This piece probably should have been written in September or October at the latest. Two months ago, a 35 year-old man dressed in all white on Yom Kippur, walked up the stairs of Harvard Memorial Church shot himself in the temple with a silver revolver in front of a group of tourists. This, however, was not some sort of spectacle or art piece. It was, in fact, a statement, but it was a statement that concluded his 1905 page Magnum Opus, a book he entitled Suicide Note. Essentially, the piece is a Nihilistic anthem, an explanation of why the world is absurd and why life is not worth living.
I find myself resonating with his words. I feel he found a truth. In that, I admire him. However, what I find tragic is not that he felt this way, but that while he found a truth, he did not find the truth.
The truth he found was follows thusly. He argued that if all value systems (moral theories, philosophies and religions) are equally plausible, than none have precedence. If none have precedence, then all are equally right, and just as equally wrong. If all have equal value to them, then there is no single truth and every attempt to explain life worth is just as wrong as any other. If this is the case, then life has no real inherent value. Thus, there is no value in actually living and the only truth comes in not living.
I find his reasoning and his logic completely valid. However, where he and I would differ is that I reject his first claim. I don't think all value systems are equal. As a Catholic and as a Theologian, I think that some (particularly Christian theologies) have more precedence over others. Thus, my argument for the value of human life stems from a Christian understanding of life, salvation, faith, hope, the eschaton and God's Providence.
Both his position and mine are very controversial positions to take today. Very few people today would agree with him in saying that human life is devoid of intrinsic value, but similarly, the upper echelon of society would also reject my premise that human value lies in our relation to God. The sister of Mitchell Heisman, the suicide, said that had she known her brother was intending to commit suicide, she would have tried to convince him otherwise. She would have tried to convince him to make his own value for life. This is a position I find that many people take up today. She went on to admit, however, that he probably knew she would do that and thus never told her. Heisman's choice was not made because nobody had tried to convince him to make value of his life. Rather, it was the ultimate realization that making value for oneself is lying. This would be well for many, but his goal was to find truth, and accepting a lie for truth would not have satisfied him. He had come to the critical Nihilism vs Mysticism moment, and found that the competition of differing mysticisms left him with only the choice of abject Nihilism.
At this point, I would like to try to reconstruct how it is that a position like Heisman's becomes possible in our modern culture as well as how his sister's position becomes socially acceptable though logically absurd.
Heisman noted the pluralism of value systems. In our post-Reformation, post-Enlightenment, globalized society, there is almost no end to the value systems appropriated by people around us. In Medieval Europe, all were Catholics, with the exception of the Jews who were relegated to a lower status in society. Even post-Reformation, regions generally remained homogenous with a sect rather than accepting multiple religions in the region. Today, in large cities like Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles we often encounter on a daily basis people who are Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, and even Taoist. People follow Kant's Universal Law or Utilitarianism. There is no end to the systems one can follow, including agnosticism and atheism, arguably non-systems (which, in itself, makes them systems, though not very systematic).
Furthermore, our society has lost the original sense of value. In place of quality, quantity has become the norm. Rather than speaking of inherency or universality, we have changed our view point to an emphasis on quantity and empiricism. Post-Enlightenment thought has led us to value not only what can be empirically proven, but what is popular. This Age of Democracy that we live in insists that something is right because we say it is. While I have decried the risk in place in this thinking in the last couple pieces, it should suffice to say that today we often think that something can only actually said to be right if there is unanimity, or at least something close to that.
At this point, we have enough to understand the situation. With value pluralism being a reality in our culture as well as the divergence of opinion and adherence to different systems, we wind up in a relativistic culture. The relativistic culture makes the following claim: "There are many ways that people follow for understanding value in their life. A definitive acceptance or rejection of a system would show that it is wrong. Very few systems are widely rejected (such as Satanism or extreme fundamentalism) and very few systems are widely accepted (such as patriotism and rights-based morality), thus most cannot be shown to be either resoundingly right nor resoundingly wrong. Thus, most have equal plausibility and their acceptance or rejection is a matter of mere personal preference."
Many people today live by a credo that mimics or mirrors the previously set out philosophy. Generally, it is the excuse adhered to for doing whatever somebody wishes to do. The excuse is that he or she did not see the act as wrong and the fact that someone else does is merely a matter of the value systems they both accept and reject. This eliminates universal right and wrong except in extreme cases (such as rape, and murder). However, this is a bad ethic. No good (not in the sense of morally good but in the sense of reasonable or rational) ethicist has ever taken a relativist stance, not even the antichristian Friedrich Nietzsche. "Pure relativism" is a sham, a cop-out for hedonism. It is the new opiate of the people--an seemingly rational philosophy that allows people to do what they please with no dire consequence.
Heisman realized that relativism is a sham. Perhaps we might declare him one of the few pure relativists. He plainly saw that if all systems have equally viable claims to truth, then there is no real truth and life has no real value except for a lie. The tragedy of Mitchell Hesiman was not that he did not understand the value of life as much as it was that he understood what few other relativists have the courage to admit--that if all is equal, then all is valueless.
This, then, is where I assert the value of Christianity. Though this is deserving of an entire apologetic, suffice it to say for now that even this claim is a difficult one to make. The Catholic Church, since Vatican II, has tried to acknowledge the inherent value of other value systems, but at the same time it has always maintained that it solely has claim to predominance. One might ask, "What gives you the right?" The simple answer to that is that someone NEEDS to claim that right. A look at apologetics, including Ss Thomas Aquinas and Augustine and Blessed John Cardinal Newman, will answer this question better than I can or will, but the point is that IF no one does claim the right, then, rationally, logically, we are forced to make the same tragic conclusion that Mitchell Heisman made.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Chaos, Anarchy, and the contemporary world
It occurs to me that the term "Anarchy" has become synonymous with "wrongful disorder." It is seen not as simple disorder, the result of which can be something grand such as the American Revolution (certainly disorder) or struggles for civil rights. Rather, "Anarchy" is viewed as being inherently pernicious--it has been given an ontological polemical attribute. Other words that have such distinction are "defamation," "murder," and "robbery"--words which, as part of their definition, imply that they are wrong.
It is my contention, however, that 1) anarchy is not inherently wrong 2) what we often mean by "Anarchy" is "chaos," 3) this polemical label is, in large part, a product of our modern age and 4) finally, I would like to explain why anarchy might not be too bad.
What I would like to clarify first is what "Anarchy" means. A common definition is "lack of government" or rather "lack of order." This latter definition is certainly false. It is easy to understand "Anarchy" as lack of order since the prefix "a" in Greek often means "no" (such as Atheist, and Apathy) and "arch" often means "government" (monARCH, oligARCH). I would like to note, however that "arch" does not mean "crat" (theoCRAT, demoCRAT, aristoCRAT), which rightly means "ruling." Anarchy does not imply no ruling feature or sensibility, rather it means no central body determining what one does. In its purest form, anarchy means what democracy tries to mean, that is the people decide. In its most adulterated form, it means something like chaos.
Before I get to that part, however, let me first explain the position of a right-minded anarchist. The pure anarchist is not a deviant bent on the destruction of all society and culture. Early anarchists were often affiliated with Marxism, though not all have been. Essentially, the anarchist feels that the government is more interested in self-preservation and self-furthering than it is with the people. It follows the mantra "power corrupts" and the pure anarchist understands why Communism failed in the Soviet Union--because the party forgot the people it had originally promised to save. In this way, the anarchist is often more of a realist. He knows that campaign promises are idle talk and that as much as politicians discuss how to help the poor, they deliberate twice as much about increasing their own salaries and spend countless hours on the road fund-raising in order to maintain their position of prominence. In this way, many Americans today would agree with the original position of the anarchist, however, they disagree where the anarchist decides that having no government to lord over the people is better. This will be addressed more later on.
We often think of anarchy as "chaos" because we understand government as bringing about order. When we think "Anarchy" we think of a number of scenarios 1) the lawlessness of the French Revolution (or even the Soviet Revolution), 2) primeval tribal warfare and 3) post-apocalyptic social Darwinism. If we look at these three examples, we'll see why what we mean is chaos and not really anarchy. In example one, we need to realize that though, technically, revolution is a state of anarchy (because there is, quite literally, no one governing), it is only a transitional state. In the example of the French Revolution, the most gruesome and ghastliest part of the Revolution was the Reign of Terror, which was not anarchy in the least, but rather tyranny. In the second example, we ought to realize that establishing one's society is not really anarchy, and that tribal warfare has not really gone away. Rather, instead of killing a few men with bows and arrows, our advanced government has given us the ability to kill hundreds of thousands at an instant, which leads us to the third case. This, once again, is the crow magnon sense of anarchy. People inevitably in science-fiction, resort to forming tribes once again and the struggle to survive is only a primordial drive (that we still have today). In the first situation, what we fear is that the wrong people will seize power, so we wish to hold on to a government which we have a sort of control over (however Democracy should not be considered to be infallible, as the National Socialist Party was popularly elected in Germany). In the last two examples, what we are afraid of is a lack of resources necessary for survival. In a very real way, this is what a lot of human drama is still about today and people are shot on the streets of Boston, New York and Los Angeles everyday for resources. What we are really afraid of is the utter chaos of the Reign of Terror and the utter chaos of instability of resources.
Now, it must be understood that anarchy has been feared for literally thousands of years. One only needs to read the Book of Judges in the Bible, which most scholars date to pre-exilic Israel (around 800 BC), wherein the lack of a governing body ultimately resorts to the lawlessness of a community gang raping a man's wife, and the resulting near-genocide of the tribe of Benjamin (Judges 19-21). However, though society has had this polemic against lack of governance, it must also be remembered that the rest of the Old Testament (TeNaK) warns against the abuse of power of kings.
The modern polemic against anarchy, as near as I can tell, begins with the writings of Hobbes, realistically. Thomas Hobbes wrote that people were inherently evil and needed government to protect them from themselves. This thought has been very influential in political science. Even his contemporary, John Locke, who took a much more moderate and optimistic approach, stated that though people were probably good, government was meant to serve the people. What is often forgotten, however, is that he also advocated revolution when the government fails (a very influential position for the Founding Fathers). Since Hobbes and Locke, governments have attained enough power to incur the nationalism that created the First World War, per Hobbes, and have been subject to many coups and revolutions, per Locke. In America, however, the note has been Nationalism since early on. Even when many states sought to reassert their own power in the War of Northern Aggression, the Union was reunited with the result of even greater governmental authority as well as the beneficial result of the end of chattel slavery. During the World Wars and the Cold War Era, patriotism was of utmost importance, and loyalty to the government we have was absolutely demanded. Even as the situation became more acceptable to be critical of the government, we had the events of September 11, 2001, which brought back the need for a strong national ethos. So it has been that ever since the late 1860s dissent has not been an acceptable option in this country.
Part of this has been the very propaganda spread by our own government, and much of this has been reinforced by national emergencies. Worrying about the invasion of the Japanese, the Russians or the Terrorists brings with it a certain amount of need for security, found in our government. Here Hobbes and Locke are proven right, and their position of anti-anarchy is only more strengthened. Being "unAmerican" has at times (possibly even today) been tantamount to being a cannibal or a Satanist.
Furthermore, the image of anarchists has been tainted by the counter-culturalists. The Sex Pistols' song "Anarchy in the U.K." became, for years, the anthem by which "punks" and other subversive, non-conformists rallied under. The chant "Anarchy" has been lifted high in punk concerts and other events which the more established and sophisticated of the populace see as pernicious and uncouth. Thus, since the 1970s, the very notion of anarchy has been taken up by those who incur a negative reaction from much of the population while at the same time being demonized by Cold War Era nationalism.
Finally, I would like to make my claim for the virtues (if I might be so bold) to be found in anarchy. Some of my favorite anarchists include Dorothy Day, Ammon Hennacy, and Daniel Berrigan. All of these people have been involved in the Catholic Worker Movement, a movement which seeks to eliminate poverty, sees the inherent worth of people, and stands against violence. None of these people ought to be considered the antichrist. I would argue the contrary. Dorothy Day was one of the founders of the movement and many have called for her canonization since she died in 1985. Ammon Hennacy, though he left the Church, picketed with the migrant workers in the 60s, often worked manual labor, put his two daughters through college, and took care of many of the poor in Salt Lake City for ten years. Daniel Berrigan, though most controversial, was a priest, and worked hard to fight war (often at the cost of damaging property) as well as set up his fair share of Houses of Hospitality. All of these people were for order, all of them were for discipline, but none of them were for the abuses that they saw the government bringing.
Additionally, looking at a few things government has done for us is in part helpful. With the exception of World War II, none of the major wars we have been involved in over the last 100 years have been necessary. We lost Vietnam, we're still in Afghanistan, we defended Saddam Hussein then ten years later deposed him and were involved in a war only about national pride (World War I). Additionally, even though health care has recently been re-evaluated, there is still no "public option." Roads are in disrepair and families are starving while congress men and women have multiple homes. People who are normally friends get in heated, and sometimes friendship damaging, arguments about why one thinks the president is doing a good job but the other disagrees. Politicians spend time that could be used to combat real issues campaigning. Congress itself votes along party lines, not on conscience lines, effectively creating a veritable deadlock. Since the development of Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles, and especially both our and the Soviet Union's stockpiling of them, we now have to face the very real threat that we could all very well die at a moment's notice. Tax cuts to the rich ensure that they get richer while the Middle Class and the poor have to bear the brunt of that burden.
Now try to imagine a world of anarchy. Without inserting the notion of chaos let me define: You will live according to your conscience, and you will do what's in your best interest. We often think that government dictates our morality, but the truth is that it does not. The rules that we agree with, we follow. If speed limits were an issue of morality (which they are, in reality), we would be a lot more hesitant to speed. The real place we get our morality is from those we most closely associate with--our parents, church leaders, other relatives and friends. If we break the law, it is likely because "we hang out with the wrong friends." If we are polite drivers, it is likely because our parents or teachers taught us to be polite. If we take care of the poor, it might be because a sermon had a great influence on us.
Government, in reality, does two things: 1) it enforces a certain brand of morality through the law and 2) it trivializes morality by making it an issue of punishment. Without government, we would not have these. In the first place, our idea of morality would be different. We wouldn't think that allowing people from a certain region come move near us because of opportunity constituted a grave injustice, nor would we think that taking care of the poor and elderly is solved by our paying taxes. We would have to come to grips with a new, more pure, brand of morality--one that transcends the legalism of politics. Secondly, we would have to follow morality for new reasons. We would not shoplift, not because we are afraid of being caught and being arrested but because we feel inherently it is wrong, or that we would not like that to happen to us, or that God would not like it. The speed we would drive would not be determined by our sense of whether we could avoid being pulled over, but rather by what we thought was safe. In short, we would live morally because we found some greater reason in doing it (whether it is religious, deontological, happiness or fairness).
For a more practical example, let us examine murder. It is easy to say that without government, everyone would go about killing other people. To begin with, this happens already. Furthermore, one of the excuses for using the death penalty is that it has deterrent force. Were this the case, after the first or second, or even third person was killed for murder, there would be no more executions. Unfortunately, the truth is that we still do execute people, that people still do commit murder. Death Penalty is no more of a deterrent than is life in prison. On top of this, people don't kill others for the same reason they don't violate all sorts of other moral codes. Either they think life itself is sacred, or they are afraid that someone will take vengeance, or they fear the judgment of God, or they just think that it's wrong. Government does not determine right or wrong, it simply determines legal and illegal.
To conclude, in a world of legalism and government, right is determined by numbers. We win a war if we lose fewer people than we need to. We adjust laws if a certain amount of people die. Our lives are merely a number that has no real significance by itself. In an anarchistic society, persons can truly be appreciated for who they are. We follow the Golden Rule. We adhere to Natural Law. We take care of people for who they are AND we don't have to worry about the threat of nuclear devastation or of paying the salaries of people whose concerns are not our own.
It is my contention, however, that 1) anarchy is not inherently wrong 2) what we often mean by "Anarchy" is "chaos," 3) this polemical label is, in large part, a product of our modern age and 4) finally, I would like to explain why anarchy might not be too bad.
What I would like to clarify first is what "Anarchy" means. A common definition is "lack of government" or rather "lack of order." This latter definition is certainly false. It is easy to understand "Anarchy" as lack of order since the prefix "a" in Greek often means "no" (such as Atheist, and Apathy) and "arch" often means "government" (monARCH, oligARCH). I would like to note, however that "arch" does not mean "crat" (theoCRAT, demoCRAT, aristoCRAT), which rightly means "ruling." Anarchy does not imply no ruling feature or sensibility, rather it means no central body determining what one does. In its purest form, anarchy means what democracy tries to mean, that is the people decide. In its most adulterated form, it means something like chaos.
Before I get to that part, however, let me first explain the position of a right-minded anarchist. The pure anarchist is not a deviant bent on the destruction of all society and culture. Early anarchists were often affiliated with Marxism, though not all have been. Essentially, the anarchist feels that the government is more interested in self-preservation and self-furthering than it is with the people. It follows the mantra "power corrupts" and the pure anarchist understands why Communism failed in the Soviet Union--because the party forgot the people it had originally promised to save. In this way, the anarchist is often more of a realist. He knows that campaign promises are idle talk and that as much as politicians discuss how to help the poor, they deliberate twice as much about increasing their own salaries and spend countless hours on the road fund-raising in order to maintain their position of prominence. In this way, many Americans today would agree with the original position of the anarchist, however, they disagree where the anarchist decides that having no government to lord over the people is better. This will be addressed more later on.
We often think of anarchy as "chaos" because we understand government as bringing about order. When we think "Anarchy" we think of a number of scenarios 1) the lawlessness of the French Revolution (or even the Soviet Revolution), 2) primeval tribal warfare and 3) post-apocalyptic social Darwinism. If we look at these three examples, we'll see why what we mean is chaos and not really anarchy. In example one, we need to realize that though, technically, revolution is a state of anarchy (because there is, quite literally, no one governing), it is only a transitional state. In the example of the French Revolution, the most gruesome and ghastliest part of the Revolution was the Reign of Terror, which was not anarchy in the least, but rather tyranny. In the second example, we ought to realize that establishing one's society is not really anarchy, and that tribal warfare has not really gone away. Rather, instead of killing a few men with bows and arrows, our advanced government has given us the ability to kill hundreds of thousands at an instant, which leads us to the third case. This, once again, is the crow magnon sense of anarchy. People inevitably in science-fiction, resort to forming tribes once again and the struggle to survive is only a primordial drive (that we still have today). In the first situation, what we fear is that the wrong people will seize power, so we wish to hold on to a government which we have a sort of control over (however Democracy should not be considered to be infallible, as the National Socialist Party was popularly elected in Germany). In the last two examples, what we are afraid of is a lack of resources necessary for survival. In a very real way, this is what a lot of human drama is still about today and people are shot on the streets of Boston, New York and Los Angeles everyday for resources. What we are really afraid of is the utter chaos of the Reign of Terror and the utter chaos of instability of resources.
Now, it must be understood that anarchy has been feared for literally thousands of years. One only needs to read the Book of Judges in the Bible, which most scholars date to pre-exilic Israel (around 800 BC), wherein the lack of a governing body ultimately resorts to the lawlessness of a community gang raping a man's wife, and the resulting near-genocide of the tribe of Benjamin (Judges 19-21). However, though society has had this polemic against lack of governance, it must also be remembered that the rest of the Old Testament (TeNaK) warns against the abuse of power of kings.
The modern polemic against anarchy, as near as I can tell, begins with the writings of Hobbes, realistically. Thomas Hobbes wrote that people were inherently evil and needed government to protect them from themselves. This thought has been very influential in political science. Even his contemporary, John Locke, who took a much more moderate and optimistic approach, stated that though people were probably good, government was meant to serve the people. What is often forgotten, however, is that he also advocated revolution when the government fails (a very influential position for the Founding Fathers). Since Hobbes and Locke, governments have attained enough power to incur the nationalism that created the First World War, per Hobbes, and have been subject to many coups and revolutions, per Locke. In America, however, the note has been Nationalism since early on. Even when many states sought to reassert their own power in the War of Northern Aggression, the Union was reunited with the result of even greater governmental authority as well as the beneficial result of the end of chattel slavery. During the World Wars and the Cold War Era, patriotism was of utmost importance, and loyalty to the government we have was absolutely demanded. Even as the situation became more acceptable to be critical of the government, we had the events of September 11, 2001, which brought back the need for a strong national ethos. So it has been that ever since the late 1860s dissent has not been an acceptable option in this country.
Part of this has been the very propaganda spread by our own government, and much of this has been reinforced by national emergencies. Worrying about the invasion of the Japanese, the Russians or the Terrorists brings with it a certain amount of need for security, found in our government. Here Hobbes and Locke are proven right, and their position of anti-anarchy is only more strengthened. Being "unAmerican" has at times (possibly even today) been tantamount to being a cannibal or a Satanist.
Furthermore, the image of anarchists has been tainted by the counter-culturalists. The Sex Pistols' song "Anarchy in the U.K." became, for years, the anthem by which "punks" and other subversive, non-conformists rallied under. The chant "Anarchy" has been lifted high in punk concerts and other events which the more established and sophisticated of the populace see as pernicious and uncouth. Thus, since the 1970s, the very notion of anarchy has been taken up by those who incur a negative reaction from much of the population while at the same time being demonized by Cold War Era nationalism.
Finally, I would like to make my claim for the virtues (if I might be so bold) to be found in anarchy. Some of my favorite anarchists include Dorothy Day, Ammon Hennacy, and Daniel Berrigan. All of these people have been involved in the Catholic Worker Movement, a movement which seeks to eliminate poverty, sees the inherent worth of people, and stands against violence. None of these people ought to be considered the antichrist. I would argue the contrary. Dorothy Day was one of the founders of the movement and many have called for her canonization since she died in 1985. Ammon Hennacy, though he left the Church, picketed with the migrant workers in the 60s, often worked manual labor, put his two daughters through college, and took care of many of the poor in Salt Lake City for ten years. Daniel Berrigan, though most controversial, was a priest, and worked hard to fight war (often at the cost of damaging property) as well as set up his fair share of Houses of Hospitality. All of these people were for order, all of them were for discipline, but none of them were for the abuses that they saw the government bringing.
Additionally, looking at a few things government has done for us is in part helpful. With the exception of World War II, none of the major wars we have been involved in over the last 100 years have been necessary. We lost Vietnam, we're still in Afghanistan, we defended Saddam Hussein then ten years later deposed him and were involved in a war only about national pride (World War I). Additionally, even though health care has recently been re-evaluated, there is still no "public option." Roads are in disrepair and families are starving while congress men and women have multiple homes. People who are normally friends get in heated, and sometimes friendship damaging, arguments about why one thinks the president is doing a good job but the other disagrees. Politicians spend time that could be used to combat real issues campaigning. Congress itself votes along party lines, not on conscience lines, effectively creating a veritable deadlock. Since the development of Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles, and especially both our and the Soviet Union's stockpiling of them, we now have to face the very real threat that we could all very well die at a moment's notice. Tax cuts to the rich ensure that they get richer while the Middle Class and the poor have to bear the brunt of that burden.
Now try to imagine a world of anarchy. Without inserting the notion of chaos let me define: You will live according to your conscience, and you will do what's in your best interest. We often think that government dictates our morality, but the truth is that it does not. The rules that we agree with, we follow. If speed limits were an issue of morality (which they are, in reality), we would be a lot more hesitant to speed. The real place we get our morality is from those we most closely associate with--our parents, church leaders, other relatives and friends. If we break the law, it is likely because "we hang out with the wrong friends." If we are polite drivers, it is likely because our parents or teachers taught us to be polite. If we take care of the poor, it might be because a sermon had a great influence on us.
Government, in reality, does two things: 1) it enforces a certain brand of morality through the law and 2) it trivializes morality by making it an issue of punishment. Without government, we would not have these. In the first place, our idea of morality would be different. We wouldn't think that allowing people from a certain region come move near us because of opportunity constituted a grave injustice, nor would we think that taking care of the poor and elderly is solved by our paying taxes. We would have to come to grips with a new, more pure, brand of morality--one that transcends the legalism of politics. Secondly, we would have to follow morality for new reasons. We would not shoplift, not because we are afraid of being caught and being arrested but because we feel inherently it is wrong, or that we would not like that to happen to us, or that God would not like it. The speed we would drive would not be determined by our sense of whether we could avoid being pulled over, but rather by what we thought was safe. In short, we would live morally because we found some greater reason in doing it (whether it is religious, deontological, happiness or fairness).
For a more practical example, let us examine murder. It is easy to say that without government, everyone would go about killing other people. To begin with, this happens already. Furthermore, one of the excuses for using the death penalty is that it has deterrent force. Were this the case, after the first or second, or even third person was killed for murder, there would be no more executions. Unfortunately, the truth is that we still do execute people, that people still do commit murder. Death Penalty is no more of a deterrent than is life in prison. On top of this, people don't kill others for the same reason they don't violate all sorts of other moral codes. Either they think life itself is sacred, or they are afraid that someone will take vengeance, or they fear the judgment of God, or they just think that it's wrong. Government does not determine right or wrong, it simply determines legal and illegal.
To conclude, in a world of legalism and government, right is determined by numbers. We win a war if we lose fewer people than we need to. We adjust laws if a certain amount of people die. Our lives are merely a number that has no real significance by itself. In an anarchistic society, persons can truly be appreciated for who they are. We follow the Golden Rule. We adhere to Natural Law. We take care of people for who they are AND we don't have to worry about the threat of nuclear devastation or of paying the salaries of people whose concerns are not our own.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
The Modern Pantheon
In an age where "atheism" for once actually means the denial of a theos, of a god, and where people proudly where the moniker, it seems self evident that either one worships a god or doesn't. Of course, the question becomes exacerbated when people ask "Which god? The Christian god? The Jewish god? Allah? One of the Muslim gods?" And while the discussion of monotheism, deism, pantheism, is an interesting subject, that is not the subject of this post.
I do, however, need to treat of pantheism, at least briefly. I was informed some weeks ago by a friend that her husband considers himself a pantheist--that is, seeing God in everything, and everything in God. This is not pantheism, in the traditional sense, but rather universalism. My fear is that people do use "pantheism" in this way, or to say "worshiping all gods," a sort of religious relativistic pluralism. By pantheism, I mean the term that is related to the word "pantheon." By pantheism, I wish to mean worshiping all the approved gods. The pantheon of Rome, for example, included Jupiter, Mars, Venus, and Mercury, but it also included the Emperor, and even, according to Acts 17:23, to a certain extent the god of monotheism. These were all culturally and religiously acceptable gods to worship. By religiously, I mean that the official religion of Rome allowed that one could pray to any and all of these gods (at certain times, it was necessary, as with the martyrs not praying to the emperor). The concept of worshiping approved gods will be central to this post.
In contemporary culture, one may rightly belong to a specific religion, say Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sheikism, Taoism, Shamanism or any other worshiping body one might know of, and we consider this all fine and well. In America, especially, we say that one has a right, and it is a Constitutionally given right. However, there are still a significant number of people who do not consider themselves "religious." This list includes the skeptics, the atheists, the agnostics, the non-active believers, the "spiritualists," the "mystics," the Nihilists, the scientistic, et cetera. While these people may state that they don't participate in worship of a deity, my argument is that they do, and in fact, they often one of the following gods of the modern, or perhaps Post Modern, pantheon.
The first god I wish to mention is the god of mysticism. This is the god of divination, psychics, omens, good luck charms, astrology, and other quasi-mystical things. This correlates to the god Hermes or Mercury in the Greco-Roman pantheons. Today, we don't consider this god to be an actual anthropomorphic deity, but rest assured, many of us do believe in it. For the sake of the post, we'll call her Lady Luck. This is the goddess whom we think magically makes things work. "I didn't wear my lucky socks, that's why the Irish lost!" The realistic correlation of a pair of smelly socks and an entire football team winning is absurd, but we often posit such bad fortunes to our lack of properly divining. "A stranger smiled at me, that must mean I'll do well on my test." Another example of non-correlative, though perhaps coincidental happenings. I shall not beleaguer the issue, but I hope the point is clear.
Similarly, we consort her twin sister, Lady Fate. This is how "true loves" find each other. It isn't a matter of compatibility or openness to another person, but "the forces of the universe" bring it together. Lady Fate is considered to be a stronger deity than her sister, and is attributed with "if it's meant to be, it will be." There is a sense, tied with her, that we are incapable of forging our own experiences or controlling them. She is associated with Stoic-like people, the unambitious, and those who want follow Lady Fate. One might think of the Muses or the Fates (or the Norns if you follow Norse mythology).
Next we have the god of Chaos. The position of Chaos is randomness, unintelligibility, meaninglessness, Nihilism, disruption, the void, confusion, depression et cetera. This god may have the most followers up till now (though one should not pretend he cannot worship more than one of these deities). The Post Modern age has given rise to paintings, literature, philosophy, cinema, television, sculptures, music and many other media that pay homage to Chaos. The Existentialists hinted at him, but many atheists and agnostics also follow him. The Nihilists especially follow him. The main thing that this god conveys is a sense of confusion at meaning and a loss of hope for reality. One might think of any number of gods of Chaos from ancient pantheons: Loki, Hades, Pluto, and others.
In opposition to this god, we have the god of scientific certitude. Scientism is the position that many skeptics take up, claiming that nothing but what can be positively proven is worth talking about. There is no value to anything that cannot be quantitatively measured. This god, additionally, often exhibits a very jealous quality, demanding absolute adherence. Note well, though, that scientists may be Christian or Jew or Muslim, but they will not grant Science their religious devotion. Their is an ironic quality of this god, however, in that often it demands adherence to principles that have not yet been proven. I don't mean the Big Bang or Evolution, but rather String Theory, Multiple Universe Theory, and, of course, time travel. The only equivalent I might think of is Athena, though this analogy is incomplete since Athenian wisdom is not the same as Post-Enlightenment science.
Additionally, we have the goddess of Materialism. This goddess is worshiped by capitalists, economists, aesthetes, the rich and famous, and business men and women. Her rewards are the most apparent. Devotion to her brings real material wealth. One may devote her life to learning to make money, with priestess-like devotion, and so long as she's a worthy priestess, she will be richly rewarded. Priest-like discipline, found in investment bankers and stock brokers, brings its rewards, and if the market goes badly, it's likely that the goddess needs to be appeased. This consumerist god has no parallel in the ancient world, as capitalism is a modern phenomenon.
Then comes the god of Excess. This is the Bacchic god of college students, the famous and scandalous, alcoholics, narcotics, gluttons, and any other hedonistic devotee. Parties are the common form of worship, and those (I consider myself one of them, to my detriment) who follow this cult find themselves looking for chances to worship as often as possible. Often, devotion to this god causes disruption of family, legal consequences and humiliation. This god is the obvious parallel of Bacchus and Dionysus.
Finally comes the god of Patriotism. This god has more voice than any other god does. This is the god that tells us that the interest of the United States comes before our ability to help any other country. This is the god that tells us that if we do not support the war, we hate our troops. This is the god who tells us that if we don't vote, we have no voice to protest. His adherents are legion. And the worst part is that this god claims more adherents to other faiths, such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam, encouraging them to confuse their country obligations with their religious duties. The phrase "In God we trust" on our currency, for example, is an example of how Patriotism has overcome our Christian, Jewish, or Muslim sensibilities to tell us that being a Christian and a Patriot are synonymous. This god says civil disobedience, pacifism, and protest are all despicable, and that no good Christian should ever do so. This is the god of propaganda. This is the god of politics. This is the god of "American tradition." This is the most noxious worship, as it defines all our other practices. Consider, for example, the Messianic way people thought of President Obama's election, though as a president he has really done about average. This is not an attack on him, but rather a question of the idolization of political figures and national pride.
This concludes the pantheon. While we might not actually profess faith in any of these "gods," nor pray to them, we do pay homage to them (in the form of wearing symbols, devoting our careers to them, and other practices of religious devotion). There are undoubtedly more gods the average American, or simply Westerner pays devotion to, without thinking about. This is simply a brief summary. And while for an atheist or agnostic, devotion to these gods might be fine, if we consider ourselves monotheists, we need to seriously re-evaluate the religious devotion we pay to various things. As a Catholic, for example, if the United States declared war on the Vatican, what would my reaction be? Rather than trying to discern God's will, am I trying to divine, to find omens or just trust that the stars will align just right for me? Do I spend time trying to earn money at the cost of anything I hold sacred?
Perhaps the problem with the new pantheism arises from the rise of Christendom. After all, early Christians had to consider their faith in life and death terms, but what do we sacrifice for it today? Or do we rather offer up sacrifices to things other than what we profess to believe?
I do, however, need to treat of pantheism, at least briefly. I was informed some weeks ago by a friend that her husband considers himself a pantheist--that is, seeing God in everything, and everything in God. This is not pantheism, in the traditional sense, but rather universalism. My fear is that people do use "pantheism" in this way, or to say "worshiping all gods," a sort of religious relativistic pluralism. By pantheism, I mean the term that is related to the word "pantheon." By pantheism, I wish to mean worshiping all the approved gods. The pantheon of Rome, for example, included Jupiter, Mars, Venus, and Mercury, but it also included the Emperor, and even, according to Acts 17:23, to a certain extent the god of monotheism. These were all culturally and religiously acceptable gods to worship. By religiously, I mean that the official religion of Rome allowed that one could pray to any and all of these gods (at certain times, it was necessary, as with the martyrs not praying to the emperor). The concept of worshiping approved gods will be central to this post.
In contemporary culture, one may rightly belong to a specific religion, say Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sheikism, Taoism, Shamanism or any other worshiping body one might know of, and we consider this all fine and well. In America, especially, we say that one has a right, and it is a Constitutionally given right. However, there are still a significant number of people who do not consider themselves "religious." This list includes the skeptics, the atheists, the agnostics, the non-active believers, the "spiritualists," the "mystics," the Nihilists, the scientistic, et cetera. While these people may state that they don't participate in worship of a deity, my argument is that they do, and in fact, they often one of the following gods of the modern, or perhaps Post Modern, pantheon.
The first god I wish to mention is the god of mysticism. This is the god of divination, psychics, omens, good luck charms, astrology, and other quasi-mystical things. This correlates to the god Hermes or Mercury in the Greco-Roman pantheons. Today, we don't consider this god to be an actual anthropomorphic deity, but rest assured, many of us do believe in it. For the sake of the post, we'll call her Lady Luck. This is the goddess whom we think magically makes things work. "I didn't wear my lucky socks, that's why the Irish lost!" The realistic correlation of a pair of smelly socks and an entire football team winning is absurd, but we often posit such bad fortunes to our lack of properly divining. "A stranger smiled at me, that must mean I'll do well on my test." Another example of non-correlative, though perhaps coincidental happenings. I shall not beleaguer the issue, but I hope the point is clear.
Similarly, we consort her twin sister, Lady Fate. This is how "true loves" find each other. It isn't a matter of compatibility or openness to another person, but "the forces of the universe" bring it together. Lady Fate is considered to be a stronger deity than her sister, and is attributed with "if it's meant to be, it will be." There is a sense, tied with her, that we are incapable of forging our own experiences or controlling them. She is associated with Stoic-like people, the unambitious, and those who want follow Lady Fate. One might think of the Muses or the Fates (or the Norns if you follow Norse mythology).
Next we have the god of Chaos. The position of Chaos is randomness, unintelligibility, meaninglessness, Nihilism, disruption, the void, confusion, depression et cetera. This god may have the most followers up till now (though one should not pretend he cannot worship more than one of these deities). The Post Modern age has given rise to paintings, literature, philosophy, cinema, television, sculptures, music and many other media that pay homage to Chaos. The Existentialists hinted at him, but many atheists and agnostics also follow him. The Nihilists especially follow him. The main thing that this god conveys is a sense of confusion at meaning and a loss of hope for reality. One might think of any number of gods of Chaos from ancient pantheons: Loki, Hades, Pluto, and others.
In opposition to this god, we have the god of scientific certitude. Scientism is the position that many skeptics take up, claiming that nothing but what can be positively proven is worth talking about. There is no value to anything that cannot be quantitatively measured. This god, additionally, often exhibits a very jealous quality, demanding absolute adherence. Note well, though, that scientists may be Christian or Jew or Muslim, but they will not grant Science their religious devotion. Their is an ironic quality of this god, however, in that often it demands adherence to principles that have not yet been proven. I don't mean the Big Bang or Evolution, but rather String Theory, Multiple Universe Theory, and, of course, time travel. The only equivalent I might think of is Athena, though this analogy is incomplete since Athenian wisdom is not the same as Post-Enlightenment science.
Additionally, we have the goddess of Materialism. This goddess is worshiped by capitalists, economists, aesthetes, the rich and famous, and business men and women. Her rewards are the most apparent. Devotion to her brings real material wealth. One may devote her life to learning to make money, with priestess-like devotion, and so long as she's a worthy priestess, she will be richly rewarded. Priest-like discipline, found in investment bankers and stock brokers, brings its rewards, and if the market goes badly, it's likely that the goddess needs to be appeased. This consumerist god has no parallel in the ancient world, as capitalism is a modern phenomenon.
Then comes the god of Excess. This is the Bacchic god of college students, the famous and scandalous, alcoholics, narcotics, gluttons, and any other hedonistic devotee. Parties are the common form of worship, and those (I consider myself one of them, to my detriment) who follow this cult find themselves looking for chances to worship as often as possible. Often, devotion to this god causes disruption of family, legal consequences and humiliation. This god is the obvious parallel of Bacchus and Dionysus.
Finally comes the god of Patriotism. This god has more voice than any other god does. This is the god that tells us that the interest of the United States comes before our ability to help any other country. This is the god that tells us that if we do not support the war, we hate our troops. This is the god who tells us that if we don't vote, we have no voice to protest. His adherents are legion. And the worst part is that this god claims more adherents to other faiths, such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam, encouraging them to confuse their country obligations with their religious duties. The phrase "In God we trust" on our currency, for example, is an example of how Patriotism has overcome our Christian, Jewish, or Muslim sensibilities to tell us that being a Christian and a Patriot are synonymous. This god says civil disobedience, pacifism, and protest are all despicable, and that no good Christian should ever do so. This is the god of propaganda. This is the god of politics. This is the god of "American tradition." This is the most noxious worship, as it defines all our other practices. Consider, for example, the Messianic way people thought of President Obama's election, though as a president he has really done about average. This is not an attack on him, but rather a question of the idolization of political figures and national pride.
This concludes the pantheon. While we might not actually profess faith in any of these "gods," nor pray to them, we do pay homage to them (in the form of wearing symbols, devoting our careers to them, and other practices of religious devotion). There are undoubtedly more gods the average American, or simply Westerner pays devotion to, without thinking about. This is simply a brief summary. And while for an atheist or agnostic, devotion to these gods might be fine, if we consider ourselves monotheists, we need to seriously re-evaluate the religious devotion we pay to various things. As a Catholic, for example, if the United States declared war on the Vatican, what would my reaction be? Rather than trying to discern God's will, am I trying to divine, to find omens or just trust that the stars will align just right for me? Do I spend time trying to earn money at the cost of anything I hold sacred?
Perhaps the problem with the new pantheism arises from the rise of Christendom. After all, early Christians had to consider their faith in life and death terms, but what do we sacrifice for it today? Or do we rather offer up sacrifices to things other than what we profess to believe?
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Democracy and Truth
A common mistake people make these days is to suppose if the majority supposes X, then X must be true. A more common mistake people make is that since the majority has supported various different things over the years, then there is no truth.
The first of these two mistaken positions is what some, including Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, have called "The Tyranny of the Majority." This is a complex issue that ought to be fleshed out to a certain extent. To begin with, there are times when the most vocal become the easiest to follow. Those who are not settled upon a position are the easiest to sway and often strong rhetoric and heavy appeal to the ethos of people helps win over favor. This is precisely how the Roman Republic became the Roman Empire. Other times, the majority can be steered in a certain way. For example, in the last election, the majority of Americans were unhappy with the way politics had been decided two years ago. With a little crafty rhetoric, the Republican Party was able to win over Americans who two years ago had been won over by the rhetoric of the Democratic Party. Finally, the majority can be swayed to support something that honestly resonates with their emotions, but may not be completely right. Post World War I Germans were unhappy because of the terrible way in which the Wiemar Republic had handled the economic disaster, but their support for the National Socialist Party was very misplaced.
Because of this sociological phenomenon, repeated through history, the reigning voice of the majority cannot be viewed as fully true. Very few rationally-minded people today would support NAZIs, chattel slavery, female genital manipulation or witch hunts. Yet at some point in history, each of these had been the opinion of the majority, or at least, a certain stratus construed to be the majority.
It might be tempting to take an historical view and suggest that if these realities were morally true, morally right, options at the time, then perhaps all morality is is a relative function of the people. Thus, there is no "moral truth" or "moral rectitude." This is a very appealing approach and many contemporary philosophers and many more intellectually advanced persons have supported this notion. The problem is that in the most extreme form, this supports all manner of atrocities. If the moral laws we support are mere conventions, what is there to prevent me from killing people, or conning elderly ladies out of their money, or vandalizing property?
Let me quickly demonstrate an irony of this position. Many people, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins among them, support the claim of relativism. However, they both are quick to point the accusing finger at the Catholic Church for sexual abuse. While I myself support the claim that having sexual relations with small children is absolutely egregious, I could never consider myself relativist because of that. If it is egregious, on what grounds is it? The fact that we find it disgusting suggests either that we have been culturally conditioned to think this, or that it is objectively wrong. If we are conditioned, we cannot honestly say this is wrong. We say that cultures who practice cannibalism or clitoridectomies are in error, not because we think that our cultures are completely different, but because we think they share similar core values. If child sex abuse is objectively wrong, we cannot maintain a strictly relativistic standpoint.
Here is the point. As we become more enlightened (a word I am hesitant to use), we find more and more things to be objectively wrong. Genocide, sexual abuse, discrimination, torture and other acts we consider to be wrong. Yet our own culture has supported some of these, and some cultures still do. The fact is that we consider our views to be superior because of the long debates, philosophical treatises, theological teachings, and emotions to be correct. We still claim that bad things happen in our own culture, that we have more work to do and that there is still much we don't understand, but practically speaking, we don't support a relativist standpoint. Cultures evolve, and we hope, they evolve in such a way that they grow closer to the truth.
Consider the following: a hundred years ago, women were fighting for voting rights in the United States. Fifty years ago, African Americans were. Today, homosexual couples are fighting for the right to marry. Our culture is growing to a more perfect understanding of what it is to be human, and, we hope, growing into truth. Truth is not changing. Few would say that chattel slavery in early American history was morally upright. Few else would say that what the NAZIs did was permissible.
So we have to understand two things: One is that there is truth, and we're hopefully getting nearer and nearer to it. The second is that we must be careful to learn what truth is rather than necessarily supporting the voice of the majority. If we ignore the first principle, we cannot grow into a better society. If we ignore the second, we might be deceived into growing into a worse society.
The first of these two mistaken positions is what some, including Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, have called "The Tyranny of the Majority." This is a complex issue that ought to be fleshed out to a certain extent. To begin with, there are times when the most vocal become the easiest to follow. Those who are not settled upon a position are the easiest to sway and often strong rhetoric and heavy appeal to the ethos of people helps win over favor. This is precisely how the Roman Republic became the Roman Empire. Other times, the majority can be steered in a certain way. For example, in the last election, the majority of Americans were unhappy with the way politics had been decided two years ago. With a little crafty rhetoric, the Republican Party was able to win over Americans who two years ago had been won over by the rhetoric of the Democratic Party. Finally, the majority can be swayed to support something that honestly resonates with their emotions, but may not be completely right. Post World War I Germans were unhappy because of the terrible way in which the Wiemar Republic had handled the economic disaster, but their support for the National Socialist Party was very misplaced.
Because of this sociological phenomenon, repeated through history, the reigning voice of the majority cannot be viewed as fully true. Very few rationally-minded people today would support NAZIs, chattel slavery, female genital manipulation or witch hunts. Yet at some point in history, each of these had been the opinion of the majority, or at least, a certain stratus construed to be the majority.
It might be tempting to take an historical view and suggest that if these realities were morally true, morally right, options at the time, then perhaps all morality is is a relative function of the people. Thus, there is no "moral truth" or "moral rectitude." This is a very appealing approach and many contemporary philosophers and many more intellectually advanced persons have supported this notion. The problem is that in the most extreme form, this supports all manner of atrocities. If the moral laws we support are mere conventions, what is there to prevent me from killing people, or conning elderly ladies out of their money, or vandalizing property?
Let me quickly demonstrate an irony of this position. Many people, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins among them, support the claim of relativism. However, they both are quick to point the accusing finger at the Catholic Church for sexual abuse. While I myself support the claim that having sexual relations with small children is absolutely egregious, I could never consider myself relativist because of that. If it is egregious, on what grounds is it? The fact that we find it disgusting suggests either that we have been culturally conditioned to think this, or that it is objectively wrong. If we are conditioned, we cannot honestly say this is wrong. We say that cultures who practice cannibalism or clitoridectomies are in error, not because we think that our cultures are completely different, but because we think they share similar core values. If child sex abuse is objectively wrong, we cannot maintain a strictly relativistic standpoint.
Here is the point. As we become more enlightened (a word I am hesitant to use), we find more and more things to be objectively wrong. Genocide, sexual abuse, discrimination, torture and other acts we consider to be wrong. Yet our own culture has supported some of these, and some cultures still do. The fact is that we consider our views to be superior because of the long debates, philosophical treatises, theological teachings, and emotions to be correct. We still claim that bad things happen in our own culture, that we have more work to do and that there is still much we don't understand, but practically speaking, we don't support a relativist standpoint. Cultures evolve, and we hope, they evolve in such a way that they grow closer to the truth.
Consider the following: a hundred years ago, women were fighting for voting rights in the United States. Fifty years ago, African Americans were. Today, homosexual couples are fighting for the right to marry. Our culture is growing to a more perfect understanding of what it is to be human, and, we hope, growing into truth. Truth is not changing. Few would say that chattel slavery in early American history was morally upright. Few else would say that what the NAZIs did was permissible.
So we have to understand two things: One is that there is truth, and we're hopefully getting nearer and nearer to it. The second is that we must be careful to learn what truth is rather than necessarily supporting the voice of the majority. If we ignore the first principle, we cannot grow into a better society. If we ignore the second, we might be deceived into growing into a worse society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
