Punishment

Kant tells us one of the foremost demands of morality is to treat men as ends in themselves, never as means to our own ends. If he is right, then the state that punishes lawbreakers to set an example, using them as a means to achieve law and order, thereby makes itself into a towering example of immorality.

Commerce and reason

“Men make it such a point of honour to be fit for business that they forget to examine whether business is fit for a man.”—George Savile

As rational thought comes to be associated more and more over time with commerce, the sort of words that represent the non-commercial goals of mankind come to be heard less and less often in rational discourse. Such words are now found primarily in trite sentiments on greeting cards, in the emotionally overheated ranting of religious demagogues, in self-help manuals.

If I propose to have a calm and reasonable discussion about the question of what, for me, might constitute a life well lived, I get no more than a trite, dismissive remark. If I attempt to enlist the help of friends in calm and reasonable contemplation about the human condition, I get no more than an incredulous stare. No one believes anymore that such idle questions are amenable to reason. And, in any case, no one has time to discuss them. We are too busy with our commercial endeavors.

What all this busy commercial activity amounts to, effectively, is the implicit assertion that the question of what constitutes the best life for man has already been decisively and definitively answered—and that this decisive and definitive answer, which applies universally to everyone, is the life of commerce. Of course we allow for the fact that each individual has his or her own preferences. These are accounted for by determining which particular sort of productive activity the person engages in, and which particular assortment of consumer goods he purchases. What no longer makes sense to us is an extended discussion of these preferences. Such a discussion now makes no more sense than an extended discussion of one's favorite color, or one's favorite flavor of ice cream. The general character of the best life for mankind has, allegedly, now been decisively and definitively decided, and the particulars in each individual case are merely a matter of personal preference. Such personal preferences might be disclosed, but certainly not rationally discussed or debated.

To rule the notion of virtue out of order in rational discourse is, effectively, to concede by default that all our existing attitudes and behaviors are virtuous. It removes the possibility of examining our own behavior and criticizing ourselves. By convincing ourselves that there is no true and rational standard by which to order our lives, we in effect concede that the false and irrational standard by which we presently order our lives is the true and rational one. The discussion of the good life will probably never rise to the level of pristine rationality found, say, in the proofs of Euclidean geometry. But it also need not be abandoned to the trite, vague, superficial and unsubstantiated sentiments of greeting cards, religious demagogues and self-help manuals.

Relocating to Nirvana

Thomas Hobbes expresses the modern bourgeois mentality well when he says, “The felicity of this life, consisteth not in the repose of a mind satisfied. For there is no such finis uitimus, utmost aim, nor summum bonum.” We moderns are always restlessly producing and consuming. We are never satisfied. In fact we don't even have the faintest idea of what would satisfy us. The only thing we know for certain is that it would be preceded by the word "more."

In the fifties, Harvard psychologist Richard Alpert began experimenting with the hallucinogens psilocybin and LSD. He concluded that the state of mind to which the drugs took him was most certainly the summum bonum. He then sought more reliable ways to reach this state of mind. Alpert’s quest eventually led him to India, where he studied Yoga and Buddhism. Alpert concluded that the “Nirvana” referred to in Indian texts is essentially the same as the “high” produced by LSD and psilocybin, just reached by different means. The Indian method of achieving Nirvana was, he decided, superior. Drugs presented the inevitable problem of “coming down.”

In addition to this practical problem, however, there is a deeper theoretical one. Perhaps the tripper experiences the same Nirvana as the Eastern mystic, but he doesn’t really understand how or why. An appropriate analogy is the jet airplane. The jet takes us from one place to another quickly. But it doesn’t give us an understanding of the world in which the two places are situated, or the vastness of the distance separating them. The tripper is a tourist in Nirvana. The guru has relocated.

In Protestant theology, there was once a debate between salvation by faith and salvation by works. Salvation by works won. And this victory has become deeply entrenched in our nominally secular culture. We now unquestioningly privilege material works over psychological satisfaction. Insofar as our society makes use of psychology at all, it is primarily to return nonproductive people to the workforce. The idea that a nonproductive life, a life of contemplation and reverence, might be the higher form of life, has lost its plausibility in the Western world.

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?

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.

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.

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.

The digestive functions of society

“Those things which now most engage the attention of men, as politics and the daily routine, are, it is true, vital functions of human society, but should be unconsciously performed, like the corresponding functions of the physical body. They are infra-human, a kind of vegetation. I sometimes awake to a half-consciousness of them going on about me, as a man may become conscious of some of the processes of digestion.”—Thoreau

We teach our children that noises from the digestive tract are to be avoided in polite society. We teach them that products of digestion are not to be discussed in polite society. If, as Thoreau suggests, politics and commerce are the digestive functions of society, perhaps they too ought to be performed quietly and discussed as seldom as possible.

"The emancipation of man from his state of self-imposed immaturity"?

The “state of self-imposed immaturity,” which Kant deplored and hoped the Enlightenment would cure, has in reality merely been transformed into a new and different, but no less deplorable, form. The bourgeois functionary must absolutely prohibit himself from cultivating any form of sensibility other than a reverence for efficiency. He must deliberately impose upon himself a state of immaturity, particularly in the realm of understanding and refining his passions. This is precisely what allows him to substitute his employer’s and customer’s passions for his own, and thus be effective in his occupation. It is hardly an accident that engineers—who are, simultaneously, among the most highly refined bourgeois functionaries, and among the most highly refined products of the Enlightenment—retain the social and emotional maturity of children throughout their lives.

Schopenhauer on boredom

"The inner vacuity and emptiness we see stamped on innumerable faces is a consequence of mental dullness. It betrays itself in a constant and lively attention to all events in the external world, even the most trivial. This vacuity is the real source of boredom. It always craves external excitement to set the mind and spirits in motion. In regard to the sources of excitement it is not at all fastidious, as testified by the miserable and wretched pastimes to which people have recourse. ... The principal result of this inner vacuity is the craze for society, diversion, amusement, and luxury of every kind which lead many to extravagance and so to misery. Nothing protects us so surely from this wrong turning as inner wealth, the wealth of the mind, for the more eminent it becomes, the less room does it leave for boredom. The inexhaustible activity of ideas, their constantly renewed play with the manifold phenomena of the inner and outer worlds, the power and urge always to make different combinations of them, all these put the eminent mind, apart from moments of relaxation, quite beyond the reach of boredom."—Schopenhauer

Confucian Aphorisms

Anamika asked, “Master, shall we buy and sell?”

The Master said, “The cult of commerce is the cult of duty. Dutifully serve others, and you will be dutifully served. Duty is the nemesis of genius.”

Anamika asked, “Master, shall we obey the law?”

The Master said, “The duty of obedience is the duty to accept ad hominem arguments. Law is the grammar of society. Crime is its poetry.”

Anamika asked, “Master, do I have a soul?”

The Master said, “The computer technician knows that software is distinct from hardware.”

Ahmed said, “Master, tell us about your system.”

The Master said, “Those eager for a system of thought are eager to be rid of thought.”

Ahmed asked, “Master, what things are worthy of my attention?”

The Master said, “Giving our full attention to little things makes them into big things.”

Ahmed asked, “Master, how shall I meditate?”

The Master said, “The gentleman stops speaking when others have stopped listening. He speaks only when appropriate. He adopts a polite, deferential tone when speaking. The gentleman trains his inner voice to stop speaking when he has ceased to listen to it. He trains his inner voice to speak only when appropriate. He trains his inner voice to adopt a polite, deferential tone when speaking.”

Atalaya asked, “Master, for whom shall I vote?”

The Master said, “It is your duty as a democratic citizen to do as you are told. At election time, it is your duty to tell everyone else what to do. The gentleman never gives orders.”

Ahmed asked, “Master, how shall I pray?”

The Master said, “Do not dwell in grievances. Dwell in gratitude.”

Darwin and Descartes

Descartes relies upon the benevolence of God to assure himself that his senses could not be deceiving him. Today we rely upon the benevolence of the market to assure ourselves that the press could not be deceiving us. In both cases, the science of evolution would lead us a different conclusion. The senses tell us what is needed to preserve the species. The press tells us what is needed to preserve the market.