|
Sunday, February 15, 2004
Endangered Species
I remember when I was young reading about King Midas, the miser who wished everything he would touch would turn to gold. As we all know, things ended badly.
For the life of me, however, I cannot actually imagine what a miser would look like such that someone might disapprove. I think of a miser as being someone who accumulates wealth without spending much at all. I do know of people like this, but I can't figure out why anyone would object.
To begin with, in a modern economy, money sitting in a bank isn't just sitting in a bank. Indeed, leaving money for banks to loan out to businesses might be far more socially productive than actually using one's wealth for consumption or deciding for oneself who to give money away to.
What if someone instead just took their money and used it to stuff their mattress? As far as I can tell, this would make a miser someone fairly stupid, but not exactly vile. Money is just a promissory note. Putting money into a mattress forever is just like having a promissory note one never collects on. If the miser actually works for that money, then he has added to the nation's wealth without taking any back in the form of consumption. While not as good as putting money in a bank, shouldn't this be socially respectable? What am I missing?
Eddie 3:51 AM
Friday, February 13, 2004
Transparency
In science fiction and fantasy genres, you sometimes run across characters who are telepaths and sometimes whole societies of telepaths. I've wondered what a society like that would be like. My first thought is that the lack of privacy would be horrible. On the other hand, if we couldn't conceal our thinking, isn't it likely that we would learn to not take seriously the isolated thoughts that run across people's minds?
I have a similar thought on the role of the internet in spreading gossip. (The Kerry intern matter is what brings this to mind.) Again, my first thought is that this is a further decline in our sense of civility. However, if public exposure of these facts is simply unavoidable in the information age, perhaps we will eventually learn to not take them all so seriously. There are better grounds for judging political character.
Eddie 9:02 AM
Saturday, February 07, 2004
Marriage, Again
Just as the gay marriage issue is heating up for real in U.S. politics, the blogosphere is experiencing fatigue with the issue. Even Andrew Sullivan admits that "you're all sick of me on this topic."
I'm not sick of him on the topic, but I am getting discouraged. As I've written before, while I recognize that marriage today does not center around the raising of children to the same extent as it did in an earlier day, child-raising is the only concern related to marriage that I can see validating the state's interest in marriage. Children generally do better in a stable, two-parent household, so it is in the state's interest to encourage that stability and to hold parents accountable for children even after divorce.
Does this mean that gay marriage is necessarily a bad idea? I don't think so, although I'm not sure that I support it. A defense of gay marriage can simply be made along the lines that, since society doesn't emphasize child-raising among straight couples, it has no grounds to discriminate against gays either. That is, one can think that marriage should be understood as primarily about children, but that it is not now, thus making it arbitrary to invoke it one case and not another.
Sullivan, however, has decided to base his defense of gay marriage on an affirmation of the contemporary understanding that marriage is fundamentally about the spiritual union of two people. He has made this argument himself, but recently cites a post from Armed Liberal to the same effect:
The old models are broken, and we can do two things - we can fight a rearguard action to try and reclaim them, or we can look at them anew, try to see what it is that we saw of real value in them, and forge new models that include those things.
What it is that matters in a marriage? Commitment. Duration. Primacy. It is a commitment - which means that in the face of conflicting desires, you have to anyway. It has duration - meaning it gains in value over time. An old good relationship is better than a new one. My dream is to grow old with TG, and to have the span of our history together as a part of what we share. It means that I will take care of her, and be taken care of by her in turn, and that in the time where long shadows come over our lives, we won't be alone in facing them. And it has primacy over your other relationships. The act of saying to this person "You are the most important person in my life. Not my children, not my boss, not my pastor or anyone else matters more to me than you do," fundamentally changes both one's life and one's relationships to others.
These are good things. They are not only good for people, they are good for society. They bind people to each other, and bind them to a future. They create the kind of 'units' of people that can successfully build societies and raise children.
I think this argument fails on two fronts. First, it is not at all clear that the bonds of marriage are conducive to larger social bonds. Second, it is not clear that the relationship being described is best served by the institution of marriage.
As support for my first point, I will call upon a host of thinkers in the Western tradition, including Sophocles, Plato, and Marx. Historically, the state has developed in opposition to the family, because the family involves peculiar commitments that are always potentially in conflict with the commitments of citizens to one another. In the play Antigone, Antigone violates the edicts of King Creon in order to follow an older religious custom based on the duties a sister has to her brothers. In Plato's Republic, Socrates decides that the guardian class must raise children in common lest the guardians have more concern for their own than for the welfare of the state generally. And Marx fully understood how the family posed an obstacle to social progress, and sought to undermine it by advocating for public education (to take education away from parents) and for an end to inheritance. Even today, the Left would like to think of parents as agents of the state. Remember, it takes a village, it takes Bill Clinton.
The state's recognition of marriage is partly a compromise with a more ancient institution and partly, as I said above, a recognition that child-raising cannot be done well by the state. Children need a level of attention and sacrifice that citizens generally are unwilling to give to one another. A child's emotional security also flourishes best among a fairly restricted group of people.
Rather than thinking of marriage in relation to larger social bonds, I value marriage in part because it provides a counterweight to the state's ever-present desire to monopolize power. Would this not be a reason then to extend marriage ever further? Well, it certainly is a reason to celebrate the commitments homosexuals have with one another. Counterweights to state power, however, do not need recognition from the state. Religion is a counterweight as well, and benefits from not being promoted by the state.
Going back to the selection quoted above, and on to my second argument, I must admit that I don't understand why people who are fundamentally interested in a union of two individuals think that marriage is the best route to go. In short, why does a bond that is primarily spiritual need the external encouragement of society? Once you need these external encouragements, aren't you admitting that the spiritual connection is lacking?
Montaigne faced this question in an essay called "On Friendship." Montaigne briefly was a part of what he called a perfect friendship, a union of two people so intimate that each saw the other as an extension of himself. In trying to describe this friendship, Montaigne contrasts it with other forms of relation, including marriage. Among other problems with marriage, Montaigne cites the constraints of marriage as an obstacle to this spiritual union, calling it "a bargain to which only the entrance is free." The most perfect union then must be wholly free and wholly chosen for its own sake.
As I've written before, our culture does not seem to place great stock in friendship, placing it below family, citizenship, and even business. Consequently, we tend to conceive of marriage in terms of friendship as a way of compensation, condensing two roles into one. While there may be marriages that are also perfect friendships, i.e., the external pressures of society are wholly unnecessary to keep the marriage bond intact, the fact that these pressures are often conducive to maintaining union is an indication that marriage should not, in our conception of it, be burdened with the expectations of this perfect friendship. The flesh may become one, but the souls are still separate.
It seems to me best to keep the ancient connection of marriage and child-raising, even if we recognize many marriages that don't involve child-raising. Gatorade was made as a sports drink to replace things lost through exertion, but some people drink it just because they like it. Likewise, some people, gays included, just find it valuable to make a commitment to another in front of others. It doesn't follow, however, that we need to update our notion of marriage by affirming what marriage has often become in practice. We just need to remind ourselves that a thing's primary function need not be its only function.
Note: Armed Liberal does make a valid point later in that post, which has been made by many others as well, that homosexuals are put at a disadvantage when it comes to leaving property as inheritance. Whatever else, I certainly support changes in the law that would give individuals more power over whom they leave their property to, and I would expect this to be a position that most conservatives would support.
Eddie 5:57 PM
Saturday, January 31, 2004
Rationalizing Rationalization
Rationalization, as we commonly understand it, is when we manufacture legitimate-looking reasons to justify a questionable and, usually, pleasurable act. For example, a person trying to lose weight might rationalize having a milk shake with the argument that a reward is needed for having such fidelity to the diet so far. Some might say that rationalization only occurs when there is an act of self-deception, i.e., the reason given is not the motivating reason. Others might emphasize the poor reasoning involved in rationalization, so that an argument would be a rationalization only if the argument were transparently weak.
If rationalization is a species of self-deception, then we are likely rationalizing all the time. How often can we speak with confidence about what fully motivates us to believe one thing over another? For example, with Lieberman dropping out of the race, it seems pretty clear to me that I will be voting for Bush in the upcoming election. Why? Well, I would point to the war on terrorism as the fundamental issue for me, but can I really say that my decision boils down to that? Sullivan, who feels just as strongly about the importance of the war, wonders if the war is important enough to justify the tremendous spending undertaken by this administration. I share his concern, yet I doubt it will change my decision. And, if I sat down and started to enumerate them, I could produce a list of factors that might be influencing my decision, though list would itself be incomplete. Instead, I make a judgment, and then attempt to identify the strongest rationale that I can find. The judgment appears to come first, and the rationale falls short.
Our failure to articulate all of our motives is thus not the crux of the issue. More to the point seems to be our willingness to accept inferior reasoning in order to satisfy our own selfishness. Such reasoning may be somewhat persuasive to ourselves, but it is more likely that we are manufacturing a defense of ourselves to give to others.
Upon reflection, however, it seems to me that I rationalize just as much when I am doing my duty as when I am serving my own happiness. This semester, for example, I was originally scheduled for a very light teaching load. When my colleague passed away, there was a question of how to handle his courses. Given my light load and a desire for the department to uphold its teaching obligations, the obvious solution was for me to take over the bulk of those assignments. I found myself immediately looking for a silver lining. Once I found it (money), the decision was not particularly difficult.
It may not be satisfying for the ethical purists, but the world works most smoothly with social lubricants. Friends do favors for each other regularly, counting on those favors to be returned at a later date. Pleasant thoughts of a favorite dish make easier a trip to see a distant relative. At my university, pretty much any activity beyond the routine comes attached with a few hundred dollars or more. For that little money, you can get a professor to bark like a seal. Better yet, let them compete for awards and honorary titles. It is amazing that a group of natural malcontents can so easily be set in motion.
The greatest use of rationalization, however, comes neither with acts of selfishness or selflessness. Rationalization is most needed to assist us with our resignation, our fatalism. Wherever something goes wrong, there is someone to explain how it is all really to the good.
As far as I can tell, the philosophy of stoicism is one part rational principle to nine parts rationalization. Have you lost your wife and child? Then tell yourself that they were only on loan to you, and that now you must give them back. Are you poor? Then tell yourself that we are all just actors on a stage, and that no one's part is any more important than any other's. These stories have little to do with truth, and a lot to do with bringing ease to our suffering.
Rationalization, while seemingly indefensible, is defensible insofar as it is indispensable. Let us resolve to do what is best, and then find whatever means are at hand.
Eddie 11:50 PM
Friday, January 30, 2004
Time Travel
If we were to compare our material well-being to the past, the differences between us now would seem trivial. I would rather have my present wealth, i.e., what I can purchase and my ability to make that purchase, than the wealth of John D. Rockefeller, since his vastly superior means would be more than offset by limitations in what he could buy. I have a niece who is alive only because of pacemaker technology available when she was born in the 1970s. All of Rockefeller's fortune would have been inadequate to keep her in this world.
If we were to compare our material well-being to the future, assuming proportionate increases in quality and availability of goods, again the differences between us now would seem trivial, for we would all seem equally poor. It would seem to follow then that a priority should be placed on maintaining those economic forces that have propelled us forward thus far.
The Left (which I don't equate exactly with the Democratic party), for all its claims of being progressive and visionary, is actually quite insensitive to the temporal dimension in either direction. For the Left, we never escape our past, and the future is only something to be feared and protected against. Wealth is neither created nor destroyed; it can only be redistributed. If progress is expensive, then we can't afford it. As Keynes said, in the long run we are all dead anyway, right?
Eddie 12:13 AM
Sunday, January 25, 2004
Trivia
I thought I would share some interesting points I've learned since last summer, when I developed an interest in astronomy. I have no expertise in any of these, and could quite possible be mistaken:
* Astronauts in the Space Shuttle experience weightlessness not because they are so much further from the earth, but because the Shuttle itself is in perpetual free fall. Why doesn't the Shuttle hit the earth then? Because its orbital velocity is such that, while it is always falling towards the earth, it is also always missing. Thus, Douglas Adams' instructions on how to fly have been fulfilled.
* Astrology not only fails to comport with modern science and common sense, but it even fails on its own terms. For example, someone born today would be an Aquarius, because the sun is in the house, i.e., constellation, of Aquarius. Except that it isn't. The sun right now is in the house of Capricorn. The constellations slowly shift away from our seasons (because of the earth's wobble?), but the astrologers go on using the same charts as they always have. How disappointing! (For the sake of objectivity, here is their defense.)
* The moon does rotate on its axis. Why then don't we see but one side to the moon? Because its period of rotation about its axis is exactly identical to its rotation around the earth, thus it is always turning its face to us as it moves around us. As you might expect, this is not some remarkable coincidence, but is a consequence of the constant tug between the earth and the moon. Some other consequences of that tug are that the earth's rotation is slowing down and the moon is getting further away. One source I've read said that, millions of years ago, the moon was close enough to the earth to appear bigger than an outstretched hand.
* Also, the moon is not made out of cheese.
* It seems we are not very close to any very bright stars. The brightest star is Sirius, which is part of the constellation Canis Major. (Follow the belt of Orion to the left and you will see it.) Sirius is not a particularly bright star in itself, but it is fairly close by. Other bright stars, however, such as the bright stars of Orion and most others of that magnitude, were they to be the same distance from us as Sirius, would be bright enough that we would seem them during daylight.
* Speaking of seeing things during daylight, I have heard that Venus is visible during the day, and I have begun looking for it. Right now, it is very close to the moon and is following the sun through the sky, if you want to try it for yourself. A couple of nights ago I spotted Venus right at sunset, but I haven't yet seen it in the full bright of the day.
That's enough for now.
Eddie 6:31 AM
Friday, January 23, 2004
Hard Check
Apropos of hardly anything, but of possible interest to political junkies, is this piece from Baseball Musings:
David Berstein at the Volokh Conspiracy asks if John Kerry and Andrew Jackson were separated at birth. Actually, baseball fans know that it's Peter Gammons who looks just like Andrew Jackson.... Peter is often presented with $20 bills to autograph.
It's interesting that people think both look like Jackson. Gammons and Kerry played hockey against each other in prep school, and Peter told me once that Kerry was the dirtiest hockey player he ever saw.
"Somewhat dirty" might be a positive, but "dirtiest" probably is not. Of course, I wouldn't vote for him either way, although I am considering a few of the other Democrats.
Eddie 7:36 AM
Sunday, January 18, 2004
Guidance
As I was walking out of the university library the other day, I noticed a small mobile shelf of books with the sign "Free Books" on it. I'm always afraid they are going to throw away Joseph Priestley's The History and Present State of Electricity, a two-volume work written in 1767 and checked out by no one but me in the past 40 years, so I gave the shelf a quick scan. The Priestley book was not on it, but I did see another one with the odd title Home Room Guidance.
To my mind, home room was just a room you met in before your first class. It served basically three purposes: to take attendance, to make announcements, and to create a small buffer to keep students from showing up late for their first class. I received my only detention in home room (talking during announcements), but haven't really thought about it much one way or another. It was inconceivable to me that someone could write a book about its guidance, much less one of 435 pages.
Apparently the home room is part of a long line of educational innovations, and once meant something quite different from what it does now. The idea was to bring students together a couple of times a week and create a small academic community which worked on different events and projects. (Sample projects: developing a score-card on self-control, programs on local history, learning care of the skin and other aspects of good grooming, and so forth.) The intent was to create a classroom experience that was student-driven, as opposed to discipline-driven.
If this is starting to sound familiar, read this from the opening chapter:
The home room, with its main emphasis upon the education of the student rather than the passing along of a body of subject matter, epitomizes the very soul of the modern conception of education: that the pupil himself is far more important and sacred than any mass of information he may ever accumulate. In reality the home room creates a situation in which the pupil himself becomes the subject studied, worked with, and learned about. He and his activities, experiences, and interests compose the curriculum. He is the curriculum. And all subjects, courses, knowledges, and informations are justifiable only if they contribute directly and definitely to his development. (Emphasis in the original)
I am not a student of American educational theory, but has there ever been a movement in education that was not identical to this one? I have heard such things from numerous consultants paid to enhance our teaching in the university, and I have heard the same things from my sister, who has an advanced degree in education, and each time I have heard this thought expressed in different packaging. Now, I find that it dates back to at least 1934, and likely well before.
Setting the message aside, why should I trust any philosophical movement that doesn't have enough grasp of its history to realize that it is constantly reincarnating itself? Shouldn't someone advocating an educational approach demonstrate a basic level of education themselves? (Sorry for speaking the obvious.)
Furthermore, just who are the advocates for rote memorization that are to innovative teaching what the Washington Generals were to the Harlem Globetrotters? I want to hear their side of the story.
Alas, every educational movement has its day, and even if it is born again, it is likely that someone else is raking in the consulting money. The author of Home Room Guidance writes:
The second and third periods in the morning and the first period after lunch appear, in this order, to be the best periods of the day for home room activities. The first period may have the advantage of being the time most appropriate for "report room" activities, such as the reading of the daily announcements or bulletin, but also it is probably a bad arrangement because of the possibility of confusing the "home room" with the "report room." Tardiness, both intentional and unintentional, also militates against the use of the first period, as does also the fact that the school is more disorganized during this period than any other period of the day.
Sorry, dude.
Eddie 9:23 PM
|