Philosophical Fragments 2
By: Dr. Sam Vaknin
Go to Philosophical Fragments 1 and my Blog
II. Resolving Disputes - The Lost Art
III. The Criticism of the Absent
VI. Remarks about Love and Misogyny
VIII. Purging vs. Co-opting Tyrants
IX. Why do We Celebrate Birthdays
Malignant Self Love - Buy the Book - Click HERE!!!
Relationships with Abusive Narcissists - Buy the e-Books - Click HERE!!!
READ THIS: Scroll down to review a complete list of the
articles - Click on the blue-coloured
text!
Bookmark this Page - and SHARE IT with Others!
The fact that one is ignorant of the law does not a sufficient defence in a court of law make. Ignorance is no protection against punishment. The adult is presumed to know all the laws. This presumption is knowingly and clearly false. So why is it made in the first place?
There are many types of laws. If a person is not aware of the existence of gravitation, he will still obey it and fall to the ground from a tall building. This is a law of nature and, indeed, ignorance serves as no protection and cannot shield one from its effects and applicability. But human laws cannot be assumed to have he same power. They are culture-dependent, history-dependent, related to needs and priorities of the community of humans to which they apply. A law that is dependent and derivative is also contingent. No one can be reasonably expected to have intimate (or even passing) acquaintance with all things contingent. A special learning process, directed at the contingency must be effectuated to secure such knowledge.
Perhaps human laws reflect some in-built natural truth, discernible by all conscious, intelligent observers? Some of them give out such an impression. "Thou shalt not murder", for instance. But this makes none of them less contingent. That all human cultures throughout history obtained the same thinking regarding murder – does not bestow upon the human prohibition a privileged nomic status. In other words, no law is endowed with the status of a law of nature just by virtue of the broad agreement between humans who support it. There is no power in numbers, in this respect. A law of nature is not a statistically determined "event". At least, ideally, it should not be.
Another argument is that a person should be guided by a sense of right and wrong. This inner guide, also known as the conscience or the super-ego, is the result of social and psychological processes collectively known as "socialization". But socialization itself is contingent, in the sense that we have described. It cannot serve as a rigorous, objective benchmark. Itself a product of cultural accumulation and conditioning, it should be no more self evident than the very laws with which it tries to imbue the persons to whom it is applied.
Still, laws are made public. They are accessible to anyone who cares to get acquainted with them. Or so, theoretically. Actually, it is inaccessible to the illiterate, to those who have not assimilated the legal jargon, or to the poor. Even if laws were uniformly accessible to all – their interpretation would not have been. In many legal systems, precedents and court decisions are an integral part of the law. Really, there is no such thing as a perfect law. Laws evolve, grow, are replaced by others, which better reflect mores and beliefs, values and fears, in general the public psychology as mediated by the legislators. This is why a class of professionals has arisen, who make it their main business to keep up with the legal evolution and revolutions. Not many can afford the services of these law-yers. In this respect, many do not have ample access to the latest (and relevant) versions of the law. Nor would it be true to say that there is no convincing way to pierce one's mind in order to ascertain whether he did know the law in advance or not. We all use stereotypes and estimates in our daily contacts with others. There is no reason to refrain from doing so only in this particular case. If an illiterate, poor person broke a law – it could safely be assumed that he did not know, a-priori, that he was doing so. Assuming otherwise would lead to falsity, something the law is supposed to try and avoid. It is, therefore, not an operational problem.
II. Resolving Disputes - The Lost Art
Wherever interests meet - they tend to clash. Disputes are an inevitable and inseparable part of commercial life. Mankind invented many ways to settle disputes. Each way relies on a different underlying principle. Generally speaking, there are four such principles: justice, law, logic and force.
Disputes can be resolved by resorting to force. One party can force the other to accept his opinion and to comply by his conditions and demands. Obeisance should not be confused with acceptance. The coerced party is likely to at least sabotage the interests of the coercing one. In due time, a mutiny is more likely than not. Force is always met by force, as Newton discovered.
This revolution and counter-revolution has a devastating effect on wealth formation. The use of force does ensure that the distribution of wealth will be skewed and biased in favour of the forceful party. But the cake to be divided grows smaller and smaller, wealth diminishes and, in due course, there is almost nothing left to fight over.
Another mechanism of dispute resolution involves the application of the law. This mechanism also relies (ultimately) on enforcement (therefore, on force). But it maintains the semblance of objectivity and the fair (unbiased) treatment of the contestants ("level playing field" and the "rule of Law"). It does so by relegating both functions - of legislating and of adjudication - to third, uninterested parties.
But this misses the crucial point. The problem is not "who makes the laws" or "who administers them". The problem is "how are the laws applied". If a bias exists, if a party is favoured, it is at the stage of administering justice. The personal integrity of the arbitrator (the judge) at this stage does not guarantee a fair outcome.
Empirically, the results of trials have been shown to depend greatly on the ethnic identity and social and economic standing of the disputants as well as on the social background and ethnic affiliation of the judge. Above all: the more money a party to a trial has - the more the court is tilted in his or her favour.
The laws of procedure are such that wealthy applicants (represented by wealthy lawyers) are more likely to win. The substantive law contains preferences: ethnic, economic, ideological, historical, social and so on. Applying such substantive law to the settlement of disputes is tantamount to the application of force. The difference is in style, rather than in substance. When law enforcement agencies get involved - even this minor distinction tends to blur.
Perhaps a better system would be the application of the principles of justice to disputes - had people been able to agree what these are. Justice is an element in the legal system, but it is "tainted" by ulterior and overriding considerations (social, economic, etc.)
In its purified form justice is associated with an impartial administration of impartial principles of dispute resolution. The promulgation and application of just principles is entrusted to people who are thought to possess or to reify justice ("just" or "honest" people). The system is not encumbered by laws of procedure and the parties have no built-in advantages. Arbitration is an example of a justice-based dispute resolution system.
Both the law and the principles of justice tend to preserve accumulated wealth and, therefore, the social order. In many cases they tend to help to increase it. No "right" or "just" distribution is guaranteed by either system - but, at least, the destruction of wealth is avoided.
This achievement is based on the principle of consent. Embedded in both systems is the implicit agreement to abide by the rules, to accept final judgments, to succumb to legal instructions, and not to use force to try to ensure favorable outcomes. A revolution is, of course, always an option. One can always ignore or violate decisions or judgments rendered by competent, commonly accepted courts. But, in these cases, we are merely back to dealing with the application of the principle of force, rather than of law or justice.
Then there is logic. Not in its commonsensical rendition - but in the form of natural laws. By "logic" we mean the immutable ways in which the world is governed, in which forces are channeled, under which circumstances arise or subside. Natural Law should (and in many respects) does underlie all the human systems of law and order. This is the meaning of "natural justice" in the most profound sense of the phrase.
All human societies belong to either of these four categories. Indeed, a civilization can easily be summed up and judged by its adherence to one or the other of these systems and principles of dispute resolution. It is when Mankind backtracks and slides from system of Law or Justice to Force-based solutions that the end is nigh.
III. The Criticism of the Absent
That which does not exist - cannot be criticized. We can pass muster only on that which exists. When we say "this is missing" - we really mean to say: "there is something that IS NOT in this, which IS." Absence is discernible only against the background of existence. Criticism is aimed at changing. In other words, it relates to what is missing. But it is no mere sentence, or proposition. It is an assertion. It is goal-oriented. It strives to alter that which exists with regards to its quantity, its quality, its functions, or its program / vision. All these parameters of change cannot relate to absolute absence. They emanate from the existence of an entity. Something must exist as a precondition. Only then can criticism be aired: "(In that which exists), the quantity, quality, or functions are wrong, lacking, altogether missing".
The common error - that we criticize the absent - is the outcome of the use made of an ideal. We compare that which exists with a Platonic Idea or Form (which, according to modern thinking, does not REALLY exist). We feel that the criticism is the product not of the process of comparison - but of these ideal Ideas or Forms. Since they do not exist - the thing criticized is felt not to exist, either.
But why do we assign the critical act and its outcomes not to the real - but to the ideal? Because the ideal is judged to be preferable, superior, a criterion of measurement, a yardstick of perfection. Naturally, we will be inclined to regard it as the source, rather than as the by-product, or as the finished product (let alone as the raw material) of the critical process. To refute this intuitive assignment is easy: criticism is always quantitative. At the least, it can always be translated into quantitative measures, or expressed in quantitative-propositions. This is a trait of the real - never of the ideal. That which emanates from the ideal is not likely to be quantitative. Therefore, criticism must be seen to be the outcome of the interaction between the real and the ideal - rather than as the absolute emanation from either.
When we, mobile organisms, are confronted with danger, we move. Coping with danger is one of the defining characteristics and determinants of life: how we cope with danger defines and determines us, that is: forms part of our identity.
To move is to change our identity. This is composed of spatial-temporal parameters (co-ordinates) and of intrinsic parameters. No being is sufficiently defined without designating its locus in space-time. Where we are and when we are is as important as what we are made of, or what are our internal processes. Changing the values of our space time parameters is really tantamount to changing ourselves, to altering our definition sufficiently to confound the source of danger.
Mobile organisms, therefore, resort to changing their space-time determinants as a means towards the end of changing their identity. This is not to say that their intrinsic parameters remain unchanged. Hormonal discharges, neural conductivity, biochemical reactions – all acquire new values. But these are secondary reactions. The dominant pattern of reaction is flight (spatial-temporal), rather than fright (intrinsic).
The repertoire of static organisms (plants, for instance) is rather more limited. Their ability to alter the values of their space-time co-ordinates is very narrow. They can get away from aridity by extending their roots. They can spread spores all over. But their main body is constrained and cannot change location. This is why it is reasonable to expect that immobile organisms will resort to changing the values of their intrinsic parameters when faced with danger. We could reasonably expect them to change their chemical reactions, the compounds that they contain, other electrical and chemical parameters, hormones, enzymes, catalysts – anything intrinsic and which does not depend on space and time.
All people lie some of the time. They use words to convey their lies while their body language usually gives them away. This is curious. Why did evolution prefer this self defeating strategy? The answer lies in the causes of the phenomenon.
We lie for three main reasons and these give rise to three categories of lies:
What constitutes "brutal honesty" and how can we set it apart from mere, oft-commended honesty?
Brutal honesty is:
1. Gratuitous (there is really no need to be honest)
2. Aggressive. You can say the same thing is many ways. Abrasiveness is not an
essential part of honesty.
3. Repeated despite the obvious discomfort of the listener(s).
4. With the intent of causing pain or harm and with a clear enjoyment in
inflicting them.
VI. Remarks about Love and Misogyny
From a correspondence:
"I think that there is a schism between men and women. I am sorry but I am neo-Weiningerian. I fear women and loathe them viscerally - while, in the abstract, I recognize that they are members of the human species and eligible to the same rights as men do. Still, the biological, biochemical and psychological differences between us (men versus women) are so profound - that I think that a good case can be made in favour of a theory which will assign them to another (perhaps even more advanced) species. I am heterosexual, so it has nothing to do with sexual preferences. Also I know that what I have to say will alienate and anger you. Still, I believe - as does Dr. Grey - that cross-gender communication is all but impossible. We are separated by biology, by history, by culture, by chemistry, by genetics, in short: by too much. Where we see cruelty they see communication, where we see communication they see indifference, where we see a future they see a threat, where we see a threat they see an opportunity, where we see stagnation they see security and where we see safety they see death, where we get excited they get alarmed, where we get alarmed they get bored, we love with our senses, they love with their wombs and mind, they tend to replicate, we tend to assimilate, they are Trojan horses, we are dumb Herculeses, they succumb in order to triumph, we triumph in order to succumb.
And I see no difference between the three terms that you all used. "Love", "cruelty" and "impotence" are to me three sides of the same coin. We love in order to overcome our (perceived) impotence. We burden our love with impossible dreams: to become children again. We want to be unconditionally loved and omnipotent. No wonder love invariably ends in disappointment and disillusionment. It can never fulfil our inflated expectations. This is when we become cruel. We avenge our paradise lost. We inflict upon our lover the hell that he or she fostered in us. We do so impotently because we still love, even as we fervently hate (Freudian ambivalence). Thus we always love cruelly, impotently and desperately, the desperation of the doomed."
The decriminalization of drugs is a tangled issue involving many separate moral/ethical and practical strands which can, probably, be summarized thus:
Whose body is it anyway? Where do "I" start and the government begins? What gives the state the right to intervene in decisions pertaining only to my self and countervene them?
PRACTICAL:
The government exercises similar "rights" in other cases (abortion, military conscription, sex)
Is the government the optimal moral agent, the best or the right arbiter, as far as drug abuse is concerned?
PRACTICAL:
For instance, governments collaborate with the illicit drug trade when it fits their realpolitik purposes.
Is substance abuse a PERSONAL or a SOCIAL choice? Can one LIMIT the implications, repercussions and outcomes of one's choices in general and of the choice to abuse drugs, in particular? If the drug abuser in effect makes decisions for others, too - does it justify the intervention of the state? Is the state the agent of society, is it the ONLY agent of society and is it the RIGHT agent of society in the case of drug abuse?
What is the difference (in rigorous philosophical principle) between legal and illegal substances? Is it something in the NATURE of the substances? In the USAGE and what follows? In the structure of SOCIETY? Is it a moral fashion?
PRACTICAL:
Does scientific research support or refute common myths and ethos regarding drugs and their abuse?
Is scientific research INFLUENCED by the current anti-drugs crusade and hype? Are certain facts suppressed and certain subjects left unexplored?
Should drugs be decriminalized for certain purposes (e.g., marijuana and glaucoma)? If so, where should the line be drawn and by whom?
PRACTICAL:
Recreational drugs sometimes alleviate depression. Should this use be permitted?
VIII. Purging vs. Co-opting Tyrants
History teaches us that there are two types of tyrants. Those who preserve the structures and forces that carry them to power - and those who, once they have attained their goal of unbridled domination, seek to destroy the organizations and people they had used to get to where they are.
Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and Josip Broz Tito are examples of co-opting tyrants. Though Hitler was forced to liquidate the rebellious SA in 1934, he kept the Nazi party intact and virtually unchanged until the end. He surrounded himself with fanatic (and self-serving) loyalists and the composition of his retinue remained the same throughout the life of his regime. The concept of Alte Kampfer (veteran fighter) was hallowed and the mythology of Nazism extolled loyalty and community (Gemeinschaft) above opportunistic expedience and conspiratorial paranoia.
Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao are prime specimen of the purging tyrant. Stalin spent the better part of 30 years eliminating not only the opposition - but the entire Leninist-Bolshevik political party that brought him to power in the first place. He then proceeded to cold-bloodedly exterminate close to 20 million professionals, intellectuals, army officers, and other achievers and leaders on whose toil and talents his alleged successes rested.
Co-opting tyrants consolidate their power by continually expanding the base of their supporters and the concomitant networks of patronage. They encourage blind obedience (the Fuehrerprinzip) and devotion. They thrive on personal interaction with sycophants and adulators. They foster a cult-like shared psychosis in their adherents.
Purging tyrants consolidate their power by removing all independent thinkers and achievers from the scene, re-writing history in a self-aggrandizing manner, and then raising a new generation of ambitious, young acolytes who know only the tyrant and his reign and regard both as a force of nature. They rule through terror and encourage paranoia on all levels. They foster the atomization of society in a form of micromanaged application of the tried and true rule of "divide et impera".
IX. Why do We Celebrate Birthdays
Why do we celebrate birthdays? What is it that we are toasting? Is it the fact that we have survived another year against many odds? Are we marking the progress we have made, our cumulative achievements and possessions? Is a birthday the expression of hope sprung eternal to live another year?
None of the above, it would seem.
If it is the past year that we are commemorating, would we still drink to it if we were to receive some bad news about our health and imminent demise? Not likely. But why? What is the relevance of information about the future (our own looming death) when one is celebrating the past? The past is immutable. No future event can vitiate the fact that we have made it through another 12 months of struggle. Then why not celebrate this fact?
Because it is not the past that is foremost on our minds. Our birthdays are about the future, not about the past. We are celebrating having arrived so far because such successful resilience allows us to continue forward. We proclaim our potential to further enjoy the gifts of life. Birthdays are expressions of unbridled, blind faith in our own suspended mortality.
But, if this were true, surely as we grow older we have less and less cause to celebrate. What reason do octogenarians have to drink to another year if that gift is far from guaranteed? Life offers diminishing returns: the longer you are invested, the less likely you are to reap the dividenda of survival. Indeed, based on actuary tables, it becomes increasingly less rational to celebrate one's future the older one gets.
Thus, we are forced into the conclusion that birthdays are about self-delusionally defying death. Birthdays are about preserving the illusion of immortality. Birthdays are forms of acting out our magical thinking. By celebrating our existence, we bestow on ourselves protective charms against the meaninglessness and arbitrariness of a cold, impersonal, and often hostile universe.
And, more often than not, it works. Happy birthday!
Copyright Notice
This material is copyrighted.
Free, unrestricted use is allowed on a non
commercial basis.
The author's name and a link to this Website
must be incorporated in any
reproduction of the material for any use and by any means.
Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited
World in Conflict and Transition
Internet: A Medium or a Message?
Write to me: palma@unet.com.mk or narcissisticabuse-owner@yahoogroups.com