time to live in reality.I for one do not really want to reconcile

today's sometimes weird philosophies,( there is never just one,) with actual

human governance. And lies? why, they are inherently evil because they do not

correspond to actual reality and we owe it to ourselves and others to live in as

much actual reality as possible. Substituting anything else for what is ,is not

only folly but self-deception or deception of others.And that ,isn't bad?

Toni