Philosophy 101–Essay 1

First in a series

I have been challenging myself, of late; challenging my own world views by trying to answer questions about them. Given the state of politics in my native United States, it probably should be understandable. Well, it has been an interesting experience.

Those who know me know that I am an inveterate, voracious and somewhat eclectic reader. As I say, it broadens one’s horizons.

Well, between reading articles on the internet and from my again-growing personal library (both physical and e-book), I find myself asking questions about the world as we see it today. I am trying to challenge my assumptions and compare them to more than six decades of observation of the human condition.

Who is right? Am I wrong? Heck, I think I am a big enough person that I can admit that I can be wrong or that I even have made a mistake (or two – or a whole bunch, because I have and still do). I even have admitted when problems are bigger than I am and asked for help. However, having said that, I wonder if my perceptions of the world are indeed correct. I am beginning to suspect that I have been more prescient than I have ever realized. So, I decided I would compose a series of essays on my philosophy, my beliefs, and my assumptions. I will leave it to you, my reader, to judge whether my views have any merit or not. I am merely sharing them.

The problem, I fear, is where to start and that is the most difficult question to answer because anywhere I start, I feel as if I am jumping in mid-stream of my thought processes and trying to decide which bank I want to swim for. However, I guess a good place to start is to start with a series of definitions. I do this, so that we all are on the same sheet of music when I delve into my digressions and views on philosophy.

When you are talking about humans and their world, what is the basic element? To me it is the role of the individual human in that world. It doesn’t matter whether we are talking about a family, a clan, a tribe, a community, a city, a state, a nation or any other subdivision of human activity, the basic element in each is the activities and choices of the individual.

So, what makes up an individual human being? Philosophically or biologically? The challenge already is laid down.

What is a human being? Is it merely a collection of protoplasmic cells that through some mysterious process has developed the ability to rationalize its existence? Is it that ability to synthesize perceptions into a belief structure and the bag of bones and water that carry that ability irrelevant? Who was the philosopher who posed “I think, therefore I am.” (It was the French philosopher, René Descartes.)

Ok, let me define the individual as a human being who has the ability to think, rationalize, essentially to think abstractly, to imagine things that aren’t and to solve problems. An individual is capable of making choices that can affect not only the individual’s life but others around them.

But then that begs the question that when does the individual become capable of doing all those things and what do we do with the individual prior to that point? So, maybe my definition isn’t so good after all.

My beautiful wife makes a very compelling argument that a human individual is created at conception and implantation in the mother’s womb. I won’t delve into all her points, but the basic one is that once the embryo begins to divide and grow there is, and can be, only one result and that is a human being that will – with the passage of time – meet all the requisites of my definition. Now, I know that one could digress into viability, the obligations of one individual to another, from parent to child, and all the other issues that surround the debate about the rectitude of permitting abortions, but I choose not to go that route right now.

So, if we take that individual, what else can we say about him or her? Well, for one thing, each one is practically unique. Yes, twins do have identical DNA but they are burdened with different life experiences and exposures and hence there are differences between them.

Next, does that individual have a free will? In other words, does the individual have the capability and ability to make choices? Then we have to answer how much responsibility can be laid to the individual over the choices they make? That is a more difficult question, it seems.

It revolves around the issue, it seems, that which controls a person more: Their nature or how they were nurtured? Neither, it seems to me is adequate to account for the diversity of people and what they do. Yes, genetics does play a major role in what a person will become, how they view the world and how they make their way in the world.

We all are born with different physical and mental attributes, talents and abilities. We see that every day, so to deny it is to deny reality.

By the same token we see that the environment people are raised in, the expectations and values that are taught to them from the time they are born make a tremendous impact on each and every individual. Often we can see incredible changes in individuals when, for whatever reason, they change their values or their expectations about whom they are or what they can accomplish.

So, we have to accept and admit that nurturing, or the lack thereof, plays a very important role in the development of a human individual. It is that realization that leads me to want to write this series of essays. If words and individual acts can make a difference, then I chose to try to make a difference.

We are all individuals. We are all different. We are all free, in my mind, to chart our own path through the world and our lives. It is the choices that we make and the expectations we have of others in the choices that they make that ultimately determine our fates – so to speak – in a world that truly is chaotic and without boundaries.

I hope this gives you food for thought before we progress on.

Nuff said.

Hope for the best; expect the worst

I had a nice person comment on one of my rants, pointing out that we need to retain our hope that “government” will do the right thing for us … to retain faith in our government.

I could not agree more. Yes, we need to retain our hope and faith that government will do the “right” thing for us … but I would also say that we need to expect that the people in government, either elected or hired, will still be people … and that means they will be flawed and not always perfect, or even good.

However, hoping that someone will do the “right” thing begs two questions:

1. What is the “right” thing? Who defines it? How is it defined? Can it mean different things to different people? Do we as individuals have the right to have our own definition of the “right” thing, even if it disagrees with the vision of others?

2. For whom is it appropriate to do the “right” thing? I mean, for example, is it appropriate for a ditch digger to perform heart surgery, or a heart surgeon to dig ditches? Both work to improve the channeling the movement of fluids. Is it more appropriate for a town government to do something rather than the state government or the federal government or the United Nations? Who decides?

I know; I am terrible; I just ask questions. I guess I am sort of addicted to the Socratic method of thinking.

Still, we have to admit that human altruism is the exception rather than the rule. Why is that I haven’t a clue, but I know it is true. It is why we celebrate demonstrations of it, rather than just accept it as just another normal day at the office.

People are selfish. Governments, because they are run by people, are selfish. Now, just because something looks out for its own interest and does things because it is in its own interest, it doesn’t make either that something/someone or what it does bad. Not by a long shot.

Richard Dawkins wrote an interesting book that I read a few years ago called “The Selfish Gene.” Note, this is not a light read or an easy one, but it is enlightening.

The basic thing was that genes are selfish, acting in their own interest to replicate themselves, but sometimes they do things that seem almost altruistic … but in reality, really are just manifestations of its own self-interest. It is somewhat a radical thought, but I think it is true for the most part.

I have long contended that since people ARE selfish, the trick is to harness that selfishness so that it does the community and civilization at large the best. Sort of what Mr. Dawkins is talking about when he is discussing the selfish gene. In other words, how can I make what I want them to do what I want by making it something that they see is in their own best interest and rewarding. I don’t want them to do it out of fear because that ultimately is contra-productive. Also, I am not one to engage in conflict for conflict’s sake. I merely do it when I perceive it is my own best interests, where the rewards exceed any foreseen costs.

So, what is in our own best interest? Well, I think each of us has to determine that ourselves. First, only we really know what our interests are and, second, it isn’t really fair to slough that responsibility (or even authority) off on someone else … they already have a full-time job deciding what is in their own best interest (and they, like the rest of us, are doing it imperfectly).

Of course, all that assumes that individuals have a right to decide what to do and to be free of outside forces telling them what their role is to be. Granted, to an extent, we do let outsides forces tell us what to do every day by adhering to the rules, social mores, regulations, laws and contracts, social and otherwise, that we engage in routinely. But, by and large, at least so far in the United States, we are free to make a lot of our choices on our own (although those choices seem to be getting more and more restricted as I get older, and I am not referring to my own abilities and capabilities, but those permitted by the society that I live in). The libertarian in me says this is a bad thing, but I understand those who see things happening and want to intervene, to help protect people from their own stupidity. I just question the wisdom of it. Especially if you go so far as to relieve the individual of the responsibility to become aware of what their own interests are and to provide for them.

I guess that goes back to the question whether people are even smart enough to take care of themselves. My view is, for the vast majority, is that they are. It is just that a large proportion are quite willing to delegate that authority to another so that they can feel that they have met their responsibility, while not having to work at it.

Others may see it differently and say the smarter have an obligation to take care of the less smart and make their decisions for them … for their own good, of course, or for the good of those they have assumed responsibility for – such as children.

I happen to disagree with those folks, but then I am one who believes in individual liberty at the expense of community comity. I do, however, believe that it is in our own self-interest to help develop and protect our selected communities, but note that I said in my “own self-interest.” I don’t think I should do it because I owe it, necessarily, to the community, except in exchange for the benefits I receive from that community.

Well, enough rambling. Thank you to those who come and visit these random thoughts. I would encourage others, particularly those from other nations than the US of A, to give me feedback … even if it is not in English … I will figure out how to translate it. I actually enjoy dialogs, even with those people with whom I vehemently disagree (as long as we keep our tongues civil and don’t come to blows … that I don’t like).

Random Thoughts 1

There is a old doggerel (a poem/song - in this case written by the operattists Gilbert and Sullivan) taught to me by my father lo these many years ago that began.

'TWAS on the shores that round our coast

From Deal to Ramsgate span,

That I found alone on a piece of stone

An elderly naval man.

His hair was weedy, his beard was long,

And weedy and long was he,

And I heard this wight on the shore recite,

In a singular minor key:

Oh, I am the cook and the captain bold

And the mate of the Nancy Brig

And a bosun tight and a midshipmite,

and the crew of the captain's gig ...

In a sense this is a my song in my own singular minor key.

And I will be your cook and captain bold, the mate, the bosun tight, the midshipmite and the crew of the captain's gig (its rifleman, if you care to know what position, the same spot I held on the boat crew of the USS Meredith some 35 years ago)