Truth and Tolerance

Central to our heritage of substantial equality is the concept of absolute truth.  There must be absolute truth for there to be morality and functioning laws.  Our society is based on the idea that we are all equal under the law.  Laws legislate what is socially acceptable or moral for a group.  Recent events show that morality is slipping in today’s society.  Moral relativism, the concept that all ideas are equally right and should be given the same concern and value, does not allow for rule of law.  In a society without absolute truth cheating, stealing, murder, lying, and even rape cannot be discriminated against because there is no real right or wrong.  To a murderer his crime can be justified because of some interior decision once made that the taking of life was within his jurisdiction.  No true case can be made against such an argument without ceding that murder is wrong—always.  If murder be always wrong, then there must be an absolute truth that makes murder universally wrong.

This in turn relates to tolerance.  In a society where there is absolute truth the virtue of tolerance is something for which to strive.  It is a virtue that must be extolled.  Tolerance calls for friendly respect of another person’s views or behaviors.  In a world without absolute truth tolerance should be a byproduct and yet a lack of tolerance cannot be criminal for one’s view of tolerance is individual and therefore relative.  This leads to a focus made by the believers in absolute truth to be more tolerant and the relativists to cry for tolerance to be extended without returning the opinions or papers written.  Tolerance need not be acceptance, tolerance respects but need not condone.   

                This is similar to Philippe Beneton’s definitions of substantial equality and equality by default.  Substantial equality requires absolute truth whereas equality by default allows for relativism.  After all equality by default would make any ideas of the same overall value and requires not tolerance but acceptance.  How can something that is right be merely tolerated, it must be condoned.  Similarly if there is absolute truth then tolerance must extend to those of opposing or dissimilar views but not at the cost of acceptance. It is argued that as a society Western Culture is moving towards equality by default and tolerance is being used to impose viewpoints upon people who are fundamentally opposed to certain ideologies.  This raises the questions: 1) can we restore to preeminence the traditional value of substantial equality and thereby restore tolerance to its proper sphere?  2) How can the ideology of equality by default and its attendant value of tolerance be overcome?  Without a suitable answer to these questions our society must crumble as it cannot survive under equality by default and the dual edged sword of tolerant acceptance.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Georgian Democracy

Georgian Democracy

A recent political rally in Georgia should be considered a sign of the success of democracy in this former soviet satellite.  However, the Western Democracies condemn this rally as a violation of human rights and a signal that the Georgian Republic is not ready for an equal place amongst them.  An article by Misha Dhizindzhi Khashvili explores the controversial nature of the Western response and Georgian sentiment.  On the 17^th of May a gay pride rally was scheduled in Tbilisi however this rally did not take place as despite government guarantees of protection the streets were filled with anti-homosexuality protesters.  Interestingly many of the organizers of the anti-gay protest were Orthodox priests who view homosexuality as a sin against God.  In Georgia, there is no official state religion and yet the power of religion in Georgia is significant.  Remarkable as well was what the crowd chanted.  “Democracy does not equal immorality!”   According to western tradition democracy is morality.  Democracy is reason, and anything “unreasonable” is immoral.  Traditional morality is, by default, irrational as it depends on a belief in God.  Interesting as well is the participation of young adults in a fight that in the west would have been dominated by an older demographic.  One twenty-one year old university student said that if being accepted into Western organizations mean accepting homosexual propaganda then he didn’t think Georgia should join. 

This shows a break with modern democratic thought.  Moral-less modernity does not care about religious sensibilities nor do they draw the metaphorical line in the sand which they shall not cross.  Modern morality is a however, whenever, with whomever affair and if one doesn’t support “basic human rights” then one is a heretic to be burned at the figurative stake of intolerance.  It will be interesting to watch Georgia as it struggles to maintain its moral democracy and instill democratic and western ideals into the culture.  

In Mortal Peril

In Mortal Peril

Recently there has been much clamor over the Scottish Issue.  In The Guardian an article was published that shed some light on the feelings of Britons and the worry that Scottish Independence would be the final death blow to a unified Great Britain.  The author, David Mitchell, is the son of a Welsh mother and a Scottish father.  He grew up in Swansea and Galloway and now lives in London.  Like many of the Queen’s Subjects in the United Kingdom, David Mitchell is British.

In 1914 Britons throughout the world knew all the verses of “Land of Hope and Glory” and “Rule Britannia,” they waved their Union Jacks at national holidays, and believed in the superiority of their empire.  Over the last 100 years British patriotism has gone from being a critical element of the British makeup to being an unfortunate byword that reminds Britons of colonialism, imperialism, world wars, nationalism, xenophobia, and genocide.  David Mitchell makes the argument that patriotism is healthy so long as it respects others right to be patriotic.  He compares patriotism to supporting a sports team and uses the Franco-British Rivalry as proof that the rivalry can be friendly.  For all of his patriotic platitudes however, he admits to a feeling of embarrassment over his patriotic sentiments.

He worries that an anti-patriotic Britain full of nationalistic movements will destroy his homeland and sees the Scottish Issue as the primary indicator of whether or not the United Kingdom will survive.  Interestingly David Mitchell owns that the Scotts have a right to decide their fate without the interference from other Britons.  He readily agrees that the Scottish Independence Movement has as much validity as his own desire to maintain his ancient state.   David Mitchell is a victim of equality by default and moral relativism.  What is treason if not plotting the destruction of an existing state?  What nobility can be ascribed to treason?  One shudders to think what Sir Winston Churchill, the Duke of Wellington, Cecil Rhodes, Lawrence of Arabia, Chinese Gordon, or Rudyard Kipling would have made of the situation.  These are not English heroes—they are British heroes.  Their fight was not for England and St. George but for a unified Albion.  To their ears the notion of Scottish Independence would have been blatantly evil and yet David Mitchell can dismiss it as natural and just though contrary to his personal convictions.  Furthermore, he is embarrassed by his convictions as he has been led to believe that patriotism is akin to xenophobia.

Is this to be the fate of modern nations?  Will we one day face a problem where Hawaii, the Confederate States, and the California Republic seek to break away?  If they were to attempt such a thing would there be moral ground for government objection?  This is the threat to sovereignty posed by moral the government? Clearly it is the business of all Britons if their country is to be taken from them and yet the only group who gets a voice is an 8.4% minority of the British population.  This is the trend and sick irony behind tyranny of the masses.  Men are perhaps more like sheep than ever before.  The manipulation of media by a vocal minority easily sways opinion, concepts of morality and rights, and concepts of acceptable behavior.  If the Scotts secede it will be yet another example of a minority population imposing their will on the majority by forcing the majority to adopt their beliefs through the sword of the media.  The decline of traditional morality and the understanding of virtues once so critical to society play a huge role in Scottish secession and a similar drama plays out in the U.S. via marriage equality.  Will our era of democracy end in the strangling clutches of tyranny by an ignorant body led by minorities who control our media, who can say, but obvious indicators will be visible through the unfolding Scottish Issue.

The Reboot of Humanities

The Reboot of Humanities

How many miles is it from Provo to London?  It is a distance of 4896 miles.  How big is the sun? It is roughly 1,300,000 times the size of Earth.  These questions of empirical trivia provide as much insight into human nature as the following question: how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood?  While it is evident that science is useful in relation to medicine, travel, and basic functions science is not the answer to all of life’s questions.  Science does not claim to be the infallible source of knowledge which modern ideology ascribes it to be—rather that is Scientism or the philosophy that states that science holds all answers and that scientific principles can provide answers to any question.  In a commencement address given by Leon Wieseltier to the graduates of Brandeis University, Wieseltier makes the argument that while science is a blessing to society scientism is a curse.  He further argues that where once culture was made up of art, music, philosophy, literature, languages, history, and religion culture now consists of efficiency, utility, and convenience.  After a day spent among the youth who can argue that humankind is ruled by cell phones, ipads, computers, and other various gizmos and gadgets?

                Today’s world is Cartesian.  The pursuit of knowledge is only the pursuit of information.  The humanities, once the core of any education, are disregarded as useless degrees that qualify one to do nothing but perhaps teach.  Once a noble profession, the teacher is now of less use to the modern than Siri.  This sorry state of affairs that rises from the fire lit by Descartes so long ago needs no education, for they have information—if they so desire, in the palms of their hands.  With education went culture and all things beautiful until we are left with a cold and sterile life, in some clinic somewhere man once named Earth.  Descartes preached his gospel of scientism and claimed that the wide spectrum of philosophies and religion eliminate the possibility that anything but science can answer any of life’s questions satisfactorily.  Science, who knows no morality or ethic, who is beyond good and evil, who is unlimited by God rules the day and the result is a society without purpose.

The Enlightenment Philosophers claimed that the meaning in life came from the return to a state of nature or to the strict protection of individual liberties.  Hobbes sought to protect liberty with a leviathan.  Rousseau attempted to render us children again. Locke desired that we become obsessed with materialism.  Each threw aside the knowledge that was apparent to the ancients that the purpose of life is from the divine and is to rise up and above our current state by living morally and mastering our passions.  Each sought to justify themselves and their dissatisfaction with their lives by a philosophy that either absolved them of all responsibility or allowed for no divinely ordained morality. 

A few scattered voices warn of the effect of this wave of vanity and pride.  Edmond Burke raised his voice to question the merit of this materialistic purpose to life.  He opposed the idea of an ever expanding list of rights and liberties.  He opposed the idea that man must be made equal for he recognized the inherent risk of tyranny in equality.  Later Alexis de Tocqueville worried that liberty and equality, unless checked by religion, would be at war.  If he could see modern America he would realize how right he was.  Today in the name of equality we cede our liberty.  Formerly, liberty was ceded to protect our liberties now liberty is only useful if it makes us equal. 

What does this equality have to do with society’s love affair with scientism?  The humanities protected society from a fall into machinery.  Wieseltier makes the claim that soon we will be little better than our machines.  As we progress, or perhaps digress, to a state where our knowledge is purely empirical data, if we dismiss the parameters of morality, and forgot to question the meanings behind life how will we be different from a computer.  A computer cannot demand why it does a function.  A computer cannot ponder the meaning of its existence or recognize the difference between a masterpiece and a child’s finger painting.    As the humanities are relegated to the back burners of society all the progress gained over the centuries, all noble traditions, all natural feelings will be culled from us.  Life will be empty of meaning and purpose.  Equality is understandable to a machine, liberty is not.  Faith, so necessary to life, joy so central to our existence are just words comprised of characters on a keyboard to a computer. 

Wieseltier begs and pleads that we study our humanities, that we stand as a final bulwark of culture against the tides of the unwashed philistine who seeks to define life in all of its complexity as a one dimensional object.  While his call is noble and his cause is just it is not enough.  It is not enough to study the humanities and gain knowledge; instead we must act.  We must support the arts; learn languages to communicate with other people, sacrifice efficiency and utility for humanity and gentility.  Live life in a noble manner and inspire others to convert to our cause.  There is no going back to society as before, but there is always a hope for progress as long as there is a single work of fiction, a single painting, a single concerto.  As we embrace what moves us beyond the numbers humanity may rise to new heights and our understanding, real understanding, of the world around us will grow.  Thus out of the ashes of the Scientistic takeover we may rise again, sure in the righteousness of our cause and motivated by that which can inspire to love and be passionate, emotions no computer or iphone will ever understand.