This post has been a long time in the making, but there will not be much to it. Its purpose is to give you a taste of the best book ever written about America. The book is Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville. I like a lot of the books that I’ve read but I don’t necessarily think that every one of them is essential reading for everybody, even though most of them are. But this book, on the other hand, I consider essential reading for every American or anybody interested in American politics and society.
Here is a bit about it. Tocqueville was a Frenchman who came over to visit America in 1830 for about 9 months when he was only about 25. He traveled around, met a lot of people and took a lot of notes. It wasn’t until about 5 years later that he published the book, in French, in two separate volumes. About his feeling the need to write this book he says:
“The entire book you are going to read was written under the pressure of a sort of religious terror in the author’s soul, produced by the sight of this irresistible revolution that for so many centuries has marched over all obstacles, and that one sees still advancing today amid the ruins it has made.”
A common idea that runs throughout the book is equality. He sees it as the major influence in everything that takes place in America. I will quote the first and last paragraph of the book so that you can get a taste.
First paragraph: “Among the new objects that attracted my attention during my stay in the United States, none struck my eye more vividly than the equality of conditions. I discovered without difficulty the enormous influence that this primary fact exerts on the course of society; it gives a certain direction to public spirit, a certain turn to the laws, new maxims to those who govern, and particular habits to the governed.”
Last paragraph: “Nations of our day cannot have it that conditions within them are not equal; but it depends on them whether equality leads them to servitude or freedom, to enlightenment or barbarism, to prosperity or misery.”
The book is full of things like this, where he provides you with insights that will make you understand and appreciate America, and be scared for it at the same time. I believe that America would be a lot better off if people did not watch or listen to those TV and radio political opinionators (and this includes all of them, no exceptions), and spent that half hour every day reading some Tocqueville. Just read his introduction and you’ll know what I’m talking about.
Now a note on translations: There is an abridged version published by Signet Classic. I read it a couple years ago and felt like I got a lot out of it. If however, you read the unabridged version you will have yourself a big book but will also find that there is hardly a paragraph that is not worth reading. I have the one published by Univ. of Chicago Press and I like it. I hope the book gets read because you can’t depend on any school having you read it for class, unless you go to St. John’s College.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Rousseau and equality
I recently read Rousseau's Discourse on the Origins and Foundations of Inequality Among Men, also known as the Second Discourse. The title says what the book is about. He talks about how he thinks it is possible that man did or could have developed, starting from Savage Man until we get to the stage we are at now, which is Civilized Man. I want to say much, but I do want to quote one part of it.
"I conceive of two sorts of inequality in the human Species; one which I call natural or Physical, because it is established by Nature, and which consists in the differences in age, health, strengths of Body, and qualities of Mind, or of Soul; The other, which may be called moral, or political inequality, because it depends on a sort of convention, and is established, or at least authorized by Men's consent. It consists in the different Privileges which some enjoy to the prejudice of the others, such as to be more wealthy, more honored, more Powerful than they, or even to get themselves obeyed by them."
In other words, the first inequality is built into Nature, the second one we create. According to Rousseau, civilized man and all his progress and perceived needs creates more and more inequality among men. I think there is a lot of truth to this. But here's the thing with equality--we never talk about why it is important. Maybe equality is also something that civilized man has made up. It might be completely overrated. I don't think that it is overrated nor do I think that man has made it up, but I still want to hear the reasons why equality is good for mankind and what it should look like, not just what inequality looks like. That's all I got.
"I conceive of two sorts of inequality in the human Species; one which I call natural or Physical, because it is established by Nature, and which consists in the differences in age, health, strengths of Body, and qualities of Mind, or of Soul; The other, which may be called moral, or political inequality, because it depends on a sort of convention, and is established, or at least authorized by Men's consent. It consists in the different Privileges which some enjoy to the prejudice of the others, such as to be more wealthy, more honored, more Powerful than they, or even to get themselves obeyed by them."
In other words, the first inequality is built into Nature, the second one we create. According to Rousseau, civilized man and all his progress and perceived needs creates more and more inequality among men. I think there is a lot of truth to this. But here's the thing with equality--we never talk about why it is important. Maybe equality is also something that civilized man has made up. It might be completely overrated. I don't think that it is overrated nor do I think that man has made it up, but I still want to hear the reasons why equality is good for mankind and what it should look like, not just what inequality looks like. That's all I got.
Saturday, April 04, 2009
peace or property
In my classes I’ve recently been reading Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan and John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government. They both talk about where government comes from, that is, how it comes about, and what it’s for. They both agree on how we get government, but not on the purpose of government. Hobbes says that the government’s purpose is to keep peace among its people, and Locke says that government’s purpose is to protect the property of its people. Here’s how it goes:
They both start out by describing the State of Nature that man was, or would be in, without government. In this State of Nature there are no laws, every man is at war with every man, and every man acts as his own judge and prosecutor. Such a state is not desirable since there is continual war, no one trusts anyone, and everyone lives in constant fear of his own life and property being taken.
Hobbes says that man does not want to live in a state of war and so he makes a covenant with his fellowman to form a government that will make laws and establish and maintain peace. This government, which can reside in one person or an assembly, has the right to do what it sees fit in order to keep peace. It can and will, according to Hobbes, do such things as determine what books are to be read and the possible distribution of property. This sounds like communism to us, but to Hobbes it is what the people want, which is to do what is necessary to keep them out of a state of war. It is helps to know that Hobbes wrote this after the English Civil War, which, like our own civil war, was a horrible thing to have happen. It is understandable that anyone who lived through such a war would want to do what is necessary to prevent all wars, especially civil ones.
Locke, on the other hand, believes that the purpose of government is to protect man’s life, liberty, and estate, all of which he simply calls our property. Locke says that in the State of Nature man is at war with every man because what each man is concerned about is preserving his property, and this is why he enters into a political society and agrees to government. Government’s purpose is, therefore, to protect a man’s property and man gives the government the right to do what it needs to in order to bring about this end. If you read Locke it will sound a lot like our own government, and that is probably because our Founders liked him.
With all that as a brief summary, which would you choose? Would you rather your government have as its known purpose to be to keep peace or protect property? Although I’m not so sure the two need to be mutually exclusive, I’m sure most of us would choose property. What is interesting, however, is that in times of war we usually choose peace over property. It seemed like some liberties were given up, or taken away, after 9/11, and in other periods of war. I don’t know whether this is right or even necessary, although it might be. But the point is that it happens.
Anyway, I mostly just wanted to talk about the books, both of them worth the read. The last bit was just a little modern observation and application. Class dismissed.
They both start out by describing the State of Nature that man was, or would be in, without government. In this State of Nature there are no laws, every man is at war with every man, and every man acts as his own judge and prosecutor. Such a state is not desirable since there is continual war, no one trusts anyone, and everyone lives in constant fear of his own life and property being taken.
Hobbes says that man does not want to live in a state of war and so he makes a covenant with his fellowman to form a government that will make laws and establish and maintain peace. This government, which can reside in one person or an assembly, has the right to do what it sees fit in order to keep peace. It can and will, according to Hobbes, do such things as determine what books are to be read and the possible distribution of property. This sounds like communism to us, but to Hobbes it is what the people want, which is to do what is necessary to keep them out of a state of war. It is helps to know that Hobbes wrote this after the English Civil War, which, like our own civil war, was a horrible thing to have happen. It is understandable that anyone who lived through such a war would want to do what is necessary to prevent all wars, especially civil ones.
Locke, on the other hand, believes that the purpose of government is to protect man’s life, liberty, and estate, all of which he simply calls our property. Locke says that in the State of Nature man is at war with every man because what each man is concerned about is preserving his property, and this is why he enters into a political society and agrees to government. Government’s purpose is, therefore, to protect a man’s property and man gives the government the right to do what it needs to in order to bring about this end. If you read Locke it will sound a lot like our own government, and that is probably because our Founders liked him.
With all that as a brief summary, which would you choose? Would you rather your government have as its known purpose to be to keep peace or protect property? Although I’m not so sure the two need to be mutually exclusive, I’m sure most of us would choose property. What is interesting, however, is that in times of war we usually choose peace over property. It seemed like some liberties were given up, or taken away, after 9/11, and in other periods of war. I don’t know whether this is right or even necessary, although it might be. But the point is that it happens.
Anyway, I mostly just wanted to talk about the books, both of them worth the read. The last bit was just a little modern observation and application. Class dismissed.
Friday, March 20, 2009
intellectual happiness
I read Aristotle’s The Ethics a few weeks ago and just wrote a paper on a small part of it. I chose as my topic something he talks about in the very end about happiness. He says that the most perfect form of happiness comes from contemplation, and that happiness that comes from moral goodness is happiness only in a secondary degree.
This seemed strange to me, partly as an ending to the book, because the whole thing is pretty much about moral goodness and developing moral virtues, as opposed to intellectual virtues. (Humans, by the way, have these two kinds of virtues.) But also because it seems that the greatest happiness that all if not most people experience comes from the relationships we have. But the exercising of our intellectual virtues gives us the more perfect happiness because it is the higher of the two kinds of virtues. Moral virtue is tied up with our emotions, something the animals have as well. And, he says, when we exercise our intellectual virtue we are using the part of us that is divine, and tapping into that which is divine within us and without us.
I can completely see how all this is so from a logical perspective. As I said, however, I wonder whether a person who uses their intellectual virtues, even to a great degree, can still feel happy without fulfilling relationships, which fall under aspects of moral goodness and virtue. There are some parts, however, where Aristotle says, or perhaps implies, that a proper exercise of our intellectual virtues will lead to the exercising of our moral virtues. And, he says, the proper use of the intellect is to arrive at truth. And truth and knowledge have a way of changing our behavior and lifting us up. So the exercising of intellectual virtue may lead to the exercising and development of our moral virtues, although this can, for most of us, take a very long time. I don’t have it all figured out, so I’ll stop there and end with a quote from Plato’s Socrates, which comes from the Apology.
“… and if I say again that the greatest good of man is daily to converse about virtue, and all that concerning which you hear me examining myself and others, and that the life which is unexamined is not worth living – that you are still less likely to believe. And yet what I say is true, although a thing of which it is hard for me to persuade you.”
Please feel free to blog up any comments or questions, even and especially disagreements. All I ask for is civility.
This seemed strange to me, partly as an ending to the book, because the whole thing is pretty much about moral goodness and developing moral virtues, as opposed to intellectual virtues. (Humans, by the way, have these two kinds of virtues.) But also because it seems that the greatest happiness that all if not most people experience comes from the relationships we have. But the exercising of our intellectual virtues gives us the more perfect happiness because it is the higher of the two kinds of virtues. Moral virtue is tied up with our emotions, something the animals have as well. And, he says, when we exercise our intellectual virtue we are using the part of us that is divine, and tapping into that which is divine within us and without us.
I can completely see how all this is so from a logical perspective. As I said, however, I wonder whether a person who uses their intellectual virtues, even to a great degree, can still feel happy without fulfilling relationships, which fall under aspects of moral goodness and virtue. There are some parts, however, where Aristotle says, or perhaps implies, that a proper exercise of our intellectual virtues will lead to the exercising of our moral virtues. And, he says, the proper use of the intellect is to arrive at truth. And truth and knowledge have a way of changing our behavior and lifting us up. So the exercising of intellectual virtue may lead to the exercising and development of our moral virtues, although this can, for most of us, take a very long time. I don’t have it all figured out, so I’ll stop there and end with a quote from Plato’s Socrates, which comes from the Apology.
“… and if I say again that the greatest good of man is daily to converse about virtue, and all that concerning which you hear me examining myself and others, and that the life which is unexamined is not worth living – that you are still less likely to believe. And yet what I say is true, although a thing of which it is hard for me to persuade you.”
Please feel free to blog up any comments or questions, even and especially disagreements. All I ask for is civility.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
one man or the masses
I’ve been reading Charles Dickens’s A Tale of Two Cities lately. I’m not going to offer a critique of the book, but he does talk about mob rule since it has to do with the French Revolution. This got me thinking about the will of the masses and whether or not what they want is what is best.
In one of my classes the question got brought up about if we would rather have lawmaking be entrusted to a single wise ruler or to the masses. I would rather have a single wise ruler run things because he would (assuming that he stays wise and uncorrupted) base his decisions on reason and have the best interests of the people (i.e. the common good) in mind, whereas the decisions of the masses will often be based on passions and individual interest. This does not mean that masses don’t make good decisions for themselves as a whole, but sometimes they don’t. Passions/emotions are based on our desires of the moment, and they want to be satisfied instantly and cloud out consequences and right action. Sometimes, however, these desires do lead to something that is good, but I’m not sure we are aware of that in the moment.
This is one of the reasons why guys like Plato and Aristotle do not like democracies. The people never really know what they want and go from one thing to another, usually without realizing it. But if you read Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, you can see that American democracy has a lot of good things going for it. And I also believe that people should be held responsible for their choices, and a democracy helps do this. So in the end I guess I come out in favor of the masses, just not mobs.
In one of my classes the question got brought up about if we would rather have lawmaking be entrusted to a single wise ruler or to the masses. I would rather have a single wise ruler run things because he would (assuming that he stays wise and uncorrupted) base his decisions on reason and have the best interests of the people (i.e. the common good) in mind, whereas the decisions of the masses will often be based on passions and individual interest. This does not mean that masses don’t make good decisions for themselves as a whole, but sometimes they don’t. Passions/emotions are based on our desires of the moment, and they want to be satisfied instantly and cloud out consequences and right action. Sometimes, however, these desires do lead to something that is good, but I’m not sure we are aware of that in the moment.
This is one of the reasons why guys like Plato and Aristotle do not like democracies. The people never really know what they want and go from one thing to another, usually without realizing it. But if you read Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, you can see that American democracy has a lot of good things going for it. And I also believe that people should be held responsible for their choices, and a democracy helps do this. So in the end I guess I come out in favor of the masses, just not mobs.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Erasmus speaks for Peace
One of my latest readings was The Complaint of Peace by Erasmus. He wrote during the Reformation (early 1500’s). His most well known work is The Praise of Folly, also a good read. If anyone is interested in some good Christian thought, then read some of his stuff. Erasmus is very insightful, enjoyable to read, most of all concerned with getting to the heart of Christianity and bringing it out.
In The Complaint of Peace he starts by talking about where peace is not, then he gets into the real purpose of the text, which is to offer a few of his thoughts on war, why there is so much of it, and especially among Christians. So why is it that we go to war? Erasmus puts the question another way: “Why is it that among us war never takes a recess?”
There are probably a lot of reasons, but I want to offer a simple reason that I think underlines all other reasons that are given and can maybe help us understand them a little better, along with human nature itself. It is that war is easy and peace is hard. Erasmus says “nothing is more conducive to peace than a sincere desire that comes from the heart.” This is not only a difficult thing to have and develop, but also to maintain. About war he says, “Nothing is easier to defeat a group that is divided amongst itself.”
War is always a simple answer and we can give any number of reasons for doing it. Peace, on the other hand, takes a lot of hard work, integrity, courage, and risk. You can also say the same thing about war, and sometimes it’s true, but a lot of times we say this to convince ourselves and others that we are doing a good thing. So don’t be fooled by warmongering, because “all this madness we cloak with fine-sounding terms.”
In The Complaint of Peace he starts by talking about where peace is not, then he gets into the real purpose of the text, which is to offer a few of his thoughts on war, why there is so much of it, and especially among Christians. So why is it that we go to war? Erasmus puts the question another way: “Why is it that among us war never takes a recess?”
There are probably a lot of reasons, but I want to offer a simple reason that I think underlines all other reasons that are given and can maybe help us understand them a little better, along with human nature itself. It is that war is easy and peace is hard. Erasmus says “nothing is more conducive to peace than a sincere desire that comes from the heart.” This is not only a difficult thing to have and develop, but also to maintain. About war he says, “Nothing is easier to defeat a group that is divided amongst itself.”
War is always a simple answer and we can give any number of reasons for doing it. Peace, on the other hand, takes a lot of hard work, integrity, courage, and risk. You can also say the same thing about war, and sometimes it’s true, but a lot of times we say this to convince ourselves and others that we are doing a good thing. So don’t be fooled by warmongering, because “all this madness we cloak with fine-sounding terms.”
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
the polis perfects the man
First off, I have something of a goal of putting up a post for every book I read in school. I'm definitely not trying to sum up the book, just put up a brief thought. Last post I hit you with some Plato, this time with some Aristotle, Politics. Here goes.
The Greek word for "city" is "polis," but this word has much more meaning to what a city is than our English word does. A polis was more like a place, not too big, not too small, completely self-sufficient, where people would interact (something that doesn't happen in modern cities) on several levels, involving themselves in civic affairs and engaging in a common social life. And the purpose of the city is "the good life," and lots of things go on in a city to help make the good life that other instutions cannot do on their own. Aristotle also says that city is prior in nature to the individual and the household. This means something to the effect that the city is like a body and man and the household are part of it and help make it function, and while doing so, man is thus fulfilling his potential. He also says that "Man, when perfected, is the best of animals; but if he is isolated from law and justice he is the worst of all."
My question is, What is it about a city and man within the city that helps perfect him? One thing he says is that justice is a virtue of the city, and since man needs it to be perfected, he only gets it in the city. He also says that "man is furnished from birth with weapons which are intended to serve the purposes of wisdom and goodness." It might be that these weapons that we have, reason and language being the main ones, are used to the fullest in the city.
All of this sounded more convincing when I first thought it out a week ago, but I think there is something to it. If you got something to say on this, blog it up.
The Greek word for "city" is "polis," but this word has much more meaning to what a city is than our English word does. A polis was more like a place, not too big, not too small, completely self-sufficient, where people would interact (something that doesn't happen in modern cities) on several levels, involving themselves in civic affairs and engaging in a common social life. And the purpose of the city is "the good life," and lots of things go on in a city to help make the good life that other instutions cannot do on their own. Aristotle also says that city is prior in nature to the individual and the household. This means something to the effect that the city is like a body and man and the household are part of it and help make it function, and while doing so, man is thus fulfilling his potential. He also says that "Man, when perfected, is the best of animals; but if he is isolated from law and justice he is the worst of all."
My question is, What is it about a city and man within the city that helps perfect him? One thing he says is that justice is a virtue of the city, and since man needs it to be perfected, he only gets it in the city. He also says that "man is furnished from birth with weapons which are intended to serve the purposes of wisdom and goodness." It might be that these weapons that we have, reason and language being the main ones, are used to the fullest in the city.
All of this sounded more convincing when I first thought it out a week ago, but I think there is something to it. If you got something to say on this, blog it up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
