I can conceive of a perfectly straight line and reason about it even though all the lines I have ever actually seen are not perfectly straight. It is only the ideal of a perfectly straight line that allows me to recognize that the lines I actually see are not perfectly straight.
I recognize in myself the capacity to reason, and at the same time I recognize that I reason imperfectly. It is only the ideal of a perfect reason that allows me to recognize that I reason imperfectly.
When Descartes says, "I know God before I know myself," what does he mean? "The first thing we know about ourselves," answers Simone Weil , "is our imperfection." In the same way I must have a conception of a perfectly straight line before I can recognize the imperfections in an actual line, I must have a conception of a perfect reason before I can recognize the imperfections in my own. "The only mark of God in us," says Weil, "is that we feel that we are not God."
Friday, March 18, 2016
Thursday, March 3, 2016
The Storm is Coming
Those who benefit from the arbitrary privilege of inherited wealth are eager to pass on a privileged life to their biological children. The idea of calling privilege into question is therefore not something they are willing to consider.
The media bombards us with images of prolific consumers to persuade us to consume. The intent is to displace feelings of righteous indignation aroused by arbitrary privilege, and replace them with feelings of awe and admiration. The intent is to make sure we exhaust our resources on consumption, so no money remains to organize politically and overthrow the tyranny of the privileged. They want us living paycheck to paycheck. They want us desperate, and therefore easy to rule. If they could find a way, they would ensure we don't have a single spare moment to think, or to organize.
The junior Bush rechristens the inheritance tax "death tax" and persuades Congress to repeal it. The ruling class manipulates politics to provide privileges to their biological children. We don't even notice. We're busy idolizing privileged celebrities. The ruling class can get away with anything.
Is it moral to live in luxury while other human beings suffer? Is it moral to permit the privileged to continue their rampage of destruction? Aren't we morally obligated, as citizens of the regime that gives them shelter, to take them down?
We keep talking about "equal opportunity." And we keep failing to deliver it. Of course wealth doesn't correspond precisely to skin tone. But so long as privilege follows bloodlines, there's a race of rich and a race of poor.
When activists demanded equal opportunity in the 1960s, they understood the inheritance tax and other taxes on the rich were essential to deliver it. The rhetoric of Reagan, Clinton, Bush and Bush has persuaded us to give up on the dream of an equal opportunity society. The new regime they have created allows privileges to pass unchallenged across many generations, forming, in effect, a hereditary plutocracy. If we look at who pays for the campaigns of these rulers, we find precisely the same hereditary plutocrats whose privileges these leaders work so diligently to preserve.
Whether the poor and oppressed will wake up in time for this election cycle remains to be seen, but, sooner or later, the storm is coming.
The media bombards us with images of prolific consumers to persuade us to consume. The intent is to displace feelings of righteous indignation aroused by arbitrary privilege, and replace them with feelings of awe and admiration. The intent is to make sure we exhaust our resources on consumption, so no money remains to organize politically and overthrow the tyranny of the privileged. They want us living paycheck to paycheck. They want us desperate, and therefore easy to rule. If they could find a way, they would ensure we don't have a single spare moment to think, or to organize.
The junior Bush rechristens the inheritance tax "death tax" and persuades Congress to repeal it. The ruling class manipulates politics to provide privileges to their biological children. We don't even notice. We're busy idolizing privileged celebrities. The ruling class can get away with anything.
Is it moral to live in luxury while other human beings suffer? Is it moral to permit the privileged to continue their rampage of destruction? Aren't we morally obligated, as citizens of the regime that gives them shelter, to take them down?
We keep talking about "equal opportunity." And we keep failing to deliver it. Of course wealth doesn't correspond precisely to skin tone. But so long as privilege follows bloodlines, there's a race of rich and a race of poor.
When activists demanded equal opportunity in the 1960s, they understood the inheritance tax and other taxes on the rich were essential to deliver it. The rhetoric of Reagan, Clinton, Bush and Bush has persuaded us to give up on the dream of an equal opportunity society. The new regime they have created allows privileges to pass unchallenged across many generations, forming, in effect, a hereditary plutocracy. If we look at who pays for the campaigns of these rulers, we find precisely the same hereditary plutocrats whose privileges these leaders work so diligently to preserve.
Whether the poor and oppressed will wake up in time for this election cycle remains to be seen, but, sooner or later, the storm is coming.
Life outside the market
Suppose a monk offers to help you care for your soul. Unlike the psychologist, he seeks no reward. His needs are modest. His needs are met. He doesn't want anything in return for his help. He offers a value system entirely separate from and independent of the market. He stands entirely outside of commerce. Money is worth nothing to him.
Secular society has no equivalent of the monk. If the market has a corrupting effect on the soul, the help the secular world offers for our souls will be corrupt.
If we find no higher value in the secular world than the dollar, this is because the secular world has excluded beforehand all forms of life that make no reference to the dollar. On a typical day in a typical secular life, there's a very slim chance of meeting a monk.
What if there really is something higher than the market, something more sacred than the dollar? If there is, how do we propose to find it in secular life, where all forms of wisdom that make no reference to the market have been excluded in advance?
Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Disneyland give us a culture that grows out of the market and serves the market. They make reference to higher values all the time. But when a reference to a higher value is made only to serve a lower value—is it an authentic reference? Any references Hollywood makes to higher values are merely instrumental, and therefore insincere.
The rebel who makes independent films instead of selling out to Hollywood fares better. But so long as she remains secular, she can never entirely overcome the mercenary values of secular life. In order to be able to properly bear witness to values higher than the market, she must live outside the market.
The man who believes he can testify to the higher values of culture while collecting a fat paycheck is deluding himself. Integrity demands a life of poverty and simplicity. We find testament to this in the ancient Greeks, where Anaxagoras abandons his possessions to be a full time lover of divine wisdom. We find it in Buddhism, where Siddhartha gives up his royal legacy to become a wandering monk. We find it in Christianity, where Augustine gives up a lucrative job to become a priest.
Genuine culture is culture produced by an uncorrupted soul with a sincere and genuine devotion to values higher than the market. You won't find such souls in a world ruled by the market.
The majority may be fit to rule your political life. The market may be fit to rule your economic life. But neither is fit to rule your spiritual life. Early Christians refused to conform their souls to the demands of Caesar, and instead conformed them to the demands of Christ. The monk of today refuses to conform his soul to the demands of the market (today’s Caesar), and instead conforms his soul to something he believes to be higher.
Combining ideas from multiple religions is often a very fruitful source of new ideas. But this kind of artful combining bears no resemblance to the mindless amalgamation of muddled ideas that finds its way to polls and markets. To distrust polls and markets in spiritual matters isn’t elitist. It’s merely a frank acknowledgment that politics and economics, while they may have their proper roles, were never suited to conveying subtle spiritual teachings.
The English form of enlightenment represents reason giving up on the idea that there might be values higher than usefulness to the state and the market. Bacon, Smith, Locke and Hume were not ascetics. Philosophy is henceforth the humble servant of politics and economics. God and truth are sacrificed to utility.
The Enlightenment puts knowledge in the place formerly occupied by God. The problem is, God can offer exhortations as well as propositions, while knowledge can’t. Hume’s famous “An is doesn’t imply an ought” is only refuted by allowing our reasoning to be led by a particular “I am” that for him was not.
Secular life is defined by abandonment of traditions that once conveyed values higher than the dollar from one generation to the next. If we try to find anything higher than the dollar in secular culture, we search in vain.
Secular society has no equivalent of the monk. If the market has a corrupting effect on the soul, the help the secular world offers for our souls will be corrupt.
If we find no higher value in the secular world than the dollar, this is because the secular world has excluded beforehand all forms of life that make no reference to the dollar. On a typical day in a typical secular life, there's a very slim chance of meeting a monk.
What if there really is something higher than the market, something more sacred than the dollar? If there is, how do we propose to find it in secular life, where all forms of wisdom that make no reference to the market have been excluded in advance?
Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Disneyland give us a culture that grows out of the market and serves the market. They make reference to higher values all the time. But when a reference to a higher value is made only to serve a lower value—is it an authentic reference? Any references Hollywood makes to higher values are merely instrumental, and therefore insincere.
The rebel who makes independent films instead of selling out to Hollywood fares better. But so long as she remains secular, she can never entirely overcome the mercenary values of secular life. In order to be able to properly bear witness to values higher than the market, she must live outside the market.
The man who believes he can testify to the higher values of culture while collecting a fat paycheck is deluding himself. Integrity demands a life of poverty and simplicity. We find testament to this in the ancient Greeks, where Anaxagoras abandons his possessions to be a full time lover of divine wisdom. We find it in Buddhism, where Siddhartha gives up his royal legacy to become a wandering monk. We find it in Christianity, where Augustine gives up a lucrative job to become a priest.
Genuine culture is culture produced by an uncorrupted soul with a sincere and genuine devotion to values higher than the market. You won't find such souls in a world ruled by the market.
The majority may be fit to rule your political life. The market may be fit to rule your economic life. But neither is fit to rule your spiritual life. Early Christians refused to conform their souls to the demands of Caesar, and instead conformed them to the demands of Christ. The monk of today refuses to conform his soul to the demands of the market (today’s Caesar), and instead conforms his soul to something he believes to be higher.
Combining ideas from multiple religions is often a very fruitful source of new ideas. But this kind of artful combining bears no resemblance to the mindless amalgamation of muddled ideas that finds its way to polls and markets. To distrust polls and markets in spiritual matters isn’t elitist. It’s merely a frank acknowledgment that politics and economics, while they may have their proper roles, were never suited to conveying subtle spiritual teachings.
The English form of enlightenment represents reason giving up on the idea that there might be values higher than usefulness to the state and the market. Bacon, Smith, Locke and Hume were not ascetics. Philosophy is henceforth the humble servant of politics and economics. God and truth are sacrificed to utility.
The Enlightenment puts knowledge in the place formerly occupied by God. The problem is, God can offer exhortations as well as propositions, while knowledge can’t. Hume’s famous “An is doesn’t imply an ought” is only refuted by allowing our reasoning to be led by a particular “I am” that for him was not.
Secular life is defined by abandonment of traditions that once conveyed values higher than the dollar from one generation to the next. If we try to find anything higher than the dollar in secular culture, we search in vain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)