Emphasis

I used to think that the most important education we could provide our offspring was in science. Other subjects were time-killers, and of little consequence. It was in our nation's interests, and it was our destiny, to stay ahead of the rest of the world in the development of scientific concepts and tools.

And it reflected the American passion to lead in everything we do: to develop the ideas that would be adopted by the rest of the world. It was the American Way. We were the explorers of the frontiers. We were competing with an ever-enlarging pool of nations determined to replace us both economically and militarily, and we'd stop them.

We were entrepreneurs as well. We'd get it done and show the others how; after all, we had (what we thought to be) the best pedagogy in the world as well as wide exposure of our culture to everyone else. The past was over. Why belabor it? Moving forward was what counted. New education, therefore, was paramount – especially that in the sciences. Early and extensive exposure to the nature of the world around us – to science – and the physical problems we faced, would ensure the interest of our children in those fields. Sadly, it was true.

That's what I used to think. But as I get older I'm less certain. Perhaps I should have become suspicious earlier. Music “Appreciation” taught us to recognize great works by the use of silly mnemonics (“This is Jupiter. This is Jupiter,” “This is the symphony that Schubert wrote but never finished,” “Morning is dawning and Peer Gynt is yawning”) and the American “history” in our aged textbooks emphasized what we now view as mythologyⁱ and xenophobia. I'm not sure if our teachers thought that was all our young minds could digest, of if that was all they knew or what they viewed as important. But they underestimated us. And we're the worse for it.

It will probably sound obsolete – perhaps even foolish – but I sometimes think that modern education deprives its consumers of the chance to think. We have outgrown the idea of a classical education, and that is to our detriment. And, to a lesser degree, the American concept of science's superiority is international, though educationally we have been surpassed by many countries. Moreover, we don't believe that our citizens don't need to learn the languages of others (and certainly not Latin and Greek) because everyone else should understand English; we don't have to trouble ourselves with history because our focus is on the present and the future; and if there is a literary reference we don't understand we can surely find the explanation on-line. Not that we're likely to care about music or art, but there are “apps” that will help us identify what we hear and see. (We're already familiar with rock, rap, and comic book art.)

And, of course, Mythology is mythology.

But we're now seeing where that leads. It has become obvious to everyone (painfully obvious to many of us) that fiscal restraints govern the range of what we can teach. It is not original to note that education in the humanities (and physical education as well) is being sacrificed to the gods of science – often to the point of anti-theological indoctrination. In fact, with all of the scientific developments of recent years, most of education is being sacrificed. As Casey Stengel said, “You can look it up.”

That's the problem. Why is it important to know history? Anything you may want to know is on line. (That was even true in the time of Yogi Berra – actually he's still alive – who taught “Even Napoleon had his Watergate.”) Do you need to know the product of 497 and 2143? Use your computer's calculator.ⁱⁱ If you need to know how a word is spelled, or what it means, your computer – desk top, notepad, or hand-held – can help out. And you can look anything else you need to know.

Actually, that's part of the problem. Those lacking real intelligence can use the artificial variety. Science has replaced actual books, knowledge, and even reality, with the virtual kind. Science is moving fast. In my view, and that of many others, too fast. Even the law can't keep up. As I mentioned, these ideas are not original. They represent the laments of many of us curmudgeons. For us, it's time to take a break. Slow down. We go too fast. Maybe it's risky. Maybe someone will get ahead of us in some area. So be it. If accurate knowledge of the classics and our history, if exposure to the arts and philosophy, will help us understand ourselves, our world, and its people a little better – if it will remind us how to think creatively – the risk is worth taking.

It will be a long time before humans land on and colonize Mars, taking it away from the “little green men” (though why they should want to do so is beyond me), and it's unlikely that it will foil G-d's eternal plan if it takes a few years longer. In the meantime, they, and everyone else, will benefit if the humanities make them more human.

Next episode: “The Final Perek” – The ? State Solution.

I        We have a new mythology of history now. One of affirmative action, multiculturalism, and a gender agenda. It's just as false as the one we were taught, but it's more in fashion. I'll deal with it another time.

 

ii       By the way, it's 1065071.

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.

__________________?

Have you ever wondered what your offspring would be like if you had married someone else?ⁱ What would theyⁱⁱ look like? Would their intelligence be different? And what about personality? Chances are there wouldn't be that much of a difference. You'd probably have chosen a mate with some similarities to the one you did – physical, intellectual and personality ones – and that means the children wouldn't be all that much different from what you have. Your parenting techniques would probably be much like the ones you used or are using now, so nurture, like nature, wouldn't vary all that much from what's currently the case. Of course you'll never know. If that had been the case you'd have other offspring and there would be no one available for the comparison with them.

But there would be one major difference – _____________ [fill in with your children's namesⁱⁱⁱ] wouldn't exist. The ones you love dearly, simply wouldn't be there. And you'd never know the difference.^iv Nor would they. Not existing, how could they know the opportunity lost to them? And whatever impact they would have had on the world won't come about, but no one will ever be aware of that. And their children – the images of your beloved sons and daughters – will never be known to you. That, though, is life. Or, more to the point, that isn't life. And, of course, there's always the possibility that you might never have existed.

Abortion is like that – the child^v lost will never be known by us, nor ever self-aware. But there's one important difference, because no other would be born in his place. The first situation – a different child because one of the parents is different – represents a kind of zero-sum exercise, even if the gain and loss can't be compared because they won't both exist. In the case of abortion, it's all loss. It's not zero-sum, but all negative. The starting point – the fetus – will never mature into a human. It will be ablated before it is fully developed. Almost the same as contraception, except that the latter is more passive than active.^vi Almost the same, but not quite. There's no need to destroy what never existed. In that way, it's more zero-sum than negative.

What is the meaning of life? That's what it all comes down to, even if I have no idea what is the answer to the question. I don't even know what the question is.^vii It is clearly a matter of concern to the general population though. Just as the question of abortion^viii troubles society, so does the use of capital punishment in American society.^ix And there are numerous vegetarians and their “extremists,” vegans. Where they all stand on the treatment of bacterial infections, which require the killing of bacteria, I don't know. Perhaps, because they consider vegetables fair game, this doesn't bother them.^x,xi But what about killing tapeworms? And even if they believe the use of leather should be proscribed, what's the status of wool? Is there a single answer to the question of life or do individuals and society have to draw their own lines?

I don't recall the invention of fire. Nor do I remember Socrates, Attila the Hun, Napoleon, or Woodrow Wilson. I hadn't been born. I didn't exist. Suppose you never existed. Of course you wouldn't be aware of it. Nor would you be aware that you weren't aware. Nor would you be. You would certainly have no memory of those past events I mentioned. Or anything else. But, unaware, you wouldn't care.

That's all philosophy. The good thing about being a philosopher is that you can ask unanswerable questions and, if you come up with any kind of a system to account for the problems you raise, you can use terminology so arcane that it won't be understood. The only person who can come close is the clergyman. His questions, however, even if answered by unprovable assertions, are usually followed by an understandable explanation – but one that often ends with a declaration of faith.

So what's the point? There are no answers. The “ultimate question” will always be around and no one will be able to answer it. All we can do is imagine. And as you're considering questions of life and death – as you're formulating a position on the issues raised here – imagine, for example, that _____________ had never been born.

Next episode: “There She Is, Myth America?” – A conventional solution to an unconverniotnal problem.

i     Read on even if you're not married. The points are the same.

ii     For a single child make the appropriate pronoun substitution here and in later references.

iii     Or, if you have no children, the name or names of whoever is dear to you.

iv     You'd love whoever was there and not give any thought to what might have been.

v     Make substitution(s) here if needed. This is the last time I'll mention it. From now on you're on your own.

vi     Intra-uterine devices (IUDs) are abortifacients, not contraceptives.

vii    For Douglas Adams, author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the Ultimate Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything was 42. I guess that's as good as anything, even if the saga's computer had decided that the question was to find the product of nine and six. By the way, it words in base thirteen – however neither Adams nor the computer was working with this base.

viii   Viewed by the courts as an issue of privacy.

ix    Ignoring the question of whether mistakes may be made, there is a real argument about whether it is ever justified to take a life. Some pacifists don't even consider that war justifies such action. And self-defense is not an adequate reason. Life was given by G-d and only he is justified in taking it away. In the final chapter of Samuel II (24:14) David says: “... let us fall into the hand of the Lord for his mercies are great; don't let me fall into the hand of man.”

x    Some claim that vegetables are sensate and we should feel their pain.

xi    I'd view that as a facetious question except that I know that pacifists might not consider “self-defense” as a satisfactory reason for killing, and that some religious believers may prefer to leave all healing in G-d's “hands.”