Rational Philosophy

On the disjunct between power and wisdom.

I keep coming back to Plato’s words, not because they are perfectly rendered, but because they capture the essence of the idea that power and wisdom seldom coincide:

“There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands.” - Plato

And then there’s Thomas Jefferson, not generally recognized as a philosopher, but clearly a man who lived and breathed the search for truth:

“I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use our power the greater it will be.” - Thomas Jefferson

As we watch the candidates campaign for the presidency I’m most saddened and depressed by how far we remain from Plato’s ideal of power coupled with wisdom. The deeper into the race we get, the more conniving and unwise the rhetoric becomes. (Clinton’s racial politics and her unwise and insincere politics of pandering on the gas tax; McCain’s hard swerve to the right.) The competitive, beauty pageant, micro-focused format of modern politics works against the ideal, of course. Obama seems to be sincere in his desire to break the mold, but he has a long hard road ahead of him and he’s already begun to falter with snipes against Hillary and rash policy promises.

I keep being drawn to stories of good being done by those who’ve quickly made a lot of money and therefore accrued a lot of power while still remembering what it’s like to be one of the have-nots. The Times has a piece on Craig Newmark, of Craigslist, who is one such newly moneyed philanthropist. Newmark, who’s been slow to capitalize on the extraordinary success of his Craigslist idea, even says this about relative wealth: “We know these guys in Google and the eBay guys, and they are not any happier than anyone else. A lot of money is a burden.”

The purist in me reviles against the idea that people who’ve been successful in business should be holding sway with social and philanthropic programs. But why not? Presumably, we’d be able to intervene if one of them turned out to be a nut-job who was out to achieve dubious ends.

Philosophically speaking, if someone has made a lot of money and chooses to spend his or her time and money dedicated to things other than making himself or herself wealthier, it’s more than likely that they’ll be aimed at making positive impact. The concept of philanthropy requires a focus on others over self. A persistent focus on self will tend to have a much less expansive outlook.

Whereas the desire for political power involves a composite desire to achieve sway over others and to be seen to effect change. The desire for political power doesn’t intrinsically have anything to do with effecting positive social change. It should, but it doesn’t.

This points to an intriguing development in the tensions between power and wisdom. Perhaps we will see a period in which politicians are shamed into behaving more responsibly and sincerely by the wealthy philanthropists. Why shouldn’t social improvement occur outside the mainstream political spectrum? And if they do, why shouldn’t this result in more pressure on politicians to focus on doing a job that serves the people rather than serving themselves?

Power rests where it lands. Wisdom, too.

For a rational, science-based explanation of life’s meaning and purpose, please refer to my book: LIFE! Why We Exist… And What We Must Do To Survive.

On the origin and philosophy of power: Fidel Castro’s resignation, Bush’s comments on African genocide, and Jefferson’s internal torment:

“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” - Thomas Jefferson

In 1959, Fidel Castro seized power from the dictator Fulgencio Batista so that Cubans could live more freely. Forty-nine years later, having been in power ever since, Castro has finally resigned. “I will not aspire to neither will I accept — I repeat I will not aspire to neither will I accept — the position of President of the Council of State and Commander in chief,” he said in his letter of resignation. The repetition, one thinks, might have been an unnecessary emphasis for anyone but himself. After he’d kicked out Batista, Castro discovered that for a person who likes to lead, and believes himself possessed with the capacity to make good decisions, it’s easier to assume control than to let it go.

Self-awareness provides the only anti-dote to despotism, and it needs to be administered in doses proportional to the power being assumed.

President Bush has been an avid critic of Castro’s and yet Bush himself has assumed ever-more dubious, overreaching powers, relishing his self-portrayal as “the decider.” In Rwanda today, Bush leveled a general criticism at the United Nations for its glacial responsiveness to humanitarian crises. But this was simply a convenient way to set into greater relief his boast of being a fast-acting and independent problem-solver. If Bush had a fraction of Castro’s sense of conviction and vigor, he would have been an even more dangerous and destructive force in the world than he has been. And that’s a sobering thought.

As president, Thomas Jefferson, an ardent critic of the abuse of power by central government, nevertheless found himself making autocratic decisions (the Louisiana purchase, for instance). Jefferson recognized his hypocrisy, understood the ramifications of his actions, but still did what he thought was wisest in the long term, even if it went against his principles of good government in the short term.

Evolution has developed in social species the desire for power and the desire to maintain power. On a biological level, power equates to the survival of one’s genetic code. If we cede power, our genes will soon lose out to more competitive genes. Evolution, therefore, rewards competitiveness.  Ghengis Kahn, for instance, while not a pleasant man, weilded considerable power and through brutal means assured that his genes would be passed on to future generations.

But this kind of social power, on a biological level, relates directly only to influence for the purposes of procreating. But in human beings the desire for power transfers itself to all kinds of conscious and subconscious activity. Unless we consciously moderate our desire for power through self-awareness, we will attempt to exert power indiscriminately.

This leads us to be blind to our own flaws and to overestimate our own capabilities.

Castro wasn’t the worst leader Cuba could have had for the past half-century, but he wasn’t the best one either. The persistence and self-belief necessary to make a successful freedom fighter may well have been his achilles heel when it came to leading his country. And, as for Bush, he proves that even a very small aptitude and desire to lead can become hypertrophied given enough power.

For a rational, science-based explanation of life’s meaning and purpose, please refer to my book: LIFE! Why We Exist… And What We Must Do To Survive.

P.S.: A couple of months ago, I wrote a song inspired by the transfer of power from Fidel Castro to his brother, Raul - You can listen to “This Is Our Country” at www.myspace.com/martingwalker and purchase a download copy for just 99 cents from the SnoCap store on this page.

Here are the lyrics…

Raul, brother dear, don’t let me down
Take our country now and lead it to your fullest
Remember, Raul, how we turned out Batista

Oh, the green dawns, oh the midnight raids
We have borne the weight of the revolution
Remember, Raul, these are your people

In Biran, where the cane stands tall and strong
Along the river righting every wrong
This is our country, this is our time

Raul, my brother, do not mourn me
Mourn your Espin, but do not cry for me
Remember, Raul, I am immortal

They could not kill me then and not now either
We have borne the weight of the revolution
This is our country, this is our time

Economic and social aspiration in the United States of America: Spam, Gatsby, and ignorance.

I just moderated five new blog comments. All were spam. It’s easy to dislike spammers; they fill our mailboxes with junk, cause us to peruse and delete multiple messages per day, or resort to services and tactics to defend ourselves against their relentless barrage of solicitations. But spammers represent a realization of the American dream. They seize upon their chance to sieve gold-dust from dirt. Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States does it say that citizens must apologize for doing what they do in pursuit of prosperity and freedom. Far from it, the constitution trumpets not only that others should expect no apology, but that there is no need for an apology.

The NY Times, in one of its pseudo-news, liberal fluff pieces (when I read these I understand why conservatives boil at the Times’ political bias,) attempts to find meaning in various opinions on why Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby speaks to people, particularly immigrants. The story misses The Great Gatsby’s introspection — it is what it is, a particularly engaging, somewhat over-dramatic picture of an America full tilt in industrial and economic momentum. Does Gunter Grass speak to German immigrants with The Tin Drum? Does Thomas Bernhardt speak to Austrian immigrants with Old Masters? Does Camus speak to French immigrants with The Stranger? Borges, Calvino, Fuentes, Amis, Faulkner… They write what niggles them, what gets under their skin.

Fitzgerald was niggled by aspects of the American Dream. He was niggled by its shallowness, its ultimate lack of fulfillment. And he saw its allure, its lure.

It’s President’s Day. An op-ed piece on George Washington speaks of his miserable last year in office. Washington felt overwhelmed by the burdens of office, disappointment at the squaring off of Hamilton and Jefferson. And perhaps disappointment at the path that the new nation had settled upon — freed from its ties with England, established as a power in its own right. One can imagine that Washington began to recognize that defining ones-self in opposition to something does not necessarily define ones-self for the better. Before Washington’s presidency, the nation’s conceit represented boundless hope. By the end of his presidency, this conceit was locked into a battle between options and opinions — between the vision of Jefferson, the creative, wide-reading intellectual, and Hamilton, the man of vigorous industry and capital.

Susan Jacoby writes about what the Times calls a generalized hostility to knowledge in America today. She complains that Americans compare poorly to those in other countries on matters of fundamental global knowledge and general awareness. While this is undoubtedly true, it seems reasonable to assume that this is a matter of emphasis rather than aptitude. Since America defines itself as the land of opportunity (meaning economic opportunity) and indifference (meaning, if we’re #1, why do we need to know what anyone else is doing?) we should not be surprised that these traits reveal themselves. For all their lack of global know-how, Americans reign supreme in getting it done. The 100 meter sprinter does not fool himself into thinking that he can win against the marathon runner over 26 miles.

But implicit in Susan Jacoby’s frustrations, implicit in the Times’ expansive, optimistic commentary on Fitzgerald’s legacy for American immigrants is the question of whether America’s choice of focus is a good choice, a better choice than others. Just because an American idol contestant doesn’t know the capital of Hungary, or that Hungary is a country, does this mean that America is on the wrong path, has made a poor choice of focus?

It strikes me that this question shouldn’t be put to the nation. The nation has long since made the choice. The nation is far down that road. Any turning back, any deviation, would have to come through a collective decision to deviate. Plenty of people in America know that Hungary is a country. Plenty of people know the capital of Hungary. Plenty of people would ascribe to Jefferson’s view of the world as an endless wonder, worthy of our most intense attention. Only if and when the thirst for knowledge and truth outweighs the thirst for economic and material satisfaction will the American Dream begin to change. I say ‘when’ because all things change.

The American Dream that has survived these couple of hundred years has survived because its promise has never quite exhausted itself. But whether it happens in ten years or a hundred years or longer, the demographic of hope will shift. Just as Egypt, the land of Pharaohs and pyramids is today a crumbling wreck, so, too will one day the recollection of America’s youthful grasp for prosperity and power cause heads to shake in wonder.

For more rational, science-based explanations of life’s meaning and purpose, please refer to my book: LIFE! Why We Exist… And What We Must Do To Survive.

On the impetus for reinvention.

Some of my shirts no longer fit me. Either my neck has grown or the collars have shrunk. I like my shirts, they’re familiar and worn-in, but sooner or later I know I have to let them go and get new shirts. As I sit here with my collar unbuttoned it occurs to me that life in general demands that we let go of things that no longer fit. Yesterday I wrote about Ireland’s move away from plastic shopping bags, catalyzed by the minister of the environment’s tax on shopping bags, but inspired by the conviction of the government, thoughtfully and firmly communicated to and adopted by society, that Ireland could do without plastic shopping bags.

This morning, as I dumped yesterday’s coffee grounds into a plastic garbage bag, I considered the plastic bag phenomenon from another angle: What if someone were to invent an alternative to plastic that was biodegradable and actually good for the environment? Surely that’s fanciful, I told myself. But if, several decades ago, we had factored in the future harm to the environment, perhaps we wouldn’t have been so quick to use plastic so widely and intensively. If environmental friendliness had been a key design criteria, plastic may never have got off the ground (or out of the test tube).

As society enters a post-industrial enlightenment we need new design criteria. Society needs to give scientists, inventors and corporations aspirations beyond the self-evident goals of cost-effectiveness and aesthetic appeal. With organic produce finding their way into mainstream supermarkets, WalMart’s commitment to selling more fluorescent light bulbs, hybrid cars becoming hip statements of eco-commitment, etc., we can see a new twist to the consumer economy. But it’s still a twist to the old rather than a wrench away toward the new. Companies, aware of consumer demand for products that satisfy the customer’s desire for environmental peace of mind, clamor to cater to a market niche. Whereas Ireland’s move away from plastic shopping bags represents a wholesale shift in consumer demand rather than a spotlight on a dedicated market segment.

And, as in Ireland, such wholesale shifts can only happen if supported by public policies and laws that embrace them and support them. On super-Tuesday it’s important to remember that we elect leaders and governments to represent our needs. And unless we are myopic, one of our preeminent needs as a society must be our own persistence and survival, not just for the next four years, but for many, many years to come. If we elect leaders who don’t care about issues of pollution, overflowing landfills, toxic waste, endangered species, destruction of natural habitats, global warming, and inhumane or dangerous farming techniques more than they care about reelection, then we’re voting for society’s demise.

The same appeal for reinvention can be made for government itself. We should see nothing sacrosanct in the form of government we already have. President Bush has interpreted his constitutional powers so broadly as to make a mockery of such interpretation and in doing so he’s set dangerous precedent. Those who drafted the constitution aimed for it to embody certain principles. Their drafting reflected desires of the forming nation. The challenges faced by America today are very different from those it faced back then. To move forward we need to be willing to look at where we are now — government rife with corruption, bullied along by special interests, arcane systems and institutions weighed down by habit and inertia. It’s great that the current election has generated such interest and excitement, but in many ways it’s politics as usual.

Do we have the system of government we need in order for our society to evolve as we want it to evolve? That’s the question we need to ask ourselves. Not just today but tomorrow and constantly. Because shirt collars get tighter, and the world changes. We can only survive if we’re willing to let go of the old and adapt.

Paul Krugman writes today that Barak Obama is naive for believing that he can bring industry leaders and big insurance companies to the table to help reform health care. Krugman’s reasoning is both pragmatic and cynical. Obama isn’t realistic about the battle ahead, Krugman says, and isn’t listening to the populist outcry for reform. He therefore won’t win the same kind of majority as an Edwards or Clinton, who understand that people are hungry for a knock down drag out fight over health care reform and that such reform will only happen over the dead or doubled-up bodies of the industry lobbyists.

And Bush today spoke of a sound economy in much the same way that the Cuban news media these days speaks of Castro’s health. “The underpinning is good,” Bush said to a quiet crowd. And followed this up with the old chestnut — “I’ll veto any tax increase,” which drew a notable lack of applause. To whom was Bush speaking? Members of the Rotary Club of Stafford, the Fredericksburg Rotary Club, the Rappahannock Rotary Club and the Fredericksburg Regional Chamber of Commerce. Where was he speaking? Yak-A-Doo’s restaurant in a Holiday Inn. Could Bush’s populist agenda have run afoul of circumstance and reality?

And in a related story, researchers in a remote Indonesian jungle have discovered a rat “five times the size of a typical city rat.” The rat apparently betrayed no fear of the human intruders. (In this much at least, he resembles the rats of New York City.) ”It’s comforting to know that there is a place on Earth so isolated that it remains the absolute realm of wild nature,” said expedition leader Bruce Beehler. ”We were pleased to see that this little piece of Eden remains as pristine and enchanting as it was when we first visited.”

But, reference to Eden notwithstanding, how does the third story related to the first two? Well, I found myself bridling at Krugman’s dismissal of Obama’s ingenuous call for a new approach to politics. Sure, populism gets the vote. Sure, that’s what’s worked. Sure, industry won’t roll over and beg. But doing things because they’ve been done, limiting ourselves by history, doesn’t that doom us to repeat history?

In his first campaign, Bush touted his ability to bring both sides to the table, but we now know that for Bush the function of speaking and the function of communication haven’t yet been brought under the administration of a central mental bureau. Nor do we hold our breath for that miraculous event.

There’s an oft-repeated myth that George Washington invited Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson into his first cabinet in order to bring both sides to the table. It’s a myth because there was no formal or informal opposition at the time. Washington wanted the best minds and hearts in the country at his table. Hamilton and Jefferson developed partisan divisions over the course of their tenure in Washington’s cabinet. Washington over time veered toward Hamilton’s Federalism, but truly wanted and valued Jefferson’s more democratic counsel.

Obama’s ideas about the path to health reform may be naive and impractical, but so what? At least they’re new. At least there’s a chance that they won’t leave us in four years time with a tired and tiresome repeat of the current roll call for populist opinion.

Obama then could well be the big rat appearing at the edge of the camp, strange and fearless and larger than life. You bring big business to the table and you tell them you’ll be happy to listen to their opinions so long as they’ll be happy for you to bite them in the ass if they don’t play along. Government should prevail, whether you start at a big table or a small table. The idea is surely to bring them to the big table so that you lay the cards out all the more clearly.

Of course, the Indonesian researchers also discovered a tiny possum, one of the smallest marsupials in the world. Krugman would doubtless liken Obama to that diminutive possum before he’d liken him to the massive rat. But couldn’t a possum win the hearts of big business, just as his brother rat would nip at their ankles?

The AP reports on the success of a Japanese team in making genetically modified mice that show no fear of cats. This demonstrates that mice fear cats instinctively, upsetting the more commonly held view that the fear is learned.

The scientists from Tokyo University found that the modified mice quite happily cosied up to the unmodified cats and played with them.

I’ve been reading a fascinating biography of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson is getting a lot of play at the moment because of his role in insisting on the separation of church and state as America was being constituted. Jefferson, a Virginian, saw and felt the unfairness of a system in which religion gets forced on people. Fortunately for the country he was a persistent and forceful person who carried forward this conviction even when others would have been OK allowing some degree of intermingling.

Roger Cohen invokes Jefferson’s ideas in an opinion piece that counters Mitt Romney’s vapid criticism of European Secularism, echoing to some degree my own response the other day. Jefferson was an enlightened man. His father read the classics out loud to his family. He had a classical education at home and then at university. Jefferson had great sympathy for the enlightened movements of Europe, and considered anything short of a rational grounding for society unacceptable. In his native state, he reformed the laws of inheritance, for instance, because he thought them inherently unfair.

Jefferson, one can imagine, must be turning in his grave. As Europe has marched on to become widely secularist and for the most part enlightened, America has slumped into a nation riddled with weird zealotry and faith-based fervor, where politicians either make it in part because they genuinely appeal to the religious community or are cowed into pandering to that community. As I sit here, I can think of several reasons why this gap has opened up — the sheer size of America, isolating far-flung communities from the influence and challenge of rigorous thought, the psychological composition of the people who populated America — people came here seeking peace and prosperity trusting largely in their faith that God would provide, the long, lingering influence of slavery and segregation, which was propped up by the idea that whites were somehow better than blacks, a very irrational proposition. I’m sure there are many other potential explanations.

But, as I see it, the point is less how did this happen, and more, how will this change.

The NY Times reports on a new study that indicates that human evolution accelerated rapidly in the last 40,000 years. There’s debate about whether that acceleration has continued over the past 10,000 years, but the study brings with it some hope that we’re not done yet.

Back to those mice…

If mice are genetically programmed to fear cats, this tells us two things: First, that while environment can affect our thoughts and behavior, we start from a predisposition toward a certain psychology and physiology. (My fear of spiders, for instance, may have been influenced by my mother’s fear of spiders, but it was probably also an inherent fear.) Second, that mice evolved their fear of cats.

And if mice can evolve a fear of cats (which seems self-evident to my mind), then human beings can evolve to become more enlightened.

Did I skip a step or two? I fear I did.

1. Is it evolutionary progress to become more enlightened? If you question the answer to this, you’re probably reading the wrong blog.

2. What evolutionary pressure will cause the human race to become more enlightened?

Again, I can come up with several theories in answer to the second question, and I’m sure you’ll find your own. All other things being equal, I think that women are more likely to find enlightened men attractive and vice versa. Who wants to be married to a cave-man? An enlightened man will also be more helpful around the house and with the kids, prompting the woman to be OK having more kids with him. And enlightened people are probably less likely to die stupid, meaningless deaths.

As I argue in my book we’ll one day look back on religious fundamentalism as an anomalous blip in the history of America. The Japanese modification of mice to fear no cats gives me fresh hope that American genes will adjust over time to fear no smiting from on high. At which point the Bushes and the Huckabees and the Romneys of the world will disappear from the political scene with a puff of enlightened smoke.