Frankenstein

I started reading Mary Shelley’s gothic classic Frankenstein for the first time on a cruise ship we boarded in Barcelona. At the time we were bound for Tenerife in the Canary Islands. In a wine museum on the island I discovered that Mary’s future husband, poet Percy Shelley, had visited there. I was aroused by the connection and wondered how many others there might be.

Mary Shelley was the daughter of Mary Wollestonecraft, a famous philosopher  and feminist who advocated women’s equality late in the 18th century, a person I had read and written something about.

In the introduction to this edition of the novel Wendy Lesser explains that the name Frankenstein may have been derived from two German words, frank — which in English means giving currency to, and stein - which means stone. So the name, I am thinking, comes from the idea of giving life to an inanimate object with a galvanizing currency of electricity. (The ‘en’ was probably added to make the pronunciation easier.) As Lesser added, Shelley was fascinated with lightening storms. But that doesn’t explain how Shelley herself came upon this name. Perhaps she was influenced by the knowledge that Benjamin Franklin at the time was experimenting with electricity. Perhaps the first draft of the title might have been ‘Franklinstein’. Subsequently, though, I discovered from a Google search that Frankenstein was the name of an aristocratic German family whose ruined castle Shelly used to pass on her way home. The name literally means stones of the Franks, people who had settled in Germany after the decline of the Roman Empire.

The electricity/stone explanation reminded me of something I had learned earlier, an idea that the physicist Niels Bohr introduced, the complementarity principle. My first introduction to this principle was furnished by none other than a stone and someone explaining that when a stone becomes other than an inanimate objected and useful, like a door stop or a weapon, it’s due to a complementarity or supplementary action. In the case of the motionless mass that Frankenstein’s monster was, it  was given life and currency by the complementarity of an electric current.

It’s not easy to understand what motivated Mary Shelley to write a book about a monster. Lord Byron, a close friend, suggested she write a ghost story. She said she was inspired by a dream. But perhaps it had to do more with the times, a time in which science's progression was outstripping human knowledge and wisdom to handle it, a lack that at times ended up with disastrous consequences. Nevertheless, it is astonishing that a nineteen year old girl, when she started it, could have image and written such a story. (Somewhere it is said that Byron ran out of the room screaming when he read it.)

The science Mary Shelley had Victor Frankenstein preform in her novel would today be called pseudo-science or junk science. It was science fiction  (the first of its kind), because it was impossible and could not achieve reality or sustainability. However, it did have a legitimacy about it. In a sense it laid out a dangerous scenario for humankind if it continued to tinker with things and combination of things ( playing God) it had no understanding or mastery of . Since then civilization has witnessed many instances of Frankenstein-like human constructs that have had disastrous consequences, both abstract and physical.

It was pointed out that Frankenstein is a novel devoid of strong women. That is especially interesting in the fact that it was written by the daughter of an important feminist. All the women in it are passive. Like sometimes happens a quirky thought came to mind: Perhaps there was a hidden meaning here, portent to the future, about the monstrous consequences to the world’s order if feminism were to flourish. (Conversely, if equality were denied women no doubt it would be a more monstrous world.)

From the outset the word Frankenstein became a metaphor for freaky occurrences and jarring changes to the order of things. Today we talk about things like Frankenfood, which is genetically modified food, a modification not unlike Frankenstein’s monster. Metaphysical events that have defied explanation and rationalization, like the attacks on 9/11, often summoned Frankenstein type explanations. The financial crises the world experienced in 2008 was a product of weird Frankenstein-like financial derivations.

I was coincidentally remained by a friend of an architectural style known as Brutalism, a subcategory of Modernism that came into prominence in the 1960s and 70s. Today architects and observers alike are running away from this style because it doesn’t bowed well with today’s sensibilities about design. Its appearance conveys an architecture of bigness, large proportions and brutality. I was struck by a similarity with the monster I was reading about, that people are shunning architectural brutalism today in the same way that they were shunning and running away from the brutalism of Frankenstein’s monster. 

Frankenstein is a novel with many story lines. That’s probably what made it the sensation it became, because it offered many overlapping narratives of life. One of them, often hidden, is about the paradoxical nature of life — its simultaneous beauty and ugliness, good and evil, meaningfulness and meaninglessness. The monster was sensitive to both, simultaneously experiencing the creative and destructive aspects of life, which he saw in himself and had difficulty reconciling . The monster’s predicament is emblematic of life and the world. Perhaps Shelley was genetically disposed to understand the paradox  because of her mother’s situation in which she was a feminist but couldn’t live independently of a man because she needed one to survive. 

I imagine that Shelley also wrote this book to show  what she had learned from reading science and the world’s great literary works. But she may also have written it the way she did to provoke empathy, her point being, even though one is disfigured or different from others, like the monster was, that doesn’t mean one doesn’t have feelings or shouldn’t be treated with respect and dignity. The “Hunchback of Notre Dame” was another novel that elicited empathy in much the same way. 

Since I found and read this book onboard ship I thought I should make a connection between the two. It’s not an aesthetically pleasing one but neither was the appearance of Frankenstein’s monster. Nor is it a very kind one. Nevertheless, here goes: As I looked around the ship I saw people that looked disfigured and moved awkwardly like the monster did, mostly because of their age. I thought about the modified bodies many of the passengers had, like Frankenstein’s monster, with alien parts like artificial hips, refurbished knees and transplanted organs. 

I am surprised that Shelly didn’t give the monster a name. That explains why all these years it has been erroneously called Frankenstein. I also pondered a subject Shelley omitted that I thought might have made the monster a little more human. She never mentioned his bodily functions.

King

January 18 is Martin Luther King Day in the US. That observance prompted an admirer to say that he is perhaps one of the greatest philosopher of our time.

I never thought of Martin Luther King as a philosopher but I guess he is, even though he is not listed in any philosophy dictionary. Nevertheless, his philosophy transformed America, and as a result, the world. His philosophy was aimed at ending segregation and racism in America, and improving human rights. To paraphrase the British philosopher Bertrand Russell, circumstances determined King’s philosophy and in turn his philosophy determined circumstances. He is what is known as an operational philosopher, an advocate who put his philosophical beliefs to work. Other operational philosophers who advocated and advanced the human condition were Freud (psychoanalysis) and Benjamin Spock (child rearing).

It was probably the inability of the US Supreme Court’s 1954 decision to achieve desegregate in schools that provoked King to do battle against segregation and racism. Even though the Court’s ruling was unanimous (9-0) on it own it had little power or influence to improve race relations in America. It was a start. But many jurisdictions, especially in the south, ignored and fought that ruling. And there still existed a cultural stubbornness and a lack of will in the country that had to be addressed before the old folkways on race would change. As an abstraction the Court’s dictate was insufficient to change cultural attitudes and norms. Real social reform would have to come from beneath, not through court rulings, but through peaceful activism and the process of appealing to people’s better instincts. It was the mechanism of King’s philosophical conviction about America doing right by its people, and not the law per se, that started to turn things around and began transforming America racially for the better.

But would his philosophy have resonated as well in another time as it did in the 1950-60s? Would people have listened to his message 20 years earlier, before WWII? My feeling is that earlier Americans wouldn’t have been so receptive to his call for social and racial justice because they were preoccupied with other issues. But the era of the 1950-60s was different. His message was in tune with the times, with people thinking more about the future and wanting change. His philosophical outlook alined itself perfectly with the demographics and sociopolitical sensibilities of the day.

What made his philosophy especially poignant and powerful was not just that he was a great orator but that America and the world was ready for it. Prior to King the world was engrossed in other issues, like wars and economic recovery. Moreover, the technology to distribute his poignant message to a wider audiance did not exist yet. It was television that created the mass audience that made the difference. Without television I don't thing enough people would have visualized or appreciated what King was talking about, that race relations in America were scandalous. The people who counted and could make a difference saw on television for the first time the injustices perpetrated by Americans on other Americans. People were horrified and motivated by what they saw on TV, scenes of racial injustice and brutality, and they demanded reform. Hearing King's speeches on TV gave the situation all the more gravitas and urgency.

The world at the time of King was changing dramatically. Human rights had come to the forefront because of what happened during WWII and the Holocaust. People had become more aware of the ill treatment many people around the world were receiving, because of the growth of information and communications, such as that from television. King was the point man in changing attitudes towards race in America, changes that would eventually resonate around the world.

What gave King’s call for racial equality further traction was the generation he was speaking to. This generation was the so-called baby boomers, whose huge presence began emerging at the close of WWII. After the war the birth rate shot up dramatically as soldiers returned from the front and as the world began to feel more optimistic. It was a generation like no other, in numbers and sensibilities. As Leonard Steinhorn wrote in his book, “The Greater Generation: In Defense Of The Baby Boomer Legacy”, it was a generation that was not blindly going to accept the status quo set by the previous generation, of social intolerance and unquestionable deference to authority. This generation of boomers was in sync and exceptionally empathetic towards Martin Luther King’s fight for social justice. It was a generation determined to hold America to its founding ideals of equality for all under the law. Without this reform-minded generation King’s philosophy may have fallen on deaf ears and not led to the social transformation America needed so that it could be the exceptional nation it trumpeted itself to be.

King’s influence was also in the fact that he drew attention to America’s Achilles heel at a critical time in its history. During the Cold War, America, touting its democratic values and superiority, was in competition with communism for the hearts and minds of the world. America had to show the world that it was truly the land of justice and opportunity for all, as advertised. But King, in drawing attention to its social inequality, embarrassed America in its propaganda war with communism. King's pursuit for racial justice and equality for all forced America to reexamine itself and work to end its segregationist policies against African-Americans if it hoped to win the propaganda war against communism.

King was America’s savior. At the time America was a country sitting on a tinderbox of race relations. A significant portion of America’s population felt alienated in their own country because of their color. What heighten tensions more is that many African-American’s had become more educated and conscious of the injustices perpetrated against them. They wanted the same rights that were accorded their white counterparts. African-Americans who had recently returned home from wars, defending America and democracy in WWII and Korea, expected equality and recognition for their contributions. These people wanted their due rights as citizens, especially if they were expected to help defend and build the nation. Although there were race riots during King’s tenure, his peaceful marches raised awareness that helped defuse a situation that potentially could have gotten worse and ripped the country apart even further.

King's philosophical legacy helped empowered millions of people economically and politically. He also fought for workers rights. His fight for emancipation provoked legislation that gave the vote to millions of African-Americans, who, because of their race, had been deliberately denied that right. Because of his efforts the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was pasted, one of the greatest pieces of legislation in history. Perhaps King's greatest political legacy is the election of America's first black president, Barack Obama, which couldn’t have occurred if it wasn’t for the struggle he led.

Machiavelli wrote: “The human tragedy is that circumstances change, but man does not.” We humans still don’t like change. But if Americans had not heeded King’s advocacy for social change in order to combat racial discrimination that would have been a bigger tragedy.

Why we live in a postmodern world

Postmodern and postindustrial are synonymous. They both evoke a past era by symbolizing the present.

Postmodernism has not only changed the sensibilities and lifestyles of society on the whole but also between the sexes. The Atlantic magazine recently did an article on "The End Of Men: How Women Are Taking Control - Of Everything". As the article points out, The Great Recession in the US has caused more unemployment among men because the traditional jobs they hold in construction and manufacturing have been the hardest hit. Also, the economy is changing from a basically industrial one to a service one in which women are favoured. For the first time more women are employed than men. Also, more women are graduating from universities and more parents are choosing to have girls, even in societies that once favoured boys. This situation has upended the modern world which was more industrial, patriarchal and controlled by men. With these changes women are bring a new perspective to the world, something postmodernism is all about.

In His book “Consilience” Edward O. Wilson writes, “Postmodernism is the ultimate polar antithesis of the Enlightenment”. He is referring to the academic side of postmodernism. It was The Enlightenment that gave us modernism and the idea that there is truth and progress in human endeavour. Enlightenment thinkers believed that science would advance the world. And it has. However, an element of postmodernism particular to academia, and generally resentful of the powers that be, have preached antiscience, that science is arbitrary, depending on who is in control.

The Enlightenment also gave us democracy, which begs the question, is postmodernism anti-democratic?

Not exactly, but Fredrick Nietzsche (1844-1900), considered one of the first postmodernists, disliked modernity because it espoused democracy. He saw democracy as empowering the masses, something he despised because he felt that mass culture would smother individual achievement. Individual exceptionalism wouldn't survive in a sea of mass equality, he believed. However, Nietzsche must have been thinking of the illiberal version of democracy offered by Marxism rather than the liberal democracy of today's open societies where individual exceptionalism flourishes.

It is in academia that postmodernism has been most polemic and problematic, teaching things like science is an ideology and not necessarily ‘science‘, but one truth among many. In other words, there are other ways of knowing about nature and the universe. In this respect postmodernism did a disservice by effecting people's ability to comprehend reality.

It is said that postmodernism is dead because those who most promulgated it are dead, like Jean-François Lyotard, Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida. Perhaps in academia it is but not in the real world or in retailing, as The Economist pointed out in its article "Post-modernism is the new black", the new cool. The Economist used the London department store Selfridges as an example. In the early 1990s Selfridges was near collapse, following the fate of many other department stores. Its merchandizing style had grown stale and unappealing to shoppers. Niche marketing was become the norm. Selfridges wisely adopted the niche merchandizing style where retail departments within its store became independent from each other. Under the old management system departments stores were run from a central office and as a result lost touch with changing tastes. By decentralizing itself and giving its departments the freedom to make decisions, Selfridges remade itself, becoming the toast of the department store world, so much so that its postmodern formate was adopted universally as a means of retailing survival.

What modernists believed, to their detriment, was that once the world had adopted the rational of The Enlightenment things would fall into place. It hasn't quite worked out that way because modernists didn't take into account that their ideas wouldn't satisfy everybody. They hadn't considered that humans would still be unruly and behave independently, having their own ideas about how to lead their lives. For instance, modernists believed the world would be structured in a hierarchal manner, run by men, ‘white’ men. Modernists believed in maintaining the status quo. It was more about colonization and uniformity. The backlash that mounted against this mindset in the 1960s is what helped pave the way to the postmodernism of today. Today it's about globalization while maintaining diversity and flexibility.

Perhaps this simple narrative might help explain why we live in a postmodern world and why it will remain so: An aspect of postmodernism had been to constantly deconstruct (Derrida) systems and centres of power to examine and find fault with them. If in the process a system is found wanting but has sufficiently redeeming qualities, it is reconstructed, with improvements, and put back into service. With this in mind, let’s compare liberal democracy's governing style and to its opposite — communism, which has ostensibly collapsed. Simply put, liberal democracy has survived as a governing system because when deconstructed and examined it was found at its core worthy of something to built on. In comparison, when communism was deconstructed and examined it was found rotten at its core and thus discarded.

Foucault would have agreed that postmodernism is basically about decentralizing authority and emancipating the individual, helpfully enabled by technologies like the iPod and the Internet.

Writer, Reader and Humpty Dumpty

When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said to Alice in "Through The Looking Glass", it meant exactly what I want it to mean. If he said so, that is what it meant.

I am reading David Markson's "This Is Not A Novel" in which he refers to himself as Writer. (I'll refer to myself as Reader, although I am also writing). In it he mentions the abstract artist Robert Rauschenberg who said about one of his paintings: "This is a portrait of Iris Clert [ Paris gallery owner] if I say so". Markson also writes, "This is a novel if Writer or Robert Rauschenberg say so". Later he writes, "This is even a poem, if Writer says so". And then, " This is even an epic poem, if the Writer says so".

Markson was considered an experimental writer.

I have come across people who don't like looking up the meaning of words in the dictionary because it ruins it for them. It's as though the dictionary is telling them how to think. They want to discover the meaning of words for themselves. The dictionary, they think, is telling them how to think. But unlike some, I don't think Humpty was bothered by the fact that a meaning of a word was defined prior to his using it. Humpty was into pragmatics, where the meaning of a word could take on different meanings depending on the context. He knew he was dealing with the English language, a democratic language open to interpretation and flexibility, not like other languages that remained inflexible and their usage policed by some central committee.

Speaking of being told how to think, I had an acquittance who said she didn't like reading the editorials in the newspaper because she felt that they were telling her how to think. Imagine feeling so easily influenced and so insecure about one's convictions.

I was hoping Markson might have made reference to Humpty Dumpty in his not-a-novel for my sake, since I had been thinking about him. His book is peppered with blurbs about notable people throughout history, e.g., Freud suffered from chronic constipation. But nowhere did I find even mention of Lewis Carroll (a.k.a Charles Lutwidge Dodgson) who employed Humpty as one of Alice's foils.

In his book "Voltaire's Bastards" John Ralston Saul evoked Humpty Dumpty to express his annoyance with the hijacking of 'capitalism' , that the term is often used to mean nothing of the kind.

Reader is wrong. Markson did mention Lewis Carroll, that he wrote standing up. Donald Rumsfeld, Bush’s inept Secretary of Defense, worked standing up. “Truman Capote wrote lying down.”

Howard Kainz wrote that Marx's dialectic was eclectic.

According to a Dutch physicist, the theory of everything may be found in thermodynamics, which I supposed. Erik Verlinde believes ‘that gravity is a consequence of the venerable laws of thermodynamics’.

Markson writes, "Lavoisier was guillotined in the Reign of Terror". Reader discovered Lavoisier was a French scientist known for his study in, what was at the time, the young field of thermodynamics. He demonstrated that the shift of matter from one state to another happens without loss or gain. Matter that is destroyed emerges as something else, in the same amount, though different. Jean-Paul Marat, Lavoisier's denouncer and a French revolutionist, may have understood this principle and also wanted to demonstrate it, so felt no qualms about authoring Lavoisier’s death.

One of Reader's favorite saying is 'Litigation creates Civilization'. (Reader doesn't know whether he made up that phrase or he read it somewhere.) Reader doesn't just mean the litigation that occurs in court rooms, between lawyers or clients, but the litigation that occurs on a daily bases between people and institutions. Reader is reading a book on orchestra conductors and he is thinking about the litigation and proceedings that occur between them and the musicians they conduct. The back and forth that transpires between these two parties does have a creative effect in that it results in a civilizing, harmonious development. In fact, the discourse and clashing that occurs between notes in music is a form of litigation, which also results in creation.

The litigation or argument that occurs between the conductor and musicians, like that which occurs between the notes of a score, can create glorious music if ultimately they come together in harmony. Humpty Dumpty may have called such a happening a 'glory' if he found the outcome satisfying and refreshing. In fact that is what he and Alice were discussing. He used the word glory to mean a "nice knock-down argument". Alice questioned and objected to that usage, prompting Humpty's famous line, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less”.

Sad as the French Revolution was for all, the litigation that occurred during it eventually helped lead to the civility we see today in Europe and throughout the world.

Today Reader learned that the elegant, Australian conductor Charles Mackerras died at 84, July 14, 2010. As a young man Mackerras found himself bowled over by the music of Janacek, the Czech composer.

Humpty Dumpty

For some reason I thought of Humpty Dumpty. I know why, because of the word 'postmodernism'.

I read what I thought was a rogue interpretation of postmodernism by Arthur Berger. He sees it as a term meaning an old idea becoming fresh. For instance, he considers shuffling music and the randomly playing of it on an iPod as being a postmodern activity. As he explained, "Listening to music in the shuffle form contributes to postmodern sensibilities and lifestyles". So for him postmodernism means something new out of something old, a remodeling of sorts, a game changer.

Humpty Dumpty came to mind when I read Berger’s definition. His definition didn’t seem to fit the general understanding of postmodern. Humpty explains to Alice in “Through The Looking-Glass” that when he uses a word it means just what he chooses it to mean. Thus, I felt Berger had chosen postmodern to mean what he wanted it to mean.

In some quarters postmodernism is looked upon unfavorably. As it is defined, postmodernism literally means after 'modernism'. Modernism is the philosophical view that the world will unfold in a logical, homogeneous manner, where people gravitate and conform to a prescribed lifestyle. In contrast, the philosophy of postmodernism means that the order isn’t necessarily ideal or good. Why this idea so upsets people is because it gives the impression that anything goes, especially when it comes to lifestyle and values. Detractor of postmodernism view it as a chaotic and dangerous philosophy - a threat to achieving and maintaining a cohesive, civil society.

Multiculturalism is considered postmodern. Under modernism people coming together from different cultures were expected to assimilate into a single culture. But in the postmodern world people retain their own cultures while learning to coexist in the larger context, hence the idea of multiculturalism. Modernism is a much simpler lifestyle than postmodernism, which brings with it more complexity, variations and choices. The modern world was easier to govern, whereas the postmodern world is more demanding and harder to balance in its multiplicity.

Perhaps the meaning Berger gave postmodern isn’t so far off. The shuffle form of listening to music does seems to go up against an established norm of listening to music. It does seem to ruffle some old sensibilities about how music should be listened to. Moreover, his meaning sounds compatible with the general idea of postmodernism, that things don’t necessarily have to be of a certain pattern or order, socially or otherwise, for things to remain intact or meaningful. Berger’s postmodernism is definitely disruptive of the old order, breaking down the centers of control and offering alternatives.

The other day I learned of a postmodern novelist, David Markson, who died at 82. He was considered an experimental novelist. He didn’t always follow the traditional norms of writing. I guess that is why he was considered postmodern and experimental. One thing that made him different is that his storytelling lacked the usual structure of plot and characters. He would inject his narrative with random, unconnected thoughts, like mentioning something unrelated. Perhaps that is what made him postmodern, that he broke with tradition. I can imagine how his style might have infuriate some. Nevertheless, it didn’t seem to matter much because he had quite a following that succumbed to his style. Somebody described his writing like a person thinking. He might be writing about a visit to the Louvre and then switch gears and write, to use my example, The industrialized world represented modernism. The service industry that's followed represents postmodernism or, if you will, postindustrialism. In his book “This Is Not A Novel”(A Review: "It is ironic that what we call a "novel" is bound up in a relatively stable set of conventions which belie the novelty or newness its namesake suggests. It is this tension that makes David Markson's This Is Not a Novel an ambitious and compelling postmodern work that makes one think about the process of reading itself.") he writes in the form of tweets, analogous of that postmodern sensibility experienced on Twitter.

I wonder if Markson blurbed or tweeted anything about Humpty Dumpty?

to be continued....

Freud and Einstein

In Jeffrey Gordon's article 'Is War Inevitable?' in Philosophy Now 66, I read Freud's assertion to Einstein that man is driven by two powerful instincts, one of creation and one of destruction. In other word, man has an inherent urge to create and then destroy. Freud was knowledgeable in the perversion of man.

Even though Freud was not optimistic that man would or could ever stop making war, Einstein seemed encouraged by Freud's instinctive explanation, perhaps because Einstein focused more on man's creative aspect than on the destructive. Perhaps Einstein thought that as man got more creative in his ability to destroy himself he would eventually lose a desire for war and use reason instead. And in a sense that is what happened, with the help of none other than Einstein himself. Ironically, his discoveries allowed the creation of the atomic bomb, which would stymie future wars. Because of its destructive power it became a deterrent instead of a weapon. Nations have not gone to war with each other as they once did.

I also thought of the economist Joseph Schumpeter, who labeled capitalism 'creative destruction'. After WW2 and with the advent of atomic weapons, capitalism ascended around the world. Man still had his instinct for destruction, but now capitalism manifested and channeled this instinct in less harmful, more productive ways: with capitalism, man's destructive instinct combined with his creative instinct shifted to a more benign but peaceful form. Einstein's optimism for mankind still triumphs over Freud's pessimism.

The world is replete with opposites, like the two poles of electricity, the genders of male and female, up and down, day and night and the two strands of DNA. Freud made us aware of another combination, humanity's penchants for creation and destruction, opposites that are as immutable as the others.

Einstein was one that showed that the splitting of the atom in two would unleash an astonishing amount of energy.

More on pluralism

In his article in Issue 74 Stephen Anderson writes, "Pluralism is the most serious problem facing liberal democracies today". On the contrary. I think pluralism is one of the big things liberal democracy has going for it.

What makes liberal democracy attractive and the only expanding form of governance in the world is that it encourages and celebrates pluralism. Pluralism does make liberal democracy more complex but that complexity has made it more durable and resilient, as shown by 9/11, from which it recovered. Moreover, the competing interests of pluralism have served to make liberal democracy more sophisticate and agile. In comparison, liberal democracy's rival, communism, collapsed because it lacked the energizing push and pull of pluralism that could have helped rejuvenate and keep it relevant and legitimate. Even liberal democracy's name resonates pluralism in the fact that it is fashioned out of two contradictory theories of human governance (forming a kind of governance DNA), liberal, referring to free market competition, and democracy, based on cooperation and equality.

So ironically, pluralism has helped bolster the Golden Rule, not hinder it as Anderson seems to suggest. As history can attest, the Golden Rule has not always been that solid a rule. It is an essential good start; but on its own it is generally toothless, as was another good start, "all men are created equal". What gave that declaration meaning was that it was backed up by a constitution.

Generally, the Golden Rule has had tacit acceptance for like-minded people and of common ethnicity. But for the Golden Rule to be meaningfully binding it's had to speak to a universal mutual respect and empathy - that is, it condones pluralism. What gives the Golden Rule even more credence is the political commitment to expand human rights and eradicate tribalism. Furthermore, that political commitment has helped put people throughout the world on an equal footing, despite their opposing interests. Without such a political commitment and the added pressures of pluralism, on the whole the Golden Rule would have remained an ideal.

Contrary to what Anderson seems to imply, the Golden Rule did stand the test on 9/11, as that attack did not spark a clash of civilizations as many believed it might. That it didn't, I think is due to the depth of pluralism that had accumulated in the world between nations and peoples, which grew out of the increasing interdependence of the world and agencies like the UN and WTO which cultivated pluralism and internationalism to maintain world peace.

The Pill

This is the 50th anniversary of the birth control pill, the Pill. It introduced a new kind of science, regulatory science, where products are pre-tested or recalled if they were found faulty. From this grew the science of environmental impact studies, which studies the impact of human developments on the environment before they are implimented.

 

Here is another letter of mine that was published in Philosophy Now, letter no. 12:

From reading your editorial in issue 77, "Continental Tales', I learned that I do continental philosophy, since like the continentals I tend to think in terms of the abstractions that govern humankind; that is, grand narratives.

It began with my seeking an explanation for the collapse of communism. I wondered, was there a single, overarching imperative that brought about communism's demise? And was liberal's democracy's triumph due to it addressing that imperative successfully? Hegel, the master of grand narratives, led me to what I consider the answer.

While other thinkers in Hegel's day were busy concocting grand narratives based on fixed entities like authority, religion and culture - only to see them shattered by churning world events - Hegel based his grand narrative on change itself. That to me is the main reason why communism didn't survive: because its governance was inflexible, outdated, and inherently couldn't adjust to the changing world. What I believe ultimately led to its decline, is that the world was becoming culturally and economically both more interdependent and open, while communism was predisposed to remain both closed and an isolationist society. But history and humankind had other ideas; hence it was swept aside, like other authoritarian regimes that resisted change and openness.

Hegel also saw the direction of history guided by the struggle for freedom and recognition. For him, this fundamental human desire and its subsequent accommodation causes the most profound upheavals in the world, from its organization to its governance. It also contributed to the demise of communism since it structurally obstructed this Hegelian struggle every step of the way.

Grand narratives should be taken with a grain of salt. But many a truism is found in them.

Philosophy and comics

Above is another cover of Philosophy Now (click on it to enlarge it) that gets right to the point. This is what I wrote about it:

On the cover of issue 73, Philosophy Now cleverly portrays one of its subjects, the Credit Crisis. Its comic/cartoon cover portrays the crisis for what it is, a virtual earthquake. It gets right to the point, pictorially illustrating two major causes of the crisis - crumbling banks and the panic it generated.

It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words. PN's comic cover lives up to that adage. Moreover, its simple depiction gets right down to business, foregoing a wordy, esoteric explanation that in all likely hood would bore or confuse people. It graphically makes the situation instantly real and personal, speaking directly to the 'common man'. And in that lies a power of the comic, its egalitarianism.

The magazine's main subject, Comics & Philosophy, produces two aspects of the Credit Crisis. Though serious, it has its comical side, reminiscent of the antics of the "Keystone Cops" where nobody seemed to be in the know or in charge. It also has its philosophical nature in that it will alway remain an abstract, complex issue as to the real caused of it.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The above wasn't published in Philosophy Now but the following letter by me was:

I have little interest in comics, just like I have little interest in novels. Both are a form of escapism and entertainment that I don't need. But I understand those genres preforming a social service. Both relate to and expand the commonalities of the human condition. Thus, in a subliminal way, by appealing to what people have in common - emotions needs and aspirations, they help facilitate social cohesion, which is essential if we are going to live well together. (I think that the Danish comic depictions of Allah helped, in a perverse way, to engage and defuse a lot of animosity between faiths that otherwise would have continued to fester and potentially have led to worse.)

In her book “Inventing Human Rights” Lynn Hunt writes about the role novels have played in the development of rights. Human rights could never have been established if the miming and cultivation of the common characteristics that make us human, like sympathy and empathy, hadn't occurred in novels. Hunt describes how Rousseau’s novel “Julie” (1761) was an early contributer in this process.

If the novel was instrumental in cultivating human rights. I see the comic doing the same thing, but in a different, simpler way, mainly graphically. Now we have the combination of the two, the graphic novel. Some may see this as a dumping down of the traditional novel but in its 'clipped', pictorial version its message may be reaching and influencing more readers, producing an additional venue in bringing a common understanding.

Philosophy Now

I subscribe to a magazine called Philosophy Now. Here is the cover of the latest issue, #78.

I have submitted many letters to the magazine since I first read it in 1999 and had a total of 12 published. Here is one that wasn't so I will submit it here:

I have been preoccupied with pluralism. Then I receive PN's latest issue #75 on existentialism & culture and my preoccupation shifted to existentialism, to the point of being nagged by it. I say nagged by it because it wouldn't leave me alone until I got a clearer fix on it. Perhaps, too, I forced myself to concentrate on it because of a potential link to pluralism.

With all due respect to PN, its articles on existentialism left me wanting. I had to look elsewhere to understand its relevance. But then, that may be the purpose of PN, to peak one's interest so to star one on a path of discovery.

One thing I learned is that today's existential movement grew out of Kierkegaard's counter argument to Hegel's abstract rationalism and idealism. Existentialists believe philosophical inquire should start with the individual's place in the world instead of phenomena and grand theories. It believes that nothing much in the world occurs or exists without first the action or thought of individuals. Kant thought in existential terms in that human will is what separated man from nature and contingency, making man an independent, existential agent. I also learned about its rise to prominence during the 40's and 50's as a direct response to Nazism and Fascism, dogmas where individualism was overshadowed by grand theories, inevitabilities and determinants of history.

I can understand why existentialism came to prominence during that time, because of the violations that were perpetrated against humans under fascist and totalitarian regimes. As Bertrand Russell said, our circumstances influence our philosophy. This is truly a philosophy that grew to reflect and address the circumstances of the day, a philosophy that would enhance individualism, thus putting pressure of the political system of the day to strengthen human rights so the atrocities perpetrated against humans during WWII would not occur again. The significance of existentialism was that it emanated from individuals and not the state, which historically had been a poor defender of human rights and freedoms. Without this philosophy the expansion of democracy would surely have stalled. This philosophy further empowered and extended the reach of the individual, the wellspring of democracy and social justice. (My favorite existential expression is "For best results, cultivate individuals, not groups.")

As for pluralism, existentialism has expanded it, through the expansion of individualism, independent thinking and the increased competing self-interests it initiates. Those byproducts of existentialism are not just self-serving and selfish. They are the agitating dynamics that keep the persistent tendencies of authoritarianism at bay. Pairing the two also highlights a paradox of life, the contradiction and conflict that exist between the existential individualism and the pluralistic institution that is society. Both often clash and want to lead but neither can realistically live without the other if either hopes to fulfill its needs and aspirations.

Freud and Benjamin Spock were exponents of existentialism, advocating self-hood and self-realization. Both expanded the scope of human awareness and possibilities. Freud made us more aware of our proclivities and Spock our capabilities. Both made us more confident about making choices and acting on them. In making us more aware of ourselves, our passions and our potentials they expanded our social consciousness, which in turn sparked the civil rights movements of the 50s and 60s, which, as we know, altered the culture of the world.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

As an after thought, this is International Earth Day, April 22, marking the 40th anniversary of it. If it wasn't for the forces of individualism and existentialism it would never have materialized. It was individuals in existential thought and coming together that brought it about, existential thinkers who said, perhaps selfishly but rightfully so, it is my (our) live and I (we) am not going to let polluters take it away from me by destroying my (our) Earth. This grand display of existentialism shows that mass self-interest can materialize into the common good as Adam Smith argued more than 200 years ago.

Kierkegaard is believed to be the father of existentialism. For me this is interesting, especially in the context of Philosophy Now's question. Kierkegaard's existentialism grew out of his believe that religion and belief in God should be an individual's choice and a private matter. His existentialism said the existence and nature of God shouldn't be forced on people. I believe he deplored the institutionalization of God. His kind of thinking gave strength to secularism and pluralism, materializing into today's more peaceful world where most of us have learned to tolerate other people's faiths.

Trump

I cut this mat and it reminds me of the Trump Tower being built in Toronto.

Democracy and Experts

I was arguing democracy with a conservative. We had a difference of opinion as to what democracy entails and constitutes. He told me to refer to the experts and historians about its true nature and to know when it fails. The only thing is, he didn't offer me any names of experts and historians. Are there any?

What is interesting to me is that the experts and historians there are on the subject are still learning and debating what democracy is and what makes it work.

Take for example, Larry Diamond, who teaches democracy at Stanford. He is an expert in democracy, at least he thought, until he went to Iraq to help establish it there. Not long after being in Iraq he left in frustration because of the momentous problems facing the building of democracy. One thing he realized is that if there is to be any chance for democracy, fundamentally one needs security and stability. Iraq lacked both big time. Ironically the war made it more unstable. Why didn't he know that beforehand? Other experts like Francis Fukuyama (The End of History) fell into the same trap.

Another thing Diamond and Fukuyama (considered neoconservatives) didn't consider is that democracy can't be parachuted and expected to take hold in countries that have never practiced it before, in a short period of time. In the West it has taken centuries to establish and understand. And the West is still learning. Democracy is contingent on many things accruing simultaneously, like the rule of law, free markets, a free press, dissent, pluralism and so on, just like the human body needs many organs to work properly. Those organs have taken a long time to evolve. So no wonder democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan is having difficulty taking hold.

Democracies like the US and Britain seem to some to be failing. However, it is not that they are failing. They are under pressure to upgrade themselves, which all governing systems have to do if they are going to remain vital and legitimate, especially in a constantly changing world. (Communism collapsed because it remained stagnant.) Governing systems also suffer from ware and tear, and entropy, just like their counterparts in the physical world. If democracy was static it would be a different story. But there are always new circumstances entering its domain that have to be accommodated and adjusted for. If democracy failed in countries like Argentine, where it did several time, it's because they didn't have the institutions or division of power established to insure that it carry on, which isn't the case for the US or Britain.

People, most of them conservatives, often point to ancient Greece as having been a thriving democracy. But as I understand it, it was only a democracy for a limited number of white males of a certain class. And it didn't include women or minorities, like slaves. On hindsight it just looked like an experiment. But conservatives can't explain why it didn't last. Conservatives insist that since democracy failed in those days it can fail today. But democracy is far more robust and resilient today than it was then.

Democracy didn't last in ancient Greece because its existence was tiny and there weren’t enough like minded countries in the world to bolster and support it. In contrast, today we have a critical mass of people who thing democratically. There are plenty of nations practicing democratic principles, enough that if one is on the verge of losing it, it can expect assistance from others to help re-establish it. Globalization would not be possible if democratic principles, like transparency and accountability, between nations were not observed.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was knowledgeable about democracy. Except that in his day there weren't any true democracies around. What was around then was just fledging democracies, like the US and Britain. But he did have an insight, that democracies don't go to war with each other. I can't think of one fully developed democracy that has gone to war with another. Kant may have said this: "The main goal of democracy is to reduce violence". The proof is in the pudding. As democracy has expanded around the world, fewer and fewer nations have gone to war with each other. Perhaps that is the greatest legacy of democracy, that it has brought the world closer together. Kant certainly believed that would be the case.

Democracy is a messy, dissonant procedure. Perhaps that is why conservatives have a problem with it. Democracy isn't black and white. Conservatives tend to think black and white. Democracy requires nuancing. Conservatives have a problem nuancing.

Las Vegas

We just got back from Las Vegas. We didn't go there to gamble since we both hate to loose money, but to see that virtual, fantasy world cut out of the desert.

In my last essay I wrote about a ‘spanner in the works’. Well, this was one of those occasions when a spanner had been thrown into the works, disrupting an entire system. It started the day before, on Christmas Day, when a terrorist tried to blow up a plane as it flew into Detroit from Amsterdam. This incident literally threw a monkey wrenched into the travel plans of many because it sparked a higher level of security at airports everywhere, causing lengthy delays. At least it wasn't due to the weather, which might have caused even longer delays. But some of the precautions that were implemented as a result seemed silly and fruitless, like not being able to watch TV on board the plane because the program included a map of our flight, like that would have made a difference.

Anyway, the flight went well and we were only two hours late. But one thing we had to do was remain in our seats the last hour of the flight because that was when the terrorist tried to blowup the plane. You see, he had gone to the washroom in that last hour for a lengthy period of time in order to prepare his explosive. Once in Las Vegas, though, everything went fine, though it was a little cool, but sunny.

The Las Vegas airport is very close to the city center, unlike Toronto where we left from. To give you an idea of how close it was the cab only cost $18 to our hotel, whereas in Toronto it cost about $60 to the airport from where we live.

We stayed at the Bellagio, overlooking Lake Como. It wasn't really Lake Como or the real Bellagio. The names were lifted from the real places in Italy, north of Milan. And that is the thing about Las Vegas, most of it is fantasy and making one feel like they might be somewhere else. For instance, across from our room on 24th floor was the Paris hotel, with a replica of the Eiffel Tower and the Paris Opera House in front. It was quite spectacular. Up the street, north on the Las Vegas Strip, was the Venetian, with its Cantabil Tower in St Mark's Square and the Rialto Bridge spanning a canal with gondolas.

We found the Venetian almost as impressive as our hotel. In side the Venetian we found canals and real gondolas in which people took rides as the gondoliers singing to them. Along the canals were building similar to ones in the real Venice, house boutiques of all kinds. The ceiling of this indoor fantasy was painted so as to look like the sky.

The Day before we had wonder in the other direction and went into the New York-New York casino. There we found streets and building modeled after those in the Soho area of New York City. Again, it was impressive. We had a pizza there, which seemed appropriate.

Prior to going to the New York-New York casino we had wonder through the brand new City Center. It has just opened the week before. The City Center is a redevelopment project literally in the center of all the casinos on the Strip. It was so impressive it even impressed the otherwise hard to impress Las Vegans. It was composed of five are six buildings, all designed by different architects. One was designed by Libeskind, the same Libeskind that designed the extension to our Royal Ontario Museum. His building is also named the Crystal, as it is in Toronto. But in Las Vegas it houses a shopping mall, a very high end one at that. 

The City Center was very impressive. So was its price tag of 8.5 billion dollars. Because of the poor state of the economy it almost went bankrupted. The partnership of MGM and Dubai World built it. Dubai World in the United Emirates has also flirted with bankruptcy.


On our second evening we went to see “O”, one of the many Cirque de Soleil extravagances in Vegas, this one at the Bellagio. Visually it broke the ‘wow’ factor. But I was disappointed in the sound. It sounded canned, which it was, and mono, especially where we were sitting. You’d think that in this day and age they could make artificial sound sound more like a real orchestra.

All the hotels we visited had casinos except the Trump. The Trump looked very understated in comparison to the other hotel. But it did have a New York elegance about it that I understand Trump was wanting to achieve.

Beside the Trump, to the north, there were two hotel projects that had come to a standstill due to the poor economy.  Beyond that, on the other side of the Stripe, was The Fontainebleau hotel project, which also was at a standstill.  Some other hotels and projects had gone into bankruptcy.

One thing I was impressed with, and there were lots of things to be impressed with in Vegas, was how accessible most everything was. I found it a very open, democratic city, certainly very American and easy going. People from all over the world behaved like they had a lot in common. That was very satisfying to me. And the natives were especially friendly and helpful, and proud of their city.

The Flamingo casino, to the left of our hotel, had a huge poster of Donny and Marie Osmond stuck on the outside of the  building, covering many of its windows. One our trip to The Grand Canyon we met a couple from The Flamingo who said they were in a room that was right in Donny Osmond's hair. That got quite a laugh.

The Grand Canyon was as impressive as Las Vegas. But we might not see the Canyon again like we might Vegas, because Vegas is so unreal. 

Spanner

This post is called "spanner" because of the frustration I have experienced when writing about a complex subject. It seems like a strange connection but bear with me.

I am recalling the expression "throwing a spanner into the works", a metaphor attributed to P. G. Wodehouse. It's meant to conjure the image of a mechanism or a system being jammed by a spanner or a wrench thrown into it. It also suggest the posing of an obstacle. (On the other hand, I can see a spanner being deliberately thrown into the mechanism/system out of sheer frustration with it not working properly.)

My recent frustration with writing has come from an essay about pluralism in the sociopolitical world. It is a complex subject, quite abstract. Anyway, I came up with what I believe are good examples of pluralism to make a plausible essay on the subject. But then I discovered a new example of it, which changed the whole flow and tone of the essay, throwing it out of whack. It thus necessitated a rework, hence my sensing a spanner in the works and my being frustrated.

I just realized that pluralism itself can be a spanner in the works. Why, in the sociopolitical world pluralism can be a preverbal spanner. A spanner like pluralism and the tension it induces can upset the sociopolitical apple cart and the best laid plans for governing people. It can ruin one's metaphysical notions of the world, of absolute principles and how the world should be run. What can be irritating about pluralism in governance is that it produces alternatives in doing things and brings about the change many of us dread. It causes upheavals in society and to governing systems.

An example of pluralism throwing a spanner into the works occurred right here in Canada, between Canada's two founding cultures, the English and the French. The English, being the dominant culture, thought they were the works and could rule the country monistically, according to their ways. Then the French started flexing their muscles, demanding equal representation. The action of French literally threw a spanner in the proceedings by challenging and interfering with the core of Canadian politics. Fortunately, the power that be wisely choose to compromise, to be more inclusive and pluralistic in its construct, from the halls of government to the ways of business. Perhaps there was no choice But because of this change the country literally went through a political revolution. In this case the spanner proved to be an incremental instrument that agitated the system and then corrected a perceived injustice, which saved the country from breaking-up.

"Pluralism is the most serious problem facing liberal democracies today”. The person who said that I am sure sees pluralism like a big spanner in the works, as well as a threat to liberal democracy. I would venture to guess that person views pluralism as destroying the social cohesion liberal democracy needs to govern successful. For instance, pluralism encourages multiculturalism, an institution many see as divisive and ruinous to democracy because it perceivably doesn't encourage unity so that a society can live harmoniously.

Although I have railed against the spanner that has upended my essay on pluralism I am quite in favor of it when it cans to human governance. I think the spanner of pluralism in human governance is a salvation. It is the agitation that keeps governance vital and legitimate. In contrast to the opinion above I don't think pluralism is such a serious problem to liberal democracy. On the contrary. I think it is what keeps it alive and healthy.

Pluralism does make liberal democracy more complex but that complexity has made it more durable and resilient, as shown by 9/11, from which it recovered and continued to expand. Moreover, the competing interests of pluralism have served to make liberal democracy more sophisticate and agile. In comparison, liberal democracy's rival communism collapsed because it lacked the energizing push and pull of pluralism that could have helped rejuvenate and keep it relevant. Why, even liberal democracy's name resonates pluralism in the fact that it is constructed out of two competing theories of human governance (forming a kind of DNA of human governance), one being liberal which promotes free market competition and an inequality, and the other democracy, based more on cooperation and equally.

The spanner in the works is frustrating. It causes problems. But as an economist once said, we need problems because they make us better. The spanner as problem forces us to question, think and come up with solutions, thus expanding and enhancing us.

Venice

Last year we had a wonderful trip on the Queen Victoria that started in Venice. Here is a picture of that splendid city.

Are Philosophers Responsible?

Someone asked in an article, "Are Philosophers Responsible for Global Warming?"

This writer listed a few people who in the late 19th and early 20th century warned about the dangerous effects of burning fossil fuels on the environment. The writer thinks that those warnings should have been heeded earlier and concern for the environment should have been made instantly part of our cultural mindset. In other words, philosophers should have taken up the task of making the conversation about global warming sooner, like forcing the issue into the media and making it part of the educational curriculum years ago. If so, we could have avoided the environment problems we face today. The writer believes that since we didn't listen up and act earlier the environment today is suffering unnecessarily.

My response as to why the environment hadn't become an issue or a movement earlier is because humankind had other things on its mind, like still figuring out what it wanted to be, democratic or communist. Back then humankind was also still preoccupied in fighting wars. Humankind then was also too divided to come together to be concerned about the environment. Philosophers could have screamed at the top of their lungs about the problem but not enough people would have listened to make a difference. Moreover, people had not yet experienced enough about the environment to make a difference. In other words, a critical mass of concern had not yet developed back then for the environment to become a central issue.

Anyway, from that question I made up my own question. I wonder whether philosophers can be held responsible for our present economic crisis. Of course not, I say. However, perhaps they are responsible. Take, for instance, Milton Friedman. He was an economist. But he was also a philosopher. What made him a philosopher, as opposed to a scientist, is that he didn't deal with definite matter, although he liked to think so. He dealt with hypotheses, often speculating in intangibles and ideas. His hypotheses and ideas about economics became mainstream and the economic mantra of the last 30 years, a source of today's economic problems.

Friedman was very vocal about the virtues of free market and that government participation in it should be minimal. Governments all over the world took his philosophy to heart, implementing Friedman's free market principles all over the place, with major successes. His free market principles helped bring down communism, because they helped accentuated communism's failures.

However, the free market has caused us a lot of headaches recently. But was it the philosopher Friedman's fault that this crisis occurred, because actually, it can be argued, many of Friedman's ideas were manipulated and abused by others. It is a shame that he hadn't spoken up about the abuses that occurred in his name before he died in 2006. Why, his opposite number, John Galbraith, had railed for years about the excesses of the unfettered free market. But the majority of people chose not to listen to his philosophy about a possible economic catastrophe if governments didn't work to modify and temper the free market.

So every question has its dueling philosophers. Economics had Friedman and Galbraith. So in a sense you can't blame philosophers for anything. They offer us advice and possible scenarios, and try to help the rest of us figure things out. Philosophers don't make policy. Then, It is the policy makers and implementers who take philosopher's theories and ideas whom we should blame.

We are all responsible, in some way. Guilty by association!

Photograph

I am looking at what I consider a very striking and revealing photograph. Not only is it conceptually and aesthetically pleasing but it reminds me of events that caused untold financial damage. It’s a picture I took in New York City, in 1997, of two buildings that, it subsequently dawned on me, house two financial companies that are now notorious for losing billions of dollars for their clients. One of those firms is no longer in business because of the extent of its wrongdoing.

It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words. This one certainly is because of what it also inadvertently represents. I took the picture while waiting for a bus. It's a photo of two imposing buildings juxtaposing one other, the Citigroup Center on Lexington Avenue and the so-called Lipstick Building on Third Avenue. (It was nicknamed the Lipstick because of its color and resemblance to a lipstick container.) The Citgroup building, in the foreground, stands about ten stories above the ground on four columns and a central core, creating an open space beneath it's towering fifty stories above. (In the photo I just captured two columns and the lighted underside of its fifty stories above.) The open space created by the columns acted like a window through which I could see the Lipstick Building behind. It’s really a striking composition of two contrasting architectural structures. I obviously was enamored with the view, hence my taking the picture, and for the fact that I like tall buildings. There is also a kind of irony about the picture in that it shows two very solid structures that housed two firms whose foundations later turned to sand.

As I said, what makes the photograph also noteworthy is that it captures two buildings that housed firms that were instrumental in bringing unprecedented financial turmoil, inflicting much pain on individuals and institutions that invested with them. The most notorious of the two companies is Madoff Securities which operated from the Lipstick Building. Bernie Madoff, its president, is now infamous, and in jail, for perpetrating the largest Ponzi, pyramid scheme in history. Citigroup is famous for being one of the largest participants in the subprime financial market, which contributed to an unprecedented real estate bubble that eventually exploded. What also sunk both firms is the ethos of the day, and that they got ensnared in exotic financial instruments and the extreme leveraging of capital that had been sweeping the financial markets.

In a sense I find it extraordinary and poignant that I have this picture of two of New York’s most famous and noted buildings, historically and architecturally. They are not only famous for their design and presence but for the two firms they housed, two firms that embodied much of the excesses of capitalism that eventually overwhelmed America, New York City and the world.

Traditionalism

I find it interesting that conservatives and traditionalists can accept Darwin's theory of evolution when it comes to free market economics but not when it comes to how humans and nature came to be.

But, then, there is a salient, striking hypocrisy in traditionalism. For instance, traditionalists are against abortion but then are willing to see growing children sink into an abyss because they weren't born on the 'right side of the tracks' or not onto a 'level playing field' like they were. (Basically, their thinking is that they are not one of us.) They aren't willing to help foster such children along with decent healthcare and education. To their way of thinking such children should be treated like business - survival of the fittest, which, ironically, is Darwinian logic.

Traditionalists believe in a Creator and creationism. But when it comes to free market economics they do not. But something had to create the market and nurture it along. Something had to create the environment in which it flourishes. Yes, something did, imaginative governing bodies and imaginative people. It has been a concerted, cooperative effort. But now that the economy is in crisis, traditionalists cannot abide such cooperation, insisting that government should deliberately let the market find its own level, despite the potentially universal destructive nature of the crisis. They don't want any interference from government, especially if it becomes mutually beneficial. Instead, they are willing to sacrifice everything and go back to how things were, in the 19th century, when the divide between rich and poor was providence, according to them.

These traditionalists don't think in terms of what can be beneficial to the whole. They don't understand that if you help give a leg up to society's weaker members you are enhancing the whole, as well as their own security. People who are denied a fair shake by traditionalist can become potential revolutionists and threatening, like they became in the 60's. People who felt excluded rioted and destroy cities and communities in those years, as traditionalist well remember but didn't seem to learn from.

Traditionalist, like fundamentals, would like to inject more religious dogma into government. We saw this attempted during the Bush administration. But with that imposition traditionalists would threaten the very nature of democracy. Democracy requires a bifurcation of authority, a secularism, a separation between Church and State, which even Thomas Jefferson said was essential so that no autocracy could take hold in America. Ironically, in their pressure to have more religious influence in government, traditionalist would been embarking on a road something akin to an Islamic state where there is no separation between Church and State, and no democracy. Such an attempt would push America back into a darker era.

How can traditionalists live with this kind of hypocrisy.

Pragmatism

I have noticed the word pragmatic in use more often recently. Perhaps that is because I have become more aware and interested in it. But I do think its usage has increased due to the difficult economic times we live in. It has been used to convey the idea that we should be patient and practical in how we approach these difficult times, that we should endeavor to seek practical and utilitarian solutions to our economic problems and not throw the baby out with the bath-water, so to speak. For instance, we shouldn’t be too hasty or heavy handed in dealing with the banks who caused the crisis, but instead take a balanced, practical approach so that we don’t further damage the industry out some sense of injustice or wanting revenge. Pragmatism is telling us that we should be cautious and realistic in how we deal with the financial institutions that failed us because, after all, we need them for our economic recovery.

Pragmatism is from the Greek meaning 'a doing' - action. However, pragmatism in today’s usage denotes more the sense of practicality than action. So how did pragmatism come to mean practicality from the original meaning of action? I think that the idea of practicality comes from one's experience, noting that one can’t have practice or experience without action or doing first.

It is not surprising that the philosophy of pragmatism emerged in first America, because from its start America was a nation of doers and plenty of activity. And when it came to governance, America’s government was the first to be openly active and engaged with its people, getting involved in nation and social building in a big way, through an active legal system and an educational curriculum that was relevant to the people. The first true experiment of democracy America embarked on could not have transpired without a sense of pragmatism, of compromise and cooperation among its founding members. This nation building and activism the American government and its people adopted certainly reflected the spirit of what the Greeks called pragma.

In "The Sociology of Philosophies" Randell Collins writes, "Pragmatism was the product of interaction between religious Idealism and the research sciences fostered by American university reform". (The university reform was provoked and by the new and appealing evolutionary theory of Darwin.) From this one can conclude that pragmatism was born as a means of bridging the growing divide between those who chose to remain religious - traditionalists, and those who chose to believe in evolution and science - modernists. To this day America remains a divided country, where a majority still don't believe in evolution. However, America's philosophy, pragmatism, is a philosophy of compromise and reconciliation. It is a philosophy that puts theory into practice - walks the talk, becoming an operational philosophy as John Dewy believed philosophy should be. Through deeds and action, this philosophy cultivated a middle, practical ground in law and education.

If pragmatism hadn't been invented America may have been torn apart by its contradictory camps of traditionalists and modernists, as it was by the Civil War. Instead, pragmatism laid the common ground on which differences could coexist. Ironically, the philosophy of pragmatism began to take root after the Civil War, perhaps as a spirited means of healing the rift that was exposed by the war. With pragmatism America invented its own truth, that people from all walks of life and beliefs can live together - a rationale that had never been tested before in human governance. And to this day that truth still binds together people who are not always like-minded. Pragmatism, in how it traverse the divide, is what makes the illusion of equality a reality.