A Night Unremembered
13 years ago
Saturday, January 30, 2010
I might be happier if I was stupid
I am not a well read man. I didn't read much of what are called the Classics in literature. Dickens, for instance, bored me to tears. Most of the classics seemed to bury great thoughts under ostentatious blathering. I just wanted to get to the point. I don't know why since, in most cases, I already knew the underlying point (or points). We learned those Great Truths mostly by the time we were sent off to kindergarten. They were the morals and lessons that nursery rhymes and bedtime stories taught us.
They were also the core of myths and legends. It is the same ideas over and over again. It's just the format that changes; the style of the story teller. What I learn from books, plays, and the like is not new ideas but new ways to look at old ideas.
I have tried to read the great philosophical works but I get bored and frustrated. Bored because it seems like they are preaching and trying to impress with their knowledge and wisdom. And frustrated because they make references to other philosophers which means I have to expend effort to research those Great Thinkers in order to understand the relevance. Not to mention I have to learn new words because they can't simply say what they mean in plain wording that anyone can understand. It seems like they are trying to impress those who they see as intellectual peers.
I fancy myself a kind of philosopher at times. The home spun type. I have always tried to understand human nature, why people do what they do. I have tried to piece together how and why groups of people form communities and cultures. And I have always tried to find the common thread of humanity.
My basic conclusion is that were are always at war with ourselves. The individual has, as Robert Louis Stevenson expressed so well in Dr Jekyl and Mr Hyde, two basic natures. The struggle between those natures is what life is all about. It may be that that concept is also expressed as the argument of nature versus nurture.
Unlike many, I think humans are born "bad". I think it is nurturing which instills the "good" in us, or tries to. This is entirely the opposite of what seemed to be the common belief of my youth, the formative years. There was this pervasive concept that said children were "innocents" who had to learn to hate. I went along with it for a number of years but it nagged at me, it just didn't seem right. Babies aren't moral, they aren't good. They are demanding, selfish, creatures. About age two, when they are deemed able to begin to understand abstract ideas, we try to civilize them. We teach them to share, to behave, that they are not the center of attention, that others are important. We also start consciously training them to accept control by others; specifically, we as the parents.
It is this training, this civilizing, which makes us human. Cultures form along common beliefs in what is right and wrong and those beliefs are taught as part of that civilizing. I think this is reflected in the myths, stories, and legends, as well as the histories, of all cultures.
It is also this training which adds the "good" nature to the "bad" nature of the human being.
Have I bored you sufficiently yet? I know this is dry and un-entertaining. But I was musing on this while reading a book by Robert B. Parker, one of his westerns... Brimstone... It is full of homespun wisdom and pragmatic morality told in a literary economy of words. It is not seen as a classic philosophical work.
Maybe it should be.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I had a wonderful socialogy professor in college who took a survey one day in class and the question was "Are we basically good or basically bad?" Most of us answered "basically good". He spent the remainder of the semester presenting us with evidence to the contrary. I think you have covered a lot of what he felt. It was an awesome class and one I will never forget!
Ahh, so you ascribe to the Original Sin belief. You are not alone.So did St. Augustine, who like you, believed that babies were born bad.
If classics are so banal and high-brow, why their staying power for centuries?
I challenge you to read a classic work, say
something by Edna Ferber, like So Big or something by Sinclair Lewis, like Arrowsmith or Elmer Gantry and then blog about it. Sort of like Julia and Julie, the blogger who decided to make all 534 of Julia Child's recipes in one year.
You could get quite a following.
Of course, Douglas, you would have to do your homework and follow through...
I would follow your trials...
:D
Cheri, I do not believe in original sin. I would call it our animal nature. It is, in my view, our basic instinct for survival. I needed labels and "good" and "bad" work well enough. These are arbitrary constructs relative to a culture. In a sense, babies are innocent in that they are amoral creatures, not knowing what "good" or "bad" means yet to anything outside of themselves. To them, "bad" is discomfort and "good" is comfort.
I might give Elmer Gantry a try. Do I have to submit homework, teach?
Charlotte Ann, I likely would have enjoyed his class. though I was quite a contrarian in my youth.
How anthropological of you to ponder these things. But yes, I somewhat agree with you that evil is innate and good is nurtured, and the quality of the care given is what determines what in the common eye is evil or good. We are all biologically selfish anyway - in competition with each other to ensure our survival. It's just, instead of it being land or resources, it's now a matter of fighting over jobs and university placements and money.
Michael.
Do you hate it too?
"If you're going through Hell, keep going."
Let the Boomer Ranter rant, Douglas, and pls be stoical with Him ...
Even though I don't agree on classics (how could an Italian, our best part being beyond our shoulders?) all you are saying is extremely interesting, problem being your issues nobody knows (or ever knew) how to solve them, I believe.
Cheri made a point in my view when she talked about the original sin. One may not believe in it, but a religion - like ours where man is a bad bad bad worm only God in his infinite goodness can redeem - influences thousands of behaviours within a culture and often also the non religious cannot escape from that.
(Not that we can prove any relation between you and all that, of course).
There was this pervasive concept that said children were "innocents" ... Babies aren't moral
This problem, of the origin of good and evil, has no solution imo. I think that most philosophical problems are too tough and can often find simple solutions through science. I for example do believe that humans, as a species, are predators in the sense that this to me explains evil in us a bit. Being a predator implies needing (and loving) to kill, for example, exactly like tigers do.
Children, not 'taught' - as you very acutely say - to be ‘human(e)’ yet, are in fact cruel with one another, they isolate and abuse the weak in a group, they even torture animals and other kids etc. we've all experienced that as kids haven't we (I was never tortured tho) - we had to survive, the boys and the girls alike.
[In some way, the Greco-Romans were non 'moral' or amoral in a very similar way, but this would take us far]
One thing though should be added, pls allow me: even though terribly problem-solving, science is shallow.
In 2 thousand years possibly (it is my friend *Extropian's* prediction lol) it will prove a good substitute for humanities (philosophy, poetry, music and classics).
But since I won't live that far I'll stick to my classics, which, I agree with Chérie, have resisted time not because they were pretentious but because they were written by the best minds (tho some classics are pretentious, take Cicero who, nonetheless, is smart, enlightening and worth reading.)
On another note, I have finally replied *here* to your boomer's comment on Anglos(phones) vs Latins attitudes toward something we know what it is. I am addicted to procrastination also.
And, pls forgive my tone Douglas.
"Since you are Man of Roma - my wife keeps repeating aloud even at 3 or 5 am - you have changed!"
Yes, I have changed. The character has subjugated me. You can call me The Searcher, The Seeker or The Prophet, your choice
:-(
MoR, you are such a joy to have come `round... First, never apologize for your tone. The tone you see/feel in your words is always different than what others perceive.
The concept of Original Sin is a cultural construct. For that matter, so is Sin. Sins are transgressions against the community's definitions of what is right. Since religions are what I like to call super communities, religious sins are of the highest order. But we have lesser sins, mostly involving offense to others. Original Sin, as I understand it, is man's fall from grace. This stems from Adam's following Eve's lead in eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, thus disobeying God (or, shall we say, the Prime Directive) and succumbing to temptation/curiosity. Somehow, sex is all mixed in with this because babies are a consequence of sex thereby proving that the father and the mother made use of that knowledge from the Tree. It is much more complex than that, of course, if you talk to a priest or preacher but I think that is the gist of it. But to lay it on babies is to say "the child bears the sins of the parent" or carries the blame for the act of procreation. To me, that is foolish. Like blaming the woman who is raped for the attack. So I reject it out of hand. Not surprisingly, I also dislike the acceptance of a common guilt for just about anything done by my forebears or members of my community. I only accept guilt for my own actions.
I use amoral in the sense that if one is unaware of mores then one cannot transgress. Ignorance of the law is a valid excuse in my book. (an aside: by my reasoning atheists cannot sin in the religious sense though they can transgress against community standards)
On to the Classics: I am impressed by them, I understand why they are classics. I just find them boring and mostly not to my tastes. The lessons learned, the essence of the tale, is what I seek. I have no problem with this in painting or sculpture or other graphical or physical arts. I appreciate the execution of the theme. It is just in the literary form that I have this problem. Said another way,Though I love Shakespeare for his form, wit, and cleverness, I struggle with his wordiness.
Finally, we are sympatico, as Seekers, so never fear. Do our web or blog personas reveal us or do we become what we have created? I have always been a person who muses over things, thinking deep thoughts that mostly bore my real world peers. Here, I can indulge.
Dear Douglas,
thanks for your kind thoughtful reply. I'll be brief (I'm seldom brief) and chaotic, I have a fiction about St. Augustine starting at the Italian tv I cannot miss, plus I had to comment over *at this guy's blog* I care for. He's a 35-year-old Canadian.
I like your distinction between sin and transgression. As for the Bible I don't know much about it, we don't read it much here in my country. My getting back to Latin and Greek will be an opportunity to study it, since the Greek and Latin of the Bible are baby's talk compared to Plato or Seneca.
I understand amorality in the sense, as you say, "that if one is unaware of mores then one cannot transgress."
But my referring to the Greeks and Romans amorality meant they simply look amoral to us because they followed different codes or mores. With a difference though. They had transgression but no sin in the sense we mean it. They were not torn like many of us are between pleasure and sin, virtue and vice. They were like those kids you say. Of course, they had the terrible, horrible offence to the gods ('nefas' to the Romans etc.), which implied punishment by the gods. But sin comes imo from the Bible, the Jews and the Christians. And true Italians btw don't really know what sin is. They know of course, but deep down they don't. This explains mafia and many of our bad deeds. Besides confession is there in any case. (We also do good deeds sometimes btw)
As for Classics I understand you may find them boring. High literature in fact is crafted as to transmit aesthetic pleasure and wisdom *only* if some initiation has occurred. It is not beauty & wisdom easily to be appreciated, it takes training, experience, trying failing trying again, exactly like with wine, or Indian spices (that took me years to grasp how amazingly delicious and complex they are.)
Do our web or blog personas reveal us or do we become what we have created?
I think maybe both, although the real self is what matters in the end, so if we truly become a bit or a lot our blog persona, it means it was already part of us and the tool just helped it to come to light. Have to think it over [or it means we are nuts]
I have always been a person who muses over things, thinking deep thoughts that mostly bore my real world peers. Here, I can indulge.
Me too. People start to yawn as soon as they see me. Your thoughts are sincere and deep, Douglas, I really mean it. So lol, let me be the militant Man of Roma here a bit again lol.
Pls continue with classics (of thought, literature, whatever: maybe Cheri can help you, she's from your same culture). Classics cannot but empower your already powerful musings. We all are dwarfs on the shoulder of giants.
[which, translated differently, sounds like: let us not invent the wheel again and again and again :-) ]
MoR, Thank you for that link to the Commentator's blog. He shall be added to my list of blogs to read. Now, to the meat of the matter...
I think of Italy as a strongly Catholic nation. The birthplace of the Christian Church. And I never consider its Roman Empire roots overriding this. I mean, divorce was illegal in Italy at one time, was it not? of course, being Catholic in spirit does not necessarily mean one is intimate with the bible, just with religious ritual.
Vendetta, the concept, precedes the Church so I should have known. And the Mafia is nothing if not a continuation of the power of private armies and the generals who raised/led them. Which truly predates even the Empire.
But my referring to the Greeks and Romans amorality meant they simply look amoral to us because they followed different codes or mores.
Which, I think, was my point in regards to sin (or moral codes) being a cultural construct. Though I do think there are some universal truths that transcend cultural differences. Some of these may differ slightly in detail but the essence is consistent. Murder is murder once the cultural excuses are ruled out as relevant to the act. I would cite assassinations as examples. Only in the Klingon Empire is assassination a legitimate path to leadership.
The classics are such because those that mattered at one time deemed them to be and those who followed accepted that determination. As I said, I can see the truth of that in the physical arts but it eludes me in the literary form. It is the execution which matters, the ideas are neither new nor unknown previous to the publication. Just as a picture of a woman with a smile is common enough, yet Da Vinci's Mona Lisa has something more, something not really definable in mere words. Still, not everyone appreciates all of such artistic expressions even after learning all about the subtleties of technique involved.
I realize that my disinterest in the classics may seem to be akin to preferring photographs over paintings. And I do wonder if it is my failing or my superior insight that underlies it.
But it is so rewarding discover fire for oneself.
Re: personas:
Our online personas are the side of us that we might have hidden from our peers and family for whatever reason (let's call it "insecurity"). Our real world personalities are a facade that we have come to believe is our real self. Who was the real Walter Mitty?
These are just my humble opinions, my "wheels" if you will.
Philosophical guy indeed. And in the spirit of cutting the ostentatious blathering of which you spoke, I concur.
Philosophical guy indeed. And in the spirit of cutting the ostentatious blathering of which you spoke, I concur.
Dear Douglas,
thanks for your kind thoughtful reply. I'll be brief (I'm seldom brief) and chaotic, I have a fiction about St. Augustine starting at the Italian tv I cannot miss, plus I had to comment over *at this guy's blog* I care for. He's a 35-year-old Canadian.
I like your distinction between sin and transgression. As for the Bible I don't know much about it, we don't read it much here in my country. My getting back to Latin and Greek will be an opportunity to study it, since the Greek and Latin of the Bible are baby's talk compared to Plato or Seneca.
I understand amorality in the sense, as you say, "that if one is unaware of mores then one cannot transgress."
But my referring to the Greeks and Romans amorality meant they simply look amoral to us because they followed different codes or mores. With a difference though. They had transgression but no sin in the sense we mean it. They were not torn like many of us are between pleasure and sin, virtue and vice. They were like those kids you say. Of course, they had the terrible, horrible offence to the gods ('nefas' to the Romans etc.), which implied punishment by the gods. But sin comes imo from the Bible, the Jews and the Christians. And true Italians btw don't really know what sin is. They know of course, but deep down they don't. This explains mafia and many of our bad deeds. Besides confession is there in any case. (We also do good deeds sometimes btw)
As for Classics I understand you may find them boring. High literature in fact is crafted as to transmit aesthetic pleasure and wisdom *only* if some initiation has occurred. It is not beauty & wisdom easily to be appreciated, it takes training, experience, trying failing trying again, exactly like with wine, or Indian spices (that took me years to grasp how amazingly delicious and complex they are.)
Do our web or blog personas reveal us or do we become what we have created?
I think maybe both, although the real self is what matters in the end, so if we truly become a bit or a lot our blog persona, it means it was already part of us and the tool just helped it to come to light. Have to think it over [or it means we are nuts]
I have always been a person who muses over things, thinking deep thoughts that mostly bore my real world peers. Here, I can indulge.
Me too. People start to yawn as soon as they see me. Your thoughts are sincere and deep, Douglas, I really mean it. So lol, let me be the militant Man of Roma here a bit again lol.
Pls continue with classics (of thought, literature, whatever: maybe Cheri can help you, she's from your same culture). Classics cannot but empower your already powerful musings. We all are dwarfs on the shoulder of giants.
[which, translated differently, sounds like: let us not invent the wheel again and again and again :-) ]
How anthropological of you to ponder these things. But yes, I somewhat agree with you that evil is innate and good is nurtured, and the quality of the care given is what determines what in the common eye is evil or good. We are all biologically selfish anyway - in competition with each other to ensure our survival. It's just, instead of it being land or resources, it's now a matter of fighting over jobs and university placements and money.
Michael.
Do you hate it too?
"If you're going through Hell, keep going."
Let the Boomer Ranter rant, Douglas, and pls be stoical with Him ...
Even though I don't agree on classics (how could an Italian, our best part being beyond our shoulders?) all you are saying is extremely interesting, problem being your issues nobody knows (or ever knew) how to solve them, I believe.
Cheri made a point in my view when she talked about the original sin. One may not believe in it, but a religion - like ours where man is a bad bad bad worm only God in his infinite goodness can redeem - influences thousands of behaviours within a culture and often also the non religious cannot escape from that.
(Not that we can prove any relation between you and all that, of course).
There was this pervasive concept that said children were "innocents" ... Babies aren't moral
This problem, of the origin of good and evil, has no solution imo. I think that most philosophical problems are too tough and can often find simple solutions through science. I for example do believe that humans, as a species, are predators in the sense that this to me explains evil in us a bit. Being a predator implies needing (and loving) to kill, for example, exactly like tigers do.
Children, not 'taught' - as you very acutely say - to be ‘human(e)’ yet, are in fact cruel with one another, they isolate and abuse the weak in a group, they even torture animals and other kids etc. we've all experienced that as kids haven't we (I was never tortured tho) - we had to survive, the boys and the girls alike.
[In some way, the Greco-Romans were non 'moral' or amoral in a very similar way, but this would take us far]
One thing though should be added, pls allow me: even though terribly problem-solving, science is shallow.
In 2 thousand years possibly (it is my friend *Extropian's* prediction lol) it will prove a good substitute for humanities (philosophy, poetry, music and classics).
But since I won't live that far I'll stick to my classics, which, I agree with Chérie, have resisted time not because they were pretentious but because they were written by the best minds (tho some classics are pretentious, take Cicero who, nonetheless, is smart, enlightening and worth reading.)
On another note, I have finally replied *here* to your boomer's comment on Anglos(phones) vs Latins attitudes toward something we know what it is. I am addicted to procrastination also.
And, pls forgive my tone Douglas.
"Since you are Man of Roma - my wife keeps repeating aloud even at 3 or 5 am - you have changed!"
Yes, I have changed. The character has subjugated me. You can call me The Searcher, The Seeker or The Prophet, your choice
:-(
Post a Comment