A re-post from March 2016. Was in Georgia 10 pt; now in 12 pt. Slightly emended. Stands up well. Internal hyperlink verified.
...............................
There are those who love to expose and mock the astonishing political ignorance of Americans. According to a 2006 survey, only 42% of Americans could name the three branches of government. But here is an interesting question worth exploring:
Is it not entirely rational to ignore events over which one has no control and withdraw into one's private life where one does exercise control and can do some good?
I can vote, but my thoughtful vote counts for next-to-nothing in most elections, especially when it is cancelled out by the vote of some thoughtless and uninformed person. I can blog, but on a good day I will reach only a couple thousand readers worldwide and none of them are policy makers. (I did have some influence once on a Delta airline pilot who made a run for a seat in the House of Representatives.) I can attend meetings, make monetary contributions, write letters to senators and representatives, but is this a good use of precious time and resources? It may be that Ilya Somin has it right:
. . . political ignorance is actually rational for most of the public, including most smart people. If your only reason to follow politics is to be a better voter, that turns out not be much of a reason at all. That is because there is very little chance that your vote will actually make a difference to the outcome of an election (about 1 in 60 million in a presidential race, for example). For most of us, it is rational to devote very little time to learning about politics, and instead focus on other activities that are more interesting or more likely to be useful.
Is it rational for me to stay informed? Yes, because of my intellectual eros, my strong desire to understand the world and what goes on in it. The philosopher is out to understand the world; if he is smart he will have no illusions about changing it, pace Marx's 11th Thesis on Feuerbach.
Another reason for people like me to stay informed is to be able to anticipate what is coming down the pike and prepare so as to protect myself and my stoa, my citadel, and the tools of my trade. For example, my awareness of Obama's fiscal irresponsibility is necessary if I am to make wise decisions as to how much of my money I should invest in precious metals and other hard assets. Being able to anticipate Obaminations re: 'gun control' will allow me to buy what I need while it is still to be had. 'Lead' can prove to be useful for the protection of gold, not to mention the defense of such sentient beings as oneself and one's family.
In brief, a reason to stay apprised of current events is not so that I can influence or change them, but to be in a position so that they don't influence or change me.
A third reason to keep an eye on the passing scene, and one mentioned by Somin, is that one might follow politics the way some follow sports. Getting hot and bothered over the minutiae of baseball and the performance of your favorite team won't affect the outcome of any games, but it is a source of great pleasure to the sports enthusiast. I myself don't give a damn about spectator sports. Politics are my sports. So that is a third reason for me to stay on top of what's happening. It's intellectually stimulating and a source of conversational matter and blog fodder.
All this having been said and properly appreciated, one must nevertheless keep things in perspective by bearing in mind Henry David Thoreau's beautiful admonition:
Read not The Times; read the eternities!
For this world is a vanishing quantity whose pomps, inanities, Obaminations and what-not will soon pass into the bosom of non-being.
And you with it.
Dr. BV,
do you think your Platonism (i.e. your belief in an unseen order) is motivation more towards quietism in the realm of politics than engagement with it? Contrast this with the Christian position according to which God intends to remake and renew heaven and earth. We do not go off to be in some Platonic heaven at death. Rather, there is, in some mysterious sense, some continuation between this present world and God's future kingdom. God doesn't destroy this world, but will remake it. Doesn't this, then, give the Christian more impetus to be involved here and now, to care about injustice, than the Platonist?
I do see your views as more Platonist than Christian. Though please feel free to clarify/correct my impression.
Posted by: Tom | Sunday, October 18, 2020 at 07:47 AM
My working view is that religion has the following traits:
1. The belief that there is what William James calls an "unseen order." (Varieties, p. 53) This is a realm of absolute reality that lies beyond the perception of the five outer senses and their instrumental extensions. It is also inaccessible to inner sense or introspection. It is also not a realm of mere abstracta or thought-contents. So it lies beyond the discursive intellect. It is accessible from our side via mystical and religious experience. An initiative from its side is not to be ruled out in the form of revelation.
2. The belief that there is a supreme good for humans and that "our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves" to the "unseen order." (Varieties, p. 53)
3. The conviction that we are morally deficient, and that this deficiency impedes our adjustment to the unseen order. Man is in some some sense fallen from the moral height at which he would have ready access to the unseen order. His moral corruption, however it came about, has noetic consequences.
4. The conviction that our moral deficiency cannot be made sufficiently good by our own efforts to afford us ready access to the unseen order.
5. The conviction that adjustment to the unseen order requires moral purification/transformation.
6. The conviction that help from the side of the unseen order is available to bring about this purification and adjustment.
7. The conviction that the sensible order is not plenary in point of reality or value, that it is ontologically and axiologically derivative. It is a manifestation or emanation or creation of the unseen order.
So Christianity and Platonism are both committed to the existence of an Unseen Order.
Posted by: BV | Sunday, October 18, 2020 at 02:04 PM
Now if "the sensible order is not plenary in point of reality or value," then engagement with it in the manner of the secularist would be folly. It is a vanishing quantity, not ultimately real, but also not unreal. And because the temporal/sensible order is no illusion, measured political engagement with it makes sense. This rules out extreme political quietism. After all, if this world is a vale of soul-making, then getting killed by commies will cut short the time we need here below to make our souls.
Posted by: BV | Sunday, October 18, 2020 at 02:14 PM
Here is an excerpt from a post in progress.
"I believe in . . . the resurrection of the body and life everlasting." Thus ends the Apostles' Creed. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) addresses the meaning of this article of faith on pp. 347-359 of his Introduction to Christianity (Ignatius Press, 2004). The book first appeared in German in 1968 long before Ratzinger became Pope. Herewith, some interpretive notes and commentary.
1) Despite the undeniable Platonic elements in Christianity, to which Ratzinger is sensitive, the Biblical promise of immortality pertains to the whole man, not to a separated soul. Some, Lutherans in particular, recoiling from Platonic soul-body dualism, have gone so far as to maintain that the Greek doctrine of the immortality of the soul is positively un-Christian. (347) This is going too far. It is clear, though, that on Christianity a man is not in his innermost essence a pure spirit like an angel; he is, by nature, a corporeal, embodied being whose ultimate good is to live forever in an embodied, not an angelic, state. 'By nature' implies that we are not accidentally embodied, as on Platonism, but essentially embodied.
2) On the other hand, the idea of immortal (living) bodies, immortal animals, seems utterly absurd given what we know about the natural world, as Ratzinger admits (348). Schopenhauer mocks this notion as immortality mit Haut und Haar, with skin and hair. By contrast, the notion of human immortality as the immortality of a simple (metaphysically incomposite) soul substance is not absurd but defensible, even if not Christian.
So we face a problem. Platonic dualism cannot do justice to our unitary corporeal nature. It involves an ontological denigration of the body and of materiality in general. The material world, however, created by God, is good, and not to be flown from in Platonic-Plotinian-gnostic fashion. The body is not the prison-house of the soul, but something rather more positive: its necessary expression or realization. But how on earth could the living bodies of humans live forever?
Posted by: BV | Sunday, October 18, 2020 at 02:25 PM
Interesting. Thank-you for laying these out. After reading them, I think there are certainly aspects of your view that are more Christian than Platonist. I don't think a Platonist, at least in the historical sense, would accept 4 or 6. In Greek thought, the Divine did not mix with the temporal. So, 4 and 6 seem to be 'Christian' to me in some sense.
Ok, extreme quietism is ruled out. But it seems to me the Christian view, in virtue of the resurrection and remaking of the natural order, provides more motivation to be deeply concerned about the state of the world than Platonism does. The Platonist's ultimate concern is the state of his soul. The state of the world must be secondary or subsidiary to that.
But the Christian's ultimate concern is the inbreaking kingdom of God and whether or not he will be part of it and whether he will contribute to it. And this kingdom of God is not some ethereal heavenly place but a continuation and renewing of the current world. So, the Christian has more motivation than the Platonist to be engaged politically. Do you agree?
Posted by: Tom | Sunday, October 18, 2020 at 02:50 PM