Theory and Practice

The awareness that logic alone does not help to solve our biggest problems in life is something of a disappointment to put it midly; the knowledge that "thoughtfulness" is a sign of weakness, that being "reasonable" and "sensible" is often a recipe for disaster; that trying to think and act "above the fray" and expecting others to do likewise can seem like a childish request, preventing us from confronting the messiness of a situation, while increasing our frustration with those ugly, unforeseen "outcomes" that occur so frequently; that having constant expectations of order and design in the world can leave a person feeling "naive" and "ineffectual" when it comes to "dealing with" a stubborn, incorrigible, non-pliable, non-harmonious entity; that the upbeat rhetoric employed to describe our shared social environment is typically at odds with the more sordid, haphazard, bare-bone facts (of human beings running amok from their restless, overwrought, I-want-this-I-want-that!, crash-and-burn impulses); that the ideals and precepts that inspire so many of us are shamelesly invoked by hucksters, thieves, marketeers, politicos, con artists et al. who abuse them to the hilt (!) leading many others to become cynical and jaded from an early age; that the relentless chasm between how things could be (if everyone happened to care about the same thing at the same time and agreed upon a particular goal or solution without the law of brute force or the lowest common denominator winning out) and how things typically turn out  (decidedly opposite that of the aforementioned description) - continues to widen; all this constitutes the essential dilemma, the "grand theme" of philosophy, otherwise known as the divide between theory and practice, which, if I had all day to discuss it within the imaginary confines of the "donut shop of utopian conversation," I probably would, or at least would sit there (in some dilapidated, yet actually-existing donut shop) and day-dream about such a conversation taking place with a rarefied list of most worthy interlocutors (munching on glazed and chocolate sprinkle delights). But just for the sake of continuing this thought experiment, if you happen to be one of those people who has the same sinking feeling of always wanting to apply logic and common sense to a situation, yearning for the ideal scenario to play out among rational beings, that is, yet knowing in advance that your plans will be thwarted by the entropies of ignorance, iniquity, incompetence, and illogic, then you have come to the right place. I not only salute you, I congratulate and affirm you and your rational tendencies. Bless you for being there and for reading this humble post. You are amazing as far as that goes. True, it appears that certain voluminous snares have been set in our path and that the universe doth resist our demands for order and logic (at least here in the lower echelons), but all is not lost, as long as we know that we exist with this peculiar malady - which, although frustrating and pathetic - does have its merits. For lo, when we consider how the soul itself seems woefully outmatched by passion (thumos) and appetite (epithumia)  - i.e. to "blind wilfulness" per se -  is it not shocking how REASON, the so-called pilot or captain of the ship*, is able to manage at all, to chart a path under the stars, being surrounded by such a wild, impulsive and raucous crew! [See Plato's Republic, Book 6]

Spring Break (April 16-20)

Bonnard's Cat

Rulers, Enforcers, Ascetics (Pt. 1)

My big problem with politics (and believe me, not the only one), has always been the coercive element - the fact that you need enforcers to keep people in line - strong alpha males and females along with certain ascetic types - a "priestly caste" as it were - to hold up the prevailing orthodoxies. And, oftentimes (not always but often) these same "enforcers" have been some of the prime beneficiaries of whatever "privileges" the group has to offer,  these members of the ruling elite who are, in theory at least, the presumed  exemplars of what's in vogue - morally, aesthetically, economically - and who take upon themselves to decide what the standard of excellence is for everyone else,  letting those who dissent do so at their own peril. (Irritating - yes, but not my main complaint.) Yet in the case of the ascetics, whenever these become the preeminent enforcers -  ergo when the ruling elite grows slack, relying on "mercenary soldiers" or an independent "priest caste" as an  auxiliary force, an element of metabole/disharmony is introduced; the possibility of a critique of the ruling order reaches the level of conscious awareness along with a possible rift between classes. For even if these auxiliaries come to  identify strongly with the rationale given by the elite for their claim to rule, they still see opportunities  for themselves waiting in the wings; notwithstanding this roughly-sketched hierarchy of  aristocrats/soldiers  or aristocrats/soldiers/clerics - we are still left with a majority of commoners and have-nots living on the margins.  Strange that the workers who make up the bulk of the demos, should be so vulnerable to manipulation or exploitation, but there it is. (I speak of ancient societies here. And medieval societies...and some modern societies...) Still - the centripetal force of the majority's bulk is not kept down entirely in that from their ranks will rise up orators, populists, demagogues, unruly slaves, muckrakers, artists, poets, philosophers, journalists, revolutionaries to champion the rights of the people.  And so we have revolutions and slave revolts and serf rebellions dating from time immemorial, from the Helots of Sparta to Spartacus and his crew to Nat Turner.

And over many, many centuries (I'm talking aeons!)  of the franchise being gradually extended and expanded to include more of those previously left out of the equation, we reach a stage of history where it becomes somewhat impossible to justify a ruling class as such (on the basis of some over-arching principle of merit that the ruling class supposedly embodies) or a ruling orthodoxy per se - except by some sort of all-inclusive promise (of prosperity? freedom? opportunity? dignity? equality?) or some some other means of vicarious participation in the feast (winning lotto ticket? instant celebrity? king-for-a-day status?). Everyone is equal nowadays in theory; therefore those who claim superior title to wealth, status, power must do so on a time-limit or by some means of implied consent (?) Confusing, yes, because still so unclear. Our erstwhile leaders and representatives on some level accept their role as glorified puppets with multiple invisible strings attached to public opinion. Thus do the people at large - the vast "middle" classes and average Janes and Joes become aware of themselves as ultimate "judges" - "arbiters" - "voters" - "deciders" - who give their "thumbs up, thumbs down" verdicts to this or that administration and to whatever shifting paradigm of truth happens to be stealing the spotlight for a season.  But in such a milieu as ours, can the rationale for a ruling class ever rise to some sublime principle of worth or merit? Do we not continue to assign merit by means of market forces measured in $, with a litmus test of popularity added on top of that? As a result, is it surprising to notice the discourse of modern life marked by a discursiveness that takes for granted the lack of value in the object itself, beyond what the subject grants, and even then, knowingly (!) grants only for a fleeting moment. They say canaries die in coal mines... and leaden thoughts sink to the bottom...

Pithy Quotation

"The amount of verbal pomposity, elaboration of the obvious, repetition, trivia, low-grade statistics, tedious factification, drudging recapitulations of the half-comprehended, and generally inane and laborious junk that one encounters suggests that the thinkers of earlier ages had one decisive advantage over those of today: they could draw on very little research." - Dwight MacDonald (describing modern "academic prose")

from "The Voice" by Matthew Arnold

Literary Trivia Question #379: Which literary "voice" did Matthew Arnold have in mind when he wrote this poem?


"...Like bright waves that fall
With a lifelike motion
On the lifeless margin of the sparkling Ocean;
A wild rose climbing up a mouldering wall - 
A gush of sunbeams through a ruined hall - 
Strains of glad music at a funeral - 
So sad, and with so wild a start
To this deep-sobered heart,
So anxiously and painfully,
So drearily and doubtfully,
And oh, with such intolerable change
Of thought, such contrast strange,
O unforgotten voice, thy accents come,
Like wanderers from the world's extremity,
Unto their ancient home!" - from "The Voice" by Matthew Arnold

What Makes a Gentleman...

"Hence it is that it is almost a definition of a gentleman to say he is one who never inflicts pain. This description is both refined and, as far as it goes, accurate. He is mainly occupied in merely removing the obstacles which hinder the free and unembarrassed action of those about him; and he concurs with their movements rather than takes the initiative himself. His benefits may be considered as parallel to what are called comforts or conveniences in arrangements of a personal nature: like an easy chair or a good fire, which do their part in dispelling cold and fatigue, though nature provides both means of rest and animal heat without them. The true gentleman in like manner carefully avoids whatever may cause a jar or a jolt in the minds of those with whom he is cast;—all clashing of opinion, or collision of feeling, all restraint, or suspicion, or gloom, or resentment; his great concern being to make every one at their ease and at home. He has his eyes on all his company; he is tender towards the bashful, gentle towards the distant, and merciful towards the absurd; he can recollect to whom he is speaking; he guards against unseasonable allusions, or topics which may irritate; he is seldom prominent in conversation, and never wearisome. He makes light of favours while he does them, and seems to be receiving when he is conferring. He never speaks of himself except when compelled, never defends himself by a mere retort, he has no ears for slander or gossip, is scrupulous in imputing motives to those who interfere with him, and interprets every thing for the best. He is never mean or little in his disputes, never takes unfair advantage, never mistakes personalities or sharp sayings for arguments, or insinuates evil which he dare not say out. From a long-sighted prudence, he observes the maxim of the ancient sage, that we should ever conduct ourselves towards our enemy as if he were one day to be our friend. He has too much good sense to be affronted at insults, he is too well employed to remember injuries, and too indolent to bear malice. He is patient, forbearing, and resigned, on philosophical principles; he submits to pain, because it is inevitable, to bereavement, because it is irreparable, and to death, because it is his destiny. If he engages in controversy of any kind, his disciplined intellect preserves him from the blundering discourtesy of better, perhaps, but less educated minds; who, like blunt weapons, tear and hack instead of cutting clean, who mistake the point in argument, waste their strength on trifles, misconceive their adversary, and leave the question more involved than they find it. He may be right or wrong in his opinion, but he is too clear-headed to be unjust; he is as simple as he is forcible, and as brief as he is decisive. Nowhere shall we find greater candour, consideration, indulgence: he throws himself into the minds of his opponents, he accounts for their mistakes. He knows the weakness of human reason as well as its strength, its province and its limits." - from John Henry Newman, The Idea of a University, 8.10