hopelesshappiness.com

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

Who said this?
 A. Thomas Jefferson
 B. Charles Darwin
 C. Sigmund Freud
 D. Adolf Hitler
 E. Abraham Lincoln
The answer is given at the end of this post.

It appears (from the limited research I have done) that many people want to focus on "the existence of a god" as the key phrase in this quote. And I agree that this phrase stands out (as if in bold print) and likely influences most interpretations. But after some thought, I believe the key phrase to be "Question with boldness". Consider the quote as it is rephrased below:

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of [an authority]; because, if there be [a legitimate authority], he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

Be the authority natural or supernatural, for me the word "even" points back to and clearly encourages one to "Question [all things] with boldness" and the appearance of "a god" merely emphasizes the prominent significance of (and the method for) said 'Questioning'. The original quote may or may not have meant to question the existence of a god. My suggested 'authority' perspective is meant to unmuddy the waters and allow for a less-controversial, more in-depth, common-ground examination of recent written thought surrounding partisanship, ethical decision-making, and the individual/group delusion of (and desire for) superpowers.

I believe it would be very difficult (if not impossible) to find an individual who has never experienced the negative impact from an abuse of power. I believe there to be some (perhaps many) who are oblivious to these abuses of power, and I believe that within this group there are some (perhaps many) that are oblivious because they wield the power. I believe that the more power one wields (or the more one benefits from the powers that be) the more likely they are to be oblivious to potential and actual resultant abuse. (I believe I have said much of this before; which requires me to dig deeper...)

So what is power? In this context it is the ability or authority to act on a decision or a choice (made as an individual, an individual in the name of a group, or formal or informal group consensus), that has the potential likelihood to influence or impact the decision-maker(s) and/or other heretofore unknowing individuals. By this definition each one of us has power. If I decide to play a solitaire game of Go instead of watching HBO and I follow through, then I have had impact on myself. If I decide to go to Starbucks for coffee instead of Subway for lunch and I follow through, then I have had impact on myself and a few other individuals. In these two examples I have not abused my power. An abuse of power is when an individual or group who wields power (as defined above) benefits at the expense of another individual or other individuals, AND the beneficiary (or beneficiaries) acted without utilizing an ethical decision-making process (as suggested in this post from 3 weeks ago). Some might argue that simply benefiting at the expense of others would be an abuse of power and there is some subjective validity to this argument; however, it is the nature of the beast that some pain and adversity must accompany progress which means that there will be circumstance where harm is inevitable - hence, the necessity of an ethical decision-making process to mitigate and minimize the harm.

Additionally individual responsibility for this ethical decision-making process is consistent with questioning all things ("every fact, every opinion") with reason and boldness. We cannot passively accept 'statements of fact' and 'opinions' simply because they originate from within; and 'within' applies to both within a like-minded group, and within one's own gut, heart, or mind. Misunderstandings, false or misleading information, indoctrination, emotional attachments, personal agendas, and other subjective interpretations can influence and discredit rational consideration, and encourage belief that one (or one's group) is more deserving and/or more powerful.

In the rephrased quote above I inserted 'an authority' for the original 'a god'. I am not questioning the existence of authority (defined as the power to decide and act), but I am questioning the legitimacy of 'an' authority. Does a simple exercise of authority (acting on a decision) legitimize one (individual or group) as an authority? I don't believe it should, but I see that it too often does; perhaps less frequently in the eyes of the beholders than in the mind of the beholden, but enough in both directions to maintain a delusion of noble legitimacy.

So far in this (somewhat convoluted) thought, we have:

1. The ability to wield power;
2. The authority to wield power;
3. The abuse of power;
4. The necessity of questioning power and authority (with boldness and reason); and
5. The legitimacy of authority.

We have determined that each one of us has the ability to act on a decision or choice, thus wielding power. I believe this ability to wield power to be different from authority in that authority is determined by varying degrees of fortuitous and/or purposeful circumstance, which is further determined by many factors including capabilities, responsibilities, perceived urgencies, and personal (and/or organizational) degree of compassionate vs. tyrannical strengths. I also believe that authority is necessary to legitimately abuse power. 'Legitimate abuse' sounds like a contradiction but by recognizing the line between ability to wield power and acknowledged authority to wield power we can see that one who can (ability) abuse power (by for example robbing a bank) is by consensus not legitimate, whereas one who has been granted power (authority) can abuse power (by for example discriminately choosing which rules to enforce, when) and be considered legitimate (at least by those who agree, and often by neutral or apathetic bystanders) because they have in some way been authorized.

The question now becomes, can any one (individual or group) be considered a legitimate authority? I believe the answer to be an emphatic "No!" I believe any one (individual or group) who considers themselves to be a legitimate authority has crossed the line into delusions of (and desire for) superpowers. Please note: I do not mean authority as in the context of 'expert' but rather as previously defined - one (individual or group) who decides and acts. And though this granting of authority by allowing an individual or a group to become the personification of authority is necessarily unavoidable, one's (individual and/or group) humanity will forever deny Perfect legitimacy. Regardless of the safeguards (such as the aforementioned responsibility for ethical decision-making) some subjectivity will always creep in, creating the potential for some unforeseen harm; and regardless of effort and intention, subjective ignorance is still an abuse of power.

The quote at the top of this post was written by Thomas Jefferson to his nephew Peter Carr in a letter dated August 10, 1787. I think Mr. Jefferson would agree that subjective ignorance is as much an abuse of power as is any degree of fear-mongering tyranny, though the latter is potentially more egregious. I also believe that by seemingly questioning the existence of a god, Mr. Jefferson was encouraging us to find common ground amongst all of our own in this empirical reality.

...An admonition we should heed.

Aristotle said, "He who is unable to live in society, or has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god." Focusing on one who considers him or herself sufficient, at first glance I don't see much difference between a beast or a god as it applies to all individuals who share this empirical existence. Any one who sees him or her self as a god cannot help but to behave as a beast; and any one who purposefully desires others to perceive him or her as beastly cannot help but to lust after supernatural powers. Looking more closely, a beast is coarse, crude, and filthy, and a god is a being of the highest quality, character, and importance. So if one self-identifies as a god they will (by definition) treat others as inferior beings, and if these others do not see that individual as a god they will (rightly) perceive that behavior as coarse and crude. And if one self-identifies as a beast they will revel in the glory of their filth, and others will perceive them as delusionally self-important. The reality is that no one individual is any more (or less) necessary than any other one individual. Each one of us is equally essential. I have said this before.

This week I have considered Aristotle's observation in the context of daily human interaction. For example, yesterday I was downtown when I saw a (human individual) driver (whose car was behind another car at a red stop light) impatiently veer into the left oncoming-traffic lane to make a right turn on the red light. Fortunately there was no oncoming traffic and the lone pedestrian - (me) - anticipating his idiocy, pulled back from the crosswalk and waited. And though a right turn on red is legal, I doubt it gives one permission to behave in this manner. This individual then chose to utilize the center (yellow-striped) turn lane as a passing lane to further his agenda. So - did this individual consider himself a god of his vehicle and lord of all golden pathways he graced with his rusted-out, puke-green presence? Or did he see himself as a beast of the byways bullying his way past lesser beings? (Again I ask) does it matter? The outcome is the same.

Additionally, can an individual behave as a beastly god (or a godly beast as the case may be) in one circumstance and yet be interactively amenable and adaptable in other circumstance? I have read that some individuals feel more powerful and less human behind the wheel of a car as the machine becomes an extension of their mind and body. I believe a position of power (such as workplace management or political office) can also dehumanize otherwise human individuals. So yes, I believe it possible that circumstance can encourage (or perhaps even dictate) behavior and self-identification.

I also believe we can substitute 'they' for 'he' in Aristotle's observation and apply it to specific groups that may self-identify as godly or beastly; (or both). I believe that (as with individuals and daily vagaries) groups must be interactively amenable and adaptable to the capricious winds of societal evolution. (Though this is important, this week's thought was not intended to become a finger-pointing diatribe on Us and Them; so I will move on.)

What originally struck a chord as I digested Aristotle's observation was the implied need. It appears that for the sake of decorum (and possibly one's sanity) we do need society and (optimally) daily human interaction. A very strong argument could be made (and has been by many, many varied thinkers) that this is our purpose. Even within the context of various spiritual, social, cultural, political, and individual beliefs, the shared goodness (or at least the ordinary decency) of human interaction is a common thread. There are periods of circumstance when I do not see this. There are oppressive layers of confusion and uncertainty that on occasion encourage a melancholy solitude. Yet when I submit to and then emerge from this loneliness, to experience even the simplest of cursory social interaction, I feel less constrained. And I realize that my (self-chosen) solitude is not only (by definition) selfish, it is also injurious in that it severs interactive ties that then may take an inordinate effort to rebuild.

I have also realized that any gains made by attempts to sever unpleasant relationships that are unavoidable, are likely short term gains. And successfully avoiding unpleasant relationships simply because they are unpleasant may not always be in one's best interest. So this need for comfortable, respectful human interaction extends to those individuals (or groups) that may (at least initially) create or include discomfort, condescension, and/or disrespect. This is not to say that one must always (when able to choose) subject oneself to unpleasantness over pleasantness, but one should consider the potential benefits of acquiring a taste for unpalatable affiliations. We may not like broccoli, but in moderation it is good for us.

So am I arguing that one's perceived purpose is driven by need? Like a jitter-jiving junkie (a phrase borrowed from Stephen King) is my sanity addicted to human interaction? When lonely, am I merely jonesing  for a fix of friendliness? Maybe...

But if so -- So What? I believe the alternative to be self-destructive. I believe this need translated as purpose to be a healthy dependence that can and should grow into interdependence.

If I develop and nurture the habit of solitude -- setting myself apart, as if I were a god -- then my delusion of self-sufficiency may transform itself into a monstrous reality of being 'unable to live in society.' As a human individual with a vested interest in this empirical plane of existence, I must actively acknowledge this craving for mutually beneficial human interaction. I believe to do otherwise (as a god or as a beast) exposes vulnerabilities, hinders progress, and shrivels humanity. Occasional, contemplative solitude has its place; but not at the expense of synergistic growth, nor for the sake of godlike delusions and beastly behaviors.

Two weeks ago I considered simplifying by diluting disciplined thought through partisanship, preoccupation, and acquiescence. The week before that I identified disciplined thought as a healthy mix of objectivity and subjectivity; and I also differentiated between disciplined thought as a path to learning and growth, and disciplined busyness as purposeful distraction. This week I have been more busy, and less thoughtful. Shame on me!

But now I am forced to write (because I can't not), therefore I am forced to think for myself.

Damn It.

So here is what I am thinking this week...

For many of us it appears that it requires less effort to 'do' for oneself than it does to 'think' for oneself. When I ask 'Why?' the first answer that comes to mind is because (for many of us in this culture) it is easier to just go along than it is to think first. To think first adds a task which many of us feel we are simply too busy to do. Yet as I dig, I realize that doing for oneself has more potential for unintended consequence than does thinking for oneself first and then acting according to that consideration. Stated as such, this sounds obvious; and I believe I have swam this stream before but at this point I will not muddy the waters with a (conscious) rehashing of past thought. I want to see where I go with this.

Surely we do not choose to not think based solely on simple selfishness... and laziness... and obliviousness... and ignorance... and obedience... Okay; perhaps not so solely or simple but obvious nonetheless. There has to be something more... Beneath the surface? Or am I asking the wrong question? I want to look at both of these possibilities.

Beneath the Surface: 

When I ask the question 'Why does one choose not to think for oneself?' and come up with the umbrella answer 'Because it is easier.' is there something lurking besides the simplicity of not having to think?

Perhaps some of us are taught not to think; (though this goes back to simple obedience). So perhaps a better answer is that too many of us are not taught to think. This week I stumbled across and reviewed (in a book and on 2 or 3 web sites) logical fallacies. How many of us recognize, understand, and can explain Slippery Slope, Ad Hominem, Strawman, and Begging the Question? Before this week's review I would have struggled mightily, and even now I might pass a multiple-choice test but I would likely fail an essay test; (I now have a goal for the coming week). And if we cannot recognize a logical fallacy, how do we know what and when to question?

In this same context, how many of us can identify (in general terms) the contrasting philosophies of Plato and Aristotle; (I might do some better on an essay test here, but would appreciate a little time to review). What better way to learn how to think than to study great thinkers. This failure is not only an individual failing, but also a sociocultural failing.

Anything else?...

Of course there are systems in place that encourage us not to think. These include political struggles for power and control, bureaucracies, consumerism, wealth, laws, justice, customs, mores, and ritual, (and I'm probably missing a few), all of which may have (or may have had) their place and purpose but still contribute to our reluctance to think. In this context, I suppose one could point back to indoctrination as an overlying answer to the 'Why' question; but in a sense that takes us back to education (or the lack thereof). If we do not know how to think, we do not know what questions to ask; and even when we have questions, indoctrination, perceived majority opinion, and/or  fear of (some degree of) retribution creates a disinclination to ask.

So were these systems intended specifically to quiet (and control) the masses? Or were they initially more noble in purpose and have simply evolved into the misshapen aberrations characteristic of (at the least) some elements of each? I believe it possible that many systems may begin with noble intent and evolve into an exercise of power, fed by the abundant comfort and vainglorious complacency enjoyed by the vocal majority. Regardless it is systems such as these (strategically placed just beneath the surface) that often lead to the illusion of walking on water.

So I have (so far) found systematic, purposeful deformity and a lack of focused, meaningful education hidden just beneath the palpable waves of selfishness, laziness, obliviousness, ignorance, and obedience. Is there anything else? Perhaps words? I have always heard that actions speak louder than words, yet it is often unconsidered words that compel action; and these words are (too) often spouted by another. I agree that actions speak louder than words, but if they are another's words I believe the resulting action to be arbitrary and potentially dangerous. I maintain that one's thoughts - thinking for oneself, translated first into words, rehashed as thought, brought back to life as words, and then (after questions are answered) translated into action - are far more effective. Thus, mere words and arbitrary action I believe to also be monstrosities lurking just beneath the surface.

I am sure there are other cryptic, shadowy dangers, some just beneath the surface and others deeper. But I need to move on.

Wrong Question?

Instead of asking 'Why do we choose not to think?' we could ask 'Why would we choose to think?' - But I believe (for the most part) this will only give us answers at the opposite end of the same spectrum. However, a renegade (not for the most part) spin-off to this line of thought would be to ask 'How do I (as an individual) convince others of the importance of thinking (for oneself) before doing (for oneself)?' And the best answer I have come up with for this question, so far, is to lead by example. It is good in theory, but, (again, so far), I have not seen sterling results. But then, I am also confident that I have not been a sterling example.

Is the right question then a 'Who?' question as in 'Who is in charge?' Am I in control of my thoughts? Or am I handing that responsibility to the powers that be? This seems a bit simplistic, but it is a thoughtful start.

Could we ask a 'What?' question as in 'What do I choose not to think for myself?' (This could also apply to 'Where?' or 'When?'.) And I believe this question to be relevant in that we are at least considering circumstance and perhaps picking our battles. We all need to (at least to an extent) plan and prioritize and so perhaps this question (What? Where? When?) will aid one in more efficiently focusing personal thought.

We might ask 'How one can (in good conscience) choose not to think for oneself?' but I cannot answer this for anyone except myself.

Are there other questions that could be asked to shed light on one's predilection for doing over thinking?

As I said at the beginning of this post, this week I have been more busy than thoughtful. So perhaps to discover why, I could examine circumstance. I could ask if my busyness is purposeful distraction, or if I could redirect some energies to disciplined thought? As this week has progressed I have done the latter. Though to do so I have literally had to carve out time, (finding 20 minutes here and half an hour there), to advance this written thought. It was perhaps made easier because (as I also said at the beginning) I can't not write. As Aristotle so eloquently said:

"We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but we rather have those because we have acted rightly. We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit."

So perhaps the most relevant question would be 'What new habits must I develop, (and what old habits must I let go), to move closer to excellence?' I have developed the habit of disciplined written thought, and though this is good, I am still far, far, far from Excellence. This coming week I will study thinking in the context of logical fallacies. Additionally I will consider personal habits (or the lack thereof) and effortfully strive toward improvement and progress. By asking this question and examining my personal habits, I am compelled to think for myself in a way that will positively impact my actions. Thus I am thinking before doing, and (with discipline) I am not as easily distracted or influenced by circumstantial mediocrity.

When I began this post I did not plan or foresee moving toward an examination of personal habits. Yet now that I've arrived, I see that it is important. And this vividly illustrates the value of consistent disciplined thinking for oneself.

I have espoused the precept 'Do No Harm' in 20 different posts throughout this site; that is more than 10% of my weekly posts. This week I have returned to and read these 20 posts and maintain that in context 'Do No Harm' is valid as an overriding principle that every individual should consider with every decision / choice made. The reality though is that in some decisions there is harm done and (I believe) typically this harm is (and/or should be) a conscious choice to inflict short-term harm for long-term gain. Following are questions that should be answered before harmful action is implemented:

1. (a) What is the long-term gain and the short-term harm, (specifically)? (b) How does the long-term gain trump the short-term harm? (c) What (specifically) is meant by long-term and short-term? and (d) Have we considered potential unintended consequences of the harm being done and their potential for further (short-term or long-term) impact?
2. Are the individuals (or is the individual) being harmed also included in the set of individuals that will reap the long-term benefit?
3. If I were the 'inflictee' instead of the 'inflictor' would I understand this decision and agree with it?
4. Would a majority of those being harmed understand this decision and agree with it?
5. Would a majority of those who would benefit understand this decision and agree with it?
6. Would a majority of the remaining world population as neutrals not impacted by this decision understand it and agree with it?
7. Would your Mom - (Dad, Grandmother, Grandfather, or other highly-influential, close, personal, ethical role-model) - understand this decision and agree with it?

I believe that after careful consideration of #1 and #2 above, if any of the remaining questions can still be answered 'No' further examination of questions 1 and 2 is required.  And ultimately, after this further analysis, if there still remains a 'No' answer for questions 3 thru 7, (possibly excepting #4), perhaps the plan for action should be restructured.

For many this process may appear cumbersome and inconvenient (particularly the analysis in #1); and granted, we cannot be expected to foresee all (butterfly effect) potentialities, but some effort must be made if we are to progress.

Additionally I acknowledge that considerable subjectivity goes into this analysis of harm, yet I maintain that we can (and should) rein in the subjectivity while optimizing objectivity. In the post Humble Happiness from September 2012 I differentiated between the subjective realms of spirituality and emotion, and the more objective realms of fact and reason. These seven questions are helping us to think through the Wisdom of harm, and to answer as objectively as possible. Ideally we would check our heavy cloaks of spirituality and emotion with the coat-check attendant and go into this experience scantily-clad in only our ability to reason through facts and argument; many people are not comfortable with this.

Above I stated that "in context 'Do No Harm' is valid as an overriding principle that every individual should consider with every decision / choice made." And the context thus far has been individual choice. I have not previously differentiated between an individual decision and a decision made and/or invoked in the name of a group. Apparently we are wired to cooperate within our group and compete against other groups; so this differentiation must be made. When I speak of groups, I refer to anything from a family unit of two to a powerful nation of millions or billions, and all manner of organizations, corporations, and bureaucracies between and beyond that can readily identify an out-group (Them) to contrast with their in-group (Us). Group decisions are often made by leaders, or committees, or other governing bodies (elected or otherwise). Many decisions made in-group are made by individuals who are given the power to do so in the name of the group. When an individual (especially an inexperienced individual) makes a decision for a group, if they have not been given instruction, training, or guidelines to follow, ego and politics can influence to create unintended harm. As a group becomes larger, the complexities intensify, and the bureaucratic result increases the potential for harm; a harm that may then become invisible to the decision maker(s).

But I digress; ...somewhat.

The issue at hand is to minimize harm, and as previously stated each individual one of us should take responsibility for doing so whether we are making a decision for our self, individually in the name of a group, or as an individual voice within a larger decision-making body. This can and should be done by asking the seven questions previously listed and objectively considering potential results. But how do we utilize these ethical guidelines within a larger group to ensure objectivity? Or in the face of two smaller groups within that larger group? The self-defeating dynamics of divisive competition within planned or expected volitional cooperation are...well...self-defeating. An obvious example is our own government in which conservatives and liberals (and a myriad of other even smaller special interests) compete to cooperate within the larger context of the government of The United States of America. For groups this large (and bureaucratic, and confused, and chaotic) emotional, ego-driven, dogmatic, bias will always trump reasoned debate and analysis. Though much more colorful and entertaining these security blankets of subjectivity must be removed before a productive examination of ethical decision-making can occur.

So what? I'm not saying anything we don't already know. Though I believe it is a fairly concise and workable matrix for individual decision, there is nothing magical in that list of seven questions to simplify the ethical decision-making within a large group. I cannot point to #5 (for example) and say this is the key question that will allow competing groups to cooperate in a larger context. It has taken me 3 painful paragraphs to say "So What?"

In this post I have encouraged individual responsibility for ethical decision-making that will minimize harm. In previous posts I have encouraged narrowing the playing field to create a common ground to aid in minimizing harm (most notably in The Spirit of Happiness), which requires considerable objectivity; (an objectivity also strongly encouraged in this post). Additionally in previous posts I have advocated for education (most notably in Global Happiness and Apprehensive Happiness) to speed the evolutionary process (which I believe at some point in future generations to be inevitable) of recognizing that the shrinking of this planet (due to technology) dictates a change from a priority of 'Us over Them' to  primary consideration for a 'Global Us'. We have made (some) progress on Racism so why can't we fast-forward past all manner of Themism? Instead of Conservatives and Liberals, why can't we be Liberatives on common ground? Why can't we recognize the Goodness preached in a large, large majority of religions and let go of the divisive dogma, intolerance, and hate of indoctrination? I could go on...

...and I may.

But for now I am seeing that to minimize harm we need:

1. Individual Responsibility for Ethical Decision-Making.
2. Objectivity.
3. Common Ground.
4. A Global Us.

We cannot have objectivity without first taking individual ethical responsibility. And we cannot find a common ground subjectively. And we will never recognize and act in accordance with a 'Global Us' until we see 'Us' (or at least visualize 'Us') together within that common ground. There are some who believe competitive groups can learn to cooperate; and these efforts are valuable because subjective thought will always create competition, and subjective thought will never (and should never) go away. But by definition these efforts to simultaneously compete and cooperate will be a struggle. Yet if we are able to learn and grow into the aforementioned shrinking planet mindset, perhaps we can eliminate some of this competitive struggle by seeing the preeminence of the Global Us, thus encouraging the ethically responsible objectivity of a common ground.

It is a nice picture.

To drink from a raindrop...
To play in a soap bubble...
To work in a shoe box...
To suffer in silk...
...and burlap...
...and silence...
To drown in a teardrop...