In my last post on the "Church Justifies the Moral Ought", I made a statement that got me thinking along the lines of atheistice morality. The statement was, " Evolution does not grant that life begins at conception, but at choice. Choice is the determinitive "end" of morality. The individual must choose how he will live his life."
Moral choice is the ulitmate value for the atheist. Therefore, the atheist would agree that the child needs superintending influences in his/her life. And the child comes to an age of accountability when he/she has develope the ability to make responsible choices. Responsible choices define "moral virtue".
I would ask, then, what are we responsible for? Are we are responsible for others? Or are we responsible for ourselves? This is where political views about the place of government, law, and society become debates about what "should" define a particular society! This is the level of policy debate. And it is the place of interest for those that want to be good citizens!
The Atheist allows for liberty of conscience regarding diversity of values, if they are consistent with thier value of "moral choice", as being of ultimate value to/for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, for all citizens!
Showing posts with label citizenship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label citizenship. Show all posts
Monday, February 14, 2011
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Cicero's Quotes and War
Cicero
Everyone has the obligation to ponder well his own specific traits of character. He must also regulate them adequately and not wonder whether someone else's traits might suit him better. The more definitely his own a man's character is, the better it fits him.
Laws are silent in times of war.
Let your desires be ruled by reason.
The revolution in Egypt is disturbing to many, because such "mob" behavior disturbs peace and assures that "costs far outweigh" initial benefit. One must be sure that the costs will bring benefit to a society, before one considers such hard decisions.
One thing for sure, Cicero believed that one should be discrete in going to war. War should be evaluated based on one's enemies, and whether they are merciful, or barbarian. I think his wisdom still holds sway over our military and its educational institutions. War is never the response of a civilized society, it is a last resort to protect the interests of its citizens, and it interests.
Everyone has the obligation to ponder well his own specific traits of character. He must also regulate them adequately and not wonder whether someone else's traits might suit him better. The more definitely his own a man's character is, the better it fits him.
Laws are silent in times of war.
Let your desires be ruled by reason.
The revolution in Egypt is disturbing to many, because such "mob" behavior disturbs peace and assures that "costs far outweigh" initial benefit. One must be sure that the costs will bring benefit to a society, before one considers such hard decisions.
One thing for sure, Cicero believed that one should be discrete in going to war. War should be evaluated based on one's enemies, and whether they are merciful, or barbarian. I think his wisdom still holds sway over our military and its educational institutions. War is never the response of a civilized society, it is a last resort to protect the interests of its citizens, and it interests.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
The "Ideal": Is Never "the Real"
Our Founders understood that human nature is what it is, and this fact alone was what made for a great nation. Their structuring of our government was to put men under the rule of law, so that tyranny would not lead the nation, nor barbarianism undermine society's order. But, today, there seems to be another opinion about humans and it is the "ideal of alturism".
Alturism is defined as selfless concern for others. Idealists, whether religious or humanists believe that men can become alturistic, by habit formation. These believe that Aristotle's virtues meet Kant's categorical imperative. But, what does this mean practically in light of our Founders view?
Our Founders view was a realist view, as they understood that men were not to be trusted with power over others, or power within government that was not balanced. They did believe that humans were to be self-governing, that is, not by outside authority, but inside character. And that character is illustrated by the commitments that one values
Parents were to train their children through every means available so that upcoming citizens would understand the needs of their nation, as well as their personal values of choice in vocation. American youth can choose where they will go to college and what they will study. There has been no tracking in American education, as a whole.
Because the individual is valued because of liberty, the child is able to develop to his full potential, as well as his understanding of himself in personal interests. The blossoming young adult's identity becomes an ego strength that does not define thesmselves by group identification, or familial determinations, but personal values of choice. These adults can withstand the diverse responsibilities of adulthood.
In oppressive societies, there is an overintending authority that superintends the child's life, as well as the adult's. Ego development is not the goal of such governments, but a denial of indiviudality and liberty of choice, value and conscience. These forms of government believe that power is needed for social order to be maintained and their amibitions to be accomplished.
Unfortuately, our "free society" has also undermined the foundations that are needed for children to grow into independent adulthood. Our society is fraught with social ills of divorce, child negligence, poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic abuse, and educational needs. These social ills affect the "ideals" that our Founders envisioned and inhibits societal flourishing. The problem becomes what to do about it.
Good government that allows liberty to develop is first and foremost, but the needs of the individual child is also important to value. Liberty cannot undermine society's need for stability, which social structures of marriage and family bring. We are in a crisis in America because the family is broken and there is no way to make it work. Many families are over-stressed by various commitments that are not easily dismissed. A father/mother is still responsible to their employer and must meet their demands. But, these demands also undermine family time and the child's need for a secure and safe place.
The needs of our society are not the "idealist" dreams and hopes, of happily ever afters, or in oppressive means of training citizens through outside authoritarianism, but real world problems and needs that aren't easily addressed by government or life in modern society.
Social ills should not undermine America's ideal of liberty, otherwise we will become pawns of a moralistic totaltalitarinism that would inhibit our very "way of life", in the name of the "common good" or "public interest"!
Alturism is defined as selfless concern for others. Idealists, whether religious or humanists believe that men can become alturistic, by habit formation. These believe that Aristotle's virtues meet Kant's categorical imperative. But, what does this mean practically in light of our Founders view?
Our Founders view was a realist view, as they understood that men were not to be trusted with power over others, or power within government that was not balanced. They did believe that humans were to be self-governing, that is, not by outside authority, but inside character. And that character is illustrated by the commitments that one values
Parents were to train their children through every means available so that upcoming citizens would understand the needs of their nation, as well as their personal values of choice in vocation. American youth can choose where they will go to college and what they will study. There has been no tracking in American education, as a whole.
Because the individual is valued because of liberty, the child is able to develop to his full potential, as well as his understanding of himself in personal interests. The blossoming young adult's identity becomes an ego strength that does not define thesmselves by group identification, or familial determinations, but personal values of choice. These adults can withstand the diverse responsibilities of adulthood.
In oppressive societies, there is an overintending authority that superintends the child's life, as well as the adult's. Ego development is not the goal of such governments, but a denial of indiviudality and liberty of choice, value and conscience. These forms of government believe that power is needed for social order to be maintained and their amibitions to be accomplished.
Unfortuately, our "free society" has also undermined the foundations that are needed for children to grow into independent adulthood. Our society is fraught with social ills of divorce, child negligence, poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic abuse, and educational needs. These social ills affect the "ideals" that our Founders envisioned and inhibits societal flourishing. The problem becomes what to do about it.
Good government that allows liberty to develop is first and foremost, but the needs of the individual child is also important to value. Liberty cannot undermine society's need for stability, which social structures of marriage and family bring. We are in a crisis in America because the family is broken and there is no way to make it work. Many families are over-stressed by various commitments that are not easily dismissed. A father/mother is still responsible to their employer and must meet their demands. But, these demands also undermine family time and the child's need for a secure and safe place.
The needs of our society are not the "idealist" dreams and hopes, of happily ever afters, or in oppressive means of training citizens through outside authoritarianism, but real world problems and needs that aren't easily addressed by government or life in modern society.
Social ills should not undermine America's ideal of liberty, otherwise we will become pawns of a moralistic totaltalitarinism that would inhibit our very "way of life", in the name of the "common good" or "public interest"!
Friday, November 19, 2010
Lies, Free Expression, and Security
There are many things in free societies that one should be grateful for; an ability to have opportunities, and to express oneself in many ways. But, whenever the public discourse is shorn of its diverse understandings or ways of "being in the world", there is a sense of oppression and feelings of betrayal. No longer is there free expression for that person (s). Yet, we do not allow for anyone or a group of people, to express themselves when it would endanger or diminish another. We believe in the right of individual liberty, as it pertains to personal conscience.
Free expression in free societies allow for "art", where there is a particular way of seeing the world's beauty. It is nature in all its glory. It is fashion in all its uniqueness. It is poetry, stories, and myth-making. One chooses which style will represent one's person. It is called "personal style". These are ways of expressing how one understands the world and desires to live in the world. "Lies" of government security or religious demands undermine these free expressions; as free societies are only as free as the press holds government accountable to the people it represents.. And religious conscience is understood to be one among many forms of understanding the transcendent.
Security is a value for human existence and emotional well-being, and yet, how is government to secure our nation without imposing itself upon the populace?. Terrorism is a form of "self expression" at the costs of other lives. And America and the world is battling what would undermine free expression. There is no 'political correctness", as to understandings or expressions to/in one's life. "Lies" are defined by societal breeches that breed betrayals of trust, as individual make or form society. Society should not exist on its own and for its own sake.Soceity only exists to support its members, in whatever way that particular society deems appropriate.
Free expression in an open society breeds security for its citizens. This type of society is free from "lies" that would undermine and hinder persons their right to expression.
Free expression in free societies allow for "art", where there is a particular way of seeing the world's beauty. It is nature in all its glory. It is fashion in all its uniqueness. It is poetry, stories, and myth-making. One chooses which style will represent one's person. It is called "personal style". These are ways of expressing how one understands the world and desires to live in the world. "Lies" of government security or religious demands undermine these free expressions; as free societies are only as free as the press holds government accountable to the people it represents.. And religious conscience is understood to be one among many forms of understanding the transcendent.
Security is a value for human existence and emotional well-being, and yet, how is government to secure our nation without imposing itself upon the populace?. Terrorism is a form of "self expression" at the costs of other lives. And America and the world is battling what would undermine free expression. There is no 'political correctness", as to understandings or expressions to/in one's life. "Lies" are defined by societal breeches that breed betrayals of trust, as individual make or form society. Society should not exist on its own and for its own sake.Soceity only exists to support its members, in whatever way that particular society deems appropriate.
Free expression in an open society breeds security for its citizens. This type of society is free from "lies" that would undermine and hinder persons their right to expression.
Monday, September 13, 2010
The Political Is the Real
Tonight Glenn Beck discussed "restoring" America. But, unlike some of his past programs, I disagreed as to how this is to come about. His was a vision of spiritual renewal, and commitment from citizens to re-align themselves.
While I do agree no one should try to control another in a free society, the only one they really have control over is themself, I do not agree that spiritualizing "self-governance", is imperative. Why would I say this?
Augustine was the one who transformed the Christian vision to the "other world". His "vision" was the world of the transcendent God, who prepared the "City of God". And this "world" was to give hope to those who'd been disappointed when Rome was destroyed. Hopefully, this will not be the case for America. And today, man himself is the point of question, as evolution has trumped special creation. The focus today is on "man", not God.
Many have tried to implement Marxist "class envy and warfare" into our public discourse, which has done nothing other than divide our nation over envious feelings about material gain. The purpose, I imagine is the "redistribution of wealth" so poverty is addressed. The issue of poverty is not what America has been about. America has understood herself as a land of opportunity and prosperity. A land where people could find their own "way of life". America's "hope" has been political freedom. But, now, our political freedom has brought about division not just over how money should be "handled" (by the individual or the government), but also how we should treat our enemies.
Those that have an idealistic view of man affirm "love", as the Christian/humanist mandate. Love is not the practical terminology or actual requirement of political action. Love is a personal term, while other terms such as duty, or responsibility fit more appropriately in the political realm.
The question that divides again is over what is our responsibility or duty as American citizens? Is our responsibility for the whole world, or is it for our nation? And then, is our responsibility over those in poverty, addictions, criminal behavior, or what? All of us cannot be concerned and focused on the same issues if our country and how the world's needs are to be met. This is why how one understands and commits is dependent on what one values most and why.
Is our responsibility for our nation, or for our families? or both? It has often been said that the nation is only as strong as its families. And this is true, I believe. Other matters that concern our nation are matters that will always divide our nation, even, "Christian" citizens. Is the political or real world policies not more important, than the transcendent? I believe so. Nothing impacts the child more than their family of origin, and this arena has also become politicized. It is no longer the parent who must raise their child, but the State. ( And yet, I know that there are those parents who will not do right by the child, in regards to giving the child the best opportunity to succeed. Should the State intervene? And how?)
I am weary of faith, culture, and politics, as I think it has been a useful tool in the hands of the empowered at the disadvantage/discrimination of the "Christian". Values have been defined for the "Christian" by others, so that these will fit their mold, opinion or value. So, being "human" is a more important value for/to me, than "being a Christian", as being 'human" recognizes that I have common needs, desires, and opinions, as any other person. Being a Christian, only means that there are others that define your life by their own standards and demand obedience to what they find is "ultimate".
I find the "ultimate" in our American culture, where individual liberty is valued and protected.
While I do agree no one should try to control another in a free society, the only one they really have control over is themself, I do not agree that spiritualizing "self-governance", is imperative. Why would I say this?
Augustine was the one who transformed the Christian vision to the "other world". His "vision" was the world of the transcendent God, who prepared the "City of God". And this "world" was to give hope to those who'd been disappointed when Rome was destroyed. Hopefully, this will not be the case for America. And today, man himself is the point of question, as evolution has trumped special creation. The focus today is on "man", not God.
Many have tried to implement Marxist "class envy and warfare" into our public discourse, which has done nothing other than divide our nation over envious feelings about material gain. The purpose, I imagine is the "redistribution of wealth" so poverty is addressed. The issue of poverty is not what America has been about. America has understood herself as a land of opportunity and prosperity. A land where people could find their own "way of life". America's "hope" has been political freedom. But, now, our political freedom has brought about division not just over how money should be "handled" (by the individual or the government), but also how we should treat our enemies.
Those that have an idealistic view of man affirm "love", as the Christian/humanist mandate. Love is not the practical terminology or actual requirement of political action. Love is a personal term, while other terms such as duty, or responsibility fit more appropriately in the political realm.
The question that divides again is over what is our responsibility or duty as American citizens? Is our responsibility for the whole world, or is it for our nation? And then, is our responsibility over those in poverty, addictions, criminal behavior, or what? All of us cannot be concerned and focused on the same issues if our country and how the world's needs are to be met. This is why how one understands and commits is dependent on what one values most and why.
Is our responsibility for our nation, or for our families? or both? It has often been said that the nation is only as strong as its families. And this is true, I believe. Other matters that concern our nation are matters that will always divide our nation, even, "Christian" citizens. Is the political or real world policies not more important, than the transcendent? I believe so. Nothing impacts the child more than their family of origin, and this arena has also become politicized. It is no longer the parent who must raise their child, but the State. ( And yet, I know that there are those parents who will not do right by the child, in regards to giving the child the best opportunity to succeed. Should the State intervene? And how?)
I am weary of faith, culture, and politics, as I think it has been a useful tool in the hands of the empowered at the disadvantage/discrimination of the "Christian". Values have been defined for the "Christian" by others, so that these will fit their mold, opinion or value. So, being "human" is a more important value for/to me, than "being a Christian", as being 'human" recognizes that I have common needs, desires, and opinions, as any other person. Being a Christian, only means that there are others that define your life by their own standards and demand obedience to what they find is "ultimate".
I find the "ultimate" in our American culture, where individual liberty is valued and protected.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Revolution Should Not Be Our Stance
Our government is the highest form of government, I believe, because it leaves room for "the human". Other governments have agendas or ideologies that are placed before "the human". This is why I believe that revolution should not be the stance toward our government. We have laws and representatives that we can appeal to. And we have laws that protect our right to express our opinion, voice our concerns, and assemble with others to represent our "voice".
Revolutionaries revolutionize whenever "the human" is disregarded, disrespected, or dismissed. "The human" is when liberty rules over the people and the "rule of law' protects such liberty. Today, we have many problems because we don't appreciate why our Founding Fathers formed the government like they did. The balance of power was to protect against abuses of power. And the judiary branch was to remain independent from influence, while the legislature was to represent the various "powers" that represent "the people"; the individual, the State and the Federal. Diversity in unity was an important value for our nation.
Today, our government is being challenged by minorities that think their rights come before "the people". The "rights" movement represent such groups as the Black Panthers, who want "justice" for past injustices. But, how are we or can we pay for what we didn't see at the time? Slavery was an accepted norm. And norms form society and maintain society's order. Women have not sought reparation for past discrimination or injustice!
Immigrants were always welcome on our shores and the "Statute of Liberty" stands at Ellis Island to represent those that found the United States as their land of freedom. But, today, those that infilterate our borders are disrespecting our country and its "rule of law". Those that work may be little more slaves, themselves. But, what of those that infillterate our country bringing in disease, drugs, fire-arms and wrong motivations? Don't those in leadership have a duty to protect the citizens from those that would bring our country harm? Illegal immigrants are little more than revolutionaries when they disrespect our Constitution.
The "Tea Parties" have been labelled as revolutionary, because of their identification with the Boston Tea Party. But, are these truly revolutionaries? Are citizens that ask their government to be accountable to its people revolutionary? Doesn't our "Bill of Rights" grant us the freedom of assembly? The problem, I believe, is in limiting freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech should not be limited unless it can be proven that it is "hate speech", which means that violent actions are intended. Such speech calls others to action in such a way that would bring about social chaos. Martin Luther King never used his "civil rights revolution" in such a way. He was a peaceful revolutionary. He called for dissent, but not violence. He called for resistance, but not revolution.
Our country is going through some serious difficulties presently and we, "the people" should be supportive of respecting our Constituional government. We should do everything we can to petition, dissent, speak out, and participate in our government, so that we, "the people" will not become, we, "the government"!
Revolutionaries revolutionize whenever "the human" is disregarded, disrespected, or dismissed. "The human" is when liberty rules over the people and the "rule of law' protects such liberty. Today, we have many problems because we don't appreciate why our Founding Fathers formed the government like they did. The balance of power was to protect against abuses of power. And the judiary branch was to remain independent from influence, while the legislature was to represent the various "powers" that represent "the people"; the individual, the State and the Federal. Diversity in unity was an important value for our nation.
Today, our government is being challenged by minorities that think their rights come before "the people". The "rights" movement represent such groups as the Black Panthers, who want "justice" for past injustices. But, how are we or can we pay for what we didn't see at the time? Slavery was an accepted norm. And norms form society and maintain society's order. Women have not sought reparation for past discrimination or injustice!
Immigrants were always welcome on our shores and the "Statute of Liberty" stands at Ellis Island to represent those that found the United States as their land of freedom. But, today, those that infilterate our borders are disrespecting our country and its "rule of law". Those that work may be little more slaves, themselves. But, what of those that infillterate our country bringing in disease, drugs, fire-arms and wrong motivations? Don't those in leadership have a duty to protect the citizens from those that would bring our country harm? Illegal immigrants are little more than revolutionaries when they disrespect our Constitution.
The "Tea Parties" have been labelled as revolutionary, because of their identification with the Boston Tea Party. But, are these truly revolutionaries? Are citizens that ask their government to be accountable to its people revolutionary? Doesn't our "Bill of Rights" grant us the freedom of assembly? The problem, I believe, is in limiting freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech should not be limited unless it can be proven that it is "hate speech", which means that violent actions are intended. Such speech calls others to action in such a way that would bring about social chaos. Martin Luther King never used his "civil rights revolution" in such a way. He was a peaceful revolutionary. He called for dissent, but not violence. He called for resistance, but not revolution.
Our country is going through some serious difficulties presently and we, "the people" should be supportive of respecting our Constituional government. We should do everything we can to petition, dissent, speak out, and participate in our government, so that we, "the people" will not become, we, "the government"!
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
The New Racists and The Not So New Agenda
Power is how people gain position, and control over others. But, power was not absolute in American government, as power was to be balanced. There are checks and balances that were to prevent grabs for power. But, people have devious ways to influence others through use of emotion, and sway their opinion, move their action and grab the power from them deviously. Such are the "New Racists".
This morning I was listening to a program where a man called in and insisted that the new immigration legislation is motivated by racism. When questioned about how he came to that conclusion, he said that it was obviously based on the white power that asserted control over those of "color". Isn't that racism? This man's conclusion and thinking were based solely on race, not on the value of the argument of citizen rights versus human rights.
Racism is a strong identifier, as one cannot help what ethnic identity they are born. But, civil rights has been useful for the left to assert minority issues for any human rights issue.
I believe that the historical context of the civil right movement was in its abuse of power over a segment of our own society. Our constitution granted liberties to their citizens and citizens were defined by locale of birth. Those that came to our shores as immigrants had certain requirements to become citizens. Even to have the right to work, an immigrant must get a green card. America identified itself by those who were by birth or legal means "one of us".
But, today, it is assumed that anyone who desires to reside in this country deserves that right. And if by chance one of these is of color, then there is no limit to the outrage and outcry of "injustice" based on "racial equality". And yet, it has little to do with racial equality, but with being a part of our nation, under the "rule of law".
Racism is the means of a "new agenda", the globlists agenda, that will undermine our nation's Sovereignty and undermine citizen rights. Do not be surprised when those that come to your door asking for papers, do so not to prove American citizenship, but a "World Citizen", who really has no rights, because we will live under the "New Aristocracy".
This morning I was listening to a program where a man called in and insisted that the new immigration legislation is motivated by racism. When questioned about how he came to that conclusion, he said that it was obviously based on the white power that asserted control over those of "color". Isn't that racism? This man's conclusion and thinking were based solely on race, not on the value of the argument of citizen rights versus human rights.
Racism is a strong identifier, as one cannot help what ethnic identity they are born. But, civil rights has been useful for the left to assert minority issues for any human rights issue.
I believe that the historical context of the civil right movement was in its abuse of power over a segment of our own society. Our constitution granted liberties to their citizens and citizens were defined by locale of birth. Those that came to our shores as immigrants had certain requirements to become citizens. Even to have the right to work, an immigrant must get a green card. America identified itself by those who were by birth or legal means "one of us".
But, today, it is assumed that anyone who desires to reside in this country deserves that right. And if by chance one of these is of color, then there is no limit to the outrage and outcry of "injustice" based on "racial equality". And yet, it has little to do with racial equality, but with being a part of our nation, under the "rule of law".
Racism is the means of a "new agenda", the globlists agenda, that will undermine our nation's Sovereignty and undermine citizen rights. Do not be surprised when those that come to your door asking for papers, do so not to prove American citizenship, but a "World Citizen", who really has no rights, because we will live under the "New Aristocracy".
Providing Papers and Protection of Ordered Liberty
Many that are crying out against such injustice as asking those in our country to provide papers to prove their citizenship, or legal immigration status do not seem to see the irony of government requiring the American citizen to provide papers about having insurance coverage!
American citizens must do what their government demands, while their government dismisses their responsiblity of upholding the Constitution and protecting our borders! So, our laws are being re-defined, slowly but surely, to those that are unawake!
Does it seem to anyone but me that government's requirements upon their citizens are becoming more and more demanding, while theirs is ignored, dismissed, or rationalized? Where are our leader's obligation to support their Constitutional duties toward those who are protected by these laws? The American Citizen!
American citizens must do what their government demands, while their government dismisses their responsiblity of upholding the Constitution and protecting our borders! So, our laws are being re-defined, slowly but surely, to those that are unawake!
Does it seem to anyone but me that government's requirements upon their citizens are becoming more and more demanding, while theirs is ignored, dismissed, or rationalized? Where are our leader's obligation to support their Constitutional duties toward those who are protected by these laws? The American Citizen!
"Human" and the Citizen
Much has been "thrown out" on the radio and T.V. concerning the recent immigration problem. The discussion, I think, can be boiled down to two views on what it means to be a "person", or "human" versus a citizen.
Humans are by nature social animals. A Dateline special illustrated how individuals have "herd mentalities". In an elevator where Dateline employees were told to turn with their backs to the elevator door, everyone in the "studies" mimiced the "group". People do not question, for the most part.
But, today's crisis forefronts the problem of what it means to be human! Americans are identified with certain liberties that are defined and protected by our Constitution. And lately, it seems that our government has not been forthcoming in protecting our literal boundaries, which has caused a crisis in our identified boundaries. Civil liberties have been for the most part understood to be for those that live within certain geographical borders.
Boundaries are identifiers of persons. These are various complexions of an individual's social world. And some believe that all individuals deserve rights under "natural law", these are the "humanists" and globalists. The "human" is what defines the individual. Others believe that societies construct individuals with their particular laws, which maintain distinctions and underlie a person's "real identity". These believe that the various social groups define the individual, as to identity.
The problem, as I understand it, is can a "human" be a person, as persons need social contexts to define themselves. Or do they? Does an individual understand himself apart from social groups? I think that they can. Humans are reasonable animals. We seek to rationalize our existance. This is the way we cope and understand the world.
America has understood itself to be a nation ruled by law. The Constitution defined our 'union", and protected its citizens rights. But, a Constitutional government is representative of its people. The people (identified as Americans) are warring over their right to exist apart from invasion from outsiders. These outsiders threaten society through their crime and a dissolution of boundaries which breeds fear and anxiety over their "identified way of life".
Therefore, the 'human' is the lowest denominator for identification purposes. Citizens understand themselves in more definitive ways. And those that live in civilized Western societies understand themselves as a person in his own right. Americans come to understand themselves apart from the former contexts of identification, but may choose to become identified to these social groups for other reasons.
All humans are social animals, but the social animal is not civilized without society's impact. And society's impact is not an ultimate value, as the individual himself needs to develop beyond the dependent stage on society. The individuals allowed such liberty come to understand themselves and their own values apart from the greater whole, and can come to find their own place for themselves.
Humans are by nature social animals. A Dateline special illustrated how individuals have "herd mentalities". In an elevator where Dateline employees were told to turn with their backs to the elevator door, everyone in the "studies" mimiced the "group". People do not question, for the most part.
But, today's crisis forefronts the problem of what it means to be human! Americans are identified with certain liberties that are defined and protected by our Constitution. And lately, it seems that our government has not been forthcoming in protecting our literal boundaries, which has caused a crisis in our identified boundaries. Civil liberties have been for the most part understood to be for those that live within certain geographical borders.
Boundaries are identifiers of persons. These are various complexions of an individual's social world. And some believe that all individuals deserve rights under "natural law", these are the "humanists" and globalists. The "human" is what defines the individual. Others believe that societies construct individuals with their particular laws, which maintain distinctions and underlie a person's "real identity". These believe that the various social groups define the individual, as to identity.
The problem, as I understand it, is can a "human" be a person, as persons need social contexts to define themselves. Or do they? Does an individual understand himself apart from social groups? I think that they can. Humans are reasonable animals. We seek to rationalize our existance. This is the way we cope and understand the world.
America has understood itself to be a nation ruled by law. The Constitution defined our 'union", and protected its citizens rights. But, a Constitutional government is representative of its people. The people (identified as Americans) are warring over their right to exist apart from invasion from outsiders. These outsiders threaten society through their crime and a dissolution of boundaries which breeds fear and anxiety over their "identified way of life".
Therefore, the 'human' is the lowest denominator for identification purposes. Citizens understand themselves in more definitive ways. And those that live in civilized Western societies understand themselves as a person in his own right. Americans come to understand themselves apart from the former contexts of identification, but may choose to become identified to these social groups for other reasons.
All humans are social animals, but the social animal is not civilized without society's impact. And society's impact is not an ultimate value, as the individual himself needs to develop beyond the dependent stage on society. The individuals allowed such liberty come to understand themselves and their own values apart from the greater whole, and can come to find their own place for themselves.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
The Personal Can Never Be the Universal....
The personal can never be the universal, because of man's unique "giftedness". Some would disagree and think that, as Maslow thought, that man's "needs" are based on a scale of hierarchy. But, anyone that has seen a mother give up her "last morsel of bread", or a stranger act to defend the defenseless, has not known or experienced man's ability to rise above his hierarchal needs.
On the other hand, one cannot presume that a particular individual should act in any particular way, as this would undermine what is needed for altruistic action, which is liberty of choice and value. Man is not made for another man's purposes, but is his own end. The libertarian would defend the right of men to their own personal convictions. Actions come from values, convictions, and most choices are made on a scale of higher or greater values, etc. And these are all individually understood and defined within our society. There is no "one Purpose" .
Today, the pastor admonished his parishnors to embrace the life of faith, in the resurrection and the purposes of God. Faith is a personal choice and decision, once one comes to understand that the "real world" does not function on any other course of action than "real world action", real world solutions, and real world politics. The real world is the political, social, physical, historical, experiential, and cultural one. And free socities do not tend to dictate what or which is of ultimate value, nor define these for the individual, except within the boundaries of law. And the law protects the citizen in their liberty of conscience.
Though the personal can never be the universal, neither can there be a universal understanding of life, as it concerns the individual.
Albert Einstein:
All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom.
On the other hand, one cannot presume that a particular individual should act in any particular way, as this would undermine what is needed for altruistic action, which is liberty of choice and value. Man is not made for another man's purposes, but is his own end. The libertarian would defend the right of men to their own personal convictions. Actions come from values, convictions, and most choices are made on a scale of higher or greater values, etc. And these are all individually understood and defined within our society. There is no "one Purpose" .
Today, the pastor admonished his parishnors to embrace the life of faith, in the resurrection and the purposes of God. Faith is a personal choice and decision, once one comes to understand that the "real world" does not function on any other course of action than "real world action", real world solutions, and real world politics. The real world is the political, social, physical, historical, experiential, and cultural one. And free socities do not tend to dictate what or which is of ultimate value, nor define these for the individual, except within the boundaries of law. And the law protects the citizen in their liberty of conscience.
Though the personal can never be the universal, neither can there be a universal understanding of life, as it concerns the individual.
Albert Einstein:
All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
A Common Woman's Thoughts of Revolution
Tonight's agreement on the "bail-out" of Wall Street, made me want to start a revolution. I watched Pelosi, who should have been aware of this for quite some time...and Chris Dodd (who made big bucks on the federal mortgage companies) talk about their "concern" for the American tax-payer...it really made me sick.
There is nothing free in this life, only free if someone else pays for it...so government programs are paid by you and me, the taxpayer. I find it appalling that there is no reserve, but an outright greed that subverts civility into pandering and platitudes of "doing the best for America". Why wasn't America on the minds of these people before this occurred? Or did greed so blind their eyes, ears and senses that they could not see it coming...?
You can say what you will, but John McCain did call for caution concerning these issues early on. Even though his wife is worth big bucks and the media has tried to pin extravagant living on him, he has been above board personally. Yes, he has money, but his money, as far as I've heard is hard won or inherited...Yes, he has given tax breaks to big businesses but he has been concerned to maintain busniess within the boundaries of our nation. He said Friday that Ireland's tax rate for business is 11% whereas ours was in the 30or some odd%...Obama, though has had his pockets filled with the mortgage companies and he has cronies that have benefited in the millions. It doesn't seem like his change will be for the average tax-payer.
I am concerned that unless there is some Big changes, there is little that we, little people can do. Unless there is a revolution of sorts, which I don't know whether the average person even cares or is concerned unless it touches their own pocketbooks. This is not the country it used to be. We have become consumers, instead of investors. Investments happen, not only with money, but with commtiment in all areas where the people are concerned about their country's future and they inform themselves, others, and become involved in making the country a better place.
There is nothing free in this life, only free if someone else pays for it...so government programs are paid by you and me, the taxpayer. I find it appalling that there is no reserve, but an outright greed that subverts civility into pandering and platitudes of "doing the best for America". Why wasn't America on the minds of these people before this occurred? Or did greed so blind their eyes, ears and senses that they could not see it coming...?
You can say what you will, but John McCain did call for caution concerning these issues early on. Even though his wife is worth big bucks and the media has tried to pin extravagant living on him, he has been above board personally. Yes, he has money, but his money, as far as I've heard is hard won or inherited...Yes, he has given tax breaks to big businesses but he has been concerned to maintain busniess within the boundaries of our nation. He said Friday that Ireland's tax rate for business is 11% whereas ours was in the 30or some odd%...Obama, though has had his pockets filled with the mortgage companies and he has cronies that have benefited in the millions. It doesn't seem like his change will be for the average tax-payer.
I am concerned that unless there is some Big changes, there is little that we, little people can do. Unless there is a revolution of sorts, which I don't know whether the average person even cares or is concerned unless it touches their own pocketbooks. This is not the country it used to be. We have become consumers, instead of investors. Investments happen, not only with money, but with commtiment in all areas where the people are concerned about their country's future and they inform themselves, others, and become involved in making the country a better place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
