Tag Archives: philosophy

1 book down… 6932 more to go…

Posted on by

I just finished a book by Dinesh D’souza titled “What’s so great about Christianity”.  I do not exaggerate when I say that D’souza is in the “Buckley” mold–his grasp of philosophy, history, and the sciences firmly establish him as a “renaissance man” (my kind of guy).  Throughout the pages of his book, he challenges and (in many cases ‘destroys’) the arguments and accusations Athiests such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have made against the belief in Christ.  

The book’s basic outline is well constructed.  First, D’souza systematically questions many of the “new Athiesm’s” presuppositions about Christianity.  He points out that Christianity, far from causing the moral tragedies of the modern world… has, in fact, been the changing force that helped overcome these very moral travesties.  For example, Christianity lifted women out of the second-class status Roman society had imposed upon them; it was the impetus for the great artists of our time: Michalengelo, Da Vinchi, Mozart, Bach, Handel… etc… ; it helped create the concept of western government — a concept based around the Christian principle that society must fight against the inherent sinful nature of man and must keep leader’s actions in check.  These are but a few of Christianity’s contributions to world history…  

D’souza then calls Athiesm out — asking it to provide the same answers it chides Christianity for failing to answer.  When tragedy happens, Where is Atheism?  Atheism cannot console the victims of tradgey… nor can it condemn the aggressor.  When Athiest rulers murder millions of their subjects… where is Athiesm’s defense (or apology?).  When Athiesm claims rationality as their trump card… on what basis can they claim that rationality alone provides all answers?  For all it’s proponents, Athiesm still has much to account for.

What’s So Great About Christianity may be the best piece of Christian apologetics in the past decade;  don’t pass it up! 

America (live or die)

Posted on by

No: this is not some ‘vote or die’ political post but is, in fact, the third installment of my series on Baudrillard’s “AMERICA”.  One thing in particular I like about Baudrillard is his ability to interject deep meaning into the mundane.  For example, merely glancing at a piece of graffiti can prompt this response…

‘LIVE OR DIE’: the graffiti message on the pier at Santa Monica is mysterious, because we really have no choice between life and death.  If you live, you live, if you die, you die.  It is like saying ‘be yourself, or don’t be!’  It is stupid, and yet it is enigmatic.  You could read it to mean that you should live intensely or else disappear, but that is banal.  Following the model of ‘pay or die!’, ‘your money or your life!’, it would become ‘your life or your life!”.  Stupid again, since you cannot exchange life for itself.  And yet there is poetic force in this implaceable tautollogy, as there always is when there is nothing to be understood.  In the end, the lesson of this graffiti is perhaps: ‘ if you get more stupid than me, you die!’

I like how he doesn’t see a need for some ultimate conclusion on the meaning of the statement… nothing irks me more then philosophers who get caught up in the meaningless questions.  Even so, it seems he contemplates the statement long enough to expose it for what it is–and in doing so causes his reader to view the common and banal with a fresh perspective.  And you wondered why I like this guy so much… 

Posted on by

AMERICA  ~ part 2 

Here is part 2 of my installment on Jean Baudrillard’s book, “America“.  In this portion, Baudrillard really starts ‘drawing the boundaries’, if you will; clearly defining the fundamental elements of society – elements by which we distinguish ourselves from Europe and the rest of the world.   I find great importance in his explanation;  primarily because it reaffirms the fact that we are unique… it carries with it a certain form of identity–an identity we so easily miss without the perspective of a foreigner.  

The confrontation between America and Europe reveals not so much a rapprochment as a distortion, an unbridgeable rift.  There isn’t just a gap between us, but a whole chasm of modernity.  You are born modern, you do not become so.  And we have never become so…

Every country bears a sort of historical predestination, which almost definitively determines its characteristics.  For us, it is the bourgeois model of 1789 – and the interminable decadence of that model – that shapes our landscape.  There is nothing we can do about it:  everything here revolves around the nineteenth-century bourgeois dream.

As an initial matter, I find Baudrillard’s fatalistic point of view fascinating; the differences we have with Europe are not simply skin deep but amount to an insurmountable hurdle.   His phrase, ”a chasm of modernity”, is particularily important in this regard; it implies an inescapable difference in values — values that appear impossible to change.   When he writes, It is almost as if he wishes he could have been born modern; but realizes it would be an futile attempt to become so.  

Continue reading →

Posted on by

AMERICA  ~ part 1

Being this is my first post in the `America` series, I must say I’m somewhat without a clear format to follow.  I must say, Baudrillard’s words speak for themselves… what little I may add is certainly secondary… so I suppose the best approach is to let Baudrillard speak first and then I’ll comment below.

At issue in this particular post is Baudrillard’s more general insight on America’s financial system… it’s capitalist system… its insistence on complete fluidity of capital, it’s dependence on credit, investment, and security.  I particularly like his “parishioner/priest” analogy.

It is true that ownership of money burns your fingers, like power.  We need people to take this risk for us and we should be eternally grateful to them.  This is why I hesitate to deposit money in a bank.  I am afraid I shall never dare to take it out again.  

When you go to confession and entrust your sins to the safe-keeping of the priest, do you ever come back for them?  And the yet the atmosphere in a bank is that of the confessional (there is no more kafkaesque situation):  admit that you have money , confess that this is not normal.  And it is true:  having money is an awkward situation, from which the bank is only too happy to deliver you:  ’Your money interests us‘ == the bank holds you to ransom, its greed knows no bounds.  Its immodest gase reveals your private parts to you, and you are forced to hand your money over to appease it.  

One day I tried to close my account, taking all the money out in cash.  The teller would not let me go with such a sum on me:  it was obscene, dangerous, immoral.  Would I not at least take travelers’ cheques?  ’No, the whole lot in case’.  I was mad.  In America, you are stark raving mad if, instead of believing in money an its marvelous fluidity, you want to carry it round on you in banknotes.  Money is dirty;  that you must admit.

Its interesting that he parallels ownership of money with a sin we must be absolved of — rather successfully using the priest and confessional example.  What is more interesting is that this feeling is a universal one as near as I can tell.  I wouldn’t dare think of carrying over $100 cash on me at a given time–never mind the fact that I’ve never had my wallet stolen nor have any fears that it might soon be lost.  I have been conditioned to believe that the bank is the only reasonable place wherein my cash belongs – conditioned into believing that missing out on that 3% interest rate on a grand is the first mis-step in a life doomed to poverty.  After all, if I don’t put that next check right into the bank… I might (gasp!) SPEND it!  Save, Save, Save!  and by no means, don’t trust yourself with that responsibility!  The temptation will be too great to bear if you can feel those bills with your own two fingers; you MUST banish it from your presence… only by forgetting it exists can you be responsible with it.  (but such is the way I was raised).

In some ways it is truly a backwards culture we live in; only by forgetting and removing something from our top-of-mind awareness can we effectively ‘use’ it.

How much more bizarre is it then, that Americans live off credit cards… charging this and that… and frequently incurring debt greater then their cash savings (and paying 20%+ in interest).

What is even more interesting to me — and not directly addressed by Baudrillard — is the systematic devaluation of cash as a means of exchange.  As technology makes things more convenient, we are always turning to non-cash alternatives to procure goods and services (and pay them off for that matter).  If I had my way, I wouldn’t pay with cash at all;  the magical numbers residing on some bank server somewhere gratiously allowing me a modest balance seems more preferable to me –even in its abstractness — then a wadfull of cash ever would.

Is this some universal preference?  or am I just the one crazy person!

AMERICA ~~ a series

Posted on by

I spent most of last weekend reading a book titled “America” by the French philosopher Jean Baudrillard.  Baudrillard, who recently passed away, was perhaps France’s most influental “modern” philosopher (in terms of his writing, he would be classified as a ‘post-modern’ philosopher.)  In some ways, I am on a Baudrillard `kick`… America is the third book of his I have read, all have been excellent.

Although not a particularly recent book, “America” it is still a very insightful look into American culture and opinion as a general matter.  Baudrillard’s genius is the ability to ascertain causes–to determine why things exist in their current form.  Much of the book spends time exploring the reasons WHY the US is different then Europe –Culturally and Politically — often with a surprisingly positive conclusions.

Over the next month, I will be exploring a number of different topics addressed by Baudrillard–sparing you the time required to read the book in its entirety, but allowing you to think about the important issues he raises. 

If you are looking for stimulating reading without weeks of commitment, I highly suggest picking this book up at your local amazon.com retailer.

The Absurdity of Authoritarian Perpetuality*

Posted on by

Yesterday, I was enjoying my usual lazy morning routine: sipping Starbucks coffee with some ghirardelli chocolate on the side while reading the Wall Street Journal (there is almost nothing I enjoy more). That simple pleasure was rudely interrupted by a shocking quote in the middle of an article discussing Angela Merkel’s problems articulating a consistent foreign policy.  See if you can spot the portion that so affected me (hint: I italicized it)

Angela Merkel is tougherning her country’s approach to authoritarian regimes in China, Russia and Iran, but the switch hasn’t delivered the kinds of policy changes that might help reign them in.

Her views, including strong backing for Israel and suspicion of Iran, have moved Germany closer to the U.S. on some of the West’s most important foreign-policy challenges.

“Quiet diplomacy doesn’t work if you’re not prepared to stand up for your beliefs in public,” says Eckart von Klaeden, foreign -affirs spokesman for Ms. Merkel’s conservative Christian Democrats. He wrote the party’s new Asia strategy, which said Germany should assert its democratic values more strongly.

That view worries many German foreign-policy specialists… “The idea that Western democracies can write the rules for successful autocracies is fanciful,” says Eberhand Sandschneider, director of the German Council on Foreign Relations.

After almost choking on my semi-dissolved chocolate square, I continued to read the remainder of the article–causing what had once been a perfect morning to become a worse-than-average sick day.

What, If I may ask, is WRONG about Germany–or any other democracy for that matter–”asserting” it’s values? What kind of sick, fatalistic, insecure, impolitic person thinks that the qualities of freedom, tolerance, justice, are values to be concealed, withheld from the gambit of topics available to be discussed in the international arena? Why should the West be mute on the very idea responsible for it’s greatness? Did he really just say this?

Furthermore, the concept that a fundamental quality of an autocracy is its un-questionable Perpetuality (*if I may coin a phrase*) is at best an ignorant opinion, at worst a dangerously revisionist version of history. Phrased differently, where is it written that autocracies are destined to continuous inevitability? The simple answer is that this is pure BS.

History is not lacking in examples of formerly-totalitarian regimes that have either become democratic (or are beginning to move in that direction. Here are just a few exmples off the top of my head (in no particular order):

  • East Germany (Post WWII)
  • South Korea (with U.S. help)
  • Italy (cerca 1948)
  • France (post-revolution)
  • Britian
  • Japan (Post WWII under the Marshall plan)
  • China (to a degree)
  • Spain
  • Venesuela (with the latest political defeat of Chavez)
  • India
  • Niger
  • Kenya
  • (If I have forgotten any major ones, please add to the comments)

As these examples make clear, it is Mr. Sandschneider’s distorted history (and distorted understanding of human nature) that is “fanciful” — not Ms. Merkel’s foreign policy.

And to make a broader point; this kind of reasoning happens all too often in both Democrat and Republican circles (and, to be fair, in Libertarian circles as well). The concept that “those people” , “over there” do not want freedom or cannot handle freedom should we give it to them is dangerously nationalistic and perhaps even anti-ethnic to a degree. Can anyone having fully known oneself, having tasted of the freedoms Democracy provides then assume that people living under oppression WANT to remain in such a state? Is this assumption not based on the idea that these unfortunate souls are not as “enlightened” as we are in the West, that they are the product of a backwards culture and therefore doomed to stupidity? If this is not the case, then please explain how one can conclude differently.

To underestimate the human desire for freedom is to be ignorant of ones-self. Let us not fall victim to this distorted way of thinking.