Tag Archives: political philosophy

To See for Ourselves

Posted on by

We each have the ability to see, to evaluate and understand things for ourselves.  Yet, all too often we allow the judgments and agendas of others to take us in.  Sometimes we allow ourselves to be manipulated, accepting what is said without investigation – because something supports our preconceived assumptions.

The dishonesty and deceit of partisan politics runs rampant.  Mass media is particularly insidious, creating various alternative realities and imposing them on us in an incoherent stream of disconnected images and sound bites.  Social media is worse.

We can never fully comprehend the reality in which we live, physically or spiritually.  But, we can see that the world survives repeated cataclysms, ever recovering its balance and somehow progressing despite the delusions, duplicity, and chicanery of human beings.

In the previous post I proposed a way of seeing and understanding the world on the basis of justice.  I wrote of a dependable, self-sustaining framework or foundation underlying the whole of reality, which has the character of justice.

We would do well to align ourselves with this basis, to unite with its’ standards and observe its’ conditions as best we can.

Religious people may recognize this truth as the function of God’s Grace.  Others might see it as a function of the integrity of the natural order in the universe.  I believe both are true.

A balanced and coherent unity can be recognized in both the human and natural worlds, when they are freed from manipulation.  The elegant balance found in nature will, if left alone, always manage itself with a delicate, yet robust and resilient functionality.

Human society has a similarly purposeful balance.  But, this is often distorted by insistent efforts to control things according to our selfish desires, rather than with any sense of the right order of things.

Religion has taught us of the integrity and interdependence of the relationships that form the fabric of human communities.  Science has shown us that the earth’s biosphere is a delicate web of life organized as an integrated network of networks.

Whether in human affairs or in the natural world, any disruption or injury inflicted upon the balance will incur consequences that may not be immediately apparent.  Yet the repercussions of injury and injustice spread rapidly abroad, as each impact leads to others in widening circles that extend themselves in perpetuity.

Why is this important to our understanding of freedom?  Understanding the fundamental form and function of things allows us to see things for ourselves without undue influence from others.

While dialog with a trusted friend or genuine consultation within a group can be important safeguards, the personal ability to recognize the consequences of events for ourselves, “to see the end in the beginning,” allows us to determine our own course of action without responding to pressure.

And, understanding the far-flung aftereffects of our own deeds provides us with a degree of protection from engaging in overly emotional, ill-conceived, or destructive acts.

A cursory review of human history reveals numerous examples of poorly conceived actions followed by disastrous consequences.  As we have all seen, both individuals and groups are quite capable of seriously misguided error.

How does this happen?  Well, sometimes we think we have everything all figured out when, in fact, our information is limited and we are only aware of a part of the “truth.”

It is essential that we include a diversity of experience and perspective in our consultations with others.  And, we must always step back periodically to find the mental space to think objectively for ourselves.

Remaining mindful of the foundation of justice that is given, and always checking and rechecking our own motives, will pay ever greater dividends in constructive outcomes and the avoidance of unnecessary trouble.

Justice is a gift that will not go away.  To ignore or repudiate it is fruitless.

However destructive the consequences of unjust acts may be, justice remains integral to the substance of reality, unperturbed and uncompromised.  It remains with us at all times, however discouraged or confused we might feel.

We can count on this, even in the darkest night.

Tom

Next week: Liberty with integrity

A note to new readers:  Blog entries adapted from the forthcoming book are posted on most Fridays at both the main blog site and the Facebook page.  To receive alerts by email you may click “Follow” here at the main blog site.

A new kind of thinking…

Posted on by

Tree 11

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”

–Albert Einstein

“You don’t think your way into a new kind of living. You live your way into a new kind of thinking.”

–Henri J.M. Nouwen, Christian theologian

“If the human race is to survive it will have to change more in its ways of thinking in the next twenty-five years than it has done in the last twenty-five thousand.”

–Kenneth Boulding, former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a Christian mystic.

Liberty, Justice Made Personal

Posted on by

Liberty cannot be pulled out of the air, and it cannot be handed to us by those who assume political or religious authority.

Our freedom is constrained by many forces and circumstances in life. These can be inflicted upon us socially, economically, or by physical nature; but every limitation can be addressed with a positive attitude, with creativity and wisdom.

It is through a commitment to responsibility that we find the substance of personal freedom. Indeed, it has been said that there can be no liberty without responsibility.

This is important to understand when the world around us seems to be coming apart.

If we are to keep our balance when the ground is shifting under our feet, how can we best prepare ourselves? We must do more than simply prepare materially for hard times, although that is important, too. How can we find the moral and mental strength to persevere?

How can we take a long view in the midst of chaos – to gain a sense of ultimate purpose, and a vision of the future we can believe in?

In my view, there is a clear and dependable reason to believe that justice is indestructible and will prevail in the end. Please bear with me!

It is my firm conviction that there is an integral foundation underlying all things, which has the character of justice. This is the ultimate ground of being.

The reality we live in, both physically and metaphysically, has a dynamic and perfectly balanced “functional structure” that we can each learn to see with our own eyes (and not through the eyes of others), and understand for ourselves without being swayed by others.

Justice is the governing principle and inherent character of this truth. It is the basis of religious law, the purpose of which is our protection, and it allows us to keep our balance in a disturbed world.

Whether this idea is viewed through religious or philosophical eyes, all of us can benefit by gaining confidence in the ground we stand on. It is reasonable, it is dependable, and it offers a stable basis for constructive action.

Everyone sees things differently and none of us can comprehend ultimate truth. Yet, the concept proposed here can be helpful in maintaining our composure, and in determining the right course of action in difficult circumstances.

Stated briefly, justice is the ultimate balance manifested in the self-sustaining structure of the whole of being. Or, to put it in another way, justice is a dynamic framework upon which all things depend, and which remains unified and transcendent despite the disruptions caused by human activity.

When things get crazy it helps to understand that a firm, inviolable structure supports the reality of things. And, when we endeavor to align ourselves with it, things go well for us with far greater consistency.

Such an understanding can be the starting point for both thinking and action.

If we are to rebuild our communities and nation in a constructive and principled manner, it will be necessary to adjust with flexibility to the unexpected changes that comes with crises.

Life is always going to be a challenge, living as we do in a world dominated by materialism, egotism, and conflict. It is not possible to fully comprehend the dynamic in which we find ourselves. Yet, I submit to you that an ultimate and indestructible balance does, in fact, exist at the foundation of things.

The ground of justice allows us a steady hand in exercising responsibility, building trustworthy relationships, and conducting our lives with integrity.

Justice furnishes the ordered condition in which we have the opportunity to bring ourselves into balance with the world of existence as it truly is – and as I believe it is meant to be.

Tom

Next week: The freedom to see for ourselves.

Dear readers, I am depending on your comments and constructive feedback.

The First Steps to Freedom

Posted on by

The struggle for freedom and fairness in governance has a long and turbulent history. In the past the passion for liberty set citizens against totalitarian authority, and the goal was understood to be protection against the self-serving motivations of governments.  By liberty was meant limits on the power of government to impose its’ will on the community.

Later, people came to believe it unnecessary that government should be independent and opposed in its’ interests to themselves. Consequently, a new demand for short-term elected leaders became predominant.

This idea was assumed at first to mean that elected officials should identify with the people and the interests of the nation. It followed that such a nation would not need to be protected from itself.  Supposedly a democracy would not exercise tyranny over itself.

However, as Americans well know, the notion that citizens have no reason to limit their power over themselves only seems reasonable to those who have no experience with popular government.

After two hundred years of experience we know that “self-government” can be fragile and complicated. “The will of the people” often turns out to be the will of the most actively dominant portion of the citizenry, usually the majority, but quite possibly those with overbearing economic or financial firepower.

The American founders took great pains to control any possible abuses of power. As we saw in Chapter Four: Freedom and Order, the Constitutional Convention of 1787 recognized the importance of limiting such dangers throughout an uncertain future.

Liberty came to mean the freedom of each to live our lives as we see fit, so long as we do not impose ourselves on the well-being of others.

As an ideal, this is not so simple in practice. It was controversial then and it is controversial now. And, as I have suggested, the changes and challenges of the ensuing years have given us much to ponder.

Finding ourselves facing the dangers, complexities, and tensions of the present turning point, I believe the American people would do well to step back and reassess the values, principles, and general attitudes with which we can best regain our poise and seek a shared vision and purpose.

In short, I propose that the first steps to freedom will be those that lead to problem-solving and cooperation – if we are to avert catastrophe. And, I believe that this can be done most effectively when addressing felt-needs in our local communities. We will learn by doing, and act we must.

The first steps are challenging, but straight forward:

1) To engage as neighbors, which means learning to listen and to truly understand one another, and then to rise above our differences to resolve problems and address local needs.

2) To recognize the diversity of knowledge, skills, and experience we have available to do what needs to be done; our survival might depend on it.

3) To identify the extent to which we share values, and to build a level of trust that ensures we have neighbors we can depend on when the going gets tough.

4) To commit ourselves seriously to the ultimate purpose of seeking a vision of the future we can hold in common – a future we can all respect and believe in.

In focusing on first things first, we must learn the ways of community that Americans once practiced so well in the vibrant civil society of our past.

Such is the purpose of this little book. The pages that follow are devoted to finding our way through the difficulties and perplexity of this most difficult endeavor.

As we begin to take these first steps, I think we will find it helpful to reflect on the meaning of freedom in our personal lives. For it is deep in our own souls that we must first build confidence in our personal ability to prevail over fear and loss.

There is no greater strength to be found than knowledge of the freedom we control within ourselves. Indeed, it is through this primal freedom that we gain the capacity to respond to life’s tests with grace.

Tom

Next week: The resilience of inner freedom

Dear readers: I wish to thank all those who kept me in your thoughts and prayers during the past two weeks. My surgery went well and I am recovering rapidly. I keep finding more ways to appreciate you, and I look forward very much to continuing our conversation. (Please see the Facebook page, where there is active reader engagement.)

To Act With Integrity

Posted on by

We each have a sense of self, a coherent unity within ourselves, a feeling of integrity that defines our identity in our own minds. This sense of self is challenged by the conflicts and incongruities we are forced to contend with, between the material and the moral, the physical and the metaphysical, and the various unresolved concerns in our lives.

The moral philosopher Mary Midgley describes this experience rather well I think:

“I am suggesting…, that human freedom centers on being a creature able, in some degree, to act as a whole in dealing with… conflicting desires. This may sound odd, because freedom sounds like an advantage, and having conflicting desires certainly does not.

“But it is not a new thought that freedom has a cost. And the conflicting desires themselves are of course not the whole story. They must belong to a being which in some way owns both of them, is aware of both, and can therefore make some attempt to reconcile them.

“…The endeavor must be to act as a whole, rather than as a peculiar, isolated component coming in to control the rest of the person. Though it is only an endeavor – though the wholeness is certainly not given ready-made and can never be fully achieved, yet the integrative struggle to heal conflicts and to reach towards this wholeness is surely the core of what we mean by human freedom.” (1994)

Each of us, consciously or otherwise, adopts a system of morality upon which to base decisions and guide our way in the world, either a formal religious system or one assumed or devised by ourselves.

Whether it is weak or strong, sloppy or consistent, or we even think about it very much, our personal morality serves as the grounding for our sense of identity and our actions. It is impossible to function without it.

It is our integrity as “whole persons” that resists the onslaught of disintegrating forces in our lives. When we lose consciousness of this effort and succumb to the fragmentation imposed by the incoherent impact of advertising and mass media that constantly bombards us, we lose control of our independence as individuals.

This is particularly challenging I think for those who choose to disregard the teachings of the great religious traditions, which supply us with rich and textured guidance. For the reader who is religiously inclined, the way forward is generally well-lit – at least in principle.

If the reader is non-religious, the task will be to ground oneself in common decency, to focus ones’ vision on the highest good, to abide consistently by an ethical code, and to bring healing and encouragement to those around us.

Let’s be clear, however: This is quite difficult, especially when we rely on our own devices.
Each of us is called to step forward to participate in the affairs of the community we have chosen as our home, and to engage with our neighbors respectfully as active listeners and facilitators motivated by a desire to encourage and empower.

We can only ensure the integrity of our purpose by means that are in harmony with our purpose. Mahatma Gandhi said it best:  “They say ‘means are after all means’. I would say ‘means are after all everything’. As the means so the end.” (1937)

This assertion was stated somewhat differently, but just as explicitly by the economist and political philosopher F. A. Hayek, when he wrote: “The principle that the ends justify the means is in individualist ethics regarded as the denial of all morals.” (1944)

These are not theoretical statements. Rather they express a profound truth. The integrity of means must always provide the standard of reference in every endeavor.

If each of us holds our personal integrity clearly in focus, attends to moral responsibility, and respects our neighbor as we ourselves would wish to be respected, we should not find ourselves at odds with justice.

The manner in which we respond to our personal differences will determine who we are and the freedom we are capable of knowing.

Tom

In Two Weeks: Finding a transcendent resilience through inner freedom

Dear readers: I am scheduled for surgery next week. Consequently the blog will be on pause very briefly. I hope to have the next post ready for you on Friday, February 19.

Freedom or Paralysis

Posted on by

We all know the discomfort of unwelcome constraints imposed by our workplace, our families, and society in general. Freedom for the individual, it seems, is relative. As we mature we come to see purpose in the underlying order of things and recognize that often we cannot advance our interests without it.

We generally understand and accept the limitations we experience in life, however much they chafe. Still there are aspects of freedom we value highly despite the complications and challenges they present.

As individuals we value freedom of opportunity. We also have preferences concerning the control of processes that impact on our personal lives, and preferences concerning the processes that operate in society.

There is much of value to discuss here, but I wish to focus on our response to life’s inevitable constraints, especially in the context of crises, and the choices we can make if we wish to work effectively with others.

There are rules we accept that regulate such things as athletic contests and the marketplace, which make it possible to ensure fairness, to strategize and compete. And, it is the certainty of fairness and predictability that allows an economy to be productive and our lives to be sane.

Similarly, it is fairness, honesty and respectfulness that are most conducive to constructive dialog and decision-making in any organization or community. This is what leads to trust, and trust is essential if we are to reach our compatriots.

When we find ourselves confronted with unpredictable and chaotic conditions, our first steps can always be to address the need for order that allows respectful and meaningful communication.

Progress toward social and economic reconstruction in our communities will require that we work together in a civil manner, regardless of our differences. Problem-solving cannot take place otherwise.

We cannot assure safety in our communities or create effective organization if form and structure, or varied opinions, are viewed as limitations to liberty.

The iconic conservative philosopher Richard Weaver, who we heard from in the previous post, would say this goal represents a formidable task; that it would require us to confront a national character uncomfortable with form, resistant to leadership, and impatient with any systematic process. He called America “a nation which egotism has paralyzed.”

We have seen how this egotism has diverted our attention from serious purpose: in our infatuation with expensive toys, in our descent into personal and public indebtedness, and in a sordid media voyeurism that forgoes all pretensions of privacy. Weaver called it “the spirit of self, which has made the [citizen] lose sight of the calling of his task and to think only of aggrandizement.”

Is it this “spirit of self” that has led us to the meaningless disorder in which we now find ourselves, where self-indulgence overwhelms motivation, rational judgment, and foresight?

I see some truth in this, but I believe we must look more deeply into the character of a people who have risen to every test in the past. Americans are smart, resilient, and creative. In the difficult years ahead I expect we will gain a deeper understanding of freedom and will respond with a maturity imposed by necessity.

All form has structural limits. It is the consistent dependability of this reality that allows us to launch ourselves into new frontiers of learning and experience, to control the direction of our efforts, to instigate, organize, create.

Without the constraints of necessity, which include our own values, we would have no capacity to direct our energy and intelligence, to explore new ideas or undertake new ventures.

For the individual, the ability to exercise discipline overcomes the limitations imposed by nature and society. Surely the discipline to leverage inspiration against the constraints we encounter in life provides the power to actualize our freedom and transcend the material difficulties in life.

We cannot leap without a firm foundation beneath our feet; we cannot fly without wings.

It is in the encounter between discipline and necessity that we find the ground of freedom.

Tom

Next week: The freedom within.

Dear readers: Your thoughts and feedback will be very helpful to me.

Renewal of Our Core Values

Posted on by

Answering questions about what has gone wrong is never comfortable. Some truths are not pretty. But, revitalizing core American values and the restoration of a once vibrant civic spirit will require that we recognize what has been lost and why. I believe an honest appraisal is in order.

The current difficulties have developed over a long period of time. The gradual loss of a commitment to integrity in all areas of life has left Americans without the interwoven fabric of community relationships, without a soulful center or shared sense of purpose.

We find ourselves dominated by materialism and immersed in a homogenized culture with little conscious identity. Where is there a meaningful commitment to community, to the dignity of mutual respect, to embracing shared responsibility for local needs?

Most significantly, in my view, Americans have become obsessed with immediacy. We want what we want and we want it now. Reason and foresight have been eclipsed by a fixation on material appearances, and yet we are unabashed about entertaining ourselves with violence and degrading behavior.

Even the once humiliating liabilities of personal debt seem to be of no concern. All possibility of generating real wealth is abandoned in exchange for false appearances bought with future income.

Strange as it may be, we have essentially abandoned the future.

The moral bankruptcy and distortions of logic represented by this posture have influenced almost everything in our national life. An undisciplined attitude has led us to the brink of disaster, and our insistence on freedom from institutional and cultural restraints is fraught with contradictions.

For example, our respect for the individual requires that we honor the independent integrity and privacy of each citizen, and yet we have abandoned this principle out of fear for our own safety.

Similarly, we have failed to see that privacy has been sacrificed when we welcome the obscenity and titillation of mass media into our homes. Personal integrity is lost to a fascination with “the raw stuff of life,” in the words of the conservative American philosopher Richard Weaver:

“The extremes of passion and suffering are served up to enliven the breakfast table or to lighten the boredom of an evening at home. The area of privacy has been abandoned because the definition of person has been lost; there is no longer a standard by which to judge what belongs to the individual man. Behind the offense lies the repudiation of sentiment in favor of immediacy.”

Richard Weaver wrote these words before the advent of television. And he was not the first to make such an observation. A quarter century earlier George Bernard Shaw commented that “an American has no sense of privacy. He does not know what it means. There is no such thing in the country.”

Weaver warned Americans of a self-destructive streak that would ultimately lead to a crisis. He pointed out our fascination with specialization and with the parts of things at the expense of understanding and respecting the whole. He argued that an obsession with fragmentary parts without regard for their function necessarily leads to instability.

Such instability is insidious, penetrating all relationships and institutions. In his words, “It is not to be anticipated that rational self-control will flourish in the presence of fixation upon parts.”

This is not the fault of government – except to the extent that government, managed by people like ourselves, has joined whole-heartedly in the party. In a democracy it is tragically easy for government policy to degenerate until it serves the worst inclinations of a self-interested electorate.

Consequently we have descended into the financial profligacy of the past fifty years and are now the most indebted nation in history by a wide margin. Ours has been a twisted path, but with a clearly visible end. And, the implicate outcome remains ignored.

If we are to recover our balance, it is essential that we recognize the wrong-headed thinking that got us here.

Values and principle are not in question; only wisdom. What we are challenged to do now is to reconsider the way we think.

Tom

Next week: Freedom or paralysis.

Dear readers: I would be grateful for your thoughtful remarks and feedback.

The people of this country…

Posted on by

Clouds 5

“It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country to decide, by their conduct and example, the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force.”

–Alexander Hamilton

Americans Co-opted by the State?

Posted on by

For more than a hundred years Americans expressed their values and creative energy in numerous organizations and associations. As we saw in the previous post, Americans overcame constraints on their freedom through their own initiative and sense of community.

Generations later, however, action has been replaced by inaction. A once spirited culture of engagement has been replaced by an increasingly self-centered attitude, the loss of community, and the isolating influences of the automobile, television, and the digital age.
Is it these technologies that have isolated us from one another?

Economic historian Niall Ferguson argues no. Rather he suggests that it is “not technology, but the state – with its seductive promise of ‘security from the cradle to the grave’ – [which is] the real enemy of civil society.” He cites the prophetic vision of Tocqueville in 1840, when he imagined a future America in which the spirit of community has been co-opted and neutered by government:

“I see an innumerable crowd of like and equal men who revolve on themselves without repose, procuring the small and vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls. Each of them, withdrawn and apart, is like a stranger to the destiny of all the others: his children and his particular friends form the whole human species for him; as for dwelling with his fellow citizens, he is beside them, but he does not see them; he touches them and does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone….

“Above these an immense tutelary power is elevated, which alone takes charge of assuring their enjoyments and watching over their fate. It is absolute, detailed, regular, far-seeing, and mild. It would resemble paternal power if, like that, it had for its object to prepare men for manhood; but on the contrary, it seeks only to keep them fixed irrevocably in childhood….

“Thus, …the sovereign extends its arms over society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of small, complicated, painstaking, uniform rules through which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot clear a way to surpass the crowd; it does not break wills, but it softens them, bends them, and directs them; it rarely forces one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one’s acting; it does not destroy, it prevents things from being born; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, compromises, enervates, extinguishes, dazes, and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd.”

Elsewhere Tocqueville added an explicit warning:

“But what political power would ever be in a state to suffice for the innumerable multitude of small undertakings that American citizens execute every day with the aid of association?…

“The morality and intelligence of a democratic people would risk no fewer dangers than its business and industry if government came to take the place of associations everywhere.

“Sentiments and ideas renew themselves, the heart is enlarged, and the human mind is developed only by the reciprocal action of men upon one another.”

I agree that government has had a part in the deadening of the American spirit. But, I do not think we can attribute the present condition solely to government. I believe the degeneration of attitudes and behavior cannot be divorced from the isolating influences of corporate culture, the dispersion of communities by the automobile, or the gradual loss of a moral, metaphysical center.

Telecommunications and commercial airlines have brought the world together on a macro level, but they have also left us disinclined us to engage with our neighbors.

I believe the long slide to isolation is the consequence of social forces that have followed the trajectory of human progress since the founding of the American Republic, and which we can only fault ourselves for accepting.

Our government is, after all, a creature of our own invention, served by people who have been subjected to the same degraded values and demoralized sense of responsibility as the rest of us.

Tom

Next week: The renewal of core American values.

Note to readers: Your comments and feedback would be much appreciated. As a writer I would find this very helpful.

The Wellspring of Individual Will

Posted on by

We find ourselves now at a severe turning point, confronted by the consequences of the past and the anger and confusion of the present. Yet, this is also an opportunity, a rare moment in history that calls us to clarify our purpose and correct the attitudes and behaviors that brought us to this place.

We have lost a sense of ultimate purpose, and thus the conceptual framework upon which rational judgment depends. This has made us vulnerable both to our own vices and to the predatory interests and manipulative power of institutions that know our weaknesses.

To straighten things out will require that we address tough questions with open-minded objectivity. The effort may not be comfortable, but it will be essential if we are to regain our balance and rebuild our resolve.

In his recent book, The Great Degeneration, economic historian Niall Ferguson has provided us with a compelling review of what has come to pass. He considers four areas in which the degeneration of values and loss of social stability in the United States has had devastating consequences.

His four areas of concern are, to use my own words, 1) the loss of personal and social responsibility, 2) the disintegration of the market economy, 3) the role of the rule of law, and 4) the essential qualities of civil society.

Dr. Ferguson reminds us of our past, and in particular the vigorous civil and cultural life of nineteenth century America: “I want to ask,” he writes, “how far it is possible for a truly free nation to flourish in the absence of the kind of vibrant civil society we used to take for granted? I want to suggest that the opposite of civil society is uncivil society, where even the problem of anti-social behavior becomes a problem for the state.”

He goes on to cite Alexis de Tocqueville from the first volume of his famous commentary, Democracy in America, which was published in 1840:

“America is, among the countries of the world, the one where they have taken most advantage of association and where they have applied that powerful mode of action to a greater diversity of objects.

“Independent of the permanent associations created by law under the names of townships, cities and counties, there is a multitude of others that owe their birth and development only to the individual will.

“The inhabitant of the United States learns from birth that he must rely on himself to struggle against the evils and obstacles of life; he has only a defiant and restive regard for social authority and he appeals to its authority only when he cannot do without it….

“In the United States, they associate for the goals of public security, of commerce and industry, of morality and religion. There is nothing the human will despairs of attaining by the free action of the collective power of individuals.”

Dr. Ferguson writes that “Tocqueville saw America’s political associations as an indispensable counterweight to the tyranny of the majority in modern democracy. But it was the non-political associations that really fascinated him.”

“Americans of all ages, all conditions, all minds constantly unite. Not only do they have commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but they also have a thousand other kinds: religious, moral, grave, futile, very general and very particular, immense and very small; Americans use associations to give fêtes, to found seminaries, to build inns, to raise churches, to distribute books…. Finally, if it is a question of bringing to light a truth or developing a sentiment with the support of great example, they associate.”

What happened to American civil society? And what is the consequence of this loss?

As Tocqueville reports, Americans had once succeeded in overcoming constraints to freedom through their own initiative and sense of community.

Unfortunately, action has been replaced by inaction. A once spirited culture of engagement, based on committed interpersonal relationships, has been replaced by a self-centered attitude, the loss of community, and the isolating influences of the automobile, television, and the digital age.

Surely it is time to restore what we once did so well, and to address the great challenges ahead with renewed strength and responsibility.

Tom

Next week: When individual will is co-opted by government.

Freedom and Limitation

Posted on by

Questions about the meaning of freedom have always been with us. But, we often seem determined to seek absolute freedom despite all practical limitations. In the coming weeks we will consider our ability to find inner freedom and keep a positive attitude despite constraining circumstances.

In considering the limitations we experience in life, I will refer the implications of religious faith to individual judgment. Belief in an all-knowing God imposes constraints on our decisions and behavior, while freeing the heart and mind in entirely transcendent ways.

Here we will focus instead on the spirit of freedom for religious and non-religious readers alike, as we engage (and potentially prevail over) the limitations in our personal, social, and physical lives.

Our interaction with nature is of particular significance because our future depends on it. This planet is our home, yet we sometimes seem to doubt our responsibility for it.

For several hundred years scientists, philosophers, and politicians have expected that nature could and would come entirely under human control. Human beings do have a unique capacity to manipulate nature. But, as science has begun to understand the balance and complexity of natural systems, it has become clear that nature must be respected and sustained to ensure the survival of life on earth.

Setting aside the controversy surrounding climate change for the moment, the idea that nature has limits when sufficiently disrupted seems to make sense.

When I was a child there were two billion people alive on this planet. Now, having recently reached retirement age, the number is seven billion and growing rapidly. This has taken place in a single lifetime. My lifetime.

I cannot see how seven billion human beings, along with a massive agricultural and industrial footprint, could fail to impose a strain on the capacity of nature to provide the clean water and breathable air that we all depend on.

I believe this question is worth thinking about. Yet, the suggestion that absolute freedom has collided with limits in the natural world seems to cause a violently negative reaction.

What is this about?

If freedom is seen to be threatened by science, this would be no small matter. And so a disagreement that appeared at first to simply raise questions as to material fact has instead descended into bitter accusations of conspiracy, treason, and dishonor.

Am I wrong to think that this reaction is about more than climate change? The emotional climate suggests that freedom itself must be under attack.

We are confronted today by many growing threats to freedom: religious and political extremism, rising food prices, the loss of privacy, violence on our streets, aging infrastructure, conflicts over land and water rights, exponential population growth, insolvent financial institutions, and massively indebted governments.

Shall I go on? It gets to be crazy-making, you know?

Emotion coalesces into a rage focused on those who may have effectively driven us off a cliff. Who is responsible for all this, we ask? Bankers? Scientists? Politicians? Are these not people who are supposed to know what they are doing?

Whether it is the limits to nature that are in question or the shock of a faltering social and economic order, clearly the cherished expectations of ultimate human prosperity are no longer assured.

The prospects for peace do not look so great either.

We are confronted by numerous crises of major proportions. It is a time for each of us to become open to new conditions, new questions, and new ways of thinking. We owe it to ourselves to keep our wits about us.

Americans are capable, imaginative, constructive. Understanding freedom in a way that transcends human limitations has become very important.

We must commit ourselves to the independent investigation of truth, and not allow ourselves to be led mindlessly by others. We each have the capacity to think for ourselves.

The future and the responsibility are ours to claim.

Tom

Next week: Loss of Ultimate Purpose

The Will to Freedom

Posted on by

During the period when America was first being settled by Europeans, the emerging identity of the new nation was influenced powerfully by a hopeful confidence in the future: the belief that freedom would lead ultimately to general prosperity and peace.

A new understanding of history had, in the words of Duke Professor Michael Allen Gillespie, “opened up the possibility that human beings need not merely accommodate themselves to the natural world. Instead they could become masters of nature and reshape it to meet their needs through the methodological application of will and intelligence. This new understanding of the relation of man and nature had profound implications for man’s own understanding of his place time.”

The “will to freedom” as conceived and understood by philosophers and treasured by Americans from the beginning, thus became the dominant theme on a continent that seemed unlimited, but for the noble peoples it displaced.

We have not been willing to tolerate anything that stands in our way, including those once proud and independent indigenous American peoples.

The contradictions hidden in the vision of absolute freedom and unlimited prosperity have remained largely unconscious and unresolved, whether they be social, economic, or physical. Forced by extraordinary circumstances, our attachment to inflexible absolutes is today pitching us into a confusion of emotionally charged philosophical and political conflicts.

Several related questions were raised in previous posts.

Do we still think we can make ourselves “master and possessor of nature” without respect for the balances that life on earth depends upon?

Is absolute freedom possible, given the complexity and destructive potential that science and technology have opened to us? What do we expect, for example, of rapidly advancing surveillance technologies that are capable of prying into every corner of our lives?

Finally, what do the new realities we face today suggest about the meaning of freedom? Can we address these questions thoughtfully and retake control of our destiny as wise, creative, and courageous people?

The historic questions have taken on a contemporary character, but they are essentially the same questions. Earlier generations evaded these questions by exalting science and materialism above all else. Consequently, the denial of a rational God and the suppression of religious perspective diverted attention from a logical contradiction that transcended philosophy and belief.

When the constraints and limitations imposed by belief in an all-knowing and all-powerful God were disposed of with the cry of “God is dead!” they were immediately replaced by constraints and limitations imposed by belief in a supposedly mechanical natural world.

It was, of course, assumed that science would soon master nature, human beings would succeed in perfecting rational governance, and humankind would realize absolute freedom.  But, nature proved to be far more complex and unpredictable than was expected. And, having rejected the God of traditional religion, humankind has found itself confronted with a severe discipline imposed by nature, but without the grace or guidance of a loving Teacher.

And “rational governance”? Well, we have certainly witnessed in graphic terms the manner in which self-appointed leaders of “rational thought” led us into the totalitarian nightmares of communism, fascism, and Nazism.

Please make no mistake: This past is not far behind us.

If we are to reconsider the cataclysms of the first half of the twentieth century and the horrific consequences of the many bungled attempts to control human destiny – politically, economically, and scientifically – we might start to see the future more clearly. Indeed, we might then avoid potential disasters before they befall us.

The unresolved philosophical problems inherited from the past will continue to torment us if we fail to understand them. And, the danger can worsen with sloppy definitions and confusion about the requirements and limitations of freedom and prosperity.

Agreement among us is not required, but understanding the consequences of our actions in the real world is of immense significance.

We cannot neatly sidestep such fundamental unresolved questions, which I would suggest have embedded themselves deeply in the American psyche.

I look forward to reading your comments.

Tom

Next week: Transcending Our Limitations