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.