thinking about our Modern world

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Life is a question… not an answer…

this is important to remember…
we use various means to make sense or answer the question that
life poses… history, religions, god, economics, politics, philosophy, ism’s, theologies,
science, are all answers to the question, what does it mean to exist?

the questions we face, at some point after birth, are the Kantian questions
of existence… “what am I to do?” “What should I believe in?” “What should I hope for?”
“What can I know?” are among the Kantian questions we face our entire lives…
and when saying, “what am I to do?” we also ask the collective question,
“What are we to do?” “What should we believe in?” ‘‘What should we hope for?’’

our use of Ism’s is an attempt to answer our questions about existence,
for example, Existentialism is a ‘‘modern’’ attempt to answer the
ancient questions of existences… questions that Socrates and Plato
attempted to answer… but Socrates and Plato existed in a certain time and
place, which also did what every civilization has done since the beginning
of time has done…indoctrinated those who lived in that civilization time and place,
in other words, every state/civilization has tried to indoctrinated every single
member of that state/civilization into certain morals/beliefs/hopes/ values…

Thus, the citizen of Ancient Rome or 16th century Italy or 17th century
England would have been indoctrinated into a different set of moral, beliefs,
values, hopes and dreams… depending on the country or civilization
in question… that there is not any type of universal values or morals,
that are universally taught, brings about its own questions…

So tell me, what values or morals, beliefs, hopes and dreams are universally
indoctrinated into the citizens of every state/country/ civilization?

but why is this so? why can’t a universal, overall values, beliefs, hopes
and dreams be taught to every civilization/state? Because every state/civilization
faces a different environment, different situations, different questions of existence
and if they face different questions, then the same answers cannot solve their
vastly different questions… so, the question might be, how do we solve our
environmental problems, is different than how do we solve our population problem,
or how do we solve our political problems… every single state/civilization has
had vastly different problems and thus the same answer will not suffice to
answer all those vastly different problems…

Thus to say, god is the answer, doesn’t take into account that the problems of
each different state or civilization… thus we can see that although we tend to
lump Ancient Greece and ancient Rome into the same pot, they had vastly different
questions and problems they faced… the answer that worked for Rome wouldn’t have
worked for ancient Athens or for Sparta… because each faced a different set of problems
and questions…unique to each situation…

thus the conservative who holds that the questions of modern America can be
solved by the answers of earlier states and civilizations, which is to say,
the conservative quite often says, “we can solve this if we return to god”
be it an educational problem or a political problem or be it an environmental
problem… whatever the question/problem is, god can solve it…
that is the conservative answer to our problems of modern times…

but as each problem is unique and different for each state/civilization,
thus each answer is different… we cannot have a one answer fits all problems,
different problems require different answers…

and the modern age problem is really a simple one,
what does it mean to be moral? what does it mean to be ethical?

On what can we base our morals or ethical ideas on?
Nietzsche spent years seeking out a basis for morals and ethics problems,
without any type of recourse to god… how do we create morals and ethics,
without resorting to god or religions?

If god is dead, than on what basis do we base our morals/ethics on?
what is our starting principles of ethics/morals?

that there is not a universal, one size fits all ethics or morals
has been clear for centuries… the reason that conservatives hate
the French Revolution, is that it wasn’t based upon religious grounds…
in other words, the answers the French found for the establishment of
a “new state” after the French king, was based upon rational, logical
thought… think of the actions that the new rulers of France did after
they killed the King of France… they established a new religion,
they created new rules/laws for the government and the people,
they reorganized the entire country of France based, not on religions or
on god, but on the principles of human beings… and that is what the conservative
hates about the French Revolution… they removed god/religions from the equation of
existence…the answers the French found were not about god or religion,
but about what it meant to be human without reference to god or religions…

So given our modern problems, we cannot offer up solutions that are based
on the basis of past answers… they were answers to the past questions,
which have no relevance to our modern day questions…

so once again, let us return to history to see what this means…
the questions facing a city like Geneva in the 17 century for example, they found answers in
banning such practices as plays, music, dancing, cards… however we cannot
follow that practice in our day, as an answer to our problems, because
our problems/questions are different than what the problems of
Geneva were and different problems require different answers…

so we have to begin by understanding what exactly are our problems?
what can we state about the modern day problems we face as
Americans, and as human beings?

and so, our beginning engagement is first with trying to decide upon
or figure out, what are our problems in our modern world?

we begin there…

Kropotkin

2

so the first step is to understand the problems we face…
and the headlines make those problems very clear…

we have global warming, war, economic issues, political issues…

thus we can further break this down by specific issues,
so in global warming, we have the drought that the American west faces,
scientists say that the amount of rainfall we have gotten the last few years is
the lowest amount we have gotten in over 800 years… that is a problem…

or we can think about the political issues of gridlock in the American political
system… but not only do we need to clarify our issues, we have to
order them into some means of seeing which issues need to be delt with first,
second, third… so does global warming need to become our primary issue
we need to face or is our economic issue the primary issue that we need faced first?

personally, I would say, one of the primary issues is this problem of income inequality…
the vast difference between the very rich and the majority of people… Not Rome,
but Greece had several revolts over the question of income inequality in ancient Greece…

we cannot print our way into wealth for all, because all that does is create inflation,
so, we must take the relatively fixed amount of wealth in America and divide that
up into some more equal arrangement… share the wealth as oppose to the vast
amount of wealth going into a very few set of people…and the rest of the people
living on poverty or very close to it…conservatives oppose this because they are not
aware of the issue as being an issue… they see it as a power grab by the poor…
but that is a narrow focus understanding of the issue of income inequality…
and it comes down to this question of “what does it mean to be human?”
if the starting point is that

“all men/people are created equal”

then we cannot have income inequality set into our political/economic system…
the concept of equality isn’t just political but it is economic, it is social,
it is tied into how we see ourselves and each other…

If I can see my fellow man/human beings as being inferior to me, then
I can justify and work for income inequality… as some people are just better
then others and we can justify their wealth accumulation as the “better”
people “deserve” their wealth… but if I accept concept of

“All men/people are created equal”

then I cannot accept the concept of income inequality…
my starting principle dictates what I hold to be true…
and my every thought thereafter follow logically from
my opening premise…

thus if I accept the idea that

“all men/human beings are created equal”…

then I cannot accept income inequality as an operating principle of
the modern state/society/civilization… as the conservative hold to the
concept of

" not all men/human beings are create equal"

and by their starting point being different, their ending point is vastly different…

if people are unequal, then it is ok to have income inequality… it is right…
if you believe in the concept of “people not being equal”…

so, what is your starting point?

are all men/people equal or unequal?

now one may say, it depends on if you mean politically or
economically… but I don’t see a difference between those two…
now one might make the argument that doctors for example,
have a greater value to society then a janitor, thus the doctor
ought to be paid greater than a janitor… the doctor is unequal
to the janitor, thus is justified in being paid better…

I say the doctor and janitor do have equal value… there is no
means to which you can separate out or decide which has greater value,
what standard are you going to use to decide which has greater value?

for the very act of the creation of a standard is biased, prejudiced…
we can create a biased, prejudiced judgment as to which has greater value,
the doctor or the janitor…in other words, the very act of creating a value
for doctors, creates a bias for or against doctors…doctors are worth more because
they save lives… and that is one possible standard or bias we can use to justify
giving doctors more money than janitors… but we can just as easily create a bias,
a standard that gives janitors a greater value or utility over doctors…thus justifying
paying janitors more money than doctors…now one may say, “But Kropotkin, you are
wrong, doctors have a greater value then Janitors” but which standard are you
using to make that justification? That very justification is an exercise in
the creation of a bias, a prejudice for or against something we believe in or don’t
believe in…

how do we work out what is the standards or values we need to use to make
such justifications possible?

that is the next post…

Kropotkin

3

so, I have, to some extent, began the process of working out
the problems and issues of the modern world…

so, how do we know what standards or values we use to make our
justifications as to what the world is?

In other words, how do we justify our own answers to the questions of existence?

I say,

" All men/people are created equal"

how would I go about justifying that answer?
what standard would I use to make that justification, to make use of
what values to justify my saying, “all men/people are created equal”…

the very standard I use to make that justification is, by its very nature,
biased, prejudiced…

so let us examine that bias, that prejudice…

we are, from the day we are born, fed the biases, prejudice, standards,
values of that society/state/civilization… I was born into a society/state/
civilization that stated that there is a “god”… that bias, prejudice wasn’t even
examined… it was simple accepted as fact…and most people simple accept
that bias, that prejudice as fact as they grow older… in other words, we don’t
examine our own biases or prejudices that we were indoctrinated with as
children… which is the point of education…
to install certain biases and prejudices that the society holds that its citizens
should hold and believe in… to be indoctrinated into believe of god
as fact… but we should, as Nietzsche stated, examine our biases,
beliefs, values… we should engage in a “reevaluation of values”
in other words, we should examine our indoctrinated values and beliefs,
to see if those indoctrinations are really our values/beliefs or are they simple
beliefs and values, we were indoctrinated with…

I examined my own values and beliefs, and I have come to the beliefs,
that there is no god… I have examined my indoctrinations and have rejected them,
I also don’t hold to the common value or belief that “America is an exceptional country”
We are a country with strengths and weaknesses… and we should work on both,
our strengths and our weaknesses… and I discovered this by an examination of
my values and beliefs… I have overcome my education, my indoctrinations
with a “reexamination of values”…

in other words, my beliefs are just that, my beliefs… they aren’t holdovers
from my education or indoctrinations from my childhood… and this is
important… I have examined my values and have decided which values I hold,
are actually my values, not the values that I was educated with, indoctrinated with…
I have rejected the biases and prejudice of the society/state/civilization I grew up
with and have replaced them with values and biases I can accept and believe in…
my values and my beliefs are actually mine… and no one elses…

Thus I can look at the world and its issues and problems and see them through
my own values and beliefs… no one else values and beliefs… just my own values
and beliefs…

I believe that most people look at the world and its issues and problems,
through the lens of the values and believes they were indoctrinated with,
through the education they received… thus to be this in practical terms,
UR sees the world through a certain lens, a certain bias and prejudice,
I hold that biases and prejudice are the values, bias, prejudice of the society,
state, civilization he was born into… his values and beliefs aren’t his,
they belong to the family he was born into, the education he received,
the country he lives in (certainly not America) UR hasn’t engaged into
a “reevaluation of values” in which he evaluates his values, or his beliefs
as to being his values or beliefs… he hasn’t overcome his education or indoctrinations,
and so he looks at the world by the indoctrinations and education he
received, not as an example of seeing the world through the lens of
his own values or his beliefs…

His family is religious, and so he simple follows them without any questions or
examinations as to what his real values or beliefs are…or he wants to
“fit into” his society/state and by being religious, he can do that… it has nothing
to do with holding or valuing his own values, but in fitting into the state or society,
with values that are approved by that state or society…

a reexamination of values, he can, finally, see what his values and beliefs
really and truly are… but until he can hold an honest reexamination of values,
he cannot truly know what his values or beliefs really are…
he has simply copied what the state and family and society has deemed
to be appropriate in terms of values and beliefs…

So, what values and beliefs are actually your values and beliefs?
not what the society/state/civilization holds to be true and useful?
but what do you actually believe in as being your beliefs? not in what
was indoctrinated into you, educated into you, but what do
truly hold to be the “truth”…

the questions of existence requires, demands that we honestly engage
in the understanding of our own beliefs and values… what do I hold to be true?
not what that the state/society/civilization holds to be true… but what do
I hold to be true…

it is only by a reexamination of our values can we decide what our real values
and beliefs are…

Kropotkin

4

now beyond the obvious examples I have given of why we should
engage in a “reevaluation of values” there is another, more interesting
reason, why we should have an engagement with values outside of those
indoctrinated values…

let us look at Nietzsche… he was raised with certain values and beliefs…
he was “educated” and “indoctrinated” with certain values that were important
in Germany in 1844… those values, were values that provided him safety
and security in those values and indoctrinations… in other words,
the values and indoctrinations of a society/state/civilization can and does
provide us with safety and security… If we believe that we live in the
greatest country on Earth, that is a value judgement that can and does make
us feel secure and safe about our country…

the values and indoctrinations we are given is also meant to make us
feel safe and secure about who we are, individually and collectively…

let us think about this further… let us take Nietzsche as an example…
he was, by a “reevaluation of values” overcome the values and beliefs
of his birth, by indoctrinations of family, schooling, the state, the society,
the civilization all work together to give us ready made beliefs and indoctrinations…
an example of this is, the idea that the Aryans are the greatest people on earth…
The idea that drove Hitler… that idea creates safety and security in people because
it allows us to see where we are in relation to that idea… I can see myself
as an Aryan and thus, I can, rightfully or not, see myself as superior to others…
the belief in the superiority of Aryans can create, in myself, a safe and secure
feeling… to hold safe and comfortable beliefs like this, helps us to feel
safe and secure and hopeful about who we are and what we can do and believe in…

but let us take Nietzsche again… How does Nietzsche become the
greatest German philosopher of all time? by his overcoming his upbringing,
his education, his indoctrinations and going beyond them… Nietzsche is great
because he went beyond, outside of his education and indoctrinations…
he went past his safe and secure education and indoctrinations to explore
the world past, or beyond his education/indoctrinations… he came up with
the concept of “God is dead” … that belief, that idea is outside of,
beyond the education and indoctrination of the German people…
that belief, that god is dead, put Nietzsche outside of the safe and secure
beliefs of not only the average German, but the average person…

Nietzsche is great because he went outside of, past his education
and indoctrinations to gain a new understanding of what it meant to be
human…we can become great and wonderful human beings without god…
that is new understanding of what it means to be human…
but that belief is not a safe and secure belief…it lies outside of
our safe and secure education and indoctrinations…

think of the greatest thinkers in history and everyone of them
holds values and beliefs outside of, past the beliefs they were educated
and indoctrinated with… look at Newton… he was born within a certain
value, belief system… he overcome that to see the world differently…
if he stayed with his safe and secure educational, indoctrinations of
childhood, he never would have discovered the law of gravity or work
out the laws of nature that he did find… and the only reason he was able to,
was the fact he overcame his childhood educations and indoctrinations…
he no longer held to the safe and secure place that his childhood beliefs,
education, indoctrinations lead him to… every single person who
made an advance of some sort, did so by going beyond, of outside
of their education, their indoctrinations… look at Gandhi…
did he achieve what he did by holding on to his childhood beliefs and values,
his education and indoctrinations?

no, not at all… he became great by going outside of, past
his childhood education, his childhood indoctrinations…

greatness can only be found by those who give up the safety
and security of their education and indoctrinations…
to step past or outside of their education…

let us take another example, Goethe… he became a great human being,
a great writer by overcoming his childhood education and indoctrinations…
he went outside of, beyond that education/indoctrinations and pursued another
way or path into the future… Faust was Goethe’s report as to what the human
condition was and what was possible for us to reach or achieve… Faust is an example
for us to follow in creating our own meaning into what it means to be human…

Faust says, this is my path, what is your path?

Goethe used his various facilities to create a new path, a new vision of
what it means to be human… and one of those facilities is his use of
imagination… by creating a fictional world, we can see what is possible for
us in our own real world…we can use Faust as a positive and negative
example of what it means to be human… in that lies the greatness of Faust…
it is an example of being in a particular situation and how do we go from here to
there… the there being the overcoming of what it means to be human…

Faust could have just been another professor who simple trains and educates
children into the values and beliefs of the society, state, civilization in which
Faust lives in…but that isn’t the story that Goethe tells… Faust is the story of
a man who overcomes his education and values to become something else…
now, does Faust eventually succeeds? no, he dies at the end of the book…
but he is saved by his allegiance to the “eternal feminine” as Goethe wrote it…

what do we need to do to be saved? that is one of the examples Faust
engages with… how are we to be saved? to remake or rebuild the world into
our own image… that is part of the Faustian story… what happens if we
were to remake or rebuild the world into our own image…

One of the lessons of Christianity is to be passive in the midst of god,
allow god to do the saving of the human soul… but I disagree with that
passivity… I want to engage people into being active participants in their lives…
to be human means to engage in your own life… don’t be a Christian and let god
or Jesus to control your life… don’t give yourself to god or to Jesus… become your
own hero… become the change you want to see…

I want the world to become more just and the only way that will happen is if I
stand for justice, in all situations and circumstances…to find justice, I have to
become justice… incarnate… I must lead by example to create a world that is just…
I just can’t wait for god or Jesus to remake the world into their own image…
I must seek justice, as an active participant in the world… seeking justice
actively… I don’t just accept what my society, state, civilization believes about
justice or wait for my society, state, civilization to create a just world…
the path to greatness is to go outside of, or beyond the safety/security of
the rules and examples given by the state or society regarding justice…

to find greatness, I must go outside of, beyond the rules, example, education,
indoctrinations of the state, society, civilization I live in…

then and only then will I become great…

Kropotkin

5

Define “great”.

What is a maximally great being?

Work that out.

Then you will have an anchor from which to work out the rest.

6

One can say that the escape from indoctrination is still based on the original indoctrination.

And also that the new values are just as programmed as the old values.

As for the “maximally great being” … is that going to be Jesus, Buddha, Marx, Mao, Hitler? Depends on where you are coming from.

7

Throw out some ideas about great making properties and see what lasts in the arena.

8

“great making properties”

What does that mean?

9

K: as I have mentioned before, there is no universal, one size fits all definition
of facts or values… I will say this is or he is great and someone will say no,
and offer me ‘‘reasons’’ for this lack of greatness…
everyone has different, vastly different definitions of greatness, and
everyone will be right, according to their own definition…
upon what standard are we going to understand greatness?
I once called Sherwood Anderson a ‘‘great’’ writer and someone
else called Anderson ‘‘a two bit hack’’… So who is right?
and why?

Kropotkin