Some time ago, the Congress of this republic (if it still may be called that), in a fit of self-assertion, adopted the War Powers Resolution. The ostensible purpose of this resolution is to limit the powers of the executive to wage war without consultation with the legislature and without its approval. It was recognized that there were circumstances when congressional approval could not be obtained with the speed necessary to take action to protect the nation's best interests, and thus the resolution gives the president a kind of carte blanche to take such action for a limited period of time.
It is a rather odd bit of legislative legerdemain. Although Congress has the power to declare war, it has not done so for quite some time. It has, nonetheless, sanctioned what can only be described as war with some frequency since it last did so. As a result, it plainly does not believe war must be declared in order for war to be waged, or at least believes it cannot take such a position without appearing most inconsistent and hypocritical. Nevertheless, it thinks it must approve war in some sense if not declare it in order for there to be war. But, it also believes that there are circumstances where its approval cannot be sought and obtained in a timely fashion, and so by the resolution allows the President to wage war, subject to certain conditions.
By implication at least, the resolution is therefore an acknowledgement by the Congress that if it ever had the sole power to authorize the United States to wage war it has waived that power. In that sense it is a rather sad admission by the legislature of its lack of authority, but having codified such an admission, it seems to make sense to enforce it unless it is to be repealed.
Being something of a fan of our form of government, I applaud the efforts being made to apply the War Powers Resolution. I understand those efforts may be politically motivated (though I think some of its current proponents are sincere). I wish it had been enforced more strictly in the past, and hope it will be in the future.
I'm amused by the efforts of the current administration to define "hostilities" in such a fashion as to render the resolution inapplicable. I was rather pleased to learn that there are lawyers in the government who reject such a definition and believe the resolution applies, and who have said so.
The administration appears to accept a definition of "hostilities" which requires that the U.S. be engaged in land battles in order to be engaged in hostilities. This is an astonishingly antiquated view. The mere use of those new-fangled flying machines to devastate property and kill human beings simply is not enough, says the second president of the twenty-first century, to require that I seek congressional approval. This is such an absurd position that the administration deserves to be mocked by such as Stephen Colbert.
This is not merely a question of the limits of presidential power or the extent of legislative power, however. At issue is when military force may be utilized. This is obviously a moral issue, but it is also, increasingly, an economic issue.
The rather unpredictable Senator McCain is given to calling those who seek to limit our regrettable tendency to wage war "isolationists." One would think someone with his history would know better. I don't find "isolationism" to be all that frightening of a word, myself, though certain kinds of isolationism can be excessive. But even those who feel the United States should be imposing its views through military force all over the world must recognize the fact that it can no longer do so (if it ever truly could). It has no money. It must borrow money in order to engage in such a quest. Even the dimmest of our politicians understand that money is power; they must understand as well that the absence of money renders us powerless.
Those who believe that we humans are motivated above all by economic considerations may be right. We have not been able to restrain ourselves from going to war merely because it is a waste of lives. Perhaps we will be able to do so because it has become an egregious waste of money.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Sunday, June 19, 2011
The Proper Study of Mankind
"Know thyself, presume not God to scan, The proper study of Mankind is Man." So wrote Alexander Pope, whose fondness for couplets may lead some to think of him as a kind of proto-rapper, if it is possible to think of a rapper as being like Pope--someone with an actual talent for poetry who did not, so far as we know, recite his rhymes while hopping about and gesticulating for what would no doubt have been a very bewildered audience.
"Know thyself" we are told were words inscribed at the temple of Apollo at Delphi, along with "nothing in excess." These words are sometimes ascribed to philosophers, such as Socrates, and if they were not those of Apollo they may as well be his, or Plato's or someone else. Also ascribed to many philosophers is the tendency to presume to scan God, and other things which Pope likely thought were not proper studies of mankind, if Man is that study.
Sadly, perhaps for those who read this as well as for me, I feel called upon to complain once more of the fact that the philosophically inclined seem intent on ignoring the problems of humans in the world, i.e. the problems people encounter while living in the world, and instead address problems, if they can be called problems, which appear to have little to do with living in the world--and the less, the better. I imagine perhaps without good cause that those who concern themselves with debating such issues as whether God exists, or others exist, or the universe exists, or whether there is such a thing as free will, the problem of induction....all the matters which have been the subject of debate for centuries among philosophers, would do humanity a service if they started considering with the same intensity matters such as the allocation of dwindling resources, the elimination of poverty, the manner in which to resolve disputes among nations, education, even how to behave in a manner which will not result in harm to others. But I may well be considered odd, even annoying and obstructive, for doing so. The "problems of philosophy" hold such a fascination that it may be that those who concern themselves with them cannot become unconcerned with them.
Now, it's quite possible that I'm simply wrong. I may be unduly optimistic. Perhaps philosophers don't have much to add to the resolution of the pressing problems of life. It would seem to me, though, that compared to the politicians and pundits we entrust with their resolution, philosophers would do quite well. Philosophers actually know how to think, and write; things it is not clear either politicians or pundits can do for an extended period.
I recently read Schopenhauer's The Wisdom of Life. Although I'm not enthralled by his philosophy, I was pleased by the thought that he would write a book on practical wisdom. It even has the word "Life" in its title. I was disappointed, though, to find it to be a kind of collection of banalities. He's careful to note that this little book is not representative of his philosophy, but then in describing how best to live he simply repeats some stoic essentials, makes the hardly surprising or interesting point that intellectual pleasures are best, and refers frequently to the ways in which "common people" are wrong in what they find good. Schopenhauer clearly doesn't care much for the common people, and spends a good deal of space noting their various inadequacies. He quotes liberally from the ancients and also Goethe, for good measure. His condemnation of the practice of duelling is historically interesting, though.
It's also true that those philosophers who have concerned themselves with real life problems sometimes have been wildly absolute and persuasively and very influentially wrong in their conclusions. Plato's view of the ideal state is frightening. Ancient philosophers (as well as the Bible) were relied on by those who sought to justify slavery (Aristotle thought there were those who were born to rule, and those who were born to be ruled). Heidegger thought Hitler and the Nazis would lead Germany and the world to some sort of inexplicable, mystic kind of paradise for some inexplicable, mystic reasons.
But the argument can be made that these philosophers came to often repulsive conclusions regarding the problems of life because they were led to do so inexorably by the conclusions they arrived at in the otherworldly, decidedly inhuman realm of traditional philosophy, so disassociated from the problems of living. And, having thought that they had arrived at absolute truths in this detached realm, they felt that all they need do in addressing the problems of the real world is apply those truths, regardless of their effects.
So, perhaps if philosophers stopped dealing with the "problems of philosophy" they would not make such mistakes in dealing with the problems of humans.
"Know thyself" we are told were words inscribed at the temple of Apollo at Delphi, along with "nothing in excess." These words are sometimes ascribed to philosophers, such as Socrates, and if they were not those of Apollo they may as well be his, or Plato's or someone else. Also ascribed to many philosophers is the tendency to presume to scan God, and other things which Pope likely thought were not proper studies of mankind, if Man is that study.
Sadly, perhaps for those who read this as well as for me, I feel called upon to complain once more of the fact that the philosophically inclined seem intent on ignoring the problems of humans in the world, i.e. the problems people encounter while living in the world, and instead address problems, if they can be called problems, which appear to have little to do with living in the world--and the less, the better. I imagine perhaps without good cause that those who concern themselves with debating such issues as whether God exists, or others exist, or the universe exists, or whether there is such a thing as free will, the problem of induction....all the matters which have been the subject of debate for centuries among philosophers, would do humanity a service if they started considering with the same intensity matters such as the allocation of dwindling resources, the elimination of poverty, the manner in which to resolve disputes among nations, education, even how to behave in a manner which will not result in harm to others. But I may well be considered odd, even annoying and obstructive, for doing so. The "problems of philosophy" hold such a fascination that it may be that those who concern themselves with them cannot become unconcerned with them.
Now, it's quite possible that I'm simply wrong. I may be unduly optimistic. Perhaps philosophers don't have much to add to the resolution of the pressing problems of life. It would seem to me, though, that compared to the politicians and pundits we entrust with their resolution, philosophers would do quite well. Philosophers actually know how to think, and write; things it is not clear either politicians or pundits can do for an extended period.
I recently read Schopenhauer's The Wisdom of Life. Although I'm not enthralled by his philosophy, I was pleased by the thought that he would write a book on practical wisdom. It even has the word "Life" in its title. I was disappointed, though, to find it to be a kind of collection of banalities. He's careful to note that this little book is not representative of his philosophy, but then in describing how best to live he simply repeats some stoic essentials, makes the hardly surprising or interesting point that intellectual pleasures are best, and refers frequently to the ways in which "common people" are wrong in what they find good. Schopenhauer clearly doesn't care much for the common people, and spends a good deal of space noting their various inadequacies. He quotes liberally from the ancients and also Goethe, for good measure. His condemnation of the practice of duelling is historically interesting, though.
It's also true that those philosophers who have concerned themselves with real life problems sometimes have been wildly absolute and persuasively and very influentially wrong in their conclusions. Plato's view of the ideal state is frightening. Ancient philosophers (as well as the Bible) were relied on by those who sought to justify slavery (Aristotle thought there were those who were born to rule, and those who were born to be ruled). Heidegger thought Hitler and the Nazis would lead Germany and the world to some sort of inexplicable, mystic kind of paradise for some inexplicable, mystic reasons.
But the argument can be made that these philosophers came to often repulsive conclusions regarding the problems of life because they were led to do so inexorably by the conclusions they arrived at in the otherworldly, decidedly inhuman realm of traditional philosophy, so disassociated from the problems of living. And, having thought that they had arrived at absolute truths in this detached realm, they felt that all they need do in addressing the problems of the real world is apply those truths, regardless of their effects.
So, perhaps if philosophers stopped dealing with the "problems of philosophy" they would not make such mistakes in dealing with the problems of humans.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Blood and Soil
Yes, Blut und Boden, as some used to say. It was a phrase imposed by the more romantic, and therefore the more dangerous, Germans not all that long ago. The thought (if we may use that word) behind it was not limited to the Nazis, of course, but I think permeated German thinking since at least the time of the French revolution, and certainly after Napoleon humiliated Prussia in several battles thereafter.
The belief that descent and a homeland defines a people, and more particularly the rights of a people, is not peculiar to the Germans, however. Others have taken a similar position. And here I tread on shaky ground, as I address in this post the tendency of certain Israelis to believe that they have certain rights with respect to certain lands, the consequences of that tendency, and how to address that tendency as a practical matter.
In an effort to deflect criticism if not anger, let me note I'm not saying the Israelis are Nazis. It happens that various peoples have thought they have rights to land, and indeed the exclusive right to land, for various reasons. These reasons seem to me to be primarily mystical or religious in nature. I don't mean to single out Israelis for doing so, or contend that only they and the Nazis have done so, or imply that they in particular are misguided or wrong. It happens that the fact that certain Israelis do so, now, has great significance, now, however.
I should note initially that I don't find religious claims to land compelling. I don't accept the belief that God conveyed property or the right to use property to any people or person. Nor do I think that the fact particular people have lived on property some time in the past, for however long a period, means necessarily that they have the right to live on that property exclusively, now and forever.
As a result, I think any such claim should be disregarded, or at least should be treated as of no particular weight in making any decision regarding who should possess what property in this dispute. If God is to be invoked in addressing this problem, it will not be addressed, or resolved. It will be perpetuated. Invoking God seems to have this effect in most cases.
So, when the amiable Mr. Netanyahu comes to these shores to lecture us on such a basis I am unimpressed. And, to put all my cards on the table, I should say that as an American (or more properly a United Statesman as Gore Vidal has said) I find it annoying to be lectured by the leader of a state so completely dependent on American aid and protection on most any subject.
In my not necessarily humble but likely unimportant opinion, the United States in addressing this problem, as I think it must, should put aside any claims based on God as grantor on a deed or in any other capacity, or on historical occupation of land. The simple fact is that the state of Israel exists, and its existence has been the focus of conflict and probably will be the focus of conflict for some time. It is the focus of conflict in part due to the fact that Palestinians also exist. Neither Israel nor the Palestinians are going to disappear. This should be taken as a given, regardless of what Israelis or Palestinians may believe. This should be made clear to them.
It should be made clear to both parties that as far as the United States is concerned, their claims as to right to land based on religion or history are not relevant to resolution of the dispute. It should also be made clear to them (what should in any case be clear to any reasonable parties to a dispute) that at least as far as the United States is concerned, that if there is to be a settlement, neither party will be satisfied with its terms. That's what settlement is about. They must decide, in other words, whether they prefer to engage in this dispute endlessly, with all that entails, or whether they desire to take this issue off the table, with all that entails They must make a judgment regarding which alternative they are willing to accept.
If the United States is to be involved as mediator, they should be told that it will engage in that function only after they make a judgment which alternative they wish to pursue. That is to say that if the U.S. determines that a settlement is unlikely, it will quite simply walk away from the mediation, after having politely noted to both parties its continued involvement is a waste of time.
If the Israelis take the position they will not give up any land they possess, this is in effect an indication that they are not interested in settling. If that's the case, there is no reason for the United States to mediate.
The United States must then make a decision regarding what role it wishes to take if that role will not be that of a mediator. In making that decision, it should likewise give no weight to religious or historical considerations. It should consider what's in its own best interests, economic and otherwise, as that should always be its primary concern.
The belief that descent and a homeland defines a people, and more particularly the rights of a people, is not peculiar to the Germans, however. Others have taken a similar position. And here I tread on shaky ground, as I address in this post the tendency of certain Israelis to believe that they have certain rights with respect to certain lands, the consequences of that tendency, and how to address that tendency as a practical matter.
In an effort to deflect criticism if not anger, let me note I'm not saying the Israelis are Nazis. It happens that various peoples have thought they have rights to land, and indeed the exclusive right to land, for various reasons. These reasons seem to me to be primarily mystical or religious in nature. I don't mean to single out Israelis for doing so, or contend that only they and the Nazis have done so, or imply that they in particular are misguided or wrong. It happens that the fact that certain Israelis do so, now, has great significance, now, however.
I should note initially that I don't find religious claims to land compelling. I don't accept the belief that God conveyed property or the right to use property to any people or person. Nor do I think that the fact particular people have lived on property some time in the past, for however long a period, means necessarily that they have the right to live on that property exclusively, now and forever.
As a result, I think any such claim should be disregarded, or at least should be treated as of no particular weight in making any decision regarding who should possess what property in this dispute. If God is to be invoked in addressing this problem, it will not be addressed, or resolved. It will be perpetuated. Invoking God seems to have this effect in most cases.
So, when the amiable Mr. Netanyahu comes to these shores to lecture us on such a basis I am unimpressed. And, to put all my cards on the table, I should say that as an American (or more properly a United Statesman as Gore Vidal has said) I find it annoying to be lectured by the leader of a state so completely dependent on American aid and protection on most any subject.
In my not necessarily humble but likely unimportant opinion, the United States in addressing this problem, as I think it must, should put aside any claims based on God as grantor on a deed or in any other capacity, or on historical occupation of land. The simple fact is that the state of Israel exists, and its existence has been the focus of conflict and probably will be the focus of conflict for some time. It is the focus of conflict in part due to the fact that Palestinians also exist. Neither Israel nor the Palestinians are going to disappear. This should be taken as a given, regardless of what Israelis or Palestinians may believe. This should be made clear to them.
It should be made clear to both parties that as far as the United States is concerned, their claims as to right to land based on religion or history are not relevant to resolution of the dispute. It should also be made clear to them (what should in any case be clear to any reasonable parties to a dispute) that at least as far as the United States is concerned, that if there is to be a settlement, neither party will be satisfied with its terms. That's what settlement is about. They must decide, in other words, whether they prefer to engage in this dispute endlessly, with all that entails, or whether they desire to take this issue off the table, with all that entails They must make a judgment regarding which alternative they are willing to accept.
If the United States is to be involved as mediator, they should be told that it will engage in that function only after they make a judgment which alternative they wish to pursue. That is to say that if the U.S. determines that a settlement is unlikely, it will quite simply walk away from the mediation, after having politely noted to both parties its continued involvement is a waste of time.
If the Israelis take the position they will not give up any land they possess, this is in effect an indication that they are not interested in settling. If that's the case, there is no reason for the United States to mediate.
The United States must then make a decision regarding what role it wishes to take if that role will not be that of a mediator. In making that decision, it should likewise give no weight to religious or historical considerations. It should consider what's in its own best interests, economic and otherwise, as that should always be its primary concern.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
A Visit to a Grave
It's been over twenty-seven years since my sister died, in an automobile accident rather similar to the one that laid me up for a month a few years ago. A sudden snow and a slippery road; that's all that it takes. I survived. She did not. I grow old. She does not. What they say on what is called Remembrance Day in other parts of the world is, of course, true. Those who died young will not grow old, as others do. We comfort ourselves by noting the obvious, it seems. She was just married, and had her whole life ahead of her--another notation of the obvious, but for the fact that she actually did not have a long life to live.
I remember being stuck by the fact that it was unjust. Perhaps I still had some expectation of justice in those days. I have few expectations now, none of which depend on the workings of fate. It's a point on which I differ from the ancient Stoics. They believed in Providence, and that all that happens is ultimately for the good. I know that what happens, happens, for good or ill, and am not sure it matters what we think has happened, except to the extent that this (our thought, our perception) impacts us and others.
I'm not sure why I visited her grave, beyond the fact that it had been some time and I thought I should. I remembered, and was saddened once again. I wished she had lived, had children, seen mine. I remembered being a child, with her, and becoming an adult, as she did And I felt as the poet perhaps should have wrote, and perhaps meant, intimations of my own mortality.
As far as we can tell from what he wrote for himself, Marcus Aurelius thought death would bring either complete dissolution--nothingness--or dissolution into the Divine Spirit or Reason that permeates the universe, which would not be nothingness, though I'm not sure what it would be. What happens after death fascinates us, and it's natural that it does so. But as death comes, or will come until we figure a way around it, it's foolish and futile to despair over the fact that it does come.
Epicurus and his followers felt that we will no more exist after death than we existed prior to life. And, they at least professed to find this thought liberating. They maintained that the fear of death was banished through this realization. But, being fearful creatures, we fear it nonetheless, as we fear not existing. Of course we often dislike living as well. We are hard to satisfy. We're very demanding, we humans.
The Stoics were wise, practical thinkers. Do the best with what you have, and take the rest as it happens, says Epictetus. That we will die is something beyond our control, as is how and when we will die, except in extraordinary circumstances. What, if anything, happens after we die (to us, in any case) is similarly beyond our control. Whether we despair or not is in our control. How we live and think and feel is in our control.
The same applies regarding the death of those we love. There is no harm in remembering, just as there is no harm in recognizing and accepting our ultimate fate, provided we don't despair, and provided we continue to do the best we can with what we have.
I remember being stuck by the fact that it was unjust. Perhaps I still had some expectation of justice in those days. I have few expectations now, none of which depend on the workings of fate. It's a point on which I differ from the ancient Stoics. They believed in Providence, and that all that happens is ultimately for the good. I know that what happens, happens, for good or ill, and am not sure it matters what we think has happened, except to the extent that this (our thought, our perception) impacts us and others.
I'm not sure why I visited her grave, beyond the fact that it had been some time and I thought I should. I remembered, and was saddened once again. I wished she had lived, had children, seen mine. I remembered being a child, with her, and becoming an adult, as she did And I felt as the poet perhaps should have wrote, and perhaps meant, intimations of my own mortality.
As far as we can tell from what he wrote for himself, Marcus Aurelius thought death would bring either complete dissolution--nothingness--or dissolution into the Divine Spirit or Reason that permeates the universe, which would not be nothingness, though I'm not sure what it would be. What happens after death fascinates us, and it's natural that it does so. But as death comes, or will come until we figure a way around it, it's foolish and futile to despair over the fact that it does come.
Epicurus and his followers felt that we will no more exist after death than we existed prior to life. And, they at least professed to find this thought liberating. They maintained that the fear of death was banished through this realization. But, being fearful creatures, we fear it nonetheless, as we fear not existing. Of course we often dislike living as well. We are hard to satisfy. We're very demanding, we humans.
The Stoics were wise, practical thinkers. Do the best with what you have, and take the rest as it happens, says Epictetus. That we will die is something beyond our control, as is how and when we will die, except in extraordinary circumstances. What, if anything, happens after we die (to us, in any case) is similarly beyond our control. Whether we despair or not is in our control. How we live and think and feel is in our control.
The same applies regarding the death of those we love. There is no harm in remembering, just as there is no harm in recognizing and accepting our ultimate fate, provided we don't despair, and provided we continue to do the best we can with what we have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)