Burke, Paine, Freud, And Clerow Wilson

I'm not a philosopher. At least not any more than the other guy. But I see myself in a society I did not make, and doing things for reasons I don't always know. And I wonder why. I'm sure there are people with answers to all my questions, but I don't understand them. We live in the “post-modern”ⁱ age and I can't understand the philosophical dialectic of our times.

In truth, I find most philosophic arguments somewhat opaque. Often the players seem more interested in “one-upping” their colleagues than in helping the rest of us. Practitioners use language which I understand, to formulate concepts which I don't. I'm not an insider regarding the newer ideas, so I use as my guides to secular thoughtⁱⁱ (especially political thought) Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine, whose ideasⁱⁱⁱ are, arguably, the source of current conservative and liberal philosophies.^iv Many, I'm sure, see their views as out of date, but I live in the past.

Although their philosophies are complex and nuanced, I'll try to summarize each in just a few sentences.^v Paine was a revolutionary. He was a believer in equality and liberty and in whatever was necessary to achieve them. From his perspective when action was required we should not refrain from it. Sometimes the necessary steps worked, as in the case of the American Revolution, and sometimes, as was true regarding the French Revolution, they didn't. Sometimes they got out of hand. Although modern liberals diverge from some of his teachings, the “left,” today, shares many of his views.

Burke shared his English heritage with Paine, but disagreed on a number of points. Most important was his acceptance of the idea that the reality is that there is inequality, and that is appropriate. He saw this as most significant, and as a justified construct, in the English monarchy^vi and class system, and in Parliamentary rule.^vii,viii,ix While he supported American independence it was because that system had failed the colonies. The system was not inherently wrong, but functioned poorly when applied to the other side of the world. History and heritage were the important sources of our societies, and deviation from them should be done slowly and carefully, and following the rules. In current terms he was a “rightist.”

One way of looking at their approaches is through Paine's lens. He believed in reason,^x and that humanity, observing reason, could achieve peace and justice. He believed that reasonable men (people) would respond positively to the facts.^xi They would reach a common conclusion about the causes and cures of problems. And they would act to solve those problems.

Some, and Burke was among them, felt that reality and human nature were much more important motivators in human decision making than was recognized by those who turned to reason. He was more conservative in nature and looked to the past, to how people have acted before when faced with a similar situation, to the rules of the game, and to a full analysis of the current situation, as guides when considering the next step. It was an approach that placed greater emphasis on the “is” than the “ought,” believing that approach was more likely to be productive.

Perhaps politics was not the most important subject on Sigmund Freud's agenda, but his teachings accurately reflect past as well as present political philosophies. Paine believed in the immediate identification and rectification of problems by whatever means he thought might work at the time. It is still a common method of operation – recognize a problem and solve it. And by using Reason, you can certainly identify those things that are unfair or wrong in life.

Whether the therapy works or not, it is a start. Even if some of the results of the solution are problems greater than those which initiated the action,^xii it is a start, and if changes are needed they can be made in the proposed remedy. Don't just stand there, do something. Fix the problem. Right the wrong.

The process is the equivalent of a person following the directives of his Id. It is the unfiltered and, often, the incompletely evaluated reaction to situations which, themselves, may not be what they seem.^xiii And there may be disagreement on the nature of the problem, even among reasonable people.^xiv Hence there will be disagreement concerning the solutions. And since we are dealing with ungoverned Ids, the solutions, themselves, may be in conflict – possibly even resulting in deleterious results. Too often they act too fast.

Those who rely on history and human nature, on doing good while observing past precedents and proprieties, seem to be more significantly controlled by their Superego. But that Superego tells them to act slowly and deliberately and to do their best not to violate those principles that have been reliable guides in the past.^xv And it may be the cause of delay in action when more speed is warranted.

For Aristotle it was the “golden mean.” For Maimonides it was the “middle way.” Our solution to the problem, as named by Freud, is the Ego. Not the boastful and self-centered pride that rules too many of us, but the integration of our urges with the constraints that govern them. And, for the most part, it works. In politics it's called “compromise.”^xvi While there are times when “no deal” is better than a “bad deal,”^xvii it is usually the case that compromise can serve both sides: generally the truth lies somewhere between the extremes – though not always in the middle. Even the Ego can temper justice with mercy – or, at least, the Superego with the Id.

Reason and human nature may not be simple concepts, but we know what they mean and we can deal with them even if we can't work out every problem. They're far more understandable than complex philosophies that consider many issues of no concern to us, and that turn our vocabulary into a playing field of the cognoscenti. But I know where the philosophers are “coming from.” As I said, I have a grasp of reason and human nature.

Next episode: “My Ideal” – Wait until text time.

 

 

 

 

I        Actually, there's probably a new designation for it. Or perhaps that age is over and there is currently a new one. Either way, however, it's not the age in which I grew up.

ii       I have to admit to what would, nowadays, be considered old fashioned. I still use the Bible and some of its expositors as the basis for my religious ideas – but they're even older than Burke and Paine.

iii      Or, more accurately, whose predispositions led them in different directions though they may have dealt with identical facts.

iv       A fascinating book on the subject is “The Great Debate,” by Yuval Levin. (New York, Basic Books, 2014). The designation of conservative and liberal is, admittedly, an oversimplification. The two agreed on many points though their premises and approaches were divergent.

v        I apologize for the hubris, but space requires it, and because I only want to use parts of their opinions as starting points. I'll try to expand a little at some time in the future.

vi       And other monarchies as well.

vii      Other obvious inequalities – physical, intellectual, and socioeconomic – are less relevant to this discussion.

viii     Burke didn't completely repudiate the idea of equality, but his approach, in modern terms, would be the acceptance of equality of opportunity rather than outcome, which was more in keeping with Paine's outlook. In both cases, however, it would take long explanation to clarify their positions.

ix       Apart from differences noted above (end note vii), a 3 year old doesn't have the knowledge he will have following an education; nor does a 25 year old have the wisdom, insight, or experience he will have a half-century later.

x        Indeed, he named, and believed, that he lived during “The Age of Reason,” and he even wrote a book by that title.

xi       It's hard to ignore the fact that both Paine and Burke were highly intelligent men with good stores of reason. Yet they argued. But that's human nature.

xii      It may be “better to light a candle than to curse the darkness” (Watkinson), but if the match used to light the candle also sets the house on fire there is a worse problem than there was before. While that new situation teaches an important lesson, and may lead to changes, it would have been better to hold of on action and to take a little time first to find the light switch.

xiii     What you see is not necessarily what you get, and it may be seen differently by others.

xiv      While virtue is assumed to be the justification for most of the doings of those who rely on intellect, some reasonable people will personalize the problem. They will see only injustices toward themselves, and act to optimize their own position. Clerow Wilson (“Flip” Wilson to the initiated), when his character Geraldine was found to be acting out of concern for herself, was wont to have her claim “The Devil made me do it.” Her Id prescribed behaviors that solved her problems, even if at a cost to others.

xv       Of course many of their acts are based on human nature too, so self-interest will also be on their agenda.

xvi      Unfortunately, politics, for the most part, doesn't work. That's as a result of human nature. Certainly not reason. They clothe their refusal to compromise on “principle,” but too many of them lack the principles necessary to support such a claim.

xvii     Indeed, Maimonides taught that when it came to anger or pride there was no justice on their sides.