Category: Philosophy
Death
There’s a few things I’m fairly certain about. I believe I have an accurate, though imprecise, appreciation for the degree of uncertainty we have to deal with. (So I’m fairly certain about uncertainty.) The claim to possess absolute knowledge is a fairy tale. The claim, “I am absolutely certain that this (any) statement is true” is either naive, an exaggeration, or a lie. The only source of information about the external world our brain has is what it gathers from our five senses. We are all to familiar with the many maladies that can interfere with the functioning of the senses as we are of disabilities, temporary or chronic, that interfere with the brain’s ability to process sensory information. Hallucinations are real – they are real hallucinations.
It is the nature of a hallucination that we are tricked into believing what we hallucinated to be as real as that which we accurately perceive. Therefore, there is no way, no absolutely foolproof way, of distinguishing what is real from what is imagined. I could be hallucinating the experience of typing these words, or indeed, of having truly experienced every single one of my memories. But giving serious credence to that is no way to live. Indeed logic and experience tell us the opposite is true and that we should always trust the evidence of our senses as the basis for rational judgment. That our senses may sometimes be tricked, or that our judgment may sometimes not be all that rational, just remind us that we are not perfect and that absolute certainty is not a part of the human experience.
As usual, that was simply a long preamble to provide the context for stating that I am sure that there is life after death. I am convinced, for reasons I have written about, that our identities will survive what we experience as physical death and will continue to enjoy an even broader range of experiences hereafter. I base that belief not on blind (hence irrational) faith, but on a rational judgment informed by the evidence of my senses. The evidence of things hoped for, the substance of things unseen which are true. I am not absolutely sure, but I believe it to be true. If it turns out that I am right, I can then say that I knew it. Anticipating that I am right, I can now say that I know it (but I just don’t absolutely know that I know it).
I have always liked Roger Whittaker’s version of The Last Farewell. Some of the lyrics are:
“I have no fear of death, it brings no sorrow.
But how bitter will be this last farewell.”
These words express my feelings very closely. The process of dying may be quite unpleasant but that is different. I am speaking of death itself. I don’t fear it. But interestingly, not for the reason of my very strong belief in (anticipatory knowledge of) an afterlife. Many years ago, albeit when my belief in an afterlife was not so strong, I admit that I did have a fear of death. What if there were no afterlife? I certainly had to acknowledge the possibility then and still have to now. Then, if I were to die, I would no longer be able to enjoy all the things that bring me happiness. I would miss them.
It was roughly 20 years ago that it suddenly occurred to me that I was mistaken about this and implication has eliminated all fear of death. I can truly say that I have never experienced the fear of death since that time. I don’t understand why anyone would, as the logic is surely unassailable. Without an afterlife I would not miss my family, my friends, or the pursuits I enjoy because I would not be and in order to miss these it would be necessary for me to be. But if I were to be, after I had died, that would constitute an afterlife.
So, in death devoid of an afterlife, it is not as though I will be somehow aware of all that I was missing and would never again experience. I would not be aware at all because I would cease to exist.
This might sound morbid but this realization should actually be a welcome relief to any who have a lingering fear of death (remember I distinguished “death” from “dying”). If I were to die, I would do so convinced that I would imminently be experiencing an afterlife but also knowing that if that confidence was misplaced, I would never know it. I would simply cease to be and never be aware of it.
Now it occurs to me, in the interests of thoroughness, that I ought to address the alleged possibility of an unpleasant afterlife – one in which one experiences endless sorrow. The pain to be inflicted on the infidels by a god who rewards terrorists for blowing up buses full of children, or the eternal flames inflicted by a god who would punish those who never had an opportunity to know him, seem to me to be so far outside the realm of possibilities as to warrant no attention whatsoever. I would put it this way – I have no fear that God is my moral inferior, as such a god as these would necessarily be.
I know myself enough to know that I am far from perfect, but I am also far from being deserving of eternal suffering by any rational code of morality. Thus, I have no fear of death, it brings no sorrow.
What can and does bring sorrow is life – and because of this it is life that ought to be feared. In the song, the bitterness of the last farewell is the emotional consequence of actions taken by the living and experienced by the living. But despite occasional tears of sadness, life affords more occasions to shed tears of joy. It is this that makes life worth living. One ought to fear the consequences of a life based on incorrect principles. By consistently applying correct principles in making life’s decisions this fear can be dismissed and the love of life can determine one’s attitude.
John Leslie’s afterlife
I don’t get a chance to update this much as whenever I sit down at the computer, which is most of the day, my present circumstances dictate that I should be working, not typing for pure entertainment. But, as this is my online journal, I wanted to record my brief notes on a portion of one of my favourite books by one of my favourite philosophers, Defending Immortality by John Leslie.
Leslie says we have reason to anticipate an afterlife in at least one of the following forms:
1. As Einstein proved, the universe has a four dimensional existence. The past and future is every bit as real as the present since time is relative and there is no way for distant observers to agree upon a single “now”. Therefore, one who, to us, has lived or will live, is living now from the point of view of some observers (potential or actual).
2. Leslie spends most of his efforts presenting his case for the origin of existence, suggesting it lies in the reality of a creatively effectual ethical requirement. I believe he argues his case successfully. The result is that the best way to conceive of the cosmos is as the thoughts of a “divine mind”. We then are the complex thoughts of God, who considers our lives worth thinking about in intricate detail. Leslie suggests that, having thought through our lives to our deaths, God may very well consider it equally worthwhile thinking about an afterlife for us.
3. Leslie’s third option is based on the premise of the existential unity of the cosmos. If we consider ourselves to be the same being over time, despite important changes to our physical and psychological makeup (the body replaces its cells, the psyche undergoes personality changes), then why can’t we think of surviving our death in that the container of our thought patterns, this cosmic existential unity, continues to exist?
While all his scenarios have merit, and are not mutually exclusive, I pick door #2. Now back to work.
Capitalism goes on the offence (About time)
Here’s a nice site, a landing page for an ad that’s making the rounds online. Be sure to watch the video at the end. A rather telling and graphically attractive way to make the case that capitalism = health + wealth + freedom + peace = happiness.
Would brothers be
Sacrament Meeting talk delivered in New Glasgow on 21 November 2010.
A recent sociological study entitled American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us had some particularly interesting findings. I am going to quote a passage from the report of the study.
The study … reports that Mormons are among those most friendly toward those of other faiths. …While data suggest that Mormons are among those viewed least positively by many American religious groups, they themselves hold relatively positive views toward members of other faiths, including those outside of Christianity.
Of all American faiths, Mormons are most likely to affirm that there is a “true” faith. However, in what might seem a paradox to those unfamiliar with Mormonism, study data also indicate that while many Mormons believe that there is a “true” religion, Mormons are also the most convinced of any group that those outside their faith — including non-Christians — can “go to heaven” or gain salvation. While this belief is general among American believers, it is, according to the study, strongest among Latter-day Saints.
It should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with our doctrine that we hold two superficially inconsistent beliefs. First, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the single true and living church upon the face of the earth; and second, that even those who die without sharing our faith may yet gain eternal salvation.
When we see, hear, touch, smell or taste something we believe that what we have thus perceived is real. Everyone is aware of illusions and other tricks which can fool us from time to time but by and large these are exceptions and, in the absence of reasons to doubt, we accept the evidence of our senses as positive proof. In other words, usually “seeing is believing”.
Now what about the time we do not see or hear for ourselves but only hear about something from someone else who claims to have witnessed it. This happens so often, and the information we obtain in this manner is so often, so valuable that it is entirely reasonable for us to accept the testimony of others and to act on the assumption that there testimony is true.
Again there are exceptions. When someone with a history of lying or exaggerating speaks we take it with a grain of salt. When someone with something to gain by persuading us speaks, prudence requires that we get a second opinion before taking action. However, when someone tells us something, even though it may cause him harm, we take it seriously. When that person has lead an exemplay life and sticks to his story to his dying breath, we have cause to believe the story is true.
Consider the ancient prophets. The books of the Old Testament are replete with accounts of their warnings, and how those who heeded their warnings were saved while those who rejected them perished. Noah and the flood; Abraham and Sodom and Gomorah; Jonah and Ninevah, Moses and the plagues, Jerimiah and the captivity – all these repeat the pattern of good men saying unpopular things which later came true. Those who believed them were saved and those who rejected them were lost.
Consider those whom Jesus called as his apostles. Many were fishermen. In that time fishing was a profitable business but one with a large initial capital requirement, i.e. the boat, nets and gear. At his call they left all this behind and became, as He put it, “fishers of men”. They spent the rest of their difficult lives as full time missionaries and eventually they were martyred. They had nothing to gain and much to lose from following Jesus – unless what they testified about him was true.
They testified of what they saw and heard. They saw Jesus perform many great miracles. They heard him teach uplifting precepts full of love and hope and saw him live those precepts. They heard him testify of His Father and of His plan of happiness for all his children. They heard Jesus declare himself to be the Son of God and promise that if we follow him there would be a way in which we could be joint heirs with him to all that the Father has. They saw Jesus suffer and die but miraculously rise again and promise to go and prepare a place with the Father for all those who believe in him.
The apostles saw and heard all this first hand. They lived and died true to their testimony.
Consider a latter-day prophet. A boy who was confused about which church he should join. Having faith in God and in the Bible he put James 1:5 to the test:
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
When he asked God which church he should join it became clear that God had a great work for him to do. Joseph Smith became the first modern prophet. Like his ancient predecessors he too was persecuted for declaring what God had told him and eventually paid for it with his life. Just days prior to his assassination he said:
I am going like a lamb to the slaughter; but I am calm as a summer’s morning; I have a conscience void of offense towards God, and towards all men. I SHALL DIE INNOCENT, AND IT SHALL YET BE SAID OF ME—HE WAS MURDERED IN COLD BLOOD.
Like the prophets and apostles of old, with nothing to gain and everything to lose he testified to what he heard and saw and gave us reason to believe.
Among that which God revealled through Joseph were the writings of ancient South American prophets, including the prophets named Alma and Moroni. Alma taught that there was a way for us to discover for ourselves whether the testimony of the prophets and apostles were true.
But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, … and ye will begin to say . . . the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.
I suggest that Alma’s “experiment” can be broken down into the following steps:
1. Pay serious and careful attention to the testimony. Read it. Study it.
2. Decide whether it would be desirable if the testimony were true.
3. Start acting as if the testimony were indeed true.
4. Consider how this makes you feel.
Here again is how Alma describes how you should expect to feel if the words are true:
- It begins to enlarge your soul
- It begins to enlighten your understanding
- It begins to be delicious to you
Does it make you feel as if you are a part of something great? Do you have a better understanding of the purpose of your life? Do more things make sense to you? Do you feel happy? Content? Peaceful? Even when trouble comes, do you feel a comforting feeling that things will be all right as long as you live true to these words.
Moroni taught a similar principle. Speaking of the testimony of the prophets and apostles he said,
… when ye shall receive these things, … ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
Just as Alma tells us to awake and arouse our faculties, Moroni tells us to ask with a sincere heart and real intent. And to ask in faith, but remember that Alma told us that the mere desire is the beginning of faith. So if we truely want to know if the words of a prophet are true, and we hope they are, the Holy Ghost will give us the feelings that Almoa spoke about and we will know for ourselves that their testimony is true.
In 1820 a 14 year old farm boy wanted to know if the words of the apostles were true. He hoped they were, he read them, he pondered them and he acted upon them. He asked God if they were true and found out for himself. He said:
I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me. . . . When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
Joseph Smith’s prayer was answered. He discovered that the testimony of the ancient prophets and apostles were true but that the full truth, and the authority to teach it, was lost and had to be restored to earth, and that he would be the instrument by which the full truth would be restored.
Since then millions and millions around the world have heard the testimony of Joseph and have put his words to the same test and received the same answer – that they are true. That God lives and that he has once again established his church, with the full truth as well as his divine authority to teach it. That is why we declare the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint to be the only true and living church upon the face of the earth.
But what is the purpose of this church? Is it only to save the several millions who belong to it and to cast away the countless billions who do not. The Lord has declared his work, and the work of the church, to be to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man, all men, and women. To that end we are engaged in a great missionary effort, in literal fulfillment of ancient prophecy that in the last days the Lord would gather Israel from out of all parts of the earth. To that end as well we are engaged in another great work, the geneoligical record extration program by which all those of God’s children who died without the gospel are identified and for whom saving ordinances such as baptism can be done performed.
Church members collect the records of deceased ancestors and thake those records to holy temples where they act as proxies and are baptised for their ancestors. Jesus taught that baptism was essential for all those who would enter the kingdom of heaven and so we are baptised for all those who did not have that ordinance performed in life. They are then free to accept or reject that work but modern prophets have declared that there are very few who do not accept it.
Joseph Smith said, “The greatest responsibility in this world that God has laid upon us is to seek after our dead.” The church employs modern technology to help us fulfill this responsibility. Members as well as non-members are encouraged to register on new.familysearch.org where the largest geneological database in the world is freely available to all. There we can discover family members we were not aware of and we can also add new information that the database may grow.
The work of seeking our dead builds family ties that extend from this world to the next. Performing temple ordinances for those unable to do it themselves helps us become more like the Savior who did for us what we could not do for ourselves regardles of how much good work we do. Through this great work we strive to unite all of God’s children, living and dead, into one eternal family unit and give effect to the prayer of Robert Burns who wished that whether in good times or in hard we would remember,
That man to man the world o’er would brothers be for a’ that.
Today in Church I . . .
Is Faith Reasonable?
There are some who subscribe to the view that faith and reason are diametrically opposed, mutually exclusive concepts. There is another view.
Paul defined faith as “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” I am not going to investigate the original Greek as it is this common English translation that many accept as the basis for their own understanding of faith. I am not concerned with what Paul actually thought about faith, or what those who have closed their minds to the subject think of faith, but whether there is a way of reconciling faith with reason persuasively. I think this quote is a good basis for such a discussion.
The terms “substance” and “evidence” should strike those of the initial view as properly associated with reason rather than faith. “Substance” very much implies the stuff of this world with which we interact in very familiar and ordinary ways. “Evidence” is a legalistic term that refers to a fact, the truth of which makes another fact more likely to be true. For example, the fact that I am married is evidence that I live with my wife. We could be separated but common experience suggests that most often married couples do live together and so, it is more reasonable to believe that since I am married, I live with my wife. It is a reputable presumption. If I have signed a separation agreement it becomes reasonable to suppose that I do not live with my wife.
Neither the fact that I am married, nor the fact that I have signed a separation agreement, will provide absolute proof that I live, or do not live, with my wife. Only if someone stakes out my house, or hires a private investigator, and applies the ensuing concrete observations to a criteria he establishes as constituting the condition “living with” will he be justified in concluding with reasonable certainty that we do, or do not live together. Any indirect evidence, circumstantial evidence, is only suggestive and not conclusive.
Paul’s wording refers to this. “The evidence of things not seen” could be rendered “facts which we perceive directly which suggest that other facts, which we do not perceive directly, are nonetheless true.” This is faith. We are driving along an unfamiliar highway winding through the mountains. We see a sign indicating that there is a sharp turn ahead with a reduced speed limit. What do we do?
One course of action would be to pull over, get out, carefully walk to the turn and look around to see if whoever erected the sign got it right, or even whether there is a road there at all rather than simply a cliff over which we would have driven to our doom. That is not reasonable. What is reasonable would be for us to act on faith. The sign, plus all we know about criminal negligence, personal injury claims, insurance premiums, etc., plus our previous driving experience, plus the previous driving experience of others, all give us ample evidence, albeit circumstantial, to reasonably conclude that the sign is correct and we can proceed safely to navigate the turn at the recommended speed (or even a little higher depending on our assessment of our own driving ability, the condition of our vehicle, the weather, etc.) We are not certain, based on our own personal knowledge, that it is safe to proceed but we proceed nonetheless. We have assessed the evidence of the unseen, made a reasonable judgment call to proceed, and hope that we are correct.
The point is that it would be ludicrous (i.e. incredibly unreasonable) for us to insist on direct personal knowledge of every relevant fact before making a decision. In other words, not to exercise faith, not to base decisions on the evidence of the unseen, would be unreasonable. Therefore, the exercise of faith is reasonable.
There do appear to be some who insist that if you have any reason whatsoever to believe something is true, you are not exercising faith. It is only baseless, unreasonable belief that satisfies them. I do not know what faith these people espouse but it is not that of Paul. If that is what those who take the view of which I initially spoke decry then let us all joint them. A faith that rejects reason is unreasonable. A view of rationality which rejects faith would produce psychosis.
On the Census Debate
It is the fatal conceit of statists that efficient central planning is possible with sufficient data. No matter how much data they collect it can never be more than a tiny fraction of the data held within the minds of individuals dispersed throughout society. The reason is because words are imperfect symbols and we always know much more than we can communicate to others.
Thus the most efficient way to make use of resources (capital) is to have no central planning at all but to allow each individual maximal freedom to pursue his rational self-interest. That is why a laissez-faire, free market capitalist political economy will always out-compete a more centrally planned one. It will always produce more wealth and consequently a better standard of life for its members.
Thus central planning is “fatal” to those on the margins who would have lived if there had been a little more food, a little better health care, etc. A compulsory census, more so what it represents, literally kills people. Central planners are at best well-intentioned but ignorant murderers.
Study shows that fathers are important
Fathers aren’t dispensable just yet – life – 22 July 2009 – New Scientist.
The anecdotes of isolated success in non-traditional families notwithstanding, both biological and cultural (sociological) evolution provides ample evidence that a child”s welfare is optimized by being raised by his/her natural father and natural mother. Studies like this are supportive but not conclusive. History is conclusive. Where and when the traditional family thrives, a society prospers. Where and when it does not, everyone suffers.
The biggest threat to the traditional family, and therefore to society, is not from gays who want the legal right to marry. It is from governments which seek to replace the family by offering to look after everyone”s needs from cradle to grave. Neither individuals nor families can protect themselves adequately from criminals or foreign aggressors – government ought to confine its role to this and nothing else
What is the meaning of the label: “Progressive”
‘”Progressive” is a good word don”t you think? Someone who is progressive is forward-looking, on-the-move, open-minded. Who would mind being thought of and labeled a “progressive”? No one.
Somehow (well, I know how but I”ll leave that for now) American liberals managed to turn the noble term “liberal” into an epithet, so they have adopted the term progressive to describe themselves. So far the term works, for all of the reasons suggested in my opening paragraph. I think it also works because the term implies opposition to the term “conservative” which conservatives have managed to turn into an epithet just as “liberal” has been.
Interestingly that aptly named party of oxymorons, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada dropped the “Progressive” label when it merged with the Canadian Alliance to form the Conservative Party. The new party promptly installed a leader widely considered moderately libertarian but has, ever since, has been spending money hand over fist to show that they are really more “progressive” and less “conservative” than either of their predecessor parties ever were.
So how does one claim the term “progressive”? What does it actually mean? I suggest that the best definition is a modified version of one proposed by Janet Ajzenstat as related in this article by Link Byfield. She says that “progressivism . . . is the ideology that the state must grow ever stronger.” The corollary, Byfield points out, is that “everything and everyone else (must) get (comparatively) weaker ââ‚“ individuals, families, churches, local communities, businesses and markets.
My modification of the definition is to replace the word “ever” with “progressively”:
A progressive is one who believes that the state must grow progressively stronger at the expense of the individual, the family and all other voluntary institutions and relationships.
A progressive believes in state power, that the careful and democratic selection of good, honest, decent people to positions of civil leadership is the good citizen”s first duty, followed by obedience as his or her second. A progressive believes that well-intended initiatives undertaken by such leaders would inevitably yield favourable results if we would all just get behind such initiatives.
A progressive is thus a well-intentioned, civic-minded optimist. He or she does support worth-while voluntary organizations but reserves his or her greatest faith and hope for the initiatives of the well-led state. At heart, a progressive is a genuinely good person. But there is a poison pill, a cancer in the core of progressivism and for that reason it must be opposed.
A progressive thinks, “I am a good person. I will set things right if you will just entrust me with whatever power I need to do so.” Since not all have the capacity or desire to lead this becomes “Obama is a good person. He will set things right if we will all just entrust him with whatever power he needs to do so.”
Where is the flaw in this? Where is the poison pill, the cancer?
Is Obama not a good person? Do progressives and their leaders harbour evil intent? Not at all. But nevertheless they continue to pave the road to hell.
The flaw, the poison, the cancer, are the two truths which progressivism either ignores or rejects. First, determining the best solution to a problem is best done by the person, or persons closest to the problem. Second, “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” (Lord Acton). Thus, progressivism, as a result of the first, is impotent and, as a result of the second, is dangerous.
The first truth fatal to progressivism is rooted in human epistemology – understanding how we know what we know. The progressive”s fatal hubris (or fatal conceit as Hayek called it) is best brought to mind by thinking of the proverbial difficulty of drafting a letter by committee. The problem lies in the fact that words are only imperfect (imprecise) symbols by which we can only ever hope to convey a portion, by no means all, of what we are actually thinking.
Think of the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. The latter is an exercise in the very precise logical articulation of the law of identity. It”s not hard to articulate the steps that lead inexorably from premises to conclusion. “Some cats are black. All cats are animals. Therefore, some animals are black.” Pretty boring stuff. Easy to articulate though.
However, with inductive reasoning it is much harder to precisely articulate the mental process. For example: “all the ice I have ever touched is cold; therefore all ice is cold,” is a poorly described process of inductive reasoning. Why “poorly described?” Because I have left out so much critically important information which I actually used to arrive at my conclusion. I failed to recite the countless times I have actually touched ice throughout my life. Surely that fact is important. What about all the experience I have had in relying on my sense of touch and ow this informs my confidence in my sense of touch? This too is important. I could go on. The point is that with inductive reasoning we use much more information, in fact to some degree we use every experience we have ever had, than we can possibly convey in words. But words (written or spoken) are the only means we have to convey the basis of our conclusions to others – and the only means we have to learn from others.
Thus the well-intentioned leader in whom the progressives have placed so much confidence suffers under a terrible epistemological handicap as he attempts to live up to his promise. The knowledge that he (including his cabinet, his advisers, etc.) has about a problem and how to fix it is nowhere near as much as the knowledge disbursed in the minds of all the people who live, and deal with the problems each and every day of their lives. How can one person (or small group), with strictly limited relevant knowledge hope to come up with a better solution to a problem than a larger number, all of whom are free to think and act, individually or collectively, on a solution? This is the value of markets, free markets, over state management.
The second truth is perhaps best illustrated by even a casual glance at modern history. The past century is said, with good cause, to have been the bloodiest in human history. It is also marked as the one which witnessed the greatest concentration of state power. In their day progressives who were not yet prepared to go as far, nevertheless greeted the rise of communism as as a bold and well-intentioned experiment. Fascists and National Socialists advocated the concentration of all power in the machinery of state for the betterment of society. Coincident with the rise of totalitarianism was the outbreak of war, between nations, races, and any other identifiable social groups.
But anything can be taken to an extreme and progressives do not favour the total concentration of power in the state. True enough, but just as communist regimes illustrate Lord Acton”s point about absolute power, the progressive”s welfare state illustrates his point about power per se.
The corruption brought about by progressivism is not simply that of political patronage, or of politicians who inflate their expense accounts, or of those who bestow largess on supportive constituencies. These are trifles compared to the spiritual corruption progressivism promotes and upon which it feeds. The more power is granted to the state to solve our problems, the more our mindset turns away from that of self reliance, and of cultivating goodwill among those of our neighbours with whom we hope to voluntarily associate to our mutual advantage. Instead it cultivates an attitude of dependency on our part, and of at best apathy, if not hostility towards our neighbour”s plight.
In my community there is a day known as “Cheque Day”. It is the day of the month when all those who depend on the money they receive from the government get their cheques. On Cheque Day a few debts get paid, rent gets paid, groceries are purchased . . . and so does liquor, and lottery tickets. Liquor as people try to forget the fact that they no longer live but just endure a stagnant existence from one Cheque Day to the next. An existence they just as often try to end through suicide as through seeking education or employment. Similarly, buying lottery tickets is a rejection of this pale imitation of life – foregoing food, shelter and clothing just for the slimmest chance that they can escape their reliance on Cheque Day.
Believing that the state will solve our problems relieves us of the need to think and fight and strain and struggle and think some more, and fight some more and to hurt and to fail but also to succeed – in short, to live. The corruption of becoming progressively dependent on the state is to die, slowly, spirit first.
Rather than cultivating goodwill among our neighbours and seeking opportunities to make common cause in tackling a mutual problem, progressivism pits each one of us against the other. It is not by voluntary association that we solve our problems. It is by electing well-intentioned leaders who will then tell us what to do, and by our obeying them. But when our leaders discover that not all of our interests coincide and that choices of which problems to solve and where the resources to solve those problems should come from arise, what happens? Well, we better make sure that our leaders understand that our needs are much more pressing and urgent than those others. Our community deserves a new sewage system more than their community. People my age deserve help with education, or home ownership, or medical care much more than those older/younger than me. My cause deserves more assistance than the rest.
Of course, this is not how the battle of all against all is presented in public – too tactless. Instead advocates for new, or expanding, state programs publicly support each other”s proposals while privately, behind the scenes, lobbying for their own to the detriment of the others. Such advocates are not stupid. They know that resources are not unlimited. And so it is a war of all against all – but not in a Hobbesian state of nature, but within the leviathan of the progressive state. Progressively increasing the power of the state is to corrupt the naturally-occurring goodwill among those whom we would hope to voluntarily attract to our joint enterprises by replacing persuasion with force – the power of the state to make the decision and enforce compliance – and thus corrupt social relations with war.
Because some of the facts stated in support of this argument are well-accepted, the proliferation of warfare in more modern times for example, state power is certainly not universally heralded as a good thing in itself. Therefore, tying the term “progressive” more closely to the term “state power” in my proposed definition of progressivism offers the opportunity to take some of the shine off the term. Even the term “progress” can have an unfavourable connotation. Things can become “progressively worse”. A disease “progresses”. Progressivism even sounds like a disease – a socio-political cancer. Someone advocating progressively increasing state power ought to be referred to, not as a progressive but as a progressivist.
Now what about the opposite – those who wish to diminish the power of the state? “Regressives?” Hardly. May as well call ourselves “reactionaries” as the progressivists would.
“Conservative?” No, it has become an epithet and conservatives, especially many social conservatives, advocate increasing state power over some elements of our lives while other conservatives are too ready to advocate militaristic efforts to increase the power of their state over other states and their citizens.
“Libertarian?” It”s the most accurate but it”s an awful mouthful and is, at best, emotionally unevocative. “Individualist” is even more of a mouthful.
I wish “freedom” had an adjective form (“freedomist”, “freedomite”) or that “liberal” had not already been sullied beyond redemption. Others such as “minarchist”, or “minimalist” are too obscure.
What about “humanism”? This from dictionary.com:
1. any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values, and dignity predominate. 4. Philosophy. a variety of ethical theory and practice that emphasizes reason, scientific inquiry, and human fulfillment in the natural world . . . .
Interesting. I believe it is favourably evocative. I don”t know it to be used in a political context and yet it seems to me it can be appropriately used, without twisting its meaning, to advocate improving human welfare by reducing state power. It leads naturally into a discussion of human rights. Properly understood these are rights that all humans share and would thus be limited to the rights to life, liberty and property alone.
Anyway, I’ve run out of steam on this subject, at least for now.