About | Archive | Best | Blogroll | Feed
In his book The Faith of a Heretic, Walter Kaufmann spells out an ethic of intellectual honesty. (The book covers many other topics, but that's the core of it.) He sets admirably high standards for himself and anyone else who would, in the words of his fellow philosopher Jan Patočka, live in truth. As Kaufmann presents it, intellectual honesty is a challenging virtue because we're all liable to limit ourselves to the comfortable confines of what we already know - or think we know.
Here are some of the particular practices suggested by Kaufmann that I found especially significant:
Although these principles are admirable, it's hard to put them into practice!
(Cross-posted at Beautiful Wisdom.)
FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION
Exactly two hundred years ago today, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to one Henry Lee, who had inquired about the genesis of the Declaration of Independence. Here is what Jefferson had to say (original spelling retained):
That George Mason was author of the bill of rights, and of the constitution founded on it, the evidence of the day established fully in my mind. Of the paper you mention, purporting to be instructions to the Virginia delegation in Congress, I have no recollection. If it were any thing more than a projét of some private hand, that is to say, had any such instructions been ever given by the Convention, they would appear in the Journals, which we possess entire. But with respect to our rights and the acts of the British government contravening those rights, there was but one opinion on this side of the water. All American whigs thought alike on these subjects. When forced therefore to resort to arms for redress, an appeal to the tribunal of the world was deemed proper for our justification. This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm, as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the american mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. All its authority rests then on the harmonising sentiments of the day, whether expressed, in conversns in letters, printed essays or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney &c. The historical documents which you mention as in your possession, ought all to be found, and I am persuaded you will find, to be corroborative of the facts and principles advanced in that Declaration.
(Cross-posted at Beautiful Wisdom.)
FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION
I was saddened to learn the other day that my friend and mentor Michelle Marder Kamhi has passed away. Chris Sciabarra has written a more complete remembrance of our mutual friend, so I will add only a few personal notes.
During my college years at Columbia University, I spent quite a bit of time with Michelle and her husband Lou Torres (whom I'd met even earlier when he gave a talk on art appreciation at the American Renaissance School). It was my good fortune to assist them with Aristos, the independent arts journal they published for many years. Michelle was ever gracious and considerate, interested in hearing my thoughts on a wide variety of topics, curious about my studies in philosophy and ancient Greek, and extremely kind to someone who was so young and inexperienced. Her knowledge of art history was immense, but even greater was her passion about the arts. Visiting the Metropolitan Museum of Art with Michelle and Lou was an education unto itself! We also liked to walk from their brownstone on West 94th Street toward the Hudson River, where at Riverside Drive we would soak in the inspiring equine sculpture of Joan of Arc by Anna Hyatt Huntington. From Michelle and Lou I learned about so many artists I never would have encountered otherwise, and about the deep meaning and importance of art in human existence.
More recently, I helped Michelle and Lou to archive the Aristos website so that it will be available in perpetuity on the Internet. Even though at the time Michelle was struggling with the serious illness that would eventually take her life, she was characteristically and unfailingly gentle and patient. Michelle was a beautiful person and I will miss her very much.
(Cross-posted at Beautiful Wisdom.)
FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION
While collectively we slouch towards tyranny, individually I continue to ponder some of the many methods people have proposed for counteracting that trend. Amidst all the particular suggestions, one thing I have not seen mentioned is adopting the attitude of a free person. This strikes me as seemingly simple but in fact both difficult and fundamental.
Because I'm deep into Aristotle research these days, I'll point out a dozen of his relevant observations, but rephrase them as actionable advice:
The basic idea is this: those who stand straight and tall don't slouch in the first place, whether towards tyranny or any other form of human languishing, injustice, and corruption.
(Cross-posted at Beautiful Wisdom.)
FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION
Democracy ends in tyranny. ~ Aristotle
Legend has it that after the Constitutional Convention finished its work in September 1787, Elizabeth Willing Powel, one of the most powerful and highly educated women in Philadelphia, asked Benjamin Franklin whether we now had a monarchy or a republic. Great question, Elizabeth! We're still trying to figure out the answer.
But first, some ancient history. In his Politics, Aristotle distinguished among rule by one person (monarchy), rule by a few people (oligarchy), and rule by many or, in fact, all the people (which should be polyarchy or pantarchy, but even back then they called it democracy - "people power"). Because Aristotle loved to draw distinctions, within monarchical governments he also distinguished between kingship on the one hand and tyranny of various kinds on the other. The difference was that a king deserved to rule alone because of his pre-eminent excellence of character and dedication to the common good, whereas a tyrant was an unethical demagogue who cared only about himself and his cronies.
Because nowadays we conflate kingship and monarchy, it strikes us as odd that Elizabeth Powel asked if the result of the Convention was monarchy, because the whole point of the revolution was to separate from King George, right? Well, not quite, because the colonists objected to various forms of Parliamentary oversight and before the war went over the heads of Parliament by appealing directly to the king. She was probably worried not about setting up a new king George (last name Washington) but establishing one-man rule, however legally sanctioned.
We might also be surprised that she didn't ask about democracy. My knowledge of early American history is not deep enough to say why precisely, but my sense is that perhaps the primary if unstated goal of the Convention was to put a lid on what the "better sort" perceived as the excessive people power of the individual states under the Articles of Confederation (for more on this, see Gordon S. Wood's book The Creation of the American Republic). Pure democracy of the kind experienced in ancient Athens was never on offer, because having read Thucydides the Founders were well aware of how that experiment ended.
Following the lead of ancient and early modern republics like Rome and Venice, the Founders wished to balance Aristotle's forms of government: roughly speaking, the intent was that the President (not an executive council as in many republics) would be the monarchic element, the Senate would be the oligarchic element, and the House would be the democratic element. Plus, by setting up a federal structure, the Founders planned for most power to reside at the local level (townships, counties, militias, schools, etc.), for some power to be exercised at the state level, and for very few powers to be delegated to the national government.
Well, it hasn't worked out that way, has it? Most power is now centralized, the House is just as oligarchic as the Senate (and not exactly filled with the sorts of individuals we'd call natural aristocrats), Congresspeople don't want to stick their necks out by crafting legislation, most of the regulations we live under are generated by special-interest lobbyists and unelected experts, and increasingly our Presidents use their pens to issue executive orders instead of working with Congress to make laws that serve the common good. It's this last phenomenon that makes me wonder if we're slouching towards monarchy - more specifically, the tyranny of an elected ruler whose whims (or those who have his ear) are the only law. It's an ugly fate to contemplate for a country that started out with George Washington as its model of a President...
(Cross-posted at Beautiful Wisdom.)
FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION
Because of the long-running inversion of political power in America from the local level to the national level, these days we hear all about the decline of democracy in Washington, D.C. but very little about the decline of local democracy. This got me to thinking about representation where I live in Douglas County, Colorado.
Governance in Douglas County is overseen by three county commissioners. Because about 360,000 people live in Douglas County, that means we have one commissioner for every 120,000 people. Let's compare this degree of representation to what Americans experienced in the early years of the Republic. At the time of the 1790 census, the state with the closest population to present-day Douglas County was Massachusetts with 340,000 people. Yet consider that the lower house in Massachusetts had (I believe) 240 representatives! This works out to one representative for every 1400 people. Given Dunbar numbers, most citizens had a decent chance of being acquainted with their representative. By comparison, very few people in Douglas County know one of the commissioners - and those people are probably Republican party insiders, not ordinary citizens. These days we'd think it crazy to have a legislature of 250 representatives in someplace like Douglas County, but maybe that's because we've grown accustomed to such paltry degrees of representation.
Although I don't want to sound cynical, I must say that if we look at the situation not from the bottom up but from the top down then the decline in local democracy makes sense: if you're a "public-spirited" (or power-hungry) person who wants to "have an impact" (or feel important), you'd much prefer to "represent" (or dictate to) 120,000 people than 1400 people. Dispersed costs, concentrated benefits.
Speaking of local democracy, at our annual meeting a few weeks ago I was elected president of the civic association in my neighborhood of ~200 homes; although I don't know everyone in the neighborhood, it's something I could accomplish - unlike those county commissioners with 120,000 constituents. I'll certainly try to do a better job of representing the interests of the folks in my neighborhood than the commissioners do in our county.
To be clear, our civic association has no real power - it's not even a homeowners' association and thus can't enforce covenants or set architectural standards or anything like that. This is in contrast to, say, the townships in New England, where especially in olden days every year the citizens in their distinctive town meetings would debate and vote on taxes, roads, schools, and other matters of local importance. It was the example of New England townships that inspired Thomas Jefferson to declare the need to "divide the counties into wards" because he foresaw that with the growth in population even county governments would stray too far from the people. Boy, was he right!
(Cross-posted at Beautiful Wisdom.)
FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION
About | Archive | Best | Blogroll | Feed
Peter Saint-Andre > Journal