Friday, May 23, 2008

Political philosophy

Political philosophers, in considering what sort of social arrangements society should have, are merely deciding how to paint the background of human lives. It is the cowardly part of man that allows his actions to be governed by the state. The brave part will do what he finds most virtuous, irrespective of what society and the state demand. A career in political philosophy amounts to a lifelong concern with the cowardly part of man. I cannot help but wonder, was this part ever really worthy of such devotion?

Saturday, May 17, 2008

When we seek to rule, we often merely allow ourselves to be ruled

“When we examine what glory is, we discover that it is nearly nothing. To be judged by the ignorant and esteemed by imbeciles, to hear one’s name spoken by a rabble who approve, reject, love or hate without reason—that is nothing to be proud of.”—Frederick the Great
“It is far more difficult to avoid being ruled, than to rule.”—La Rochefoucauld
There are certain positions in society, often regarded as powerful and glorious, which no one attains without granting mediocrity its requisite share of attention. The politician, for example, chooses his public attitudes, composes his speeches, and fashions the very image he presents to the world in a way carefully contrived to obtain the approval of the mediocre. He may privately harbor contempt for them, but in public he always flatters them. He must, at any cost, obtain their votes.

The commercial person must likewise account for the needs and desires of the mediocre, who are, after all, his largest pool of potential consumers. A publisher, for example, cannot select his material based solely upon excellence. He must consider its potential appeal to consumers. It is conceivable that a publisher might maintain some standards other than marketability. But if he passes up opportunities for profit because of this, his investors will berate him for his omission. And rightly so, for, in his role as a commercial person, his primary responsibility is to obtain the largest possible profit for his investors. Any other considerations must be deemed irrelevant.

Let us examine more carefully, then, whether and to what extent positions like those of the political person, the commercial person, or any other person who attains his position at the cost of giving consideration to the mediocre, can be accurately characterized as “powerful and glorious.” There is no denying that the political influence of the elected official and the material resources of the commercial person give them formidable power. But in order to obtain this power, they have given others power over them. At some times they rule; at other times they must allow themselves to be ruled. Those who unequivocally praise this sort of position see the power and glory of the rule, but not the ignominy of the submission—in particular, of the submission to inferiors.

Whether and to what extent it is prudent to seek political and commercial success will depend upon circumstances. But before anyone commits wholeheartedly to obtaining one of those “powerful and glorious” positions, as most intelligent people do, perhaps he should consider the alternatives. Perhaps, rather than allowing himself to be ruled by the mediocre and ruling them in turn, he might instead seek merely to be independent of them. He might seek a position in which his power over inferiors is more modest, but he is also more independent of their influence.

A principle that seems to me wise is to allow oneself to be ruled only by those whom we recognize as our superiors. The novice will find many fit to rule him, but as he improves he will find fewer and fewer. Beyond a certain point, the path to excellence is necessarily an independent one.

Monday, May 12, 2008

Self-awareness, old and new

Psychoanalysis resurrects the Delphic oracle, “Know thyself”—except now, introspection, like every other activity, cannot be performed without division of labor.

Thursday, May 1, 2008

Psychological laws

Any observation of regularities in human behavior immediately raises a distinction between a lower type that remains enslaved by these regularities and a higher type that transcends them. The psychologist of today, however, is far too egalitarian in his allegiances to admit this distinction. For him, the higher type is merely an inconvenience. It must be included as an exception to his theories.