I have to credit the rhetorical craftiness of self-anointed conservatives who often get away with dismissing inevitable and even necessary comparisons by invoking Godwin's Law. Yes, it's inevitable that when discussing sudden transitions from civilized societies, the implosion of modern, liberal democratic, constitutional governments into to absolutist and racist tyrannies and the techniques employed, Hitler will come up. It's just as likely that Albert Einstein will come up in discussions of relativity or Tomas de Torquemada in studying the Inquisition. Just try to study the Bush administration and not think of Orwell. Try it, I dare you. Invoking Godwin as though it were more than a humorous observation is simply a tactical diversion and it seems to work by embarrassing the one who brought it up.
Barack Obama is hardly the first President to be accused absurdly of tyranny, fascism or of being a socialist, for that matter. Lincoln's assassin called him a tyrant, both Roosevelts were accused of being socialists long before the current president was born and in my day, anyone who didn't think it worth millions of lives to keep Vietnam from holding free elections was simply a Commie. Remember when Ho Chi Min wanted Humphrey to win so Happy Hubert was a Communist?
Hell, anybody who Joe McCarty didn't like for quoting the Constitution or really any reason at all was carrying that invisible card and his name was on the invisible list. Too bad there wasn't an easily produced "law" telling us that the longer a right wing apologia goes on, the more likely that Stalin or Mao will come up. Too bad there still isn't one, since people likely to make such transcendentally hyperbolic comparisons between the pragmatic, cautious Mr. Obama and absolute tyrants who caused tens of millions of deaths aren't likely to listen to arguments that are factual or too long to fit on a hand lettered cardboard sign. It would be nice to shut them off with Fogg's Law, wouldn't it?
As of late, discussions of the president begin with or are preceded by the rather airborne assumption that he's Mao Zedong, Joe Stalin, Adolph Hitler and Pol Pot rolled into some bearded bin Laden burrito, but then his father was black. Bill Clinton's father was only a white drinker and perhaps a philanderer so one usually had to wait for a sentence or two before the comparisons were dredged up -- and dredged up they always were. Yes, Bill was not only a murderer, not only going to "force health care down our throats" but going to give control of our armed forces to the UN. Bill, who murdered Vince Foster and ran a Coke smuggling operation out of Little Rock was planting nuclear weapons underneath our cities while indulging in Communist free love and of course his socialist tax increase was going to bankrupt our economy within months and destroy capitalism forever!
But no, it was terribly wrong to bring up fascism when his successor made that office the most powerful it had ever been, with the power to override congress and the courts and the Constitution. Terribly wrong when his propaganda machine began to scapegoat real and invented enemies, terribly wrong when he demanded and got special emergency powers by invoking threats that were substantially imaginary if not fraudulent. Smile and say Godwin and we're done.
Obama? Of course he's Communist and Fascist and never mind the contradiction. Of course he's a tyrant for the same reason Lincoln was a tyrant, the same reason Teddy Roosevelt was and FDR and don't you dare bring up Godwin this time!
Interesting article. Very true.
ReplyDeleteIMO: Argument would hold more weight if you mentioned the demonization of Bush though. It does go both ways.
I don't think Communist and Fascist are necessarily contradictory. A corrupt dictator of any ilk may be fascist.
But yes.... all this absurb hyper-criticism by all sides needs to stop. Useless, baseless, and produces crazy political swings that are very destructive to our very stability as a nation.
Purple, you're misusing words that have a very specific historical provenance. You can't just make "fascism" mean whatever you want it to mean. Some helpful books on the subject (which is a fascinating one):
ReplyDeleteMussolini's Italy: Life Under the Fascist Dictatorship, 1915-1945 by R. J. B. Bosworth.
Italian Fascism: Its Origins and Development, Third Edition by Alexander J. De Grand (2000).
A Primer of Italian Fascism (European Horizons) by Jeffrey Thompson Schnapp, Maria G. Stampino, and Olivia E. Sears (2000).
Italian Fascism, 1915-1945, Second Edition (The Making of the Twentieth Century) by Philip Morgan (2004).
As for Dubya, there's no need to demonize the fellow. For me, it's enough to say that if things go downhill here in the States anytime soon, some of the things he did while in office could legitimately be said to have set destructive precedents for a regime that might look and act a lot like "American fascism." But was he the thing itself? No.
I too deplore "Word Abuse."
ReplyDeleteBy slinging these terms around indiscriminately, we abuse history.
The Nazis killed 6-8 million people, communists (Uncle Joe plus Mao) killed over 100 million. I don't see anyone like that in this country, thank God.
I do believe there are socialistic elements on the left, and lamentably, politicians of all stripes are eager statists.
Now, now Dino. I'm not misusing anything. And I'm very well aware of the historical significance of the term and actually quite expected a comment such as yours.
ReplyDeleteI'm amazed that if you have actually read De Grand's third edition you would still hold such a narrow interpretation. (And I'm disappointed that a fellow educator so quickly assumes that any viewpoint that doesn't exactly coincide with his own is an "abuse".) Personally, I respect all opinions and try to never be disparaging.
Silver has it right - both types of governance are variants of statism. That is exactly why the terms are not, as I originally commented, necessarily contradictory.
One question I offer you and the other authors of this blog: Do you not welcome any diversity of opinion here? I find the blog quite thought provoking and enjoy it. But if what you are after is a mere regurgitation of your own ideas, and are going to demonize and insult any opinions that don't perfectly mirror your own, I'll spend my time elsewhere.
That brings us full circle. On a post about political demonization, you have demonized a respectful, complimentary, and thoughtful comment. Interesting.
Great Britain murdered upwards of 20 million Indians during the Raj. The US exterminated aboriginal populations from the North American continent to Hawaii to the Philippines to SE Asia. While it may be comforting for some to believe socialist & communist regimes are the only ones capable of utter ruthlessness in pursuing their aims, supposedly enlightened Western democratic powers have certainly done their fair share of spreading misery.
ReplyDeletePurple:
ReplyDelete"I don't think Communist and Fascist are necessarily contradictory. A corrupt dictator of any ilk may be fascist."
Read your own words, please. The above entails a misuse of the word "fascist." You used the word like a confused freshman undergrad, but now you want folks to take you for a learned doctor? If you are one, that's fine, of course, but if so, please write like one. And yup, I'm aware of the umbrella concept "statism." It's helpful so long as we preserve the necessary distinctions, I believe.
The idea isn't that communist atrocities are somehow less deplorable than fascist ones -- heavens no -- but rather that we are dealing with two different outlooks/practices that have a different provenance. My outlook isn't "narrow"; it's based on an interest in preserving distinctions that are the lifeblood of thought. Otherwise, we end up saying silly things like "yeah man, fascism and communism are the same thing"; or in a lower key, "those Democrats and Republicans are all the same." Statements like that are reductive; they don't help but rather obscure matters and shut down our minds.
Finally, your remark, "I expected a comment such as yours" is at least suggestive as to your purpose in visiting this site. Do you go on sites often and make simplistic, truncated comments hoping to be corrected so you can then send back the sort of "I didn't say what you say I said you said I didn't say...." reply you just did and waste people's time? If so, that's not good.
Finally, you have an unfortunate way of twisting words:
"you have demonized a respectful, complimentary, and thoughtful comment. Interesting."
I don't find it interesting at all. If you feel that my mild-mannered (if slightly grouchy) post "demonized" your comment (hint: people who recommend good books probably aren't "demonizing" you), you have really got to be kidding. Is there a Booker Prize for "Most Thin-Skinned Blogger"?
Okay, okay, no need to be such a grouchy old lizard. I'm going to sleep by the watering hole now -- nothing's worse than a tired, muttering carnivorous reptile....
I take no offense Dino. Maybe my purpose in visiting this blog WAS a bit ulterior. I yearn for a place that refuses strict orthodoxy and ideologic conformity. Where debate excludes ad hominem assault. Where partisan differences can be addressed without anger. How can we purport to love peace when we espouse such hate? I am a centrist purged by both extremes. And I mourn for the very soul of this land.
ReplyDeleteMy godwin, Capt., I'm late to this post, but, boy, is it well written!
ReplyDeleteAs always.
You use words like weapons, and with a facility of a lifelong fencer. Thoroughly enjoyable (so much so that one reads it for the pleasure of reading, never mind the content -- though that of course matters too).
BTW, Fogg's Law sounds right to me. Let's make it official, what say you?
Purple, very well, vsyo ponyatno, as the Russians say. Besides, dinos can't engage in ad hominem attacks. "Ad lacertam," yes, but hominem, no. I'll hit the reset button on the past exchange and not grumble at you next time.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth, I was going to suggest "Fogg's Law," too, but thou hast beaten me to it. Fogg's Law Rules!
ReplyDeleteThis is off-topic to Capt. Fogg’s fine post about communo-islamo-Kenyi-fascisticaility, but really, there ougghta be some kind of law as well about how, if a conversation about progress or “these times we live in” goes on long enough, some human being is bound – it’s a LAW, I tells ya! – to bring up the dinosaurs as whipping beasts: “what is this, the age of the dinosaurs? – remember those extinct idiots upon whom evolution has justly pronounced sentence?” Etc.
ReplyDeleteIn this (I say whilst shifting my spectacles to make them sit more firmly over the top of my khaki-colored snout), they err badly – the most notable thing about Darwinian ee-vo-loo-shun is that it is exquisitely non-teleological and appears to be non-purposive: it just happens. New species aren’t “better” in some grand metaphysical sense (they are better adapted to survive in a particular set of environmental conditions, which is a different thing altogether), and I’m not convinced that words like “species diversity” and “complexity” aren’t just a coverup for this non-teleological quality of evolutionary process. The more scientists learn about what used to be officially called “The Age of the Big Stupid Lizards,” the more they find out about just how stunningly diverse and complex life already was on the planet – our present tertiary age seems in no way better – just different.
So there! Humans may now cease their propagating bunkum about this matter of evolutionary superiority.
(I may want to do a whole post on Charles Darwin at some point, but can't at the moment.)
So... Dino's Law?
ReplyDeleteWell, I'll hold off until I get around to posting my capolavoro piece on Charlie Darwin. It's Capt. Fogg's time to bask in the glory of his new Law.
ReplyDeleteI disavow it. All laws are misused and abused so we need none of them and when we're rid of them all, the lion will lie down with the lamb -- or the lyin' will lie and call the lamb a lion - or maybe the lion will just eat the damn lamb and lie down and write a novel about social justice - I forget which.
ReplyDeleteI was going to post a long thingie about false equivalences and how you can define a Sunday ice cream social as Socialism and no parking zones a fascist tyranny and make all serious discussion pointless, but I won't. All serious discussion is already pointless.
People simply emote and justify their programming and their fear and weakness by quoting other people who exploit them and the world was just perfect until 65 million years ago when Obama dropped that asteroid and wiped out the most perfect creatures and let those vermin mammals take over.
Dammit Fogg, just when we were shoring up our sense of the universe and the general rightness of things, you go all Nietzsche on us, disavowing on page 37 the Law you had propounded on page 36 because, after all, it's simply an effect of affect, a convenient lie that makes us think we've tamed the world. Blast it all. So be it -- it's back to the drawing board for us all.
ReplyDeleteI will post a genuinely friendly challenge for our friend Purple later on regarding this whole equivalency thing.
Actually der Fuehrer is responsible for the deaths of 14M in the camps alone. Of those 14M, 6M were Jews. In reality he is also responsible for the roughly 60M killed in the European theater alone. I am not sure we can blame him for the Pacific war...
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of "Fascists" I cannot count how many times I have heard Tea-Baggers, as well as any number of talking newsies, and not only on Fox news, comparing someone or another to "Nazi Fascists." This is yet another example of ignorance gone wild in America.
I loved your description of Bill Clinton by the way. I had forgotten that all of that silliness was floating about. There are still lots of people who think he and Hillary single-handedly murdered the unfortunate Vince Foster. Go figure....
A brilliant piece by the way captain. Brilliant indeed...
"an effect of affect"
ReplyDeleteVermögen eines Vermögens -- oder etwas ähnlich?
Ja, als ich heute Morgen aus unruhigen Träumen erwachte, fand ich mich in meinem Bett zu Friedrich Nietzsche verwandelt. Meine Frau war nicht Glüklich -- ungeheures Ungeziefer war ihre wörte.
Es tut mir leid.
Alright, Captain, have it YOUR way.
ReplyDeleteP.S. Captain, according to the Google Translator, whom I asked for help with your German comment, something horrible has happened to your wife.
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid to ask...
Elizabeth, our esteemed Captain's wife is quite fine, although our Captain seems to have developed a Gregor Samsa complex, and his wife concurs.
ReplyDeleteCapt. Fogg,
ReplyDeleteExcellent German, that. Disturbing dream.
Now to Purple Voter and/or others who would care to respond, I appreciated your response to my lizard muttering. So here goes:
Let me start by saying that I would mourn for my country, too, but Glenn Beck has a patent pending on mourning for one’s country and might sue me. And Rush? Well, he just bellows and snarks. “Mourning (in) America” isn’t his thing.
Now, here goes: your most recent comment says that you are trying to calibrate your position between two political extremes. I think we know there’s currently an American “far right” of some scope and that they can become dangerous when we add anger to their addled state of mind. But where is this American “far left” that would have to be present for you to calculate your own position in the center? We don’t have anything like the Red Brigades or Baader Meinhoff or the Sendero Luminoso here. So what is the American Far Left? Can anyone give me a sense of what it is, if it exists?*
Honestly, I think you’re making an attempt based upon an equivalence that needs re-examining; namely, that there is an American far left to match the American far right. There isn’t – we would of course need to categorize such terms as the following with more care than I have time for at present, but I suggest that we have a “slightly left of center,” a center, a right, and a small but dangerous fringe right. That can only mean that your self-calibration, if you carry it out, will place you not at some desired center but rather somewhere between “a tad to the left” and the Hutaree Militia or the John Birch Society.** I’m hopey-changey that you look dapper in camo. But seriously, do you see the problem here? I think you’ve got the initial range of possibilities wrong on your political spectrum, and we can only configure a “left” by going back to the radical sixties and seventies, if even then.
Notes
* I can conjure up a couple of pot-besotted, patchouli-saturated environmentalists who think they’re going to spark the green revolution by torching some conspicuous consumptionist’s Hummer, but that’s about all. Or maybe 9/11 Truthers? I don’t think there are that many of them, and they are conspiracy-loving fools who think Humpty Dumpty was pushed, too. I don’t believe they have a coherent philosophy – we’re not talking about pointy-headed Marxist intellectuals here, but mostly about billy-goateed twenty-somethings who live in their parents’ basement and have way too much time to spend on the Net.
** Here’s a fun example that illustrates the strength of my argument that there simply is no American Left worthy of the name: the disputed 2000 election. Right-wingers showed up in impressive numbers, filled with a rage to prevent a recount in Florida, but there was no organized campaign, violent or otherwise, to prevent George W. Bush from becoming president. When he was in essence declared the victor by the SCOTUS, nearly all Demos grumbled but meekly accepted it, figuring that the Republican lawyers had – as expected, frankly – managed to beat up the Democratic lawyers. (Surprise!) And Al Gore acted like a perfect Southern gentleman in presiding over the count of the official electoral college vote that made Mr. Bush the winner. If there had really been an American Extreme Left, I should think a smooth transition like this would have been out of the question: crazed SLA-style bomb-throwing radicals would have taken to the streets, or waged a guerrilla campaign, or offended us all by wearing bell-bottoms, or some such thing. It didn’t happen. Bush’s inauguration day was a bit unpleasant, but that’s the works.
There have been occasions on which the bogeyman left seemed to have some substance, but they were rather ephemeral and nowhere near enough to justify the phobic attitudes I grew up with: Joe McCarthy, TV shows like I Lead Three Lives where communists were conspiring to blow up everything and to insert secret codes in textbooks that would "corrupt" our pristine youth.
ReplyDeleteWe started requiring children to swear allegiance to a country "under God" so as to resist Communist Atheism. Even in 4th grade it offended me, but in those days we had to sing hymns to "lord Jesus" come Christmas time so great was the grip of Republican authoritarianism.
In the thirties, during the Great Depression, indigenous fascism was so powerful that that bogeyman stood astride the horizon like a colossus to be seen from every angle and that fascism only faded, for a while, because of the embarrassment of Hitler. In my opinion, the preoccupation with socialism, falsely associated with Communism is the best indicator of how well the fascisti are doing or how afraid they are of the threat to private property. That doesn't usually reflect any real peril and more often it's only about their will to power.
I'm trying to weigh the number of first world democratic countries that have gone Communist without being invaded from without against those that have succumbed to military or right wing coups and so far I'm only coming up with evidence for the latter.
That's my long winded way of saying I agree that the threat of farleftliberal straw men stomping all over America like something from a Godzilla sequel is only a way for right wing authoritarians to generate the fear Roosevelt told us to fear, because fear and panic make us stupider than we already are.
Elizabeth,
ReplyDeleteI understand your confusion. I really meant to say she was not Frohlich - happy, rather than Glüklich, meaning lucky. Of course she is a very lucky woman.
It's only the opening lines from Die Verwandlung -- The Metamorphosis changed to having me wake up as Fred Nietzsche rather than Greg Samsa waking up as a monstrous "ungeziefer" which is rather hard to translate. It's something like vermin, but in the book he's a huge roachlike insect. Think of Glenn Beck without the human costume.
Yes, Captain, Octo has reassured me that you were only having your Samsa moment a la Friedrich, which, as I'm told, happens to every man once in a while and is really no big deal. But since I know zilch of German, I had to trust the Google interpreter trying to convince me that your wife was in grave danger. Or something.
ReplyDeleteSo I'm glad to hear that she is happy AND lucky (I'm sure) and you content with the huge mustache (or antennae). All is good with the world again.
Well, almost.
Stimulating discussion! My German never got past being able to ask for beer and smokes, and I never quite thought about movement violence in America like you have discussed it.
ReplyDeleteThe thread sagged at only a few points:
This (or its reverse) is a poor argument: "OK, if the communists are ours, then the fascists are yours!"
This one (justifying communist murder?) is no better: "Oh yeah! America slaughtered people too!"
Yes we did. History is replete with the downside of Manifest Destiny. Read Howard Zinn and you can get it all in one convenient location.
It's human nature. The urge to collectivism or rugged individualism, and to dominate others, impose your point of view, set everything right. Life is messy, and some cannot resist the urge to clean it up.
There's a little Eichmann in all of us.
I too will await Purple's (and not only) response to your well-stated comment, Dino.
ReplyDeleteThe so-called centrists in the US puzzle me to no end with their belief that they are firmly planted in the middle -- as if it existed.
What passes for "far left," we are told, are people like Kucinich, Weiner, Grayson and Sanders (god help us). And of course any entity concerned with social justice (like Christian churches, for example, leftist radicals all).
This unfortunate political confusion leaves us all open to a return of camo into summer fashion and this is where I personally draw the line. Because that is just wrong.
Capt. Fogg,
ReplyDeleteAh, yes --
A furore Kucinichorum, Weinerorum, Graysonorum, Sandersorum (et Normannorum) libera nos, Domine.
I meant to address Elizabeth in the above comment -- sorry!
ReplyDeleteYou are forgiven, my son. This time.
ReplyDeleteSilver, it's, like, totally awesome that we meet most of your exacting requirements for a proper discourse. Phew!
ReplyDeleteDid not want to make this a separate entry, so I'll just post it as a comment:
ReplyDeleteFor those on SWASH who are sufficiently Marxist and sociopathic enough to be interested in furren’ languages, just wanted to pass along this little easter gift of a fine hyperlink: Larousse Dictionnaires. The dictionaries allow translation from and into five languages – French, Italian, German, Spanish and English. There is also a very good “outil de traduction” (translation tool) for entire phrases and even passages. Check it out, time permitting! Here’s a fun example of the translation tool in action: I typed in a source passage slightly adapted (I streamlined it syntactically and rendered it into clear prose, that is) from Hamlet – the first part of the melancholy Prince’s “To be, or not to be” soliloquy, and this is almost exactly the prose translation I got:
Essere o non essere. Questa è la domanda. Che sia più nobile nella mente di soffrire i sassi ei dardi di una sorte crudele, o prender l'armi contro un mare di guai e opponendosi li, porre fine a loro. Morire - dormire, non di più;e con un sonno dire che noi porre fine alle sofferenze e ai mille colpi naturale a cui la carne è l'erede: è una consumazione da desiderare devotamente.
It’s not particularly close to what a fine literary translation would be, but in all truth, non c’è male, just for clarity’s sake and to learn a few Italian words.
And you can use the tool to look up some interesting phrases, even though of course the tool also turns up some silly stuff when you plug in idioms: if you want to know how to say, for instance, “to have to do with,” the phrase yields “da avere a che fare con”; take off the “da,” and you’ve got it right: “avere a che fare con.” Or how about this one? “It’s raining cats and dogs” > “Es regnet Katzen und Hunde.” Does anybody actually say that in German, though? Well, they should start now, if they don’t already.
Make that America still slaughters people. While I appreciate your nod to Zinn Silverfiddle the fact is 'real Americans' on the right side of the spectrum gloss over the painful fact that the creation of our present day American empire has come at considerable expense to those who once inhabited the continent to those out west who needed civilizing.
ReplyDeleteTo imply that Communists murdering their populations is 'justified' by mentioning our crimes is a willful misreading of the argument.
Were responsible for our actions and that so many gloss over our shortcomings, past and current crimes doesn't mean we all do.
Thank you Elizabeth. I apologize for coming off snooty. I really did enjoy the back and forth. I just think it's ridiculous Americans hanging the past sins of Europeans and Asians on fellow Americans.
ReplyDeleteI really do enjoy the discourse here. I am not an academic or a well-educated person, so I find witty repartee (cliche', I know) and discussions sprinkled with history interesting.
And thanks for the dictionary link, Dino! It's slightly broken, but easy enough to clean up and get pointed in the right direction.
I have dabbled in many languages, but if you don't use one regularly it abandons you pretty quickly.
Thank you Elizabeth.
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome, SF, any time. ;)
(But don't you go too far in the other direction, either -- you know, that I am not an academic or a well-educated person, cuz that's just silly, and I'll call you on that, too, all in the spirit of intellectual honesty proposed by yourself a while ago. You can count on it. :)
Sorry SF and all -- let's see if I can fix that link: you can paste the following:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/italien
re:Theres a little Eichman in all of us. Speak for yourself.
ReplyDeleteThe better analogy might have included Winston Curchill. Ward is a nobody. Winston, on the other hand made Che look like a 1960's Berkeley undergrad.
http://www.zcommunications.org/history-forgave-churchill-why-not-blair-and-bush-by-mickey-z
Thank you, Arthurstone, I refer back to my previous comment.
ReplyDeleteSilverfiddle - There's a little Eichmann in all of us.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I am just a tad too sensitive, but whenever I read the name Eichmann, I am reminded of the man who executed my great-grandfather.
If you can imagine a place that has talking cephalopods, Shakespeare-quoting dinosaurs, a small mammal, and various and sundry human beings … living in harmony at the water’s edge … then you can imagine a place where there is no Eichmann in anyone!
Octo: Of course, it is a take off on Ward Churchill's post-9/11 "Little Eichmanns" comment.
ReplyDeleteI can imagine a place you describe, but I'm afraid it's just not in our human nature.
History is replete with genocidal Hitlers and slaughtering armies. Human beings cannot leave each other alone. We must be hard-wired to impose our will on others.
That's my whole point. This isn't a left-right, communist vs. fascist thing. It's a human nature thing.
And you are not too sensitive. My own grandparents were dragged from Eastern Europe to work on farms in Germany as slave laborers. And this after the Bolshies took over my grandma's town when she was a girl.
My Grandma still can't stand hearing German or Russian.
"Human beings cannot leave each other alone. We must be hard-wired to impose our will on others."
ReplyDeleteAnd yet we have Ghandi, Mother Teresa,Schindler, Bloom and a long list of others whose only desire was to see other human beings reach their potential - how do you explain this great anomaly to your theory?
Sorry man but "this is just human nature" is a piss poor excuse for those who wish to act inhumanely.
Our nature is what we make of it. As human beings we have the ability to choose how we will act, what we will think and how we will treat others. There is not some hidden force bidding me to subjegate others to my will - there is only my conscience, my thoughts and my moral compass.
This whole "hard wired to act like vicious rabid baboons" meme is falling flat.
Not that I would know much about human nature, of course, but a favorite little book of mine is The Painter of Modern Life, by Charles Baudelaire -- the gloomy inspirer of the Decadents says that just about anything worthwhile done by humanity has been done entirely against "nature," which, he says, "counsels nothing but crime" (close paraphrase from the French original). The book is excellent in its treatment of the artifice/nature opposition. Good stuff, that, and highly recommended for anyone who hasn't come across it yet.
ReplyDeleteAnd then of course there's the Inevitable Oscar Fingal O'Flaherty Wills Wilde(close paraphrase):
Only the superficial things matter -- our deeper nature is soon found out.
and
Humanity's first task is to be as artificial as possible; what the second is, no one has yet discovered.
I should have added a few more hasty remarks to my previous comment:
ReplyDeleteOne might say that while humans are certainly shot through with strong biological "drives" (note that this is a metaphor from mechanics--we always end up resorting to such metaphors), they are also a species that not only "thinks" or defines itself but continually argues with its own definitions: so in this sense, being "artificial" or creatures of artifice seems essential to any definition of humanity. To me, this process (well described by the Victorian mentor of Wilde, Walter Pater, in a perceptually based context as a "perpetual weaving and unweaving of ourselves") cuts against any assertions of determinism, biological or otherwise.
So I'm with the Aesthetes and the Decadents and Chuck Baudelaire on this issue of "human nature." Just picture a dinosaur walking down Piccadilly with a medieval lily in his forepaw. C'est moi.
"Does anybody actually say that in German, though? "
ReplyDeleteNo, but it brings back memories of irritating fellow students in Vienna with my clever calques of American idioms.
Actually I took great delight in irritating almost everyone.
As to hard wired baboonity, I have to disagree. We're hard wired to eat, yet some starve themselves, to seek pleasure, but some will sit motionless under some Bodhi tree until all desire passes.
We're wired for compassion, to protect children, yet we throw them into fires.
That's learned behavior.
Rocky, I'm not a social scientist, so it's not my theory.
ReplyDeleteHuman nature is what it is. The Greeks knew it, Baudelaire apparently knew it. Read the founders and look at how they set our government up. They knew it.
I'm not excusing bad or evil behavior.
"As human beings we have the ability to choose how we will act"
Indeed. Some choose to act badly.