Wondering lately about what it means to exercise critical thinking. Daily occurrences will produce events that require judgements. Often such mental requests should be denied, go unanswered because as soon as they’re thought about they {the critical assessments) will take hold, become of greater importance than if they would have been ignored or denied and more than likely such critical assessments are of little importance anyway, requiring, nevertheless, intellectual energy almost always better spent on positive actions.
I’ve been reading about quantum mechanics, not so much what it is but rather how the theoretical physicists of the early 20th C attempted to explain it. Years were spent attempting to derive mathematical explanations for how tiny invisible sub-atomic entities exist, interact and behave, and what form they assume in time and space.
The elusiveness of the endeavor led some theoretical physicists to determine that quantum existence was a closed system beyond the known structure of physical science, an idea refuted by brilliant thinkers such as Albert Einstein.
Still, the observed behavior of sub-atomic entities defied explanation. They could be waves or particles, their position and momentum impossible to determine with certainty. The thought experiment offered by Erwin Schrodinger emphasized the counterintuitive dilemma by suggesting photons presented into a closed box in which a cat was placed with a cyanide capsule triggered by particle but not wave suggested multiple scenarios: a cat dead in one, alive in another not reduced to a single truth until viewed by an observer, exacerbating the mystery of what quanta truly are, which leaves us within an unknowable realm beyond the reasoned three-dimensional world our limited intellects can conceive.
During the Middle Ages pogroms in various European countries disenfranchised Jewish populations, murdering and exiling thousands of people making them, in effect, homeless. Around the same time the papacy launched the Crusades against Muslim control of Jerusalem, a ‘holy war’ that permitted heinous atrocities against ‘enemies of Christ’. In the 15th Century Catholic authorities in Spain demanded Jews and Moslems to convert, refusal led to torture and burnings at the stake.
This infighting between religions, all adhering to a singular God, was a result, I guess, of mis-interpreted Biblical scriptures, studied in attempts to trace their religious origins back to Abraham through his sons and grandsons in order to determine who inherited God’s blessing as the chosen ones as dictated in the covenant passed down by God to Abraham.
I saw an exhibit at the MIA recently that has me thinking about the confrontation between the fascist Nazi politics in pre-WWII Germany, confronted, as it was, by progressive cultural phenomena in the arts. The militaristic rigidity of the political authority at the time championing an Aryan superiority found nothing to like in the freedom of expression that was prevalent in German modernism of the time.
Political authorities denigrated modernism going so far as to produce an exhibit of modernist work labeling it degenerate, then confiscating and burning many works.
Something familiar about heavy-handed political will to control an unfavorable narrative.
……….. is savagery against one’s fellows in the name of God. Religious zealots fed by xenophobic fervor label those of different beliefs their enemies, infidels, therefore anti-God, deserving of extermination. These Others are demonized through false narratives creating the perception of a sub-humanity, an animal nature deserving to be sacrificed.
Examples of this behavior abound throughout history: The Old Testament God directing destruction of entire people He denounced as unbelievers; witch hunts in the Middle Ages resulting in the burning of countless people; French Catholic mass murder of the protestant Huguenots in the 16th Century and during the second world war the Nazi intent to exterminate the Jewish people, murder most foul perpetrated without regard for our common humanity.
It is clear that the demonizing of the Other continues to plaque us as evidenced by the xenophobic cruelty that today’s populist politics is perpetrating in the name of God. Such simplistic reductionism has me wondering how long humankind will survive.
As Christianity took hold in Rome following the dream that inspired Constantine to declare it acceptable, lawful and primary within the empire, church fathers imposed their political will. Christian orthodoxy became the law of the land, all unorthodox believers subject to extreme punishment or death. Huge numbers were forcibly baptized, making them subject to the will of the Church. The results of this oppression suppressed free thought and led to the destruction of the learned texts and knowledgeable thought of the previous 500 years. As these dark ages persisted literacy disappeared and western civilization reverted, learning replaced by mythical thinking.
How are things different now? Strong armed political will push a narrative aimed toward personal enrichment for a few without regard to the majority. 200 years of intellectual progress opened myriad ideas producing unprecedented cultural and technological innovation in a truly pluralistic society is being attacked. The xenophobic fears of a populous looking backwards are in danger of finding themselves living in the kind of closed society that history informs us has been the demise of many earlier civilizations.
The historical significance of an open society; encouraging immigration, acceptance of cultural and religious differences has produced over the centuries multi-cultural populations sharing diverse ideas that result in a more productive society; room and time for people to excel at what they do best.
Even so, there are those among us, a conservative population, comfortable with their neighbors of similar ethnicity, religious beliefs and culture, where the status quo is an undeniable rule. Immigrant populations are discouraged, disallowed to participate, denied an initial hand-up and isolated rather than given the means to assimilate, which is what they desire.
It should be remembered that over the course of history closed societies are destined for collapse.
After Charles Darwin’s, “On the Origin of the Species” was published in 1859, thinkers saw the need to reconcile the idea of life evolving, human from animal, with the conventional understanding of mankind as God’s creation, superior and soul-bearing destined for life ever after.
As popular thinking slowly grasped the notion that survival in a changing world required adaptation, that only the fittest organisms would survive and thrive, unfair advantage was taken. Within the social milieu of the late 19th century western world, evolutionary thinking justified rampant social inequalities, unequal wealth distribution, as properly rewarding the most fit.
Such a philosophic stance produced an uneven playing field favoring ‘robber barons’ who undermined and swallowed up competition. Any sense of moral empathy for the harsh working conditions of the common laborer became subordinated to the pursuit of wealth despite the dictates of the Christian Church. Individualism became the rule; acquire what one could despite societal needs.
Within two decades, it became apparent that singular selfishness will lose out to a shared cooperative existence and that empathy, innate in the human animal, will produce stability. Morality and ethics are necessary components for mankind to realize life’s primary goal: a degree of happiness.
Plato’s Republic is a dialectical exercise in defining the ideal society.
A Guardian class consisting of the best and most fit physically and mentally is to be selected at a very young age to receive an education through a carefully ordered curriculum that will instill those qualities most favorable to preservation of the state. These Guardians will learn to put the state first above all other considerations, will distain personal gain while living in communal groups without material advantage. the best of these Guardians will be chosen to lead as philosopher kings, ensuring justice for all in this Ideal State.
What could go wrong?
It was argued among the dialecticians that human nature, being what it is, drawn to personal gain, when beyond observation of the populous, will be compelled to forego the practice of justice to gain material advantage. Who will dominate: the just, being good and wise, satisfied with the status quo or the unjust, the bad and ignorant who seek personal gain?
Morality emerges as a potential control factor. (Plato’s)Socrates identifies the soul existing in all people containing the Good as presented in the perfection of the Forms from which the imperfections of the material world are but flawed copies.
Plato’s allegory of the cave relates mankind’s lack of understanding: prisoners chained facing a dark wall, unable to turn, experience only shadows of reality. Not until they are allowed to turn can they see the beauty and complexity of the world. Such is the state of man.
I’ve been reading a treatise Plato wrote about an exchange between Socrates and Menos regarding the nature of virtue. Socrates wants Menos to define virtue, what it is in essence. All Menos can do is give examples of actions and behaviors that could be labeled virtuous.
Socrates admits he, himself, doesn’t know what virtue is, much to the exasperation of Menos. (who may have suggested): if an inquiry cannot produce new knowledge, but only recapitulate what is already known, new knowledge is impossible.
To which Socrates (might have countered): that the answer is with the ‘immortal soul’ within each of us that has always existed and experienced all things. Tapping the ‘immortal soul’ will reveal the learning we desire simply by ‘recollecting’.
Twisted logic, maybe, but the problem of what constitutes virtue is a good one.
deideismusings 