He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.This seems to me to echo the sentiment of Dante Alighieri (1265-1321):
The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality.While I "believe in" Dante's hell only as a poetic construct (in the stomach-turning "Inferno" third of his Divine Comedy), I do get the message. We are called on to avoid "passively accepting evil" by informing ourselves of it and protesting against it in whatever great or small ways we can.
_______________________
* Brought to my attention by Bob Herbert's op-ed piece ("The Lost Voice of Protest") in today's New York Times.
It is sad that this actually needs to be pointed out to people.
ReplyDeleteThought to be honest, there are many such things that have been pointed out to me that I should have already known.
"For evil to prosper it only needs for good men to do nothing."
ReplyDeleteThat is misquoted I'm sure but the gist is there. And I don't know who said it.
And there's the :
"They came for the gypsies and I wasn't a gypsy so I did nothing; they came for the jews ... etc until ... they came for me and there was no-one left to do anything."
Yes! Those are even more striking ways of stating the point. Thanks for adding them.
ReplyDeleteI Googled on the first quote and found a Wikipedia article about Edmund Burke, which says of "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" that "This is probably the most quoted statement attributed to Burke, and an extraordinary number of variants of it exist, but all without any definite original source. These very extensively used 'quotations' may be based on a paraphrase of some of Burke's ideas, but he is not known to have ever declared them in such a manner in any of his writings. It may have been adapted from these lines of Burke's in his Thoughts on the Cause of Present Discontents (1770): 'When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.'
[T]here are many variants of this statement, probably because there is no clearly definitive original by Burke, some of them being:
'All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing'
'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing'...[the list has a total of 74 variants!]." No wonder you weren't sure that you were quoting it correctly!
Victor, I think that most of us need to be reminded occasionally. At any rate, I have had to "rediscover" a number of things over the course of my life, either on my own or by having someone else point them out to me.
ReplyDeleteThe trouble with being guided by your conscience when that conscience is founded only self-defined values, is that such a conscience rarely gives guidance when it is needed most, though it may work well when the stakes aren't high. To illustrate, compared to prior wars (I and II) America's stake in Iraq barely registers on the scale of importance. Yes, 3000+ dead, but in I and II that many died per day. And they were drafted....they had no choice, whereas today's troops are volunteers. And, for the most part, they are other people's kids, not ours.
ReplyDeleteDon't think I'm trying to minimize or justify this war. I'm not. I merely hope to show that America's emotional stake in it is nowhere near what it has been in some past wars. And in this context people of conscience make strong statements, based on their consciences, about what their country should or should not do. But....raise the stakes dramatically, [massive terrorist attack....didn't that yahoo Robertson float the idea of nuclear terrorist strike?....or oil cutoff, prompting business collapse] and I believe such consciences would utterly fail to give moral guidance. Instead, to give reliable guidance under all conditions, conscience must be anchored principles greater than our own self-discovery.
Just once I'd like to see a war in which one faction says "we are the bad guys." I think this represents the flaw in the "passively accepting evil" dilemma. You assume all consciences will prompt their owners in the same direction, leaving only "the bad guys" on the other side. That never happens. The Iraq hawks, for example, do not see themselves as morally bankrupt characters who just love to see people killed. They draw parallels to certain European statesmen before WWII, guys lionized in their day as peacemakers for trying to accommodate Nazism, but now thought to be naive fools whose inaction cost millions of lives. And as regards occupation, they point to Germany and Japan after the war, who docilely accepted that turn of events, cooperated, and are now grateful friends of the west. Iraq sure hasn't turned out that way (didn't SW connect it with religion, observing eastern religions are more passive? She has a point. Still, Germany was not Buddhist. Today, there is a worldwide belligerence that we've never seen the like of) but there certainly is historical precedent that such a course might not be the quagmire it has proven to be.
Today's belligerence also finds expression in people's view toward religion. It's understandable that one would object to religion or moral values being forced, say by legislative means, but today there is a revulsion even to the presenting of religious ideas. The notion that spiritual guidance should be anything other than what we discover on our own is anathema to many. To be sure, organized religion is responsible for this new thinking, since it has behaved so abominably for so long. But again, the prevalence of counterfeit money does not mean there is no such thing as real money.
Now, with regard to neutrality, there are different types. There is that of the person who manicures his suburban lawn by day and sits on his behind by night watching TV. And there is that of a foreign ambassador...a neutrality which stems not from apathy, but a realization that his duties and loyalties belong somewhere else. The latter is the neutrality of JWs. In many ways, we view ourselves as a "nation," with an assignment: announcing what the Bible describes as God's kingdom, in which we feel lies mankind's ultimate and lasting hope. Lots of scriptures, which I'll produce if you want, demonstrating this relationship between Christianity and State.
Even so, might such neutrality be a disservice to humanity at large? If there are some instances of that, they are outweighed by its value. For example: our neutrality moves us to take no part in the nation's wars. There has never been a JW willfully taking the life of anyone at the bidding of national leaders. Obviously, if everyone thought as us, there would be no war. If everyone thought as you, (back to the generic "you" again, not the personal) it would be business as usual. Because, as already pointed out, people's self-defined consciences don't move them all in the same direction. National and economic interests, when the stakes are high enough, trumps such consciences almost every time.
Prior to WWII, about half of the German Jehovah‘s Witnesses (the rest succeeded in evading capture), were among the very first concentration camp prisoners, preceding the far-more-numerous Jews, and other groups. This because, motivated by Christian neutrality, they absolutely refused allegiance to the Nazi regime, which the latter demanded. JWs are the only inmates who can properly be termed martyrs (as opposed to victims) in that they had power to secure their own release by signing a document renouncing their faith and pledging cooperation with the Nazis. Only a handful took advantage of the opportunity.
From inside the camps, they managed to smuggle out details of what was happening, which details were published in the Watchtower, a magazine of worldwide distribution. Thus, these neutral people spoke out against evil as no one else did. Numerically, there were only two religions (main line religions, not the fundamentalist ones of today) of consequence in Germany back then: Catholic and Lutheran. If even one of those religions had instilled the same conscience into their members as Jehovah's Witnesses did into theirs, Hitler would have fizzled.
“All those who suffered persecution because of their religious or political beliefs and who were willing to accept death rather than submit deserve our great respect, such respect as is hard to express in words. Jehovah’s Witnesses were the only religion that completely refused to accede to the demands of the Hitler regime: They did not raise their hand to give the Hitler salute. They refused to swear allegiance to ‘Führer and State,’ just as they refused to perform military and labor service. And their children did not join the Hitler Youth Movement.” Peter Straub, president of the State Parliament of Baden-Württemberg - from a speech made on the 58th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp.
So no, I do not believe Christian neutrality contributes to the significant evil in this bloodstained world. Instead, I think it is essential that those who endeavor to represent God's Kingdom rule stay entirely separate from today's national strife.
Thanks, Tom, for answering my request for clarification.
ReplyDeleteYou refer to "the flaw in the 'passively accepting evil' dilemma." I wonder if there might be a flaw in your contention that "conscience must be anchored [in] principles greater than our own self-discovery"? And might it be the one Plato pointed out in The Republic. Individuals must be capable themselves of being philosopher kings in order to judge whether the leader they have who claims to be a philosopher king really deserves the title. As I said weeks ago, and I think you read the post, self-notarizing books of revelation's only authority derives from our agreeing to their "Trust me."
You may be right when you say, "Obviously, if everyone thought as us [JWs], there would be no war." But is that any better (or more practical) than everyone's conscience lining up with everyone else's (in the appropriate way)?
The admirable example of the JWs in Nazi Germany does remind me, though, of a debate I heard at Yale (around 1963, I suppose) between the Reverend William Sloane Coffin, Jr. and an American sociologist whose name escapes me at the moment. Mr. Coffin emphasized that each Christian has a lonely, personal choice to make. But the sociologist, who seemed to me at the time to have won the debate, said fiddlesticks, people need to have a support group. Maybe that's the reason for organized religious groups and JWs' banding together?...And maybe even for political parties? (I realize that that's too broad a generalization to mean much.)
Aha, last night I remembered the name of the "sociologist" who debated William Sloane Coffin, Jr. at Yale. It was Paul Goodman (1911–1972) an American poet, writer, and public intellectual (according to Wikipedia). He was a co-founder of Gestalt Therapy and a political activist of the 1960s and early 70s. Coffin (1924-2006) in his younger days was a superb athlete, a highly talented pianist, a CIA agent, and (while I was there) chaplain of Yale University, where the influence of Reinhold Niebuhr's social philosophy led him to become a leader in the civil-rights and peace movements of the 1960s and 1970s.
ReplyDeleteI was happy to see Maliha comment on your blog, for I knew she would express herself cogently on her faith, of which most people don't have a clue. A visit to her blog is well worth the trip. Her political and religious writings are powerful. But when she turns to her more frequent genres of poetry or fiction, her writing is hauntingly beautiful.
ReplyDeleteWith that backdrop, is it right for me to use one of her remarks as a springboard for my own harangue? Isn't she, in a sense, my guest at this blog? But I will do it anyhow because my point is not exclusive to her or her people....it is the universal human condition brought into start relief by the specific example she writes of. Besides, she won't mind. She easily holds her own in any discussion.
Maliha cites the root socio-political-historic issues, not a given belief system, as the cause for Iraq chaos. I'll grant her the point. Still, but as regards socio-political-historic issues, you can't always get what you want. Socio-political-historic issues come and go. Perhaps it's better to go for what you need: a conscience which will guide you, not just when times are good, but also when they suck.
So a belief system isn't to blame for chaos. Okay, but should people be happy with that state of affairs and rally around their belief system, as one might rally around a favorite baseball team on a losing streak? Hasn't the belief system (and the conscience that derives from it) proven it's limited worth? It's not enough that one's conscience doesn't cause mayhem. To be really valuable, it should safeguard against it. Liz, for example, is happy not to dis the faith....it's the socio-political-historic issues to blame. But shouldn't useful conscience prevent depravity?
Iraq is traveling a well-trodden road of atrocities, following Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Malawi, Northern Ireland, Nazi Germany, the present Darfor, and "atheist" nations like Cambodia, China, and the Soviet Union. Where are Muslims in this scenario? If anything, they are underrepresented. So depravity is not specific to any religion, and, I suspect to Sam's chagrin, lack of religion doesn't prevent it.
Such calamities could easily happen here, but haven't yet because socio-political-historic issues are good. Even so, we have groups who can barely keep their contempt for one another in check. Yes, the abortion clinic bombers you've mentioned, but also various non-religious groups such as environmentalists, the animal rights people, and the anti-WTA folks. In the best of times, we seek to destroy each other. Remove the socio-political-historic issues here as it has been removed in Iraq, and all hell will break loose. The West will give worthy competition to the worst of the above list, and people's self-defined consciences won't aid them in the slightest....not if history is any guide.
So there is value in a group whose consciences have been severely tested and have proved steadfast under trial And yes, the sociologist you mentioned (likely brought up in a comfortable environment, unmolested by serious trial) gathers high-fives from his buddies for his "fiddlesticks" retort. But at the end of the day, JWs survive with a clean conscience, amidst many others of less unwavering "support groups" whose hands are drenched in blood.
JWs are an apocalyptic religion. I think you know that. We may be the only one. Yes, lot's of fundamentalists who envision the earth reduced to a cinder while believers are all raptured into heaven. But are there any besides us who see the earth restored to paradise by God's Kingdom and hope for everlasting life in that setting? The dramatic change to usher in that scenario is (ready for some out-on-a-limb statements?) what the Bible calls Armageddon, during which those who oppose God's sovereignty are vanquished, not by any human force, but by God.
Now, exactly how that will all play out, I don't pretend to know. but I do know that it's well it act in harmony with what has already worked. Since the JW "support group" as proven a sure refuge conscience-wise in times of savagery, I throw in my lot with them. And from what I've seen of many persons driven by personal or religious conscience, I wouldn't want them in an earthly paradise with me. (assuming I was there) I wouldn't trust them. They've already demonstrated that, given certain socio-political-historic issues, they can be prevailed upon to blow my head off.
JWs do not imagine they have any part in bringing about these Armageddon changes. We announce them, that is all. Therein lies the key difference between us and fundamentalist groups, who usually feel they must help God out a little (or a lot) with regard to enforcement. Because of our neutrality, even the many who disagree with us will concede we are no threat. Our house to house visits are words only. We're not maneuvering behind the scenes to alter laws or textbooks so as to impose our views on others. We're all adults. If one does not welcome our visits, simply exchange a few pleasantries if you can and be abrupt if you can't. But either way, it's not sufficient grounds over which to lose one's cookies. If we are wrong, we merely end up with egg on our face. We'll take that chance. There are worse things. Our organization offers a refreshing contrast to many religious and political movements, who, when they are wrong, have piles of dead bodies at their feet.
Dear Tom, and I mean the "dear," I have come to realize that, as I said to Southern Writer, "I so like what you say"...except for the apocalyptic religion thing. While I was taking out the recycle stuff this morning after breakfast (that isn't thematically relevant, I don't think, but I like to tie the ethereal of thought to the earth of the quotidian), it occurred to me that I may be toward Jehovah's Witnessing as Paul was to the Christians. He got converted, and maybe I'm convertable. But I still have this severe hang-up regarding JWs that your articulate and steadfast words have not shaken in the least.
ReplyDeleteWell, maybe a little. But, at the moment, I am settled in my comfort with my lone conscience looking for its own relevation, with a few friends I perceive as good people to support me in my aloneness. For I still believe that you in your ideal hope that everyone could think like a JW, and Harris in his ideal hope that everyone could become a scientist are neither of you going to see that come to pass in your lifetimes. Of course, theoretically (I guess) the JWs could be right, and the apocalypse could happen at any time. Or Harris could be right, and many lifetimes from now maybe faith (believing in things without "scientific proof") will have ended and everyone be a scientist.
As for me, I think that, in my own lifetime, I'm likely to persist as a sort of Thomas Painean "free thinker." At least, that's how it looks to me this cold North Carolina morning as I bundle up to head to my UNC office.
Good on you, my dear Tom, and peace to dear Maliha and Southern and Liz and...
Peace Tom,
ReplyDeleteI started and deleted many responses...but since we've discussed some of these topics on email, I will hold my peace on this one.
I think it comes down to different worldviews (I still can't accept the passivity theory although it may seem to work in certain contexts) So I have a feeling if I do respond, we'll just end up going in circles.
I admire anyone who stands by their beliefs and I pin my hopes on a Merciful God who will judge us in the manner with which we conduct our lives (I know this is a cop-out :) )
My ideal heaven will contain all the outcasts, poets, artists, thinkers, sages, anyone who went against the gradient to plant something beautiful along the way :)
Maliha, your "ideal heaven" reminds me of Jesus Christ's Sermon on the Mount, about the meek inheriting the earth, the last being first, etc. My mother loved and protected outcasts, and every time I brake to avoid a squirrel or a deer or a snake or a turtle, I think of her.
ReplyDeleteTom, I was going to ask you: How do you regard the Prophet Muhammad? Though I don't "know the Koran" (as Maliha pointed out), I have read enough in it and about it to appreciate its wisdom, which I understand to have come entirely through the Prophet Muhammad.
And, Maliha, how do you regard Jesus Christ?
Some years back, before present mideast troubles, I read a book in which the author undertook to rank history's 100 most influential people. [Michael Hart, The 100] Muhammed took #1 spot, followed by Isaac Newton and Jesus. Comparing Muhammed and Jesus, Hart observed that both men founded great religions but, whereas Muhammed's followers actually followed his lead, Jesus' followers did not. Muhammed is thus a major player in mankind's search for God.
ReplyDeleteIn a recent email, Maliha pointed out to me that "there's plenty of examples in our legacy and within the Quran that encourage interfaith dialogue and in a certain long ago "golden age" when muslims were ruling spain, there was plenty of discourse, intellectual vigor and freedom of speech and religion." She expressed discouragement that you must go so far back in history to find such an example....when Islam disciples actually followed their prophet's teachings. But that compares favorably to Christendom, in which you must go back practically to the century of Christ to find comparable obedience. Was not Christendom in its "Dark Ages" while Muslim nations enjoyed a "Golden Age?"
I recommended Maliha's site for its writing quality. But I also value it because it gives a window into the peaceful and devout Muslim community of today, a refreshing contrast to the Muslim community the media pummels us with.
And, Moristotle, if you don't want to say something cheesy, like "I have many Muslim friends," how about "I really like Cat Stevens." :) Me, too. Plus, he is back on the charts after a long hiatus, and he sounds as good as ever.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I trust you understand that I have not atempted to be argumentative or even to "make converts." I'm just explaining a position as clearly as I know how. That't the challenge with speaking religion: it touches so close to heart and soul and spirit that it provokes strong reactions, unless we simply say bland things that make us feel good but mean little in the face of this world's very real evil. Better we should do what my nemesis Sam advises: call a spade a spade, even if others may think your spade is really a diamond, club or heart!
Hope I didn't give anyone any offense. Sorry if I did.
Peace Moristotle and Tom,
ReplyDeleteTom, you floored me with your thoughtful response. Thank you for your kindness and beautiful soul.
There is a whole chapter in the Quran dedicated to Mary (peace be upon her) the mother of Jesus (peace be upon him.) From an Islamic paradigm, Jesus comes from a long line of very devout sages, from Mary's own mother who dedicated her child to the service of God, to his uncle Zacharius and cousin John.
That Islam doesn't see itself as a completely "new" religion per se, but just as a continuation of the same message of going back to the source and rejuvenating humanity's soul.
So Muhammad (peace be upon him) is regarded (in the Quran) as one that comes on the footsteps of Jesus, Moses before them, of Abraham and going all the way back to Adam.
Theologically speaking, Islam differs from Christianity in that we don't believe in the Original sin. Adam was being taught a moral lesson and when he disobeyed, he asked for forgiveness and was forgiven. And the lesson in that for the rest of us, is that we are humans, prone to making mistakes, but have direct access to God who is All Merciful and forgiving.
It does tie to our concept of Jesus,for he then becomes a Prophet like all others before him who was born of a miraculous birth (we believe in Mary's virginity) but the child of God in the same sense that Adam and all of us are children of God (not in a divine reincarnate form.)
There is great respect accorded to all Prophets in Islam, throughout time, and some were mentioned in the Quran and others weren't (and this is specifically stated.)
So for me then it doesn't require too far a reach of imagination to see the beauty and truth in Buddha, Taoism, Hinduism, because in each of them is a path that goes back to the Creator.
The similarities between Islam, Christianity and Judaism are a lot more striking (and surprising to many) than the differences. And in the Quran our wider co-religionists are referred to as "the people of the Book" and all of us as descendents of Abraham.
There are some verses that state "Jews, Christians, Sabeans and all those who believe in God and perform righteous deeds there'll be no fear upon them and their recompense is paradise" (Muslim scholars have been split, some arguing that the Jews/Christians/sabeans only those who *also* believed in Muhammad will be rewarded as such. And others reject it to state those who have remained true to their own paths will not be rejected etc)
I think it's interesting, and weird, but the more I read and the more I reflect, I am starting to lean towards the latter interpretation and truly believe that this Infinitely Beautiful and Merciful God will not relegate to hell the rest of humanity just becuase they didn't walk this particular path I am on. (You can imagine this viewpoint is not necessarily the most popular among my co-religionists and husband even...we've had plenty of our debates there :) )
Okay, sorry for these essay-like comments I am writing..but you asked for it :)
Take care of you Moristotle/Tom and others and peace.
Good morning, Tom and Maliha!
ReplyDeleteFirst, Tom, thank you for bringing Maliha to my blog. I should have said so earlier. I've so far read only one of her poems, but it was so powerful, I know that I'll derive much pleasure from reading more of her poetic work.
Maliha, your statement, "...the more I read and the more I reflect, I...truly believe that this Infinitely Beautiful and Merciful God will not relegate to hell the rest of humanity just because they didn't walk this particular path I am on," accords perfectly with my own thinking (except that I would add "if this...God exists").
After studying some Eastern religious texts other than the Bible as an undergraduate, I abandoned any belief I may still have had from my childhood Christian upbringing that Jesus was the only "way, the truth, and the light" (or however one of the Gospels puts it).
Or, as I have said (sorry to quote myself yet again <smile>), "God [if God exists] can communicate with us any damn way God pleases [that is, through the Bible, the Quran..., the angelic kindness of a stranger, or even by way of graffiti in the subway]." With respect to the channels of possible revelation, I am ecumenical.
Saying that, I realized that I seem to have gone too far in summarily rejecting the Bible (and the Quran) as "hearsay." I adjust that statement this way: It is always up to the individual to recognize a particular thing in a "holy book" as "speaking" to that individual (or not). You may have noticed, for example, that my thinking has been significantly affected by what the burning bush is reported to have said unto Moses. And Whitman's Leaves of Grass and Rilke's Duino Elegies may be regarded as "holy books," so much of spiritual sustenance have I taken from them.
Tom, while I suspect that you may have been more concerned about possibly having given offense than is warranted by your generally respectful tone, I have to say that I was a little taken aback by your "...the sociologist you mentioned...gathers high-fives from his buddies for his 'fiddlesticks' retort." Do you think he really deserved such a haughty dismissal? (I don't think, though, that he actually said "fiddlesticks." That was my memory of how I might have interpreted it at the time, but I can't be sure that the word came to mind then; that was over forty years ago.)
As for this person's "likely [having been] brought up in a comfortable environment, unmolested by serious trial," we can check that out, since I later remembered that the person was Paul Goodman (1911-1972). From the Wikipedia: "Born in New York City, he freely roamed the streets and public libraries of the city as a child (and later developed, from this, the radical concept of 'the educative city'). He taught at the University of Chicago while he was taking his Ph.D., but fell in love with a student and was dismissed. He fathered a family by two common-law wives, and his early years were characterized by menial and teaching jobs taken to enable him to continue as a writer and to support his children."
Actually, it was the Christian, William Sloane Coffin, Jr., who grew up wealthy.)
And, Tom, I haven't been able to figure out what you might have been commenting on by saying, "If you don't want to say something cheesy, like 'I have many Muslim friends,' how about 'I really like Cat Stevens.' :) Me, too. Plus, he is back on the charts after a long hiatus, and he sounds as good as ever." I do note the emoticon smile, though, so I don't doubt that you meant this in a friendly way. (You might have been referring to the fact that Sam Harris actually gives as an example of "bad Islam" a statement that Yusuf Islam made in London, in about 1988, seming to support the fatwa against Salman Rushdie? He said later that he had been misinterpreted.)
Indeed, the Cat Stevens of the 70s was a favorite of mine, but I haven't followed him for many years. Has he reemerged musically as "Cat Stevens"? Ah, yes? Wikipedia: "Yusuf Islam returned to the pop music world in 2006, recording and actively promoting his first pop music album of new songs in 28 years, entitled 'An Other Cup.' He has been given several awards for his work in promoting peace in the world, including the 2004 Man for Peace award and the 2007 Mediterranean Prize for Peace. He lives with his wife, Fauzia Mubarak Ali (who's of Afghan and Turkish descent),[4] and five children in London and spends part of each year in Dubai."
Cool. I'll have to check "An Other Cup" out. Thanks for the tip.
Good on you. Peace.
Moristotle:
ReplyDeleteI thought you had said somewhere in this thread or maybe another one that you didn't want to say something patronizing, such as pointing out you had many Muslim friends. If I'm mistaken and you didn't say it, well....no wonder you would not know what to make of my comment. At any rate, it was pure 100% playfulness on my part with no hidden agenda, plus a plug for a musician I really do enjoy.
Regarding the sociologist, my remark was in the context of discussing people who had lived through the Holocaust, in contrast of which any life would appear cushy. I confess, though, that I prejudged the man to have been brought up in ease and luxury, and I am chastened by your reproof. Your feedback is good for me. Here I am imagining I am nailing down solid points with my rapier wit, whereas I am actually only nailing down a reputation as a pompous ass! So I thank you. I didn't imagine myself haughty in my remarks towards Mr. Goodman, but I certainly was sarcastic. However, Scottish historian and essayist Thomas Carlyle observed that "sarcasm is the language of the devil, for which reason I have long since as good as renounced it." I probably should do the same. Alas, I am not sure if I have his wisdom.
It seems there is a corollary to be drawn here. We are writers who, by and large, like each other and trust each other. Yet we must continually send each other notes qualifying what we meant by this or that phrase....it is so easy to be misunderstood.
ReplyDeleteHow much greater the challenge for world leaders to communicate, who often do not like nor trust one another!
You have a great blog, Moristotle. Good thing you didn't throw in the towel a couple months ago as you pondered doing.
by the way, amidst all this discussion, I hope you didn't forget your appointmetn with your Muslim friend.
ReplyDeleteTom, Good morning!
ReplyDeleteI haven't met my friend's used-to-be Muslim friend yet, and he has had to cancel the first two lunch appointments because of the pressure of work. We have yet to reschedule, but I trust that we will and that, eventually, I'll meet him. I have, in the meantime, suggested that he read the "religion survey" post and its many comments.
After I referred to your dismissal of Goodman as "haughty," I had second thoughts that maybe I had been out of line. I love your remark about sarcasm (quoting Carlyle). About a week ago, I got to the point of disgusting myself by the sarcasm that I've indulged myself in à la George W. Bush. I think it's time for me, too, to wise up and move on.
I also remembered, later, more about what Sam Harris said about Yusuf Islam's remark about the fatwa against Salman Rushdie. Harris said that if an ex-American hippie can espouse that, think about young men who grew up in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and maybe were even indoctrinated in a madrasah.
On the difficulty of successful communication, you are so right, Tom. And thanks for complimenting my blog. The fact that I haven't thrown in the towel may even owe something to your having visited it and engaged me in this dialog. I appreciate it.
All our comments came fast and furious and I, like everyone else, have much to do. Now that I have a little respite, I am rereading some of the posts and I am near to reverting to my original position regarding Mr Goodman, the sociologist.
ReplyDeleteWikipedia said that "Born in New York City, he freely roamed the streets and public libraries of the city as a child (and later developed, from this, the radical concept of 'the educative city'). He taught at the University of Chicago while he was taking his Ph.D., but fell in love with a student and was dismissed. He fathered a family by two common-law wives, and his early years were characterized by menial and teaching jobs taken to enable him to continue as a writer and to support his children."
Freely roamed the streets! Oh no, he must have been homeless! is the conclusion of a hasty examination. But reread the comment and it is clear that he simply was unchained by the school experience, or at least he had an active learning life apart from school. Frequenting educational & cultural resources of NYC (even or perhaps expecially as an alternative to school seems) to me, an excellent privilege. Someday I will tell you about my grown children, who never went to school, save for a 6 mos experience in the 6th grade per child, they were homeschooled, and I am exceedingly happy with their resulting education. We did exactly what Mr. Goodman did....we utilized community resources to contribute to their education. We apparently followed the concept of the "educative city" without ever hearing of Mr. Goodman. BTW, homeschooling, for us, was NOT a choice influenced by relgion.
And "while he was taking his Ph.D., but fell in love with a student and was dismissed." Well, whose fault was that? It hardly makes him a victim. And, I would argue, the tradeoff probably was worth it. He apparently resumed his PHD path later on.
Ditto, and even more so with "he fathered a family by two common-law wives" Did someone hold a gun to his head, forcing him to do the deeds?
"and his early years were characterized by menial and teaching jobs taken to enable him to continue as a writer." This merely reflects a distorted value system. For example, there's been many excellent comments in this thread and some others, even reflecting some teaching. Yet no one's been paid a dime. Is our work all "menial" therefore? Teaching is noble and almost a reward in itself. The Wikipedia lament only reflects today's shallow thinking that money alone determines what is meaningful and what is menial.
In fact, the most commendable thing about Mr. Goodman may be the item that Wikipedia stuck on at the end, almost as a afterthought: he stuck with his lowly jobs in order to "support his children."
Lots of time "great men" abandon their children. If they later do something which the world views as great, nobody even notices that they walked away from those who they brought into the world and who were therefore most dependent upon them.
on Mr. Goodman again:
ReplyDeletefalling for that student may have been unwise, but presenting the experience as a setback on his life path merely reflects thinking that career and money are what're truly important, not love.
Yes, I am positively reassessing. To think I did all that groveling for nothing!
Tom, I applaud your assessment of the underlying assumptions (or values) of whoever wrote the Wikipedia article about Goodman. Of course, we have to take information from such sources with a grain of salt.
ReplyDeleteWhile I myself didn't ever take his youthful street wanderings as an indication that he was homeless, I did get an impression (rightly or wrongly) that he wasn't from a wealthy home, although I suppose he may have been.
I just did another Google search (on "paul goodman family background") and found this sentence, "Yet he spent most of his days—till he was 48 years old, at any rate (he died at 60)—living the life of an impoverished artist-scholar."
I hope that your little "unnecessary groveling" didn't do you any harm <smile>.
Tom, I much enjoy your camaraderie. You are a good sport, and I hope I can always be as good a one.
ReplyDeleteHave you observed (from later posts and comments) that I have adjusted my understanding of my being an "agnostic"? And my muse's insight that freedom for me (as in "free thinker") includes being free from "other people's revelations"? No wonder I have responded so unacceptingly to Jehovah's Witnessing?
Reminds me that the central issue in some psychiatric therapy I benefitted from in the early 1970s was my personal freedom. One is married and thereby has his freedom circumscribed. One is employed, and the same. And so on.
Of course, by virtue of being alive, one's freedom "is circumscribed." It can be an issue for everyone. And clearly this particular circumscription (the demands on me of other people's revelations) continues to be an issue for me. Makes me long for some more sessions with my dear Dr. William B. Ross, San Jose, California. If he survives, he's 76. At least, I believe that he was twelve years my senior, although that now doesn't seem like a big enough differential, he seemed so much older (wiser) than I.
Yes, I have observed, and I'm fuming! You didn't budge in the slightest for me, but for Maliha you even dumped Sam Harris!!! :) (just kidding, as I frequently do)
ReplyDeleteNot to split hairs, but I'm not so sure about the need to be free from "other people's revelations." I wouldn't phrase it that way. Any new idea at first appears as "other people's revelations," including those you learn in school and those you learn through counselors. The trick is to make it your "own" revelation, that is, does it make sense? does it have the ring of truth? is it supported by the evidence? If the answer is no, then you walk away from it so as not to be a slave to other people's revelations. But if the answer is yes, then it is no longer "other people's revelations," it is your own. And if we choose to accommodate it then, yes, our freedom will be circumscribed to a degree. But such submission to "revelation" we accept as our own hardly makes it onerous. Anything of value requires some submission on our part, per your comments on marriage and employment.
Yes, the Jehovah's Witness belief system imposes some cost on our personal freedom, but we adapt to it because we agree with it. We view resulting circumscription on personal freedoms to be roughly akin to driving within the guardrails, guardrails which did not originate with us but which we have chosen to recognize, as opposed to smashing through them and wandering the meadows.
Tom, though you are "just kidding," it did occur to me that I was slighting you by taking out after Maliha like that! I probably should have written an "Open Letter to Tom" to prepare you for it <smile>.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you partly about making someone else's revelation one's own. I do that with certain sayings in the Bible that "accord with my own experience and light of reason." "Other people's revelations" may have been a rough way of putting what I was talking about, but I think it applies, literally—in the Thomas Painean sense of there being a book out there purporting to contain revelations from God to whoever (or whatever people) wrote it. In this case (and in most cases I was talking about) it's "a book writer's revelations," I guess. The fact that I might come to regard them as "mine" doesn't change that fact.
But I don't think that I even any longer think of them as "revelations" at the point they become mine. After all, they never were revealed to me. And I "make them mine" only because they accord....
A revelation sort of comes in under the door and creates its own "experience" for the person it's revealed to. When someone else's revelation accords with my own experience, it's not the experience of having something "revealed" to me that I'm talking about, but "life experiences," observations, the slow accretion of insight, sometimes even wisdom.
My mentioning the abridgement of freedom through marriage and employment may have been misdirecting. You applied it to "adopting a belief system's coming with certain costs," which I guess it does, but I think I must have had something else in mind with "other people's revelations," for I was thinking of their impinging on my freedom well before I "make them mine."
I've started several different sentences to try to clarify that, but I can see it won't be that easy. I have to muse on this....
I used a modification of this when my neighborhood had to fight against a new sound ordinance that would allow loud live music until late at night.
ReplyDeleteFirst they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
--Martin Niemöller
Mine went like this:
First they came for MY block, and I did not speak out—
Because I did not have to hear the loud noise.
Then they came for the greater neighborhood, and I did not speak out—
Because I still hear nothing.
Then they came for entire town, and I did not speak out—
Because everyone was already deaf.
The ordinance passed--finally--over my groups objections, but an amendment was added that made it very hard for any establishment to play loud music at anytime--so ultimately we won.