Friends, Enemies and Tea

Once upon a time, a middle manager called Niccolò Machiavelli gave some advice which people, ever since, have taken, out of context, as being one of the defining principles of their lives, “Keep your friends close but your enemies closer”. Machiavelli, probably best known for him How To guide to being a badass ruler. This, of course, is me being facetious for if one was to read The Prince one would see that instead of a gangster How To for the great and the good, it is actually a critique of those in power. The book simply offers analysis of what happened and the pros and cons. For example, it will say this person did this and lost their power, instead they should have done that or this person kept power by doing X, Y and Z. That Machiavelli should gain such notoriety and become general wisdom says more about the readers than the author. Proust notes that the truth of a book is in the reader finding their self in the book (note: I once saw someone writing a very long essay to say that Proust was wrong and in doing so, unconsciously, proved Proust to be right) and so that this quote has been given a life beyond itself and entered into popular culture as most greatness does- bastardised and rendered meaningless- is a reflection of the zeitgeist that has prevailed in society since the 15^th Century AD at least.

Let us consider how this quotation fits in 15^th C onward culture. Machiavelli was the power behind the throne in Medici’s Florence. Machiavelli was embroiled in the age-old tedium that is the lust for power. Here we should note that there is no such thing as power in the general sense. The only power that one has is the power of self, to master one’s own self, but as this is very hard, and improbable, most try to find someone else to think for them and so the majority of people end up defining themselves, or more accurately, being defined, by others. And thus, the power struggle between people is born. In a culture where one feels that one’s value only stems from others, one is constantly fighting to try to be of value and to prevent others from obtaining that which they heedlessly and superfluously desire.

Mull on that for a moment. If a person feels that their only value comes from without and they are worried that others may achieve the value they themselves seek, what kind of mindset must this create? We all know the fable of Damocles, a man who desired to be king and became king. As he sat on the throne, he looked up and saw a sword hanging by a fraying thread above his head. Thusly he realised that once you gain power, the anxiety does not go away, rather it is enhanced for those who lust for power and gain power fear only one thing- losing that power. This is the inevitable consequence of letting yourself be defined and subsequently defining yourself by others. And so, this mindset of, let’s be honest, paranoia permeates through a person’s being and goes on to define their interactions with others. Henry David Thoreau once wrote that, “The mass of men live lives of quiet desperation” and this quote may be seen as linked with the desire for external validation for if one is constantly seeking validation from without then this must create a desperate mindset, even if it is masked by a general misunderstanding of the notion of ‘Sanity’ (see Erich Fromm’s The Sane Society). If one is leading a life of quiet desperation and is paranoid about how they are defined by others then their lives will unconsciously become built around this fear, this negative mindset. In such a mindset one is less likely to be able to enjoy their lives as their lives will be filled with constant anxiety. We all know the notion of envying another’s success, indeed it has oft been noted that one attribute of great people is the ability to enjoy another’s success without resentment and envy, due to, as we have mentioned before, external locus of identity. And so, out of anxiety and, possibly, self-loathing, one keeps one’s enemies close certain that they will plot against them as that is what they themselves would do. If this is not a damning indictment of society, I do not know what is.     

However, if we look through history for the truly great people, the kind of people who do not become part of the common vernacular as their truth is not seen by the reader, then we find that people who do not live by Machiavelli’s notion often have harder lives, as Johnathan Swift quipped, “When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.”, yet these lives seem to be more fulfilling, stemming from two things- self-definition of value and seeking the company of those likeminded. If you are one who has self-belief and defines one’s self internally then what happens without will have little or no impact. When King Dionysius of Syracuse (aka Dionysius the Tyrant) was entertaining the Greek philosopher Plato, he said that Plato was so polite but he was sure that once Plato was back at his academy with his fellow philosophers, he would have less pleasant things to say about him. Plato paused from his eating of olives and smiled and replied, Oh King, I sincerely hope that conversation becomes so sparse that we even have to mention your name. (Note: Dionysus exiled Plato and arranged for him to be assassinated. However, Plato’s friends interceded on his behalf and arranged for the sentence to be lessoned to just being sold into slavery).

Machiavelli’s words only hold truth in a society in which people live in quiet desperation and anxiety and for a person to be healthy, and for a society to be wise, one should find truth in the writings of the great people who aim to elevate themselves, and by extension, us and find value within as opposed to seeking it without for as the King of the Festival of Wine and Fun, Arthur Schopenhauer, noted; “It is difficult to find happiness within oneself, but it is impossible to find it anywhere else.”

And so, to leave you with the comedy stylings of Epictetus,

“If anyone tells you that a certain person speaks ill of you, do not make excuses about what is said of you but answer, “He was ignorant of my other faults, else he would not have mentioned these alone.”                       

‘till next time

———————————————————–

Bonus Post:

Jokes, Slaps and Other Ridiculous Things

———–

The Roman Senator, Cato the Elder, grandfather of Cato the younger who opposed Caesar, once said that ‘Those who are serious in ridiculous matters will be ridiculous in serious matters’. What does this mean? Well, imagine, for example, that there is a live global television show. On the show someone makes a joke at the expense of how someone who is suffering from an illness looks. Someone then comes to the defence of the victim by slapping the perpetrator. Here we have a very simple situation. On one hand we have an attack based on appearance of a sick person and on the other we have a slap as response to the bullying. Simple? Absolutely which is why the organisation (the Academy Awards), the media and many of society condemned the person slapping the other, so much so that they apologised. If appearances weren’t important to people, then you wouldn’t have a multi-billion-pound industry built around people desperately trying to look the same (fashion) and you wouldn’t have people at award shows dressed in tuxedos and the skin colour of the presenter of the show wouldn’t be a topic of ‘high-minded’ debate.

If this is so, why could such an act- a violent attack on a person resulting in a slap- spark so much condemnation of the person leaping to the defence of a victim? The answer is two-fold.

1) People who have experienced discrimination based on appearance have not learnt and grown from the experience. One might think that they might become ‘Woke’ i.e. understand that discrimination causes serious problems, e.g. suicide from bullying, and develop empathy.

2) People see the world as their mirror and they see that they themselves would act as the presenter acted in attacking another based on their appearance, and so invoke ‘cancel’ culture to protect themselves from the truth that they are, indeed, not who they like to appear, even to their selves (so appearances are important?!) rather they are small minded petty people, ridiculous people who conform not only to a paraphrase of Nietzsche, ‘Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed’, but also the words of Cato, ‘Those who are serious in ridiculous matters will be ridiculous in serious matters.’

‘till next time           

Human Solutions to Human Problems

“Learn your theories as well as you can, but put them aside when you touch the miracle of the living soul.”

– Carl Jung

The other day, in New York City, a black man saw an Asian lady. When he saw her, the man twice as tall as her and three times as wide (see picture above), littered her with racial slurs based on her Asian heritage. The lady is American. He then followed her into the entrance of her building and proceeded to punch her 125 times in her head. He then spat on her body lying on the floor, uttered another racial slur and walked off, not realising that it was all caught on CCTV.

Now, you may be asking, is it important that I identify the man and lady based on their heritages, African and Asian respectively, to which the answer is sadly, yes. During the pandemic starting in the year 2019 AD, there was a historical movement. After a black man was killed by a white police officer, the event filmed on camera phones, there was a social movement. Suddenly, BLM no longer meant a typo for a BLT (bacon, lettuce and tomato) sandwich, BLM meant that Black Lives Matter. One of the secrets behind the success of such movements in the West is white people. It is easier to ignore someone who looks like the things they are protesting against. It is harder to ignore someone who looks different and so protests took place across the West. This garnered media coverage in prime time and suddenly people could see the letters BLM in windows across the West. At the same time, there was a 5000 or so percent increase in reported attacks upon Asians and Asian-Americans in the US, blamed for starting the pandemic. This, however, did not garner the same extent of prime time, indeed, I was only made aware of it by a friend of mine in China asking if what her friends had told her was true.  And so, a dichotomy was created. On one hand we had racial assault being played in prime time with the halls of power echoing with rhetoric from politicians and on the other we had racial assaults happening without the slightest whimper. Indeed, it is interesting to note that more Asians and Asian-Americans were killed by Hate Crimes during the time of the pandemic than black people. Just the other day, an Asian lady was killed when someone pushed her in front of a train on the New York Subway.

Whilst nothing in this accounting is not utterly vile and depraved, none of it is unexpected. Let’s now look at why this is and why, in theory, it should be different. America is a bastardized mongrel of a country. It labels itself as a melting pot. A brief history of America is that a few hundred years ago, some white Europeans were fleeing Europe to escape, amongst other things, religious persecution. They found the country inhabited by natives who, kindly, offered the shelter and protection (celebrated by the Festival of Thanksgiving). The white Europeans than proceeded to steal the land. They then brought over slaves from Africa to work for them. The African people also enlisted in the army and helped to kill the natives to steal their land (note: the Native American name for them were Buffalo Soldiers, the origins being unknown- maybe their skin reminded them of buffalos or maybe their way of fighting, a phrase brought into the 20^th Century popular vernacular by the black Jamaican singer Bob Marley and a song which may, or may not, be about black participation in genocide). Later these were joined by people from other countries, South America, Asia, Jews, more Europeans et al. fleeing for some reason or other. However, despite the unity of purpose and the unity of cause, these disparate people saw more their differences than their unity and walled off from each other culturally. Now the descendants of the original pilgrims became WASPS (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants), and other refugees became Italian Americans, African Americans, American Jews et al, with the few natives who weren’t eradicated in the genocide being given the patronising name ‘Native Americans’ despite America being born as they were being massacred. White America, feeling guilty about the treatment of the Africans, labelled slavery as America’s Original Sin, using the Biblical term. And so, the genocide of the native was almost completed as they became something pre-historic, the implication being that they existed before the country was civilised. The melting pot of refugees created its own structure based on differences and feelings of inferiority. The Whites assumed that, as they were there first, they were the Masters and set about subjugating the Blacks. The Blacks, seeing themselves as tragic figures from history, lashed out, not at their ‘Masters’, but at those whom they deemed less than them- Jews and Asians and so on and so forth. Suddenly, these refugees created a system which they purported to hate, one based upon arbitrary discrimination. The Whites would say, ‘look how hard life was, now we are the Masters’. The Blacks would say, ‘no one has been treated worse than us, let us become the Masters and dominate those lesser than us’, and so on and so forth and so a melting pot of people with more similarities than differences became built around the notion that they claimed to hate, that some people are naturally better than others.

The title suggests that there are human solutions to these human problems and, indeed, there is. One constant thread that runs through this is that we are dealing with humans. The Whites fleeing persecution, the Black slaves, the Jews escaping the genocide of their people etc. are all stories about people having their humanity and their right to exist denied based on bad prejudices and other forms of pathetic silliness (note: I use the phrase ‘bad prejudices’, as there are good prejudices depending on context. For example, I would have a prejudice saying that someone who murders another should go to prison, whether they are a commoner or a ruler of a country). The human solution to these human problems is simple- be human. Humans have the same needs and desires and it is through empathy that we can understand that other people are struggling with the same things that we are. Instead of using it as an excuse to make ourselves feel better by demeaning another as we ourselves are (note: does that ever make anyone actually feel better?) we can unify and help to rise up and support those who need our support, regardless of gender, ethnicity or any other of the utterly superfluous aspects of a culture which people use to justify their own insecurities.

However, this is not some bleeding-hearted liberal utopia. There must be laws. For example, we can look at a black man almost killing an Asian lady and, using empathy, say, yes, he has had a hard life built around a fundamentally broken system built on discrimination, however, he is responsible for his actions and so whilst we can feel empathetic towards him, we must remember that he is the actor of his own life and our empathy, when rendered through the legal system, must be empathy for the victim and protect her and others like her. Yet, we would be remiss if we did not also use this moment as an educational moment on how the system which operates between every person is broken but there is a solution; being human

‘till next time                            

The Meaning of Statistics

A former Manchester City Football Club goalkeeper was awful. Statistically, he would concede 7 of every 10 shots faced, a 70% failure rate. Why was he playing at the highest level for one of the richest and, with money comes titles, most successful clubs if he was so bad? The answer is, he couldn’t have been as bad as the statistics made him look. If one was to look in more detail at the context of the stats then one would see that the majority of the shots he faced were either 1 on 1 in open play or penalty kicks- one kicks a stationary ball from 12 yards out with only the goalkeeper to protect the goal. Let’s say 9 of the 10 shots were in this context. So, of the 9 shots he faced, in this context, he conceded 7 goals. On the face of it, this stat is even worse, however, if one is to consider the context- 1 on 1 in open play and one on one in a penalty shootout, then the statistics would suggest that the attacking player would be favourite to score 8/9. And so, we have a goalkeeper who concedes 7/9 as opposed to 8/9 meaning that, statistically, he is better than the average goalkeeper. Yet, his stats still show that he has a 70% failure rate.

There is an old adage, that numbers do not lie. This, of course, is wrong. The notion that numbers do not lie makes the presupposition that numbers have inherent meaning and are infallible. Numbers do not have inherent meanings, indeed, they are like any other sign or symbol used to crate meaning, a language, through context. The notion also presupposes that the one giving the numbers meaning is also infallible, not only thus, but also assumes that the one interpreting the numbers also has a clear understanding of what the numbers mean. This, of course, cannot always be the case and so we have a symbol which has been given an arbitrary meaning and an assumption made as to the context required to understand it.

This number which has been given an arbitrary meaning through context is then sent out into the wild. Once in the wild, how it is used becomes wholly subjective. One, for example, may see a figure that says 4/10 children die in want of clean water. Here the subjectivity and agendas kick in. One might look at the figure and say, 40% of children (source wateraid.org) are dying from lack of clean water, this figure is repulsive and we need to try better to protect children. Another may look at the figure and say, 60% of children have clean water, aren’t we a great people! This then becomes even more distorted once politics become involved. You see it all the time: unemployment is X and there are Y jobs, which may be true but it fails to take into account the context- how many of those jobs match the person applying? After all, if 10 electricians apply for a bakers job, they may all fail as none are qualified. Likewise, you see stats like X number of new infections this week, down X% on last week, again failing to note that the numbers may be down, but the sickness may be worse. Without context these numbers are less than meaningless.

Whilst we have said, above, that these interpretations are subjective and can be twisted to fit personal prejudices, what we haven’t touched on is that, although subjective, they are not personal. Statistics are seen a suprapersonal, something applying to all within the demographic. However, statistics fail to take into account personal experience. One can say that last week there were X infections, this week there are 2% fewer, ergo we can remove mask mandates, end social distancing etc. However, one still has to remember that X number of people were still infected and these infections may kill or cause long term damage in relation to brain function or respiratory functioning etc. and so, although we have some pretty numbers, they lie in that they do not give the full context of the actual situation.

One reason why statistics are used in these contexts is that one has an ingrained sense that they are exceptions to the rule. They can see 7% of people experience X or 35% of people die in car crashes when intoxicated, and think that these things happen to others and would never happen to them. It is only when they personally suffer, do they start to understand that statistics are essentially meaningless, without the full context.

‘till next time                

How Subjectivity Shapes World Events

Firstly, we must say that the title, ‘How Subjectivity Shapes World Events’, is absurd because, of course, world events are not caused by one’s subjective interpretation of it. However, once an event is started, or even prior to it starting, it is subjectivity which is the root and stem of the events and how they unfurl.

Let’s, for example, look at a hypothetical notion. A country which boarders on another country used to be part of the same country. However, with the fall of an empire, the country splintered off and became a separate state in its own right. This country is happy to be self-determining, however, the larger part of the former empire wants it back. This is where subjectivity first comes into this for here we have two conflicting subjective stances. On one hand we have a country who wants to be free and on the other hand we have a country which is angry about the end of the empire and wants to return to its former glory. Again, you might be thinking, that this is absurd, for a country is a mass of land which cares not for anything other than the irritating birds pooping on it (I mean, how rude and humiliating) yet it is important, when speaking of countries, to remember that each country is made up of people, and each person has their own subjectivity. And so, the origin of sentiments of each country stems from the subjectivity of the individuals. If, for example, the leader of the country which yearns for the days of empire once more, is an insecure person (as everyone who needs to dominate is), then it is possible that the person may put actions to their sentiments and invade the other country to try to restore the empire, due to their own insecurities shaping their subjectivity. And thus, we have conflict between two subjectivities which manifests as a war.

The war becomes an empirical truth- there is a war, it is objective. One country is invading another to kill people and take control of the country. Yet, how this actually appears to individuals depends on their subjectivity. Whilst we may think of an individual being an autonomous being who is master of their own self (note: I am using the Latin version of master which is genderless, it is only when the word entered the French language did gender come into the concept, with the advent of the word ‘Mistress’) we must remember that we are shaped by nature and nurture and so the information we receive can determine our subjectivity. If, for example, the people being attacked see the war planes and bodies massing up then they know that they are being slaughtered and they know the reason why: the other country wants their land and will kill and destroy to get it. However, if the invading country controls the media in its own country, then the people of that country may have a different subjectivity. If they see that they were invited in to help make the empire great again and a few people object (as people always do) then this is acceptable as it is for the Greater Good and so the war can continue as subjectively people may not see it as being a bad thing, if, indeed, it is even a war.

Then there is the third-party perspective. This is more interesting and troubling as it shows the core beliefs of a person and/or society. One person may see the war and think that it is justified. Another may see the war and feel repulsed and sickened and another may see the war and think it is bad but create an arbitrary justification for it. For example, one might say, ‘ah, but these are people from a different religion than me. When people from my religion were invaded, there wasn’t this support.’ This may be the most concerning subjectivity of the observers (of course, the most concerning is being the invader) for it reduces human life along lines of subjectivity shaped by arbitrary means, in this instance, religion. One is saying that ‘yes, it is bad, but what about…’ (note: I have written before on whataboutism which is a rhetorical technique people use to justify their support of heinous acts). In this position one cannot see their hypocrisy. They are saying that these lives matter less than others due to religious/cultural subjectivity. They are saying that what they despise in others (often quite rightly) is what they themselves are doing. Indeed, if one was to look through history one could see many examples. For example, Jewish refugees fleeing the genocide (note: the word Holocaust is from Jewish liturgy and means ‘A burnt offering unto God’, and it is important to remove this religious connotation and say that this was not the work of a God, it was humans killing humans) sought sanctuary in the Arab countries and were turned away due to religious differences. Likewise, Palestinians also sought asylum, and were turned away, not on religious grounds, just because they were unliked. Then we can go to Burma and see the Buddhists being repressed only to, once freed, repress the Muslims- also look how Christians treat other faiths in need, etc. History is a litany of people treating others badly due to arbitrary subjectivity whilst others turn away for the same reason. And this is how Subjectivity Shapes World Events, for, objectively, something such as an invasion and genocide are objectively bad, however, people see the world unconsciously through a subjective prism and believe that they are being objective and so, to invoke a historical (and apocryphal) analogy, fiddle whilst Rome burns.

‘till next time  

Humanism and the World

Humanism, as with Existentialism, as we discussed the other day, is a meaningless term (pun not intended). Its meaninglessness simply comes, as with Existentialism, from there being too many meanings attributed to it. One such notion is that Humanism is an atheistic philosophy. This, however, is not the case. The French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, in his lecture Existentialism is a Humanism notes that whether or not he believes in God (he claims in the lecture not to) is irrelevant as human actions have a human cause. Similarly, the theistic philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard, notes that prayer only changes the one who prays and not God, suggesting that God, in this instance, is irrelevant for human actions have human causes. Humanism, we can see, is irrelevant in relation to the question of God. One might say, as I am claiming here, that Humanism is the philosophy of humans being responsible for their own actions. Do I believe in a higher power? Yes, I do but I lack the tools to discuss it, or even think about it, as we have spoken about over recent weeks. Does this belief effect my view on the world and actions? I would say not because, simply, one can choose to do what is good and what is bad. Now, you might be shouting at the screen, good and bad are terms you have declined to define! Which is a valid argument, you might also reference my scepticism on any notion of free will, for if we are the products of our nature and nurture (education, genetics, opportunities etc.) then how can we claim to have any control of our actions? The German happy chappy philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer defined the Will as something which exists for itself and drives itself onwards, never resting, never sated, like, I guess, the proverbial shark, but let us, for the moment, put aside all of the philosophy and theology and create a very simple definition: Humanism is about being human.

Being human is a vague term, sure, but my definition is simple: every person is a living, breathing person with the same basic rights, needs, and desires as each other. In this, every life is equal to each other. When one starts talking about equality, people start throwing big words around such as Socialism, Communism, Liberalism, Marxism etc., and I am almost certain that the majority of the people who use these terms do not understand what they mean. To them, it seems, such terms denote someone who is not them. For example, a ‘Welfare State‘ will be attacked by those who do not need it or aspire not to need it, just as those who are in denial that they need it. And so, personal subjectivity clouds people’s minds and prevents them from seeing the real picture, and that is human lives.

The news, in many ways, contributes to this. We see it all the time; something terrible happens and suddenly everyone is an expert in it. It might be about a pandemic, it might be about an invasion, regardless, everyone is an expert on it. People speak of the events and they speak of the people involved. When I say people involved, I mean those who are public figures; the likes of Trump, Putin, Johnson et al., people listen to their statements and form opinions along lines of those who fit their prejudices, after all subjectivity in this instance often falls along the lines of prejudices. People debate the rights and wrongs of actions, they look for reasons and justifications for actions, whether they agree with them or not. However, in all of these debates, there is one voice which is missing and that is the Human Voice. It is the voice of the person whose life has been destroyed by a virus, it is the voice of the one who has seen their child run over by a tank, it is the voice of the fundamental basic essence of who we are, humans. It is the voice articulating the victims of the events, those who truly matter. We see the big names on TV and in papers and we think that Obama or Putin or Xi will bring to life the (debunked) Thomas Carlyle theory of the Great Man, how one person can shape the course of events, be they Napoleon or Superman, yet we neglect to realise that below all of this bluster and posturing, these events effect real people and their real lives. Do you think that, for example, the Russian people would want to invade their neighbour to protect Putin’s power? Or do you think they just want to live in peace and get on with their lives? One thing that is said about times like the hypothetical examples above is that it is the smaller voices which are drowned out. I would argue that this is not the case for these voices are not drowned out as they are never given the opportunity to even speak and this, for me, is the definition of Humanism, taking every life as being precious in its own right and rejecting the forces which compel us and seduce us into only listening to the loudest voice and of speaking of the events which destroy the lives of millions as vague ideological hypotheticals buried beneath our subjective prejudices masquerading as whataboutisms.

‘till next time    

(note: The American Humanist Association defines Humanism as “Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism or other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfilment that aspire to the greater good.” which is problematic as this definition is wholly subjective as it dismisses people’s personal beliefs as ‘supernatural’ and says the meaning of life is to indulge one’s own desires masquerading as a ‘greater good’. I would argue that this definition is not a true Humanism, rather it is complicit in the objections raised in the above essay, and is just like any other ‘supernatural’ theology it claims to eradicate, the same way the Reformation replaced an all-powerful God with an all-powerful God (Science) and claimed to remove the Mysticism of theology)