seekersandsought.com

 

 

Neither!

“A great part of the mischiefs in this world arises from words.”[1] People who need absolute certainty turn to ideology. Those who don’t, turn to philosophy.

The fundamental difference between holding a philosophical position versus an ideological one is that the former always remains to some extent open-ended while the latter is inherently closed. While traditional liberals and conservatives can and do debate issues, neo-cons, fascists, communists et al. can only relate potentially to others who possess the same prejudices. This is where important political issues are framed by simplistic conclusions that are beyond debate—the ideologue is not only preoccupied in being right but also in being self-righteous. I am right, you are wrong; I am good, you are evil; I speak the truth while you are a liar! And so it goes. These extremists with their closed dogmas can tell you if a particular news medium is liberal simply by noting their disagreement with it—call it the Jesse Helms school of political theory.

The idea of a struggle between powerful absolutes—either right or wrong (or good vs. evil) has proven too appealing, foolish and very destructive for those who hide behind these historic ideological walls. All we need is to look at is those (righteous) terrorists who are so absolute in their perceptions that the many who commit suicide are convinced that they have the one and only right answer. They and they alone have intimate ties to Truth.

For students of political philosophy, the immediate beginnings of conservative philosophy began with Thomas Hobbes who, in the early seventeenth-century, having had witnessed the hints of early individuality, argued for a strong central government. It was his perceptions of the individualized brute (first drawn out of the Renaissance) that frightened him because it implied social chaos. A century later, Edmund Burke, developing this conservative viewpoint, added a defense of the power of religious prejudices. His theory was that human nature—being brutish—cannot be trusted because it can be corrupted by sin. Thus, the argument was for a powerful central government encouraging religious bias in order to keep us on an even keel. For Burke, this was the counterweight to the French with their “destructive” Revolution which he abhorred.

In the nineteenth-century the father of modern liberalism, John Stuart Mill, offered the argument for smaller government where the people should be given necessary information to make intelligent choices. Here the brutish nature of mankind was overcome with the potential of expanding literacy and the exercise of reason in guiding people and government in a positive direction. It should not be surprising that William F. Buckley, the founder of the “conservative” journal, The National Review, suggested that his mentor was Mill and not Hobbes or Burke.

While the dualism of birth and death is a basic human condition—our singular certainty—its validity applies only to our birth and our demise; only the very first and last breaths are absolutes. There is no question that this discovery of our terminal condition is the foundation for our concept of “certainty.” This fundamental characteristic of our existence not only marks us as uniquely distinct creatures but also grants us the burden of our responsibilities: We know our terminal situation. However, it is this certainty that leads to dualism. Philosophical differences add to our thinking, whereas ideological responses only lock us into that narrow paradigm that I am right. The fact is that philosophy and language change over time, but not those inherent absolute dualistic struggles that mark the thinking of ideologues.

It is worth noting that we believe that persons with bi-polar disorder should be medically treated while those who take their dualistic pre-disposition into an ideological camp have unfortunately, proven to be acceptable. Perhaps comments regarding some psychological sources for driving one’s mentality into a dualistic or ideological pattern may offer some enlightenment.

Fear is known to be one of the most fundamental emotions for all animals, especially those who are aware that they are terminal, as, for example, those growing old and sickly. Fear does not stand alone, however. Disregarding mental disorders, fear is a given. A frightened mind is juxtaposed to whatever or whomever one most fears and it will seek to hide or find some form of comfort. This juxtaposition of fear and righteousness can often lead to expansion of that frightened state so powerful that one will build an ideological wall to hide behind. There is comfort in a group-think that demands that we must reduce our thinking into a dualistic modality. This is a step that inherently and quickly transforms into an ideology where you either belong to the group or else you are ignorant, if not, a dangerous enemy. Acquiring this mind set of a central concept of certainty has proven to be an insurmountable conundrum, even for those making possible this discussion. Unfortunately, from this discovery of our terminal condition, we have constructed and colored so many of our social and cultural ideas of what is perceived as being significant for our security and/or welfare.

This mental and emotional trap can take government control with religious dominance and even flirt with theocracy. Giving into fears can do that, as it did in ancient Rome as it fell. These utterly baseless beliefs can be a cause-célèbre for public policy decisions as expressed in dumbed-down science, education by testing, restrictive health-care options for women and the terminally ill, dividing nations into those who are “good” and and those who are “evil”; war mongering, economic abuse and the denial of basic civil protections.

This trap often manifests itself most clearly with those labels of liberal and conservative. While it is possible to reach a correct decision, choice or conclusion, it is only correct and nothing more. A correct position does not allow, in retrospect, for it to be a right choice since right implies an absolute that correct does not and which, incidently, can only exist in the past.

The Republican Party is dominated by the righteous, those calling themselves religious; according to one poll 82% of the party claims this self-righteous position of absolute faith which should always give pause to any reflective citizen. But the problem goes much further. Perhaps it would help if we explore the roots of these terms.

Correct, an ancient Latin term, is drawn as so many Latin words by the combination of two other words: the first com- meaning together, while the second, regere, meaning to lead straight or direct. While this dictionary definition is only an indication, it is important to consider that this ancient Roman word grew from the most sophisticated ancient civilization, classic Greece; for antiquity this was about as open and flexible language as could be found in any ancient society. Their linguistic adaptability can be seen in the adoption of such diverse cultures as Hebraic, Macedonian, Egyptian, as well their various religious beliefs.

Right is quite different in its origin as well as our understanding. Right is not the ancient multi-syllabic Latin but the single syllabic Germanic (recht) which was, for these later peoples, not uncommon. This was a direct and simple word that belonged in a direct and simple lexography for a primitive warrior people. Not surprisingly, therefore, it had something of a different interpretation than simply straight or direct since it fully implied direction, most notably as associated with travel; it also applied later to the law as well as other fixed functional patterns. The Romans created the earliest Western concept of law but it did so with a sense of flexibility and diversity while the more tribal Germanic peoples (a basis for common law) needed a more absolute reality, being more nomadic.

The problem with the word “right” is how easily it can lead us to become righteous which often ends with self-righteous and arrogant. An example of self-righteousness leading to arrogance would be when Mr. DeLay of Texas (et. al.), attempted to keep a mentally dead woman artificially breathing. A preponderance of evidence that she was brain dead had no bearing on DeLay’s actions which reflected the party’s righteousness and desire for some form of absolute purity.

This is not to say that the use of the word right may not occasionally be appropriate in a limited manner, but when politics is the issue, the danger can be very serious. Imagine two powers facing off on the battlefield, weapons drawn, millions of lives and fortunes on the line when leaders sit down to discuss how to avoid massive destruction. As the saying goes: “When words fail, wars begin. When wars finally end, we settle our disputes with words.”[2]

Now imagine they predicate their discussion as follows: “We are correct in our positions.” It is not necessarily a problem if the other responds with the same: “No, we are correct.” Without question there is room to negotiate. But now the same scenario but this time the line reads: “We are right in our conclusion.” All it takes is for the other side to respond with: “No, we are right!” And if one is arrogant enough they can proceed unilaterally to enter into the land of slaughter (as the White House has done in Iraq) predicated entirely upon deceptions and opportunism. Combine greed with self-righteousness and you have the making of a huge disaster—i.e., our present economic crisis.

It is common knowledge that G.W. Bush did not speak to an audience unless that group has been properly filtered so that only those who already agreed with him were allowed to attend. This raises another possibility: those who see themselves as most right cannot tolerate any diversion from the party line. The results at home and abroad are often nothing less than a disaster! War and peace should not be the result of one or the other of the parties being right but rather the result of either the presence or absence of a middle position that is derived from negotiations. The two parties can claim the purity of their respective positions and rattle sabers but in the real world they must establish an acceptable comprise that saves face for both and avoids disaster. If this principle had been followed in 1914 the 20^th century might not have become the Century of Annihilation with two chapters of the Great War followed by a great deal of nonsensical foolish and brutal excesses offered as an afterthought in the form of a Third Chapter (Wold War III as Nixon referred to it). Bismarck understood the potential for this type of disaster when he was fired by Kaiser Wilhelm: he knew his old boss was a simple-minded fool.

Von Clausewitz once observed that war results from a failure of diplomacy, “War is not merely a political act, but also a political instrument, a continuation of political relations, a carrying out of the same by other means,” appealing enough to attract those who are absolutely right enough to charge into this tragic trap.

At issue is the contrast between a philosophic position and an ideological position, the former working for an accurate if not always correct analysis while ideology possesses absolute righteousness on its side. Perhaps the best means of delineating between the two is noting that ideology, unlike philosophy, is a closed system of assumptions where those inside are always right while those outside are perceived as categorically wrong. In contrast, philosophies, such as conservative and liberal, are open-ended and can change with the times or circumstances and be freely discussed and debated.

What else besides fear could be the attraction for such an ideological approach? For one thing, the appeal could be that it is simplistic, or a less complicated path, and avoids those mental difficulties in facing complex issues needing serious consideration. No one has ever said that thinking is a task for the lazy or frightened. For many, using a multi-syllable word like correct is less appealing than using a single-syllable word like right with all its implied power. Who has not fallen into that trap? Anyone who has taught can attest to this kind of rhetorical and grammatical laziness and fear.

Machiavelli a half millennium ago established the fundamentals for modern political philosophy and later political science. In doing so he noted the importance for political leaders to appear righteous. What is central, however, is that they act in a practical if not sensible manner. Appearance is fine but destroying the state is not the goal of a political leader.

Being right could be considered a one-way trip, a trap where ideology rather than philosophical positions that are dominated by correctness. The latter at least implies multiple options. This is often called pragmatism with lip service to principles. However, when you have an American president who suggests that the word entrepreneur is not a French word (read foreign and unpatriotic) you cannot expect an understanding of pragmatism beyond opportunism. Laws are changed when judged to be incorrect. But what happens when you introduce the Law as an absolute? Capital punishment reveals a great deal more than most would want regarding the kind of society in which we live. We should never give in to simple answers or even falter, for the risks are far too great, personally and collectively, to play such righteous games.

Right does have an historic cultural positive connotation; for one can sit at the right hand of the King or the Law but someone else can come along doing the same in replacing you. Flexibility is a key component when confronting reality.

Unfortunately, there is a deep appeal to abdicating the personal responsibility for carrying one’s own living on one’s own back: Let someone else do it, someone else has the answers, someone who is right and thus a savior from the certainty of our terminal condition. But there is “the truth” of un-lived lives since questioning and wondering, the key components of a lived life, are absent. While this might occur on occasion in the Medieval or Christian era, in the end such worlds have proven to be too stagnant and too untenable an approach for any expansion of living, governing or growth where daily changes inhere in an increasingly dynamic world. Fortunately, the western world has never been truly “right” though often correct. The danger today is self-righteousness and delusional neo-cons who took over the running of this country into the ground using fear and hate for supposed righteous ends.

The biggest danger lurks in becoming righteous, for this is the camel’s nose entering into dangerous and unknown territories. The righteous becoming self-righteous is followed by an arrogant stance where the righteous can become part of a fanatical purity of beliefs. It is a simple step from this to a 9/11 or the tradition of the Crusades re-born in our era. Those of the Nazi era knew they were absolutely right, but this never solved a problem, it only exacerbated it. This is little more than childishness since as a member of the righteous elect you are above human law and reasoning; to reason always implies the give and take of discovery - philosophical positions rather than ideological death traps.

Consider: it is suggested that there are not two sides to a coin, a common mistake of simple logic, itself a mental game about which one always should be cautious. For a coin to have two sides it actually must have a third where heads and tails exist only because of the metal in between making possible that dual distinction. There is always a third position no matter our trying to avoid it. The dualism of birth and death only can make sense when living exists between birth and burial. To be right or wrong implies a choice which in itself is a third position. Even physical problems such as mental illness are normally matters of degree from minor to extreme. After all, even those who give into greed can become ideological in turning it into greeditis which we have recently witnessed.

We have seen those painting themselves into a corner with impossibly slow drying paint—perhaps centuries of drying out.

The real tragedy in this approach is that where ideology reigns with its extreme mind set, there is a fundamental human characteristic conspicuous in its absence: our curiosity, the basis for imagination.

If one aspires to live a unique life they must find their own way through a could’ve into an unrealized should’ve finding a base for a would’ve in a world where the dollar too often determines the quality of life.

As for the question in the title the more appropriate answer should be “correct or incorrect.”

Everyone hears only what he understands.[3]

==============================================================

1. Edmund Burke Quoted p. 212 of Richard Lederer The Miracle of Language

2. Wilfred Funk p. 220 ibid Lederer

3. Johann von Goethe p. 221 ibid Lederer