|
|
|
June 13, 2005
My wasteful feelings
One of the things which plagues me the older that I get is to see clear evidence that many of the issues over which people feel the most strongly (and over which they spend large amounts of time debating), are really beyond debate. I touched on this last week with the subject of pro-growth versus anti-growth. But the phenomenon can be seen everywhere. Pro-legalized-abortion versus anti-legalized-abortion (aka pro-choice versus pro-life). Pro-gun versus anti-gun. There are some issues which cannot logically or rationally be debated. One of them is the subject of reparations for slavery. The idea of paying reparations for slavery is often said to be based on a legal contractual theory of unjust enrichment. Yet, there are obvious problems with that. One of my friends (a man I've known since childhood) has been battling an attempted smear against his ancestor Robert Morris, considered by historians to be the chief financier of the American revolution. It has recently been alleged by Wachovia Bank that Morris's crime was in the financing of slavery. Yet as my friend has pointed out many times, not only were his ancestor's connections with slavery very tenuous, but he lost money in the transactions, which he discontinued. Yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer was fair enough to present his side: Philadelphia memories go back a long way.I haven't researched the history involved, but my friend has. And if he is correct about his ancestor having lost money in the slave trade, then under the contractual theory of unjust enrichment, it would be unfair to require him to "give back" profits his ancestors never made. The impossibility of sorting out such claims is heightened by the passage of time, and such intervening events as the Civil War, which wiped out many pre-war fortunes and reduced many ex-slaveowners to pauperhood. Following any money trail is next to impossible. That's why the argument for reparations is often made in the alternative, as an argument based on morality. Not only should accused descendants of slaveowners (like my friend) be made to pay because of the moral crimes their ancestors committed, but because the United States government was responsible and still exists, all Americans (including, ironically, the descendants of slaves) should be made to pay. Naturally this idea gives rise to howls and protests from citizens who insist that none of their ancestors had anything to do with slavery. Either they were abolitionists in the North, or else they descend from immigrants who came to this country after the Civil War, and who could not have owned slaves. Likewise, not all black Americans are descended from slaves, or (as with blacks of Caribbean or Latin American heritage) from slaves actually owned in the United States. But this exposes a problem with the central argument. The divide between the pro-reparations and anti-reparations groups is based not on legal analysis, or financial tracing, but is an emotional one based on individualism versus collectivism: The value placed on individualism is so entrenched in the dominant perspective that it cannot yield to foreign concepts like group entitlement or group wrongs. Opponents of reparations to African Americans analyze the merits of the remedy from this dominant perspective with its focus on individualism, thereby contributing to the opponents' conclusion that the idea of reparations to African Americans is absurd, frivolous, or unworthy of serious consideration.The above is from a longer essay by law professor Vernellia R. Randall, who supports reparations. While I don't agree with her ideas about reparations, I do agree that the argument comes down to individualism versus collectivism -- and that is another one of those hopeless arguments. I will never agree with collectivism. Collectivists (whether they be Marxists, socialists, religious or secular communitarians) will never agree with individualism. Much of the time spent debating is a silly waste of time, because the philosophies are wholly incompatible. Might it boil down to feelings? In all honesty, I must admit to a gut feeling that collectivism is simply wrong. I can cite numbing statistics about the millions killed by Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, etc. but my mind is made up based on my feelings, and logic and statistics supply only ammunition for arguments that are usually quite pointless, because they're based on feelings. My feeling is that collectivism is unfair to the individual; collectivists' feelings are that individualism is unfair to the collective. Another reason I consider these arguments pointless is because I suspect that people who agree with me already agreed before they read my "arguments," while those who disagree will continue to do so notwithstanding anything I say. The arguments resolve nothing, and much of the time they don't even resemble dialogue, because if two people know their disagreements are hopeless, each knows he'll never persuade the other so the argument becomes one made largely for purposes of showing off knowledge, ridiculing the other side, hurling insults, or worse. I often resort to ridicule simply because I know how hopeless these arguments are, and so I'll enjoy zeroing in on an especially funny example of flawed logic or emotional charged rhetoric. If someone calls me Hitler, for example, I know that there's nothing to be gained by rational argument, so why not just admit that the whole thing is buffoonery, and treat it as the comedy that it is? In my view, there's no duty to take seriously that which I consider absurd. Some people will agree with my view of what's absurd, and others won't. But arguing the virtues of individualism versus the virtues of collectivism is, I submit, as much of a waste of time as arguing the virtues of "life" versus "choice," guns versus gun control, the virtues of sodomy laws, or the virtues of preventing technology and growth. In general, people's minds are made up about these things. And nowhere are minds more strongly made up about such things than in the blogosphere. Hell, that's why most bloggers blog. The problem with everything that I just said is that it would appear to support the argument that blogging is a time-wasting venture. If people already hold strong and irreconcilable opinions about these issues, and if these opinions are not subject to change, then are not bloggers simply choruses of opinion, contributing little original thought? I like to think that they are more than that, and the reason is that general philosophies of thinking do not address specific issues that arise, or new ways of looking at things previously discussed. Everyone is assisted when this happens, because even if they disagree, if they're fair, they'll be thinking along the lines of "Damn! I hadn't thought of that!" So my philosophy of blogging is to try to avoid the recital or regurgitation of others' ideas (or of news already known) with nothing new to add. If I do have something to add, I like to think that if I hadn't thought of it before, there are probably other people who hadn't either, regardless of whether they share my philosophy. Beyond that, it may very well be a form of entertainment. How can entertainment be called a waste of time? My feelings tell me that if something entertains, it's not a waste of time. But what about those who aren't entertained? Obviously, they feel differently! posted by Eric on 06.13.05 at 07:13 AM
Comments
EssEm wrote: "All the force of America's massed left are regimented to silence those who would tell America the truth." EssEm, your comment is excellent. For my part, I can only say that my break with the Left and my turn to the Right, or the Far Right if you will, began in high school and then thereafter under the influence of Nietzsche, Spengler, Rand, Burke, Root, Chesterton, Paglia, etc., and only hardened with 9/11/2001. Eric, you are absolutely and profoundly right again. The fundamental conflict dividing our civilization is individualism vs. collectivism (which, in turn, is, ultimately, the conflict between polytheism vs. atheism, the Goddess vs. the Godless). All other issues, gun control, censorship, "sodomy" laws, racial quotas, etc., etc., ultimately proceed from that fundamental conflict. Individualism vs. collectivism. One or the other must ultimately emerge, the one completely triumphant, the other completely destroyed. You are also absolutely right that, ultimately, this is not an issue of logic or statistics, but one of faith, of ultimate value-premises. You cannot reason your way to basic premises, you can only reason from them. There can be no compromise, no coexistence, between those who hold opposite basic premises. My basic premises, my absolute values, my holy dogmas, are Polytheistic Godliness, Selfishness, Sexiness, and all that proceeds from these, the high culture of the West, and the mightiest nation of the West, the United States of America. The Ego in the Infinite. And, yes, this involves feelings, emotions, passions, love and hate, every bit as much as it does logic and reasoning. To love is to value, and I therefore hate all that which negates my values. I love Conservative Lesbian Individualist Theology. And I hate and despise collectivism in every form, whether it be Communism, Nazism, or Political Correctness. The professors of Political Correctness can spout all the academic jargon they want about "hegemonic discourse", "dominant paradigm", "post-modern de-constructionism", and all the rest of it, and I here reply only, in the style of Ayn Rand: "You're not fooling anybody but yourself." Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · June 13, 2005 11:49 AM I agree with you in part (closer than EssEm). I would clarify just a bit by saying that it is not possible for one who accepts the existence of objective truths to debate one who does not (and vice versa), on any topic in which truth is implicated. It is very much possible for two who accept the existence of objective truths to debate a topic on which they disagree, so long as both are open to accepting truth wherever it may be found. Two persons who do not accept the existence of objective truth cannot debate a topic on which they disagree. It will result either in a "whatever" or in a fist fight. BTW, you "admit to a gut feeling that collectivism is simply wrong". That's as far as you can go? I think you could go further on that one by one of two ways: considering human nature and whether collectivism or individualism (as you put it; I'd suggest liberty) is more capable in theory and in practice of being consistent with true human nature. Or you could just look at the data to see that all collectivist experiments (at least in the last century, as you state) have resulted in suppression of the individual AND in poor results for the collective. rodander · June 13, 2005 11:53 AM I wrote: Not all atheists are Communists, of course. Indeed, some, e.g., Arnold Harris, are strongly anti-Communist. But all Communists -- including, most definitely, those infiltrating the National Council and World Council of Churches and preaching the "Socialist Gospel" -- are atheists. Atheism is the basic premise of Communism. Communism is the enemy of all that is Divine. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · June 13, 2005 12:02 PM Steven yada yada yada: So, atheists aren't inherently bad, but all inherently bad people are atheists? Been reading the JBS pamphlets again? Damn us with faint praise next time, it'll be an improvement. Do us all a favor and be honest about what you really think about atheists. Captain Ned · June 13, 2005 10:57 PM Captain Ned: I've stated my views clearly enough. Now do us all a favor and be honest about what you really think about us theists. Are we superstitious savages or what? Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · June 14, 2005 12:24 AM To be more clear if I must: I like many atheists. But I have come to oppose atheism. I believe it to be an error. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · June 14, 2005 12:51 AM "....Indeed, whenever man's arithmetic supposes God a cosmic zero, man by this act destroys the very arithmetic by which alone he adds up to man. If there is no eternal Reason within and yet beyond phenomena, reason is relativism, and truth the most convenient lie; if there is no meaning within and yet above the world, morality is reduced to manners, and right to the biggest battalions. Man becomes a shadow without a sun, lost in the nihilism of total shadow. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · June 14, 2005 02:03 AM Steven, as you know I'm a Christian Pagan Pantheist -- and many if not most of my friends are atheists. While some religious people believe the atheism of others is their business, there are also atheists who think that the theism of others is their business. Both sides are stuck (in my view) with insurmountable proof problems which can lead to another type of circular debate. Rodander, regarding individualism versus collectivism, I've had many posts on the subject, and I think logic favors individualism. But that doesn't end the debate, because believers in collectivism disagree. There is a belief that individual human nature is wrong, and can be changed -- whether by persuasion or by force. No amount of logical argument will sway people who think this way. (Might as well try to convince a pacifist that a war might be right.) Eric Scheie · June 14, 2005 09:08 AM Dear Eric: Very good. I must confess that, for a short time after 9/11/2001, I was wishing for more atheists. Atheists, after all, don't go crashing planes into skyscrapers in order to get into Paradise. And one particular group of atheists, i.e., Leonard Peikoff's Objectivists, took and continue to take the strongest stand against the Terror Masters. But many other atheists I know or know of, while they sneer at the historic religions of the West, are the loudest in demanding appeasement of "the Religion of Peace". Conversely, the deepest "Pagans" in the original sense of that word, those adhering to the faith of their fathers, those adhering to the historic religions of the West, fundamentalist Protestants, orthodox Catholics, Orthodox Jews, Asatruars, are, with the Objectivists, the strongest supporters of the War. I believe, with Spengler, that loss of religious faith is both symptom and cause of a declining civilization. And, I observe that those who have lost their roots in the historic faiths of their own culture often go looking for a substitute elsewhere -- with disastrous results. Exhibit A: "Johnny Taliban" Walker Lindh. Whittaker Chembers was right. The crisis of the West is a crisis of faith. The Communists in his day had, the Muslims in our day have, what so many "intellectuals" of the West lack: a reason to live, and a reason to die. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · June 14, 2005 11:33 AM I must add that I have often thought of a 2-dimensional spectrum, the one dimension that of individualism vs. collectivism, the other dimension that of theism vs. atheism. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · June 14, 2005 11:52 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• War For Profit
• How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide • I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight • Wind Boom • Isaiah Washington, victim • Hippie Shirts • A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? • Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists • PETA agrees -- with me! • The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Well, you're completely wrong about this!
:-)
I am a fairly recent convert to a much more conservative politics than I had for most of my life. I also have a long background in religion. And I find the two activities quite similar in that they are both ways of feeling about and thinking about the world as a whole. And they are both as immune to merely rational argument. My own shift from left to right came from a combination of noticing rips in the fabric of the liberal narrative (especially when a lot of anxious energy was marshalled to prevent me from seeing things that were growing more visible to me each day!) and from the catastrophic experience of 9.11. I also confess to a lifelong allergy to moralism, and the leftliberal world is nothing if not moralizing. Chaning a political viewpoint, not on a specific issue but on the underlying perspective, is very much like changing your religion. It is not just feeling, but it is never only thinking.
As for slavery reparations, the thought that any more of my already wasted tax money would go to the hucksters who now "lead" the "black community" makes my gorge rise. It leads me to fantasies of armed revolution.