"The Horror! The Horror!"

 

These are the words of Kurtz, the hugely successful, mysterious and and seemingly evil ivory trader that is the central figure in Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, spoken on his deathbed. They're overheard by Marlowe, the narrator, who has spent much time and effort on behalf of a Belgian company traversing part of Africa to find Kurtz, who is said to have "gone native."

The story was not very subtly transplanted to Southeast Asia at the time of the Vietnam War in the movie Apocalypse Now.  In the movie, the character of  Kurtz becomes a very large American Colonel, played by Marlon Brando, who has gone rogue.

Just what the words "the horror" refers to is a matter of some dispute. In the novella, the reference to a Belgian company indicates that Kurtz has set up his kingdom of sorts in the Belgian Congo. The Belgians were notoriously brutal in their treatment of the people inhabiting their colony. "The horror" may refer to that brutality and the death and destruction it caused; it may refer to Africa and Africans, and their allegedly evil  effect on Europeans; it may refer to the lives and conduct of Europeans in their colonies as they raped and plundered Africans and the land of Africa.

Generally, though, it's thought to refer to imperialism's corruption of both imperialists and their subjects/victims.

It's a corruption to be expected in those who desire things not in their control, as the Stoics would put it.  In this case the desire is for other places and people.  More specifically the desire is to exploit other places and people, and do whatever is necessary to do so.  Those with those desires who pursue them are incapable of virtue.  They're instead cruel and brutal, and have no concern for or interest in those they harm.

This has a familiar ring.  The 21st century is not that different from the 19th century; at least, people who have such desires and act on them are much the same in any period.

One of the things I find admirable about Stoicism is that its prescription for happiness and standard for ethical conduct is simple and persuasive.  Most all our problems result from the pursuit of or aversion to things beyond our control.  This causes anger, envy, hatred, lust, conflict, fear-- essentially every cause of misconduct.

Non Mea Culpa

 

Catholics of a certain age (like me) said aloud, each Sunday, the Latin words "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa" while reciting the Confiteor.  That was a confession of our many sins we were all required to make not only to God, but to the Blessed Virgin Mary, Michael the Archangel, John the Baptist, Saint Peter and Saint Paul, all the saints and, if memory serves, most everybody else.  Each of us repeated that those sins were committed through our fault.  So, "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa" which translates as "through my fault, through my fault, through my most grevious fault."

While saying these words, we would beat or rap on our chests with our fists. The Confiteor was intended to be a humble acknowledgement of our failings and errors and admission that we were responsible for them.

It is yet another example of Catholicism's odd celebration of our sinful nature. But it's also, more positively, an example of moral courage and integrity.  The devil and his angels aren't blamed for our wrongs and mistakes, nor are other people.  To use a modern phrase I think is suspect, we "own" our sins.  We don't seek to describe them as trivial; we don't argue that they're sins everyone commits, and therefore are insignificant and we shouldn't be singled out for criticism; we don't misrepresent them for self-serving reasons; we don't claim that we're unfairly treated when asked to account for them.

In other words, we're not miserable, cowardly, hypocritical, weak, shifty weasels. Instead, we're honorable people, who have the courage to admit fault and the character to do better.

In what's being called "Signalgate" weasels abound. Perhaps they follow the example of their chief, who is never willing to acknowledge fault. But it's particularly difficult to avoid blame when a mistake has been admitted and the mistake is evidently one no knowledgeable person would have made and could have had serious consequences.  Seeking to avoid blame in those circumstances and becoming increasingly shrill in doing so merely make one appear cowardly, contemptible and untrustworthy.

Those who lack moral courage are likely to be cruel. They're also likely to be crass and juvenile.  We see these traits in the Group Chat in question but also in the conduct of this regime and the content of its self-righteous communications.

Money Makes the Words Go Away

 

We know from the movie Cabaret that money makes the world go around. Randy Newman has told us that it's money that matters (in the U.S.A.).  Recent events make it clear that money, also, makes words go away.

In particular, it does so with respect to words which the First Felon finds offensive.  By withholding federal funds, or threatening to do so, he compels institutions of higher learning to make certain that certain words won't be used by their students or faculty or on their campuses.  By "soliciting" huge donations from large law firms by use of threats to diminish or eliminate their access to government contracts and information, he in effect pardons them for conduct and expression contrary to his pursuits and induces them to agree not to express positions he dislikes in the future. Through the efforts of his plutocrat ally or perhaps crush, money is to be paid to those who agree to sign a petition which discourages voting for a particular candidate for a position on a state supreme court.

As a result, the government of a nation supposedly devoted to freedom of speech devolves into a racket for spending and being paid money in order to limit speech.  It's appropriate that our nation's government acts to limit our freedom in such a crude fashion, through racketeering, as crudity is characteristic of this regime and its facilitators and lackeys.

Our Great Republic's increasingly suspect Supreme Court facilitated, if it didn't cause, this kind of corruption when it equated the use of money to influence voting and government policy to speech protected by the First Amenment in the Citizens United case.  That decision virtually assured that our government would be corrupted by money. Our plutoctacy may owe its existence to the Justices of the Supreme Court, some of whom have revealed themselves to be unusually venal.

What hope is there that such a court will prohibit the use of money to limit free speech when it already has decided the use of money is itself a form of protected speech?

Trimalchio Exceeded

 

One of the less likable characters in the Satyricon written by the man we know as Gauis Petronius Arbiter (and there are many unlikable characters in that Latin novel of ancient Rome) is the wealthy freeman--a former slave--called Trimalchio. Trimalchio presides over an absurdly lavish feast featuring a remarkable number of exotic dishes, plainly costly if not palatable,  intended to impress his guests. 

While his guests eat and drink, he pontificates pompously on a number of subjects, including his extensive plans for his very elaborate funeral, portions of which he enacts.  He's arrogant, ostentatious, vulgar, completely without taste or class; the model of a nouveau riche. 

The title character in F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel The Great Gatsby is compared to Trimalchio as he's thought to be of the same character, trying to buy friends and his way into high society.  Trimalchio appears at the head of this post as he's shown in Fellini's version of the Satyricon.

Not for the first time, I'm reminded of Trimalchio by the current occupant of the White House.  He's also arrogant, ostentatious and vulgar, but he has exceeded Trimalchio in the extent of his showiness.  Trimalchio's excessive display took place on his own property.  Regrettably, it's the White House that in this case is the scene at which the garish, gaudy show takes place.

Whether it's being made a car dealership showroom, or so cluttered with golden objects, drapes and other hangings, it's walls filled with portraits, as to become something like a turn of the 19th century bordello patronized by rich merchants, the Executive Mansion is transformed into a showcase of crudeness the like of which would fill Trimalchio with awe and envy.  A ballroom is planned as well, it seems, and the historic and traditional Rose Garden is to be paved over and made a patio.

What is remarkable, though, is that it's thought that such gaudiness is the height of good taste and sophistication.  The White House is to become a kind of resort, conference center and wedding venue.  What could be better, or more appropriate, in these times?

Social Solipsism

Epistemological Solipsism is one of the sillier philosophical positions taken by philosophers in the long history of philosophy.  In its less silly form it amounts to the claim that, although we may have good cause to think we ourselves exist, we have no good reason to believe in the existence of other people or things.

I've always felt that there's something offensive about the argument that we can't really know whether the people and things we interact with without question every instant we live are real.  The contention is utterly futile, and one of the several philosophical positions which constitute claimed differences which make no difference.

But if taken seriously as a belief which impacts how we live, it's most offensive as it diminishes the worth and significance of others.  Why trouble ourselves about what can't be shown to be real?

I doubt anyone accepts Epistemological Solipsism in any meaningful sense.  But I think there are many who are what I'll call Social Solipsists for purposes of this post, and that their number is growing.

I'll define "Social Solipsism" as the belief that there is no good reason to care about other people.  Social Solipsists [shall we call them "the SS"? Not quite yet, perhaps] don't think other people cannot be shown to exist.  They think that they exist, but believe that they don't matter.  Social Solipsists aren't concerned by them, they don't sympathize with them, they don't think about them.  Social Solipsists acknowledge other people exist, but treat them as though they don't.

A Selective Social Solipsist thinks that certain people are significant or useful for one reason or another, for selfish reasons, and so care about them.  But the great majority of their fellow human beings are of no importance.

Social Solipsism has become rampant in our politics and in the media, social media included.  Other people--those who aren't useful, or don't think or act like we do, who don't figure in our plans, whose existence doesn't fit our interest or is contrary to it--don't concern us. They may be disregarded, and if necessary exiled or deported or  removed from the scene in some way.

Removed like Palestinians from Gaza, for example; or removed from employment in the federal goverment. Social Solipsists aren't concerned with the impact that their conduct has on others, as those others though they exist might as well not exist. Social Solipsists need not respect others, or consider their desires, for the same reason.

It's a new way of defining our self-regard and selfishness, and adds a philosophical tint to our sociopathy. And it seems to fit those who think empathy is a weakness well, if I don't say so myself.