(Following my internal anarchy, wherever it leads)

From the Grand Stand has an excellent, thoughtful post on groupthink versus true individuality:

once you remove all the external cosmetics, the adornments and affectations, what you're left with is what's inside—what they think, what the know, how they express themselves, and how they persuade. Most of these folks are empty vessels, soulless individuals finding camaraderie in being ostentatious, with really bizarre and outrageous packaging.

I think most of them would go mad and never recover from it, finding that their ideas of expressions and uniqueness were actually a fad, a façade and a farce. They're nothing more than clowns and were it not for the group-think acceptance of others in their soulless cliques, they'd never get a date.

Sean Kinsell linked the above, and has additional thoughts:
In a classical-liberal society, we can't stop people from trying to impose their estimation of our dignity and worth on us--sometimes loudly and publicly--but we're not obliged to go along with it. Are there really people who don't think that's worth the compromise?

Don't answer that.

OK, I'll try not to answer that, but I want to return to Grand Stand's comment about "ideas of expressions and uniqueness" being "actually a fad, a façade and a farce." This is one of the reasons I'm appalled by group attack mentalities -- especially those which condemn people because it's the cool thing to do. A lynch mob mentality develops, and before you know it, "leaders" emerge, who are often little more than insecure followers of the mob. (In politics they are "finger to the wind" types....)

While I would never suggest that all leaders think, I have to admit a certain grudging respect for those leaders who have come up with and articulated original thoughts, even if I disagree with them profoundly. In an earlier post in which I asked whether ideas have consequences, commenter Jan Bear brought up Jacques Derrida:

In a film about Jacque Derrida, someone asked the great professor why, given his views about morality, didn't he steal his students' wallets. He was quite offended.

In this context, he chose not to implement his deconstructionist ethics. Many of his students, however -- or more accurately, students of students who capture deconstructionist ideas not from advanced philosophers but from the air -- don't just think about the idea that ethics are divorced from tradition, but implement it with knives and baseball bats.

Much as I loathe the ideas of Derrida, I loathe his followers more, but I do not blame his thoughts for theirs. I realize this sounds like a contradiction, so I should illustrate by way of example.

Suppose I propound an idea that later turns out to be wrong, but which I thought was right. If I wasn't bright enough, perceptive enough, wise enough, or emotionally stable enough to see the errors in my thinking, is it reasonable to expect that the people unoriginal enough to follow my thinking uncritically would be? Further, what kind of thinker is a follower? Not much, as commenter Joe Peden opined:

if you only adopt an idea, you have not thought it, in my way of thinking
Exactly.

Is it fair or logical to hold a thinker responsible for the "thoughts" of someone who doesn't think, but merely adopts? In a military setting, where men are ordered into battle as a result of the thoughts generated by superiors, it certainly is. In American politics, it is, because the people trusted with government are at least in theory held accountable by voters.

But in an educational setting, students are not supposed to be ordered into battle or told what to think. Certainly not at the university level, where professors like Derrida are granted the podium. When I attended UC Berkeley I had all kinds of professors, many of whom were Marxists. I had been a Marxist in high school, but it was in Berkeley that I began to think for myself and I saw the errors in their thinking. If others did not, was that the professors' fault? In a free country, no one has to think anything. I also went to Grateful Dead concerts and had great, um "experiences" in which I reflected upon the cosmos; if others did the same thing and ended up becoming homeless and living in the streets, how was that the fault of the band? People said that it was. If it was their fault, then why wasn't it also my fault? (Similarly, if gay men screwed and got AIDS, was it my fault for believing in and stating that they had a right to screw?)

There's Shakespeare's old saying, "Neither a borrower nor a lender be." One of mine is "Neither a follower nor a leader be." I realize that this poses problems, but I can't stand the idea of accepting responsibility for things I cannot control, and I certainly cannot control the thoughts of other people. (The idea that anyone might "follow" my chaotic and spontaneous thinking fills me with terror, and I'd sooner be a recluse than allow something like that to take place.) Leading often strikes me as a form of following anyway, and leaders are often former followers who've waited until it's their "turn." Much as I instinctively abhor those who would lead, I more abhor those who would follow. While this makes me sound like an anarchist, I recognize that leadership is a necessary evil, especially in war. And the founders of this country saw it as a necessary evil in government too. They tried to compromise with it.

I think that subsequent leaders have paid too much attention to their followers, and this resulted in the compromise being compromised -- to the point where if you believe in the original compromise (with the evil of leadership), why, you're an anarchist.

But anarchists don't believe in compromising with evil, so that can't be right. . .

I like to think that those who agree are really agreeing with themselves, but what if I'm wrong?

Would that mean the communitarians are right and humans are like sheep?

Again, I hope not.


ADDITIONAL THOUGHT: In logic, the leaders and followers of incorrect schools of thought are both wrong. But mindless followers are in my view more worthy of contempt than leaders, because, assuming a thought is wrong, one who is unable to defend a thought he claims to think is worse than the one who came up with it but who nonetheless defends it. At the risk of sounding elitist, I think that people who cannot defend adopted thoughts are almost beneath contempt, and far inferior to those who had the thoughts originally.

posted by Eric on 01.04.06 at 08:58 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/3182






Comments

Haha. Great post. Classic blogging - free association from the gut.
Two points: Politicans aren't Leaders. And Derrida was psychotic.
Happy New Year.

bird dog   ·  January 4, 2006 03:32 PM

There's an Obiwan Kanobi quote for this:

Who is more the fool? The fool or the fool who follows him?

You have to hear with the Obiwan voice for full affect.

Grand Stand   ·  January 5, 2006 07:40 PM


December 2006
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits