From the perspective of a metaphysical realist moving towards pragmatic empiricism and all that implies.
This morning, on 14th
I watched a goth girl stroll
How goth was she?
She carried a big black umbrella
On this sunny autumnal morning
But it looked quite picaresque
As she walked away
And disappeared around a
Crumbling, decrepit apartment building
Damn, it was a sunny morning
Ever since I read Hegel, I have become fascinated by the very real happening of the change of historical era and sentiments. At the fall of Rome you had a shift from high politics and nuanced civilization to tribal autocrats and Christian morals. Coming out of the medieval period, nations begin to be the supreme repositories of power, citizens began to see themselves as individuals who were part of something bigger and a turn to science began the slow decline of mythology – including, to some degree – Christianity. Moving towards the modern era, the citizenry began to act on their new power (coupled with the decline of absolute morality) and create a more liberal and less power delineated society, which, I would argue, began with the Enlightenment and came to ultimate fruition with the heady days of the mid-1960’s.
What is fascinating about these traditions, and in keeping with Hegel, is that, it seems, these eras were pushed along by the philosophers and writers that were a part of them. St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas moved the intellectual bent of Europe away from the secular musings of Socrates and Aristotle towards a Christian ideal. Machiavelli and Descartes began looking at individuals as the ultimate source of power and existence and book ended the Renaissance. Jean Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Payne, Hume, Kant and Adam Smith tried with scientific rigor or poetic rhetoric to give ‘power to the people’ and incite various revolutions. Closer to our own time, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre, Foucault, John Dewey, Richard Rorty…and so many others, have acknowledged the absurdity of the human life and crisis of existence. They have given up on absolute knowledge but have retained a certain sense of hope and the belief that man, as the most curious animal of all, has the power to shape its own life and create itself in the image that each man, each individual, sees fit.
Hegel saw this process as inevitable, the constant movement of Geist through history. Geist, according to Hegel, would always act according to the dialectic (thesis, antithesis, synthesis) but at the end, no matter how painful the process, the result would always be an increase of freedom from one era to the next. Hegel called history a ‘highway of despair,’ but his Geist is always moving us towards absolute freedom. It is a hard thing to understand, but a hopeful one.
Yet, now I look at the world and I feel as though Geist has abandoned our humble planet. We are not moving towards freedom and there seem to be no minds left trying to push us towards it. Those who attempt such a feat are summarily executed – if not literally then professionally.
Let me take a moment to flesh out this idea of freedom. I am not talking about anarchic, libertine, do as you wish freedom. Nor am I talking about “democracy” or “social democracy.” Rather, I am talking about the freedom that humans are meant to obtain. The state in which humans are able to live their lives to the best of their ability, to create themselves in the most productive fashion possible and to interact with other persons in meaningful and non-threatening ways.
Admittedly, this sounds uber poetic and therefore might imply a certain impracticality. It necessitates a power structure which is both protective and individually encouraging. It requires human restraint in some form, as some may argue, left to our own devices, humans would run amok and wreak havoc for their own self-serving, if short-sighted needs. Whether this restraint comes from logical principles, self-interest provocation or a bend towards altruistic compulsion I have yet to figure out. However, I do know that it is this exact freedom which much be the end goal of humanity.
I also know (as much as anyone can “know”) that the general direction of the power flow in our current society is moving away from this type of freedom. The tide has pulled back from the historical shore and left words such as “democracy” and “justice” traced in the sand – but they are empty and another strong wave will wipe them out completely. Those in power are very savvy. They have realized that humans desire freedom and that they will not live without the appearance of it. However, they have also become aware that the type of freedom I have outlined above is hard to achieve, especially for the lowly individual, and so, they dangle a ghost of it before our eyes and hope we take the bait.
Hegel has another appropriate analogy – the story of the master and the slave. For Hegel, he sees the slave as a slave only if the slave acknowledges that his master has power over him. Certainly, a master can beat a slave or kill him, but in no way can he actually make the slave recognize his authority in the slave’s own mind. (see Descartes). Once the master realizes his futility, he either becomes a slave to the original slave’s refusal to acknowledge him or he makes the slave autonomous and grants both he and the original slave autonomy – or freedom.
It seems to me in modern times that we have forgotten this lesson. We have become so fearful of pain and death that we cower to our masters, we give them the power they crave and they become all the more masterful while we, in essence enslave ourselves. Until this cycle is broken, history cannot move forward. Perhaps Geist has not abandoned us, but we have abandoned it. The wheel of history will keep turning, but it cannot get traction as there is nothing for it to get a hold of. Humans have given up our inherent rights to be a part of history and instead have become spectators – waiting for whatever comes.
I write this as a spectator myself. Somehow the world has been lost to me. I self-create for periods at a time and the world opens up in bright glory, but, inevitably, I become bogged down in the roles that the power structures have determined for me and I once again enslave myself. Even professional philosophy, the place where I wish to be taken in and cared for most of all holds no hope for me. They, more than anyone, have accepted their slavish roles. They have let their compelling magic over humanity diminish into scientific analyzation or incoherent bickering. The problems of men remain not only unsolved, but, for many years now, untouched.
But all is not without hope. As long as history continues there is the possibility of freedom and of dialectic movement. It only takes on slave not to recognize its master to get the process started again. Perhaps I should look inward and see if I am that type of human and reject both slavery and mastery for the sweet and simple beauty of autonomy.
Today is March 1st, in my mind the first day of Spring. Spring has always been a strange time for me...I start to get this feeling that somehow, someway my life is going to change and almost every Spring something big ALWAYS happens. I find love or I lose love, I make important decisions or other chaos occurs.
I've started to get that feeling already. I'm feeling torn between life choices. I feel like I looked up yesterday and realized that I am 24 and sort of floating along, waiting for things to happen to me but not doing much to make them happen. I have a good job but I'm broke. I've been in college for six years but I don't have a degree. I've been enamoured by philosophy since I was sixteen but my friends are quickly passing me by in conversational swirls of Habermas, Camus and people that, frighteningly, I've never even heard of.
I feel as though I am trying to live in two worlds. On the one hand I want to sit around, drink wine and talk about the mysteries of the universe with my intellectual compatriots. On the other hand, I want to start my life in a real way. I feel like I'm ready for adulthood. I'm ready to have assets, get married and crickey...even have children. Are these things mutually exclusive? From my vantage it seems as though they are. How can I go get drunk one night after work and talk incoherently with friends about metaphysics if I have a 1-year-old at home? How can I find the time to sit and think and write if I have a house and husband to take care of. But I want both.
Is this the perennial feeling of torn priorities that has come to plague women since the sexual revolution? Is this my organic nature and my constructed self going into battle? If so, which one should I listen to? I know I can't have it all. If I try to be both, both will get the short end of the stick but if I only do one will I always feel like a have a gaping hold where that other part of me was?
Well, the search goes on. 24 is starting to seem old but in reality, it is not that old, so I have some time to make these decisions and see what the Springtime will bring.
Here is a blog that an associate in my office started and I have been contributing to. It's party silly humor part serious political discussion:
Materialize the Myth
Here is Drew's brother's (Dan's) blog:
Angry & Sloppy
And finally, the blog on all things Jacksonian, it should be interesting to see how this one turns out:
How's Your Nose?
Coming down capitol hill this morning towards my office something was obviously amiss. Cops on motor bikes were flanking Broadway while a motorcade was clearly being established outside of the Brown Palace. A handful of onlookers were perched on the sides of Broadway. In this day and age the first thing I thought, of course, was "bomb threat?". But then it dawned on me what was happening and before I could even stop myself I turned to my friend Mari and said "it's the fucking president". I was about three feet from a cop.
Thankfully, the cop just ignored me. However, I suddenly became oppressed by the dire need to get inside my building. If the president was coming my way, if Bush was going to be even in the vicinity, I needed to be protected, hidden and away from the damage which he reeks so well by his very existence. I didn't want to be one of those onlookers, I didn't want Bush to see me. Because, even if he did, even for a moment, then he would think of me as one of his people, and I am not his, I don't even want to be an American if it means being linked to Bush.
And so, with the world getting smaller around me (I swear I heard the motorcade revving up) my strongest visceral reaction was just to get inside and away from the impending doom of Bush passing me by. Let him go south, let him go say his silly remarks down at the airforce academy, let him give "solace" to the soldiers who have died in Iraq and "praise" for how the academy has dealt with the sex scandal. Then, let him go to some lunch which costs $1000 plate for a bunch of old rich white men. Let him be. But his is not America, he is not my president and I don't like him in my city.
I came to love philosophy because I read Ayn Rand and she presented me with a view of the world that was both coherent and secular, exciting and rational and interesting and intelligent. Although I have come to reject most of what Ayn Rand stands for philosophcially (I think that she misinterprets most philosophers which she tries to do away with), I am still a devotee of some of her ideas and writing.
The below is one such example. This speech, which seeks to overturn the trendy colloquial criticism that "money is the root of all evil", is, I think, an example of the type of thinking which philosophers and all intellectuals should be doing. In modern American society it has become chic to think that "capitalism is bad", "the media is manipulating us" and so forth, but, except for in a very few cases, I feel as though there is little substance behind these criticisms. To say that "money is evil" has become like saying "god bless you" when somebody sneezes - the meaning has been lost, it's just what you do in polite company.
Also, even though Rand's stark philosophy which builds from rational egoism to an objectivist world is certainly not a helpful philosophcial position, I am still entranced with the position in which she places men in the world. For Rand, human beings are the driving force behind "progress" and "innovation" and their places in the world should not be forgotten or forgiven. In the money speech, she places men firmly where they should go: as the rulers of money, not vice versa. Have people with money caused evil? Yes. But so have people without money. Evil and money are not inherently linked, money is an inanimate object which requires the uses and intentions of men to make it what it is.
___________________________________
"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Anconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears not all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor—your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money, Is this what you consider evil?
"Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions—and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.
"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made—before it can be looted or mooched—made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.'
"To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss—the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery—that you must offer them values, not wounds—that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best that your money can find. And when men live by trade—with reason, not force, as their final arbiter—it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability—and the degree of a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?
"But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality—the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.
"Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants: money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?
"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth—the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?
"Money is your means of survival. The verdict you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men's vices or men's stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment's or a penny's worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you'll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?
"Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?
"Or did you say it's the love of money that's the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It's the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money—and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.
"Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.
"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another—their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.
"But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich—will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt—and of his life, as he deserves.
"Then you will see the rise of the men of the double standard—the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money—the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law—men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims—then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.
"Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion—when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing—when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors—when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you—when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice—you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that is does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.
"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked, 'Account overdrawn.'
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, 'Who is destroying the world? You are.
"You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it's crumbling around you, while you're damning its life-blood—money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities. Throughout men's history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, whose names changed, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves—slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody's mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer, Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers—as industrialists.
"To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money—and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man's mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being—the self-made man—the American industrialist.
"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose—because it contains all the others—the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to make money.' No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity—to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted of obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality.
"Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters' continents. Now the looters' credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide— as, I think, he will.
"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns—or dollars. Take your choice—there is no other—and your time is running out."
