Imperialism and Philosophy

I wonder if a study has ever been done, or a book or article ever written, regarding whether there is a connection between European imperialism and European Philosophy.  Certain European philosophers have tried to create great philosophical systems which encompass, and purportedly explain, most everything.  They appear to have a desire, so to speak, to conquer and dominate the world of thought, and perhaps in supposedly explaining humans, society and history, to know all if not to control all.  This is a tendency which isn't necessarily limited to philosophers, however.  Freud seemingly sought to explain all conduct by reference to sexual experiences.  The gigantic systems which are constructed seem to be based on relatively simple premises or causes from which all else is said to follow.

The question arises (that is to say, I think it does) whether there is something in the European character which encourages the tendency to philosophize in this fashion.  Must philosophy account for (encompass, or rule) everything in order to have worth?  Is there some latent Caesarian ideal, a remnant of nostalgia for the Roman Empire?  A kind of intellectual habit resulting from centuries under absolute monarchies, and the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, that fascinating ghost of the Empire? 

What, though, of later European philosophies of existentialism or nihilism, for example? These, it seems, cannot readily be described as imperial.  But perhaps they are the natural result of European loss of empire.  They no longer rule the world, and that world-view has collapsed.  What would be more natural than for imperialists who have lost their imperium to despair of any real order, now that their order has gone?

A bit of speculative fancy, for what it's worth.

Thoughts on Disputation and Sabre Fencing

A stop-cut, in sabre fencing, generally consists of striking with the edge of your blade the weapon-arm of your opponent as he is in the process of making an attack--or, more properly these days as I understand it, the stop-cut is made as the attack develops, but before the attack has been established.

Sabre like foil is subject to the rule of right-of-way.  An attack will always win a point if it is not first parried.  So, if I fencer is being attacked, the attacker has the right-of-way and, even if the attacked fencer strikes first, the attacker scores, unless the attack has been appropriately parried (blocked) by the blade of the fencer subject to the attack.

Especially as speed is emphasized in sabre today more than it ever has been, it is difficult to make an effective stop-cut.  It is particularly difficult for the older, slower, less agile fencer (that would include me, alas).  I have made what I thought were perfectly nice stop-cuts only to find the point going to my opponent.  An attack, it seems, develops very swiftly indeed these days.  I wonder if the emphasis on speed and the attack is good for the sport.  The art of defense, and therefore skill, in fencing is diminished where speed takes precedence.

There is a parellel with the art (should I say sport?) of disputation.  Particularly since the arena of argument has become so all-encompassing, and so dominated by media which regularly relies on instant analysis, and also because, I think, of a reduction in attention span arising from the speed with which words and thoughts are exchanged, an attack in argument will most likely "win" in the sense that it will be remembered, and recognized, more easily and clearly than any rebuttal.  An attack in fencing or in argument can be made with skill, certainly.  But, an effective defense will generally require more skill, and moving from a defense to a counter attack is an ever greater test of the skill of a fencer or debater.

The result is not merely that the use of skill, and therefore intelligence, in debate of issues great or small is decreased.  Attacks, though successful, are as a result less and less subject to test, and we have less and less chance to determine what argument would win out in a true test of ideas.

Regarding Arrogance, Stoicism and Global Politics

One wishes the stoic dictum that we should be indifferent to that which is beyond our control was more commonly applied in all things.  It would not only make us more tranquil, in that such things would not control, excite or disturb us, but would be a healthy check on the tendency we humans have to attempt to regulate the lives of others.

The Bushian dream of bringing Western (or perhaps more properly American) style representative government to Iraq, the Middle East and beyond is, quite literally, blowing up.  That dream is apparently inspired by the view that such government is to be valued and indeed preferred, in all cases.  An argument can be made in support of that proposition.  But, the belief that such a government may be imposed, or that it will thrive in all places and in all cases, is not well founded.

There is a certain arrogance in maintaining we know what is best for the world.  But it is more than arrogance to believe that we can impose what we think is best.  When we believe that, and act accordingly, we're being stupid and wasteful.  Even worse, we do harm to ourselves and others.

We cannot, of course, be indifferent to what threatens us, even when it appears to be beyond our control.  Then, we're justified in seeing if it can be brought into our control, even if to a limited extent.  But, we must be reasonable in determining what we can and can't do.  Nation-building is a dangerous, complicated and hugely expensive enterprise and should not be undertaken (especially by a debtor nation with its own problems) unless there is a probability of success.  What reason is there to believe there is even a chance of success, at this time?

Religion, History, Simplicity and Intelligence

Many intelligent people have been, and are, religious. So, the former should not be precluded by the latter. But, does the latter preclude acceptance of certain kinds of religion, over time?

To use one example, there must have been something about Christianity which accounts for its engulfment of the Roman Empire and dominance of portions of the world, and history, for such a long time. There are those who maintain that its early success is the result of its absorption of aspects of various popular cults prevalent in the Empire, and that its later success is similarly based on its ability to incorporate characteristics of local customs and beliefs (through saints, for example)into its system.

Certain aspects of certain religions, though, are naturally fantastic or become so with the passage of time. God becoming man was not necessarily an unusual idea in ancient times. However, it's something that would not be expected by most these days. Similarly, religions based on images, customs and language of those living thousands of years in the past, in very different societies, may be expected to wear out over time.

The less convoluted the religion, the less dependent it is on images, customs and beliefs which are themselves tied to particular times and societies, the more likely it is to withstand challenges. Thus, the impersonal "God of the philosophers" is more acceptable in the long run, and less subject to attack, than the anthropomorphic Gods of most organized religions. Is such a God therefore more believable--more worthy of belief--than others? Perhaps, in the sense, at least, that it is not as open to the criticism that it is a purely human creation.

The Danger of Intellectual Leisure

The danger lies in the fact that it may create time for thought, but only of a sort.  Plato, if I recall correctly, and others seemed to feel that freedom from the needs and cares of normal life was necessary to achieve knowledge and wisdom.  Thus, all those unlike Plato and those Plato felt admirable were very busy creatures in his horrid Republic, while the Platos had nothing more to do than think and debate great thoughts beyond the minds of normal humans.  Plato's ideal state had its share of helots.

But, it's arguable that those who have nothing to do but think great thoughts will become so detached from daily cares and concerns that they come to view them as unimportant.  "Great thoughts" therefore may become detached as well, uninformed by and even irrelevant to the lives of all but a few.

Intelligence is most useful when it has a purpose in view, and, unless one is interested purely in amusement or intellectual exercise (which certainly have their place in life), the most significant purpose, one would think, would be the resolution of problems we enounter in life, as individuals and communities.  Thought for the sake of thought is an extremely selfish pursuit.

The President and Fox News

I don't watch Fox News, as, when I watch cable news, I do so early in the morning, and Fox at that time shows only the annoying "Fox and Friends." I don't watch opinion shows of any kind, on Fox or other networks. What little I've seen of them disappoints, regardless of the political point of view pontificated. Olbermann seems patronizing; Beck is simply creepy. CNN's Headline News is tolerable, as commentary is largely absent. I'm indifferent to pundits generally.

I think, however, that it is no longer reasonable to classify any media as objective, if ever it was. Technology now allows and even encourages the proliferation of opinions, regardless of merit. Media seems compelled to produce supposed experts to comment and express opinions regarding virtually anything, on any occasion, and at all times.

If, therefore, there is anything special about Fox News, it's likely that it is less subtle in promoting its point of view than other networks, or that it does so more often than others.

That the President's minions seek to detract from the status and popularity of Fox News is not surprising. The Administration has its own views, and wants those views to be accepted. People are, I think, free to boycott it or any other network. Expression of displeasure, or even contempt, doesn't amount to actionable limitation on the "freedom of the press" which some, like Gore Vidal, would claim has not been a factor in our republic for quite some time in any case.

I think the administration can only take this so far, however. I think there are some in the media whose reaction to the President is extreme, and peculiar. This should be noted. But it ultimately will do him no good to engage with the mudslingers on their level.

Evil and Punishment

It's hard to understand why someone would deliberately harm a small child. It's hard to understand how someone would engage in conduct which most would find unquestionably evil, such as torturing and murdering anyone.

Whether a person can be described as evil is a question sometimes debated in philosophy, and in law. Various issues arise, e.g. whether a person is more properly considered sick than evil. Clarence Darrow, it seems, felt that no person could properly be held responsible for his actions.

Accepting that people should not be allowed to torture and murder, and that it is one of the functions of government and law to prevent this from occurring, it would seem, though, that such questions are immaterial, in the sense that whether the torturer/murderer is sick or evil he must be prevented from doing so in the future. He should therefore be isolated until it can reasonably be determined that he will not do so again. If it cannot, then he should remain isolated.

It is more a question of safeguarding others, than determining responsibility. If someone presents a danger to others, prevent him from being a danger to others, regardless of the reason why he presents a danger. Punishment need not be the end, and it seems an unnecessary consideration.

The Relevance of Philosophy: A Test

Before considering any philosophical issue or problem, ask yourself: Will the consideration of this issue, or the resolution of this problem, make any difference in how I live ( i.e. how I conduct myself, or interact with "the world" or others)? If it will not, pass on to other things; or at least recognize that the issue/problem is insignificant, and engage it as you would a kind of game or exercise.

Peirce, God and Musement

I find myself fascinated by C.S. Peirce's article A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God. I fear part, at least, of the fascination results from the fact I find it so difficult to understand. I wish he had elaborated on the argument (perhaps he did in some work of which I'm not aware).

These days, it is hard to avoid encountering some book, or person, or article, or forum, or blog where the reality of God is not debated. I'm of the opinion that the debate is futile. I have trouble accepting the possibility that an argument, based on sound reasons, is available in support of God's existence. I think we lack the capacity to even create such an argument. We know, simply, what we know, and what we know is the world in which we live (or rather know it to a certain extent). We can to a certain extent explain things in that world. Our whole ability to reason, to argue, to explain is grounded in and results from that world. If God is beyond that world, we cannot truly know him, let alone explain him or his existence.

But, Peirce makes me wonder.

In Praise of (a kind of) Isolationism

Yes, it's been one of the bad "isms" for some time now. But, really, in a time of limited money and resources, it makes a certain sense to refrain from engaging in disputes around the world, especially when, in doing so, we make the huge expenditures in lives, time and money which come with military action.

The U.S. simply cannot afford to police the world. In certain cases, it should not do so for reasons not associated with the need to intelligently allocate resources. But, even setting aside the question whether the intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq is appropriate on moral grounds, it is necessary to determine whether the potential benefits of being the global policeman are such as to justify the costs.

The belief that we will create functional democracies in the style of the West in such countries doesn't seem credible. Even our ability to stabilize them is doubtful. It is likely that when American troops depart, these nations, or perhaps more properly regions, will go back to being what they have been for centuries.

The U.S. is spectacularly in debt. This will erode American power, inexorably, over the long term. It makes sense to focus on correcting internal problems. This need not mean ignoring the affairs of the world. It will merely mean refraining from trying to dominate them at all times, in all places. The U.S. must pick its spots in the future, carefully.

Tolerance of Religions

No, I don't refer to religious tolerance as commonly understood, i.e. tolerance among religions. I refer to tolerating the existence of religion, and I suppose of the religious, provided they don't foist their beliefs on others.

It seems a significant topic, given the focus on those being called (I'm not sure why) the "new atheists" and what is being called (I'm not sure why) the "new atheism." There seems to be little new about them, or it, beyond the fact that they, and it, are here now. Perhaps they proclaim more loudly, more vehemently, than their predecessors and are more antireligious than areligious.

There is nothing necessarily wrong about religion, or the religious. Some religious beliefs may seem far-fetched, silly or simply weird. But, if those beliefs and their believers cause no harm to others, then what reason is there to attack them, to publicly ridicule them?

Tit for tat, of course. When, for example, the religious demand that their beliefs be given the force of law, or be imposed on others, protest is entirely appropriate. The same may be said about certain political or social beliefs, however. Religious beliefs are not objectionable because they are religious, but if their consequences or adherents are adverse to the rights of others.

That is the sort of thing, though, to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Outright and general condemnation is more an expression of prejudice than intelligence.

The Nobel Peace Prize

The Nobel Peace Prize has become increasingly an expression of political and social opinion rather than a recognition of achievement. So, it likely is not taken as seriously as it was in the past. However, the choice of the President, which apparently has been made purely and indeed expressly because of a feeling, and a kind of hope, makes one wonder just what the Nobels mean, anymore, outside perhaps of the sciences and medicine.

The fact that reaction to the award has generally been described as "stunned" is significant. Relatively few appear to believe the President deserves the award, at this time (I expect efforts at justification of the award will be forthcoming). So, it seems pointless to debate whether it was appropriately given. If it is to be awarded based on remarkable achievement in the cause of peace, then it seems apparent that the choice, this time, is inappropriate.

More interesting to me, I confess, is the effect to be anticipated. The President is already very well received in Europe, so the Prize cannot be said to do him a great deal of good there. I doubt it will do him much good in the country over which he presides. I suspect this will simply give greater weight to the view that he is of little or no weight, and that those who applaud him do so for no legitimate reason. And, it will make him appear to be less worthy if he fails to accomplish what he, and others, apparently believe should be accomplished on his watch. Those who award the prize may have thought to do him a favor, but ultimately I think they have merely encouraged his enemies, and increased his burden.

Letterman

This is a rather odd one. Not that it is surprising an older man in his position has affairs with younger women on his staff. That seems all too common. The reaction, and especially the extent and nature of the analysis involved, is interesting and curious.

NOW's participation in the pontificating should be unsurprising. But, it was spectacularly silent regarding the liaisons of Bill Clinton, so one must wonder about its position in these circumstances. It seems that it may choose to express outrage carefully, on a case-by-case basis, with an eye towards politics, at least, if not funding.

The statements of the "experts" regarding whether he should or should not have gone public, or involved the police, and the exposure given to their views, prompts speculation regarding the extent to which we now judge not merely the acts of others (especially those of celebrities), but also the way in which they divulge, or try to avoid divulging, their faults. It isn't merely the conduct of others which merits our condemnation, it is the method by which they seek to mitigate the results of our condemnation.

There seems to be no limit to our self-righteousness.

Of Human Dullness

Have we learned anything in, say, the last 2500 years, which provides any guidance in how to live? I would say not. Plato, Aristotle, the stoics, the epicureans (to refer only to the West) have not been bested, I would maintain. They and others of the ancients have pretty well described and considered the reasonable options. We persist only in considering them again and again. Sometimes, someone like Nietzsche shows up and yowls about rather far-fetched and romantic alternatives which are either unattainable, or twisted by others to become fantastic perversions of wisdom. Perhaps we're limited in our options by our nature, though, in which case this would not be so much a cause a cause for shame as for resignation.

Absolutism

Meaning, in this case, the tendency to make absolute statements, e.g. X is always wrong, or incorrect; anyone who believes Y is ignorant, etc. I may be imagining things, but this seems to be a growing tendency, in politics, in religion, in society. Is there something about this time which engenders this folly? We only know Socrates through Plato and a few others, but if those accounts are true, he was admirable, at least, in admitting he knew nothing. But, there are so many, now, who claim to know all, at least as to certain subjects. And, they do so loudly, even belligerently. Have we actually come to believe in our own intelligence? If we were intelligent, the most we could claim is that we are justified in applying intelligence to the solution of problems.

Polanski Again

The squabble over this becomes more interesting. Hollywood, and (worse yet) Europe v. "middle America" (whatever that may be).

30+ years on, it's difficult to even remember how this transpired. He apparently pled guilty in expectation of a particular plea bargain, and, when that did not pan out, left the country to avoid jail time. He apparently settled a civil suit brought by the victim.

One assumes he is guilty, and that he has escaped punishment for many, many years. It appears law enforcement could have picked him up long before this, so it's reasonable to wonder why it didn't do so, and why it's decided to do so now, particularly when the victim has made it clear she wants no part in the forthcoming circus.

It is silly to maintain he should not be punished, particularly for reasons based on the fact that he's an accomplished filmmaker with lots of famous friends. He should have been punished long ago. But it's not silly to wonder what will be accomplished by the ensuing expensive, time-and-resource-consuming mess, especially given the passage of time. Will wrongdoers be deterred as a result? Not likely. Less fortunate wrongdoers would have served their time by now, and very few, if any, will have the options, and be given the leeway, Polanski has had, in the future. Is this being done because law enforcement feels guilty for giving him a pass for three decades?