for Glennie's Courses/Classes and Curious Surfing Folk
for Glennie's Courses/Classes and Curious Surfing Folk
*If you have ideas or differences or more resources, clue me!
email:
(The only problem here is that different browsers do different things, so what I see on my browser may not be what you get.)
This page contains five Subject Sets which lead to Topic Subsets.
You click the Subject Set for what you need/want.
Once there, you click the specific Subset or Topic item you want--you get it!
(You can only get anywhere by clicking what's blue or purple-red. Color changes after you visit.)
(You can also scroll through the whole mess if you want.)
If you want to research all the internal references for, say, David Hume or Rene Descartes, most computers and browsers support a "Find" function--mine works like a champ.
*Some pages contain minor errors of HTML text or spacing conversion. These errors are periodically edited/corrected. A source of error as of the 16 May 1998 update is OCR (optical character recognition) via the scanner (UMAX Astra 610S), and my edits thereof. If I miss any OCR errors, you get 'em. Clue me if you find such. However, as of 17 June 1998, Zerox/ScanSoft TextBridge Pro 8.0 was installed which provides a MACRO improvement in OCR.
Some comments/criticisms have been that the page takes too long to load, that it should be set up as linkages off the home page (first page) directory. My defense is that I want folks to explore, and to be able to scroll through to find/see the cartoons and pictures in context.
Some fun students teased me a bit regarding the background data, wondering if I were "ego-tripping" them. The reason for this is to offset the pervasive notion that "Those who can do, and those who can't -- teach." If students can drop the stereotype of the world-wise ineffectual teacher, they will be able to separate the chaff from the grain. There are those of us who love to do, and can do, but who also have a PASSION for teaching. No ego-tripping intended!
Additional information is added periodically, so check back as time allows.
Some Subject Subsets contain hyperlinks (http://. . .in blue) which the reader can click for direct access to additional information.
I hope you enjoy the course/class as much as I do, and that you find this additional information helpful.
As regards this site, I heartily THANK YOU Rob Korb for setting-up the initial page which got me motivated to do this one. THANK YOU you great folks at ICNet Internet Services /Salisbury for all your patience and help. THANK YOU Terry Sterner for the system management job (which fixed-up and cleaned-up the computer after I had it jammed-up). THANK YOU Bill Bartee and Wendy Lenoir of ClarisWorks for your help and encouragement. THANK YOU Joanne Cathell for enduring my depressions and rages as I fought my way through this effort. THANK YOU C. Tony Waters for educating me on how to delimit the page width (02/14/00).
This page has been accessed
FastCounter
by LinkExchange
times since September 18th, 1997
Last Updated 20 February 2000
This site was established on a Macintosh Performa 575 using ClarisWorks HomePage 3.0 using the browser Netscape Navigator 3.0
The URL for this site is http://www.intercom.net/user/loveland/index.html
1. 1: Career Summary (Synopsis)
1. 3: Philosophy of Teaching/Management/Administration
1. 5: Major Issues Facing College Undergraduates
1. 6: Summary Highlights: Letters of Recommendation/Appreciation
1. 7: Summary Highlights: Student Letters of Appreciation
1.11: A Letter to the Editor, The Chronicle of Higher Education, August 11, 1993
1.12: Observations on Management and Leadership
1.1
Berlin, MD 21811
Tel. 410-641-7139
loveland@shore.intercom.net
My education1, training, and experience2 are as an applied Social Psychologist specializing in management. My talents are in organizational problem-solving. I have extensive experience in management, applied social psychology, training/education, organizational development, change agentry, and motivation. I am an ardent student of management, human behavior, social psychology, and philosophy. I am action-oriented: Experience in my bones and knowledge in my head are of no value unless they contribute to some purpose.
My work has been mainly as a hands-on manager in start-up, turnaround, and crisis intervention. In the public sector (non-civil service: appointed or contracted), I have designed and implemented programs, units, bureaus, and a major division to rectify organizational and funding/accreditation crises, and to implement legislation. In private enterprise, I have managed projects to protect/increase revenue via marketing, reorganization, management and staff development/training, and systems. I have managed up to 74 multisite operations. Staffs numbered three to several hundred, and have included subordinate area managers, accountants, attorneys, educators, social workers, nutritionists, physicians, psychiatrists, nurses, fire-safety specialists, researchers, and computer systems managers and technicians--these in both staff and line capacities. All missions were completed on time and within budget.
The second major work mode has been as an advisory consultant in diverse areas, including operations, marketing, skill assessment and training, management development, organizational analysis/planning, requirements/needs analyses, and human-systems interface. Both hands-on and advisory responsibilities were undertaken with a wide range of organizations.
Concurrent with these responsibilities, I have maintained interest and work in college and university teaching, and have taught for three state universities, two community colleges, and two private colleges. Courses included undergraduate and graduate level sociology (introductory and beyond) and social psychology, and undergraduate philosophy and statistics.
Some supporting materials follow . Further detail is available, including an outline of 25 seminar workshops, management-supervisory workbook, lecture video "Getting and Keeping a Job," and touch screen interactive management assessment/development program (video demo).
1Significant education/training with the Institute for Social Research, Florida State University, where the MA and PhD degrees were earned. The Institute was a multidisciplinary organization--housing all manner of sociologists and psychologists, and including mental health clinicians and historians-- which was established by Ogburn and Nimkoff upon their retirement from the University of Chicago.
2A major ongoing work experience--achieved most successfully within New York State government-- was the conceptualization, initiation and implementation of a semi-permanent Task Force running tangent with and complimentary to the overall organizational system. This is an organizational inno- vation first described by Peter Drucker in the 1940s, yet adopted by less than ten organizations.
6 Edgewood Drive
Berlin, MD 21811
Tel. 410-641-7139
loveland@shore.intercom.net
Applied Social Psychology
Management, Organizational Development, Change Agentry, Training, Education
1992-Present
Instructor: Philosophy, Sociology, Statistics, Ethics and Values, Race and Ethic Relations
Wor-Wic Community College; Wilmington College; University of Maryland Eastern Shore
1992
Director of Operations, State-contracted residential treatment center
Create and implement written policies and procedures
THE FOLLOWING RELATE TO MANAGEMENT CONSULTING
1984-1991 (Base: Springfield, Illinois) State governments and private sector clients
Monitor, assist implementation of commercial driver training center
Streamline and manage federal funding reporting
Manage federal seat belt use study
Start-up in organization design, product conceptualization
Redesign training programs for increased funding of $4-8 million/year
Redesign training programs for increased funding of $2-4 million/year
Increase on-time third-party liability claims payments by $4 million/year
Write proposals for increased federal funding to Illinois and Massachusetts
1979-1983 (Base: Albany, New York) State governments and private sector clients
Hudson Group Advertising, Omega Advertising, Hoffman Construction Managers, Data Management Services, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Lodge Hill Management Associates, Empire Plaza Association of Adult Homes, Multi-Lock, Empire Plaza Magazine. With University Park Group/Alexander Proudfoot: Orange Roof of Canada, New Jersey Bell Telephone, New York Life Insurance Company
THE FOLLOWING RELATE TO WORK WITH NEW YORK STATE GOVERNMENT AS AN APPOINTEE, CONTRACTOR, OR SUBCONTRACTOR (NON-CIVIL SERVICE) IN START-UP, TURNAROUND, AND CRISIS INTERVENTION MANAGEMENT
1971-1978 (Base: Albany, New York)
Assistant Commissioner, Operations (Crisis intervention and Start-up)
Establish division to inspect and enforce state and federal codes on 600 adult-care homes
Develop and promulgate inspection-to-enforcement policies and procedures
Compliance rate from 17 to 83 percent in one year, fifty successful legal actions
Director of Utilization Control (Crisis intervention and Turnaround)
Functional authority for state mental hospitals to comply with federal quality mandates
Develop policies, procedures, manuals and forms for all quality assurance requirements
74 hospitals comply to code in eight months (after over two years of non-compliance)
Federal system distributed manual nationwide as model
Reorganization Consultant (Crisis intervention, Turnaround)
Develop plan for executive/legislative negotiation to restructure agency
Director, Post-Institutional Services Planning Section (Crisis intervention, Start-up)
Plan, implement major unit to ensure coordinated services among agencies
Plan, conduct 10 statewide training sessions for 1,000 two-agency trainees
Subsequent law mandated forms and procedures for continued compliance
Special Assistant to the Commissioner (Start-up)
Liaison to State Budget Division on post-conversion SSI policy (see below)
Director, AABD/SSI Conversion Task Force (Start-up)
Implement Supplemental Security Income program for second largest state (300,000)
(Largest governmental data conversion in peacetime)
On-time, far below budget, minimal error rate; cited as "exemplary" in federal audit
Innovations: first state WATS line, two publications, fraud detection system
Chief, Bureau of Survey Research/Associate Research Scientist (Start-up)
Plan, implement bureau to assess/evaluate programs based on customer input
Prepare options for state policy on flat grant for shelter allowance
THE FOLLOWING RELATE TO POSITIONS WITH THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY (TALLAHASSEE)
1966-1971: The Institute for Social Research
Assistant Professor, Research Associate
Conduct and write statewide study of drug/substance abuse encounters
Manage turnaround of problem projects; contribute to proposal development
Statistician III (part-time)
Turnaround of statewide inventory of law enforcement and judicial system equipment
Research Assistant (part-time)
Manage daily operations of four-year study at three offices, five staff
Write institute-wide "Interviewer Training Manual." Edit external communications
Assist dean in policy planning for new Florida International University
THE FOLLOWING RELATE TO PART-TIME POSITIONS ONGOING WITH OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES
1972-1975
Guest Lecturer, State University of New York/Albany
Taught four undergraduate subjects and graduate social psychology, directed 2 MAs
1968-1971
Instructor, The University of Georgia (Thomasville and Moultrie Centers)
Design, teach Office of Economic Opportunity course, teach four undergraduate subjects
1963-1966
Resident Assistant Manager, Camp Seminole, The Florida State University
Manage 87-acre private lake camp with facilities and housing for 500
1960-1970: The Florida State University
Ph.D. (12/15/70): Research Sociology
Methodology, Statistics, Social Psychology, Complex Organization, Work, Mental Health
M.A. (12/17/66): Research Sociology, graduate work in Philosophy
B.A. (4/18/64): Sociology, Psychology, Philosophy. Biology scholarship
Philosophy of Teaching and Management/Administration
I hold with Hippocrates: "It is necessary to study all that one can see, feel, and hear, everything one can recognize and use."
Following this, a teacher must do at least three things: 1) Teach (cause others to care to learn) a specific body of information; 2) Guide others to see the interrelationships among bodies of knowledge, and; 3) Personally experience the passion of the love of learning and the integration of knowledge so as to be able to share/spread this passion.
As regards management, the philosophy is much the same. The management gurus debate the total time a manager should be teaching between the parameters of 50 to 75%: Managing is largely teaching. With management/administration, an added joy to share is having so much to do that one can--within reason--spread the tasks to suit "the mood of the hour of day." This enables one to have an increased sense of control over one's own time/life. This adds greatly to job satisfaction and successful orientation toward and completion of tasks.
The major flaw of management/administration as often practiced is that it is seen as power. As "Lucy" in a cartoon said, "The part I like about being boss is telling people what to do." This is wrong-headed! The true beauty of management is finding what people like to do, and helping them to do it. Second, it is helping people learn to do, and LIKE to do, what they HAVE to do anyway--which problem everyone has. As well, leaders of administrative systems--and staff--often fall victim to "The Iron Law of Oligarchy"--coming to serve only themselves. True leadership of such systems keeps to the point that they--managers and staff--and the whole enterprise are ONLY there to SERVE somebody/something ELSE--and something else usually of a higher purpose then their own.
GET their ATTENTION in the FIRST instance!
KEEP their ATTENTION. NEVER let go!
BE DYNAMIC. You're up against David Letterman, Madonna,
James Bond, and MTV. Students are in a sense CLIENTS:
You gotta COMPETE for the SUBJECT MATTER--NOT yourself.
BE FAIR. If there is any ONE thing the human being CANNOT
tolerate, it is being treated unfairly. NO MATTER WHAT
the world did you you 30 years ago, last year, or ten minutes
ago, you TAKE it, KEEP it, and DO NOT pass it along! NO
two wrongs EVER made a RIGHT.
REMEMBER the LEARNING CURVE. Keep the grading door open as long
as possible. Remember friend Billy who washed out, then
went back years later and graduated magna cum laude in
engineering. Remember Bob, whom you didn't like, but who
saved your butt once in high school. Remember: Keep The Door
OPEN! (And remember that when someone does fail, you must
respect his/her right to fail now, this time, without making
either for yourself or for him/her any judgments about next
time. You must be FAIR, and you MUST uphold the integrity of
the academic system and institution.)
BE ACCESSIBLE. Hold office hours, give out your phone number
and your address. You MAY thus expose yourself to threats,
vandalism, danger, or bribes, but you WILL surely lessen your
effectiveness if you play it safe.
BE YOURSELF, and let students be themselves.
BE HONEST. If you don't know, say so. If you make a mistake,
admit it and fix it.
CARE! If you ever quit caring, quit teaching!
And if you ever feel you've got it made, that you know it all,
that you know exactly how to teach this class, that you are
more important than the least-able of your students, and/or
that you will not learn much more than your teach and receive
much more than you give--
you have at that exact instant become a fool.
Major issues facing first and second year college students could be addressed in the microcosm. Such perspective would center on personal insecurity, the transition from having been a high school senior--a relative somebody--to being a college undergraduate--a relative nobody--and on to the challenge of the intense need for the manifested relative maturity required in the new and demanding environment.
I favor macro-perspectives. The major issues of this group are the major issues of all humans: THE Existential Question "What am I do to," and the pan-species matter of fairness. It is in addressing the matter of Fairness that the paths and avenues for achieving resolution of all other issues are achieved (including self-concept, maturity, etc.)
This matter of Fairness is ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE in higher education, and especially at the undergraduate level. One need not be a sociologist, and only a relatively casual observer of the affairs of humankind, to note the contemporary pervasive orientation towards Unfairness. (This current issue is only an ongoing reflection of the more basal nature of humans as thoroughly reflected throughout history. Yet our current sociocultural "systems" and "leadership" are failing to curb and redirect humankind's more selfish impulses toward greater good, as has occurred in the more luminous and illustrious periods of our ethical/moral history.)
My own experiences (as outlined in my resume and as discussed in part in my "Observations of Management and Leadership"*) as I achieved higher levels of responsibility and obligation (to others and to society) was that those around me, and particularly those above me, were on a personal turkey-shoot for money, power, prestige--and particularly unfair advantage in any and all arenas. Clearly, the "Iron Law of Oligarchy" is not mislabeled.
Such experiences reflect in a sense that of Isaac Asimov regarding the Mensa Society. He noted that it is populated with individuals with the same frailties, foibles, fads and foolishness as the general population, notwithstanding the high IQs.
This is certainly not an original issue with me, nor Asimov. Note Jacob Bronowski's The Ascent of Man. To wit:
What did these three men and their books mean--the works of Hippocrates,
More's Utopia, The Praise of Folly by Erasmus? To me, this is the democracy
of the intellect; and that is why Erasmus and Frobenius and Sir Thomas More
stand in my mind as gigantic landmarks of their time. The democracy of the
intellect comes from the printed book, and the problems that it set from the
year 1500 have lasted right down to the student riots of today. What did Sir
Thomas More die of? He died because his king thought of him as a wielder of
power. And what More wanted to be, what Erasmus wanted to be, what
every strong intellect wants to be, is a guardian of integrity. (p. 429)
And, "Someone once said that a mind becomes a detriment when it acquires more intelligence than its integrity can handle." (From The Kaisho, a novel by Eric Lustbader. New York: Picket Books, 1993, p. 315)
Our particular/specific problem is that our sociocultural institutions are all falling victim to our current orientation to the "rat race," and, as has been observed, "The only trouble with the rat race is that the rats are winning."
The rats are winning, or have won, in government, in business, in religion (most sadly), and even (debatably) in the family. Education has faltered in its orientation toward athletics, toward money and power, and even in the soft-love grading practices pursuant to the Vietnam war and a troubled economy/job market. Here, of course, we have the classic case of a second Wrong trying to make a Right--a case of humankind trying to "unlearn" yet again (a la Carl Sandburg).
Yet I hold out this (quite possibly) naive hope for Education as Savior. If Education does not man the bastions of Integrity--WHAT institution will?
How does one LEARN NOT to do the wrong thing? How does one learn that Utilitarianism still vies for the hearts and minds of humans in an increasingly bipolar society with one-in-five children being raised below the poverty level--yet with $1 million yachts and $5 million dwellings strung side-by-side along A1A Lauderdale, to Michigan Avenue, Chicago, to Aspen (save the yachts), to Lake Tahoe, to El Cami- no Real/ Carmel-Monterey? Yes, "...beautiful...from sea to shining sea." Forget about the pov-er-ty.
Through EDUCATION! This is the answer to the rhetorical question: THIS is how one LEARNS. THEN, at the Existential Moment--when and if one is duty bound to make a decision and/or ACT--one might at least ponder FAIRNESS.
Yes, it's education through which one OUGHT encounter Kant's Categorical Imperative and Practical Imperative: of doing such that it ought be required of all; and of treating humans as ends, never as means only; of the pure conception that the ONLY thing of intrinsic value is GOOD WILL. ("The devil is in the details.")
This is why--all of this is why--I favor undergraduate education. My initial "career track" was as a researcher, either in a "think tank/research mill," or a university, and if dealing with students at all, then graduate students. But it is not graduate school which develops the humans necessary in a democracy! (As Will and Ariel Durant observe in The Lessons of History, when we made ourselves sovereign, we failed to concurrently make ourselves intelligent. Or, if you believe in the pluralistic orientation to power, when we made ourselves powerful, we failed to concurrently make ourselves sensitive.)
Implementing any of this, the implicit orientations of the above, isn't done with, say, a required course or seminar on ethics--as is being done in, say, medical and law schools (or as might be done at Stanford following their overhead fraud against the taxpayers).
It is done by making FAIRNESS an INTEGRAL, IMPLICIT and EXPLICIT keystone of our social institutions. IF FAIRNESS is pulled-out, as with a literal keystone relative to its arch, then the entire structure SHOULD/OUGHT fall. And institutions are only abstractions of organizations.
Give any person, particularly a young person, a fair deal, and that person will learn and grow. And possibly develop the insight, sensitivity, and empathy to SHARE--when the time comes. My approach, then, to address such issues would be to create--within my purview--an environment conducive to such experience and learning. This follows the management precept that one does not influence people directly for the long term. One can only create an environment which, in the long run, influences people. (As our current negative sociocultural environment is now doing.)
Honest, loyal, trustworthy. Integrity beyond reproach. (J. Fleming, General Manager, The Springfield Hilton, 8/90)
Exceeded all expectations. Exceptionally creative. Understand quickly, plan clearly, execute surely. Unmatched verbal and written skills. Success directly due to your dedication, diligence, experience, knowledge. (C. Steigerwald, President, Communications Alliance, Inc., 5/90)
Outstanding ability to make things happen. True leader, avid reader, thinker, action director. Overcame all barriers and obstacles to success. Interacted with people and paper as long as necessary. Fortitude, courage, great devotion to duty and outcomes, and intellectual honesty. (Jerry Metzger, EdD, Manager of Administration, Training Institute, IL State government, 12/88)
Excellent cooperation and direction. Quality product. (J. Gust, Contract Administrator, IL State government, 3/87)
Spent many long days and nights setting up our marketing, analyzing our problems, and correcting our method of presentation. Many valuable marketing tools. Tremendous intensity. Inspired other people to work harder. (Chris Simone, Vice President, FLH Construction Managers, Inc., 2/86)
Drive, ambition, ability, and absolute integrity. (Chet Ortley, M/Sgt, USMC ret, 10/84)
Unique talents. Solid behavioral research. Understands research conceptualizing, data collection, analysis, interpretation and application. (R. Michielutte, PhD, Sr. Research Scientist, Bowman Gray School of Medicine, 11/81)
Outstanding service. Developed and maintained an excellent line of communication. (Gene Neville, Empire State Association of Adult homes, 8/79)
High caliber initiative, judgment, management. (K. Eriksen, Deputy Commissioner, NY State Government, 9/78)
Appreciable effort, devotion to responsibility and accomplishments. (Larry Kolb, MD, Commissioner, NY State Department of Mental Hygiene--DMH--12/76)
Cut through bureaucracy that generally makes programs nonfunctional. (W. Werner, MD, Director, Creedmore Psychiatric Center, DMH, 12/76)
Ability to organize. Great improvement in records, facility control. (F. O'Neill, MD, QA Review, DMH, 11/76)
Manager par excellence, as is your reputation. (A. Arnold, MD, Associate Commissioner, DMH, 11/76)
Ability to organize and direct complicated projects with attention to detail and consistent recognition of goals. (S. Jaffee, Associate Commissioner, New York State Department of Social Services--DSS--5/76)
Herculean accomplishment. Dedicated work on difficult projects. Initiative, competence and timeliness in planning and execution. (A. Levine, Commissioner, DSS, 1/74, 7,9/75)
Knowledge and ability made my work a pleasure. (G. Russo, Deputy Commissioner, DSS, 12/74)
Human directives from the state department. (A. Harrison, Director, Otsego Co. DSS, 8/75)
Direct, clear bulletins answering questions. (E. Cook, Program Manager, Genessee Co. DSS, 7/75)
Ran one department where I could get answers. (S. Kimiecik, Commissioner., Chenango Co. DSS, 7/75)
Responsible for many improvements and advancements. (J. Reed, Commissioner, Monroe Co. DSS, 7/75)
Insurmountable barriers removed. For the first time, a positive working relationship. Unique leadership, managerial skills and a deep personal commitment to the resolution of problems. (T. Donovan, Assoc. Admin., Post Institutional Services Planning Section, DSS, 6/75)
Remarkable understanding of systems, training techniques and human nature while conducting this training. (P. DiSturco, Regional Planning Officer, Region II Social Security Administration, DHEW, 4/73)
Take it as a given, students seldom write letters to their teachers, either in praise or in blame. Therefore, I am honored by such received.
I took sociology the second time because I think your attitude and outlook are fantastic. I really do think you have helped me in a lot of ways. (Gibbs Hastey, University of Georgia, Thomasville Center, 6/12/69)
Best teacher I ever had. Course became real. used examples from everyday life. Always willing to talk, answer questions, and listen. (Bruce Lovett, SUNY/Albany, NY 4/80)
You are a very thoughtful person. I'm glad you were my first college teacher. You have given me the courage to continue. (Shelly Powell, Wor-Wic Community College--hereinafter W--1/15/93)
Your faith in me is greatly appreciated. . . personally inspiring. You were a great instructor. (Maria Cook, W, 1/27/93)
I'll remember: "An education is something no one can ever take away from you." Thank you for your enthusiasm and inexhaustible ideas and resources. (Andrew Perry, W, 11/28/93)
I've learned a lot this semester. Thank you for a job well done. You have the right chemistry for teaching and a good method of innovativeness to keep students motivated to work harder. (Alfonso Bowens, University of Maryland Eastern Shore--hereinafter UMES--11/30/93)
Thank you for helping me with my life improvements. (Tracie Callis, W, 1/11/94)
Thank you for your time during the semester, and the walk-the-walk, not talk-the-talk, demonstration of "to thine own self be true." You are probably one of the few people I have ever had the pleasure to met who could be called anything close to "self-actualized." It was not only Philosophy that you taught me. (Robin Cox,W,1//8/94)
I'd love you as much if I hadn't taken Philosophy after Sociology with you. But your Philosophy course did more for me than you will ever know. (Doug Howard, W, 2/19/94)
I got more out of your class than any others, and I am still reaping the rewards. I learned more than a subject or a bunch of names, I've learned to think for myself, for my own well being. I've become both passional and rational. Thank you. (Mike McGowan, W, 2/4/94)
Thank you for an illuminating experience with ideas, alias Philosophy. It was an initiation into an entirely new world for me. I shall never forget your impact on my life. (Marylee Ross, W, 4/14/94)
Just wanted you to know how much I enjoyed your class. Always interesting. (Michelle Frattaroli, W, 4/26/94)
I enjoyed your Sociology class, and appreciated the motivation, caring, and zeal you possessed. You are really intelligent, and I wish we had had more time for conversation. (Ebony Kelly, UMES, 5/2/94)
Thanks for the experience gained from your class. (Ellen Steudle, W, 5/12/94)
Thank you for your many generosities, your wonderfully exegetic teaching style. You make the study of Philosophy not only challenging but interesting and understandable. And thank you for your constant encouragement and caring personality. (Linda Delaney, W, 6/28/94)
You have enlightened us with your stories, enriched us with our knowledge, taught us to respect others and ourselves, never to compromise ourselves, and to not assume the easy way out. You have given us strength and courage to master a difficult task. You have shown us that life is too short, and that we all must take the time to smell the roses. But most of all, you have shown us that friendship, fairness, understanding and respect are still alive. From all of your students, we believe that you are a winner! (Class card, W, Spring, 1994)
Thank you for being the most interesting professor I've ever had. (Shavon Ringold, W, 12/16/95)
The following are anonymous instructor evaluation comments in string format.
Good teacher, attitude. interesting and energetic. Not boring and motivating. ENERGY. Enthusiastic, interesting. Super when you left the room, and had former students tell us what the course would be like--from a students' perspective. Great personality. Kept me on my toes the whole session. It seems overwhelming, but you make it make sense. Humor. Different approach. Clear language. Relaxed atmosphere. Entertaining. An interesting educational experience. Appreciate being able to met with the class and vote on important aspects. Openness. Got my cognitive juices flowing. Clear and straight- forward. All was explained in detail. Effort to make us students comfortable with teacher and subject. You seemed really excited about the class and the subject. Funny. Feedback asked for from us students at the end. Active speaker. Not boring. Always hoped for a teacher with a personality like yours. Great teacher. I believe I will remember you long after I forget everything else. To learn is to live. Knowledge is power. You treat us like people and not just like students. Like your point about not liking being treated unfairly; you treated us fairly. Was a trippin' class. Dynamite!
(I apologize to students who have written during the past few years for not updating this page with your comments. Please do not feel that I am not appreciative--just busy.)
I have rarely been recognized or rewarded for doing the right thing. In fact, I have most often been punished for it. Concurrently, I have seen those doing the wrong thing reap much recognition and reward. (This is reminiscent of Holden Caulfield in The Catcher in the Rye upon his apprehension by the teacher for doing graffiti when, in fact, he was undoing graffiti.)
Yet, for all this experience, I cannot bring myself to do the wrong thing, regardless of the potential rewards. I believe that I share with Immanuel Kant (1724-1804, "the Scot from Konigsberg," i.e., one with a Scot mentality in German academia--a hard intellect if ever there was one) an intuitive moral sense. Kant observed that two things intrigued him, one being the workings of the physical universe, and, two, the moral sense within himself. He concluded that since the physical universe worked on laws that there must be laws of the moral universe.
Technically, Kant's is termed a deontological ethic, and in most circles the deontological ethic, meaning that the right/good/moral is what is covered by a rule which one can endorse for everyone to follow. Kant's laws number four (and are variously phrased depending on the translation of the many iterations he provided).
The first law is the Categorical Imperative: "Act as if the maxim of thy act were to become by thy will a universal law of nature." This is to say, act in such a way that you would approve of the consequences if everyone had to follow your example.
The second law is the Practical Imperative: "Treat every man as an end in himself, and never as a means only." The brilliance of this idea is that Kant concedes that, yes, we do treat others as means out of necessity, but we should never treat others as a means only.
The third law: "The only thing of intrinsic value is good will." The notion here is that in any society there are innumerable ways through which one can lie, cheat, and/or steal, and particularly in a legalistic ("legalese") society such as ours, there are many ways to do wrong things under the letter--if not the spirit--of the law (applicable statute). If, however, one carries in one's heart the intent to do the right thing, the right thing will be found to do, even in the absence of a guiding maxim.
The fourth law: "Do your duty." This duty is largely defined by the Categorical Imperative. Such things as self-regard, self-sympathy, self-pity, or what others may tell you to do--in fact, even as you may be ordered to do in some circumstances--and surely any sort of personal gain are not morally responsible nor respectable motives. One knows what one's moral duty is intuitively, and one must/ought do it. In this last law, Kant goes against the weight of most philosophy which holds for happiness as the highest virtue. In effect, Kant says screw your happiness, do your duty. You are not given the leeway to rationalize yourself out of doing the right thing.
Given my experiences in/of life, my favorite philosopher is Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), the most pessimistic of philosophers. (Kant is my second favorite, for as Will Durant holds, one cannot be a philosopher without first being a Kantian.) Schopenhauer observations include:
Of how many a man may it not be said that hope made a fool of him until he danced in the arms of death.
There is no doubt that life is given us, not to be enjoyed, but to be overcome-to be got over.
It is a fine thing to say defunctus est; it means that a man has done his task.
There follows (from Parerga and Paralipomena, 1851--unless otherwise annotated) a collection of Schopenhauer observations. . . .
The word of man is the most durable of all material.
Honor has not to be won; it must only not be lost.
Hatred is an affair of the heart; contempt that of the head.
Obstinacy is the result of the will forcing itself into the place of the intellect.
The brain may be regarded as a kind of parasite of the organism, a pensioner, as it were, who dwells with the body.
Reading is equivalent to thinking with someone else's head instead of with one's own.
The fundament upon which all our knowledge and learning rests is the inexplicable.
Because people have no thoughts to deal in, they deal cards, and try and win one another's money. Idiots!
In our monogamous part of the world, to marry means to halve one's rights and double one's duties.
Every parting gives a foretaste of death, every reunion a hint of the resurrection.
Patriotism, when it wants to make itself felt in the domain of learning, is a dirty fellow who should be thrown out of doors.
National character is only another name for the particular form which the littleness, perversity and baseness of mankind take in every country. Every nation mocks at other nations, and all are right.
In the sphere of thought, absurdity and perversity remain the masters of the world, and their dominion is suspended only for brief periods.
"On the Wisdom of Life: Aphorisms." Quoted in: Selected Essays (1851; tr. by T. Bailey Saunders).
All the cruelty and torment of which the world is full is in fact merely the necessary result of the totality of the forms under which the will to live is objectified.
Nature shows that with the growth of intelligence comes increased capacity for pain, and it is only with the highest degree of intelligence that suffering reaches its supreme point.
Rascals are always sociable-more's the pity! and the chief sign that a man has any nobility in his character is he little pleasure he takes in others' company.
The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively, not by the false appearance things present and which mislead into error, not directly by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice.
Newspapers are the second hand of history. This hand, however, is usually not only of inferior metal to the other hands, it also seldom works properly.
Money is human happiness in the abstract: he, then, who is no longer capable of enjoying human happiness in the concrete devotes his heart entirely to money.
Buying books would be a good thing if one could also buy the time to read them in: but as a rule the purchase of books is mistaken for the appropriation of their contents.
We can come to look upon the deaths of our enemies with as much regret as we feel for those of our friends, namely, when we miss their existence as witnesses to our success.
Great minds are related to the brief span of time during which they live as great buildings are to a little square in which they stand: you cannot see them in all their magnitude because you are standing too close to them. As the biggest library if it is in disorder is not as useful as a small but well-arranged one, so you may accumulate a vast amount of knowledge but it will be of far less value to you than a much smaller amount if you have not thought it over for yourself.
A man's face as a rule says more, and more interesting things, than his mouth, for it is a compendium of everything his mouth will ever say, in that it is the monogram of all this man's thoughts and aspirations.
Each day is a little life: every waking and rising a little birth, every fresh morning a little youth, every going to rest and sleep a little death.
That the outer man is a picture of the inner, and the face an expression and revelation of the whole character, is a presumption likely enough in itself, and therefore a safe one to go on; borne out as it is by the fact that people are always anxious to see anyone who has made himself famous. . . . Photography . . . offers the most complete satisfaction of our curiosity.
Just as the largest library, badly arranged, is not so useful as a very moderate one that is well arranged, so the greatest amount of knowledge, if not elaborated by our own thoughts, is worth much less than a far smaller volume that has been abundantly and repeatedly thought over.
Suicide may also be regarded as an experiment-a question which man puts to Nature, trying to force her to answer. The question is this: What change will death produce in a man's existence and in his insight into the nature of things? It is a clumsy experiment to make; for it involves the destruction of the very consciousness which puts the question and awaits the answer.
How very paltry and limited the normal human intellect is, and how little lucidity there is in the human consciousness, may be judged from the fact that, despite the ephemeral brevity of human life, the uncertainty of our existence and the countless enigmas which press upon us from all sides, everyone does not continually and ceaselessly philosophize, but that only the rarest of exceptions do.
The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1993 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
The distinguished philosopher Gabriel Marcel, who is in many ways himself deeply affiliated with the existentialist tradition, remarked some years ago that "not a day passes without someone (generally a woman of culture, but perhaps a janitor or a streetcar conductor) asking me what Existentialism is." But, as he said, "No one will be surprised that I evade the question. I reply that it is too difficult or too long to explain." Yet, in the way of formal definition, perhaps all that need be said is simply that the existentialist tradition embraces that body of twentieth-century thought and literature which finds its center cluster of ideas descending from Kierkegaard and Nietzsche.
In order of these ideas, priority is claimed by the conception of the world as a place inaccessible, unintelligible, absurd--and from which, therefore, man is estranged. The hero of Franz Kafka's novel The Trial awakens one morning to find himself under sudden arrest for an unspecified crime; or again, the protagonist of his long story "Metamorphosis" finds himself on a certain morning suddenly transformed into a gigantic beetle. And the world which is portrayed in these and others of Kafka's fictions--in its impenetrable mystery, in its absolute ambiguity--figures forth something of that sense of reality which is characteristic of the existentialist imagination. For it is a mode of reflection which takes the fundamental human experience to be one of exclusion, of being shut out, of being unable to find, in the world into which one has been "thrown," any place of safety or principle of meaning.
And it is the sense of man as a creature estranged--and as therefore locked up within his loneliness and solitude--which leads to the second major theme of existentialist thought: namely, the stress upon the subjectivity of truth. Since the world will not yield up its inner secrets and since man is, therefore, unaccommodated, the existentialist thinker concludes that the principal focus of all serious reflection must be man himself, and his passionate search for the true foundations of life. Given the inaccessibility of the world, it will avail nothing, in other words, to seek after any sort of "objective" truth, to aspire toward knowledge of that which is independent of human existence itself. The important thing, in short, is not the abstract universality of any system of objective ideas, for reality is too slippery to be caught by such a net; no, the important thing is that which I find sustaining of my life--and the only sort of truth that really matters is a truth which is "existential," which is "subjective," a truth that I have earned and which is therefore mine.
It is the emphasis on the essential solitude of man, as he faces an alien universe, which leads to what is a third theme of existentialist thought--namely, the definition of the basic human task as one of achieving an authentic life. What is basically at stake here is the notion that, given the uncertainty and insecurity which so largely constitute the human condition, there is little chance of man's surviving at all unless he can summon the requisite courage. But courage is a virtue painfully and expensively attained; and thus man is constantly tempted to try to escape the arduous solitariness of a truly authentic life by seeking refuge in the social collective, by submerging himself in the routines and customs of what Kierkegaard called "the public." But, as he never tired of pointing out, such stratagems finally lead only to a deepening of despair; and thus in his writings, and in the existentialist literature generally, we not only get a definition of the human norm in terms of "authenticity" but we also get an anatomy of the various forms of "inauthenticity" represented by mass culture.
A fourth existentialist theme, which is a correlate of these already set forth, concerns the scene or setting of authentic existence as being what the German existentialist Karl Jaspers calls the "extreme situation." Kierkegaard and Nietzsche and the various important existentialists of our own time are all in agreement in holding this to be the basic milieu of human life, when it is being experienced with real seriousness and intensity. Certain significant differences, it is true, mark the characterizations given by various writers of what life is like "on the boundary." But the existentialists do all tend to agree that we do not begin to discover what is means to be human until we are brought up short against the great limiting realities of suffering and guilt, or sorrow and disappointment and death. For it is only when we have felt the sting of some radical failure, or blighted hopes and foundered purposes, of some misfortune that is sheer, unmitigated woe--it is only then that we begin, in any deep way, to appreciate our human finitude, how frail and unsheltered and vulnerable we are before the vicissitudes of life. And to be without any experience of extremity is to lack a certain necessary equipment (or wisdom and maturity) apart from which no really authentic life can be achieved.
Then, finally, there is a fifth testimony that existentialists tend to make, which belongs not so much to the substance of their message as to their sense of what ought to be characteristic of the style of serious discourse, and here the stress is on "indirect communication." What is being asserted, in effect, is that he who "thinks existentially"--with the passion of personal immediacy--is attempting, at bottom, to make sense of his own life, to find a way of ordering his own experience of the world. But one cannot contain the vital reality of one's own selfhood within the simple syllogisms of logic, and certainly the world itself is too slippery, too elusive, to be captured by any straightforwardly direct and logical proposition. So, therefore, when the existentialist thinker undertakes to communicate with others, he will not undertake to build a system or to employ with any great consistence the methods of direct exposition: instead, his stratagem will be that of indirect communication. Both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche used a great variety of pseudonyms and poetic devices, and contemporary existentialists like Camus and Sartre, in addition to their philosophic essays, have written plays and novels and stories--the purpose of this whole effort being not primarily that of setting forth a body of doctrine but of plunging us into the existentialist experience, of nostalgia and anguish, of alienation and extremity.
Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm, 1844-1900, German philosopher. An individualistic moralist rather than a systematic philosopher, influenced by SCHOPENHAUER and by his early friendship with Richard WAGNER, he passionately rejected the "slave morality" of Christianity for a new, heroic morality that would affirm life. Leading this new society would be a breed of supermen whose "will to power" would set them off from the "herd" of inferior humanity. His writings, e.g., Thus Spake Zarathustra (1883-91) and Beyond Good and Evil (1886), were later used as a philosophical justification for NAZI doctrines of racial and national superiority; most scholars, however, regard this as a perversion of Nietzsche's thought.
Schopenhauer, Arthur, 1788-1860, German philosopher. A solitary figure who failed to rival HEGEL as a lecturer in Berlin, he considered himself the successor of KANT but equated Kant's "thing-in-itself" with a blind impelling force manifesting itself in individuals as the will to live. Schopenhauer saw the world as a constant conflict of individual wills resulting in frustration and pain. Pleasure is simply the absence of pain and can be achieved only through the renunciation of desire (a concept that reflects Schopenhauer's studies of Hindu scripture). His most important work is The World as Will and Representation (1818). His doctrine of the primacy of the will influenced NIETZSCHE and FREUD.
************************************************************************
GGL ADDNOTES:
The first theme above, and to some degree the second and third, are reflected in the expression "Nothing matters, everything counts."
The fourth theme above, the import of the "extreme situation" in achieving an authentic human life, is reflected in this William Soroyan quote: "The person who is integrated from never having known disintegration, honest from never having needed not to be, virtuous from never having been tempted, is neutral, and slightly less than human."
Schopenhauer, clearly "the most pessimistic of all philosophers," is Glennie's favorite. Here are a couple of Schopenhauer quotes. "Of how many a man may it not be said that hope made a fool of him until he danced in the arms of death." And, "It is a fine thing to say defunctus est. It means that a man has done his task."
The method of Existentialism is phenomenology. In its strictly Existential sense, this method implies that one cannot know anything unless one is involved immediately and personally--and passionately--with it. Hence, no matter how many game and player records one knows, no matter how many games one has seen, one does not know the sport unless one has played the sport for real.
************************************************************************
phenomenology (fî-nòm´e-nòlıe-jê), modern school of philosophy founded by Edmund HUSSERL, who attempted to develop a philosophical method devoid of presuppositions by focusing purely on phenomena and elucidating their meaning through intuition. Anything that cannot be perceived, and thus is not immediately given to the consciousness, is excluded. The influence of phenomenology was strong, especially on EXISTENTIALISM.
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
Management consulting is the exercise and application of expertise, experience, and perspective for the benefit of a client. On a fee-for-service basis, a management consultant strives to determine, report, and, if required, to act upon truth and reality. A management consultant is both cognitive and active toward task.
A consultant absolutely, completely, totally, and fully serves the client. No confidences or secrets are ever betrayed in any way.
A consultant does not front for other services or products, and does not recommend such based on personal or financial interest.
A management consultant is such by dint of personality and character even more than by education, training, and experience. An academic degree, any academic degree, does not a consultant make.
By personality and character, a management consultant is a "king-maker." Altruism is a major trait of the consultant's character. ("It's amazing what gets done when one cares not who gets credit.")
A management consultant is objective, impartial, and independent. "I can serve you best by being for and about you, but not of you."2
The true consultant does not contractually bind the client beyond reasonable needs. The consultant is free to say, "I have done all I can." The client is free to say, "You have done all I can use."
Homer: Greece, 9th Century B.C.
Glenn G. Loveland
1An individual or organization which has not thought-out its basic values--and who/which is not clear, sure, steadfast, consistent and eloquent about them--cannot be whole, real, true, nor trusted.
2Peter Drucker shows this orientation in his autobiographical The Adventures of a Bystander. Albert Einstein had a parable of the bears. For the bears to know what they are doing in a pit, one bear must climb up to the pit rim and observe, reflect, and think. The bear needs pit-duty, but cannot figure out what is truly going on while within the pit.
To the Editor:
"Community Colleges Wonder Whether They Can Keep Doors Open to All" brings to mind Will and Ariel Durant's Lessons of History (page 79): "If equality of educational opportunity can be established, democracy will be real and justified."
If community colleges fail in their mission, it will not only be particular students and organizations that fail, it will be the failure of our (already seriously flawed) institution of democracy itself.
Glenn G. Loveland
Instructor of Philosophy and Sociology
Wor-Wic Tech Community College
Salisbury, Md.
"Community Colleges Wonder Whether They Can Keep Doors Open to All" (July 21, 1993) brings to mind Will and Ariel Durant's Lessons of History, page 79: "If equality of educational opportunity can be established, democracy will be real and justified."
The community college isn't just a stop-gap, fail-safe and last resort for students. The community college is a vouchsafe for democracy. If community colleges fail in their mission, it will not only be particular students and organizations that fail, it will be the failure of our (already seriously flawed) institution of democracy itself.
It's now Wor-Wic Community College (sans Tech), as my letter originally indicted.
The following presents my orientations toward the study and the practice of leadership. I tend to equate leadership and management, however, analytically, while all management is leadership, not all leadership is management. To concretely state my orientations, the following might well sum it up: 1) Management is primarily a moral pursuit and, therefore, is Value-laden (this to the extent and degree that every manager ought aspire to being a "philosopher-king"; 2) Management is much more art than science; 3) A manager's understanding of him/herself and of the human condition/situation is his/her primary tool and vehicle; 4) Mankind's systems for developing, selecting and elevating managers/leaders tend to favor the more neurotic and power-oriented among the group, this at the expense of and detriment to the group itself and the TRUE potential leaders in its midst. This aspect is primarily due to mankind's basic insecurities and weak ego functioning, which, as Drucker observes, favors manner over substance, show over reality.
Generally, while not completely so, my orientations lead to a form of psychological reductionist leaning, in that the PERSONALITY ("predisposition to think and act in certain ways") of the manager/ leader is of paramount importance. My orientation toward change, however, is Moralist (change people--which I see as naive in that human beings have been virtually the same for untold eons), but Reformist--meaning that the systems must change. As well, a Moralist orientation ignores the fact that already within any human group there are TRUE leaders--the systems are just not culling them out and elevating them.
Relative to the above, my study and research interests lie in what might first appear to be bipolar areas, but which areas are the juncture of sociology and psychology as in the discipline of social psychology, to wit: 1) What ARE the personality/character traits of "true" leaders?; 2) What sorts of social systems have been developed in the past, and what sorts could be developed now, which would enable the group to utilize "true" leaders?, and; 3) How can the group nurture and develop more "true" leaders?
Same of the fascinating sub-sets (to me, at least) of the above relate to the argument as to whether leadership evolves from "greatness", as in the "great man" or "hero" orientation, or whether the primary reality is that certain people are able to rise to the occasion, as is often held of Churchill and Truman, for example. Also, all of the above leads to a powerful curiosity regarding just WHERE our current bureaupathological careerist orientation is taking us as a society. Such matters clearly relate to the macro orientations of functionalist and conflict theories within sociology.
As regards the interactionist, or micro theoretical orientation, areas of interest include the forms and sorts of "performances" (Goffman) a manager/leader engages in. Here, my orientation is that a manager/leader must do such--in many ways "inventing him/herself" in a real-life drama, but that such creations must be truly a part/parcel of the self/personality of the actor. In management development/training, for instance, I counsel that a manager may adopt many performances, all of which might achieve the desired result, but that the manager cannot "sell" any performance which is not a true part of him/herself, one which is totally imagined and "made out of whole cloth."
For example, in It Doesn't Take A Hero, we "see" General Schwarzkopf at various times in various situations using his size, his rank, his sensitivity, his gift-for-gab, his charm, his knowledge, and his temper to achieve his ends (and all well-and-good as long as his ends serve to better the group). In all of this, except for the truly intense times he "locked horns" with General Powell, one senses his own humor and sense of theatrics in his own actions. In this and other such accounts, one wonders how much rational-cognitive "role-taking" was involved to plan the means-ends scenario, or how much of it was simply intuitive and "natural."
As a personal note, the above interests and orientations began when, as a lad of nine years of age on the New Jersey beachfront, I began earning money cleaning beaches and doing yard work, maintenance and light construction for corporate executives (all presidents and vice-presidents) at their summer estates (Mantoloking and Bay Head, if you know the area). My own relatives on both sides of the family were all notable or renown for various accomplishments, and I found the wealthy beachfront owners, all from "old line" Philadelphia, also to be exceptional people, especially William J. Meinel, President of Heintz Manufacturing, By the time I was fifteen, I had a dozen estates for which I did virtually all the maintenance, repair and light construction, and I kept this business going year-round to the extent possible, with particular effort during summers, up to the end of my masters-level education. Needless to say, I continued to learn from these early employers and early mentors, especially, again, Mr. Meinel, who particularly wished me to became an industrialist. (I've analyzed and written about these experiences. In particular, when I told Mr. Meinel that I planned to study sociology, psychology, and philosophy--and not engineering--he clearly telegraphed, then restrained, an impulse to strike me. He then said, "You think through a task, you do it, and you keep checking on it to make sure it's right, You should be an engineer, an industrialist. You are a fool.")
Entering graduate school, l, was again fortunate to be closely mentored by Dr. Charles M. Grigg, Dean and Director of the Institute for Social Research, for whom I was a project manager while a student. [I was Dr. Grigg's assistant for planning sessions to set up the (then) new Florida International University, managed a major four-state (Florida, Arkansas, West Virginia and New Jersey) federally-funded follow-up evaluation study, implemented several turnarounds of problem-projects, edited external faculty communications, and wrote an Institute-wide "Interviewer Training Manual," for instance.]
And so on, as presented in my resume. A point I wish you to not miss is that at age fifty-five, I embody fully forty-six years of work experience--and all the learning and thinking I could capture from all of it.
In my life, I have maintained the same standards I learned early an. To cite General Tom Weinstein, quoted in It Doesn't Take A Hero (page 72):
Schwarzkopf:
How come you're not a careerist? Why try to live by moral and ethical standards other people don't have?
Weinstein:
When I entered West Point I was a little Jewish boy from New Jersey and I didn't know a damn thing. During the four years there, you remember all that shit they taught us? Well, I really believed it.
Schwarzkopf concludes this, the end of Chapter 5, with, "So did I"
Another quote with which I strongly identify in this book is what Schwarzkopf felt when he was in a bad work situation. He writes, "I told myself over and over that I'd been lucky with bosses in the past that that I'd be lucky again." (page 218)
As I have had more experiences in varied situations across my worklife, I have seen an incredible decline in the integrity and ability of our "leaders/managers" with whom I have come in contact. Such contacts include being threatened. being offered bribes, being outright lied-to by very high level federal government officials, and--while while not having a "smoking gun"--being close enough to the odor of powder to know that I have been quite close to, if not in the midst of, highly corrupt people and organizations.
I don't know if we are doomed as a society and people, or not. I hope, as Sandburg puts it, that we will "lean again" (unfortunately, only to "unlearn" again). The "leadership crisis" of the 1950s experience and literature was not solved/resolved, and our values and activities during the 1980s--the decade of "let's make a deal"--fully, totally, and completely belied our responsibilities as trustees for and of ourselves, our planet, our values, and the future generations.
Following is a favored collection of quotes, including and concluding with some of y further thoughts, regarding management and leadership.
The rights of man are not rights to office and power, but the rights of entry into every avenue that may nourish and test a man's fitness for office and power. A right is not a gift of God or Nature but a privilege which it is good for the group that the individual should have.
Will and Ariel Durant, The Lessons of History , page 79
The people learn, unlearn, learna builder, a wrecker, a builder again,
a juggler of shifting puppets.
In so few eyeblinks
In transition lightning streaks,
the people project midgets into giants,
the people shrink titans into dwarfs.
Faiths blow on the winds
and become shibboleths
and deep growths
with men ready to die
for a living word on the tongue,
for a light alive in the bones,
far dreams fluttering in the wrists.
For liberty and authority they die
though one is fire and the other water
and the balances of freedom and discipline
are a moving target with changing decoys.
Revolt and terror pay a price.
Order and law have a cost.
What is this double use of fire and water?
Where are the rulers who know this riddle?
On the fingers of one hand you can number them.
How often has a governor of the people first
learned to govern himself?
The free man willing to pay and struggle and die
for the freedom for himself and others
Knowing how far to subject himself to discipline
and obedience for the sake of an ordered society
free from tyrants, exploiters
and legalized frauds--
This free man is a rare bird and when you meet
him take a good look at him and try
to figure him out because
Some day when the United States of the Earth
gets going and runs smooth and pretty there
will be more of him than we now have.
Carl Sandburg, "The People, Yes #87"
. . .Civilization means, above all, an unwillingness to inflict unnecessary pain. Within the gambit of that definition, those of us who heedlessly accept the demands of authority cannot yet claim to be civilized men.. . . Our business, if we desire to live a life not utterly devoid of meaning and significance, is to accept nothing which counteracts our basic experience merely because it comes to us from tradition or convention or authority. It may well be that we shall be wrong; but our self-expression is thwarted at the root unless the certainties we are asked to accept coincide with the certainties we experience. That is why the condition of freedom in any state is always [based upon] a widespread and consistent skepticism of the canons upon which power rests.
Harold J. Laski (1929), The Dangers of Obedience
Man is not unique because he does science, and he is unique not because he does art, but because science and art equally are expressions of his marvelous plasticity of mind.We are nature's unique experiment to make the rational intelligence prove itself sounder than the reflex. Knowledge is our destiny. Self-knowledge, at last bringing together the experience of the arts and the explanations of science, waits ahead of us.
Knowledge is not a loose-leaf notebook of facts. Above all, it is a responsibility for the integrity of what we are, primarily of what we are as ethical creatures. The personal commitment of a man to his skill, the intellectual commitment and the emotional equipment working together as one, has made the Ascent of Man.
Jacob Bronowski, The Ascent of Man
While fealty is demanded, loyalty must be earned.
(Idea) Paul A. Breslin, "'Loyalty is Rarely Used in its Original Sense"
What's obscene is not the use of a few individual foul epithets. What's obscene is the abuse of authority by those in power.
Lenny Bruce
It takes more courage to be a productive bureaucrat than it does to be a military commander in war.
A French Field Marshal
The ones who have been successful thought through what the job was that really had to be done instead of having a program. . . . It is the willingness to say, "What is the assignment?"--not "What do I want to do?" but "What has to be done?" It's a certain demanding of oneself a very high standard, and it's a creation of trust. . . . Leaders have a goal, and the goal is not what they want to do. They start out with the question, "What is needed?" I'm dubious about all this chatter about leadership because what people really want is somebody who substitutes manner for substance.
Peter Drucker in Bill Moyers, A World of Ideas, pages 404-405
I'm frustrated to the point of rage--my files bulge with letters about the power of involvement. Sometimes it's planned. . . sometimes it's inadvertent. But the result is always the same: Truly involved people can do anything!
Tom Peters, Thriving on Chaos, page 345
[T]he human factors [are] the real stuff of management.Theories of management can work in individual companies--but only because they suit the way in which individual men like to act.
But just as no two chefs run their kitchens the same way, no two managers are the same, even if they all went to the same business (or cookery) school. You can teach the rudiments of cooking, as of management, but you can't make a great cook or a great manager. In both activities, you ignore fundamentals at grave risk--but sometimes succeed, In both, science can be extremely useful, but is no substitute for the art itself, In both, inspired amateurs can outdo professionals. . . . In both, practitioners don't need recipes that detail timing down to the last second, ingredients to the last fraction of an ounce, and procedures down to the last flick of the wrist; they need reliable maxims, instructive anecdotes, and no dogmatism.
Robert Heller, The Great Executive Dream, pages 7-11
Business, after all, is nothing more than a bunch of human relationships.
Lee Iacocca, Talking Straight, page 74
I don't want to quote you the old cliché "Management's an art, not a science," but damnit if it isn't the truth. . . . You have to adapt to personalities or you're finished.
op. cit., page 79
Management is a code of values and judgments.
op. cit., page 89
It all depends on peopIe
op. cit., page 253
The degree to which I can create relationships which facilitate the growth of others as separate persons is a measure of the growth I have achieved myself.
Source lost
In the BBC series segment, Jacob Bronowski-Mathematician , Scientist, Philosopher--Human of intellect beyond measure or estimate--walks toward the camera, out of the dark toward the light, through the corridor of the crematorium of Auschwitz. As he walks and speaks, he gently flips shut several of the open doors of the ovens, In (what appears to be) a $1,200 silk suit, he exits the corridor walking toward a pond (camera across). Given his stride and apparent intent, the viewer mentally gasps, "He's NOT going into the muck!" He DOES, and as he crouches, he grasps and squeezes a bit of the muck through his fingers. During this intense visual--the most POWERFUL I've EVER seen--Bronowski delivers the following.
There are two parts to the human dilemma. One is the belief that the end justifies the means. That push-button philosophy, that deliberate deafness to suffering, has became the monster in the war machine. The other is the betrayal of the human spirit: the assertion of dogma that closes the mind, and turns a nation, a civilisation, into a regiment of ghosts--obedient ghosts or tortured ghosts.It is said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That is false, tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave, This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of the gods.
Science is a very human form of knowledge, We are always at the brink of the unknown, we always feel forward for what is to be hoped, Every judgment in science stands on the edge of error, and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible. In the end the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken".
I owe it as a scientist to my friend Leo Szilard, [threatened-of-life by the Nazi regime, as were Max Born, Erwin Schrodinger, Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, Thomas Mann, Bertolt Brecht, Arturo Toscanini, Bruno Walter, Marc Chagall, Enrico Fermi--in this sharing the threat to Galileo and Socrates by other regimes] I owe it as a human being to the many members of my family who died at Auschwitz, to stand here by the pond as a survivor and a witness. We have to cure ourselves of the itch for absolute knowledge and power. We have to close the distance between the push-button order and the human act. We have to touch people. [Each other.]
Jacob Bronowski, The Ascent of Man, pages 370-374
It is a truism that human beings who are very strong intellectually but weak in emotional drives and emotional relationships are singularly ineffective in the world at large. Valuable results flow from the integration of the intellectual activity with the capacity to feel and to relate to other people. Until this integration happens, problem-solving is no good, because there is no way of seeing which are the right problems.
Freeman Dyson, Infinite in All Directions, page 281, Quoting Sir James Lighthill
On the pedagogic "Tree of Knowledge" the "science" of management is preceded in decency of self-establishment only by the "science" of sociology. Both are too prematurely torn from the trunk/womb of philosophy--thinking about things--and management, in particular, fails to honor and take strength and direction for its growth from both philosophy and social science,
For all the efforts of the logical/scientific positivistic/pragmatic elements of our culture to make management a technical/formula~oriented pursuit, this approach is totally wrong-headed, (The McNamara approach to the management of the Vietnam war is an archetypal example of this. In fact, the thinking soldier despises McNamara's command orientation almost as much as he does "Hanoi Jane" Fonda's behavior, as learned from a lecture by James Bond Stockdale.)
Knowledge is NOT the principal thing a manager needs. A manager requires sensitivity to the human condition/situation, a strong set of PERSONAL values, and even a bit of wisdom. A manager who is not well-read and deeply-thought is a threat to his society, a danger to his organization, and a peril to his subordinates. Assuming that "The Good" truly exists, as has been held since probably the First Thinking Man down to Mortimer Adler, and that "The Universe runs on Truth"--the basic logic of both philosophers and astrophysicists-then everyone, and especially those in charge of others, had best pray and work with all their mind, heart, and soul to get lined up with "The True and The Good."
By analogy, as we teach the six steps of the scientific method, we rarely teach how and where the ideas came from in the first place to which these six steps can be applied. (A Nobel-laureate scientist wrote that "Science is the entire use of the mind, no holds barred.") This we teach not, because we know not. The gift of creativity is the most fascinating and complex of human traits, and many hold that it comes from that link by which which are both individual and whole with some force beyond ourselves. And, as any creative mind knows, passion is a major factor of creativity. (The original definition of passion, from the Greek, is "self-inflicted insanity". ) Yet, we do not teach passion either, and, in fact, in the areas wherein creativity and passion are most needed for our very survival, government and business for example, passion is verboten, as if "stick men in suits, ah, so ever in control" could recognize the light, let alone "see the light." (The Beatles' song "Hey Jude" has a line, something like, "He's a fool who plays it cool, by making his world a little colder.")
Management guru Tom Peters argues for passion, as does Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, professor and former chair of Psychology at the University of Chicago, whose work follows from and is in the same genre as work in "peak experience."
Csikszentrnihalyi writes:
... flow--the state in which people are so involved in an activity that nothing else seems to matter; the experience itself is so enjoyable that people will do it even at great cost, far the sheer sake of doing it.
Mihaly Czikszentmihalyi, Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, page 4
The self becomes complex as a result of experiencing flow. Paradoxically, it is when we act freely, for the sake of the action itself rather than for ulterior motives, that we learn to become more than what we were. When we choose a goal and invest ourselves in it to the limits of our concentration, whatever we do will be enjoyable. And once we have tasted this joy, we will redouble our efforts to taste it again. [To this I would add: And share it with others.]
op. cit., page 42
There is no "trick" to high-quality in leadership and high-productivty in management. There is no "formula," no analogy to "method acting". True leadership and management is a highly creative pursuit. Things change and people change: It requires the effort and skill analogous to a lumberjack log-rolling on a stormy river.
A certain mind-set is necessary. This mind-set is that the manager/leader APPRECIATES the opportunity to better the people and things around him/her. The true manager/leader must work toward the ultimate liberation of people and situations, regardless of how much control is initially required to create straightforward systems and a right-thinking group mind. In this regard, it's like parenting: The job is to work yourself out of a job.
INTEGRITY and TRUST are the nutrients of positive organization and personal growth. In this, the nature of the exercise is to keep any and all bad attitudes, wrong-headedness, politics (internal or external), favoritism, corruption, and general stupidity out of the well in the first instance. As with a literal water well, once the poison is in, one plays hell getting it out--if it can be gotten out at all, ("Watergate" was surely only the "tip of the iceberg," and across the near-future we will come to grasp the terrible wrongs now poisoning this society and culture, for instance.)
In all of this, the quest for TRUTH is the engine. Mortimer Adler, in his summa work, Ten Philosophical Mistakes: Basic Errors in Modern Thought--How They Came About, Their Consequences, and How to Avoid Them, begins by quoting his intellectual mentors Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas, respectively: "The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold" and ". . . little errors in the beginning lead to serious consequences in the end."
This truth-business is important all around: the physical and social reality, the bosses, the peers, the staff, and the customers. Yet, there is so much wrong-headedness in the way we perceive and do things! To the extent that management is "ego-suck," it is all too often ego-sucking the boss. The management gurus have argued all along--with Tom Peters now absolutely browbeating on it--that the customer is the one to please. Yet, few argue for the level of intensity required to provide leadership of STAFF.
It has been said that "You can fool the boss, but you can't fool your peers, Ah, the ones you REALLY can't fool are the human beings who comprise your STAFF!
Harvey Mackay in "Lesson 47: Why Nothing Gets Done After You Duck Out Early for the Weekend" of his Beware the Naked Man Who Offers You His Shirt gets at this with a piece which struck me so funny I fell out of my chair, and rolled on the floor laughing with tears running down my face until I had both a headache and a stomach ache. If just more leaders would take it seriously!
Did I say a moment ago, "You aren't running for election"? Well, let's amend that a bit, "You're not running for election on the basis of popularity." How does your dog miraculously know that you are about to take him for a cherished walk when on other occasions your faint stirrings on the couch merely signal a change of channels? The answer is: While you are watching Old Poon only 1 percent of the time, he watches you 99 percent of the time, That's how he makes his living. Your dog is sensitive to your body language. Don't you think you can expect your people to be at least as influenced by your behavior as your dog?If you curse and shout, your managers will curse and shout, If you wear gold chains and a pinkie ring, your sales managers will wear gold chains and a pinkie ring (alas, they might wear them anyway). If you overpromise, they'll overpromise. If you're paternalistic and tolerant of featherbedding, so the people under you will be, too Your behavior will fix it in place long after you're gone. the corporate culture is you.
op. cit. pages 133-134
Mackay, I think, should have also said, "And if you lie, your people will lie, and lie to both the customers and to you."
All of which is a parable of Old Poon (It still cracks me up!) and staff which follows the maxim "As one is led, so one tends to lead."
And the line "The corporate culture is you" triggers another perspective a leader should carry in his/her heart, from Stephen Becker's A Covenant with Death, the concluding paragraph:
Wiggle your fingers, wiggle your toes. Go naked to the market. Rejoice in all mornings. Join hands and kiss. Laugh. Love. If you cannot love, pity. If you cannot pity, have mercy. That man is not your brother: he is you.
Then, there's another Becker, Ernst Becker, who wrote Denial of Death which book analyzed why humankind does good deeds. Years later, toward the end of his life, he was writing Escape from Evil, which analyzes why humankind also does evil even in the effort of doing good, and in the Existential fact of having to do SOMETHING. One of his last requests to his wife was that the manuscript of Escape, which was in his bedside stand, be destroyed. Being a good wife, she collaborated with an associate of Ernst's, and Escape was subsequently published. BOTH Denial and Escape SHOULD/OUGHT be REQUIRED reading for any manager/leader, but it's not part of any MBA program I ever heard of! Which is one of the reasons why the research shows that liberal arts majors make better managers than management majors! (Sorry, I just had to say it.)
From all of this, all the years of THINKING and DOING/DOING and THINKING, (and reading about a book-a-month) I've got a little bit of Sandburgian prose-poetry with which I keep fiddling:
Of all the things which a true manager must do, it is CARE.
Of all the things a manager must cherish, it is integrity.
Of all the things a manager must cultivate, it is trust.
Of all the things a manager must fail-safe, it is the growth of others,
Of all the things a manager must not forget, four remain paramount:
1) Please; 2) Thank you; 3) I'm sorry, and; 4) I give you fair warning.
Of all the things for which a manager must be eternally vigilant, it is the insidious, creeping threat of the Iron Law of Oligarchy.
Of all the things which a manager must understand to the very depth of his soul, it is the distinction between Leadership and Headship.
Of all the things which a manager must not feign, it is knowledge.
Of all the things which a manager must abstain, it is pride.
Of all the things which a manager must disdain, it is unnecessary suffering.
Of all the things which a manager must sustain, it is fairness.
Of all the things which a manager must maintain, it is objectivity.
Of all the things which a manager must retain, it is childlike curiosity.
Of all the things which a manager must remain, it is human.
Glenn G. Loveland
2.2: Epistemology (Theory of Knowledge)
2.3: Free Will versus Determinism
2.5: Political Philosophy (Governance)
2.8: You Want More? (External URL links)
2.0.1: You Think This Course Is A. . . .
This Is An On-Line, Real-Time Existential Experience.
By Another Analogy,
I Am Going To Captain Your Ship.
It's Your Ship--Your Mind.
With Thomas A. Shipka As Our Navigator,
I Am Going To Captain You Through Uncharted Waters Of Your Mind,
Through Mostly Calm Seas, But Possibly Through Some Squalls And Storms.
IF You Do As I Ask--I Cannot Tell, Order, or Make You Do Anything--You Will. . .
Know More Philosophy Than 99.999 % Of All Who Have Ever Lived
Know Thyself Better
Explore Your Mind
Develop Solid Study Habits
Learn How To Learn
Appreciably Increase Your Vocabulary
Participate In A Fair Social System
Have Fun.
(It's Up To You.)
Wor-Wic Introductory Philosophy/Loveland
In Philosophy class, at various points in time, we share ideas about what the reading materials, the ideas therein, mean--what they mean to us. We express the ideas in our own words. This follows Alexander Pope: "Thoughts become clear in passing over the tongue." In this effort, the nature of the exercise is to understand better the course readings. In doing this, sometimes we will overlay our own ideas on the reading material, changing the strict interpretation somewhat. As long as we understand that we are doing so, no harm done. BUT, again, we are working to grasp the text material, not our own ideas.
At other times, we go "blue sky," meaning we just take off and kick around what the material means TO US. The reading material may be the point of departure, the runway, or the launch pad for our own ideas. In that the first injunction of philosophy is "Know thyself," then this is an important part of philosophy, particularly introductory Philosophy, i.e., it's not a graduate level technical exercise.
Yet, the first exercise, UNDERSTANDING THE TEXT MATERIAL, is paramount. Philosophy class isn't "BS class"--which idea I have to disabuse some students of now and then. If it were just a "BS class" then students would leave the course with all the same ideas/attitudes/beliefs with which they came in. They wouldn't have learned anything. Even if students exit with the same ideas, they should have broader and deeper understandings on which to base their ideas, and be better able to verbalize them.
In this process, I like to play, too! And, I've found that if I try to play it neutral, students continue to ask what I think, and if I do not respond, then I am being less than truthful, inauthentic, if you will. So, at various times, relative to specific readings and/or at the end of text Parts, I'll' tell you what I think about the stuff.
But this is EDUCATION, not propaganda. The nature of the exercise is for you to broaden your knowledge and to formulate your own conceptions, not to adopt rnine. (I'm reminded of some graduate students who, either out of respect or out of fear--and possibly out of just not knowing any better--adopted the mannerisms and dress style of their major professors--and sometimes even started smoking the same style pipe, using the same tobacco! The crowd I ran with--iliore independent in nature--thought these mimickers to be childish geeks, the kind of kids we used to slap the crap out of in high school! We also lost respect for professors who would tolerate such blatant apery. Had we tried such foolishness, we assumed our favored professors would have approached us with something like, "If I see you trying to be me one more time, I am going to punch your lights out.")
Therefore, when I share my thoughts (some or most of which you will probably adjudge to be off-the-wall anyway), I entreat, beseech, and implore you to hold in mind the Montaigne quote, used by Eric Hoffer in The True Believer, p. xiii: "All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I should not [be free to] speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
Fall Term 1999
Course: PHL 101-01, Index 248 (3 Credits)
Meets: Monday, Wednesday; 2:30 PM--4:00 PM, AAB 331
Instructor: Glenn G. Loveland, Ph.D.
Text: Shipka, T. A. and Minton, A. J. (1996). Philosophy: Paradox and Discovery (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
This text will be covered in its entirety, at a rate of approximately two (2) class session per chapter, following the procedure discussed below under "Course Requirements" and as per the "Schedule/ Agenda."
This course covers the history of philosophy and addresses the problems of religion, knowledge, reality, morality, and politics as they arise in the thoughts of great Eastern and Western philosophers. Selected issues that underlie personal, social and cultural ferment in the 20th century are explored in the light of Eastern and Western classical philosophy.
This is an Introductory/General/Survey course in Philosophy, the most broad and general area of all thought/ study/learning. The subject matter is Philosophy as a discipline (area of study, body of knowledge, methodology), and the orientations thereof.
The class mode will be primarily interactive/discussive/participatory/dialectic (and somewhat heuristic). This is the "Socratic Method," Socrates arguably being one of the greatest teachers who ever lived, and the mode of most graduate-level seminars, and the mode best reflecting the reality that all "students"--all human beings in "school" and in life--are ultimately responsible for their own learning. This approach is also intended to stimulate INVOLVEMENT, for, as management guru Tom Peters notes:
I'm frustrated to the point of rage--my files bulge with letters about the power of involvement. Sometimes it's planned. .. sometimes it's inadvertent. But the result is always the same: Truly involved people can do anything!
Thriving on Chaos, p. 345
Following the Goals of Wor-Wic Community College (Catalog, "General Information: Goals", p.5), the course will be applicable to both students desiring to meet more or less immediate and concrete career/job ends, and students wishing to continue/further their more general and abstract educational pursuits--not that these ends are separate, distinct, and mutually exclusive.
The course is intended, therefore, to provide students with an orientation toward, and an understanding of, what Philosophy is, its import to life and learning across all ages, its particular import today, a review of the major question-areas of Philosophy, and a survey of thinking/writing/ argument/opinion relative to the five areas.
Upon successful completion of this course, the student should be able to:
1. Explain the rationale/purpose/function of Philosophy in rational thinking/problem-solving
2. Explain the function of Philosophy in "critical thinking"
3. Present/discuss/argue rationally/factually
4. Explain what Philosophy is
5. Describe the import of Philosophy to humankind's pursuits, both the rational and the passional
6. Explain the concept of "objectivity" versus "subjectivity"
7. Explain "Science" vis-a-vis "Art" vis-a-vis "Philosophy"
8. Define the word-concepts of Philosophy.
ATTENDANCE
"If you're not PRESENT to do the job, you have no chance of doing the job." PLEASE make every effort to attend class. PLEASE extend to me the courtesy of letting me know if you must be absent (telephone 410-641-7139, between 8:00 AM to 11:00 PM). Near-perfect attendance of no more than three (3) absences/cuts is worth three (3) percentage points on your final grade. Absences/cuts above the class mean costs you three (3) percentage points on your final grade. (I want to make this a class you WANT to attend. But, if you don't give me a chance, it can't be done.)
OK! Listen up! Philosophy is a course of study which favors abstract as opposed to concrete thinkers, favors deductive versus inductive thinkers, and requires the student to ENGAGE the WRITTEN WORD as one would engage a lover or an adversary--depending on your point of view. Most humans are simply NOT thinkers of ANY sort. Most humans, if thinkers at all, are concrete and inductive thinkers. And, most humans fear the written word only less than they fear numbers, large snakes, and dentists! Furthermore, Philosophy is often written in obtuse/archaic/formal/arcane ("high falutin") phraseology. (This is particularly true in the beginning of the course/text. Trust me, the reading gets easier as the text Parts progress.)
As well, Philosophy deals with IDEAS--which most humans can't deal with anyway--about "things" which most humans have never thought about. AND, to be perfectly honest, while some students may come in loving this stuff, and some will come to at least appreciate parts of it, others simply could not care less, now or ever.
BUT, Philosophy is THE SINGLE most important area of study to engage if you care to have any claim to being a truly educated--not just "degreed"--human being. AND, if you want to find out what sort of head you carry atop your frame, Philosophy is GREAT FUN for probing around in your gray matter. MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE FIRST INJUNCTION OF PHILOSOPHY IS: "KNOW THYSELF".
Therefore, given all of the above, I'VE GOT A DEAL FOR YOU! The text is organized by Chapters under five PARTS. I propose EVERYBODY read the Preface and "Introduction," and EVERYBODY read "The Paradoxes of..." section of each PART and the "Problem Introduction" section of each Chapter. As well, everybody read the author/topic introductions (headnotes/blurbs) for each writer.
THEN, to address the individual author's pieces within each Chapter, we divvy up the class into three (3) subgroups, with each student being a member of one group. (WHAT?) Well, see each Chapter contains 2, 3, 4, or 5 selections by individual Philosophers. BUT, we're going to delimit our readings to three writers per chapter. [I'll handle the fourth and fifth readings when they occur. When there are only two (2) selections, Group One will handle the "Problem Introduction."]
NOW WHAT? So, let's use "Chapter 1: Is There a God?" as an example. Chapter 1 has four (4) readings (St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Jefferson, and Paul Kurtz). I'll explain St. Anselm, so as a class you only have to worry about Aquinas, Jefferson, and Kurtz. Subgroup 1 reads and explains Aquinas to the class, Subgroup 2 does Jefferson, and Subgroup 3 does Kurtz.
SO WHAT? This way, we cover the book, kick all the stuff around, but each student concentrates on ONE reading per Chapter--along with "The Paradox. . . " of the PART, the "Problem Introduction" of the Chapter, and the individual writer introductions (blurbs).
This gives you the time--and some ease of mind--to really get into a particular reading. I personally think it's "better" to really get into one reading than to labor through them all. This is the "up-side."
The "down-side" is that YOU, and EVERYBODY, gotta do it, or it's gonna work NOT! It's the "Buddy System" in that you stay on top of your selection per Chapter both for yourself AND for your classmates. You know what the alternative is: Everybody Reads Everything. (Students who are going to work for that "A" will probably want to read everything anyway.)
QUIZZES
Six (6) QUIZZES will be administered, each covering one (1) PART of the text, with the first quiz (Quiz #0) covering the Preface and Introduction of the text. Information from this Syllabus may be included in any quiz.
MIDTERM: The Midterm Exam covers the material already tested via the ongoing quizzes as of the time of the Midterm. Date as per "Schedule/Agenda," Class Session #12 (M-10/18).
FINAL: The Final Exam covers the material already tested via the ongoing quizzes as of the time of the Final, exclusive of materials already recovered via the Midterm (not cumulative). Date: Class Session #27 (W-12/15).
One (1) term paper is required. Two (2) general types of term papers are acceptable: 1) Objective, or; 2) Subjective. An objective paper is the usually thought of type, being a library research of some particular Philosophy or Philosopher, idea, or word-concept, or an expanded book report of related additional reading. A subjective paper is self-analytical or self-exploratory of the student or the student's own ideas, past, or background. Another option here is that the creative student can do a project or class performance/demon- stration within the area of creativity. (Grade school type collages are NOT acceptable.) PLEASE do not insult my intelligence or your own, or slight your opportunity to learn, by simply reworking a paper from another class!!
The term paper is generally to a maximum of seven (7) pages. Legible. Cite sources. This is an individual THOUGHT paper. You are entitled to your opinion, but you must support your opinion with reasonable/ reasoned argument. The paper must follow a documentation style acceptable to Wor-Wic. If you have not covered the acceptable styles in a Wor-Wic English class, consult with the Writing Lab. The nature of the exercise is to have sources/references and to cite them appropriately, as well as having an acceptable Bibliography. THIS APPLIES TO A PERSONAL/SUBJECTIVE PAPER AS WELL.
The paper is a course requirement, but it is not included within the overall grading system (see below). It may be used, however, with other class-related input in cases of high borderline grade determination. The paper can harm you in only two instances: 1) Failure to submit the paper lowers your final letter grade by two (2) units; 2) Failure to follow an acceptable documentation style lowers your final letter grade by one (1) unit. Paper due Class Session #22, Monday, 22 November. Papers are not returned, therefore, make a copy if you wish to have one.
The grading scale is (approximately): 90--100%=A; 80--89%=B; 70--79%=C; 60--69%=D; 0--59%=F.
Your grade at midterm is either your quiz score average or your midterm examination score, whichever is higher. Your grade at the end of the course is the afore-determined midterm score averaged with either your quiz average or the final examination score, whichever is higher. Additional percentage points are added or subtracted based on attendance/participation (3%) and class exercises (to be explained at time of implementation).
Course grade is determined by curved, cumulative, ongoing percent of tested material. As per "EXAMS" above, the midterm and final recover material already covered on quizzes. If the midterm and/or final score betters that of the quizzes, the midterm and/or final score is substituted for the score earned on quizzes, WITH THIS EXCEPTION: The "A" grade can be earned only on quiz performance, WITH THIS EXCEPTION: The highest "B" earned on the midterm and/or final will replace the lower quiz score to "A". In other words, exams can only help you, they cannot harm you, but--with the exception of the highest "B"-- the exams can elevate any grade only to "B" with the exception of the curve-setter. Missing more than one quiz lowers your potential to no higher than "C". As well, the average of quizzes across the course must meet or exceed 25% of the overall curved average score to qualify the student for a final grade above "B".
Across the course, the lowest quiz score is replaced by the mean of your quiz scores. This allows for an "off day," not an uncommon human occurrence, but still maintains the import of each quiz. Quizzes and exams may NOT be made-up if missed. This is fair enough, since you are tested twice on the same material. If you miss a quiz, you test on an exam. If you miss an exam, your quiz average holds, minus a letter grade.
This is YOUR education. You will have a "say-so" in this class regarding some matters. And, as in the rest of the world, some things are "not negotiable." But you will never achieve your full self-representation unless you ask. As well, you will be given the opportunity to choose class representatives, and you will be given time for internal meetings. Respect for the rights of others, fair play, reason, and "common sense" are the guidelines. The Instructor will listen to reason and consider options/alternatives. However, the integrity of the subject matter and that of Wor-Wic must be main-tained. We'll negotiate, but I can't "give away the candy store."
PLEASE NOTE
1. Wor-Wic has Learning Assistance available to students. (See p. 12 of the Catalog.) Students having a particular class problem or experiencing general difficulties are urged/encouraged to avail themselves of this service.
2. Philosophy, more so than most other subject areas, covers material which some few students may find uncomfortable or unsettling. Remember that the nature of the exercise in Philosophy is to ask questions and consider ideas. There is no intention of challenging anyone, or disabusing anyone of his/her personal attitudes, opinions, or beliefs, neither within the discipline as a whole, with the text, nor with the Instructor.
3. At http://www.intercom.net/user/loveland resides "Glennie's Student Assist Homepage." This site is chock-full of student-assist and elaborative information relative to the course.
4. Any student experiencing personal problems or discomfort with general course content or the approach or teaching "style" of the Instructor is invited to address such matters with the Instructor in person, and/or with the Instructor via the class representative(s) in the first instance. If these avenues do not resolve the matter, the student can confer with the Head of General Studies, Dr. Judith M. Ferrand. These are the appropriate avenues for "complaints".
"God grant that not only the love of liberty but a thorough knowledge of the rights of man many pervade all the nations of the earth so that a philosopher may set his foot anywhere and say this is my country." Ben Franklin
"It is easier to keep up than to catch up."
"A mind that is stretched to a new idea never returns to its original dimension." Oliver Wendell Holmes
"The purpose of education is not to fill a pail, it is to light a fire." George Santayana
Page 4
Loveland/Fall 1999
PHL 101-01, 2:30-4:00 PM Monday/Wednesday, AAB 331
SCHEDULE/AGENDA
Class Session #01 (W-09/08)
Introduction to Course
Syllabus, Discussion Groups
ALL: Text Preface (xiii-xvi)
ALL: Introduction (1-11)
Class Session #02 (M-09/13)
Text Part I: Religion
ALL: Paradox (15-16)
Ch1: Is there a God?
ALL: Problem (17-21)
GGL: Anselm
Group 1: Aquinas
Group 2: Jefferson
Group 3: Kurtz
Class Session #03 (W-09/15)
Same as above
Class Session #04 (M-09/20)
Ch 2: The Problem of Evil
ALL: Problem (42-45)
Group 1: Twain
Group 2: Hick
Group 3: Mackie
Class Session #05 (W-09/22)
Same as above
Class Session #06 (M-09/27)
QUIZ #0: Preface; Intro
Class Session #07 (W-09/29)
Ch 3: Faith and Reason
ALL: Problem (75-79)
Group 1: Problem
Group 2: Clifford
Group 3: James
Class Session #08 (M-10/04)
Text Part 2: Knowledge
ALL: Paradox (107-108)
Ch 4: Skepticism and Self
ALL: Problem (109-112)
Group 1: Descartes
Group 2: Ryle
Group 3: Bache
Class Session #09 (W-10/06)
QUIZ #1: Text Pt 1: Religion
Class Session #10 (M-10/11)
Ch 5: Perception & Knowledge
ALL: Problem (148-151)
Group 1: Plato
Group 2: Berkeley
Group 3: Hume
Class Session #11 (W-10/13)
Same as above
Class Session #12 (M-10/18)
MIDTERM EXAMINATION:
Text Preface, Introduction,
Part 1: Religion
Class Session #13 (W-10/20)
Ch 6: Truth
Group 1: James
Group 2: Russell
Group 3: Blanshard
Class Session #14 (M-10/25)
Text Pt 3: Free Will /Dtrmnsm
ALL: Paradox (2170218)
Ch 7: Freedom & Responsibility
GGL: Darrow
Group 1: Sartre
Group 2: James
Group 3: Waller
GGL: Hook
Class Session #15 (W-10/27)
Same as above
Class Session #16 (M-11/01)
Text Part 4: Morality
ALL: Paradox (271-272)
Ch 8: Sources of Morality
ALL: Problem (273-275)
Group 1: Nielsen
Group 2: Benedict
Group 3: Rachels
Class Session #17 (W-11/03)
QUIZ #2: Text Pt 2: Knowledge
Class Session #18 (M-11/08)
Ch 9: Search for Objectivity
ALL: Problem (302-305)
Group 1: Aristotle
GGL: Kant
GGL: Mill
Group 2: Rand
Group 3: Gilligan
Class Session #19 (W-11/10)
Text Pt 5: Political and Social
ALL: Paradox (361-362)
Ch 10: Law & the Individual
ALL: Problem (363-366)
ALL: King
Group 1: Problem
Group 2: Plato
Group 3: King
Class Session #20 (M-11/15)
Quiz #3: Txt Pt 3:FW/Dtrmnsm
Class Session #21 (W-11/17)
Ch 11: Dmcrcy, Fscsm, Cmnsm
ALL: Problem (383-388)
Group 1: Locke
Group 2: Mill
Group 3: Cohen
GGL: Marx and Engels
Class Session #22 (M-11/22)
Quiz#4: Text Part 4: Morality
PAPER DUE
Class Session #23 (M-11/29)
Ch 12: Future Prospects
ALL: Problem (432-435)
Group 1: Weatherford
Group 2: Hick
GGL: Battin
Group 3: Rollin
Class Session #24 (W-12/01)
Same as above
Class Session #25 (M-12/06)
QUIZ #5: Txt Pt 5: Pltcl&Social
Class Session #26 (W-12/08)
Paper Commentary
Catch-up, Review
Class Session #27 (W-12/15)
2:00-4:00 PM
FINAL EXAMINATION
Text Parts 2, 3, 4, 5
--------------------------------
PHL 101-1 (Day)
Fall Term 1999
Page 5
Wor-Wic Community College
Statement of Academic Honesty Policy
Academic honesty is expected of all students. Cheating and plagiarism are violations of academic honesty. Any student found violating the academic policy will receive an automatic "0" for the assignment, and then the matter will be turned over to the Student Disciplinary Committee. Documented evidence of the plagiarism or cheating will be kept in the General Studies Department office.
In both oral and written communications, the following guidelines for avoiding plagiarism must be followed:
1. Any words quoted directly from a source must be in quotation marks and cited.
2. Any paraphrasing or rephrasing of the words and/or ideas of a source must be cited.
3. Any ideas or examples derived from a source that are not in the public domain or of general knowledge must be cited.
4. All papers and presentations must be the student's own work.
There are ambiguities in concepts of plagiarism. Each instructor will be available for consultation regarding any confusion a student may have.
Cheating
Cheating is the act of obtaining information or data improperly or by dishonest or deceitful means. Examples of cheating are copying from another student's test paper, obtaining information illegally on tests, and using crib notes or other deceitful practices.
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY
Fall Term 1999
Course: PHL 101-02, Index 249 (3 Credits)
Meets: Wednesday; 6:30 PM--9:45 PM, AAB 331
Instructor: Glenn G. Loveland, Ph.D.
Text: Shipka, T. A. and Minton, A. J. (1996). Philosophy: Paradox and Discovery (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
This text will be covered in its entirety, at a rate of approximately one (1) class session per chapter, following the procedure discussed below under "Course Requirements" and as per the "Schedule/ Agenda."
This course covers the history of philosophy and addresses the problems of religion, knowledge, reality, morality, and politics as they arise in the thoughts of great Eastern and Western philosophers. Selected issues that underlie personal, social and cultural ferment in the 20th century are explored in the light of Eastern and Western classical philosophy.
This is an Introductory/General/Survey course in Philosophy, the most broad and general area of all thought/ study/learning. The subject matter is Philosophy as a discipline (area of study, body of knowledge, methodology), and the orientations thereof.
The class mode will be primarily interactive/discussive/participatory/dialectic (and somewhat heuristic). This is the "Socratic Method," Socrates arguably being one of the greatest teachers who ever lived, and the mode of most graduate-level seminars, and the mode best reflecting the reality that all "students"--all human beings in "school" and in life--are ultimately responsible for their own learning. This approach is also intended to stimulate INVOLVEMENT, for, as management guru Tom Peters notes:
I'm frustrated to the point of rage--my files bulge with letters about the power of involvement. Sometimes it's planned. .. sometimes it's inadvertent. But the result is always the same: Truly involved people can do anything!
Thriving on Chaos, p. 345
Following the Goals of Wor-Wic Community College (Catalog, "General Information: Goals", p.5), the course will be applicable to both students desiring to meet more or less immediate and concrete career/job ends, and students wishing to continue/further their more general and abstract educational pursuits--not that these ends are separate, distinct, and mutually exclusive.
The course is intended, therefore, to provide students with an orientation toward, and an understanding of, what Philosophy is, its import to life and learning across all ages, its particular import today, a review of the major question-areas of Philosophy, and a survey of thinking/writing/ argument/opinion relative to the five areas.
Upon successful completion of this course, the student should be able to:
1. Explain the rationale/purpose/function of Philosophy in rational thinking/problem-solving
2. Explain the function of Philosophy in "critical thinking"
3. Present/discuss/argue rationally/factually
4. Explain what Philosophy is
5. Describe the import of Philosophy to humankind's pursuits, both the rational and the passional
6. Explain the concept of "objectivity" versus "subjectivity"
7. Explain "Science" vis-a-vis "Art" vis-a-vis "Philosophy"
8. Define the word-concepts of Philosophy.
ATTENDANCE
"If you're not PRESENT to do the job, you have no chance of doing the job." PLEASE make every effort to attend class. PLEASE extend to me the courtesy of letting me know if you must be absent (telephone 410-641-7139, between 8:00 AM to 11:00 PM). Near-perfect attendance of no more than one (1) absence/cut is worth three (3) percentage points on your final grade. Absences/cuts above the class mean costs you three (3) percentage points on your final grade. (I want to make this a class you WANT to attend. But, if you don't give me a chance, it can't be done.)
READING-THINKING-ANALYZING-DISCUSSING
OK! Listen up! Philosophy is a course of study which favors abstract as opposed to concrete thinkers, favors deductive versus inductive thinkers, and requires the student to ENGAGE the WRITTEN WORD as one would engage a lover or an adversary--depending on your point of view. Most humans are simply NOT thinkers of ANY sort. Most humans, if thinkers at all, are concrete and inductive thinkers. And, most humans fear the written word only less than they fear numbers, large snakes, and dentists! Furthermore, Philosophy is often written in obtuse/archaic/formal/arcane ("high falutin") phraseology. (This is particularly true in the beginning of the course/text. Trust me, the reading gets easier as the text Parts progress.)
As well, Philosophy deals with IDEAS--which most humans can't deal with anyway--about "things" which most humans have never thought about. AND, to be perfectly honest, while some students may come in loving this stuff, and some will come to at least appreciate parts of it, others simply could not care less, now or ever.
BUT, Philosophy is THE SINGLE most important area of study to engage if you care to have any claim to being a truly educated--not just "degreed"--human being. AND, if you want to find out what sort of head you carry atop your frame, Philosophy is GREAT FUN for probing around in your gray matter. MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE FIRST INJUNCTION OF PHILOSOPHY IS: "KNOW THYSELF".
Therefore, given all of the above, I'VE GOT A DEAL FOR YOU! The text is organized by Chapters under five PARTS. I propose EVERYBODY read the Preface and "Introduction," and EVERYBODY read "The Paradoxes of..." section of each PART and the "Problem Introduction" section of each Chapter. As well, everybody read the author/topic introductions (headnotes/blurbs) for each writer.
THEN, to address the individual author's pieces within each Chapter, we divvy up the class into three (3) subgroups, with each student being a member of one group. (WHAT?) Well, see each Chapter contains 2, 3, 4, or 5 selections by individual Philosophers. BUT, we're going to delimit our readings to three writers per chapter. [I'll handle the fourth and fifth readings when they occur. When there are only two (2) selections, Group One will handle the "Problem Introduction."]
NOW WHAT? So, let's use "Chapter 1: Is There a God?" as an example. Chapter 1 has four (4) readings (St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Jefferson, and Paul Kurtz). I'll explain St. Anselm, so as a class you only have to worry about Aquinas, Jefferson, and Kurtz. Subgroup 1 reads and explains Aquinas to the class, Subgroup 2 does Jefferson, and Subgroup 3 does Kurtz.
SO WHAT? This way, we cover the book, kick all the stuff around, but each student concentrates on ONE reading per Chapter--along with "The Paradox. . . " of the PART, the "Problem Introduction" of the Chapter, and the individual writer introductions (blurbs).
This gives you the time--and some ease of mind--to really get into a particular reading. I personally think it's "better" to really get into one reading than to labor through them all. This is the "up-side."
The "down-side" is that YOU, and EVERYBODY, gotta do it, or it's gonna work NOT! It's the "Buddy System" in that you stay on top of your selection per Chapter both for yourself AND for your classmates. You know what the alternative is: Everybody Reads Everything. (Students who are going to work for that "A" will probably want to read everything anyway.)
QUIZZES
Six (6) QUIZZES will be administered, each covering one (1) PART of the text, with the first quiz (Quiz #0) covering the Preface and Introduction of the text. Information from this Syllabus may be included in any quiz.
MIDTERM: The Midterm Exam covers the material already tested via the ongoing quizzes as of the time of the Midterm. Date as per "Schedule/Agenda," Class Session #06 (W-10/13).
FINAL: The Final Exam covers the material already tested via the ongoing quizzes as of the time of the Final, exclusive of materials already recovered via the Midterm (not cumulative). Date: Class Session #14 (W-12/15).
One (1) term paper is required. Two (2) general types of term papers are acceptable: 1) Objective, or; 2) Subjective. An objective paper is the usually thought of type, being a library research of some particular Philosophy or Philosopher, idea, or word-concept, or an expanded book report of related additional reading. A subjective paper is self-analytical or self-exploratory of the student or the student's own ideas, past, or background. Another option here is that the creative student can do a project or class performance/demonstration within the area of creativity. (Grade school type collages are NOT acceptable.) PLEASE do not insult my intelligence or your own, or slight your opportunity to learn, by simply reworking a paper from another class!!
The term paper is generally to a maximum of seven (7) pages. Legible. Cite sources. This is an individual THOUGHT paper. You are entitled to your opinion, but you must support your opinion with reasonable/reasoned argument. The paper must follow a documentation style acceptable to Wor-Wic. If you have not covered the acceptable styles in a Wor-Wic English class, consult with the Writing Lab. The nature of the exercise is to have sources/references and to cite them appropriately, as well as having an acceptable Bibliography. THIS APPLIES TO A PERSONAL/SUBJECTIVE PAPER AS WELL.
The paper is a course requirement, but it is not included within the overall grading system (see below). It may be used, however, with other class-related input in cases of high borderline grade determination. The paper can harm you in only two instances: 1) Failure to submit the paper lowers your final letter grade by two (2) units; 2) Failure to follow an acceptable documentation style lowers your final letter grade by one (1) unit. Paper due Class Session #11, Wednesday, 17 November. Papers are not returned, therefore, make a copy if you wish to have one.
The grading scale is (approximately): 90--100%=A; 80--89%=B; 70--79%=C; 60--69%=D; 0--59%=F.
Your grade at midterm is either your quiz score average or your midterm examination score, whichever is higher. Your grade at the end of the course is the afore-determined midterm score averaged with either your quiz average or the final examination score, whichever is higher. Additional percentage points are added or subtracted based on attendance/participation (3%) and class exercises (to be explained at time of implementation).
Course grade is determined by curved, cumulative, ongoing percent of tested material. As per "EXAMS" above, the midterm and final recover material already covered on quizzes. If the midterm and/or final score betters that of the quizzes, the midterm and/or final score is substituted for the score earned on quizzes, WITH THIS EXCEPTION: The "A" grade can be earned only on quiz performance, WITH THIS EXCEPTION: The highest "B" earned on the midterm and/or final will replace the lower quiz score to "A". In other words, exams can only help you, they cannot harm you, but--with the exception of the highest "B"-- the exams can elevate any grade only to "B" with the exception of the curve-setter. Missing more than one quiz lowers your potential to no higher than "C". As well, the average of quizzes across the course must meet or exceed 25% of the overall curved average score to qualify the student for a final grade above "B".
Across the course, the lowest quiz score is replaced by the mean of your quiz scores. This allows for an "off day," not an uncommon human occurrence, but still maintains the import of each quiz. Quizzes and exams may NOT be made-up if missed. This is fair enough, since you are tested twice on the same material. If you miss a quiz, you test on an exam. If you miss an exam, your quiz average holds, minus a letter grade.
This is YOUR education. You will have a "say-so" in this class regarding some matters. And, as in the rest of the world, some things are "not negotiable." But you will never achieve your full self-representation unless you ask. As well, you will be given the opportunity to choose class representatives, and you will be given time for internal meetings. Respect for the rights of others, fair play, reason, and "common sense" are the guidelines. The Instructor will listen to reason and consider options/alternatives. However, the integrity of the subject matter and that of Wor-Wic must be main-tained. We'll negotiate, but I can't "give away the candy store."
1. Wor-Wic has Learning Assistance available to students. (See p. 12 of the Catalog.) Students having a particular class problem or experiencing general difficulties are urged/encouraged to avail themselves of this service.
2. Philosophy, more so than most other subject areas, covers material which some few students may find uncomfortable or unsettling. Remember that the nature of the exercise in Philosophy is to ask questions and consider ideas. There is no intention of challenging anyone, or disabusing anyone of his/her personal attitudes, opinions, or beliefs, neither within the discipline as a whole, with the text, nor with the Instructor.
3. At http://www.intercom.net/user/loveland resides "Glennie's Student Assist Homepage." This site is chock-full of student-assist and elaborative information relative to the course.
4. Any student experiencing personal problems or discomfort with general course content or the approach or teaching "style" of the Instructor is invited to address such matters with the Instructor in person, and/or with the Instructor via the class representative(s) in the first instance. If these avenues do not resolve the matter, the student can confer with the Head of General Studies, Dr. Judith M. Ferrand. These are the appropriate avenues for "complaints".
"God grant that not only the love of liberty but a thorough knowledge of the rights of man many pervade all the nations of the earth so that a philosopher may set his foot anywhere and say this is my country." Ben Franklin
"It is easier to keep up than to catch up."
"A mind that is stretched to a new idea never returns to its original dimension." Oliver Wendell Holmes
"The purpose of education is not to fill a pail, it is to light a fire." George Santayana
Page 4
Loveland/Fall 1999
PHL 101-02, 6:30-9:45 PM Wednesday, AAB 331
SCHEDULE/AGENDA
Class Session #01 (W-09/08)
Introduction to Course
Syllabus, Discussion Groups
ALL: Text Preface (xiii-xvi)
ALL: Introduction (1-11)
Text Part 1: Religion
ALL: Paradox (15-16)
Ch1: Is there a God?
ALL: Problem (17-21)
GGL: Anselm
Group 1: Aquinas
Group 2: Jefferson
Group 3: Kurtz
Class Session #02 (W-09/15)
Carry-over from session #01
Ch 2: The Problem of Evil
ALL: Problem (42-45)
Group 1: Twain
Group 2: Hick
Group 3: Mackie
Class Session #03 (W-09/22)
Ch 3: Faith and Reason
ALL: Problem (75-79)
Group 1: Problem
Group 2: Clifford
Group 3: James
QUIZ #0: Preface; Introduction
Class Session #04 (W-09/29)
Text Part 2: Knowledge
ALL: Paradox (107-108)
Ch 4: Skepticism and Self
ALL: Problem (109-112)
Group 1: Descartes
Group 2: Ryle
Group 3: Bache
QUIZ #1: Text Pt 1: Religion
Class Session #05 (W-10/06)
Ch 5: Perception & Knowledge
ALL: Problem (148-151)
Group 1: Plato
Group 2: Berkeley
Group 3: Hume
Class Session #06 (W-10/13)
Ch 6: Truth
Group 1: James
Group 2: Russell
Group 3: Blanshard
MIDTERM EXAMINATION:
Text Preface, Introduction,
Part 1: Religion
Class Session #07 (W-10/20)
Text Pt 3: Free Will /Dtrmnsm
ALL: Paradox (217-218)
Ch 7: Freedom and Rspnsblty
GGL: Darrow
Group 1: Sartre
Group 2: James
Group 3: Waller
GGL: Hook
Class Session #08 (W-10/27)
Text Part 4: Morality
ALL: Paradox (271-272)
Ch 8: Sources of Morality
ALL: Problem (273-275)
Group 1: Nielsen
Group 2: Benedict
Group 3: Rachels
QUIZ #2: Text Pt 2: Knowledge
Class Session #09 (W-11/03)
Ch 9: Search for Objectivity
ALL: Problem (302-305)
Group 1: Aristotle
GGL: Kant
GGL: Mill
Group 2: Rand
Group 3: Gilligan
Class Session #10 (W-11/10)
Text Pt 5: Political and Social
ALL: Paradox (361-362)
Ch 10: Law & the Individual
ALL: Problem (363-366)
ALL: King
Group 1: Problem
Group 2: Plato
Group 3: King
QUIZ #3: Txt Pt3: FW/Dtrmnsm
Class Session #11(W-11/17)
Ch 11: Dmcrcy, Fscsm, Cmnsm
ALL: Problem (383-388)
Group 1: Locke
Group 2: Mill
Group 3: Cohen
GGL: Marx and Engels
QUIZ#4: Text Part 4: Morality
PAPER DUE
Class Session #12 (W-12/01)
Ch 12: Future Prospects
ALL: Problem (432-435)
Group 1: Weatherford
Group 2: Hick
GGL: Battin
Group 3: Rollin
QUIZ #5: Txt Pt 5: Pltcl & Social
Class Session #13 (W-12/08)
Paper Commentary
Catch-up, Review
Class Session #14 (W-12/15)
6:30-8:30 PM
FINAL EXAMINATION
Text Parts 2 ,3, 4 ,5
-------------------------
PHL 101-2 (Night)
Fall Term 1999
Page 5
Statement of Academic Honesty Policy
Academic honesty is expected of all students. Cheating and plagiarism are violations of academic honesty. Any student found violating the academic policy will receive an automatic "0" for the assignment, and then the matter will be turned over to the Student Disciplinary Committee. Documented evidence of the plagiarism or cheating will be kept in the General Studies Department office.
In both oral and written communications, the following guidelines for avoiding plagiarism must be followed:
1. Any words quoted directly from a source must be in quotation marks and cited.
2. Any paraphrasing or rephrasing of the words and/or ideas of a source must be cited.
3. Any ideas or examples derived from a source that are not in the public domain or of general knowledge must be cited.
4. All papers and presentations must be the student's own work.
There are ambiguities in concepts of plagiarism. Each instructor will be available for consultation regarding any confusion a student may have.
Cheating is the act of obtaining information or data improperly or by dishonest or deceitful means. Examples of cheating are copying from another student's test paper, obtaining information illegally on tests, and using crib notes or other deceitful practices.
2.1.1: Good versus Evil/Monotheism/Dualism/Polytheism
2.1.2: Ernst Nagel: "An Athiest's Critique of Beief in God"
2.1.3: Deism and its Relation to The Renaissance and The Enlightenment
2.1.4: Some Philosopers and Some God Prospectives
2.1.5: Lucretius and Some Related Ideas (Lucretius is quoted on page 79 of the text)
2.1.6: Justifications for the Existence of God
One of your numbers (Summer I 1996) asked how the Devil. . . the boy variously named/known as follows. . .
Satan (noun)
Satan, Lucifer, fallen angel, rebel angel
Archfiend, Prince of Darkness, Prince of this world
serpent, Old Serpent, Tempter, Adversary, Antichrist, Common Enemy, Enemy of mankind
Diabolus, Father of Lies
evil genie, Shaitan, Eblis
King of Hell, angel of the bottomless pit, Apollyon, Abaddon
the Foul Fiend, the Devil, the Evil One, Wicked One, Old Nick, cloven hoof
spirit of evil, principle of evil, Angra Mainyu or Ahriman
Devil: Mephisto (noun)
Mephisto, Mephistopheles, His Satanic Majesty, the Old Enemy, the Old Gentleman, Old Nick, Old Harry, Old Scratch, Old Horny, Clootie
Devil: devil (noun)
devil, fiend
devilkin, deviling, devilet, familiar, imp, imp of Satan, devil's spawn, BAD PERSON
Tutivillus, Asmodeus, Azazel, DEMON
malevolent spirit, unclean spirit, dybbuk
powers of darkness, diabolic hierarchy
damned spirit, fallen angel, lost soul, sinner, dweller in Pandemonium, denizen of Hell
Mammon, Belial, Beelzebub, Lord of the Flies
devildom, devilship, devilhood, demonship
horns, cloven hoof
Roget's Thesaurus of English words and phrases is licensed from Longman Group UK Limited. Copyright © 1962, 1982, 1987 by Longman Group UK Limited. All rights reserved.
. . . how this boy fits in with God as all-powerful, all-knowing, and all -good (omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent, for those of you who prefer the 75-cent words).
Oh, I suppose we had better try to define "God" as well. Here 'tis.
God:
Divineness: the Deity (noun)
the Deity, God, personal god, Supreme Being, Divine Being, Alpha and Omega
the Infinite, the Eternal, the All-wise, the Almighty, the Most High
the All-holy, the All-merciful
Ruler of Heaven and Earth, Judge of all men, Maker of all things, Creator, Preserver
Allah
Elohim, Yahweh, Jehovah, Adonai, ineffable name, I AM
name of God, Tetragrammaton
God of Abraham, God of Moses, Lord of Hosts, God of our fathers
Our Father
Demiurge
All-Father, Great Spirit, manitou
Ahura Mazda, Ormazd
Krishna
Roget's Thesaurus of English words and phrases is licensed from Longman Group UK Limited. Copyright © 1962, 1982, 1987 by Longman Group UK Limited. All rights reserved.
God (gòd), divinity of the three great monotheistic religions, JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY, and ISLAM. In the Old Testament various names for God are used, Elohim most commonly. The four-letter form YHWH is the most celebrated; the Hebrews considered it ineffable and in reading substituted the name Adonai [my Lord]. The reconstruction Jehovah was based on a mistake, and the form Yahweh is not now regarded as reliable. The general conception of God is that of an infinite being (often a personality but not necessarily anthropomorphic) who is supremely good, who created the world, who knows all and can do all, who is transcendent over and immanent in the world, and who loves all human beings. (The Old Testament concept of God is less unified and consistent.) The majority of Christians believe God lived on earth in the flesh as Jesus Christ (see JESUS; TRINITY). Muslims call God Allah, the name of God in Arabic, the language of the Koran, but it is also used by Arabic-speaking Christians. The several famous arguments for the existence of God are based on causality, design and purpose in the universe, and the nature of divine being; many have held, however, that God's existence must be accepted on faith. Some philosophers have extended the name God to such concepts as world soul, cosmic energy, and mind.
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
Well, I'm not a Biblical scholar--although I've read it--and the best I can do is, first, give the question my best shot, and, second, send my best shot off to a few buddies into Biblical studies and let them spin on it.
I approach the question from an historical perspective. It may be that the Bible is the (absolute) word of God. I personally do not know. I wasn't there. History--the "science" of history--says that the Bible is a composite of a lot of people's thinking, a lot of pagan tales reworked, and incorporates--in the text and in the various religions which pursue it--most--if not all--of the beliefs and practices of virtually everything which was believed (by the various pagans) before, during, and after the time of Christ.
To rejoin the philosophical effort to fill-out the background--as opposed to the historical--your Shipka text gives the classical arguments pro and con as regards the existence and nature of God.
You fold the historical and philosophical perspective together, and you do not find the devil as a major item--not a Big Boy--in Christianity, nor a major part of any monotheistic religion. This is why Shipka notes that the problem of evil is a major problem for monotheistic religions (page 42). See, MONOTHEISTIC religions--mono meaning ONE--have one--and ONLY ONE BIG BOY--ONLY ONE BIG DOMINO--ONE BIG CASINO--ONE ACE--and that is GOD.
Now, there are other religions--religions NOT MONOtheistic--which hold for any number of gods. [Note that due to "political correctness" we must always refer to the ONE and ONLY TRUE GOD as God, and any and all others--possible or impossible--as god or gods (small case g)].
So, to keep moving--and you probably have noted that I like to keep moving [it's harder to hit a moving target]--there are other religions/other religious beliefs--which hold with EQUIVALENT forces of GOOD versus EVIL.
These matters are referenced in one of the class hand-outs, "from The Lessons of History by Will and Ariel Durant, Simon and Schuster (publishers), 1968"--it's fun when a student asks a question that if he/she had studied the hand-out(s) would have tripped-over the same question--i.e., a student is asking me the the same question I am asking the students!
Oh well, moving right along. . .
Will and Ariel hold:
If history supports any theology this would be a dualism like Zoroastrianism or Manicheanism: a good spirit and and evil spirit battling for control of the universe and men's souls. (page 46)
So, what are these examples Will and Ariel provide? These follow.
Zoroastrianism (zôr´o-ãsıtrê-e-nîz´em), religion founded by ZOROASTER, but with many later accretions. Its scriptures are the Avesta or the Zend Avesta. According to Zoroaster, there are good spirits, or ahuras, headed by Ahura Mazdah (also Ormazd or Ormuzd), opposed by evil spirits, the daevas or divs, led by Ahriman. The war between these two supernatural hosts will result in the ultimate triumph of Ahura Mazdah. The first period of Zoroastrianism was under the ACHAEMENIDS. Alexander's conquest of Persia sent Zoroastrianism into a decline. It reemerged (A.D. c.226) under Ardashir I, who established the Sassanian dynasty and tried to revive Achaemenian culture. In the mid-7th cent. Persia fell to Islam, and Zoroastrianism virtually disappeared. Aside from the PARSIS of India, fewer than 10,000 persons in Iran practice the religion today.
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
That's Zoroastrianism. Here's Manicheanism:
Manichaeism (mãn´î-kêıîz´em) or Manicheanism, religion founded by Mani (A.D. c.216-c.276), a visionary prophet, probably of Persian origin. After his martyrdom, his religion spread rapidly throughout the Roman Empire and Asia. Manichaeism synthesized elements from earlier religions such as GNOSTICISM, ZOROASTRIANISM, and Christianity; it taught dualism between good and evil, the transmigration of souls, and the possibility of salvation. St. Augustine was a Manichee until his conversion. The religion survived in the West until the 6th cent. and in the East until about the 13th cent.
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
So, to me, the QUESTION is: WHY does humankind grasp for a monotheistic religion-- and defy all reason to hold for it? (Or is reason pertinent?)
So, there it is...not the detail, but the basics.
As is said, "Who's to figure?"
From the third edition of Shipka & Minton's Philosophy: Paradox and Discovery
STUDENT ASSIST, PREPARED 9/21/95
MAIN POINTS
1. Atheists--those who deny that there is a "God," gods, and/or some supreme being or "force"--hold theism--belief in such--in disrepute, not only because they judge it to be intellectually flawed, but because they see it as having fueled abuses of political authority and intolerance in society.
2. The cosmological argument--or argument from First Cause--has two main defects: (a) after stipulating that all events (beings) require a cause, it then turns around and exempts God from the need for a cause (and if God can be self-caused, why cannot the universe be self-caused?); and (b) it wrongly assumes that an infinite series of actual events is impossible.
3. The ontological argument assumes, wrongly, that existence is a possible feature of a being; Kant has shown that it is not.
There are several ways of approaching this argument, but I shall consider only one. The argument was exploded by the 18th century philosopher Immanual Kant. The substance of Kant's criticism is that it is just a confusion to say that existence is an attribute, and that though the word "existence" may occur as the grammatical predicate in a sentence, no attribute is being predicated of a thing when we say that the thing exists or has existence. Thus, to use Kant's example, when we think of $100 we are thinking of the nature of this sum of money; but the nature of $100 remains the same whether we have $100 in our pockets or not. Accordingly, we are confounding grammar with logic if we suppose that some characteristic is being attributed to the nature of $100 when we say that a hundred dollar bill exists in someone's pocket.
To make the point clearer, consider another example. When we say that a lion has a tawny color, we are predicating a certain attribute of the animal, and similarly when we say that the lion is fierce or is hungry. But when we say the lion exists, all that we are saying is that something is (or has the nature of) a lion; we are not specifying an attribute when belongs to the nature of anything. Accordingly, it does not follow from the assumption that we have an idea of a perfect being that such a being exists. For the idea of a perfect being does not involve the attribute of existence as a constituent of that idea, since there is no such attribute. The ontological argument thus has a serious leak, and it can hold no water. (text page 50)
4. The teleological argument--the Argument by Design--assumes, without evidence, that there must have been a God to produce a world, just as there is a watchmaker to produce a watch; in the absence of the evidence of a divine designer, we should entertain plausible alternative hypotheses such as that of Darwin.
5. A more recent form of the argument based on design (Deism) holds that the universe evidences design, and therefore requires a designer, because it lends itself to mathematical interpretation; but mathematical interpretation is possible of virtually any known phenomena, however chaotic.
6. The moral augment of Kant amounts to a hope that there is a God in the life hereafter to dispense perfect justice to remedy the obvious lack of justice in this life. This hardly proves that such a being does in fact exist.
7. The appeal to mystical or religious experience as evidence of the existence of God is unacceptable because such experience does not lend itself to controlled scientific investigation. Feeling strongly that there is a God listening to one's prayer is insufficient to establish that there is such a being.
deism (dêıîz´em) noun
The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation. [French déisme, from Latin deus, god.] - deıist noun - deisıtic adjective
- deisıtically adverb
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition is licensed from Houghton Mifflin Company. Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Selected Illustrations from the Concise Columbia Encyclopedia. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press.
deists, rationalist thinkers of the 17th and 18th cent., who held that the course of nature demonstrates the existence of God, while they rejected formal religion and claims of supernatural revelation. VOLTAIRE, J.J. ROUSSEAU, Benjamin FRANKLIN, and Thomas JEFFERSON were deists. See also ENLIGHTENMENT.
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved
enlightenment (èn-lìtın-ment) noun
1. a. The act or a means of enlightening. b. The state of being enlightened. 2. Enlightenment. A philosophical movement of the 18th century that emphasized the use of reason to scrutinize previously accepted doctrines and traditions and that brought about many humanitarian reforms. Used with the. 3. Buddhism. A blessed state in which the individual transcends desire and suffering and attains Nirvana.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition is licensed from Houghton Mifflin Company. Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Selected Illustrations from the Concise Columbia Encyclopedia. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press.
Enlightenment (èn-lìtın-ment), term for the rationalist, liberal, humanitarian, and scientific trend of 18th-cent. Western thought; the period is also sometimes known as the Age of Reason. The enormous scientific and intellectual advancements made in the 17th cent. by the EMPIRICISM of Francis BACON and LOCKE, as well as by DESCARTES, SPINOZA, and others, fostered the belief in NATURAL LAW and universal order, promoted a scientific approach to political and social issues, and gave rise to a sense of human progress and belief in the state as its rational instrument. Representative of the Enlightenment are such thinkers as VOLTAIRE, J.J. ROUSSEAU, MONTESQUIEU, Adam SMITH, SWIFT, HUME, KANT, G.E. LESSING, BECCARIA, and, in America, Thomas PAINE, Thomas JEFFERSON, and Benjamin FRANKLIN. The social and political ideals they presented were enforced by "enlightened despots" such as Holy Roman Emperor JOSEPH II, CATHERINE II of Russia, and FREDERICK II of Prussia. DIDEROT's Encyclopédie and the U.S. CONSTITUTION are representative documents of the Age of Reason.
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
[The Enlightenment flowed from The Renaissance, which stands as a major juncture from the Dark and Middle Ages re-linking the thought of Ancient Times (Ancient Greeks, etc.), leading into Modern Times. This juncture of The Enlightenment was specifically against the authoritarian and superstitious dogma of religion which had/has controlled humankind for most of our time on earth to an orientation against religion and toward experience, experiment, science, and reason. GGL]
renaissance (rèn´î-sänsı, -zänsı, rènıî-säns´, -zäns´, rî-nâısens) noun
1. A rebirth or revival. 2. Renaissance a. The humanistic revival of classical art, architecture, literature, and learning that originated in Italy in the 14th century and later spread throughout Europe. b. The period of this revival, roughly the 14th through the 16th century, marking the transition from medieval to modern times. 3. Often Renaissance a. A revival of intellectual or artistic achievement and vigor: the Celtic Renaissance. b. The period of such a revival.
adjective Renaissance 1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Renaissance or its artistic and intellectual works and styles. 2. Of or being the neoclassic style of architecture and decoration that originated in Italy in the 15th century. [French, from Old French, from renaistre, to be born again, from Vulgar Latin *renâscere, from Latin renâscì : re-, re- + nâscì, to be born.]
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition is licensed from Houghton Mifflin Company. Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Selected Illustrations from the Concise Columbia Encyclopedia. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press.
Renaissance (rèn´î-sänsı) [Fr., = rebirth], term used to describe the rich development of Western civilization that marked the transition from the MIDDLE AGES to modern times. In Italy the Renaissance emerged by the 14th cent. and reached its height in the 15th and 16th cent.; elsewhere in Europe it may be dated from the 15th to the mid-17th cent. In outlook the Renaissance brought new importance to individual expression, self-consciousness, and worldly experience; culturally it was a time of brilliant accomplishments in scholarship, literature, science, and the arts (see RENAISSANCE ART AND ARCHITECTURE). More generally, it was an era of emerging nation-states and exploration, and the beginning of a revolution in commerce. The Renaissance first appeared in Italy, where relative political stability, economic expansion, wide contact with other cultures, and a flourishing urban civilization provided the background for a new view of the world. Fine libraries and learned academies and universities flourished. Scholars, poets, craftsmen, and artists were supported by such great patrons as the MEDICI family of Florence, Popes JULIUS II and LEO X, the doges of Venice, and the SFORZA family of Milan. The increased interest in and knowledge of the classical age was reflected in the works of PETRARCH, and the intellectual orientation was toward a secular HUMANISM, exemplified by the works of Lorenzo VALLA. In literature, the romance of the Renaissance was expressed by BOCCACCIO; MACHIAVELLI provided its most telling political commentary. The humanist emphasis on the individual was typified in the ideal of the Renaissance man, the man, of universal genius, best exemplified by LEONARDO DA VINCI. This ideal also led to the courtier, the ideal gentleman whose behavior was codified by CASTIGLIONE. Humanism in art found expression in a more realistic view of nature, seen in the works of Leonardo, MICHELANGELO, and RAPHAEL, while Renaissance architects such as ALBERTI, BRUNELLESCHI, BRAMANTE, and Michelangelo utilized classical forms. In France, classicism in literature was displayed by Pierre de RONSARD and Joachim DU BELLAY; RABELAIS expressed the Renaissance's sensual vitality. In Germany, the Renaissance interacted closely with the Protestant REFORMATION and was somewhat more somber. The Netherlands produced ERASMUS, the most notable of all the humanists, and Germany gave birth to Albrecht DüRER and the younger Hans HOLBEIN. England was represented in learning and literature by Sir Thomas MORE, Francis BACON, and William SHAKESPEARE. In Spain, Cervantes wrote his masterpiece, Don Quixote, and in Sweden, Queen CHRISTINA, patron of DESCARTES, encouraged scholarship, literature, and the arts at court. The Renaissance intellectual outlook and its concomitant cultural manifestations were gradually replaced by those of the ENLIGHTENMENT. The term renaissance is now often used to designate the flowering of various civilizations and eras.
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
[This is your cultural and intellectual heritage of the first order. You may choose to or choose to not partake of it. GGL]
Berkeley, George (bärıklê, bûr-), 1685-1753, Anglo-Irish philosopher and clergyman; b. Ireland. Going beyond the teachings of John LOCKE, Berkeley's subjective IDEALISM holds that there is no existence of matter independent of perception; the observing mind of God makes possible the continued apparent existence of material objects. Among his more important works are his Essay towards a New Theory of Vision (1709), A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge (1710), and Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous (1713).
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
Plato (plâıto), 427?-347 B.C., Greek philosopher. In 407 B.C. he became a pupil and friend of SOCRATES. After living for a time at the Syracuse court, Plato founded (c.387 B.C.) near Athens the most influential school of the ancient world, the Academy, where he taught until his death. His most famous pupil there was ARISTOTLE. Plato's extant work is in the form of epistles and dialogues, divided according to the probable order of composition. The early, or Socratic, dialogues, e.g., the Apology, Meno, and Gorgias, present Socrates in conversations that illustrate his major ideas-the unity of virtue and knowledge and of virtue and happiness. They also contain Plato's moving account of the last days and death of Socrates. Plato's goal in dialogues of the middle years, e.g., the Republic, Phaedo, Symposium, and Timaeus, was to show the rational relationship between the soul, the state, and the cosmos. The later dialogues, e.g., the Laws and Parmenides, contain treatises on law, mathematics, technical philosophic problems, and natural science. Plato regarded the rational soul as immortal, and he believed in a world soul and a Demiurge, the creator of the physical world. He argued for the independent reality of Ideas, or Forms, as the immutable archetypes of all temporal phenomena and as the only guarantee of ethical standards and of objective scientific knowledge. Virtue consists in the harmony of the human soul with the universe of Ideas, which assure order, intelligence, and pattern to a world in constant flux. Supreme among them is the Idea of the Good, analogous to the sun in the physical world. Only the philosopher, who understands the harmony of all parts of the universe with the Idea of the Good, is capable of ruling the just state. In Plato's various dialogues he touched upon virtually every problem that has occupied subsequent philosophers; his teachings have been among the most influential in the history of Western civilization, and his works are counted among the world's finest literature. See also NEOPLATONISM.
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
Anselm, Saint, 1033?-1109, Italian prelate, archbishop of Canterbury, Doctor of the Church. He succeeded (1093) his friend LANFRANC as archbishop of Canterbury. In England, he quarreled with WILLIAM II and HENRY I over lay INVESTITURE and was exiled twice. An influential theologian, he was a founder of SCHOLASTICISM. His famous ontological proof deduces God's existence from man's notion of a perfect being in whom nothing is lacking. Feast: Apr. 21.
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.Spinoza, Baruch
Spinoza, Baruch or Benedict, 1632-77, Dutch philosopher. A member of the Sephardic Jewish community of Amsterdam, Spinoza received a thorough education in the tradition of medieval philosophical texts as well as in the works of DESCARTES, HOBBES, and other writers of the period. After charges of heretical thought and practice led to his excommunication from the Jewish community in Amsterdam in 1656, he Latinized his name to Benedict. He was by trade a lens grinder, modestly rejecting offers of an academic career, but he nevertheless became celebrated in his own day and was regularly visited by other philosophers. Spinoza's system is monist, deductive, and rationalistic. Politically he posited the idea of the SOCIAL CONTRACT, but unlike Hobbes he visualized a community in which human beings derive most advantage from the rational renunciation of personal desire. He rejected the concept of FREE WILL, holding human action to be motivated by one's conception of self-preservation. A powerful, or virtuous, person acts out of understanding; thus freedom consists in being guided by the law of one's own nature, and evil is the result of inadequate understanding. He saw the supreme ambition of the virtuous person as the "intellectual love of God." Spinoza shared with Descartes an intensely mathematical appreciation of the universe: truth, like geometry, follows from first principles, and is accessible to the logical mind. Unlike Descartes, however, he regarded mind and body (or ideas and the physical universe) as merely different aspects of a single substance, which he called alternately God and Nature, God being Nature in its fullness. This pantheism was considered blasphemous by the religious and political authorities of his day. Of his works, only A Treatise on Religious and Political Philosophy (1670) was published during his lifetime. His Ethics, Political Treatise, and Hebrew Grammar are included in his posthumous works (1677).
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
"A little philosophy inclineth a man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion. For while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity."
Francis Bacon, "Of Atheism"
pantheism (pãnıthê-îz´em) [Gr.pan, = all] [Gr.theos, = God], any system of belief or speculation that identifies the universe with GOD. Some pantheists view God as primary and the universe as a finite and temporal emanation from God; others see nature as the great, inclusive unity. The various types of pantheism have religious, philosophical, scientific, and poetic bases. HINDUISM is a noteworthy form of religious pantheism; philosophical pantheism is most completely represented in the monistic system of SPINOZA.
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
Hinduism (hînıd¡-îz´em), Western term for the religious beliefs and practices of innumerable sects to which the vast majority of the people of India belong. Arising initially as a synthesis of indigenous religion and the religion brought to India c.1500 B.C. by the ARYANS, Hinduism developed over a period of 4,000 years in syncretism with the religious and cultural movements of the Indian subcontinent. Hindu belief is generally characterized by the CASTE system and the acceptance of the VEDA as the most sacred scripture. The Veda, which comprises the liturgy and interpretation of sacrificial ritual, culminates in the UPANISHADS, mystical and speculative works that state the doctrine of BRAHMAN, the absolute reality or Self, and its identity with the individual soul, or atman. The goal of Hinduism, like that of other Eastern religions, is liberation from the cycle of rebirth and the suffering brought about by one's own actions (see KARMA); this can be effected by following spiritual YOGA, practices leading to knowledge of reality and union with God. Early Brahmanism, the religion of the priests, or Brahmans (who through Vedic ritual sacrifice established a proper relation to the gods), was challenged in the first millennium B.C. by non-Vedic systems such as BUDDHISM and JAINISM. To meet the challenge, the Brahmans recognized popular devotional movements and showed greater concern for the people. Writings like the laws of MANU regulated DHARMA (duty) according to one's class (priest, warrior, farmer or merchant, laborer) and stage in life (celibate student, householder, forest recluse, one who completely renounces societal ties). The post-Vedic Puranas deal with this structure of individual and social life and also describe the repeating cycle of birth and dissolution of the universe, represented by the divine trinity of Brahma, the creator; Vishnu, the preserver; and Shiva, the destroyer. In medieval times, TANTRA and devotional sects flourished, producing poet-saints all over India who wrote religious songs and epics. This literature still plays an essential part in Hinduism, as does the practice of puja, or worship of enshrined deities, such as Vishnu and his incarnations Rama and Krishna, Shiva, Ganesha, and Devi (also called Kali, Sarasvati, or Lakshmi Many modern Hindu leaders, e.g., Swami Vivekananda, Mohandas GANDHI, and Aurobindo GHOSE, have stressed the necessity of uniting spiritual life with social concerns. A revival of traditional Hinduism in the late 20th cent. led to a political movement to replace the secular Indian state with a Hindu one and to tensions between Indian Hindus and Muslims.
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
Some Quotes Relative to God
It is an insult to God to believe in God. For on the one hand it is to suppose that he has perpetrated acts of incalculable cruelty. On the other hand, it is to suppose that he has perversely given his human creatures an instrument-their intellect-which must inevitably lead them, if they are dispassionate and honest, to deny his existence. It is tempting to conclude that if he exists, it is the atheists and agnostics that he loves best, among those with any pretensions to education. For they are the ones who have taken him most seriously.
Galen Strawson (b. 1952), British philosopher, literary critic. Quoted in: Independent (London, 24 June 1990).
The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1993 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
God is indeed dead.
He died of self-horror
when He saw the creature He had made
in His own image.
Irving Layton (b. 1912), Canadian poet. The Whole Bloody Bird, "Aphs" (1969).
The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1993 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
The psychoanalysis of individual human beings, however, teaches us with quite special insistence that the god of each of them is formed in the likeness of his father, that his personal relation to God depends on his relation to his father in the flesh and oscillates and changes along with that relation, and that at bottom God is nothing other than an exalted father.
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), Austrian psychiatrist. Totem and Taboo, pt. 4, sct. 6 (1913; repr. in Complete Works, vol. 13, ed. by James Strachey and Anna Freud, 1953).
The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1993 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
To place oneself in the position of God is painful: being God is equivalent to being tortured. For being God means that one is in harmony with all that is, including the worst. The existence of the worst evils is unimaginable unless God willed them.
Georges Bataille (1897-1962), French novelist, critic. "Bataille, Feydeau and God," interview with Marguerite Duras in France-Observateur (1957; repr. in Duras, Outside: Selected Writings, 1984).
The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1993 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
I find it interesting that the meanest life, the poorest existence, is attributed to God's will, but as human beings become more affluent, as their living standard and style begin to ascend the material scale, God descends the scale of responsibility at a commensurate speed.
Maya Angelou (b. 1928), U.S. author. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, vol. 1, ch. 18 (1969).
The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1993 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
god (gòd) noun
1. God a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being. c. Christian Science. "Infinite Mind; Spirit; Soul; Principle; Life; Truth; Love" (Mary Baker Eddy). 2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality. 3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol. 4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: money was their god. 5. A very handsome man. 6. A powerful ruler or despot. [Middle English, from Old English.]
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition is licensed from Houghton Mifflin Company. Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
God (gòd), divinity of the three great monotheistic religions, JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY, and ISLAM. In the Old Testament various names for God are used, Elohim most commonly. The four-letter form YHWH is the most celebrated; the Hebrews considered it ineffable and in reading substituted the name Adonai [my Lord]. The reconstruction Jehovah was based on a mistake, and the form Yahweh is not now regarded as reliable. The general conception of God is that of an infinite being (often a personality but not necessarily anthropomorphic) who is supremely good, who created the world, who knows all and can do all, who is transcendent over and immanent in the world, and who loves all human beings. (The Old Testament concept of God is less unified and consistent.) The majority of Christians believe God lived on earth in the flesh as Jesus Christ (see JESUS; TRINITY). Muslims call God Allah, the name of God in Arabic, the language of the Koran, but it is also used by Arabic-speaking Christians. The several famous arguments for the existence of God are based on causality, design and purpose in the universe, and the nature of divine being; many have held, however, that God's existence must be accepted on faith. Some philosophers have extended the name God to such concepts as world soul, cosmic energy, and mind.
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
Lucretius (l¡-krêıshes) (Titus Lucretius Carus), c.99-c.55 B.C., Roman poet and philosopher. His poetry constitutes one great didactic work in six books, De rerum natura [on the nature of things]. In dignified hexameter verse he set forth arguments based on the philosophy of DEMOCRITUS and EPICURUS. Using the so-called atomic theory of the ancients, he argued that a person need not fear gods or death because everything, even the soul, is made up of atoms controlled by natural laws; thus there is no immortality, consciousness ending with death. Though not the same as modern atomic theory, Lucretius' teachings have been upheld in many respects by later investigation.
Democritus (dî-mòkırî-tes), c.460-c.370 B.C., Greek philosopher. His atomic theory of the nature of the physical world, known to us through ARISTOTLE's writings, was the most scientific theory proposed up to his time. He held that all living things are composed of tiny indivisible particles, called atoms, and that their constant motion explains the creation of the universe: the heavier atoms clustered together to form the earth, while the lighter ones formed the heavenly bodies.
Aristotle (ãrıî-stòt´l), 384-322 B.C., Greek philosopher. He studied (367-347 B.C.) under PLATO and later (342-339 B.C.) tutored ALEXANDER THE GREAT at the Macedonian court. In 335 B.C. he opened a school in the Athenian Lyceum. During the anti-Macedonian agitation after Alexander's death Aristotle fled (323 B.C.) to Chalcis, where he died. His extant writings, largely in the form of lecture notes made by his students, include the Organum (treatises on logic); Physics; Metaphysics; De Anima [on the soul]; Nicomachean Ethics and Eudemian Ethics; Politics; De Poetica; Rhetoric; and works on biology and physics. Aristotle held philosophy to be the discerning, through the use of systematic LOGIC as expressed in SYLLOGISMS, of the self-evident, changeless first principles that form the basis of all knowledge. He taught that knowledge of a thing requires an inquiry into causality and that the "final cause"-the purpose or function of the thing-is primary. The highest good for the individual is the complete exercise of the specifically human function of rationality. In contrast to the Platonic belief that a concrete reality partakes of a form but does not embody it, the Aristotelian system holds that, with the exception of the Prime Mover (God), form has no separate existence but is immanent in matter. Aristotle's work was lost following the decline of Rome but was reintroduced to the West through the work of Arab and Jewish scholars, becoming the basis of medieval SCHOLASTICISM.
Epicurus (èp´î-ky¢rıes), 341-270 B.C., Greek philosopher, founder and eponym of epicureanism. He defined philosophy as the art of making life happy and subordinated METAPHYSICS to ETHICS, naming pleasure the highest and only good. For Epicurus, however, pleasure was not the heedless indulgence advocated by the followers of HEDONISM, but rather the serenity (ataraxia) resulting from the absence of pain. He also prescribed a code of social conduct that advocated honesty, prudence, and justice in dealing with others (because such conduct would save the individual from society's retribution, or pain). Only fragments of his writings are extant; the finest exposition of his ideas is contained in On the Nature of Things by the Roman poet LUCRETIUS.
hedonism (hêdın-îz´em), in philosophy, the doctrine that pleasure is the highest good. Ancient hedonism equated pleasure variously with the gratification of sensual desire (as in the teaching of Aristippus and the Cyreniacs, c.435-360 B.C.) and with the intellectual serenity brought on by the rational control of desire (as in the teaching of EPICURUS). Modern British hedonism, expressed first in UTILITARIANISM, represents a social universalism, stressing that the aim of life is the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
utilitarianism (y¡-tîl´î-târıê-e-nîz´em), in ethics, the theory that the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by the goodness or badness of its consequences. Jeremy BENTHAM, founder of the theory, held that the greatest happiness of the greatest number is the fundamental and self-evident principle of morality. His student John Stuart MILL used the principles of utilitarianism to advocate political and social reform, increased democracy, and the emancipation of women. Herbert SPENCER developed a utilitarian ethics based on evolutionary changes.
Bentham, Jeremy, 1748-1832, English philosopher, jurist, political theorist; founder of UTILITARIANISM. Educated as a lawyer, Bentham devoted himself to the scientific analysis of morals and law. His Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789) held that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should govern our judgment of every institution and action. The 19th-cent. reforms of criminal law, of judicial organization, and of the parliamentary electorate owe much to Bentham's active work in English legislative reform, and his thought strongly influenced that of John Stuart MILL.
Mill, John Stuart, 1806-73, British philosopher and economist. He received a rigorous education under his father, James Mill (1773-1836), and Jeremy BENTHAM (1748-1832), who were close friends and together had founded UTILITARIANISM. John Stuart Mill's own philosophy, influenced by his wife, Harriet Taylor, developed into a more humanitarian doctrine than that of utilitarianism's founders: he was sympathetic to socialism, and was a strong advocate of women's rights and such political and social reforms as proportional representation, labor unions, and farm cooperatives. In logic he formulated rules for the process of induction, and he stressed the method of EMPIRICISM as the source of all knowledge. On Liberty (1859) is probably his most famous work. Among his other books are Principles of Political Economy (1848), Utilitarianism (1863), and his celebrated Autobiography (1873). One of the most important liberal thinkers of the 19th cent., Mill strongly influenced modern economics, politics, and philosophy.
Spencer, Herbert, 1820-1903, English philosopher. Together with Charles DARWIN and Thomas Henry HUXLEY he was responsible for the acceptance of the theory of evolution, and he coined the phrase "survival of the fittest," later attributed to Darwin. He projected a vast work, Synthetic Philosophy, that would apply the principle of evolutionary progress to all branches of knowledge; the numerous volumes published between 1855 and 1893 covered such subjects as biology, psychology, sociology, and ethics. He is credited with the establishment of sociology as a discipline in the U.S.
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
Darwin, Charles Robert, 1809-82, English naturalist, grandson of Erasmus DARWIN. He firmly established the theory of organic EVOLUTION. His position as official naturalist aboard the H.M.S. Beagle during its world voyage (1831-36) started Darwin on a career of accumulating and assimilating data that resulted in the formulation of his concept of evolution. In 1858 he and Alfred Russel WALLACE simultaneously published summaries of their independently conceived notions of NATURAL SELECTION; a year later Darwin set forth the structure of his theory and massive support for it in his Origin of Species. This was supplemented by later works, notably The Descent of Man (1871). Darwin also formulated a theory of the origin of coral reefs.
Wallace, Alfred Russel, 1823-1913, English naturalist. From his study of comparative biology in Brazil and the East Indies, he evolved a concept of EVOLUTION similar to that of Charles DARWIN. His special contribution to the evidence for evolution was in biogeography; he systematized the science and wrote The Geographical Distribution of Animals (2 vol., 1876) and a supplement, Island Life (1881).
Enough! Back to the origin(ator)! (The following from the Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion: Eastern and Western Thought by W.L. Reese (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press,1980)
LUCRETIUS (TITUS LUCRETIUS CARUS). c. 99-55 B.C.: Roman poet and philosopher. Born in Rome. A member of the aristocracy. A student of Greek philosophy and especially of the writings of Epicurus. The account of Suetonius that Lucretius suffered mental illness as the result of taking a powerful love-philtre, that his book was composed during his lucid intervals and corrected by Cicero; and that he died by his own hand at the age of 49, has little to recommend it. Certainly the philosophical poem itself reveals a powerful mind at work.
Principal writings: On the Nature of Things (T).
(1) Following Epicurus in most points, Lucretius developed a metaphysics built from the concepts of atoms, motion, and the void. Atoms are indestructible, having size, shape, and weight but no secondary qualities. The different qualities of composit things are due to the difference of the constituent atoms and their arrangements.
(2) Matter and space and infinite; hence, one must posit an infinite number of worlds coming into being, developing to maturity and perishing.
(3) Atoms are naturally in motion; and this motion, incredibly rapid, is initially downward and in parallel lines. The atoms possess a power, however, to swerve slightly from the downward direction dictated by their weight. This swerving allows the birth of worlds and the appearance of composite things. The same power is called upon by man in mental decisions.
(4) The human psyche has, like everything else, an atomic structure. Hence, there can be no immortality, and the fear of death is unreasonable.
(5) Streams of images leave the surface of things, entering our eyes when these are appropriately turned. The senses receive the images but sometimes the mind misinterprets the content received.
(6) Our world began from an atomic chaos which produced its own order. Living forms have developed from vegetation into animal forms, and at last to the form of man. The criterion of survival has determined what species continue to exist, and many species have perished.
(7) The advance of man from a brutish state into civilization is accompanied by the growth of a natural justice.
(8) Gods exist in the interspaces between worlds, but they are self-sufficient beings, and have nothing to do with us. And since worlds come to be by natural causes no creator is required.
(9) Pleasure is the end of life, but only the pleasure of peace and a pure heart are at last satisfying. These are found, at least in part, in devotion to truth, and the realization that while the world is temporary and man more temporary still, death is noting to us; and the fear of the unknown can be dissipated along with superstition.
Where this all began, and why I, for one, love the mind and thoughts of Lucretius.
What is your grievance, mortal, that you give yourself up to this whining and reining? Why do you weep and wail over death? If the life you have lived till now has been a pleasant thing--if all its blessings have not leaked away like water poured into a cracked pot and run to waste unrelished--why then, you silly creature, do you not retire as a guest who has had his fill of life and take your care-free rest with a quiet mind?
The Nature of Things, translated by Robert Latham, Penguin Books, 1951
From the very fountain of enchantment there arises a taste of bitterness to spread anguish amongst the flowers.
Lucretius (c. 99-c. 55 B.C.), Roman poet, philosopher. De Rerum Natura, bk. 4.
Pleasant it is, when over a great sea the winds trouble the waters, to gaze from shore upon another's great tribulation; not because any man's troubles are a delectable joy, but because to perceive you are free of them yourself is pleasant.
Lucretius (c. 99-C. 55 B.C.), Roman poet, philosopher. De Rerum Natura, bk. 2.
The above quote, ". . ."spreading anguish amongst the flowers. " reminded me of another quote which I recall as: "It is not enough that you must win, your friends must lose."
I couldn't find that quote among my references. But I found some others Lucretius might approve/agree:
I would not that death should take me asleep. I would not have him merely seize me, and only declare me to be dead, but win me, and overcome me. When I must shipwreck, I would do it in a sea, where mine impotence might have some excuse; not in a sullen weedy lake, where I could not have so much as exercise for my swimming.
John Donne (c. 1572-1631), English divine metaphysical poet. Letter, Sept. 1608 (published in Complete Poetry and Selected Prose, ed. by John Hayward, 1929).
It is only possible to succeed at second-rate pursuits-like becoming a millionaire or a prime minister, winning a war, seducing beautiful women, flying thought the stratosphere or landing on the moon. First-rate pursuits-involving, as they must, trying to understand what life is about and trying to convey that understanding-inevitably result in a sense of failure. A Napoleon, a Churchill, a Roosevelt can feel themselves to be successful, but never a Socrates, a Pascal, a Blake. Understanding is for ever unattainable. Therein lies the inevitability of failure in embarking upon its quest, which is none the less the only one worthy of serious attention.
Malcolm Muggeridge (1903-90), British broadcaster. "Woman's Hour," radio broadcast, 5 Aug. 1965. Quoted in: Muggeridge through the Microphone, "Failure" (1967).
The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations is licensed from Columbia University Press.
Copyright © 1993 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
This Assist tracks the text at pages 17-21, 22, 27, 30-31, and 33-40.
There are two major types of justifications for the existence of God (using Paul Kurtz' terminology). One such type includes "appeals to experience," and the second type is called "deductive proofs," aka "philosophical arguments," aka "technical proofs."
1.0: Appeals to Experience: "The first-hand testimony of alleged witnesses" and/or your own experience.
1.1: Revelation: revelation (rèv´e-lâıshen) noun
1.a. The act of revealing or disclosing. b. Something revealed, especially a dramatic disclosure of something not previously known or realized.
2. Theology. A manifestation of divine will or truth.
3. Revelation Abbr. Rev., Rv. Bible.
[Middle English revelacion, from Old French revelation, from Latin revêlâtio, revêlâtion-, from revêlâtus, past participle of revêlâre, to reveal. See reveal1.]
1.2: Miracles: miracle (mîrıe-kel) noun
1. An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God: "Miracles are spontaneous, they cannot be summoned, but come of themselves" (Katherine Anne Porter).
2. One that excites admiring awe. See Synonyms at wonder.
3. A miracle play.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin mìrâculum, from mìrârì, to wonder at, from mìrus, wonderful.]
1.3: Mystical experience: mystical (mîsıtî-kel) adjective
1. Of or having a spiritual reality or import not apparent to the intelligence or senses.
2. Of, relating to, or stemming from direct communion with ultimate reality or God: a mystical religion.
3. Of or founded on subjective experience: mystical theories about the securities market.
4. Of or relating to mystic rites or practices.
5. Unintelligible; cryptic.
- mysıtically adverb
- mysıticalness noun
1.4.1: Religious Experience/Personal-Individual
I subdivide "religious experience" into "personal-individual and "social-group". The personal-individual religious experience is real to the subjective mind of the experiencer, but is of lesser "force" than revelation, experiencing a miracle, or a mystical experience. For example, you are on a beach watching the sun come up, the sea is blue-blue, and the sky is blue-blue, and a salty breeze plays around your body. You think/feel, "What a beautiful planet, what a great God to have made it so." Or, say, you stand somewhat awe- struck within a beautiful church with the sun dancing in the stained glass windows.
1.4.2: Religious Experience/Social-Group
For example here, you are at a moving church service or at a religious rally, and you feel almost overcome with the emotion pervading the group, a religious experience similar to your enthusiasm generated by the crowd at a great football game.
2.0: Deductive Proofs: Also termed "philosophical arguments" and "technical proofs". The term "proof (without getting super-technical about it) is NOT used as per the usual, everyday meaning: "1.The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true."
This is NOT the meaning of proof in philosophy because the mind is NOT COMPELLED to accept the argument. Philosophical proof is more in the nature of the second definition: "2.a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions. b. A statement or an argument used in such a validation." In other words, certain rules are followed, and the "argument" is termed a "proof". The term "deductive" is real tricky. Look at these two definitions: "3. The drawing of a conclusion by reasoning; the act of deducing. 4. Logic. a. The process of reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the stated premises; inference by reasoning from the general to the specific. b. A conclusion reached by this process." So, in one (less formal) meaning, deduction simply means the utilization of ratiocination (that's a $1.25 word for thinking/reason- ing). Then (more formal) deductive reasoning is a working down from major principles. In logic, deduction is the opposite of induction: "3. Logic. a. The process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances. b. A conclusion reached by this process." So, induction is working up from specifics to generalities. When Kurtz uses the term "deductive proofs," I think he means it in the sense of "the application of reasoning" (the more in -formal usage) than he means "logical induction" (the more formal usage). (SEE! Ain't philosophy fun!)
2.1: Ontological Argument (St. Anselm). There is an idea of God. For God to be God, He must be perfect. To be perfect, He must be all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient, and some add omnipresent) and all-good (omnibenovolent). He cannot be perfect if He does not exist, therefore, He must exist. This is an a priori argument, meaning before or without the benefit of experience. The notion is that this argument is purely mental/ ideational. ("On" means "being"--so this is an argument on the nature of God's being.)
2.2: Cosmological Argument (Argument by Cause) (St. Thomas Aquinas). Aquinas disagreed with Anselm. Aquinas held that the mind of man cannot know God directly. Aquinas held that the only way for man to know God is through observation of his works- in-the-world. Aquinas formulated "five ways" which I'll simplify to: 1) cause of motion; 2) powerful enough cause to cause the universe; 3) cause of something-out-of-nothing; 4) the cause of all the lesser gradients; 5) the cause of the telos of all (living) things. This is an a posteriori argument, meaning that it is after and/or utilizes experience (of the world).
2.3: Teleological Argument (Argument by Design). The Teleological Argument is a spin- off of Aquinas' fifth way--the end-game of all (living) things. How does an acorn know to become a mighty oak? How does the sperm-impregnated ovum of a human female know to become a human--and not an oak tree, for instance? The argument goes that a great Designer did all this. (This is an a posteriori argument as well.)
2.4: Deistic Argument (Deism) (Thomas Jefferson). This is a spin-off of the Teleological Argument. The Deists "admitted" a designer, holding that the world was too grand and too complex and too intricate to have not been designed by. . . (?) God, we'll call it. BUT, the Deists rejected all Christian stories and myths, such as virgin birth, the divinity of Jesus, etc., etc. As well, Deists saw no merit in praying to such a designer, or in asking either help or forgiveness. YET, Deists are theists, meaning they they believe in God--but by a very liberal understanding. They are not atheists, meaning that they do not believe in God. And they are not agnostics, meaning "undecided" (technically, agnostics are also atheists, for one either believes, or does not). (The piece in your text by Jefferson is a cleverly-worded defense of himself--as a political entity--against the accusation that he is/was an atheist . This Jefferson selection isn't really hard-core Deism.)
That's it, boys and girls (save for the Moral Argument, a la Kant)!
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition is licensed from Houghton Mifflin Company. Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Selected Illustrations from the Concise Columbia Encyclopedia. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press.
2.2.1: When the Saints Come Marchin' In (Religious Foundations of Epistemology)
2.2.2: When the Saints Come Marchin' Through (More Epistemology than You Ever Care to Know)
2.2.4: Skepticism, Cynecism, and Immanual Kant
Detail on Anselm and Aquinas, etc., etc. and on to Epistemology (prepared 2/6/97)
saint, in Christian theology, a person who shares in the holiness of God. To New Testament authors, the church was the community of saints, but the word came to be used for those who live in heaven. The Virgin MARY is the chief saint, and the ANGELS are counted as saints. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox LITURGIES commemorate the saints with special feast days. In East and West criteria for recognition of sainthood are martyrdom, holiness of life, miracles in life and after death, and a popular cult. The addition of a name to the official list of saints is called canonization. In 1969 the Roman Catholic Church dropped certain saints, including St. Christopher, from its liturgical calendar because of doubts about their historicity. [Emphasis mine. See beatification and canonization at pages 2 and 3--GGL. ]
Anselm, Saint, 1033?-1109, Italian prelate, archbishop of Canterbury, Doctor of the Church. He succeeded (1093) his friend LANFRANC as archbishop of Canterbury. In England, he quarreled with WILLIAM II and HENRY I over lay INVESTITURE and was exiled twice. An influential theologian, he was a founder of SCHOLASTICISM. His famous ontological proof deduces God's existence from man's notion of a perfect being in whom nothing is lacking. Feast: Apr. 21.
investiture (în-vèsıte-ch¢r´), in FEUDALISM, the ceremony by which a lord "invested" a vassal with a fief, usually by giving him a symbolic stone or clod. In clerical investiture, the symbols were the pastoral ring and staff. Since bishops and abbots were both spiritual and temporal lords, kings and popes disputed the right of investiture in the Middle Ages. Lay investiture-the investiture of a cleric by a temporal lord-became a bitter quarrel between Pope GREGORY VII and Holy Roman Emperor HENRY IV when Gregory forbade (1075) it. After a long conflict, HENRY V and Pope CALIXTUS II resolved the issue in the Concordat of Worms. In England, WILLIAM II began a long struggle over investiture that was settled (1107) by a compromise between HENRY I and St. ANSELM which gave investiture to the church and homages from church revenues to the king.
scholasticism, philosophy and theology of Western Christendom in the Middle Ages. Basic to scholastic thought is the use of reason to deepen the understanding of what is believed on faith, and ultimately to give a rational content to faith. Its formal beginnings are identified with St. ANSELM (late 11th cent.), who tried to prove the existence of God by purely rational means. ABELARD stressed the rational approach in considering the most important philosophical question of the 12th cent., the question of universals (see NOMINALISM; REALISM). The early church fathers, notably St. AUGUSTINE, incorporated PLATO's doctrines and NEOPLATONIC thought into Christian theology. The 13th cent., the golden age of medieval philosophy, was marked by two important developments: the growth of universities (especially at Paris and Oxford); and the availability in Latin translation of the works of ARISTOTLE and the commentaries of AVICENNA and AVERROëS. The closely wrought, rational system of St. THOMAS AQUINAS is regarded as the greatest achievement of the scholastic age and the ultimate triumph of the effort to "Christianize Aristotle." Later opponents of Aquinas, e.g., St. BONAVENTURE, DUNS SCOTUS, and WILLIAM OF OCCAM, broke the synthesis of faith and reason. The secular currents of the Renaissance and the growth of the natural sciences brought on the decline of scholastic metaphysics, although its approach continued to be followed in politics and law. In 1879 Pope LEO XIII proclaimed the system of Aquinas to be the official Catholic philosophy.
Abelard, Peter (ãbıelärd), 1079-1142, French philosopher. Because his fame as a dialectician drew so many students, he is regarded as the founder of the Univ. of Paris. His secret marriage to a pupil, Heloïse, ended when her uncle, Canon Fulbert of Notre Dame, hired ruffians to emasculate him. Becoming a monk, he built a hermitage and monastery, the Paraclete, which he later presented to Heloïse, who had become an abbess. Abelard's first theological work had been burned (1121) as heretical; in 1140 the mystic St. BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX secured his condemnation by the council of Sens, and he retired in submission to Cluny. Following PLATO in theology, Abelard espoused the method of ARISTOTLE's dialectic, holding that the system of LOGIC could be applied to the truths of faith. His view of universals anticipated the conceptualism of ST. THOMAS AQUINAS. His most influential and controversial work, Sic et non, collected contradictory writings of the Church fathers.
Thomas Aquinas, Saint, 1225-74, Italian philosopher and theologian, Doctor of the Church; known as the Angelic Doctor. He is the greatest figure of SCHOLASTICISM, one of the principal saints of the Roman Catholic Church, and the founder of the system declared (1879) by Pope Leo XIII the official Catholic philosophy. His major work, the monumental Summa Theologica (1267-73), is a systematic exposition of Christian theology on philosophical principles. His shorter treatise, On Being and Essence (1256), contains his metaphysics. St. Thomas's system embraces the moderate REALISM of Aristotle and is in opposition to the Platonism and Neoplatonism that had prevailed in Catholic theology since the time of St. AUGUSTINE. Unlike the Platonists, to whom truth was a matter of faith, St. Thomas held that faith and reason constitute two harmonious realms; theology and science cannot contradict each other. Likewise, there can be no conflict between philosophy and theology. In his universe, everything is arranged in ascending order to God, the only necessary, self-sufficient being. St. Thomas succeeded in synthesizing the naturalistic philosophy of Aristotle and Christian belief, perhaps the greatest achievement of medieval philosophy. Feast: Mar. 7.
Augustine, Saint (ôıgestên, -tîn; ôgùsıtîn) (ôıgestên, -tîn; ôgùsıtîn), 354-430, Doctor of the Church, bishop of Hippo (near present-day Annaba, Algeria); b. near Hippo. Brought up as a Christian by his mother, St. Monica, Augustine gave up his religion while at school in Carthage, then converted to MANICHAEISM. He taught rhetoric in Rome (after 376) and Milan (after 384). In Milan he was drawn to the teachings of St. AMBROSE and to NEOPLATONISM, and finally embraced Christianity, returning (387) to a monastic life in Tagaste. In 391 he was ordained a priest in Hippo, where he remained for the rest of his life, serving as bishop from 396. St. Augustine's influence on Christianity was immense, and theologians, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, look upon him as the founder of theology. His polemics against Manichaeism, Donatism, and Pelagianism are well known, and his autobiographical Confessions is a classic of Christian mysticism. On the Trinity systematized Christian doctrine, and The City of God, his monumental defense of Christianity against paganism, is famous for its Christian view of history. Feast: Aug. 28.
Ambrose, Saint, 340?-397, bishop of MILAN, Doctor of the Church. A popular governor in Milan, Ambrose was made (374) bishop by popular demand. He opposed ARIANISM and was an adviser to Emperor Gratian, whom he persuaded to outlaw (379) heresy in the West. His preaching helped to convert St. AUGUSTINE. Ambrose wrote many theological works and is associated with the type of PLAINSONG called Ambrosian chant. Feast: Dec. 7.
Arianism (ãrıê-e-nîz´em), Christian heresy arising from the teaching of the Alexandrian priest Arius, c.256-336. To Arius, Jesus was a supernatural being, not quite human, not quite divine, who was created by God. Arianism spread and was condemned by the First Council of NICAEA (325). The conflict went on, however, and several bishops and emperors sided with Arius. The Catholic tenets of Rome and ATHANASIUS finally triumphed, and the First Council of CONSTANTINOPLE (381) upheld the decrees of Nicaea.
Bonaventure (bònıe-vèn´cher) or Bonaventura, Saint, 1221-74, Italian scholastic theologian, cardinal, Doctor of the Church, called the Seraphic Doctor. After teaching at the Univ. of Paris, he was made (1257) general of the FRANCISCANS. His writings reconcile ARISTOTLE's learning with Augustinian Christianity. His later mystical works bring the teachings of BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX to full flower. Feast: July 15. See also AUGUSTINE, SAINT; SCHOLASTICISM.
Bernard of Clairvaux, Saint, 1090?-1153, French churchman, Doctor of the Church. He founded (1115) a Cistercian monastery at Clairvaux, where he remained as abbot for the rest of his life, despite efforts to move him higher. His holiness, intellect, and eloquence made him one of the most powerful figures of his day; he brought about the condemnation of Peter ABELARD and preached the Second CRUSADE. His writings exerted a profound influence on Roman Catholic spirituality, especially that known as devotio moderna. He was canonized in 1174. Feast: Aug. 20. [The dictionary of Philosophy and Religion: Eastern and Western Thought, William L. Reese (Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey: 1980--hereinafter DPR) notes: In 1145 a pupil of Bernard's became Pope Eugenius III; and Bernard could justly be regarded as the most powerful man in Europe at this time. His power was sometimes used recklessly due to a hatred of heresy which became in practice a hatred of reason itself. He engaged in a controversy with Abrelard where this trait was exhibited and also with Gilbert de la Porree. Yet Bernard also possessed the mystic vision of a rhapsodic love in which the Church is described in erotic terms as the bride of Christ.]
Duns Scotus, John, c.1266-1308, Scottish scholastic philosopher, known as the Subtle Doctor. A Franciscan, he adapted Aristotelian thought to Christian theology and founded the school of SCHOLASTICISM known as Scotism, which opposed the Thomism of the followers of THOMAS AQUINAS. Duns Scotus denied that individuality comes from matter. Modifying St. ANSELM's ontological proof of the existence of God, he argued that God's possible existence must be demonstrable from sense experience. His best-known works are On the First Principle and two commentaries on the Sentences of the Italian theologian Peter Lombard.
William of Occam or Ockham, c.1285-1349, English philosopher. An exponent of SCHOLASTICISM, he was charged (1324) with heresy by Pope John XXII and fled (1328) to the protection of the pope's great enemy, Holy Roman Emperor Louis IV; his political writings thereafter supported the temporal power of the emperor over that of the pope. Occam's teachings mark an important break with previous medieval philosophy. Adhering to the position of NOMINALISM, he rejected the Aristotelian REALISM of St. Thomas Aquinas, specifically denying the existence of universals except in people's minds and language. He disputed the self-evidence of the Aristotelian final cause and of the existence of God, denying the competence of reason in matters of faith. This led him to hold that logic can be studied outside the province of metaphysics, a position that proved important in the development of scientific enquiry. In logic, Occam is remembered for his use of the principle of parsimony, formulated as "Occam's razor," which enjoined economy in explanation with the axiom "It is vain to do with more what can be done with less."
beatification. From the Latin beatus ("blessed") and facere ("to make"). That stage in the Roman Catholic process of canonization whereby a candidate for sainthood is declared one of the "blessed" and entitled to public religious honor.
canonization. In Roman Catholicism the decree placing a person in the catalogue or canon of saints and recommending that he be venerated. Necessary to canonization is the prior achievement of beatification and the authentication of at least two miracles by intercession of the person, always deceased, under consideration.
The following re: St. Augustine, " His polemics against Manichaeism, Donatism, and Pelagianism are well known. . . ."
Manichaeism. The religion of Mani, origination in Babylonia in the 3rd century A.D., and lasting until the Mongol invasions of the 13th century. Mani was born in the early years of the 3rd century, probably around 215, in Babylonia. Convinced that he has been chosen to proclaim a new faith, Mani began his public mission in 242, traveling widely and apparently visiting India and China in addition to the countries of Central Asia. He wrote many books and epistles, only scattered fragments of which survive. The opposition of the Magi, the Zoroastrian priesthood, led to his execution around 276 A.D. [DPR.] [GGL ADDNOTE: There is much detail in DPR. The following--already provided in my hand-out re: the devil--is the basics.]
Manichaeism (mãn´î-kêıîz´em) or Manichaeanism, religion founded by Mani (A.D. c.216-c.276), a visionary prophet, probably of Persian origin. After his martyrdom, his religion spread rapidly throughout the Roman Empire and Asia. Manichaeism synthesized elements from earlier religions such as GNOSTICISM, ZOROASTRIANISM, and Christianity; it taught dualism between good and evil, the transmigration of souls, and the possibility of salvation. St. Augustine was a Manichee until his conversion. The religion survived in the West until the 6th cent. and in the East until about the 13th cent. [The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia, 1991.]
Donatism. A schismatic sect, rising in the early part of the 4th century in Carthage, and taking its name from Bishop Donatus. Declared heretical in 405 A.D., the principal tenet of the sect was that the validity of the sacraments depended upon the merit of the priest administering them. St. Augustine, as their most illustrious opponent, wrote against the Donatists. [DPR]
Pelaganism. The doctrine of Pelagius and his followers that man has free will, and that divine grace merely helps a Christian to accomplish what is in his power without it. The doctrine was condemned at the Councils of Carthage, 416 and 418. In the 14th century, Bradwardine wrote against the "modern Pelagians," as did Biel in the 15th century. [DPR]
Pelagius. British theologian. Probably of Irish birth. Although a layman, he maintained monastic discipline throughout his life. Coming to Rome near the start of the 5th century he was shocked by the moral laxness he observed, and felt that the doctrine of man's total depravity had permitted an evasion of moral responsibility. On the ground that ability limits obligation, he held that there can be no sin where the will is not free. This implied, in his view, that man has free will, and therefore that there is no original sin, except in the sense that Adam has provided us a bad example and influence. As for grace, is view seems to have been that its influence simply makes it easier for the Christian to accomplish what is in his power in any case. And with or without grace it is the human will that must take the initiative in moving toward salvation. St. Augustine found the views of Pelagius heretical, and had them condemned t the Councils of Carthage in 416 and 418. By an imperial edict of 418, it was decreed that Pelagius and Coelestius (his most noted follower) be banned along with all who subscribe to their doctrines, and that their property be confiscated. Pelagius, who had moved from Rome to North Africa when Rome was sacked in 410, and then to Palestine, is not heard of after 420. [DPR]
Bradwardine, Thomas, e. 1290-1349, English philosopher and theologian. Born in Sussex, England. Educated at Oxford. Chancellor of the university, in 1349 he became Archbishop of Canterbury. Called "the Profound Doctor." He countered the "modern Pelagians" by viewing God's will, the first cause, as more immediately responsible all effects in the world--even human actions--than the proximate or second causes. He likewise criticized the Aristotelian law of motion. [DPR]
Biel, Gabriel. 1425-1495. German Scholastic. Born in Spier. Taught at Tubingen. Twice Rector of Tubingen. A follower of Ockham and an opponent of Pelagianism, his expositions of Ockham--expanding the area of faith in relation to that of reason--became influential in German universities, including Wittenberg. This view of God's dominance, the absolute and arbitrary nature of His will, over and in contrast to human wills, influenced the thought of Luther and Melanchthon on predestination and free will. [DPR]
GGL ADDNOTE: It seems the major matters being argued relate to:1) the existence of God; 2) God's force or cause in the affairs of man, and; 3) the juncture or separateness of faith and reason. Sainthood goes to churchmen who most strongly argue God's existence, His direct causality in the affairs of man, and either the supremacy of faith over reason or the application of reason in supporting faith. (If you read this all differently, please let me know.) The first two matters are clearly metaphysical. The third, however, is more epistemological. So, equally what is going on here relate to the questions: 1) What is reality?; 2) How do we know reality?, and; 3) How do we know what we know? The epistemological vocabulary follows. Of course, as we observe the Philosophy of Religion overlapping and intermingling with the four other text major parts, we here have some commingling of metaphysical and epistemological matters and terms.
epistemology, branch of philosophy dealing with the origin and nature of knowledge, a fundamental theme since the 17th cent. The rationalist view, led by DESCARTES, SPINOZA, LEIBNIZ, and others, sought to integrate a belief in the existence of certain innate ideas with an acceptance of the value of data received by experience. EMPIRICISM, expounded by HUME, LOCKE, and John Stuart MILL, denied the existence of innate ideas altogether, maintaining that all knowledge comes from human experience. KANT attempted to combine the two views. In later theories the split was reflected in IDEALISM and MATERIALISM. The empirical view has been central to PRAGMATISM, as taught by C.S. PEIRCE, William JAMES, and John DEWEY, and to the development of the modern scientific approach.
idealism (ì-dêıe-lîz´em), in philosophy, the attempt to account for all objects in nature and experience as representations of the mind, and sometimes to assign to such representations a higher order of existence. It is opposed to MATERIALISM and NATURALISM. Early idealism (e.g., that of PLATO) conceived a world in which eternal ideas constituted reality; in modern times idealism (e.g., that of George BERKELEY in the 18th cent.) has come to refer the source of ideas to the individual's consciousness. In KANT's transcendental idealism, the phenomenal world of human understanding opposes a world of things-in-themselves, while the later German idealists (e.g., FICHTE, SCHELLING, and HEGEL) treated all reality as the creation of mind or spirit. More recent idealists include F.H. BRADLEY and CROCE.
realism (rêıe-lîz´em), in philosophy. 1 In medieval philosophy, realism was the position that universals or general concepts have existence independent of both the human mind and individual objects. It is a position directly opposite to NOMINALISM. 2 In EPISTEMOLOGY, realism represents the theory that individual things exist independently of the mind's perception of them, as opposed to IDEALISM, which holds that reality exists only in the mind.
nominalism (nòmıe-ne-lîz´em), in philosophy, theory holding that universal words (nomina) or concepts have no objective reality outside the mind, and that only individual things and events exist objectively. The theory, contrasted to Platonic IDEALISM and, in the Middle Ages, to REALISM, is appropriate to MATERIALISM and EMPIRICISM.
materialism (me-tîrıê-e-lîz´em), in philosophy, a widely held system of thought that explains the nature of the world as entirely dependent on matter, the final reality. Early Greek teaching, e.g., that of DEMOCRITUS, EPICURUS, and the proponents of STOICISM, conceived of reality as material in nature. The theory was renewed and developed beginning in the 17th cent., especially by HOBBES, and in the 18th cent. LOCKE's investigations were adapted to the materialist position. The system was developed further from the middle of the 19th cent., particularly in the form of DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM and in the formulations of LOGICAL POSITIVISM.
empiricism (èm-pîrıî-sîz´em), philosophical doctrine holding that all knowledge is derived from experience, whether of the mind or of the senses. Thus it opposes the rationalist belief in the existence of innate ideas. A doctrine basic to the scientific method, empiricism is associated with the rise of experimental science after the 17th cent. It has been a dominant tradition in British philosophy, as in the works at LOCKE, HUME, and George BERKELEY. Most empiricists acknowledge certain a priori truths (e.g., principles of mathematics and logic), but John Stuart MILL and others have treated even these as generalizations deduced from experience.
dialectical materialism, official philosophy of Communism, based on the works of Karl MARX and his followers. A reversal of HEGEL's dialectical IDEALISM, it holds that everything is material and that human beings create social life solely in response to economic needs. Thus all aspects of society are considered to reflect the economic structure, and classes in society are determined by their relationship to the means of production. Growth, change, and development take place through a naturally occurring "struggle of opposites," a process that individuals cannot influence. Application of these principles to the study of history and sociology is called historical materialism, an approach having many non-Communist advocates.
logical positivism, also known as scientific EMPIRICISM, modern school of philosophy that in the 1920s attempted to introduce the methodology and precision of mathematics to the study of philosophy, much as had been done in symbolic logic (see LOGIC). Led by the Vienna Circle, a group including the philosophers Rudolf CARNAP and Moritz Schlick and the mathematician Kurt GäDEL, the logical positivists held that metaphysical speculation is nonsensical; that logical and mathematical propositions are tautological; and that moral and value statements are merely emotive. The function of philosophy, they maintained, is to clarify concepts in both everyday and scientific language. The movement received its inspiration from the work of FREGE, Bertrand RUSSELL, WITTGENSTEIN, and G.E. MOORE. The Vienna Circle disintegrated in the late 1930s after the Nazis took Austria, but its influence spread throughout Europe and America, and its concept, particularly its emphasis on the analysis of language as the function of philosophy, has been carried on throughout the West.
pragmatism (prãgıme-tîz´em), method of philosophy in which the truth of a proposition is measured by its correspondence with experimental results and by its practical outcome. Thus pragmatists hold that truth is modified as discoveries are made and that it is relative to time and place and purpose of inquiry. C.S. PEIRCE and William JAMES were the originators of the system, which influenced John DEWEY.
GGL ADDNOTE: See, it goes on forever, but you should have some ideas by now. A general thing to know is that a good way to proceed with research is from a general dictionary to a general encyclopedia, then on to a specialized dictionary, and then on to a specialized encyclopedia, and then on to individual specific works (books and articles) and critiques and counter arguments.
"There's bread and cheese upon the shelf. If you want any more, you can sing it yourself." From "A Froggie Went A-Courtin'."
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
Plato, Ole Soc, and On Into More Epistemology
Remember from Shipka: "The first and foremost question in the Philosophy of Religion is knowledge."
epistemology, branch of philosophy dealing with the origin and nature of knowledge, a fundamental theme since the 17th cent. The rationalist view, led by DESCARTES, SPINOZA, LEIBNIZ, and others, sought to integrate a belief in the existence of certain innate ideas with an acceptance of the value of data received by experience. EMPIRICISM, expounded by HUME, LOCKE, and John Stuart MILL, denied the existence of innate ideas altogether, maintaining that all knowledge comes from human experience. KANT attempted to combine the two views. In later theories the split was reflected in IDEALISM and MATERIALISM. The empirical view has been central to PRAGMATISM, as taught by C.S. PEIRCE, William JAMES, and John DEWEY, and to the development of the modern scientific approach.
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
epistemology. From the Greek epistme ("Knowledge" or "science") and logos ("knowledge" or "information"). The Greek components thus suggest a second order concern with knowledge about knowledge; and this area of philosophy is, indeed, sometimes called "theory of knowledge."
A. We shall consider the topic through a number of ways in which the field may be divided.
(1) The basic contrast between theories of knowledge is the contrast between the methods of Rationalism, stressed by such thinkers as Parmenides, Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibnitz on the one hand, and the theories of Empiricism, stressed by Francis Bacon, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, etc. on the other. Since the most promising instances of knowledge are scientific in character, one might argue that the method most consonant with science is to be accepted; but of course some areas of science are more empirical than others. It is quite possible that the contrast between Rationalism and Empiricism is a false contrast, and engenders a false problem.
(2) Empiricism can, generally, be identified with a Correspondence Theory of truth, and Rationalism with a Coherence Theory of truth. The Correspondence Theory (Aristotle, Aquinas) seems the more reasonable view to ordinary apprehension. It holds that statements are true when they correspond to the world, and ideas are correlated with reality by means of the perceptions we receive from the world.
(3) the Rationalist, typically, is expected to respond that considerable naivete is present in the supposition that such correspondences can be established. Doubtless, one enters the knowledge-situation with an idea or set of ideas he wishes to check against reality. But since in the nature of the case he can know only ideas, the most he can accomplish is the checking of one idea against another--an idea from memory, for example, with an idea just received from the senses--and that simply was not what he had intended. Operating with the contention that we know only ideas, the Rationalist who holds the Coherence Theory (Plato, F.H. Bradley) stresses not correspondence, but logical criteria in evaluating a theory or explanation. The adherent f the Coherence Theory would be interested in the question of the internal consistence of each affirmation, or explanation, making up the theory; the external consistency of the affirmations with each other; and the relations of deducibility among the affirmations, permitting us to more from one to the other, and providing evidence that we have not allowed lacunae i n our theory.
(4) The counter-criticism of the Correspondence theorist is that there are many instances of systems of ideas, internally coherent and preserving relations of deducibility, yet having no connection with reality. As cases in point one may cite the multiple systems of geometry, each with different axiomatic starting points, each developed with great unity and coherence, yet--since they are inconsistent with each other--not all of them can be true of the world.
(5) The Coherence theorist's answer to this is that the criticism misses the intention of the Coherence theory, for the coherence of ideas includes not only the abstract panoply of systematic ideas, but also the ideas we receive from the whole untidy flux of experience. It is the coherence of all of these ideas which is in question.
(6) The dispute may not re resolvable, but in practical terms it seems obvious that the claims of both rationality and observation must be honored. There is a related dispute between Realism and Idealism in epistemology. Epistemological doctrines stressing the objectivity of the knowledge relation are sometimes termed "realistic": Representative Realism--ideas represent an objective reality. Naive Realism--our common sense ideas represent reality as it is. Critical Realism--our ideas indirectly represent an objective reality. New Realism--we come into direct contract with the world through the knowledge relation. All of these are instances of Epistemological Realism, since in each alternative the datum is identified with the object. In Epistemological Idealism, on the other hand, the object would be identified with the datum. [GGL ADDNOTE: Realism=Ideas (images) form in human minds from sense experience which ideas reflect true reality. Idealism=Human minds can know only ideas which ideas shape reality and even sense experience, therefore humans can not claim to know any reality in any objective meaning, only their own ideas.]
(7) One may likewise distinguish dualists from monists in epistemology: Epistemological Dualism--a duality exists between sense-datum and the object known. Epistemological Monism--the datum and the object known are identical. In this sense the distinctions of epistemology parallel those of metaphysics or ontology.
B. Entries which do not fit the foregoing pattern are set forth here:
(8) Piaget, interested in the analysis of epistemological ideas in children, developed an approach called Genetic Epistemology.
(9) For a discussion of knowledge as justified true belief, [see] The Gettier Problem.
The dictionary of Philosophy and Religion: Eastern and Western Thought, William L. Reese (Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey: 1980--hereinafter DPR)
Gettier Problem, The. An epistemological problem raised by Edmund L. Gettier in his 1963 Analysis article, "Is justified true belief knowledge?" The analysis had emerged that when one says of a certain person S that a certain time t he knows that a certain statement h is true, three things are involved: He believes that h is true; h is true; and it is evident to S that h is true. Gettier provides a counter-example in which S believes that there is a sheep in the field; he mistakes a dog for a sheep; and there is an unseen sheep in the field. The three conditions appear to have been satisfied yet, since S has mistaken a dog for a sheep, one would not say that he knows there is a sheep in the field. In response to the problem it has been argued that the counter-example fails because the third condition of knowledge as justified true belief (listed above) has not been satisfied. Others strengthen the definition knowledge, adding requirements of "nondefectiveness" or "indefeasibility," e.g., for Roderick Chisholm knowledge is nondefective true belief; for Keith Lehrer it is indefeasible justified true belief.
Plato (plâıto), 427?-347 B.C., Greek philosopher. In 407 B.C. he became a pupil and friend of SOCRATES. After living for a time at the Syracuse court, Plato founded (c.387 B.C.) near Athens the most influential school of the ancient world, the Academy, where he taught until his death. His most famous pupil there was ARISTOTLE. Plato's extant work is in the form of epistles and dialogues, divided according to the probable order of composition. The early, or Socratic, dialogues, e.g., the Apology, Meno, and Gorgias, present Socrates in conversations that illustrate his major ideas-the unity of virtue and knowledge and of virtue and happiness. They also contain Plato's moving account of the last days and death of Socrates. Plato's goal in dialogues of the middle years, e.g., the Republic, Phaedo, Symposium, and Timaeus, was to show the rational relationship between the soul, the state, and the cosmos. The later dialogues, e.g., the Laws and Parmenides, contain treatises on law, mathematics, technical philosophic problems, and natural science. Plato regarded the rational soul as immortal, and he believed in a world soul and a Demiurge, the creator of the physical world. He argued for the independent reality of Ideas, or Forms, as the immutable archetypes of all temporal phenomena and as the only guarantee of ethical standards and of objective scientific knowledge. Virtue consists in the harmony of the human soul with the universe of Ideas, which assure order, intelligence, and pattern to a world in constant flux. Supreme among them is the Idea of the Good, analogous to the sun in the physical world. Only the philosopher, who understands the harmony of all parts of the universe with the Idea of the Good, is capable of ruling the just state. In Plato's various dialogues he touched upon virtually every problem that has occupied subsequent philosophers; his teachings have been among the most influential in the history of Western civilization, and his works are counted among the world's finest literature. See also NEOPLATONISM.
Socrates (sòkıre-têz´), 469-399 B.C., Greek philosopher of Athens, generally regarded as one of the wisest people of all time. It is not known who his teachers were, but he seems to have been acquainted with the doctrines of PARMENIDES, HERACLITUS, and ANAXAGORAS. Socrates himself left no writings, and most of our knowledge of him and his teachings comes from the dialogues of his most famous pupil, PLATO, and from the memoirs of XENOPHON. Socrates is described as having neglected his own affairs, instead spending his time discussing virtue, justice, and piety wherever his fellow citizens congregated, seeking wisdom about right conduct so that he might guide the moral and intellectual improvement of Athens. Using a method now known as the Socratic dialogue, or dialectic, he drew forth knowledge from his students by pursuing a series of questions and examining the implications of their answers. Socrates equated virtue with the knowledge of one's true self, holding that no one knowingly does wrong. He looked upon the soul as the seat of both waking consciousness and moral character, and held the universe to be purposively mind-ordered. His criticism of the Sophists and of Athenian political and religious institutions made him many enemies, and his position was burlesqued by ARISTOPHANES. In 399 B.C. Socrates was tried for corrupting the morals of Athenian youth and for religious heresies; it is now believed that his arrest stemmed in particular from his influence on Alcibiades and Critias, who had betrayed Athens. He was convicted and, resisting all efforts to save his life, willingly drank the cup of poison hemlock given him. The trial and death of Socrates are described by Plato in the Apology, Crito, and Phaedo.
Aristotle (ãrıî-stòt´l), 384-322 B.C., Greek philosopher. He studied (367-347 B.C.) under PLATO and later (342-339 B.C.) tutored ALEXANDER THE GREAT at the Macedonian court. In 335 B.C. he opened a school in the Athenian Lyceum. During the anti-Macedonian agitation after Alexander's death Aristotle fled (323 B.C.) to Chalcis, where he died. His extant writings, largely in the form of lecture notes made by his students, include the Organum (treatises on logic); Physics; Metaphysics; De Anima [on the soul]; Nicomachean Ethics and Eudemian Ethics; Politics; De Poetica; Rhetoric; and works on biology and physics. Aristotle held philosophy to be the discerning, through the use of systematic LOGIC as expressed in SYLLOGISMS, of the self-evident, changeless first principles that form the basis of all knowledge. He taught that knowledge of a thing requires an inquiry into causality and that the "final cause"-the purpose or function of the thing-is primary. The highest good for the individual is the complete exercise of the specifically human function of rationality. In contrast to the Platonic belief that a concrete reality partakes of a form but does not embody it, the Aristotelian system holds that, with the exception of the Prime Mover (God), form has no separate existence but is immanent in matter. Aristotle's work was lost following the decline of Rome but was reintroduced to the West through the work of Arab and Jewish scholars, becoming the basis of medieval SCHOLASTICISM.
Plotinus (plo-tìınes), 205-270, Hellenistic philosopher, founder of NEOPLATONISM; b. Egypt. He went to Alexandria c.232 to devote himself to philosophy. After 244 he lived in Rome, where his school gained a wide following. In addition to Plato, Plotinus drew on other Greek philosophers, and on Zoroastrianism and possibly Hinduism. He explained the deity by developing the idea of emanation, and his teachings are infused with MYSTICISM. Although he rejected Christianity, Plotinus' influence on the early Christian thinkers, particularly St. AUGUSTINE, was profound. Plotinus' writings were collected by his pupil Porphyry under the title The Enneads.
Origen (ôrıî-jèn´) (Origines Adamantius), 185?-254?, Christian philosopher; b. Egypt. Origen taught in Alexandria for 28 years and became famed for his profound interpretations of the Scriptures. He attempted to synthesize the principles of Greek philosophy, particularly NEOPLATONISM and STOICISM, with those of Christianity. The most influential theologian of the early church, he is said to have written 800 works, of which few survive. His system of philosophy is contained in On First Principles.
Neoplatonism, ancient mystical philosophy based on the later doctrines of PLATO, especially those in the Timaeus. Considered the last of the great pagan philosophies, it was developed in the 3d cent. A.D. by PLOTINUS. Rejecting DUALISM, he saw reality as one vast hierarchical order containing all the various levels and kinds of existence. At the center is the One, an incomprehensible, all-sufficient unity that flows out in a radiating process called emanation, giving rise to the Divine Mind, or Logos. The Logos contains all intelligent forms of all individuals. This in turn generates the World Soul, which links the intellectual and material worlds. Despite his mysticism, Plotinus' method was thoroughly rational, based on the logical traditions of the Greeks. Later Neoplatonists grafted onto its body such disparate elements as Eastern mysticism, divination, demonology, and astrology. Neoplatonism, widespread until the 7th cent., was an influence on early Christian thinkers (e.g., ORIGEN) and medieval Jewish and Arab philosophers. It was firmly joined with Christianity by St. AUGUSTINE, who was a Neoplatonist before his conversion. Neoplatonism has had a lasting influence on Western metaphysics and MYSTICISM. Philosophers whose works contain elements of Neoplatonism include St. THOMAS AQUINAS, BOETHIUS, and HEGEL.
GGL ADDNOTE: It's my turn!
With the previous hand-out ("Saints. . .In") and this one ("Saints...Through")--and I hope you take them somewhat seriously because I have to key-in the DPR material--I have tried to lead you to see some things.
One is the predominance of Plato--his ideas--throughout. Plato is SO powerful a philosopher that Alfred North Whitehead observed that all of Western philosophy is merely a footnote to Plato. In the sense that the statement "There is nothing new under the sun," is true, it is surely true due to Plato. He thought of virtually every side of everything!
Another fascinating thing is how metaphysics and epistemology are virtually inseparable. (Remember from Shipka: "The first and foremost question in the Philosophy of Religion is knowledge.") Like any science or art--like any area of human endeavor--philosophy is concerned with its methodology, and philosophy is concerned at the most basic and fundamental level: How do we know what we know?
Also alluring to the mind is the paradox of Scholasticism--most basically the effort to justify faith with reason. The saints and others who argued that faith and reason are the same did much to advance epistemology, and ultimately contributed, directly and indirectly, to the arguments which were their own undoing: there are few educated people today who would hold that faith and reason are the same, or that reason supports faith. Faith is what it is by definition these days: "Belief without proof".
If I may be so presumptuous as to attempt to render-down the current most basic issues of metaphysics and epistemology, I would say that contemporary metaphysics spins on two questions, and epistemology spins on one.
Metaphysical Question One: Is the fundamental nature of the universe material, or mind, or both?
Believing that the universe is either mind or material is termed monism.
monism (moınîz´em), in METAPHYSICS, term applied from the 18th cent. to any theory that explains phenomena by one unifying principle or as the manifestation of a single substance, variously identified as spirit or mind (e.g., HEGEL), energy, or an all-pervasive deity (e.g., SPINOZA). The opposites of monism are pluralism, the explanation of the universe in terms of many principles or substances, and DUALISM.
Believing that the universe is fundamentally both matter and mind is termed dualism.
dualism (d¡ıe-lîz´em), in philosophy and theology, system that explains all phenomena in terms of two distinct and irreducible principles, e.g., ideas and matter (as in PLATO, ARISTOTLE, and modern METAPHYSICS) or mind and matter (as in psychology). In theology the term refers to a concept of opposing principles, e.g., good and evil. See also MONISM.
Dualism is such a weighty argument that it is termed "The Official Position," and this is fascinating because dualism here commingles the empirical matter with the mystical mind.
For some this mysticism follows the first definition below, and for others the second definition below.
mysticism (mîsıtî-sîz´em) noun. 1. a. Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God. b. The experience of such communion as described by mystics. 2. A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience.
3. Vague, groundless speculation.
mysticism (mîsıtî-sîz´em) [Gr., = the practice of those who are initiated into the mysteries], the practice of putting oneself into direct relation with GOD, the Absolute, or any unifying principle of life. There are two general tendencies in the speculation of mystics-to regard God as outside the soul, which rises to God by successive stages, or to regard God as dwelling within the soul, to be found by delving deeper into one's own reality. The contemplative path to union conventionally requires a series of steps involving purgation, illumination, and increase of spiritual love. Various rituals may assist the process. The language of mysticism is difficult and usually symbolic; biographies and autobiographies of mystics are the major sources for direct study (for example, those of such mystics as St. THERESA of Ávila; St. JOHN OF THE CROSS; Jakob BOEHME; and Aurobindo GHOSE). Although mysticism is inseparably linked with religion, the term itself is used very broadly in English, being extended to magic, occultism, or the esoteric. Mysticism is encountered in Greek NEOPLATONISM, CHRISTIANITY, JUDAISM, BUDDHISM, HINDUISM, ISLAM, and TAOISM.
Note the strength of empiricism (and therefore science) in the above definitions. As per the second definition, anything which is not empirically founded (based on sense experience) is termed "mystical"--meaning it comes from mind without empirical validation.
Metaphysical Question Two: Does humankind possess free will, or is humankind determined?
I have a major hand-out on this one, and we spend some serious time with this question, Shipka's text Part 3, so I won't detail a lot of space/time to it here. The bottom line is that most agree that it is a determined universe, yet many still believe in free will--and believing in free will then puts humankind somehow outside the laws of the universe! So, you see, it's back to dualism, and the free will argument is then mystical!
Epistemological Question: Is knowledge (truth) best acquired via sense experience (empiricism) or via reason (rationalism)?
In everyday affairs and on through science, this bipolar argument, I hold, is settled. Plato is #1 as representative for rationalism, and David Hume is #1 holder for empiricism. You already understand what a heavyweight Plato is in philosophy! Of David Hume, Shipka writes: ". . . a gentle Scot with one of the most analytic minds in history." Hume's staunch empiricism is still the ideal or ultimate goal of all science. This goal is: Be There. Following Hume, science holds that direct experience is the ultimate goal, and all else is supposition or assumption. However, in 1934 Morris R. Cohen and Ernst Nagel published An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method. This is THE BIBLE of science. (I had to virtually memorize it for my PhD orals with the Institute for Social Research, Florida State University.) See, Hume would not hold with correlation as a test of truth. See the second definition below. BUT, this issue rages on in philosophy relative to fundamental questions.
correlation (kôr´e-lâıshen, kòr´-) noun
1. A causal, complementary, parallel, or reciprocal relationship, especially a structural, functional, or qualitative correspondence between two comparable entities: a correlation between drug abuse and crime. 2. Statistics. The simultaneous change in value of two numerically valued random variables: the positive correlation between cigarette smoking and the incidence of lung cancer; the negative correlation between age and normal vision. 3. An act of correlating or the condition of being correlated.
Cohen and Nagel said, basically, Yes, David Hume, you are absolutely correct, but we cannot proceed under your harsh empirical dictum, so sit-down and shut-up. Science must accept correlation as evidence of truth, given an appropriate cause-to-effect time sequence and given a reasonable/rational explanation of causality, and given a statistical or rational accounting of possible third variables. In other words, we use sense experience and reason conjointly.
William of Occam
William of Occam or Ockham, c.1285-1349, English philosopher. An exponent of SCHOLASTICISM, he was charged (1324) with heresy by Pope John XXII and fled (1328) to the protection of the pope's great enemy, Holy Roman Emperor Louis IV; his political writings thereafter supported the temporal power of the emperor over that of the pope. Occam's teachings mark an important break with previous medieval philosophy. Adhering to the position of NOMINALISM, he rejected the Aristotelian REALISM of St. Thomas Aquinas, specifically denying the existence of universals except in people's minds and language. He disputed the self-evidence of the Aristotelian final cause and of the existence of God, denying the competence of reason in matters of faith. This led him to hold that logic can be studied outside the province of metaphysics, a position that proved important in the development of scientific enquiry. In logic, Occam is remembered for his use of the principle of parsimony, formulated as "Occam's razor," which enjoined economy in explanation with the axiom "It is vain to do with more what can be done with less."
Ockham's razor
Ockham's razor also Occam's razor (òkıemz) noun
A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. Also called law of parsimony.
[After William of Ockham.]
parsimony (pärıse-mo´nê) noun
1. Unusual or excessive frugality; extreme economy or stinginess. 2. Adoption of the simplest assumption in the formulation of a theory or in the interpretation of data, especially in accordance with the rule of Ockham's razor.
[Middle English parcimony, from Latin parsimonia, from parsus, past participle of parcere, to spare.]
parsimonious (pär´se-moınê-es) adjective
Excessively sparing or frugal. See Synonyms at stingy.
- par´simoıniously adverb
- par´simoıniousness noun
law of parsimony noun
See Ockham's razor.
cheese-paring (chêzıpâr´îng) adjective
Miserly; stingy.
noun: 1. Something of little or no value. 2. Stinginess; parsimony.
stingy (stînıjê) adjective
stingier, stingiest
1. Giving or spending reluctantly. 2. Scanty or meager: a stingy meal; stingy with details about the past.
[Perhaps alteration of dialectal stingy, stinging, from STING.]
- stinıgily adverb
- stinıginess noun
Synonyms: stingy, close, close-fisted, niggardly, penny-pinching, miserly, parsimonious, penurious, tight, tightfisted. These adjectives mean reluctant or marked by reluctance to spend money or part with possessions. Stingy, the most general, implies absence of generosity and often an inclination toward meanness of spirit: She practices economy without being stingy. Close and close-fisted imply both stinginess and exceeding caution: Poverty has taught them to be close with their money. The old peasant was an avaricious and close-fisted fellow. Niggardly implies a tendency to be grudging and petty: Don't be niggardly; you can afford to share your good fortune. Penny-pinching heightens the implications of niggardly and sometimes suggests foolish economy: Penny-pinching landlords stinted their tenants on heat and hot water. Miserly implies greed and the hoarding of wealth for its own sake: "He was a miserly wretch who grudged us food to eat, and clothes to wear" (Charles Dickens). Parsimonious emphasizes excessive frugality: The appropriations committee, suddenly and ill-advisedly parsimonious, cut funds for assistance to the disadvantaged. Penurious implies ungenerous or petty unwillingness to spend money, usually to an extreme degree: "He lived in the most penurious manner, and denied himself every indulgence" (William Godwin). Tight and tightfisted suggest not only niggardliness but also a close and vigilant control over one's funds and possessions: tight with the family, generous to others; "too tightfisted to spend a few dollars" (Sinclair Lewis).
near (nîr) adverb
nearer, nearest
Abbr. nr
7.Stingy; parsimonious.
Parsimony: parsimony (noun)
parsimony, parsimoniousness
credit squeeze, ECONOMY
false economy, misplaced economy
cheeseparing, scrimping, pinching, scraping, penny-pinching
tightfistedness, niggardliness, meanness, stinginess, miserliness
illiberality, ungenerosity, uncharitableness, shoestring, grudging hand, closed wallet, closed purse, moths in one's wallet, SELFISHNESS
A quotation relative to parsimony:
Economizing
Mere parsimony is not economy. . . . Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke (1729-97), Irish philosopher, statesman. A Letter to a Noble Lord (1796; published in Works, vol. 5).
And, just for some (historical) fun:
Elizabeth
Elizabeth (î-lîzıe-beth), queens of England. Elizabeth I 1533-1603, queen of England (1558-1603), the daughter of HENRY VIII and Anne BOLEYN, was declared illegitimate after her mother's execution; in 1544 Parliament reestablished her in the succession. Imprisoned as a rallying point for discontented Protestants, she regained some freedom by outward conformity to Catholicism. On her accession in 1558 England's low fortunes included religious strife, a huge government debt, and failure in wars with France. Her reign took England through one of its greatest eras-a period that produced such individuals as William SHAKESPEARE, Edmund SPENSER, Francis BACON, and Walter RALEIGH; a period that saw the country united to become a first-rate European power with a great navy; a period in which commerce and industry prospered and colonization began. Elizabeth's Tudor concept of strong rule and the need for popular support helped her select excellent counselors, such as Sir William Cecil (Lord BURGHLEY) and Sir Francis Walsingham. She reestablished Anglicanism, and measures against Catholics grew harsher. Important legislation enacted in her reign included stabilization of labor conditions, currency reforms, poor laws, and acts to encourage agriculture, commerce, and manufacturing. Elizabeth began a policy of peace, and her diplomatic maneuvers eventually defeated Spain and stalemated France. The Treaty of Edinburgh (1560) started a policy of supporting Protestant lords against Catholics. After the abdication of MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS from the Scottish throne, Elizabeth gave her refuge, kept her prisoner, and executed her only after numerous plots to seat Mary on the English throne. Although she had many favorites, notably the earl of LEICESTER, Elizabeth never married, but she used the possibility of marriage as a diplomatic tool. By marriage negotiations with FRANCIS, duke of Alençon and Anjou, she secured (1572) a defense alliance against Spain and, later, French aid for the Dutch against Spain, which now emerged as England's main enemy. PHILIP II of Spain, whose marriage offer Elizabeth had refused in 1559, planned the Spanish ARMADA as a reprisal for English raids against Spanish shipping. The defeat of the Armada (1588) broke the power of Spain and strengthened England's national pride. Elizabeth's last years were darkened by the rash uprising of her favorite, Robert Devereux, 2d earl of ESSEX. She was succeeded by James VI of Scotland, son of Mary Queen of Scots, who became JAMES I of England. Vain, fickle in bestowing favors, prejudiced, vacillating, and parsimonious, she was nonetheless a great monarch, highly aware of the responsibility of rule and immensely courageous. Elizabeth II, 1926-, queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, succeeded her father, GEORGE VI, in 1952. In 1947 she married Philip Mountbatten, duke of EDINBURGH. They have four children: Prince CHARLES, Princess ANNE, Prince Andrew (b. 1960), and Prince Edward (b. 1964). In 1977 she celebrated her Silver Jubilee, the 25th anniversary of her accession to the throne. Her mother, Elizabeth, 1900-, queen consort to George VI, was the daughter of the 14th earl of Strathmore.
Dictionary entries from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition, licensed from Houghton Mifflin Company. Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Selected Illustrations from the Concise Columbia Encyclopedia. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press.
Encyclopedia entries from The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia, licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
Thesaurus entries from Roget's Thesaurus of English words and phrases, licensed from Longman Group UK Limited. Copyright © 1962, 1982, 1987 by Longman Group UK Limited. All rights reserved
Quotations from The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations, licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1993 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
skeptic also sceptic (skèpıtîk) noun
1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
2. One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.
3. Philosophy. a. Often Skeptic. An adherent of a school of skepticism. b. Skeptic. A member of an ancient Greek school of skepticism, especially that of Pyrrho of Elis (360?-272? B.C.).
[Latin Scepticus, disciple of Pyrrho of Elis, from Greek Skeptikos, from skeptesthai, to examine.]
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition is licensed from Houghton Mifflin Company. Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Selected Illustrations from the Concise Columbia Encyclopedia. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press.
skepticism also scepticism (skèpıtî-sîz´em) noun
1. A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety. See Synonyms at uncertainty.
2. Philosophy. The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible and that inquiry must be a process of doubting in order to acquire approximate or relative certainty.
3. Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition is licensed from Houghton Mifflin Company. Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Selected Illustrations from the Concise Columbia Encyclopedia. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press.
skepticism (skèpıtî-sîz´em), philosophic position holding that the possibility of knowledge is limited, because of either the limitations of the mind or the inaccessibility of its object. The term is used more loosely to denote any questioning attitude. The earliest skeptics included the Greek Sophists (5th cent. B.C.) and PROTAGORAS. HUME is famous for his theoretical skepticism, but more closely linked to skepticism was the AGNOSTICISM of KANT, who demonstrated that certain problems are insoluble by reason. DESCARTES used skepticism as a methodology. The scientific method, which demands that all assumptions be questioned, is skeptical to a degree, although the POSITIVISM of scientists assumes that material effect is impossible without material cause.
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
cynic (sînıîk) noun
1. A person who believes all people are motivated by selfishness.
2. Cynic. A member of a sect of ancient Greek philosophers who believed virtue to be the only good and self-control to be the only means of achieving virtue.
adjective
1. Cynical.
2. Cynic. Of or relating to the Cynics or their beliefs.
[Latin cynicus, Cynic philosopher, from Greek kunikos, from kuon, kun-, dog.]
Word History: A cynic may be pardoned for thinking that this is a dog's life. The Greek word kunikos, from which cynic comes, was originally an adjective meaning "doglike," from kuon, "dog." The word was most likely applied to the Cynic philosophers because of the nickname kuon given to Diogenes of Sinope, the prototypical Cynic. He is said to have performed such actions as barking in public, urinating on the leg of a table, and masturbating on the street. The first use of the word recorded in English, in a work published from 1547 to 1564, is in the plural for members of this philosophical sect. In 1596 we find the first instance of cynic meaning "faultfinder," a sense that was to develop into our modern sense. The meaning "faultfinder" came naturally from the behavior of countless Cynics who in their pursuit of virtue pointed out the flaws in others. Such faultfinding could lead quite naturally to the belief associated with cynics of today that selfishness determines human behavior.
cynicism (sînıî-sîz´em) noun
1. A scornful, bitterly mocking attitude or quality: the public cynicism aroused by governmental scandals.
2. A scornful, bitterly mocking comment or act.
3. Cynicism. The beliefs of the ancient Cynics.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition is licensed from Houghton Mifflin Company. Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Selected Illustrations from the Concise Columbia Encyclopedia. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press.
Kant, Immanuel, 1724-1804, German philosopher, one of the greatest figures in the history of METAPHYSICS. After 1755 he taught at the Univ. of Königsberg and achieved wide renown through his teachings and writings. According to Kant, his reading of HUME woke him from his dogmatic slumber and led him to become the "critical philosopher," synthesizing the rationalism of LEIBNIZ and the SKEPTICISM of Hume. Kant proposed that objective reality is known only insofar as it conforms to the essential structure of the knowing mind. Only objects of experience, phenomena, may be known, whereas things lying beyond experience, noumena, are unknowable, even though in some cases we assume a priori knowledge of them. The existence of such unknowable "things-in-themselves" can be neither confirmed nor denied, nor can they be scientifically demonstrated. Therefore, as Kant showed in the Critique of Pure Reason (1781), the great problems of metaphysics-the existence of God, freedom, and immortality-are insoluble by scientific thought. Yet he went on to state in the Critique of Practical Reason (1788) that morality requires belief in their existence. Kant's ETHICS centers in his categorical imperative, or absolute moral law, "Act as if the maxim from which you act were to become through your will a universal law." His Critique of Judgment (1790) considered the concepts of beauty and purposiveness as a bridge between the sensible and the intelligible worlds. Kant's influence on modern philosophy has continued to the present day. His work fostered the development of German IDEALISM by FICHTE, SCHELLING, and HEGEL. The Neo-Kantianism of the late 19th cent. applied his insights to the study of the physical sciences (Hermann Cohen, Ernst CASSIRER), and to the historical and cultural sciences (Heinrich Rickert); his influence is also seen in the thought of DILTHEY; in the pragmatism of DEWEY and William JAMES; in the theology of SCHLEIERMACHER; and in GESTALT psychology.
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
GGLADDNOTE: Will Durant in his The Story of Philosophy (my recommended next/must read to you if you choose to continue with some Philosophy) repeats the adage that to be a Philosopher, one must first be a Kantian. With this I agree. Durant also advises/warns that Kant is NOT one to read in the original, but to be approached and better understood via others. With this I also heartily agree (and recommend Durant to understand Kant). Kant is known as the Scot from Königsberg--and a Scot in German (academic) culture is a tough nut to crack, indeed. In the first college Philosophy course I ever took, we had to read Critique of Pure Reason. It's a real "crazy-maker," and I'm not sure even today how I lived through it!
2.3.1: On Bruce Waller and "Freedom Without Responsibility"
The curve-setting student this term asked me to untangle an apparent inconsistency or contradiction in the Waller piece. On page 248 it reads, "I am morally responsible for trying." On page 250 it reads, "There is no moral responsibility for effort."
Usually always such apparent contradictions relate to the context in which the problematical sentences appear, or in the specific definitions or understandings of word usage. (This is not to say that all writers/thinkers are consistent, or even that they have to be!) But, I had to confess at the time the question was asked that I had not noticed the problem in my readings of Waller, i.e., I had understood it at the times I read it. However, when asked the question, I couldn't find the key-in-context to answer the question. In other words, she got me! For this student in particular, I couldn't just say, "You need to read it again." (Remember my "Teaching Maxims." I learn, too.)
So, all of this calls for me so slow down, read it again, and provide an answer. As well, if our curve-setter had a problem, surely others have a problem as well.
Waller's main points are as follows:
1. There has been an assumption in the traditional debate over free will and determinism which warrants a new examination. This assumption is that free will and moral responsibility entail one another. If one is free, one is morally responsible; if one is morally responsible, one is free. [Here I'd phrase it that if one is to be morally responsible, one must first be free.]
2. Waller's basic claim is that human beings are free but not morally responsible.
3. The philosopher James Rachels argues that a person's effort or lack thereof warrants praise or blame. But effort or lack thereof is a product of a person's background, whether he or she had the proper upbringing to encourage effort-making, a matter over which the person obviously has had no say-so. During the formative years, persons whose successful efforts are rewarded/ reinforced will learn industry, those whose efforts are ignored or punished will learn lethargy.
4. "In sort, whether one now makes an effort depends on the effects of earlier efforts--effects that were positive in some cases, aversive in others, but effects that were in any case the good or bad fortune of the effort-maker. And good or bad fortune is not grounds for moral responsibility."
5. Although a person is not morally responsible for the efforts that he/she makes, such efforts still "make things happen." A person's efforts have "significant effects" at times.
6. The fact that people have "uneven starts" is a pivotal factor in Waller's denial of moral responsibility. Those who claim that perseverance overcomes an unfortunate starting position in life--e.g., less talent--overlook the fact that a) such claims are supported by fables, not real life, and b) those who have the perseverance got it by heredity or genetic luck
7. We should use stories of personal achievements against steep odds in order to give people an incentive to make a strenuous effort, although their capacity (or lack thereof) to make such an effort is beyond their control.
8. Role responsibility can be supported but moral responsibility cannot. (I assume role responsibility when I agree to supervise the maps during a group's trip, but I am not morally responsible for losing them due to my senility. I can assume role responsibility for playing center field at the family reunion, but I am not morally responsible for failing to reach a fly ball due to my server arthritis.) Role responsibility is often confused with moral responsibility. [Here's where GGL needs to think through this idea vis-a-vis Waller's idea of autonomy. If I'm autonomous, shouldn't I be aware of my senility and arthritis, and decide/act accordingly?]
9. Belief in moral responsibility contributes to a variety of harmful social consequences. [I guess this means inappropriate and erroneous praise and blame.)
Ongoing, Shipka offers the following analysis:
Waller's main thesis is: "We can be and often are free and autonomous, but no one is ever morally responsible: no one justly deserves blame, praise, punishment, or reward"
By "autonomous" Waller means: Exhibiting "careful deliberation and self-control"; an autonomous person is one "who has reflected on and approved her choices, who has a strong sense of being in control, (and) whose acts are not mere luck but instead the result of deliberate exercise of skills." In this sense, autonomy literally means self-legislating.
One does not deserve credit for one's achievements, Waller holds, because the achievements are the result of "good fortune," that is, an individual's character is the product of "the forces" (namely, genetic make-up, early childhood, family environment) that shaped one, and one does not make or choose these forces.
Waller holds that free will and moral responsibility are possible (possible in the sense that they are linked together) only if there are miracles. Since actions flow necessarily from character, such that one cannot act otherwise, one cannot be held responsible for what one does; if it were somehow possible for one to choose an action in defiance of prior conditions, such action, as an exemption to causality, would be a miracle, that is, a non-natural event that contravenes the cause-effect flow of events.
As regards Waller's reference to Luciano Pavarotti, if one has the inborn talent to sing like Pavarotti, one cannot be praised or blamed for having it; if one trains vigorously to improve one's singing, one cannot be praised because the effort-making is a matter of genetic or environmental luck.
Regarding Rachel's claim about the role of choices in effort-making, one deserves praise or blame based on whether one chooses to work hard (or not), and then actually does work hard (or not), to develop the inborn talent or to seize some opportunity; one has the power to choose to work hard (and to pursue the chosen direction vigorously) or to choose not to work hard (and so squander the talent or opportunity). "The explanation of why some (people) strive (to work hard) while others don't, has to do with their own choices."
As regards how reinforcement figures into Waller's explanation of effort-making and capacities, Waller holds that "Effort (or lack thereof) is the product of fortunate (or unfortunate) contingencies of reinforcement. When a behavior is occasionally reinforced, that schedule of reinforcement shapes 'dedication' to performing the behavior."
Waller holds that learned helplessness "erodes the effort-making" ability of a person that therefore "undermines the claim that effort is good grounds for moral responsibility and just desserts." A person who quits rather than persists in an effort is likely to be a victim of learned helplessness much like the dog repeatedly subjected to inescapable shock.
Waller dismisses Dennett's position on uneven starts because Waller holds that the marathon analogy is in error. "Initial differences in life's race are more often amplified than canceled out (as time passes)." "Rather than Dennett's equal-luck marathon, a better analogy might be a horse race on a muddy track, in which the slow starters are additionally handicapped by the mud kicked onto them by the early speed."
Waller is skeptical of stories such as the tortoise and the hare because they overlook the fact that "The less talented are not likely to develop greater diligence and perseverance" due to the fact that these qualities are "the conditioned product of successful past efforts, and those who are initially less talented are likely to experience fewer successes and consequently less positive reinforcement for their efforts." "Thus less talent is more likely linked to lethargy than to perseverance."
As regards the cumulative effects of talents and abilities, Waller holds that rather than initial/early disadvantages inciting the disadvantaged person to persevere to offset the handicap vis-a-vis the advantaged person, the handicaps usually serve to widen the gap between the disadvantaged person and the advantaged person as time passes. "Rather than the hare's speed being offset by the tortoise's endurance, the speedy hare is likely to be a more successful racer, thus also a more positively reinforced and energetic and frequent racer, and so better conditioned and shrewder as well."
As regards fatalism, Waller holds that we should not view ourselves fatalistically as "helpless pawns of our early environmental-genetic influences," because examples abound of people who have broken away "from the influences and habits of . . . early conditioning" through "effort and planning." But, Waller adds, whether one exerts a strenuous effort to overcome handicaps is itself determined by one's "conditioning-environmental history."
Waller supports the telling of fables such as the tortoise and the hare a) to counter fatalism (which implies that there is no use in striving to reach goals since the script for one's life has already been written and the future is beyond one's control; and b) to inspire people to persevere in their efforts.
Waller supports role responsibility but he objects to moral responsibility. Role responsibility is involved when a person agrees to discharge some function or duty. Moral responsibility is involved when we hold a person accountable for his/her actions, usually resulting in our praising or blaming the person. The decision to assume role responsibility in the first place and the subsequent success or failure of an individual's carrying out role responsibility is the result of his/her genetic-environmental luck. Therefore, according to Waller, saying that the person deserved praise and/or blame is unjustified.
Other than Shipka's blurb on Waller (p. 246-7), this is all he (Shipka) has to say. I'll paraphrase it all in terms of times. T(ime)1= Genetic package at birth; T2=Early childhood environment/upbringing/ experiences. T3=Application of individual effort. T4=The result of the effort applied at T3.
What I believe Waller to be saying is that humans have no say regarding T1 or T2, and therefore have no moral responsibility relative to these times and events. At T3, humans have a moral responsibility to exert effort (detail to follow*). However, at T4, humans are not morally responsible for the outcomes because so much is determined at T1 and T2 which have causal impact on the results obtained. (And we must not forget that Waller also holds that whether we exert the effort or not at T3 is also largely determined at T1 and T2.)
*NOW, as regards the apparent contradiction between "I am morally responsible for trying" (p. 248), and "There is no moral responsibility for effort" (250). . . . I unravel this by going to the basic-basic, the catch-phrase of determinism: "If all the variables were known. . . . " In all of science, and particularly in social science as known to date, all of the variables are NOT known. Given the great complexity of the variables themselves, and of the interaction between and among the variables (remember my rap on multiple correlation and regression?) humans cannot KNOW beforehand--before applying the effort--if the T1 and the T2 variables will "mix" in such a way as to provide no success, partial success, or relatively complete and total success, other than in extreme cases such as Waller's Pavarotti example, or Glenn training in an attempt to play with the Green Bay Packers. The human is morally responsible for trying, for in trying--in Waller's example--he may through his effort come to sing well-enough to join a local quartet. Glenn would never become a Green Bay Packer, but he just might enable himself to play in an Ocean City amateur league.
BUT, while there is a moral imperative to try--again, because we cannot know prior to the effort what the results will be--there is no moral culpability for failure because the determining variables and mix of variables was not fortuitous. In holding against miracles, Waller holds that while we should encourage effort though positive examples and fables, this is only the case because effort may lead to success which might not have been predicted--because all the variables and mixes thereof were not known.
Well, above and beyond all this, this is a heady piece indeed, and very DIFFERENT. I am going to have to do a lot more thinking on Waller's notions generally, and I'm probably going to have to read his book. "So many books, so little time."
2.4.2: John Rawles, Thomas D. Davis: "Justice as Fairness"
2.4.3: Ethic One (Immanual Kant's Deontological Ethic: Imperatives and Duty)
2.4.6: Some Quotes Relative to Ethics
1. Religous Ethic What God Commands GreekTraditionalists, "Pious" persons
2. Cultural Relativism What is commonly done in one's society.
(What done, or the value/roomstandard?) Benedict, Ruth
3. Subjectivism What one likes or prefers; what suits one's tastes (or whim) Typical Human?
4. Eudaemonism What constitutes a mean (moderate course) between extremes of
excess and deficiency Aristotle
5. Deontological Ethic What is covered by a rule which one can (must?) endorse
for everyone to follow Kant, Immanuel
6. Utilitarianism What best promotes the greatest lasting benefit for the most people Mill, John Stuart
7. Ethical Egoism What best promotes the greatest lasting benefit for oneself Kalin, Jesse; Rand, Ayn
8. Intuitionism What one intuitively apprehends as the good as one considers
a specific moral choice Gass, William
Tell him to be a fool every so often and to have no shame over having been a food yet learning something out of every folly hoping to repeat none of the cheap follies this arriving at intimate understanding of a world of numbering many fools.
From Carl Sandburg, "The People, Yes, No.9: Father and Son"
The person who is integrated from never having known disintegration, honest from never having needed not to be, virtous from never having been tempted, is neutral, and slightly less than human.
William Sorayan
Justice as Fairness
You've received the hand-out outlining the main Ethical Positions, of which there are eight: Religious ethic, Cultural/Ethical Relativism, Subjectivism, Eudaemonism, Deontological ethic, Utilitarianism, Ethical Egoism, and Intuitionism.
This discussion of a possible ninth position relates to the ninth position, and to its relationship with/to Utilitarianism. The information here is a summary from the text Philosophy: An Introduction Through Original Fiction, Discussion, and Readings, Third Edition, written by Thomas D. Davis, and published by McGraw-Hill (1993). The specific reading and original source is A Theory of Justice by John Rawls, published by The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press (copyright 1971 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College). The Davis book is quite good generally, and I recommend it to you, particularly if you enjoy short stories. Davis writes short stories which highlight the main themes of his selected readings. (It's my own failing and some time constraints which have kept me from A Theory of Justice . Maybe this summer!)
OK, Utilitarianism ("The greatest good for the greatest number" or "GGGN") has long been a standard of morality, particularly in British philosophy. And, it's been a sort of guiding principle of humanistic government/governance. Utilitarianism is a touch more operational/operationalizable than other standards. However, Rawls (and others) holds that the emphasis is on "greatest happiness" and not on "greatest number." Rawls maintains that Utilitarianism would allow for, say, 25% of the population being miserable if this afforded the other 75% with greater happiness.
Rawls (and Davis with a very clever short story) proposes that, in fact, a human coming onto earth prior to being born does not know what his/her position/station will be. The as-yet-unborn being does not know if he/she will have family of merit and worth, what culture and subcultures he/she will have access to, whether or not he/she will have below- modal, or above-normal physical characteristics, intelligence, skills, talents, and abilities. In such a blind turkey-shoot of chance, Rawls maintains that a person would not opt for a social system which just might place him/her among the miserable, regardless of the happiness afforded others.
Rawls holds with his position, which he labels "Justice as Fairness." Although introduced within the context of A Theory of Justice, this "Justice as Fairness" perspective is taking-hold as an ethical standard (main ethical position) under what is termed "the moral point of view." The moral point of view hinges exactly on the business/question about what sort of a system of morality and society one would rationally prefer knowing that one does not know what his/her future life is to be. This all, in turn, hinges on the basic notion that HAPPINESS is that which, above all else, has intrinsic value, as most philosophers down from Aristotle have held--with the notable exception of my Hard-Nose buddy Immanuel Kant (not to mention Schopenhauer). (Rawls also argues that liberty, i.e. freedom, cannot be obtained if one is subjugated by society, and that liberty has intrinsic value apart form its relationship with happiness. Davis mentions this, but ignores this matter.)
Back to the main point:
" . . . Rawls' principle insists on a relatively sizable guarantee for each individual, whereas the utilitarian principle does not insist on any. Rawls' principle would seem more likely to lead to a more equal distribution of goods than would that of the utilitarian." (Davis, p. 94)
Most interestingly, at base we have rational people arguing about what other rational people would hold for/with relative to establishing a system "in the blind". Davis counterpoints the Utilitarian and the "Justice as Fairness/Moral Pont of View" arguments thusly:
The utilitarians have responded by claiming that the selection of the utilitarian principle would be the more rational by normal standards of rationality. Suppose that you and nine others were offered one or two lotteries, each requiring a wager of ten dollars. In the first lottery (subsidized by the Better Business Bureau, one might suppose), five of you will lose the ten dollars, and five of you will win one hundred dollars. In the second lottery (not subsidized), all of you will get back five dollars, and five will receive ten more dollars, getting back a total of fifteen. Which lottery would you choose? The first, of course. Similarly, suppose you were to "bet your life" on one of two societies. In the first society, ninety-five percent of the people would be very happy, and five percent of the people very miserable. In the second society, fifty percent of the people would be mildly happy, and fifty percent mildly miserable. Which society would you choose? The first, of course. Rawls' principle, however, would favor the second lottery and the second society. The utilitarian principle that would always give the best "odds on happiness" would be the more rational by normal standards of rationality. So the utilitarian argues.
But Rawls argues that persons wagering an entire lifetime would adopt the more conservative betting strategy. The idea of living one's life in great misery would be such a fearful prospect that people would be willing to take lesser odds on happiness to ensure that they would not suffer great misery. (Davis, p. 94)
The last sentence above may track the arguments, but I think it should read: The idea of living one's life in great misery would be such a fearful prospect that people would be more willing to settle for an assured happiness, albeit at a lower/lesser degree, than they would be willing to wager on, and possibly lose, the prospect of high-level, giddy happiness, and end up in abject misery.
Davis ends his discussion with the following, which I think is worth repeating:
This, of course, is related to the broader question: Would those who seriously took the moral point of view come to complete or considerable agreement on their moral views? Probably the only way to determine this is to continue our moral dialogues, but with greater philosophical clarity. In determining your moral preferences, try to make sure that you are taking the moral point of view. When you find that you and another person seem to disagree on an issue, try to conduct your discussion explicitly from the moral point of view. Perhaps this will not lead to greater agreement in your moral discussions. But the chances are that it will.
(Davis, p. 95)
Let me briefly relate how Davis presents the moral point of view in his lead-in short story, "Those Who Help Themselves". The population of the (defeated/destroyed) planet of Omega believe in reincarnation. Their society was probably "the only truly moral civilization that ever existed." Because each person in the society believed that he/she would continually return to life as some other person, each person helped other persons. "The moral efficacy of this belief is obvious. It is a consequence of this belief that, in promoting a society in which each person helps others, one is quite literally helping oneself. No one was willing to neglect another, because soon one might be in the same position." [In the same position as the other person--GGL.] (Davis, p. 81)
If this notion seems familiar to you, you have been absorbing my hand-outs. On page ten of my "Observations on Management and Leadership," you find the concluding paragraph from my favorite Existential novel, Stephen Becker's A Covenant with Death:
"Wiggle your fingers, wiggle your toes. Go naked to the market. Rejoice in all mornings. Join hands and kiss. Laugh. Love. If you cannot love, pity. If you cannot pity, have mercy. That man is not your brother: he is you."
However sugarcoated and ambiguous, every form of authoritarianism must start with a belief insome group's greater right to power, whether that right is justified by sex, race, class, religion or all four. However far it may expand, the progression inevitably rests on unequal power and airtight roles within the family.
Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions, "If Hitler Were Alive, Whose Side Would He Be 0n7' (1983; first published in Ms., New York, Oct.'Nov. 1980)
The authority of any governing institution must stop at its citizen's skin.
"NightThoughts of a Media-watcher," in Ms. (New York, Nov.1981)
I have yet to hear a man ask for advice on how to combine marriage and a career.
Radio interview, 2 April 1984, LBC (London)
Childbirth is more admirable than conquest, more amazing than self-defense, and as courageous as either one.
"In Praise Of Women's Bodies," in Ms. (New York, April1981; repr. in Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions, 1983)
For women . . . bras, panties, bathing suits, and other stereotypical gear are visual reminders of a commercial, idealized feminine image that our real and diverse female bodies can't possibly fit. Without these visual references, each individual woman's body demands to be accepted on its own terms. We stop being comparatives. We begin to be unique.
"In Praise of Women's Bodies," Ibid.
Pornography is about dominance. Erotica is about mutuality.
Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions, "Erotica vs Pornography," adapted from articles in Ms. (New York, Aug. 1977 and Nov. 1978)
The family is the basic cell of government: it is where we are trained to believe that we are human beings or that we are chattel, it is where we are trained to see the sex and race divisions and become callous to injustice even if it is done to ourselves, to accept as biological a full system of authoritarian government.
Speech, July 1981, to the National Women's Political caucus conference, Albuquerque, New Mexico
For much of the female half of the world, food is the first signal of our inferiority. It lets us know that our own families may consider female bodies to be less deserving, less needy, less valuable.
"The Politics of Food," in Ms. (New York, Feb.1980; repr. in Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions, 1983)
Someone once asked me why women don't gamble as much as men do, and I gave the common sensical reply that we don't have as much money. That was a true but incomplete answer. In fact, women's total instinct for gambling is satisfied by marriage.
"Night Thoughts of a Media Watcher." Ibid.
Planning ahead is a measure of class. The rich and even the middle class plan for future generations, but the poor can plan aheadonly a few weeks or days.
"The Time Factor," in Ms. (New York, March 1980; repr. in Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions, 1983)
Power can be taken, but not given. The process of the taking is empowerment in itself.
"Far From the Opposite Shore," in Ms. (New York. July 1978 and July/Aug. 1982; repr. in Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions, 1983)
No man can call himself liberal, or radical, or even a conservative advocate of fair play, if his work depends in any way on the unpaid or underpaid labor of women at home, or in the office.
New York Times (26 Aug.1971)
Any woman who chooses to behave like a full human being should be warned that the armies of the status quo will treat her as something of a dirty joke. That's their natural and first weapon. She will need her sisterhood...
"Sisterhood," in Ms. (New York, 1972; repr. in Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions, 1983)
I've finally figured out why soap operas are, and logically should be, so popular with generations of housebound women. They are the only place 'in our culture where grown-up men take seriously all the things that grown-up women have to deal with all day long.
"Night Thoughts of a Media Watcher," in Ms. (New York, Nov.1981; repr. in Outrageous Acts and
Everyday Rebellions, 1983)
The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright c 1993 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
Feminism (fem"e-niz'em), movement for women's political, social, and eduational equality with men. Early leaders, including Mary WOLLSTONECRAFT in England and Elizabeth Cady STANTON and Susan B. ANTHONY in the U.S. demanded full legal and economic equality for women. Gradually women in the U.S. won the right to own property and to enter the professions, and in 1920, after a prolonged struggle for WOMAN SUFFRAGE led by Carrie Chapman CATT and others, they obtained the right to vote through the passage of the 19th ammendment to the U.S. CONSTITUTION. Women were fully enfranchised in Britain by 1928 and throughout most of the world by 1950. Betty FRIEDAN and the NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN played prominent roles in the resurgence of feminism in the U.S. from the 1960's, stressing equal pay and employment opportunities, DAY-CARE CENTERS, the right to ABORTION, and the need to end SEXUAL HARASSMENT and sex stereotyping. The movement achieved much but failed in one of its key goals, that of securing ratification of the federal equal rights amendment.
Wollstonecraft, Mary, 1759-97, English author and feminist. After Publishing Vindication for the Rights Of Woman (1792), the fist great document of FEMINISM, she lived in Paris and befriended leaders of the French Revolutionl. She Married (1797) William GODWIN, but died giving birth to a daughter who became the noted writer Maryl Wollstonecraft SHELLEY.
Stanton, Elizabeth Cady, 1815-1902, American reformer and feminist; b Johnstown, N.Y. With Lucretia MOTT she organized (1848) the first U.S. women's rights convention, and from 1852 she led the womens movement with Susan B Anthony. An able journalist, gifted orator, and persuasive promoter of FEMINISM, Stanton was president (1869-90) of the National Woman Suffrage Association and editor (1868-70) of Revolution, a militant women's rights magazine.
Anthony, Susan B(rownell) 1820-1906, American leader of the WOMAN SUFFRAGE movement; b Adams, Mass. She organized the first womans temperance association, the Daughters of Temperance, and with Elizabeth Cady STANTON secured the first laws in New York guaranteeing womens right over their children and control of property and wages. In 1863 she was coorganizer of the Women's Loyal League to support Lincolns government, but after the Civil War she opposed granting suffrage to freedom without also giving it to women. She was president (1892-1900) of the National American Woman Suffrage Association and helped compile vols 1-3 of The History of Womans Suffrage (1881-68)
Catt, Carrie Chapman, 1859-1947, American Suffragistl b.Ripon, Wis. As an organizer and president (from 1900) of the National American Woman Suffrage Association, she campaigned for a constitutional amendment on Woman Suffrage. When the 19th amendment to the U.S. Constitution passed (1920) she organized the League of Women Voters, and later worked for the peace movement.
Friedan, Betty Naomi, 1921 -, American Feminist; b. Peoria, Ill. In 1963 she galvanized the womens movement by publishing the Feminine Mystique, an attack on the notion that women find fulfillment only through childbearing and homemaking. Founder of the National Organization for Women (1966), she also helped organize the National Womens Political Caucus (1970). In the second stage (1981) she evaluated the progress of feminism, remaining an moderate and criticising its radical elements. The Fountain of Age (1993) is an affirmation of the vitatilty of old age.
Steinem, Gloria, 1934- American journalist and feminist; b. Clarklake, Mich. A journalist during the 1960's, she became a spokeswoman for FEMINISM, helping organize (1971) the women's political caucus, and was founding editor of Ms. Magazine. Her books include Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions (1983) and Revolution from Within (1992) .
Feminist Literature
Atwood, Margaret, Rape Fantasies. short stories.
Bambara, Toni Cade, Gorilla, My Love (1972). short stories.
Chopin, Kate, "The Story of An Hour". short story . "The Awakening". short story.
Estes, Clarissa P., Women Who Run with the Wolves.
Faludi, Susan, Backlash
Gilchrest, Ellen, "In the Land of Dreamy Dreams "(1981). Short Story.
Gilman, Charlotte Perkins, "The Yellow Wallpaper". Short Story
Glaspell, Susan, Trifles. Play. "A Jury of Her Peers". Short Story.
Godwin, Gail, Dream Children (1976) Short Stories. Fathers Melancholy Daughter (1991). Novel.
Hurston, Zora Neale, Their Eyes Were Watching God.
Isben, Henrik, A Doll House. Play.
Joyce, James, "Eveline". Short story.
Lessing, Doris. The Golden Notebook (1962). Novel. A Man and Two Women (1963).short stories.
A Proper Marriage (1954) [Liberal racial views/violence in south africa]
Melich, Tanya, Republican War Against Women.
Merriman, Eve, Growing Up Female in America
Oates, Joyce Carol, Them (1969). The Wheel of Love (1970) short stories
Marriages and Infidelities (1972) short stories
Olsen, Tillie, Tell Me a Riddle (1961). Mother to Daughter, Daughter to Mother (1984) Novela
O Yes. Novella [effect of racism on two young girls]
Steinem, Gloria, Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions, Revolution from Within
Walker, Alice, "You Cant' Keep a Good Woman Down" (1981) Short Story
In Search of our Mothers' Gardens (1983)
The Color Purple (1982) [racism/sexism in black womens lives]
War Against Women (author?)
We Are the Stories We Tell . short stories (author?)
Other writers in the genre:
Allen ,Paula Gunn
Morrison, Toni
Tan, Amy .
existentialism (èg´zî-stènıshe-lîz´em), any of several philosophical systems of the 20th cent., all centered on the individual and the individual's relationship to the universe or to God. Søren KIERKEGAARD developed a Christian existentialism that recognized the concrete ethical and religious demands confronting the individual, who is forced each time to make a subjective commitment. The necessity and seriousness of these decisions cause him dread and despair. Following Kierkegaard, HEIDEGGER and SARTRE, both students of HUSSERL, were the major thinkers of the movement. Heidegger rejected the label of existentialism, describing his philosophy as an investigation of the nature of being in which the analysis of human existence is only a first step. For Sartre, the only self-declared existentialist among the major thinkers, existence precedes essence: there is no God and no fixed human nature; thus each person is totally free and entirely responsible for what he or she becomes and does. This responsibility accounts for human dread and anguish. Sartre influenced the writings of CAMUS and de BEAUVOIR. A Christian existentialism was developed in France by Gabriel Marcel, a Roman Catholic. The religious thinkers Karl BARTH, Paul TILLICH, Reinhold NIEBUHR, and Martin BUBER, and the philosopher Karl JASPERS are often included in the orbit of existentialism.
Kierkegaard, Søren, 1813-55, Danish philosopher and religious writer, a precursor of 20th-cent. EXISTENTIALISM and a major influence on modern Protestant theology. Kierkegaard described the various stages of existence as the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious; advancing through this "existential dialectic," the individual becomes increasingly aware of his relationship to God. This awareness leads to despair as he realizes the antithesis between temporal existence and eternal truth. Reason is no help in achieving the final religious stage; a "leap of faith" is required. Kierkegaard's works, largely ignored in his own lifetime, include Either/Or (1843), Fear and Trembling (1843), Philosophical Fragments (1844), and Concluding Unscientific Postscript (1846).
Heidegger, Martin, 1889-1976, German philosopher. A student of HUSSERL, whom Heidegger succeeded as professor of philosophy at Freiburg, he was also influenced by KIERKEGAARD, DILTHEY, and NIETZSCHE. Heidegger's analysis in his major work, Being and Time (1927), of the concepts of "care," "mood," and the individual's relationship to death, relates authenticity of being as well as the anguish of modern society to the individual's confrontation with his own temporality. Although he rejected the title, Heidegger is regarded as one of the founders of 20th-cent. EXISTENTIALISM, and he influenced the work of SARTRE. His later work included studies of poetry and of dehumanization in odern society.
Sartre, Jean-Paul (särıtre), 1905-80, French philosopher and author, a leading exponent of EXISTENTIALISM. His writings examine the individual as a responsible but lonely being, adrift in a meaningless universe with a terrifying freedom to choose. His existentialist works include the monumental treatise Being and Nothingness (1943); the plays The Flies (1943), No Exit (1944), and The Respectful Prostitute (1947); and the novels Nausea (1938) and The Age of Reason (1945) (first of a trilogy). The Critique of Dialectical Reason (1960) combined MARXISM and existentialism whereas The Family Idiot (1982) explored FLAUBERT from a Freudian viewpoint. Sartre declined the 1964 Nobel Prize in literature.
Husserl, Edmund, 1859-1938, German philosopher, founder of PHENOMENOLOGY. A student of Franz BRENTANO, Husserl offered a descriptive study of consciousness for the purpose of discovering the laws by which experiences are had, whether of the objective world or of pure imagination. He concluded that consciousness has no life apart from the objects it considers. In his later work he moved toward IDEALISM, denying that objects exist outside of consciousness. His chief works were Logical Investigations (1900-1901) and Ideas for a Pure Phenomenology (1907). His most prominent pupil was Martin HEIDEGGER.
Camus, Albert (kämüı), 1913-60, French writer and thinker; b. Algiers. His belief in the absurdity of the human condition identified him with EXISTENTIALISM, but his courageous humanism distinguished him from that group. The characters in his novels and plays, although keenly aware of the meaninglessness of the human condition, assert their humanity by rebelling against their circumstances. His best-known works are the novels The Stranger (1942), The Plague (1947), and The Fall (1956) and the essays The Myth of Sisyphus (1942) and The Rebel (1951). Camus was awarded the 1957 Nobel Prize in literature.
Beauvoir, Simone de (bovwärı), 1908-86, French author. An exponent of EXISTENTIALISM, she was a close associate of SARTRE. Her novels include The Mandarins (1955), which interprets the existential dilemma, The Second Sex (1949-50), a profound analysis of the status of women, and The Coming of Age (1970), a study of society's treatment of the aged. She also wrote a lively series of memoirs.
Barth, Karl, 1886-1968, Swiss Protestant theologian, one of the leading thinkers of 20th-cent. Protestantism. A Swiss minister, he became a professor (1921-35) in Germany, and opposed the Nazi regime. Deported to Switzerland, he later taught at Basel, where he continued to expound his views, known as dialectical theology or theology of the word. Barth sought to reassert the principles of the Reformation. He saw the central concern of theology as the word of God and His revelation in Jesus, which he thought was the only means for God to reveal Himself to humans, who must listen in awe, trust, and obedience. Among his many works is his Church Dogmatics (vol. I-IV, 1932-62).
Tillich, Paul Johannes (tîlıîk), 1886-1965, American philosopher and theologian; b. Germany. He taught theology in Germany until his opposition to the Nazi regime caused his dismissal (1933). He then taught at Union Theological Seminary, New York City (1933-54), Harvard Univ. (1954-62), and the Univ. of Chicago (1962-65). His thought embraced the concept of the "Protestant Principle" and aimed at a correlation of the questions arising out of the human condition and the divine answers drawn from the symbolism of Christian revelation.
Niebuhr, Reinhold, 1892-1971, American religious and social thinker; b. Wright City, Mo. He taught (1928-60) at Union Theological Seminary, New York City, and became interested in social problems. In the early 1930s he shed his liberal Protestant hopes for the church's moral rule of society and became a political activist and a socialist. His writings include Moral Man and Immoral Society (1932), Christianity and Power Politics (1940), and The Nature and Destiny of Man (2 vol., 1941-43). His brother, Helmut Richard Niebuhr, 1894-1962, joined the faculty of Yale Divinity School in 1931. His thought was early influenced by KIERKEGAARD and BARTH; later, however, he turned his attention to the personal nature of humanity's relationship to God and advocated a reworking of Christianity in light of the developments of the 20th cent.
Buber, Martin, 1878-1965, Jewish philosopher; b. Austria. He taught Jewish philosophy and religion in Germany until he was forced (1938) to leave the country; he settled in Jerusalem. The mysticism of the HASIDIM and the Christian existentialism of KIERKEGAARD influenced him. His major work, I and Thou (1923), which posited a personal and direct dialogue between God and the individual, has had a great impact on contemporary Christian and Jewish theology.
Jaspers, Karl, 1883-1969, German philosopher. Generally placed within the orbit of EXISTENTIALISM, Jaspers believed that genuine philosophy must spring from the study of a person's individual existence, which he viewed as enclosed by an all-embracing, transcendental reality he called "the encompassing." Among his works are Man in the Modern Age (1931) and Philosophy (3 vol., 1932).
GGLADDNOTE: If you get into this--into Existentialism--I recommend The Unquiet Vision: Mirrors of Man in Existentialism, by Nathan A. Scott, Jr., published in New York by The World Publishing Company, 1969. This for a beginning...there is no end.
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
Everywhere, the ethical predicament of our time imposes itself with an urgency which suggests that even the question "Have we anything to eat?" will be answered not in material but in ethical terms.
Hugo Ball (1886-1927), German Dadaist poet. Quoted in: Hans Richter, Dada: Art and Anti-Art, ch. 1, 'The Language of Paradise"(1964).
Education is the art of making man ethical.
Georg Hegel (1770-1831). German philosopher. The Philosophy of Right, no.58 (1821: tr. 1942).
If we can get that realistic feminine morality working for us, if we can trust ourselves and so let women think and feel that an unwanted child or an oversize family is wrong-not ethically wrong, not against the rules, but morally wrong, all wrong, wrong like a thalidomide birth, wrong like taking a wrong step that will break your neck-if we can get feminine and human morality out from under the yoke of a dead ethic, then maybe we'll begin to get somewhere on the road that leads to survival.
Ursula K. Le Gum (b. 1929), U.S. author. "Moral and Ethical Implications of Family Planning." speech, March 1978, to Planned Parenthood symposium. Portland, Maine (repr. in Dancing at the Edge of the World, 1989).
Good is a product of the ethical and spiritual artistry of individuals: it cannot be mass-produced.
Aldous Huxley (1894-1963), British author. Grey Eminence, ch. 10 (1941).
In politics, it seems, retreat is honorable if dictated by military considerations and shameful if even suggested for ethical reasons.
Mary McCarthy (1912-89), U.S. author, critic. Vietnam, "Solutions" (1967).
English literature is a kind of training in social ethics. . . . English trains you to handle a body of information in a way that is conducive to action.
Marilyn Butler (b. 1937), British educator, author. Guardian (London, 3 March 1989).
Perhaps the only true dignity of man is his capacity to despise himself.
George Santayana (1863-1952), U.S. philosopher, poet. Spinoza's Ethics, "Introduction" (1910).
I suspect that American workers have come to lack a work ethic. They do not live by the sweat of their brow.
Kuchi Miyazawa (b. 1919), Japanese politician, prime minister. Daily Telegraph (London, 5 Feb.1992).
Stripped of ethical rationalizations and philosophical pretensions. a crime is anything that a group in power chooses to prohibit.
Freda Adler (b. 1934), U.S. educator, author. Sisters in Crime
If happiness is activity in accordance with excellence, it is reasonable that it should be in accordance with the highest excellence.
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.). Greek philosopher. Nicomachean Ethics, bk. 10, ch. 7
It is an open question whether any behavior based on fear of eternal punishment can be regarded as ethical or should be regarded as merely cowardly.
Margaret Mead (1901-78). U.S. anthropologist. Quoted in: "Redbook" (New York, Feb.1971).
In the United States there's a Puritan ethic and a mythology of success. He who is successful is good. In Latin countries, in Catholic countries, a successful person is a sinner.
Umberto Eco (b.1932), Italian semiologist, novelist. "International Herald Tribune "(Paris, 14 Dec.1988).
What the statesman is most anxious to produce is a certain moral character in his fellow citizens, namely a disposiUon to virtue and the performance of virtuous actions.
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), Greek philosopher. The Ethics of Aristotle, bk. 1, ch. 9 (1953).
The moral virtues, then, are produced in us neither by nature nor against nature. Nature, indeed, prepares in us the ground for their reception, but their complete formation is the product of habit.
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), Greek philosopher. The Ethics of Aristotle, bk. 3, ch. 1(1953).
Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes-our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking around.
G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936). British author. Orthodoxy, ch. 4, "The Ethics of England" (1909).
The needs of a society determine its ethics, and in the Black American ghettos the hero is that man who is oflered only the crumbs from his country's table but by ingenuity and courage is able to take for himself a Lucullan feast.
Maya Angelou (b. 1928), U.S. author. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, ch. 29
The images of the unconscious place a great responsibility upon a man. Failure to understand them, or a shirking of ethical responsibility, deprives him of his wholeness and imposes a painful fragmentariness on his life.
Carl Jung (1875-1961). Swiss psychiatrist. Memories, Dreams, and Reflections, ch. 6 (1963).
I see it all perfectly; there are two possible situations-one can either do this or that. My honest opinion and my friendly advice is this: do it or do not do it-you will regret both.
Oliver Wendell, Sr. Holmes (1809-94)(1813-55). Danish philosopher. Either/Or, vol.2, "Balance between Esthetic and Ethical" (1843; tr. 1987).
Such is the brutalization of commercial ethics in this country that no one can feel anything more delicate than the velvet touch.
Raymond Chandler (1888-1959). U.S. author. Letter 13 May 1949, to publisher Hamish Hamilton (published in Raymond Chandler Speaking, 1962).
We praise a man who feels angry on the right grounds and against the right persons and also in the right manner at the right moment and for the right length of time.
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), Greek philosopher. The Nicomachean Ethics, ch. 4, sct. 5 subsot. 3 (written c. 340 B.C.)
The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright c 1993 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. Caedmon recordings reproduced by arrangement with Harper Collins Publishers.
2.5.2: Democracy, Communism, Dictatorship, Monarchy, and the Revolutions
2.5.3: Terms/Descriptors Relative to Governance
2.5.4: The Vikings and the Celts, and Some William Wallace
2.5.5: Noam Chomsky on Anarchism
2.5.6: Noam Chomsky on Capitalism
2.5.7: If you hear people complaining about the 1980s. . .
2.5.8: Fearful of the New World Economic Order and that YOU may be Surplus Population? TAKE HEED!
We have here a continuum, going from + State/ - Individual to + Individual /- State
Remember that all theories of governance are based on/fabricated upon a conception of human nature.
governance (gùvıer-nens) noun:1. The act, process, or power of governing; government: "Regaining a sense of the state is thus an absolute priority, not only for an effective policy against . . . terrorism, but also for governance itself" (Moorhead Kennedy). 2. The state of being governed.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition is licensed from Houghton Mifflin Company. Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
[In its broadest sense, governance is how one manages or controls any situation, usually assuming the power (authority or influence) to do so. GGL] See, sometimes you need a more powerful dictionary. This from The Random House Dictionary of the English Language (2nd ed./unabridged). [It's a biggie/]: Governance: 1. government; exercise of control; control. 2. a method or system of government or management.
"Democracy, Communism, Dictatorship, Monarchy, and the Revolutions" (prep. 11/13/96).
+State /-Individual +-State/+-Individual -State/+Individual
DICTATORSHIP---------------------->DEMOCRACY--------------------->COMMUNISM
SOCRATES, PLATO, COHEN------->JOHN LOCKE,JOHN STUART MILL------>MARX, ENGELS
Dictatorship
Absolute power of the state.
Monarchy/Tyranny.
Fascism is a form of Dictatorship emphasizing nation and race, conquest to rule over other people
Democracy
JOHN LOCKE: Delimit the absolute power of the monarchy. "Lex majoris partis. ".
JOHN STUART MILL: Further delimit/curtail the power of the state . and to the essentials of me not physically harming you, or me not ripping-off your stuff, and vice versa. and lands. Possibly the state has the right to command you to court as a knowledgeable witness, and to bear arms to defend/preserve such a just state.
TOM=Tyranny of the Majority. Just because a bunch of dimwits vote or decide something doesn't make it true or correct/right.
SOG=Seedbed of Genius. If all individuals were completely free then genius and accomplishments would flourish, and society-as-a-whole would benefit.
Those favoring Democracy believe that "Benevolent Dictatorship cannot exist ." (Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.)
Communism:
MARX (The Thinker) ENGELS (The Writer)
From the horrors and unfairness of capitalism to communism via Socialism--with some government to manage the transition from capitalism to socialism
Communism: The Classless Society: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
The only freedom the working person has is the freedom to be exploited.
LENIN: "Freedom from capitalism will only come at the point of a gun."
Glennie Overview:
Glennie's challenge: Is not a "pecking order" a universal/fundamental of all living things? If so, how then can there ever be a classless society among humans?
Personally, I believe in an "Aristocracy of the Sensitive". It is not true that, that if "things" are ever going
to be "better.fairer," that the working person has to be the gravedigger of capitalism,
In the meantime, until the genetic coding gets completed, I favor a dictatorship of intellect and sensitivity.
Philosophical Anarchism
Isn't on the continuum because it isn't one of the classical political theories.
Philosophical anarchism is: 0 State / ++ Individual.
The State is an abstraction, and only individual humans are real. One must be free of all control to determine/discern his/her own morality.
In order to be a moral entity, one must be free to choose, i.e, be totally uncompelled.
Philosophical Anarchy is a state of mind/thought. It is different from Social/Political Anarchy.
Philosophical Anarchists think thoughts. Social/Political Anarchists blow things up.
Anarchism (ãnıer-kîz´em), political philosophy and movement that seeks the abolition of government, arguing that people, although naturally good, are corrupted by artificial institutions. Anarchism dates from the ancient Greeks, but its modern form was outlined (18th and 19th cent.) by William GODWIN, P.J. PROUDHON, and others. In Russia, given a violent and collectivist tone by Mikhail BAKUNIN, it was outlawed by the Bolsheviks after the RUSSIAN REVOLUTION. Only in the Latin countries of Europe, where it was linked to SYNDICALISM, did it gain a mass following by the end of the 19th cent. After the HAYMARKET SQUARE RIOT (1886) and the assassination of Pres. MCKINLEY, fear of anarchism caused the U.S. in 1901 to forbid anarchists from entering the country. Today anarchism remains important as a philosophical and political theory, not as an active political movement.
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
democracy
democracy, system of government in which the people-not one class, an autocrat, or a select group-share in directing the state's activities. It flourished in such Greek CITY-STATES as Athens before giving way to IMPERIALISM. The philosophy and practice of modern democracy emerged slowly in the West. Basic to it is the concept of representation of the people by elected agents. The idea that natural rights could not be taken from the people is also fundamental (see NATURAL LAW). John LOCKE, J.J. ROUSSEAU, and others developed the concept of a social contract in which SOVEREIGNTY rests with the people, who undertake reciprocal obligations with a ruler; rulers violating this contract may be removed. These ideas greatly influenced British government, the AMERICAN REVOLUTION, and the FRENCH REVOLUTION. Since the 19th cent., when political democracy was established in most Western countries, emphasis has been placed on increasing the portion of the population participating in political decisions. Theorists of SOCIALISM and other doctrines have criticized this emphasis, maintaining that true democracy is not merely political but rests on economic equality and, according to some, on public ownership of wealth. Since the mid-20th cent. most political systems have described themselves as democracies, but many of them have not encouraged competing political parties and have not stressed individual rights and other elements typical of classic Western democracy. With the collapse of Communist rule in most Eastern European nations, the fall of authoritarian dictatorships in Latin America, and the end of many one-party states in sub-Saharan Africa, however, the number of true multiparty democracies has greatly increased.
communism
communism (kòmıye-nîz´em), a system of social organization in which property, particularly real property and the means of production, is held in common. With an uppercase C, the term refers to the movement that seeks to overthrow CAPITALISM through revolution. Forms of communism existed among various tribes of native Americans, and it was espoused by early Christian sects. During the Middle Ages the MANORIAL SYSTEM provided communal use of the village commons and cultivation of certain fields, rights the peasants fought to retain in England (14th cent.) and Germany (16th cent.). By the early 19th cent. the rise of capitalism, reinforced by the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION, had created a new industrial class living and working under appalling conditions. Utopian socialists such as Robert OWEN and Charles FOURIER, anarchists such as P.J. PROUDHON, and revolutionaries such as Auguste Blanqui all favored some kind of communal solution to this poverty. In Germany Karl MARX and Friedrich ENGELS published the Communist Manifesto (1848), the primary exposition of the doctrine that came to be known as MARXISM. It postulated the inevitability of communism arising from class war, the overthrow of capitalism, and the creation of a classless society. Marxism greatly influenced 19th-cent. SOCIALISM. The modern Communist political movement began when the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party split (1903) into two factions (see BOLSHEVISM AND MENSHEVISM). The Bolsheviks, led by V.I. LENIN, called for armed revolution. After their triumph in the 1917 RUSSIAN REVOLUTION, the Bolsheviks formed the Communist party (1918), established a party dictatorship, and founded the COMINTERN (1919), which claimed leadership of the world socialist movement. In the 1930s, Joseph STALIN's policy of "socialism in one country" prevailed in the USSR, but after WORLD WAR II Stalin created "satellite" Communist states in Eastern Europe. The Chinese Communists (see CHINA), who triumphed in 1949, aided movements in Southeast Asia. U.S. opposition to these and other actions by Soviet, Chinese, and other Commmunists led to the COLD WAR, KOREAN WAR, VIETNAM WAR, and "proxy wars" elsewhere, particularly in Latin America and Africa. Economic difficulties, particularly shortages of food and other consumer goods, and the resurgence of NATIONALISM led to demands for reform in Hungary (1956), Czechoslovakia (1968), and Poland (1956, 1981), and to often violent suppression of such demands, and other Communist countries were confronted with similar internal problems. In the 1960s Sino-Soviet relations deteriorated, and the Communist parties of Western and THIRD WORLD countries began to assert their independence of those two powers. Popular uprisings, economic collapse, and free elections ousted Communist governments in much of Eastern Europe in 1989 and 1990, and the failed hard-line coup against Soviet Pres. GORBACHEV led to the suspension of the Communist party in the USSR and the country's subsequent disintegration in 1991. By the early 1990s traditional Communist party dictatorships held power only in China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam, and China, Laos, and Vietnam had reduced state control of the economy in order to stimulate growth.
monarchy
monarchy, form of government in which sovereignty is vested in a single person whose right to rule is generally hereditary and lifelong. In ancient societies divine descent of the monarch was often claimed. Medieval Christian monarchs were considered the appointed agents of divine will and as such were crowned by the church; their power, however, was often dependent on the nobles. Later monarchs, e.g., HENRY VIII of England and LOUIS XIV of France, became increasingly absolute and developed (16th-17th cent.) the theory of divine right, which claimed that the monarch was responsible not to the governed but to God alone. The GLORIOUS REVOLUTION (1688) in England and the FRENCH REVOLUTION weakened the European monarchies, and while monarchs remained symbols of national unity, real power gradually passed to constitutional assemblies, as in Great Britain and Sweden. Saudi Arabia is one of the few remaining functional monarchies.
Glorious Revolution
Glorious Revolution, in English history, the events of 1688-89 leading to the deposition of JAMES II and the accession of WILLIAM III and MARY II. James's overt Catholicism and the birth of a Catholic heir united Whigs and Tories against him. Seven Whig and Tory leaders sent an invitation to the Dutch prince, William of Orange, and his consort, Mary, the Protestant daughter of James, to come to England. When William and Mary landed, James's army deserted him and he fled to France (Dec. 1688). William and Mary accepted the BILL OF RIGHTS (1689), which assured the ascendancy of Parliamentary power over royal power.
William of Orange
William of Orange. For William I, prince of Orange, WILLIAM THE SILENT; for William III, king of England, WILLIAM, kings of England.
William the Silent
William the Silent or William of Orange (William I, prince of Orange), 1533-84, principal founder of Dutch independence. A member of the house of NASSAU, he inherited (1544) the principality of Orange, in S France, and was made (1555) stadtholder of Holland, Zeeland, and Utrecht. He opposed repression of the NETHERLANDS by PHILIP II of Spain and helped form the GUEUX party (1566). The duke of ALBA was sent to put down the rebellion (1567), while William, in exile, raised an army to drive the Spanish out. In 1576 the provinces of the Netherlands united under William, but in 1580 he was forced to seek the aid of FRANCIS, duke of Alençon and Anjou. Philip put a price on William's head in 1581, and at a critical stage of the independence struggle he was assassinated.
William
William, kings of England. William I or William the Conqueror, 1027?-1087 (r.1066-1087), was the illegitimate son of Robert I, duke of Normandy, and succeeded to the dukedom in 1035. While visiting (1051) England, he was probably named by his cousin EDWARD THE CONFESSOR as successor to the throne, and in 1064 he extracted a promise of support from HAROLD, then earl of WESSEX. In 1066, hearing that Harold had been crowned king of England, William raised an army and crossed the Channel. He defeated and slew Harold at HASTINGS and was crowned king. William immediately built castles and harshly put down the rebellions that broke out; by 1072 the military part of the NORMAN CONQUEST was virtually complete. He substituted foreign prelates for many English bishops, and land titles were redistributed on a feudal basis (see FEUDALISM) to his Norman followers. After 1075 he dealt frequently with continental quarrels. William ordered a survey (1085-86) of England, the results of which were compiled as the DOOMSDAY BOOK. He was one of the greatest English monarchs and a pivotal figure in European history. His son Robert II succeeded him in Normandy, while another son, William II or William Rufus, d.1100 (r. 1087-1100), succeeded him in England. William II had utter contempt for the English church and extorted large sums of money from it. He occupied Normandy when Robert II left on a crusade, and gained control (1097) of the Scottish throne. He was killed while hunting, and his death may not have been an accident. His brother HENRY I succeeded him. William III, 1650-1702, king of England, Scotland, and Ireland (1689-1702), was the son of William II, prince of Orange. He became stadtholder of the Netherlands in 1672 and fought in the DUTCH WAR of 1672-78. In 1674 he made peace with England and married (1677) Mary, the Protestant daughter of James, duke of York (later JAMES II of England). After James's accession, William kept in contact with the king's opponents and in 1688 was invited by them to England. He landed with an army and brought about the GLORIOUS REVOLUTION. James was allowed to escape, and William accepted (1689) the offer of Parliament and reigned jointly with his wife, MARY II. William also accepted the BILL OF RIGHTS (1689), which greatly reduced royal power. He defeated (1690) the exiled James at the battle of the Boyne in Ireland and was involved in continental wars until LOUIS XIV recognized him as king in 1697. In England he relied increasingly on WHIG ministers, who were responsible for the establishment (1694) of the Bank of England and the policy of a national debt. William's popularity was diminished after the death (1694) of his childless wife and by the War of the SPANISH SUCCESSION. He was succeeded by Queen ANNE. William IV, 1765-1837, king of Great Britain and Ireland (1830-37), was the third son of GEORGE III. Generally passive in politics, he reluctantly gave his promise to the 2d Earl GREY to create, if necessary, enough peers to pass the REFORM BILL of 1832. Political leadership was left to the duke of WELLINGTON, Earl Grey, Viscount MELBOURNE, and Sir Robert PEEL. Good-natured but eccentric, William was only moderately popular. He was succeeded by his niece VICTORIA.
French Revolution
French Revolution, political upheaval that began in France in 1789 and eventually affected the whole world. Historians differ widely as to its causes. Some see it as an intellectual movement, born from the liberal ENLIGHTENMENT of the 18th cent.; some, as a rebellion of the underprivileged classes against feudal oppression; others, as the assertion of the new capitalist bourgeoisie against an outdated and restricted social and economic system-in the fixed order of the ancien régime, France was still ruled by two privileged classes, the nobility and the clergy, who refused to give up any of their privileges and supplemented their dwindling funds by exacting dues from the more productive bourgeoisie. The immediate cause of the revolution was without doubt the bankrupt state of the public treasury. The wars of the 17th and 18th cent., an iniquitous and inefficient system of taxation, intervention in the AMERICAN REVOLUTION, and waste had resulted in a gigantic public debt, which neither NECKER, nor CALONNE, nor Loménie de Brienne was able to reduce. As a last resort, LOUIS XVI called the STATES-GENERAL, which, it was hoped, would pass the necessary fiscal reforms. It convened at VERSAILLES on May 5, 1789, for the first time since 1614. From the start, the deputies of the third estate-the commons-joined by many members of the lower clergy and by a few nobles, pressed for sweeping political and social reforms that far exceeded the assembly's powers. Defying the king, they proclaimed themselves the National Assembly (June 17), and, on an indoor tennis court, took an oath not to separate until a constitution had been drawn up. The king yielded and legalized the Assembly, but his dismissal of Necker led to the storming of the BASTILLE by an excited Paris mob (July 14). Louis XVI, ever anxious to avoid bloodshed, gave in once more; Necker was recalled; the commune was established as the city government of Paris; and the National Guard was organized. On Aug. 4, 1789, the Assembly abolished all feudal privileges. Meanwhile, rumors of counterrevolutionary court intrigues were exploited by extremist demagogues, and on Oct. 5 a mob marched to Versailles and forcibly moved the royal family and the Assembly to Paris. There the Assembly drafted a constitution (1791) that created a limited monarchy with a unicameral legislature (the Legislative Assembly) elected by voters who had the requisite property qualifications; the preamble was the famous DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN AND CITIZEN. Earlier, anticlerical legislation had been capped when the clergy was required to take oaths to civil authority (1790), a measure that alienated many pious rural districts from the Revolution. The king decided to join those nobles who had already fled abroad (émigrés), but his flight (June 20-21, 1791) was arrested at Varennes. Brought back in humiliation to Paris, Louis accepted the new constitution. In the Legislative Assembly, the republican GIRONDISTS and the extreme JACOBINS and CORDELIERS gained the upper hand. "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" became a catch phrase. Elsewhere, the émigrés were inciting other European courts to intervene. The Declaration of Pillnitz played into the hands of the Girondists, who hoped that a foreign war would rally the nation to the republican cause. With the declaration of war on Austria (April 20, 1792), the FRENCH REVOLUTIONARY WARS began. Early reverses and rumors of treason by the king and Queen MARIE ANTOINETTE brought the lower classes, especially those in Paris, into action. In Aug. 1792 a mob stormed the TUILERIES palace and an insurrectionary commune replaced the legally elected one (see COMMUNE OF PARIS); all police power was seized by the Paris commune (dominated by DANTON and MARAT); the Assembly suspended the king and ordered elections for a National Convention to draw up yet another constitution; and hundreds of royal prisoners were killed by "spontaneous" mobs in the September massacres Sept. 2-7, 1792). On Sept. 21 the Convention abolished the monarchy, set up the First Republic, and proceeded to try the king for treason. Louis's conviction and execution (Jan. 1793) led to royalist uprisings, notably in the Vendée, and was followed by the REIGN OF TERROR, in which ROBESPIERRE and his associates triumphed in turn over the more moderate Girondists and over his rivals Danton and J.R. HéBERT. The republican constitution never became active; the Committee of Public Safety and the Revolutionary Tribunal reigned supreme. Robespierre's final excesses frightened the Convention into the coup d'etat of 9 Thermidor (July 27, 1794), which resulted in his execution and a period of relative reaction. Under the new constitution of 1795, the DIRECTORY came into existence. Its rule was marked by corruption, intrigues, runaway inflation, bankruptcy, and a fatal dependence on the army; it was ended by Napoleon Bonaparte's coup d'etat of 18 Brumaire (see NAPOLEON I). With the establishment of the Consulate (followed in 1804 by Napoleon's empire), the victory of the bourgeoisie became final. With the French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars, the French Revolution tore down the medieval structures of Europe, opened the paths of 19th-cent. liberalism, and hastened the advent of nationalism. See also FRENCH REVOLUTIONARY CALENDAR.
Locke, John
Locke, John, 1632-1704, English philosopher, founder of British EMPIRICISM. Locke's two most important works, Essay concerning Human Understanding and Two Treatises on Civil Government, both published in 1690, quickly established him as the leading philosopher of freedom. In the Essay he opposed the rationalist belief in innate ideas, holding that the mind is born a blank upon which all knowledge is inscribed in the form of human experience. He distinguished the primary qualities of things (e.g., extension, solidity, number) from the secondary qualities (e.g., color, smell, sound), which he held to be produced by the direct impact of the world on the sense organs. The primary qualities affect the sense organs mechanically, providing ideas that faithfully reflect reality; thus science is possible. Later empiricists such as HUME and George BERKELEY based their systems largely on Locke's theory of knowledge. In political theory he was equally influential. Contradicting HOBBES, Locke maintained that the original state of nature was happy and characterized by reason and tolerance; all human beings were equal and free to pursue "life, health, liberty, and possessions." The state formed by the SOCIAL CONTRACT was guided by the natural law, which guaranteed those inalienable rights. He set down the policy of checks and balances later followed in the U.S. CONSTITUTION; formulated the doctrine that revolution in some circumstances is not only a right but an obligation; and argued for broad religious freedom. Much of the liberal social, economic, and ethical theory of the 18th cent. was rooted in Locke's social-contract theories. One of the major influences on modern philosophical and political thought, he epitomized the ENLIGHTENMENT's faith in the middle class, in the new science, and in human goodness.
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
absolutism (ãbıse-l¡´tîz´em) noun: 1. a. A political theory holding that all power should be vested in one ruler or other authority. b. A form of government in which all power is vested in a single ruler or other authority. 2. An absolute doctrine, principle, or standard.
anarchy (ãnıer-kê) noun, plural anarchies: 1. Absence of any form of political authority. 2. Political disorder and confusion. 3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
aristocracy (ãr´î-stòkıre-sê) noun, plural aristocracies: 1. A hereditary ruling class; nobility. 2.a. Government by a ruling class. b. A state or country h aving this form of government. 3.a. Government by the citizens deemed to be best qualified to lead. b. A state having such a government. 4. A group or class considered superior to others.
autocracy (ô-tòkıre-sê) noun, plural autocracies: 1. Government by a single person having unlimited power; despotism. 2. A country or state that is governed by a single person with unlimited power.
communism (kòmıye-nîz´em) noun: 1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members. 2. Communism a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people. b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.
democracy (dî-mòkıre-sê) noun, plural democracies: 1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. 2. A political or social unit that has such a government. 3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power. 4. Majority rule. 5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
despotism (dèsıpe-tîz´em) noun :1. Rule by or as if by a despot; absolute power or authority. 2. The actions of a despot; tyranny. 3.a. A government or political system in which the ruler exercises absolute powe b. A state so ruled.
dictatorship (dîk-tâıter-shîp´, dîkıtâ´-) noun: 1. The office or tenure of a dictator. 2. A state or government under dictatorial rule. 3. Absolute or despotic control or power.
fascism (fãshıîz´em) noun: 1. Often Fascism a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. 2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
monarch (mònıerk, -ärk´) noun 1. One who reigns over a state or territory, usually for life and by hereditary right, especially: a. A sole and absolute ruler. b. A sovereign, such as a king or an empress, often with constitutionally limited authority: a constitutional monarch. 2. One that commands or rules. 3. One that surpasses others in power or preeminence.
monarchy (mònıer-kê, -är´-) noun, plural monarchies: 1. Government by a monarch. 2. A state ruled or headed by a monarch.
oligarchy (òlıî-gär´kê, oılî-) noun, plural oligarchies: 1. a. Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families. b. Those making up such a government. 2. A state governed by a few persons.
pluralism (pl¢rıe-lîz´em) noun: 2. A condition of society in which numerous distinct ethnic, religious, or cultural groups coexist within one nation. [The idea of a pluralistic society isn't so much that the various groups merely coexist, but that they cooperate maximally, compete minimally, and have a say-so in their overall cultural, societal, and governmental environment. GGL]
plutocracy (pl¡-tòkıre-sê) noun, plural plutocracies: 1. Government by the wealthy. 2. A wealthy class that controls a government. 3. A government or state in which the wealthy rule.
republic (rî-pùbılîk) noun, Abbr. rep., Rep., Repub.: 1. a. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president. b. A nation that has such a political order. 2.a. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them. b. A nation that has such a political order.
socialism (soıshe-lîz´em) noun 1. a. A social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community. b. The theory or practice of those who support such a social system. 2. The building of the material base for communism under the dictatorship of the proletariat in Marxist-Leninist theory.
sovereign (sòvıer-în, sòvırîn) noun, Abbr. sov.: 1. One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit, as: a. A king, queen, or other noble person who serves as chief of state; a ruler or monarch. b. A national governing council or committee. 2. A nation that governs territory outside its borders. 3. A gold coin formerly used in Great Britain. adjective, Abbr. sov.: 1. Self-governing; independent: a sovereign state. 2. Having supreme rank or power: a sovereign prince. 3. Paramount; supreme: her sovereign virtue is compassion. 4. a. Of superlative strength or efficacy: a sovereign remedy. b. Unmitigated: sovereign contempt.
tyranny (tîrıe-nê) noun, plural tyrannies: 1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power. 2. The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler. 3. Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly: "I have sworn . . . eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" (Thomas Jefferson). 4.a. Use of absolute power. b. A tyrannical act. 5. Extreme harshness or severity; rigor.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition is licensed from Houghton Mifflin Company. Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Selected Illustrations from the Concise Columbia Encyclopedia. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press.
Vikings: Vikings, Scandinavian warriors who raided the coasts of Europe and the British Isles from the 9th to 11th cent. The world's best shipbuilders, they were driven as far as Greenland and North America by overpopulation, internal dissension, quest for trade, and thirst for adventure. Many Vikings settled where they had raided (see NORSEMEN). The Viking Age ended with the introduction of Christianity into Scandinavia; the emergence of the kingdoms of Norway, Denmark, and Sweden; and the rise of European states strong enough to repel invasion.
Norsemen: Norsemen, Scandinavian VIKINGS who raided and settled on the coasts of NW Germany, the Low Countries, France, and Spain in the 9th and 10th cent. Among the causes of the influx were the desire for wealth, power, and adventure and the attempt of HAROLD I of Norway to subjugate the independent Norwegian nobles, forcing them to look to foreign conquests. The Norsemen's impact was especially lasting in N France, where they began (c.843) to sail up the French rivers, attacking, looting, and burning such cities as Rouen and Paris and ruining commerce and navigation. In 911 one of their leaders, Rollo, was given the duchy of NORMANDY by CHARLES III. Rollo's successors expanded their lands and were only nominal vassals of the French kings. The Norsemen accepted Christianity, adopted French law and speech, and continued in history as Normans.
Pict: One of an ancient people of northern Britain. They remained undefeated by the Romans and in the ninth century joined with the Scots to form a kingdom later to become Scotland.
[From Middle English Pictes, Picts, from Late Latin Pictì, from Latin pictì, pl. of pictus, painted. See picture.]The American Heritage
Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition is licensed from Houghton Mifflin Company. Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Norman Conquest: Norman Conquest, period in English history following the defeat (1066) of King HAROLD of England by William, duke of Normandy (see WILLIAM I). The conquest was formerly thought to have brought about broad changes in English life. More recently historians have stressed the continuity of English law, institutions, and customs, but the subject remains controversial. The initial military conquest was quick and brutal. By 1070 most of the Anglo-Saxon nobles were dead or had been deprived of their land, and a Norman aristocracy was superimposed on the English. William used the existing Anglo-Saxon administrative system, and the English church gained closer ties with Europe. Norman French was spoken at the court and had a great impact on the English language. NORMAN ARCHITECTURE was also introduced into England.
Scotland: Scotland (skòtılend), political division of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1991 prelim. pop. 4,957,000), 30,414 sq mi (78,772 sq km), comprising the northern portion of the island of Great Britain and many surrounding islands, including the ORKNEYS, SHETLANDS, and HEBRIDES. It is bounded by England (S), the Atlantic Ocean (N and W), and the North Sea (E). It has 2,300 mi (3,700 km) of deeply indented coastline. Scotland may be divided into three main geographical regions: the southern uplands, the central lowlands, and the HIGHLANDS of the north, location of Great Britain's highest peak, Ben Nevis (4,406 ft/1,343 m). EDINBURGH is the capital and GLASGOW the largest city and chief port. Principal rivers are the Clyde, Forth, Dee, Tay, and Tweed. In 1707 Scotland was united with ENGLAND and WALES as the United Kingdom of GREAT BRITAIN. They share one PARLIAMENT, but Scotland retains its own systems of law (based on Roman law) and education. The Church of Scotland, which is Presbyterian, is legally established. English is the predominant language, although some Scots also speak Gaelic; few speak only Gaelic any longer.
History of Scotland. The Picts, in Scotland from prehistoric times, along with Gaels or Celts from Ireland, prevented the Romans from penetrating far into Scotland, although the Romans did succeed in introducing Christianity before they left in the 5th cent. After the Roman evacuation, four Scottish kingdoms emerged. In the mid-9th cent. KENNETH I united and established the nucleus of the kingdom of Scotland, and by the 11th cent. his descendants ruled most of present-day Scotland. The following centuries were marked by dissension and turbulence among the nobles and struggle for independence from England, especially under Robert the Bruce (later ROBERT I). A brief respite of internal peace during the reign of James IV was followed by the turmoil of the REFORMATION, brought to Scotland primarily by John KNOX. By the time MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS arrived (1561) in Scotland, Catholicism had almost disappeared from the Lowlands. Mary's struggle against Protestantism ended in her loss (1567) of the throne and her subsequent execution (1587). Mary's son, James VI of Scotland, succeeded (1603) ELIZABETH I on the English throne as JAMES I, thus uniting the two crowns. In 1707 the Act of Union formally united the governments of the two kingdoms. Union eventually proved economically favorable for Scotland, and its textile and metallurgical industries flourished in the 18th and 19th cent. The concentration of heavy industry made Scotland an important arsenal in both world wars, and in the 1970s Aberdeen became the center of North Sea oil development. Scotland's limited home rule was extended in 1978. However, there remains a persistent nationalist movement for greater autonomy.
Robert: Robert, kings of Scotland. Robert I or Robert the Bruce, 1274-1329 (r.1306-29), was a skillful and courageous leader who freed Scotland of English control. After he defied EDWARD I of England by being crowned (1306) at Scone, Robert was defeated (1306) at Methven and fled to the island of Rathlin, off the Irish coast. Returning to Scotland in 1307, he defeated EDWARD II at Bannockburn in 1314 and captured Berwick in 1318. He was recognized as king by the English in the Treaty of Northampton (1328). Robert II, 1316-90 (r.1371-90), was the founder of the STUART dynasty. During most of his reign his sons directed the government, repelling English invasions and winning a great victory at Otterburn in 1388. Robert's eldest son, Robert III, 1340?-1406 (r. 1390-1406), was crippled by a horse; thereafter, real power was held by his brother, Robert Stuart, duke of Albany, 1340?-1420.
Political Events, 1298: The Battle of Falkirk July 22 in Stirlingshire gives English archers a victory over Scotsmen led by William Wallace. The longbow scores its first great triumph in pitched battle, taking a heavy toll of clansmen armed with swords and spears.
Political Events, 1299: The Scottish patriot William Wallace begins soliciting French, Norwegian, and papal intervention in behalf of his country against England. Pope Boniface VIII persuades England's Edward I to release John de Baliol and his son Edward from captivity and let them move to France.
Political Events, 1305: The Scottish patriot Sir William Wallace is betrayed. Sir John Mentaith captures him near Glasgow August 5 and takes him in fetters to London, where an English court at Westminster Hall tries Wallace on charges of treason. Wallace protests that he cannot be a traitor since he has never been a subject, but the court nevertheless finds him guilty. He is hanged the same day, and his body is drawn and quartered (see 1299; Bannockburn, 1314).
The People's Chronology is licensed from Henry Holt and Company, Inc. Copyright © 1992 by James Trager. All rights reserved.
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
Tom Lane , December 23, 1996
Introduction
Though Chomsky has written a considerable amount about anarchism in the past three decades, people often ask him for a more tangible, detailed vision of social change. His political analysis never fails to instill outrage and anger with the way the world works, but many readers are left uncertain about what exactly Chomsky would do to change it. Perhaps because they regard his analytical work with such respect, they anticipate he will lay out his goals and strategy with similar precision and clarity, only to be disappointed with his generalized statements of libertarian socialist values. Or perhaps many look to a great intellectual to provide a "master plan" for them to follow step-by-step into a bright shining future.
Yet Chomsky shys away from such pronouncements. He cautions that it is difficult to predictwhat particular forms a more just social organization will take, or even to know for sure what alternatives to the current system are ideal. Only experience can show us the best answers to these questions, he says. What should guide us along the way are a general set of principles which will underly whatever specific forms our future society will take. For Chomsky, those principles arise from the historical trend of thought and action known as anarchism.
Chomsky warns that little can be said about anarchism on a very general level. "I haven't tried to write anything systematic about these topics, nor do I know of anything by others that I could recommend," he wrote to me in reply to a set of questions on the subject. He's written here and there about it, notably in the recent Powers and Prospects, but there just isn't a lot to say in general terms. "The interest lies in the applications," he thinks, "but these are specific to time and place.
"In Latin America," Chomsky says, "I talked about many of these topics, and far more important, learned about them from people who are actually doing things, a good deal of which had an anarchist flavor. Also had a chance to meet with lively and interesting groups of anarchists, from Buenos Aires to Belem at the mouth of the Amazon (the latter I didn't know about at all -- amazing where our friends show up). But the discussions were much more focused and specific than I often see here; and rightly, I think."
As such, Chomsky's responses to these questions are general and terse. However, as a brief introduction to some of his thoughts on anarchism, perhaps they may inspire the reader to pursue other writings on the subject (a list appears at the end of the questions), and more importantly, to develop the concept of anarchism through the process of working for a more free and democratic society.
Tom Lane
Answers from Chomsky to eight questions on anarchism
General comment on all the questions:
No one owns the term "anarchism." It is used for a wide range of different currents of thought and action, varying widely. There are many self-styled anarchists who insist, often with great passion, that theirs is the only right way, and that others do not merit the term (and maybe are criminals of one or another sort). A look at the contemporary anarchist literature, particularly in the West and in intellectual circles (they may not like the term), will quickly show that a large part of it is denunciation of others for their deviations, rather as in the Marxist-Leninist sectarian literature. The ratio of such material to constructive work is depressingly high.
Personally, I have no confidence in my own views about the "right way," and am unimpressed with the confident pronouncements of others, including good friends. I feel that far too little is understood to be able to say very much with any confidence. We can try to formulate our long-term visions, our goals, our ideals; and we can (and should) dedicate ourselves to working on issues of human significance. But the gap between the two is often considerable, and I rarely see any way to bridge it except at a very vague and general level. These qualities of mine (perhaps defects, perhaps not) will show up in the (very brief) responses I will make to your questions.
1. What are the intellectual roots of anarchist thought, and what movements have developed and animated it throughout history?
The currents of anarchist thought that interest me (there are many) have their roots, I think, in the Enlightenment and classical liberalism, and even trace back in interesting ways to the scientific revolution of the 17th century, including aspects that are often considered reactionary, like Cartesian rationalism. There's literature on the topic (historian of ideas Harry Bracken, for one; I've written about it too). Won't try to recapitulate here, except to say that I tend to agree with the important anarchosyndicalist writer and activist Rudolf Rocker that classical liberal ideas were wrecked on the shoals of industrial capitalism, never to recover (I'm referring to Rocker in the 1930s; decades later, he thought differently). The ideas have been reinvented continually; in my opinion, because they reflect real human needs and perceptions. The Spanish Civil War is perhaps the most important case, though we should recall that the anarchist revolution that swept over a good part of Spain in 1936, taking various forms, was not a spontaneous upsurge, but had been prepared in many decades of education, organization, struggle, defeat, and sometimes victories. It was very significant. Sufficiently so as to call down the wrath of every major power system: Stalinism, fascism, western liberalism, most intellectual currents and their doctrinal institutions -- all combined to condemn and destroy the anarchist revolution, as they did; a sign of its significance, in my opinion.
2. Critics complain that anarchism is "formless, utopian." You counter that each stage of history has its own forms of authority and oppression which must be challenged, therefore no fixed doctrine can apply. In your opinion, what specific realization of anarchism is appropriate in this epoch?
I tend to agree that anarchism is formless and utopian, though hardly more so than the inane doctrines of neoliberalism, Marxism-Leninism, and other ideologies that have appealed to the powerful and their intellectual servants over the years, for reasons that are all too easy to explain. The reason for the general formlessness and intellectual vacuity (often disguised in big words, but that is again in the self-interest of intellectuals) is that we do not understand very much about complex systems, such as human societies; and have only intuitions of limited validity as to the ways they should be reshaped and constructed.
Anarchism, in my view, is an expression of the idea that the burden of proof is always on those who argue that authority and domination are necessary. They have to demonstrate, with powerful argument, that that conclusion is correct. If they cannot, then the institutions they defend should be considered illegitimate. How one should react to illegitimate authority depends on circumstances and conditions: there are no formulas.
In the present period, the issues arise across the board, as they commonly do: from personal relations in the family and elsewhere, to the international political/economic order. And anarchist ideas -- challenging authority and insisting that it justify itself -- are appropriate at all levels.
3. What sort of conception of human nature is anarchism predicated on? Would people have less incentive to work in an egalitarian society? Would an absence of government allow the strong to dominate the weak? Would democratic decision-making result in excessive conflict, indecision and "mob rule"?
As I understand the term "anarchism," it is based on the hope (in our state of ignorance, we cannot go beyond that) that core elements of human nature include sentiments of solidarity, mutual support, sympathy, concern for others, and so on.
Would people work less in an egalitarian society? Yes, insofar as they are driven to work by the need for survival; or by material reward, a kind of pathology, I believe, like the kind of pathology that leads some to take pleasure from torturing others. Those who find reasonable the classical liberal doctrine that the impulse to engage in creative work is at the core of human nature -- something we see constantly, I think, from children to the elderly, when circumstances allow -- will be very suspicious of these doctrines, which are highly serviceable to power and authority, but seem to have no other merits.
Would an absence of government allow the strong to dominate the weak? We don't know. If so, then forms of social organization would have to be constructed -- there are many possibilities -- to overcome this crime.
What would be the consequences of democratic decision-making? The answers are unknown. We would have to learn by trial. Let's try it and find out.
4. Anarchism is sometimes called libertarian socialism -- How does it differ from other ideologies that are often associated with socialism, such as Leninism?
Leninist doctrine holds that a vanguard Party should assume state power and drive the population to economic development, and, by some miracle that is unexplained, to freedom and justice. It is an ideology that naturally appeals greatly to the radical intelligentsia, to whom it affords a justification for their role as state managers. I can't see any reason -- either in logic or history -- to take it seriously. Libertarian socialism (including a substantial mainstream of Marxism) dismissed all of this with contempt, quite rightly.
5. Many "anarcho-capitalists" claim that anarchism means the freedom to do what you want with your property and engage in free contract with others. Is capitalism in any way compatible with anarchism as you see it?
Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else.
I should add, however, that I find myself in substantial agreement with people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of issues; and for some years, was able to write only in their journals. And I also admire their commitment to rationality -- which is rare -- though I do not think they see the consequences of the doctrines they espouse, or their profound moral failings.
6. How do anarchist principles apply to education? Are grades, requirements and exams good things? What sort of environment is most conducive to free thought and intellectual development?
My feeling, based in part on personal experience in this case, is that a decent education should seek to provide a thread along which a person will travel in his or her own way; good teaching is more a matter of providing water for a plant, to enable it to grow under its own powers, than of filling a vessel with water (highly unoriginal thoughts I should add, paraphrased from writings of the Enlightenment and classical liberalism). These are general principles, which I think are generally valid. How they apply in particular circumstances has to be evaluated case by case, with due humility, and recognition of how little we really understand.
7. Depict, if you can, how an ideal anarchist society would function day-to-day. What sorts of economic and political institutions would exist, and how would they function? Would we have money? Would we shop in stores? Would we own our own homes? Would we have laws? How would we prevent crime?
I wouldn't dream of trying to do this. These are matters about which we have to learn, by struggle and experiment.
8. What are the prospects for realizing anarchism in our society? What steps should we take?
Prospects for freedom and justice are limitless. The steps we should take depend on what we are trying to achieve. There are, and can be, no general answers. The questions are wrongly put. I am reminded of a nice slogan of the rural workers' movement in Brazil (from which I have just returned): they say that they must expand the floor of the cage, until the point when they can break the bars. At times, that even requires defense of the cage against even worse predators outside: defense of illegitimate state power against predatory private tyranny in the United States today, for example, a point that should be obvious to any person committed to justice and freedom -- anyone, for example, who thinks that children should have food to eat -- but that seems difficult for many people who regard themselves as libertarians and anarchists to comprehend. That is one of the self-destructive and irrational impulses of decent people who consider themselves to be on the left, in my opinion, separating them in practice from the lives and legitimate aspirations of suffering people.
So it seems to me. I'm happy to discuss the point, and listen to counter-argument, but only in a context that allows us to go beyond shouting of slogans -- which, I'm afraid, excludes a good deal of what passes for debate on the left, more's the pity.
Noam: In another letter, Chomsky offered this expansion on his thoughts regarding a future society:
About a future society, I...may be repeating, but it's something I've been concerned with every since I was a kid. I recall, about 1940, reading Diego Abad de Santillan's interesting book After the Revolution, criticizing his anarchist comrades and sketching in some detail how an anarchosyndicalist Spain would work (these are >50 year old memories, so don't take it too literally). My feeling then was that it looked good, but do we understand enough to answer questions about a society in such detail? Over the years, naturally I've learned more, but it has only deepened my skepticism about whether we understand enough. In recent years, I've discussed this a good deal with Mike Albert, who has been encouraging me to spell out in detail how I think society should work, or at least react to his "participatory democracy" conception. I've backed off, in both cases, for the same reasons. It seems to me that answers to most such questions have to be learned by experiment. Take markets (to the extent that they could function in any viable society -- limited, if the historical record is any guide, not to speak of logic). I understand well enough what's wrong with them, but that's not sufficient to demonstrate that a system that eliminates market operations is preferable; simply a point of logic, and I don't think we know the answer. Same with everything else.
Some more material on anarchism from Chomsky:
"Notes on Anarchism", in For Reasons of State
Powers and Prospects, Chapter 4
Another interview on Anarchism, Marxism and Hope for the Future
The first chapter of American Power and the New Mandarins
Excerpts in:
Force and Opinion
PeaceWORKS interview
From other authors:
See the bibliography in "Notes on Anarchism."
A Collection of Anarchist Links and Sites
David Finkel
The Detroit Metro Times
Battling the New World Order -- Pushing aside media half-truths and U.S. government propaganda, Noam Chomsky's writings are an important source of information on American global policy.
Chomsky's newest book, Deterring Democracy, is reviewed in a 700-word sidebar which accompanies the interview.
David Finkel is an editor of Against the Current magazine, and is a contributing writer for the Detroit Metro Times.
A professor of linguistics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology since 1955, Noam Chomsky has contributed to a veritable revolution in linguistics theory. Chomsky, 62, has also been an outspoken critic of U.S. global policy, publishing numerous articles and more than 20 books on topics such as Palestine and Israel, U.S. involvement in Vietnam, East Timor, the ideology of terrorism and the chilling effects of monopoly media. Chomsky's writings have played an important role in American social change movements, providing information often unavailable from conventional sources. David Finkel recently spoke by telephone with Chomsky at his home outside of Boston.
David Finkel: Let's begin with the topic of the moment, the collapse of the Soviet Union: Is this a victory for the free market? Does it solve capitalism's problems, or create new ones?
Noam Chomsky: To begin with, I think terms like "capitalism" and "socialism" have been so evacuated of any substantive meaning that I don't even like to use them. There's nothing remotely like capitalism in existence. To the extent there ever was, it had disappeared by the 1920s or '30s. Every industrial society is one form or another of state capitalism. But we'll use the term "capitalism," since that is more or less its present meaning.
Well, what happened in the last 10-15 years is that capitalism underwent an enormous, murderously destructive catastrophe. There was a serious international crisis around 1980. Of the three major sectors of state capitalism -- the German-led European community, the Japan-based sector and the U.S.-based sector -- the German- and Japan-based sectors pulled out of the decline, but without regaining their previous rate of growth. The United States also pulled out, but in a very distorted fashion, with huge borrowing and very extensive state intervention....
The rest of the world didn't pull out, especially in the Third World. There was a very serious crisis, amounting to catastrophe, in Africa, parts of Asia within the Western system and Latin America. That's what's called the crisis of the South, and it's a catastrophe of capitalism.
Now in the Second World of the Soviet Union's dominance, there was also economic collapse... a stagnation of the command economy system, which has even less to do with socialism than our system has to do with capitalism. This was combined with nationalist pressures for independence and social pressures attacking the tyrannical system, which by the early 1980s turned into the crisis that has now become the collapse of the Soviet Union.
All this had little to do with Western policy, but primarily with internal problems and also the general crisis of debt to the West. And there was a crisis of Soviet production, though again not as severe as in the Third World. This is a victory for the West in the Cold War, but that outcome was never seriously in doubt if you look at the relative economic and other forces.
Finkel: Explain a little more what you mean by state capitalism.
Chomsky: The victory of the West in the Cold War is combined with both this enormous catastrophe of capitalism, and with the move toward one kind or another of state-interventionist forms. As an example, the Reagan-Bush administrations are the most protectionist since World War II, doubling the percentage of imports subject to various forms of restriction.
If you take a look at those Third World countries that pulled out of the crisis of 1980, it's the NICs [Newly Industrialized Countries] in the Japanese periphery. The comparison with Latin America is striking: Up to around 1980 they had similar patterns, then Latin America went into a free fall while the East Asian economies did well. That's because Latin America was opened up to international capital, while East Asia wasn't. You don't have capital flight from South Korea, because you get the death penalty for that. They not only discipline and terrorize the workers in the usual way, they regulate the capitalists, too. In general it's a move toward one end of the spectrum of state capitalism -- the fascist end -- that turned out to be effective in warding off the general crisis of the 1980s.
Finkel: How do you assess the Bush administration, especially in terms of domestic policies? Where does it continue the Reagan era and where is it a departure?
Chomsky: It's a continuation of the Carter-Reagan policies. Remember that the Reagan policies were proposed by Carter, who didn't have the muscle to push them through. Carter proposed essentially the military buildup that Reagan carried through, except that Reagan escalated it more rapidly in the beginning and leveled it off later.
The Carter administration also proposed to attack welfare spending and the social support system for the poorer sectors, which the Reagan administration then carried through with bipartisan support. What these policies amounted to is turning the state, even more than before, into a welfare state for the rich: a much more interventionist state that pours public resources into high-technology industry and distributes resources away from the poor, combined with attacks on labor and civil rights.
It's objectively a sound policy, I believe, for the privileged and powerful in an internationally complicated environment. They've internationalized capital to take advantage of cheap labor abroad, and intensified the class war that business has always waged against labor and the disadvantaged.
The program of the Bush administration is largely non-existent in education, energy or the environment. There's rhetoric about the "education president" and whatnot, but policies remain the same, because nobody has figured out how to maintain high-tech industry without a state subsidy or without the Pentagon to provide a guaranteed market for its waste products.
Since nobody has an alternative, this system will doubtless continue. The same applies to fiscal policies, which are driving the United States itself toward a country with a Third World look in infrastructure, services, the disgraceful state of health and mortality standards -- a two-tiered society with enormous wealth and privilege amidst poverty and suffering. It's not like Brazil, because it's a wealthier society -- but fundamentally of the same type, created with bipartisan agreement.
The issues in presidential elections are virtually non-existent, as are the presidents. We went through the Reagan years with basically no president at all. He could barely read his lines. Bush is an executive, but in a very narrow sense. There is a lot of image creation -- the Great Communicator for Reagan, or for Bush it's the Master Statesman who manipulates international politics. It's a complete fake: The only thing he knows is how to beat up people who can't fight back.
Finkel: In your traveling since the disaster of the Gulf slaughter, what hopeful signs do you see in the grassroots movements?
Chomsky: For some time now, I've been going out of my way to go to the least organized, most reactionary places where I can get invited. During the Gulf war, I was talking in areas like Georgia, Appalachia and Northern California -- places that people who are organizing regard as hostile territory, and where during the war everybody was wearing fatigues.
Yet I always find that people come out, and are interested. I think people are mainly cynical; they don't believe in anything. That can take the form of hysterical jingoism, but it's paper thin. Another form it takes is religious revivalism, which I think is on a scale in this country that's unique outside of places like Iran. Or it can take the form of immersion in something else, like football games.
I listen to the sports talk shows when I drive. It's incredible: People have long, sophisticated arguments about what the New England Patriots should have done last Sunday. It reminds me of when I was 12 years old and I could tell you who was the quarterback for Texas Christian in 1937. A major radio station here in Boston just changed its format from 24-hour news to 24-hour sports.
Finkel: Do you think the Vietnam Syndrome is dead?
Chomsky: Not only don't I believe that, the administration doesn't believe it either. Somebody leaked to Maureen Dowd, who's basically a gossip columnist for the New York Times, a very important document -- the first international policy review of the Bush administration in its early months -- which she quoted in a column.
It said that in confronting much weaker opponents we must defeat them rapidly and decisively. There cannot be classic intervention anymore -- U.S. soldiers slogging in Vietnam for years -- it must be either clandestine warfare as in Peru now, where not one American in a thousand knows there are U.S. troops, or the Panama-Iraq game, with enormous propaganda about the enemy ready to destroy us, then a quick victory without any fighting. There was no war, really, in the Gulf -- no fighting -- simply a slaughter, just as in Panama.
SIDEBAR: "An Instinct For Freedom," David Finkel on Deterring Democracy by Noam Chomsky (Verso, 1991, 421 pp.)
The assumptions underlying Noam Chomsky's prolific writings on politics can be summed up like this: Human beings have the ability to understand their world as it really is, through observation and the application of common sense. The ability to understand is rooted in certain unique, innate structures of the human brain that allow us to reason and to speak. Chomsky believes that, although it cannot be proven at this stage of our knowledge, these innate mental structures also endow us with a desire for freedom, meaning a condition with the minimum of coercion imposed either by material necessity or by the rule of privileged minorities.
It follows that where society is ruled by such a privileged elite, barriers must be created to prevent those outside from understanding reality and acting on it in their own interests. And so, especially in recent years, Chomsky's attention has turned to the proposition that our own society has developed the most sophisticated such barriers in the history of modern civilization.
His newest work, Deterring Democracy, continues this theme, exploring the meanings of "democracy" in reality and in the thought-control system. In the real world, "a society is democratic," he writes, "to the extent that its citizens play a meaningful role in managing public affairs. If their thought is controlled, or their options are narrowly restricted, then evidently they are not playing a meaningful role: only the controllers, and those they serve, are doing so. The rest is a sham, formal motions without meaning.
"Nevertheless, there has been a major current of intellectual opinion to the contrary, holding that thought control is essential precisely in societies that are more free and democratic, even when institutional means effectively restrict the options available in practice. Such ideas and their implementation are perhaps more advanced in the United States than anywhere else, a reflection of the fact that it is in important respects the most free society in the world."
Chomsky identifies the "democracy" of the elites as the kind of system the United States imposes on Third World nations. In this "democracy," a passive population watches important decisions being made from above within the confines of a tight consensus of the privileged.
The main body of the text carries this analysis into a discussion of the Cold War system, the war against Nicaragua's revolution, the early stages of the Gulf crisis (the book was completed on the eve of the war), the limits of permissible debate, democracy in the industrial societies and concluding reflections on possibilities for change. [Note: the second edition of the book includes a post-war review of events and coverage --JBE.]
Readers who are new to Chomsky's work may want to start with chapter 7, "The Victors," a brutal indictment of "the fruits of victory" of the United States in the Cold War for the peoples of Latin America, the Caribbean, Asia and Africa. "It takes some discipline to avoid seeing these facts," Chomsky remarks, after summarizing the collapse of Third World economies under the load of debt, the systematic police murder of homeless children in Brazil, the reduction of Mexican agriculture to less than 10 percent of the land due to environmental destruction and other horrors.
Those already familiar with this argument may wish to go directly to chapter 12, "Force and Opinion," where Chomsky explains in more-than-usual depth the roots of his own ideas in "seventeenth century thinkers who reacted to the skeptical crisis of the times by recognizing that there are no absolutely certain grounds for knowledge, but that we do, nevertheless, have ways to gain a reliable understanding of the world and to improve that understanding and apply it -- essentially the standpoint of the working scientist today."
This is an old-fashioned view that contrasts strikingly with currently fashionable jargon of post-structuralism and post-rationalism, to say nothing of "the end of history." Pointing to "the courage and dedication of people struggling for freedom, their willingness to confront extreme state terror and violence" as the most hopeful evidence we have, Chomsky concedes: "Whether the instinct for freedom is real or not, we do not know, [but] ...as in the case of many of the natural beliefs that guide our lives, we can do no better than to choose according to our intuition and hopes...."
If you hear people complaining about the 1980s, and you wonder what they are talking about--how they say that money was sucked out of the lower and middle classes at an incredible rate, and how the rich got richer and the poor got poorer--and how lyin', cheatin', and stealin' became the new ethic of America--you might want to explore some of these books (informal listing in no particular order).
Looking Back on the Reagan Presidency (Author: Breman)
Assessing the Reagan Years (Boaz)
The Reagan Years (Hodding Carter)
RR's Reign of Error (Mark Green and Gail MacCall)*
Sleepwalking through History (Haynes Johnson)
Reagan's America (Gary Wills)
The Role of a Lifetime (?)
*A friend who provided this list advised "Get this one."
C-SPAN
Suite 650, 400 North Capitol Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001
Lester Thurow
Economist
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Morningside College
Sioux City, Iowa
December 8, 1994
C 1995 C-SPAN
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
This transcript may not be reproduced in whole or in part without permission.
JERRY ISRAEL Morningside College President:
It's my second opportunity in a couple of hours to introduce Dr. Thurow, and I've chosen for this more academic campus setting with lots of faculty and students present a somewhat more academic introduction. Professor Lester Thurow. It's a special opportunity to have someone of Lester Thurow's stature on campus. He is known throughout the world for his accomplishments in the field of economics. From serving as an adviser to former presidents of the United Stales to authoring several highly regarded books, Dr. Thurow is a leader and innovator in the discipline of economics. Since 1968. he has been a professor of managements and economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He served as dean of the MIT Sloan School of Management from 1987 through 1993.
A 1960 graduate of Williams College, he received his master's degree in 1962 on a Rhodes Scholarship from Oxford; his Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University in 1964. He taught at Harvard in 1964 and '65, following a term as a staff member on President Lyndon Johnson's Council of Economic Advisors. I'm particularly pleased to be able to see that amongst his numerous awards includes an honorary degree, Doctor of Humane Letters, from Morning-side College in 1986.
A prolific writer, Dr. Thurow has authored several books, including the Zero Sum Society in 1980 and Head to Head: The Coming Economic Battle Among Japan, Europe and America in 1992. He has served on the editorial board of the New York Times, was a contributing editor for Newsweek and a member of the Time Board of Economists. Currently Dr. Thurow writes for the Boston Globe and appears regularly on the television program "Nightly Business Report." We're pleased at Morningside College that today's Palmer Lecture as part of Founder's Day is being covered by C-SPAN for showing at a later date. There will possibly be some time here for questions and answers, and at 10:30, students in the business and economics division, mass communication students as well, will have the opportunity for their own private Q&A. As much as we have space in the room, we'll allow others, of course, to be present as well. Please join me on our hundredth birthday and this remarkable moment for the college to welcome Professor Lester Thurow.
Lester THUROW:
As I warned the people who were at the breakfast a little earlier, there's going to be about 5 percent repetition here, but I guarantee that it'll be 95 percent a continuation. What I would like to do is persuade you an hour from now that when you graduate from Morningside, you are going to live in a very different world than your parents or your older brothers and sisters. We're going to play a brand-new economic bail game that's going to have new roles, new strategies and new things that have to be done if you want to be successful.
The right way to think about your life is you're the equivalent of Columbus. You've got a map, but on the map about half of it says "terra incognita," unknown territory. The question is, how do build a sailing ship to sail into a world you don't know exactly what it's going to be? What kind of sails do you put on it; how much water do you put on it? As I mentioned this morning, it's terribly important to remember the real Columbus. Columbus was smart in the sense he knew the world was round, but Columbus got his mathematics wrong. He was, in theory, sailing to Japan. He thought the world was one-quarter as big as it was. If you look at the amount of water he put on the ship, if the Americas weren't there, he would have died of thirst and we never would have heard of Columbus. So it's important to be both smart and lucky, and I emphasize the lucky.
What I want to do is borrow two concepts from science, one from geology and one from biology, in thinking about the world. The one I want to borrow from geology is place tectonics. What I would argue to you is that there are a certain five fundamental shifts going on out there in the world that are causing the earthquakes and volcanoes which you see. You can't see the plates, but they make the system move. They not only make the earthquakes mid volcanoes; they make things that change slowly but have enormous impacts. The world's largest mountain in terms of volume is Nanga Parbat in the Himalayas. Nanga Parbat goes up two feet every hundred years. It can raise the biggest thing on the face on the earth.
The other concept I want to borrow is the concept from biology of punctuated equilibrium, and that is, if you look at evolution and survival of the fittest, for long periods of time it moved slowly, and there is a species which is the survival of the fittest. At the moment, it's the human being, homo sapiens. But, for example, for 200 million years it was the dinosaur. Then all of a sudden in a very short period of time, they completely die out&emdash;not get smaller; they die out. We argue about why, but we don't argue that it happened very rapidly.
The same thing happens in human history. Take Rome. For hundreds of years, it was the most powerful society on the face of the earth. It was survival of the fittest. At the peak, the Roman Empire had a million and a half people in Rome. Beyond the peak, 150 years later, there are 50,000 people in Rome, and it's all over. Very quickly it ends. What was the survival of the fittest is no longer the survival of the fittest.
Or take the Industrial Revolution. As people have pointed out, Napoleon's armies couldn't move one bit faster than Julius Caesar's armies. They all depended on horses and carriages. But 50 years after Napoleon, the steam engine had been invented and trains were going more than a hundred miles an hour, and the Industrial Revolution was here and the world of agriculture was over. Very quickly we shifted from something that had been very stable and very continuous for thousands of years to something that was very different.
I want to argue to you that we're in one of those periods of punctuated equilibrium. There are going to be lots of earthquakes and volcanoes caused by those plates that are fundamentally moving. Now, the plates that are moving are five in number.
One is the end of communism. Almost half the world's population, 40 percent of the land mass of the world, lived in the old communist world. They're going to join the old capitalist world. When they do, that's going to make enormous differences for them, but it's going to make enormous differences for us, and that's primarily what I talked about earlier in the morning.
We're going to have some fundamental shifts in technology that fundamentally change the way somebody earns their living and the way you get and keep sustainable competitive advantage. We're developing a global economy for the first time in human history. Because of transportation and communications, you can make anything anywhere in the world and service any other market anywhere in the world. I can service Sioux City from Bangkok just as well as you can service it from downtown Sioux City. So in a very fundamental sense, we have to benchmark against changes because everybody in the world is playing the same game, in some sense at the same place.
I don't care whether you live in Sioux City for the rest of your life, you've never left Sioux City, you never plan to leave Sioux City, you live in a global world economy. You're going to buy from people in the rest of the world, you're going to sell to people in the rest of the world, you're going to have to compete with people in the rest of the world, even if you never physically leave this place.
We're entering a world where there's no dominant world economic power, either economically or militarily. That's a brand-new world. For the last 50 years, you and I have lived in the American world. It's been a world dominated by American military power, American economic power, and it played the American game. We're going to be a world where America doesn't dominate in the way in which it has dominated in the last 50 years, and we're not going to play the American game. We're going to have to learn to play the game the rest of the world wants to play, and they're going to write some of the rules. Some of the rules they're going to write we're not going to like, and it isn't going to make a darn bit of difference that we don't like them. We're still going to play by them because they're going to write them.
Finally, there are going to be some huge shifts in demography and migration that are worth talking about. Today I can't sketch out that map for you. All I can do is talk about the fundamental forces and pressures, and you have to think about how they are going to redraw that map on the face of the earth with continental drift. One thing, as I mentioned, remember that the communist world is going to join the capitalist world. That's going to make a difference. Let me just give you one illustration that I talked about earlier this morning.
Every social system does some things well and some things badly. The communists ran lousy economies, but they ran very good education systems. There are more scientists and engineers in the old Soviet Union than there are in the United States, many of them world class. They put up three times as many space shots as we did.
Take Communist China. One-quarter of humanity lives in Communist China. Suppose I gave an intellectual exam to the high school graduates who graduated in America in June or May. I then gave that same exam to the 1.2 billion Chinese, and I said how many people in China score higher than the average lest score that I would gel out of the American high school graduates? What do you think the answer would be? For all practical purposes, it's infinity. Hundred and hundreds and hundreds of millions of people would score higher.
Why should I pay an American high school graduate $15,000 a year when I can get a better educated Chinese for $100 a month and we can do anything in China and service any market in the world just as well as we can service it from the United States? The answer, of course, is I won't. As I shall demonstrate later, there are going to be some profound and enormous differences on wages inside the United States because of the end of communism in that world.
If you look at the 19th and early 20th century, that theory worked. We grew cotton in the American South because the climate and the soil was right. It was made into cloth in New England because that's where the water power was and the money to process it. New York City was the biggest city in America because it's the best seaport on the East Coast, and when you built the Erie Canal,it then had the best connection to the Midwest. Pittsburgh was going to be the iron and steel capital, because if you looked at where the rivers were, the iron ore was, coal was, Pittsburgh was the place to do it. A little later on, Texas would be oil, and you're going to make aluminum on the Columbia River because that's where the electricity was., Everything had essentially a God-given Mother Nature natural home.
Let me read you a list. This is a fascinating list. It's a list of the 12 biggest firms in America on Jan. 1,1900, almost a hundred years ago. They're in alphabetical order. I'll read the list, but you think about what the two characteristics are that make this an interesting list. The American Cotton Oil Company, the American Steel Company, the American Sugar Refining Company, Continental Tobacco, Federal Steel, General Electric, National Lead, Pacific Mail, People's Gas, Tennessee Coal and Iron, U.S. Leather, U.S. Rubber.
Ten of the 12 companies are natural resource companies. We lived in a natural resource economy. What's the other interesting thing? How many of those companies are alive today? One, General Electric, which is why people write books about General Electric. If we take the 12 largest companies in America today, how many of them do you think are going to be alive a hundred years from now? We'll be lucky if there are two. National Lead, one of 12 biggest companies in America. We had lead pipes back then. Lead was an important commodity. Lead is not an important commodity today.
Let me read you another list. Once every decade the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry constructs the list that they think in the next decade is the most important for Japan to conquer if they want to give their citizens a high standard of living. Here again, I'll read the list and then let's think about the common denominator. Microelectronics, biotechnology, the new material science industries, telecommunication, civilian aviation manufacturing, machine tools plus robotics, computers plus software.
What's the interesting thing about that list? They're all manmade industries. They're all brain-power industries. They can be anyplace on the face of the globe. They could be on the moon. They have no natural home. They float. They're free. They go to where the brain power is. We're moving from an era of natural resource-dominated economies, classical comparative advantage, into an era of manmade comparative advantage where the name of the game is brain power.
If you think about what made America rich or anybody else rich a hundred years ago, there were four routes to being rich&emdash;have more natural resources than your competitor, have more capital than your competitor, have better technology than your competitor, or be better educated and skilled than your competitor. Of course, America had all of those things. We had a bigger natural resource endowment per capita than anybody else on the face of the globe. We had it all. We had oil, we had coal, we had raw materials, we had good agricultural land. Nobody was born richer than we were born. We may have worked hard, but we were also born rich.
Once you got rich, it was easy to stay rich, because if you're richer than the rest of the world, you save more money. If you save more money, you have more money to invest. If you invest more money, you work with more machinery. If you work with more machinery, you have higher productivity. If you have higher productivity, you have higher income, which means you can save more. It's a virtual circle. Once you get rich, it was virtually impossible to become poor. You had to really mess it up. Some countries did, like Argentina, but you really had to work at it.
But what's happened with these two sources of getting rich? The green revolution and the material science revolution have basically kicked raw materials out of the equation. With the exception of a few countries like Brunei, which has 200,000 people and half the world's oil, nobody's going to be rich based on natural resources. You're going to have to earn it the old-fashioned way, as they say in the ad, with your brains.
The world capital market means that I, an entrepreneur in Bangkok, can build a facility in Bangkok that is just as capital-intensive as any that can be built in Sioux City, Iowa. You may live in a town that has a per capita income IS times mine, but I will compete with you machine tool for machine tool, and you will have no advantage simply because you're born in a rich company. We're all borrowing in the same places&emdash;New York, London and Tokyo&emdash;at effectively the same rates. They have the same access to productive capital that you do, even though they live in a poor country and you live in a rich country.
It used to be that you could get a technological edge. Everybody really wanted to be Polaroid. Invent a product that nobody else can build, set a nice little monopoly price and live very nicely, thank you, for 30 years on that monopoly.
The revolution here is called the art of reverse engineering. Think about the three biggest products introduced into the world economy in the last 15 years. Video cameras and video recorders invented by Americans, fax invented by Americans, CD players invented by the Dutch. Who owns ail three of those products when it comes to sales, jobs, profits, employment, the whole shebang? The answer is the Japanese, who didn't invent any of them. The answer is if I can make your product cheaper and better than you can make your product, the fact that you invented it is going to do you remarkably little good. I'm going to take it away from you. No home video camera or video recorder has ever been made in the United States, despise the fact that we invented the product. Not one.
Now, if you can't get an edge out of natural resources and you can't get an edge out of capital and it's very hard to get an edge out of technology, what are you left with? The skills and education of the work force. No more or no less. Show me a skilled person, a skilled company or a skilled country and I will show you somebody who has a chance to be a success. Show me an unskilled person, an unskilled country, an unskilled company and I will show you somebody who will definitely be a failure.
The problem here is you have to benchmark. If you look at the local American school system up through high school, it's not competitive with the rest of the world. There are a whole variety of reasons for that that we talked about this morning, but the biggest reason is that it hasn't changed while the rest of the world has.
We invented mass high quality universal education in the United States in 1842 in Massachusetts, first public school. Shortly thereafter, we had the first universal compulsory education system in Massachusetts, and Massachusetts set the exalted standard of a 180-day school year in 1906, which at the time was the longest school year in the world. interestingly enough, Massachusetts and nobody else has changed the standards in a hundred years. It's still 180 days in 1994 or 1995. What's the chance that if you're running a factory and you didn't change your quality standard for a hundred years you could still be world competitive? The answer, of course, is zero.
What is means is that for the first time you have to benchmark vis-a-vis the rest of the world. The question is not are you doing better than your neighbor, not are you doing as well as you did in the pest, but are you meeting world standards? Sioux City doesn't compete with Sioux Falls. Sioux City competes with die rest of the world. The question is, are the skills here as good as they are in the rest of the world? The answer is, if they are. Sioux City's going to do OK in the long run. The answer is, if they aren't, Sioux City's not going to do OK in the long run. The name of the game is who's got the skills, who can employ the skills.
Something else that's happening with all of this technology is we're going to see a revolution in our business plans. Why do we organize business farms the way we organize them? Well, there's an interesting history. There's a book written by Joanne Yates, who's a woman who specializes in communication technology and happens to be teaching at MIT, basically on how communication has driven the way we organize businesses. What were the first businesses in the world that had a communication problem? They were the railroads, because they were the first businesses operating in more than one geographic point.
The railroads had a unique problem. Their unique problem, of course, was they were invented before the telegraph, which meant they were the fastest things on earth, so how could you coordinate something that was faster than the fastest method of communication? The answer is you had to have hierarchy, structure, do-it-by-the-rulebook, timetables. The whole pyramidal structure of American industry was built around the railways and then copied. When the railways built it, it was a necessity to do it that way. How many people can report to any one person? Twenty, 30? If I've got a company of 500,000 people, that tells me how many layers of management I have to have, basically because I've got to have person-to-person human reporting.
But if you think of the modem electronic information revolution, it hasn't even started. If you look at human history, it takes people about 30 or 40 years to learn how to do this. There have been some interesting articles written recently about the shift from the steam to the electrical economy. If you go back and look at those steam factories in New England, they were very long linear buildings because you had a central turbine that basically ran one axle and then you had pulleys off that axle and you had all the machines in a row running off that central power source. When electricity came in, they just put an electric motor on those same machines, all in the same order, in that linear factory. The electricity was a little bit more efficient than the steam, but you didn't get a lot of productivity out of it.
It wasn't until somebody woke up 30 years later and said, "Hey, why have we got this factory with these machines all in a line? Now that we use electricity, we can put them in a very different order." And that's when you started to get an enormous amount of productivity out of electricity in the economy. It was about 20 or 30 years after electricity came m.
I would like to argue that if you look at all the downsizing American firms are doing at the moment,a lot of that has to do with this same phenomenon. The computer's been around for 30 years. How can a farm that's making money suddenly say, "We can do everything we're now doing with a third less workers"? Were they really that inefficient and stupid in the past, or has something changed? The answer is I think we're gradually learning how to use this technology in the same sense we did with electricity, and this is going to make an enormous difference as to who does what where, who reports to whom, how many layers you have.
I think the business of cheap interactive video conferencing is going to turn the world upside down. It's going to turn universities upside down. We have the oldest technology in the world, called chalk and a blackboard. Oxford and Cambridge had that a thousand years ago. We now do overheads, but no big deal. When you can do cheap interactive video conferencing&emdash;and you now can do it&emdash;it's going to be very different.
The other day I taught a class in Singapore while I was in Boston with the PictureTel system. At the moment you need $40,000 worth of equipment at either end. You make two telephone calls to Singapore. You can start when you want, stop when you want. The great thing about it is it's much better than a video conference off the satellites because you've got a Nintendo joystick and you control the television camera&emdash;a secret television camera&emdash;at the other end. You can look around the room, read body language, see whether she's beautiful, anything you want to do. I'll tell you the truth, for the first half hour, it kind of seems a little strange. For the second half hour you forget they're not in the room with you. Now, of course, they've got a television camera in your room, too. I've also met with the New Zealand Cabinet on some economic issues-they were in New Zealand; I was in Boston&emdash;using the same kind of technology.
What today's business man or business woman tends to say is, "Well, that's kind of a nice gimmick, but you'll never make a sale that way." That's us. Our kids will make sales that way. I have two teenage boys, and I can almost imagine them proposing to a girl they've only met electronically. Not quite, but almost. They're going to use this with familiarity. I've never read an instruction book for a telephone. My parents probably did read instruction books for a telephone. My kids never read instruction books for computers. It's very different if you grew up and have facility with a technology as opposed to having to learn the technology. If you look at this technical revolution that's going on, it's going to change our business firms. It's going to change the entire way we get, keep and work for competitive advantage.
The second plate I'd like to talk about is basically the development of a global economy. It's important to understand here that there's been a revolution in transportation and communications, and for the first time in human history, the whole world sees the whole world.
A good example is that 15 years ago my wife and I were in China. I had some business to do. The people who were my host assigned a young woman who actually had a Ph.D. in biology as a host for my wife. After taking my wife around Beijing to the Great Wall and all those kind of things for a few days, she said to my wife, "I've got a question, but I want you to give me an honest answer." My wire said, "Yes, I'll try. I don't know what the question is, but I'll try." She said, "DO you Americans really have a higher standard of living than we Chinese?" She kind of thought we did, but she wasn't sure. She'd lived in isolation for her entire life, never been allowed to see the rest of the world.
Today every Chinese village has a dish and a satellite and TV&emdash;every village. That's true everywhere in the world. There is no village that isn't electronically wired in. I just came back from climbing in the Himalayas and the radio preachers are everywhere. You go to villages in the Himalayas that don't have electricity, but the local Moslem mullah has big loudspeakers up running by a battery so he can say the prayers at night so the whole village can hear them electronically. The world is wired. Boom boxes are everywhere.
Now, the problem in this multipolar global world is it's a very different world. The system we've used for the last 50 years in world trade is called the GATT-Bretton Woods system. It was designed in Bretton Woods, N.H., in 1944, and the issue in 1944 was build me a successful world economy. But in 1945 when World War II ended, what was the truth? The truth was that 75 percent of the GNP of the entire world was inside the United States, and so you built the world economy designed to swirl around the United States. Today, about 22 percent of the world GNP is inside the United States, so in 50 years we've gone from three-quarters of the total to being less than one-quarter of the total. What worked back then doesn't work now, so we're in the process of designing a new world economy.
You can see the "not working in a variety of ways. What's the intellectual heartbeat of the GATT-Bretton Woods system? The intellectual heartbeat is the principle called "most favored nation," MFN. What that principle says is you will give every country in the world all the trading rights and privileges that you give to your best trading partner, your most favored nation. That was the principle we lived on for the last 50 years, but it's the principle which today nobody is willing to follow. The United States is not going to give to Brazil all the rights and privileges we gave to Mexico. Germany is not going to give to the United States all the rights and privileges it gave to France and the Common Market. We're headed towards a world of what I would call quasi-trading blocs with managed trade.
If you want to see the end of the GATT-Bretton Woods system, go look at the agreement that was signed a year ago in December at Geneva, ratified at Marrakech last April. If you kind of look at it, it looks like more of the same, but, in fact, it was the last gasp of a steam engine at the end of the line. What the people in the GAIT say is this agreement that we signed in Marrakech will make the world economy $275 billion bigger than it otherwise would be by the year 2002, nine years later. Now, $215 billion sounds like a lot of money until you say, What's the world GNP?" The answer, of course, is it's $30,000 billion, and $275 billion is less than a I percent increase spread over a nine-year period of time. That isn't even a rounding error. It's nothing. There's nothing there. It's empty. We'll never know whether that agreement did or didn't do anything because even if it did, it was so small it won't be measurable.
What we're in the process of doing&emdash;end that's why there was the dispute in Congress about the World Trade Organization, the WTO&emdash;is we're going to build a new trading system, but nobody knows what the rules are the moment. One of the reasons why some of the people were so excited about the WTO is that in the GATT we have a veto. In WTO it's one country, one vote. We don't have any more influence than Malawi or Madagascar or Belgium or the smallest country on the face of the earth. When WTO gets written&emdash;it's an empty box at the moment&emdash;a lot of that stuff is not going to be written by Americans. It's going to be written by people out there elsewhere in the world.
Basically what's happening is the Common Market and the European Community are leading us into this new world economy. Would NAFTA exist if the Common Market didn't exist? The answer is no. Would people on the Pacific Rim be talking about a trading group if NAFTA didn't exist and the Common Market didn't exist? The answer is no. The problem, of course, with these quasitrading groups is some countries are going to be left out. Because they don't bring anything to the table, why let them in?
The countries of North Africa, I would argue to you, will very rapidly be offered a NAFTA-Mexican type deal with Europe for the same reason&emdash;lots of people are moving from North Africa to Europe. North Africa was traditionally part of Europe. It wasn't until the Moslem conquest that we started to divide Europe on the north and the south of the Mediterranean. At the time of the Romans and the Greeks in the Middle Ages, the south side of the Mediterranean was just as European as the north side of the Mediterranean. and Africa was south of the Sahara, not on the Mediterranean.
But there are countries out there that in some sense get left out, and the whole question of negotiating access becomes a very important problem.
Let me talk about demography. You read a lot of things in the paper about world population growth, and we had the world population conference in Cairo in the fall. The truth of the matter is nobody knows how fast the world's population is going to grow, and anybody who has ever made a confident prediction is always proven to be wrong. Anything you say about why people do or don't have babies, you can find a counter-example.
Like they say when people get rich, urban and well educated, they have a smaller number of children. Well, that's certainly on average true, but it isn't true in the Persian Gulf at the moment. The Persian Gulf is rich, getting well educated, completely urban and everybody has 12 children. So if we say how many people are going to be on the globe, let's say, in 2020 or 2030, the answer is you don't know, I don't know, and you shouldn't believe very much any forecast you read.
But there are two things we do know. The first thing we know is there are going to be a lot more elderly people in the world. That's not a prediction; that's a fact because of health care. For the first time in human history, we're going to have a very large group of elderly people who don't work, who depend very substantially on government for their standard of living&emdash;Social Security. We'll come back and talk about that in a minute, but that creates a problem that humanity has never faced.
The other thing we know about these people on the globe is that although we don't know how many of them we there, we know they're going to be moving. In the 1980s, 10 million people came to the United States, legal and illegal immigrants. Fifteen million people came to Western Europe. legal and illegal. When I've got a satellite and a TV in my village in China, why should I stay there if the income in my village is $100 a month and the income in your country is $25,000 a year? I should get up and start moving, right? I'm stupid if I don't. Everybody won't, because some people are really kind of attached to where they were born, but millions of people will move, and we're going to see more movement than we've ever seen before.
It's important to understand that it's different movement In the 19th century, people moved from rich countries&emdash;Britain, Germany, Italy, etc.&emdash;to empty countries&emdash;the United Stales, Canada. Australia. For the first time in human history, people are going to move from poor countries to rich countries. That's never happened before. The problem is, people who move from poor countries need the same kind of investments in skills, education, health care, etc., that children do before they can become productive citizens.
Now, it used to be true that immigrants used the American social welfare services less than native citizens, but today they use them more because immigrants are very different than the immigrants who came in the past. So if you look at this huge shift in demography, it's going to make a very large difference, and I'll come back and talk about that with government budgets.
I want to talk about the biggest volcano. The biggest volcano is very simple. Go back to John F. Kennedy's inaugural address in 1960. What was the famous thing which we remember? The famous thing which we remember was "a rising tide raises all boats." What he meant by that was that if the American GNP gets bigger, most people will participate in that economic growth, and so as the average incomes will go up, most incomes will go up. A rising tide raises all boats. When John F. Kennedy said that in 1960, it was true. It had been true for Amen. can history; it was true in the 1960s.
But by the time we get to the 1970s, something changes and is fundamentally different. Let me give you the data. Correcting for inflation, from 1973 to 1994&emdash;a not-quite-20-year period of time. 19 years&emdash;the American per capita GNP goes up 29 percent. So the tide, goes up 29 percent. If everybody was participating in that, you would expect everybody's family income to go up 29 percent. The question is, what actually happened?
Let me read to you the number for full-time, full-year male workers. So we've gotten rid of the unemployed; we've gotten rid of the pan-timers. We're only looking at hard-core male full-timers. Thai means you work 40 hours a week and more than 50 weeks a year. What's happened to their real wage rate over that same 19-year period of time when the tide's gone up 29 percent? I'll read you the numbers by quintile. starting with the bottom 20 percent and moving up to the top 20 percent: minus 23, minus 21. minus IS, minus 10, and all the income gains go to the top 20 percent of the population. The tide went up, and 80 percent of the male boats sank at the same time.
Now, if you look at family incomes, something different happened. Let me read you the income for family incomes, once again from the poorest 20 percent of the population to the richest 20 minus 3, minus 3, zero, plus 6, plus 16. Why the difference? The answer, of course, is she American female came to the rescue of the American male. Husband's income was going down, the American wife went to work or worked more and female incomes for most of this period were going up, and her extra earnings compensated for his lesser earnings, holding the family income of the bottom 60 percent of the population essentially constant. The problem going forward is the bottom 60 percent of the population has a wife who's already working full time and she has no capacity to rescue the family income in the two decades ahead of us, plus the fact that female incomes are now going down for everybody except college-educated females.
See, this is what's driven retailing. Think about retailing. Who's gone out broke or is in trouble in retailing? The Sears, the Macys, the Gimbels. What are the chances that by accident all of the idiots just happen to be managing middle-class stores and all the geniuses happen to be managing downscale at Wal-Mart or upscale at Bloomingdale's? The answer is God himself couldn't manage Sears Roebuck, because the problem at Sears is the customers are disappearing, the middle-class customers. If this trend continues, and there's no reason to believe it won't, it's going to cause tremendous problems for Wal-Mart going forward because the Wal-Mart customer is getting poorer. That customer traded down from Sears to Wal-Mart as their income was under pressure. As they get poorer, they may still buy at Wal-Mart but they'll buy less because their income is lesser.
Obviously, if income is up and all these incomes are down, it had to go somewhere. Where did it go? Some of it went to women, but the big winner in the last 20 years was the elderly. In 1970. the average elderly per capita income in the United States was only about 60 percent of the non-elderly. Today it's 120 percent. The average elderly family has a higher per capita income than the average family under the age of 65. This is what has made the cruise boat industry so successful. The Love Boat is, in fact, full of 70-year-olds, because it's perfect. If you don't feel well, you don't get up. You don't have to get off; you don't have to move your luggage. I was actually out in Vancouver when one of the cruise boats docked this summer, up early just watching people get off. There were a lot of canes.
Now, of course, this also creates a problem, because if you say the average elderly person gets about, let's say, a 40 percent cut in income when they become elderly, probably we don't want that kind of a society. On the other hand, I know of nobody who has a social objective to tax poor people, the young, to give money to rich people, the elderly, which is exactly what we're doing at the moment. Of course, this is Newt Gingrich's problem. If the federal government shuts down welfare for the poor, the federal government saves $22 billion. That's all. Almost $I,000 billion are spent on the elderly. That's where the money is. If you leave out interest on the national d* and you leave out the defense budget, 60 cents out of every dollar that the federal government spends goes to people over the age of 65 for health care, pensions, etc.
The problem, of course, is in a democracy, how do you deal with that? The elderly all vote. They tend to be one-issue voters&emdash;my income. Legally, we don't let the people under age 18 vote. The people between 18 and 30 don't vote. How's democracy going to deal with that? Gingrich is going&emdash;if he builds all those orphanages he won't save $22 billion&emdash;but he's going to close down a $22 billion program and do nothing about the $1,000 billion program. It don't work. The math doesn't work. But the question is, how do you come to grips with the math? It's going to create a tremendous problem for any democracy. What's true in the United States is true in every other country in the world, including poor countries because the health care has become good everywhere. It creates a tremendous problem in the system.
The problem, of course, it creates in terms of economic incentives is how do we pay for the social welfare system for the elderly? Payroll taxes. That creates what the economists call the tax wedge. When an employer decides to hire you or not hire you, they look at your wage rate plus the taxes they have to pay because they hire you, which includes all these payroll taxes. When you look at your job, that money goes to health care to the elderly. You don't count it as income. You look at your take-home income, so you get this tremendous difference. To the employer you look expensive, and to you the employer's job looks like a low-wage job.
What's the employer's correct response to that? Move to some country where you don't have to do it. I don't have to pay payroll taxes in the United States; I just go. What's your correct response? Well, in Europe where they have a more generous social welfare system for people under the age of 65, the correct response is to find some excuse for being unemployed. Get your social welfare benefits and at the same time work in the illegal underground economy where you don't pay taxes. You make a higher cash wage in the underground economy than you would make if you worked in the legal economy. The employer saves money because he doesn't pay into the social welfare system.
In a place like the Netherlands, they've got something like 22 percent of adult males between the ages of 25 and 55 that are on disability, getting some social welfare benefit. It's not completely fraudulent. Hey. I got a pain in my back; I'm disabled. It's a real pain. Normally I would just work through it, but if they're going to pay me, why not claim a pain, get my social welfare benefits, work in the black economy? My income goes up and somebody else ends up having to pay for the elderly.
But if you look at this shift in the structure of income, earnings, it's enormous. It's going to drive politics, it's going to drive business&emdash;who succeeds, who fails, what products are bought--it's going to change your TV programs. The TV stations are lagging. TV advertising companies are always interested in demographics, and that means traditionally they've been interested in people between 18 and 35 because they tend to have discretionary income. They have habits that haven't been molded. This is the desirable group, so you basically set up a TV program they will watch.
When you're judging the success and failure of a TV program, you don't care&emdash;Lawrence Welk always had a lot of people watching Lawrence Welk. The problem is they were, oh, so old that the people who buy TV ads didn't want them. But~ now the 18 to 35 year-olds have no income. They're useless if you're an advertiser, so you're going to change your programs to focus on the elderly people who, in fact, have the discretionary income because they're the ones you want to get at since they're the ones who have the money to spend. If you say what group in America has taken the biggest cut in incomes, it's male high school graduates.
Now, go back and look at the revolution we had politically on Nov. 8. On the Sunday after Nov. 8 the New York Times had a fascinating table, a full newspaper page, that simply looked~ at the question of who voted for whom in that revolution. The answer was if only women could have voted, the Democrats would have won. The Democrats took about 52 percent of the female vote; the Republicans got about 48. But two groups swung very radically towards the Republicans&emdash;the born-again Christians and white, high school-educated, male, blue-collar workers, a traditional Democratic voting group. A very radical shift. They kind of went 70-30 Republican when they're normally 70-30 Democrat. They're frustrated.
It's like the movie Network. Remember the guy in the movie Network? Throw up the window, put your head out the window and scream, "I'm mad as hell." Not that anybody's going to do anything about it, but I'm mad as hell. There are a lot of people out there that have reason to be mad. Their income's down 23 percent in real terms over the last 20 years, and more of the same is ahead.
Now, if you say, what's the solution to that, the obvious answer is those people, relative to the world, just don't have skills that justify that wage rate anymore. If they aren't re-skilled, their wages will do nothing but go down. At the moment, if you look at it by educational class, with the exception of college-educated females, wages are now falling far all male groups, including graduate students. Those Russian scientists and engineers are putting pressure at that top on wages of the well educated, just the way the Chinese are putting pressures at the bottom on the wages of the not-so-well educated.
Let me talk a minute about those government budgets What do you do if you're Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich and most of your money goes to the elderly and they vote? How do you cut their check and still get reelected? That's the issue. It's an issue that has to be met because, as I said, every social system has some things it does well and sonic things it does badly. Capitalism runs a very good economy, but what does it do badly? Capitalism is myopic. Using discounted present values in interest rates, with any reasonable interest rate, no capitalist will make any investment that doesn't pay off in at least seven or eight years because the discounted net present value of a dollar nine years from now is effectively zero. The problem is every human society has some things that have to be done that have a longer than an eight- or nine-year time horizon.
Take education. Suppose you were a capitalist mother and father&emdash;no more, no less&emdash;and you made your decisions the way we teach you to make them in business schools&emdash;discounted net present values. You'd never invest in 16 years of education for your kids. That's a zilch investment. Sixteen years of money in before anything comes out? It couldn't possibly pass muster. On the other hand, if everybody in society does it, it has enormous payoffs for the whole society. Why does America lead in biotechnology? We lead in biotechnology because the American government, starting in about 1960, started putting $1 billion or $2 billion into biotechnology&emdash;$20-some billion in total before the first identifiable product was even identified. No private company would ever have done that, but biotechnology is going to be seen as one of the human revolutions, It wouldn't have occurred unless somebody was willing to make those long-run investments.
The real issue is not really government versus private. The real issue is investment versus consumption. Some of the investment that has to go up is in the public sector; some of the consumption that has to go down is in the public sector. Some of the investment that has to go up is in the private sector; some of the consumption that has to go down is in the private sector. The question is how do you organize a society that has that long-term perspective if you run it the way we plan to run it? The problem here, of course, is we've hidden all those long-run investments in the Defense Department.
Take Star Wars. Even the proponents of Star Wars didn't think it would work in less than 30 yeas, and we started putting billions of dollars into it, doing a lot of fundamental research that was going to pay off in a lot of other areas. What was the interstate highway system called when it was built? It was the National Defense Highway Act, and the theory was we had to move mobile missiles around and therefore you needed bridges a certain height and universal highways. The interstate highway system was justified on a military basis. When I got my Ph.D., the big scholarship system was the National Defense Education Act. The idea was you needed talented, well educated people for national defense, and therefore paid for Ph.D.'s.
But the cold war is over. There is no enemy. Nobody threatens the United States. We could probably survive very nicely with an army of 100,000 people. Nobody's going to invade America, and we're clearly not going to be policemen to the world. That's what Bosnia proves. Here again, it takes a while to scale down, but eventually we will do it.
What's the fundamental bottom line? Let me give you the same bottom line that I gave people at breakfast. I would like to give you the Chinese curse. When I gave you this curse, you're going to say, "That's a curse?" The curse is "may you live in interesting times." From one Chinese to another, this is roughly the equivalent of "may you have hell on earth and bum," because what interesting times are is when the world is changing and when the world's changing, you've got to change. The Chinese, being wise about psychology, understand that human beings don't like to change. So when you say the world's going to be changing. that's an incredibly pessimistic thing to say, an incredibly negative thing to say.
We Americans are naive. I'll talk about myself, but I think it probably applies to you, too. What do we Americans love to say? We love to say, "I love to change. Lester Thurow loves to change. Nobody changes better than Lester Thurow." When Lester Thurow says those things, what does he really mean? What he means is, "I'm going to love to watch you change and I don't intend to change at all." But I might as well give you the Chinese curse. May we live in interesting times, because we're going to live in interesting times.
Thank you very much.
Oct. 21, 1993: In a speech before the Business for Social Responsibility Conference, Thurow compares the challenges of the 90s with the 1945-55 postwar era in America. He discusses shortcomings in American education and the future of global competition. SP381. $5.
May 31, 1992: In a Booknotes appearance, Lester Thurow discusses his latest book Head to Head: The Coming Economic Battle Among Japan, Europe and America, which focuses on differences in education and attitudes among the global competitors. 8N294 . $5.
May 28, 1992: In a speech before the National Press Club, Lester Thurow speaks on issues surrounding international competition and needed investment in US. infrastructure. PC293. $5.
Oct. 21, 1991: Economic Policy Institute, "Investing in Americas Future," featuring Lester Thurow; Robert Kuttner, Editor, The American Prospect; Robert Heilbroner, Professor Emeritus, New School for Social Research; Robert Reich, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University; Isabel Sawhill, Senior Fellow, Urban Institute, and John Jacob, National Urban League. The panel examines the extent of the U.S. deficit, explains America's competitive challenge and outlines courses of action essential for future economic viability. SP232. $10.
Jan. 30, 1992: Democratic Issues Conference, "Security Prosperity," featuring Lester Thurow; Ray Marshall, University of Texas LBJ School of Public Affairs; Michael Walsh, President and CEO, Tenneco, Inc., and Isabel Sawhill, Senior Fellow, Urban Institute. U.S. Rep. David Bonior of Michigan moderates the panel, which explains reasons for a slow recovery from the recession, examines the role of corporate leaders in initiating and implementing change in American business and discusses options available to the government for spurring recovery. SP266. $7.50.
Nov. 20, 1994: Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize-winning economist, discusses the proliferation of government agencies and regulations, the free-market system and his personal background in this "Booknotes" interview. BN445. $5.
Nov. 13, 1994: John Kenneth Galbraith speaks about his government service and latest book, A Journey Through Economic Time, in this "Booknotes" interview. 8N444. $5.
TapeWriter, Inc.
P.O. Box 885
Lincolnshire, IL 60069
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS*
Our findings do not all fit neatly into either an hierarchical, elitist model of power, or a polyarchical, pluralist model of power. We find evidence of both hierarchy and polyarchy in the nation's institutional elite structure. Let us try to summarize our principal findings regarding the questions posed at the beginning of this volume.
1. Concentration of Institutional Resources
The nation's resources are concentrated in a relatively small number of large institutions. Half of the nation's industrial assets are concentrated in 100 manufacturing corporations; half of U.S. banking assets are concentrated in the 50 largest banks; and half of our assets in transportation, communications, and utilities are concentrated in 50 corporations. Two thirds of the nations s insurance assets are concentrated in just 50 companies; 50 foundations control 40 percent of all foundation assets; 25 universities control 50 percent of all private endowment funds in higher education; 3 network broadcasting companies control 90 percent of the television news; and 10 newspaper chains account for one third of the nation's daily newspaper circulation. It is highly probable that 30 Wall Street and Washington law firms exercise comparable dominance in the legal field; that 15 Wall Street investment firms dominate decision-making in securities; and that a dozen cultural and civic organizations dominate music, drama, the arts, and civic affairs. Federal government alone now accounts for 21 percent of the gross national product and two thirds of all government spending. More importantly, concentration of resources in the nation's largest institutions is increasing over time.
In 1950 the largest 100 manufacturing corporations controlled only 39.8 percent of all manufacturing assets, compared to 55.0 percent in 1980. The development of television network broadcasting over the past twenty-five years has concentrated news dissemination (recall that a healthy majority of Americans get the news solely from TV) in just three corporations. Centralization of governmental functions at the national level has proceeded at a rapid pace since the 1930s. Similar trends in nationalization and concentration of resources in a small number of institutions is evident in other sectors of society.
2. Individual Versus Institutional Resources
The resources available to individuals in America are infinitesimal in comparison with the resources available to the nation's largest institutions. Personal wealth in itself provides little power; it is only when wealth is associated with top institutional position that it provides the wealth-holder with any significant degree of power.
Managerial elites are gradually replacing owners and stockholders as the dominant influence in American corporations. Most capital investment comes from retained earnings of corporations and bank loans, rather than from individual investors.
Nonetheless, personal wealth in America is unequally distributed: the top fifth of income recipients receive over 40 percent of all income, while the bottom fifth receives about 5 percent. This inequality is lessening very slowly over time.
3. The Size of the Nation's Elite
Approximately 6,000 individuals in 7,000 positions exercise formal authority over institutions that control roughly half of the nation's resources in industry, finance, utilities, insurance, mass media, foundations, education, law, and civic and cultural affairs. This definition of the elite is fairly large numerically, yet these individuals constitute an extremely small percentage of the nation's total population&emdash;less than three-thousandths of 1 percent. However, this figure is considerably larger than that implied in the "power elite" literature.
Perhaps the question of hierarchy or polyarchy depends on whether one wants to emphasize numbers or percentages. To emphasize hierarchy, one can comment on the tiny percentage of the population that possesses,such great authority. To emphasize polyarchy, one can comment on the fairly large number of individuals at the top of the nation's institutional structure; certainly there is room for competition within so large a group.
4. Interlocking Versus Specialization
Despite concentration of institutional resources, there is clear evidence of specialization among institutional leaders. Eighty-five percent of the institutional elites identified in our study were "specialists," holding only one post of the 7,000 "top" posts. Of course, many of these individuals held other institutional positions in a wide variety of corporate, civic, and cultural organizations, but these were not "top" positions as we defined them. Governmental leadership is not interlocked with the corporate world.
However, the multiple "interlockers"&emdash;individuals with six or more top posts&emdash;not surprisingly turn out to be "giants" in the industrial and financial world. Another finding is that there is a good deal of "vertical" overlap&emdash;top position-holders who have had previous experience in other top corporate, governmental, and legal positions&emdash;more so than there is "horizontal" (concurrent) interlocking. Over one quarter of governmental elites have held high corporate positions, and nearly 40 percent of the corporate elites have held governmental jobs. Yet even this "vertical overlapping" must be qualified, for most of the leadership experience of corporate elites was derived from corporate positions, and most of the leadership experience of governmental elites was derived from government and law.
There are, however, important concentrations of combined corporate, governmental, and social power in America. Large corporations such as AT&T have many interlocking director relationships with industrial corporations, banks, utilities, and insurance companies. There are identifiable groupings of corporations by interlocking directorships; these groupings tend to center around major banks and regions of the country. In addition, there is concentration of power among the great, wealthy, entrepreneurial families&emdash;the Rockefellers, Mellons, duPonts, Fords. Doubtlessly, the most important of these concentrations is in the Rockefeller family group, which has an extensive network in industrial, financial, political, civic, educational, and cultural institutions.
5. Inheritors Versus Climbers
There is a great deal of upward mobility in American society, as well as "circulation of elites." We estimate that less than 10 percent of the top corporate elites studied inherited their position and power; the vast majority climbed the rungs of the corporate ladder. Most governmental elites&emdash;whether in the executive bureaucracy, Congress, or the courts&emdash;also rose from fairly obscure positions. Elected political leaders frequently come from parochial backgrounds and continue to maintain ties with local clubs and groups. Military leaders tend to have the largest percentage of rural, southern, and lower-social-origin members of any leadership group.
6. Separate Channels of Recruitment
There are multiple paths to the top. Our top elites were recruited through a variety of channels. Governmental leaders were recruited mainly from law and government; less than one in six was recruited from the corporate world. Military leaders were recruited exclusively through the military ranks. Most top lawyers rose through the ranks of the large, well-known law firms, and mass media executives were recruited primarily from newspaper and television. Only in the foundations, universities, and cultural and civic associations was the formal leadership drawn from other sectors of society.
7. Social Class and Elite Recruitment
Individuals at the top are overwhelmingly upper- and upper-middle-class in social origin. Even those who climbed the institutional ladder to high position generally started with the advantages of a middle-class upbringing. Nearly all top institutional elites are college-educated, and half hold advanced degrees. Elites are notably "Ivy League": 54 percent of top corporate leaders and 42 percent of top governmental leaders are alumni of just 12 well-known private universities. Moreover, a substantial proportion of corporate and government leaders attended one of just thirty private "name" prep schools.
Very few top corporate or governmental elites are women, although more women are now being appointed to top corporate boards. A greater number of women serve in top positions in the cultural world, but many of these women do so because of their family affiliation.
It is clear that very few blacks occupy any positions of authority in the institutional structure of American society. We estimated that in 1980 only about ten blacks served as directors of the nation's corporations, banks, or utilities. One black served on the Cabinet (HUD Secretary Samuel R. Pierce), and one on the Supreme Court (Thurgood Marshall). The Ford Foundation has a black president (Franklin A. Thomas).
Corporate elites are somewhat more "upper-class" in origin than are governmental elites. Governmental elites had slightly lower proportions of private prep school types and Ivy Leaguers than corporate elites, and governmental elites were less eastern and urban in their origins than corporate elites. Governmental leaders in our study had more advanced professional degrees (generally law degrees) than did corporate elites.
8. Conflict and Consensus Among Elites
Elites in all sectors of American society share a consensus about the fundamental values of private enterprise, limited government, and due process of law. Moreover, since the Roosevelt era, elites have generally supported liberal, public-regarding, social welfare programs&emdash;including social security, fair labor standards, unemployment compensation, a graduated income tax, a federally aided welfare system, government regulation of public utilities, and countercyclical fiscal and monetary policies. Elite consensus also includes a desire to end minority discrimination&emdash;and to bring minority Americans into the mainstream of the political and economic system. Today's liberal elite believes that it can change people's lives through the exercise of governmental power&emdash;eliminate racism, abolish poverty, uplift the poor, overcome sickness and disease, educate the masses and generally do good.
While American politics continue in this liberal tradition, there has been a growing disillusionment among elites with government interventions in society, and a reaffirmation of the role of the home, the community, and the free market in shaping society. The "neoconservatives" are still liberal and public regarding in their values, but inflation, Watergate, civil unrest, and Vietnam have combined to dampen their enthusiasm for large, costly government programs.
Elites from all sectors of society (even leaders of blacks, women, and youth) believe in equality of opportunity rather than absolute equality. Elites throughout American history have defended the principle of merit. Absolute equality, or "leveling," has always been opposed by the nation's leadership.
Elite disagreement does occur within this consensus over fundamental values. However, the range of disagreement is relatively narrow and tends to be confined to means rather than ends. Specific policy disagreements among various elite groups occur over questions such as the oil depletion allowance, federal versus state and local control of social programs, tax reform, specific energy and environmental protection proposals, and specific measures for dealing with inflation and recession.
9. Factionalism Among Elites
Traditional "pluralist" theory emphasizes competition between Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, labor and management, and other conventional struggles among interest groups. 'Elitist" theory, on the other hand, emphasizes underlying cohesion among elite groups, but still admits of some factionalism. A recognized source of factionalism is the emergence of new sources of wealth and new "self-made" individuals who do not fully share the prevailing values of established elites. In America, Post-World War II society reveals new bases of wealth and power developed in independent oil-drilling operations, the aerospace industry, computer technology, real estate development in the sunbelt (from southern California to Florida), discount drugs and merchandising, fast foods, and low-cost insurance. We have labeled these new elites "the sunbelt cowboys."
The cowboys are not as liberal or public-regarding, or as social-welfare&emdash;oriented as are the yankees, our label for the established institutional elites. The cowboys tend to think of solutions to social problems in much more individualistic terms, and they are generally moderate to conservative on most national policy issues.
Despite the self-importance of many new persons of wealth, established eastern institutional wealth and power continues to dominate national life. The rate of new elite formation is lower today than in previous time periods, and new wealth is frequently unstable and highly sensitive to economic fluctuations.
10. An Oligarchic Model of National Policy-Making
Traditional pluralist theory focuses attention on the activities of the "proximate policy-makers" in the policy-making process, and the interaction of parties, interest groups, President and Congress, and other public actors in the determination of national policy. In contrast, our "oligarchic model" of national policy-making views the role of "the proximate policy-makers" as one of deciding specific means of implementing major policy goals and directions which have already been determined by elite interaction.
Our "oligarchic model" assumes that the initial resources for research, study, planning, organization, and implementation of national policies are derived from corporate and personal wealth. This wealth is channeled into foundations, universities, and policy-planning institutions, where corporate representatives and top wealth-holders exercise ultimate power on the governing boards. Thus, the foundations provide the initial "seed money" to analyze social problems, to determine national priorities, and to investigate new policy directions. Universities and intellectuals respond to the research emphases determined by the foundations and produce studies that conform to these predetermined emphases. Influential policy-planning groups&emdash;notably the Council on Foreign Relations, the Business Roundtable, the Committee on Economic Development, and The Brookings Institution&emdash;may also employ university research teams to analyze national problems. But their more important function is consensus building among elites&emdash;bringing together individuals at the top of corporate and financial institutions, the universities, the foundations, and the top law firms, as well as the leading intellectuals, the mass media, and influential figures in government. Their goal is to develop action recommendations&emdash;explicit policy recommendations have general elite support. These are then communicated to the "proximate policy-makers" directly and through the mass media. At this point federal executive agencies begin their "research" into the policy alternatives suggested by the foundations and policy-planning groups. The role of the various public agencies is thus primarily to fill in the details of the policy directions determined earlier. Eventually, the federal executive agencies, in conjunction with the intellectuals, foundation executives, and policy-planning&emdash;group representatives, prepare specific legislative proposals, which then begin to circulate among "the proximate policy-makers," notably White House and congressional committee staffs.
The federal law-making process involves bargaining, competition, persuasion, and compromise, as generally set forth in "pluralist" political theory. But this interaction occurs after the agenda for policy-making has been established and the major directions of policy changes have already been determined. The decisions of proximate policy-makers are not unimportant, but they tend to center about the means rather than the ends of national policy.
THEORY AND RESEARCH
Systematic research on national leadership is still very much in the exploratory phase. Indeed, most of the serious social science research on elites in America has concentrated on local communities. Frequently, analysts have extrapolated the knowledge derived from community power studies to national power structures. As a result, much of our theorizing about power in America rests on inferences derived from the study of community life. Yet to assume that national elites are comparable to community elites not only violates the laws of statistical sampling, but also runs contrary to commonsensical understanding of the size and complexity of institutions at the national level.
We do not yet have sufficient evidence to confirm or deny the major tenets of "pluralist" or "elitist" models of national power. Our research on institutional elites produces evidence of both hierarchy and polyarchy in the nation's elite structure. If we were forced to summarize our views of the elitist-pluralist debate in the light of our findings, we could do no better than to draw upon a brief statement that appears near the end of G. William Domhoff's book, The Higher Circles:
If it is true, as I believe, that the power elite consists of many thousands of people rather than several dozen; that they do not meet as a committee of the whole; that there are differences of opinion between them; that their motives are not well known to us beyond such obvious inferences as stability and power; and that they are not nearly so clever or powerful as the ultraconservatives think&emdash;it is nonetheless also true, I believe, that the power elite are more unified, more conscious, and more manipulative than the pluralists would have us believe, and certainly more so than any social group with the potential to contradict them. If pluralists ask just how unified, how conscious, and how manipulative, I reply that they have asked a tough empirical question to which they have contributed virtually no data.4
But we shall avoid elaborate theorizing about pluralism, polyarchy, elitism, and hierarchy in American society. Unfortunately, theory and conceptualization about power and elites has traditionally been so infected with ideological disputation that it is presently impossible to speculate about the theoretical relevance of our data on institutional leadership without generating endless, unproductive debate.
Our purpose has been to present what we believe to be interesting data on national institutional elites. We will leave it to our readers to relate this data to their own theory or theories of power in society. We do believe, however, that systematic understanding of power and elites must begin with operational definitions, testable hypotheses, and reliable data if we ever expect to rise above the level of speculation, anecdote, or polemics in this field of study.
4G. William Domhoff, The Higher Circles (New York: Random House, 1970), p. 299.
*From:
Thomas R. Dye, Who's Running America?: The Reagan Years (3rd ed.).
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1983 )
2.6.1: H. L. Mencken and Lenny Bruce Quotes
2.6.2: Glennie's Law Number One
2.6.3: Glennie Says Study It Well
2.6.4: Some Quotes Regarding Professionalism/Professions
2.6.5: Why College Costs You So Much
2.6.6: James Loewen: Lies My Teacher Told Me (C-SPAN "Booknotes," 3/26/95) (External URL)
2.6.8: "Why Colleges Cost Too Much" (Special Investigation: Time, CNN, Impact)
Prepared 5/26/97--Memorial Day (Observed), In Honor of Those Who Served And Died Defending This Society And All Others
Historians: Historian-An unsuccessful novelist.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. A Mencken Chrestomathy, "Sententiæ: The Mind of Men" (1949).
Kissing: When women kiss it always reminds one of prize-fighters shaking hands.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. A Mencken Chrestomathy, ch. 30 (1949).
Conscience: Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. A Mencken Chrestomathy, "Sententiæ: The Mind of Men" (1914).
Humankind: Man is a beautiful machine that works very badly.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. jourrnalist. Minority Report: H. L. Mencken's Notebooks, no. 20 (1956).
Fame: A celebrity is one who is known to many persons he is glad he doesn't know.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. A Mencken Chrestomathy, "Sententiæ: The Mind of Men" (1949).
Patriotism: Whenever you hear a man speak of his love for his country, it is a sign that he expects to be paid for it.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. A Mencken Chrestomathy, "Sententiæ: The Mind of Men" (1949).
Privilege: What men value in this world is not rights but privileges.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist.Minority Report: H. L. Mencken's Notebooks, no. 36 (1956).
Eccentricity: The lunatic fringe wags the underdog.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. A Mencken Chrestomathy, "Sententiæ: The Citizen and the State" (1949).
Self-respect: Self-repect-The secure feeling that no one, as yet, is suspicious.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. A Mencken Chrestomathy, "Sententiæ: The Mind of Men" (1949).
Abuse: The only cure for contempt is countercontempt.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. Minority Report: H. L. Mencken's Notebooks, no. 99 (1956).
Morality: Morality is the theory that every human act must be either right or wrong, and that 99% of them are wrong.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. A Mencken Chrestomathy, "Sententiæ: The Mind of Men" (1949).
Originality: A society made up of individuals who were all capable of original thought would probably be unendurable.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. Minority Report: H. L. Mencken's Notebooks, no. 13 (1956).
Crime and Criminals: The common argument that crime is caused by poverty is a kind of slander on the poor.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. Minority Report: H.L. Mencken's Notebooks, no. 273 (1956).
Politicians: Nothing is so abject and pathetic as a politician who has lost his job, save only a retired stud-horse.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. A Mencken Chrestomathy, "Sententiæ: The Citizen and the State" (1949).
Democracy: The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. Notes on Democracy, "Its Origins" (1926; repr. in A Mencken Chrestomathy, pt. 9, 1949).
The Church: Archbishop-A Christian ecclesiastic of a rank superior to that attained by Christ.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. A Mencken Chrestomathy, "Sententiæ:Arcana Clestia" (1949).
Protestantism: The chief contribution of Protestantism to human thought is its massive proof that God is a bore.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. Minority Report: H. L. Mencken's Notebooks, no. 309 (1956).
Nuns: A nun, at best, is only half a woman, just as a priest is only half a man.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. Minority Report: H. L. Mencken's Notebooks, no. 221 (1956).
Theology: Theology-An effort to explain the unknowable by putting it into terms of the not worth knowing.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. A Mencken Chrestomathy, "Sententiæ: Arcana Coelestia" (1949).
War: War will never cease until babies begin to come into the world with larger cerebrums and smaller adrenal glands.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. Minority Report: H. L. Mencken's Notebooks, no. 164 (1956).
Husbands: Husbands never become good; they merely become proficient.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. A Mencken Chrestomathy, "Sententiæ: Masculum et Feminam Creavit Eos" (1949).
Government: Government is actually the worst failure of civilized man. There has never been a really good one, and even those that are most tolerable are arbitrary, cruel, grasping and unintelligent.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. Minority Report: H. L. Mencken's Notebooks, no. 68 (1956).
Philosophy: Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. Minority Report: H. L. Mencken's Notebooks, no. 57 (1956).
Solutions: The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. Minority Report: H. L. Mencken's Notebooks, no. 78 (1956).
Men and Women: Men have a much better time of it than women. For one thing, they marry later, for another thing, they die earlier.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. A Mencken Chrestomathy, "Sententiæ: Masculum et Feminam Creavit Eos" (1949).
Marriage: Whenever a husband and wife begin to discuss their marriage they are giving evidence at a coroner's inquest.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. A Mencken Chrestomathy, "Sententiæ: Masculum et Feminam Creavit Eos" (1949).
Democracy: I confess I enjoy democracy immensely. It is incomparably idiotic, and hence incomparably amusing.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. Notes on Democracy, "Last Words" (1926; repr. in A Mencken Chrestomathy, pt. 9, 1949).
Flirting: No matter how happily a woman may be married, it always pleases her to discover that there is a nice man who wishes that she were not.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. A Mencken Chrestomathy, "Sententiæ: Masculum et Feminam Creavit Eos" (1949).
Men, Single: Bachelors know more about women than married men. If they didn't they'd be married, too.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. A Mencken Chrestomathy, "Sententiæ: Masculum et Feminam Creavit Eos" (1949).
Idleness: There is nothing worse than an idle hour, with no occupation offering. People who have many such hours are simply animals waiting docilely for death. We all come to that state soon or late. It is the curse of senility.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. Minority Report: H. L. Mencken's Notebooks, no. 87 (1956).
God: God is the immemorial refuge of the incompetent, the helpless, the miserable. They find not only sanctuary in His arms, but also a kind of superiority, soothing to their macerated egos: He will set them above their betters.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. Minority Report: H. L. Mencken's Notebooks, no. 35 (1956).
Books: There are people who read too much: bibliobibuli. I know some who are constantly drunk on books, as other men are drunk on whiskey or religion. They wander through this most diverting and stimulating of worlds in a haze, seeing nothing and hearing nothing.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. Minority Report: H. L. Mencken's Notebooks, no. 71 (1956).
the Cosmos: To sum up: 1. The cosmos is a gigantic fly-wheel making 10,000 revolutions a minute. 2. Man is a sick fly taking a dizzy ride on it. 3. Religion is the theory that the wheel was designed and set spinning to give him the ride.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. "Coda," in Smart Set (New York, Dec. 1920; repr. in A Mencken Chrestomathy, pt. 1, 1949).
Time: Time is a great legalizer, even in the field of morals.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. A Book of Prefaces, ch. 4, sct. 6 (1917).
School: School-days, I believe, are the unhappiest in the whole span of human existence. They are full of dull, unintelligible tasks, new and unpleasant ordinances, brutal violations of common sense amd common decency. It doesn't take a reasonably bright boy long to discover that most of what is rammed into him is nonsense, and that no one really cares very much whether he learns it or not.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. "Travail," in Baltimore Evening Sun (8 Oct. 1928; repr. in A Mencken Chrestomathy, pt. 17, 1949).
Justice: Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. Prejudices, ch. 3 (Third Series, 1922).
Metaphysics: A metaphysician is one who, when you remark that twice two makes four, demands to know what you mean by twice, what by two, what by makes, and what by four. For asking such questions metaphysicians are supported in oriental luxury in the universities, and respected as educated and intelligent men.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. A Mencken Chrestomathy, pt. 2, "The Metaphysician" (1949).
Adultery: Adultery is the application of democracy to love.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. A Book of Burlesques, "Sententiæ" (1920).
Food and Eating: He who eats alone chokes alone.
Arab Proverb. Quoted in: H. L. Mencken's Dictionary of Quotations (1942).
Women and Men: A man's women folk, whatever their outward show of respect for his merit and authority, always regard him secretly as an ass, and with something akin to pity. His most gaudy sayings and doings seldom deceive them; they see the actual man within, and know him for a shallow and pathetic fellow. In this fact, perhaps, lies one of the best proofs of feminine intelligence, or, as the common phrase makes it, feminine intuition.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. In Defense of Women, "The Feminine Mind" (1918; rev. 1922; repr. in A Mencken Chrestomathy, pt. 3, 1949).
Farming and Farmers: No one hates his job so heartily as a farmer.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. "What is Going on in the World," in American Mercury (Nov. 1933).
Puritans: Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. A Book of Burlesques, "Sententiae" (1920).
Democracy: Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. A Book of Burlesques, "Sententiae" (1920).
Certainty: It is the dull man who is always sure, and the sure man who is always dull.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. Prejudices, ch. 1 (Second Series, 1920).
Idealism: An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. A Book of Burlesques, "Sententiae" (1920).
Trade Unions: Unionism seldom, if ever, uses such power as it has to insure better work; almost always it devotes a large part of that power to safeguarding bad work.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. Prejudices, ch. 4 (Third Series, 1922).
Birth Control: It is now quite lawful for a Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy by a resort to mathematics, though she is still forbidden to resort to physics and chemistry.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. Notebooks, "Minority Report" (1956).
Family: Every man sees in his relatives, and especially in his cousins, a series of grotesque caricatures of himself.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. Smart Set (New York, Aug.1919, repr. in Prejudices, Third Series, "The Relative," 1922).
Critics: It is impossible to think of a man of any actual force and originality, universally recognized as having those qualities, who spent his whole life appraising and describing the work of other men.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. "The Critical Process," in Smart Set (New York, Dec. 1921; repr. in Prejudices, Third Series, 1922).
Prejudice: One may no more live in the world without picking up the moral prejudices of the world than one will be able to go to hell without perspiring.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. Prejudices, "Scientific Examination of a Popular Virtue" (Second Series, 1920).
New York: It is the place where all the aspirations of the Western World meet to form one vast master aspiration, as powerful as the suction of a steam dredge. It is the icing on the pie called Christian civilization.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. Prejudices, ch. 9 (Sixth Series, 1927).
Cinema: The movies today are too rich to have any room for genuine artists. They produce a few passable craftsmen, but no artists. Can you imagine a Beethoven making $100,000 a year?
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. Prejudices, "Appendix from Moronia" (1937).
The Public: The public, with its mob yearning to be instructed, edified and pulled by the nose, demands certainties; it must be told definitely and a bit raucously that this is true and that is false. But there are no certainties.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. Prejudices, ch. 3 (First Series, 1919).
Faith: Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable. . . . A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass: he is actually ill.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. Prejudices, ch. 14, "The Believer" (Third Series, 1922).
Teachers: The truth is that the average schoolmaster, on all the lower levels, is and always must be essentially and next door to an idiot, for how can one imagine an intelligent man engaging in so puerile an avocation?
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. The Educational Process," in New York Evening Mail (23 Jan. 1918; repr. in Prejudices, Third Series, 1922).
Literary Criticism: Much literary criticism comes from people for whom extreme specialization is a cover for either grave cerebral inadequacy or terminal laziness, the latter being a much cherished aspect of academic freedom.
John Kenneth Galbraith (b. 1908), U.S. economist. "H. L. Mencken," in Washington Post (14 Sept. 1980; repr. in A View from the Stands, 1986)
Los Angeles: If Los Angeles is not the one authentic rectum of civilization, then I am no anatomist. Any time you want to go out again and burn it down, count me in.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. Letter, 15 March 1927, to F. Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald on their return from working in Hollywood. Quoted in: James R. Mellon, Invented Lives (1984).
Newspapers and Magazines: All successful newpapers are ceaselessly querulous and bellicose. They never defend anyone or anything if they can help it; if the job is forced upon them, they tackle it by denouncing someone or something else.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. Prejudices, ch. 13, First Series (1919).
Hygiene: Hygiene is the corruption of medicine by morality. It is impossible to find a hygienest who does not debase his theory of the healthful with a theory of the virtuous. . . . The true aim of medicine is not to make men virtuous; it is to safeguard and rescue them from the consequences of their vices.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. Prejudices, "The Physician" (Third Series, 1922).
Puritans: The truth is, as every one knows, that the great artists of the world are never Puritans, and seldom even ordinarily respectable. No virtuous man-that is, virtuous in the Y.M.C.A. sense-has ever painted a picture worth looking at, or written a symphony worth hearing, or a book worth reading, and it is highly improbable that the thing has ever been done by a virtuous woman.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. Prejudices, "The Blushful Mystery: Art and Sex" (First Series, 1919).
Whites: What are the characters that I discern most clearly in the so-called Anglo-Saxon type of man? I may answer at once that two stick out above all others. One is his curious and apparently incurable incompetence-his congenital inability to do any difficult thing easily and well, whether it be isolating a bacillus or writing a sonata. The other is his astounding susceptibility to fears and alarms-in short, his hereditary cowardice. . . . There is no record in history of any Anglo-Saxon nation entering upon any great war without allies.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist. "The Anglo-Saxon," in Baltimore Evening Sun (16 July 1923; repr. in Prejudices, Fourth Series, 1924).
The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1993 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
Mencken (mèngıken), H(enry) L(ouis) (1880-1956), American editor and critic. A founder and editor (1924-1933) of the American Mercury, he wrote essays of vitriolic social criticism, often directed toward the complacent middle class.
- Menckeınian (mèng-kêınê-en) adjective
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition is licensed from Houghton Mifflin Company. Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Mencken, H(enry) L(ouis), 1880-1956, American author; b. Baltimore. He was a journalist, notably on Baltimore's Sun papers (1906-56). He and George Jean NATHAN edited the Smart Set (1914-23) and started (1924) the American Mercury, which Mencken alone edited (1925-33). His ascerbic critical essays, aimed mainly at the complacent bourgeoisie, were collected in Prejudices (6 vol., 1919-27). He also wrote many other critical and autobiographical works. In philology, he compiled the monumental The American Language (1919; 4th ed., 1936; supplements).
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
Bruce, Lenny: (1926-1966) American comedian whose scathing, often obscene humor strongly influenced later young comics.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition is licensed from Houghton Mifflin Company. Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Catholicism: The thing with Catholicism, the same as all religions, is that it teaches what should be, which seems rather incorrect. This is "what should be." Now, if you're taught to live up to a "what should be" that never existed-only an occult superstition, no proof of this "should be"-then you can sit on a jury and indict easily, you can cast the first stone, you can burn Adolf Eichmann, like that!
Lenny Bruce (1925-66), U.S. satirical comedian. The Essential Lenny Bruce, "Religions Inc." (ed. by John Cohen, 1967).
Comedy and Comedians: The only honest art form is laughter, comedy. You can't fake it . . . try to fake three laughs in an hour-ha ha ha ha ha-they'll take you away, man. You can't.
Lenny Bruce (1925-66), U.S. satirical comedian. The Essential Lenny Bruce, "Performingand the Art of Comedy" (ed. by John Cohen, 1967).
Comedy and Comedians: Today's comedian has a cross to bear that he built himself. A comedian of the older generation did an "act" and he told the audience, "This is my act." Today's comic is not doing an act. The audience assumes he's telling the truth. What is truth today may be a damn lie next week.
Lenny Bruce (1925-66), U.S. satirical comedian. The Essential Lenny Bruce, "Performing and the Art of Comedy" (ed. by John Cohen, 1967).
Entertainment: The reason I'm in this business, I assume all performers are-it's "Look at me, Ma!" It's acceptance, you know-"Look at me, Ma, look at me, Ma, look at me, Ma." And if your mother watches, you'll show off till you're exhausted; but if your mother goes, Ptshew!
Lenny Bruce (1925-66), U.S. satirical comedian. The Essential Lenny Bruce, "Performing and the Art of Comedy" (ed. by John Cohen, 1967).
Humor: All my humor is based upon destruction and despair. If the whole world were tranquil, without disease and violence, I'd be standing on the breadline right in back of J. Edgar Hoover.
Lenny Bruce (1925-66), U.S. satirical comedian. The Essential Lenny Bruce, "Performing and the Art of Comedy" (ed. by John Cohen, 1967).
Jesus Christ: A lot of people say to me, "Why did you kill Christ?" "I dunno . . . it was one of those parties, got out of hand, you know." "We killed him because he didn't want to become a doctor, that's why we killed him."
Lenny Bruce (1925-66), U.S. satirical comedian. The Essential Lenny Bruce, "The Jews" (ed. by John Cohen, 1967).
Judaism and the Jews: Now a Jew, in the dictionary, is one who is descended from the ancient tribes of Judea, or one who is regarded as descended from that tribe. That's what it says in the dictionary; but you and I know what a Jew is -One Who Killed Our Lord. . . . And although there should be a statute of limitations for that crime, it seems that those who neither have the actions nor the gait of Christians, pagan or not, will bust us out, unrelenting dues, for another deuce.
Lenny Bruce (1925-66), U.S. satirical comedian. The Essential Lenny Bruce, "The Jews" (ed. by John Cohen, 1967).
Liberals: The liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them.
Lenny Bruce (1925-66), U.S. satirical comedian. The Essential Lenny Bruce, "Politics" (ed. by John Cohen, 1967).
Satire: Satire is tragedy plus time. You give it enough time, the public, the reviewers will allow you to satirize it. Which is rather ridiculous, when you think about it.
Lenny Bruce (1925-66), U.S. satirical comedian. The Essential Lenny Bruce, "Performing and the Art of Comedy" (ed. by John Cohen, 1967).
The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1993 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
GGLADDNOTE: The reference source is conservative. The Lenny Bruce quote of major merit is something like: "A few individual foul epithets is not what's obscene. What's obscene is the abuse of power by those in authority." Or, maybe it was "the abuse of authority by those in power". Same notion, same truth.
This Space Reserved For Your Own Thoughts Upon The Society You Live In.
(Ever Think About It?)
EVERYTHING EVER DONE
HAS BEEN DONE
OFF THE BACKS OF THE PEOPLE.
Keep on studying it and learning it.
WHY?
BECAUSE. . .
"The only fence against the world is a thorough knowledge of it."
John Locke (1632-1704), English philosopher. Some Thoughts Concerning Education, sct. 88 (1693).
Under Professions/Professionalism
Actors: Directors like Satyajit Ray, Rossellini, Bresson, Buñuel, Forman, Scorsese, and Spike Lee have used non-professional actors precisely in order that the people we see on the screen may be scarcely more explained than reality itself. Professionals, except for the greatest, usually play not just the necessary role, but an explanation of the role.
John Berger (b. 1926), British author, critic. "Ev'ry Time We Say Goodbye," in Expressen (Stockholm, 3 Nov. 1990; repr. in Keeping a Rendezvous, 1992).
Nihilism: Nihilism is best done by professionals.
Iggy Pop (b. 1947), U.S. rock singer. Independent (London, 12 July 1990).
Books: If I had my way books would not be written in English, but in an exceedingly difficult secret language that only skilled professional readers and story-tellers could interpret. Then people like you would have to go to public halls and pay good prices to hear the professionals decode and read the books aloud for you. This plan would have the advantage of scaring off all amateur authors, retired politicians, country doctors and I-Married-a-Midget writers who would not have the patience to learn the secret language.
Robertson Davies (b. 1913), Canadian novelist, journalist. "A Chat with a Great Reader,"in Saturday Night (Toronto, 11 Sept. 1954; repr. in The Enthusiasms of Robertson Davies, 1990).
Experts: We do not need to be shoemakers to know if our shoes fit, and just as little have we any need to be professionals to acquire knowledge of matters of universal interest.
Georg Hegel (1770-1831), German philosopher. The Philosophy of Right, no. 58 (1821; tr. 1942).
Psychiatry: The professional must learn to be moved and touched emotionally, yet at the same time stand back objectively: I've seen a lot of damage done by tea and sympathy.
Anthony Storr (b. 1920), British psychiatrist. Quoted in: Times (London, 22 Oct. 1992).
Experts: America has always been a country of amateurs where the professional, that is to say, the man who claims authority as a member of an élite which knows the law in some field or other, is an object of distrust and resentment.
W. H. Auden (1907-73), Anglo-American poet. Faber Book of Modern American Verse Introduction (1956).
Books: Books constitute capital. A library book lasts as long as a house, for hundreds of years. It is not, then, an article of mere consumption but fairly of capital, and often in the case of professional men, setting out in life, it is their only capital.
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), U.S. president. Letter, Sept. 1821, to former President James Madison.
Poets: I hate the whole race . . . . There is no believing a word they say-your professional poets, I mean-there never existed a more worthless set than Byron and his friends for example.
Duke Of Wellington (1769-1852), English soldier, prime minister. Quoted in: Lady Salisbury's diary, 26 Oct. 1833.
United States, People of the: The American character looks always as if it had just had a rather bad haircut, which gives it, in our eyes at any rate, a greater humanity than the European, which even among its beggars has an all too professional air.
Mary McCarthy (1912-1989), U.S. author, critic. "America the Beautiful," in Commentary (New