The philosopher Bertrand Russell once said something very interesting and thought provoking about philosophy: "There is a reciprocal causation: the circumstances of men's lives does much to determine their philosophy, but, conversely, their philosophy does much to determine their circumstances."
Although I understand what Russell was saying I've had trouble expanding on it and coming up with examples. Now I think I have some. Take war and peace as an example. War is a circumstance that eventually directed humans to a philosophy of peace, a philosophy that established a more secure and saver world. War has been part of men's lives for a very long time. And in some parts of the world it still is. However, for enlightened humans wars have become a thing of the past and unthinkable. Far instance, the two world wars of the 20th century radically changed much of human philosophy to be against war. Those two wars, especially the second one, were so horrendous that they begged a change in our philosophy. The disastrous consequences of those wars directed us to work towards never having to go through such conflicts again. From those two wars we learned that such future conflicts would be the undoing of all of us. Human philosophy definitely changed after the Second World War in so far that in the wake of it an institution was created to help cultivate and preserve peace, the United Nations. As an institute for world peace the United Nations was born as a result of years of warring circumstances. Enlightened human have realized that little if anything is gain from war in this day and age and instead have adopted a philosophy that promotes the opposite.
Russell's observation puts philosophy in a different kind of light other than in its general ivory tower status. It makes philosophy sound like a working activity. He makes philosophy sound like it is a tool that we all have at our disposal to manage and improve our lives. Philosophy is not the only the stuff of great thinkers but the stuff belonging to everybody. In this light philosophy is not only a written text but also a means to reason, to improve our attitudes and the human condition.
The operative word in Russell's observation is *conversely*. Its root is *converse*, from Latin meaning to turn around and see. So what is happening here is that one is turning around one's mind to view and reason one's circumstances, comparing and reflecting on them, creating a logic that will alter and color future behavior. If the circumstance is bad, like war, the mind modifies and tries to improve things, thus altering future circumstance. Philosophy, then, also is a sort of database from which one draws on to progress.
Democracy, like peace, is a philosophy that grew out of past world circumstances and reflecting on them. Humans came to understand what Kant meant when he said that democratic nations do not go to war with each other. Thus, the philosophy of democracy was encouraged as the way of preserving peace. However, it took time for humanity to grasp this concept. After WWII the defeated enemies, Germany and Japan, were not abandoned or made to pay reciprocity to the victors as Germany was forced to do after WWI. That financial imposition crippled Germany and embittered it so that two decades later it again lashed out militarily against its foes, for enforcing such harsh measures against it. If Germany had been encouraged to develop the philosophy of democracy after WWI and the world had developed the United Nations as some had tried, WWII probably would never have occurred.
On an individual basis circumstance can also determine personal philosophies, in different ways. For instance, I believe if one is born in a fairly secure and loving environment one tends to be optimistic about life, whereas if one is of a volatile environment one would tend to be pessimistic about life. People's philosophies can also change later in life when circumstances change for them. For example, people who suffered the atrocities of WWII would have a very different outlook on the world than those who didn't. And I think people who are immigrants to a country like Canada have a different philosophy and attitude towards multiculturalism than those born there. Immigrants tend to be more accepting of multiculturalism because they are aliens who are adopting a different way of life in a foreign country, hence their becoming more accepting of cultural differences. Also, the circumstance of being male or female certainly produces different philosophies and approaches to life.
I remember years ago discussing a very rare occurrence, a two headed child. Both heads, meaning children, were very alert about the world. And both had different views about things. A friend, though, was wondering why both girls didn't think alike and have the same attitude towards things since they were both connected to the same body. You would think that they would think alike because of their virtually being the same person. I thought about it and then realized, naturally they both would have different views, thus different philosophies, because each head and its pair of eyes viewed a different aspect of the world, since they looked in different directions. My point is this, it doesn't take much difference in one's circumstance to conjure and determine different philosophies towards life. It also depends on a little thing like which way one's facing.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Happy New Year
Two posts ago I wrote about Niall Ferguson, the LA Times columnist who wanted to wish everybody Happy New Year in his New Year's Day column but decided against it because he said that for most of the world New Year’s doesn't start on January 1st. He used the song Auld lang syne" to illustrate his point and added that only English speakers understood the meaning of that song. So his point was that not only did New Year’s not start on Jan 1st for a large percentage of the world but that most of the world didn't speak English and thus could not share in the sentiment that accompanied the closing of the old year.
Ferguson was really lamenting the shrinking of the Anglo, English-speaking world. He is, I believe, a bit of a traditionalist and sentimentalist. He once admitted to being a pessimist. I think he really wishes the world were still set in the British Empire. He ended his New Year's Day article with this: "Yes, let's have a drink 'for auld lang syne' this New Year's - for we English speakers have our best years behind us"
His last comment prompted me to fire off a letter to the Times. To my delight they published it. This is what I wrote: Niall Ferguson should take some comfort in the fact that the world is turning out more in the fashion of the English-speaking world than any other. The English-speaking world has made and established the rules and methods within which the world operates. Those rules and methods are not likely to change because they have proved, through a process of elimination, that they work best for the modern world. The world's needs and aspirations cannot be met without democracy and capitalism [, the DNA of the modern world].
The last phrase I put in brackets because it was omitted from the Times letter, though it was in my original draft. I used that phrase because it was, ironically, an idea Ferguson introduced me to in his book the "Cash Nexus". In it he suggested the idea that perhaps democracy and capitalism constituted the DNA of the modern world, which together probably make up the only workable form of governance for the modern world.
I think, though, Ferguson was being sarcastic with that suggestion. He was really being critical of Fukuyama's idea that liberal democracy, aka democracy/capitalism, was the end point in human governance. As I interpreted Ferguson, he was saying something like, 'Do you mean say, as Fukuyama believes, that those two doctrines together make up the essential ingredient necessary to run and sustain the modern world and nothing else will do? Where does he get off with such an idea?' Nevertheless, I find the DNA analogy interesting because I had come to believe that the reason democracy and capitalism have paralleled each other in developed democracy like ours is because neither can exist without the other, nor can our modern societies continue without them working in tandem.
There are people like Fukuyama and myself who believe the world is on a trajectory. And that trajectory is a defusing of power and the world becoming more alike, more politically unified, more power sharing, with no country truly dominant. On the other hand, I think Ferguson thinks the world still needs a controlling power, like an empire, to be a broker and an enforcer, so as to keep the world safe and secure. He saw America as that power, especially after 9/11. Now he laments that not happening because America has lost a lot of its influence in the world due to its poor judgment in the Middle East. But as I see it, with the world becoming more alike and unified, there is no room for empires anymore. The world is beyond that. And even America has had a hand the decline of its influence in the world by suggesting and persuading other nations to be more like it, which is happening more and more with the spread of globalization. No, the decisions of the world are not for any one empire anymore.
Ferguson was really lamenting the shrinking of the Anglo, English-speaking world. He is, I believe, a bit of a traditionalist and sentimentalist. He once admitted to being a pessimist. I think he really wishes the world were still set in the British Empire. He ended his New Year's Day article with this: "Yes, let's have a drink 'for auld lang syne' this New Year's - for we English speakers have our best years behind us"
His last comment prompted me to fire off a letter to the Times. To my delight they published it. This is what I wrote: Niall Ferguson should take some comfort in the fact that the world is turning out more in the fashion of the English-speaking world than any other. The English-speaking world has made and established the rules and methods within which the world operates. Those rules and methods are not likely to change because they have proved, through a process of elimination, that they work best for the modern world. The world's needs and aspirations cannot be met without democracy and capitalism [, the DNA of the modern world].
The last phrase I put in brackets because it was omitted from the Times letter, though it was in my original draft. I used that phrase because it was, ironically, an idea Ferguson introduced me to in his book the "Cash Nexus". In it he suggested the idea that perhaps democracy and capitalism constituted the DNA of the modern world, which together probably make up the only workable form of governance for the modern world.
I think, though, Ferguson was being sarcastic with that suggestion. He was really being critical of Fukuyama's idea that liberal democracy, aka democracy/capitalism, was the end point in human governance. As I interpreted Ferguson, he was saying something like, 'Do you mean say, as Fukuyama believes, that those two doctrines together make up the essential ingredient necessary to run and sustain the modern world and nothing else will do? Where does he get off with such an idea?' Nevertheless, I find the DNA analogy interesting because I had come to believe that the reason democracy and capitalism have paralleled each other in developed democracy like ours is because neither can exist without the other, nor can our modern societies continue without them working in tandem.
There are people like Fukuyama and myself who believe the world is on a trajectory. And that trajectory is a defusing of power and the world becoming more alike, more politically unified, more power sharing, with no country truly dominant. On the other hand, I think Ferguson thinks the world still needs a controlling power, like an empire, to be a broker and an enforcer, so as to keep the world safe and secure. He saw America as that power, especially after 9/11. Now he laments that not happening because America has lost a lot of its influence in the world due to its poor judgment in the Middle East. But as I see it, with the world becoming more alike and unified, there is no room for empires anymore. The world is beyond that. And even America has had a hand the decline of its influence in the world by suggesting and persuading other nations to be more like it, which is happening more and more with the spread of globalization. No, the decisions of the world are not for any one empire anymore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)