Lucy Parsons on The Upper Class Elite and Voting

 

Is The World Worth Saving ?

 People concerned about the human condition ask to themselves a rather unpleasant question. The efforts, activism, and various movements are a never ending cycle. The economic, social, and  political crises facing the world appear to be permanent fixtures. Attempts at reform, revolution, or just a state of stability are not attainable. Activists who were trying to reach a goal find themselves still trying to improve society years later. A person who has thought intensely about this comes to a realization. Is the world worth saving ? The thought might be cynical, but it cannot be avoided in conversation. The long fights or struggles just result in another. The opposing view is that this must be done to ensure for a better future. Others dismiss the question stating that the contemporary period is an improvement over the past. Progress can be gained at certain stages and then revert to a more repressive system. The tools that the citizen has are protests, voting, or  armed revolt . Whether it is revolution or reform the political system tends to go back to am oppressive system. The laws that ensure protection are repealed or new barriers are erected. It does not matter if it is an authoritarian regime or a liberal democratic one. Much of the world's problems could be solved with cooperation among nations, economic partnerships, and a devotion to diplomacy. Few nations have a desire to do so. Human behavior prevents much of this from happening. The global political structure does not allow for this to happen. Then it must be acknowledged certain elements humankind cannot control. The ability to destroy civilization has increased significantly and the world wants to accelerate the process. Reformers, revolutionaries, and activists are fighting a war which is futile. The world might not be able to be saved from the economic, social, or political stresses it faces. 

         The majority of the population has not reached a degree of political consciousness for long term change. Even those who comprehend certain problems are not inspired to take action. The citizens will continue to either vote for the same political parties or adhere to the dominant  political ideology. Trying to expose new alternatives is either met with scorn or accusations of fringe beliefs or conspiracy theory. A section of the population might want to see change, but are not willing to contribute what is required to make it happen. Those who support  the establishment o status quo want to actively prevent progress. These people either have a level of privilege or status they do not want to relinquish. Others could be so indoctrinated  that an oppressive system is deemed the natural order. A revolution does not require a large amount of people. Famous revolutions of the past did not have the support of the majority. The American, French, Russian, and Mexican revolutions were not dependent on large numbers. Using certain tactics and raising awareness about their cause brought them to power. Persuasion is the key to success into building political consciousness. The modern movements for political and social change have not been able to do this effectively. What ever the cause, it quickly vanishes becoming nothing more than a  trend. A long lasting ideology and active movement has to materialize for creating a desirable future. The people of the world are either not ready or able to reach a degree of political consciousness to make that possible. Access to information or new ideas can be difficult to get to. This obstacle can be too insuperable to overcome. 

      The presence of   world conflict is never ending. War  destroys society and people. Peace is the only solution to a world coming closer to more perilous conditions. The advocates of  human rights understand why it must be stopped. The majority of the world's population might not favor it on the basis of ethics, the economic costs, or other reasons. Yet, war zones continue to expand. World leaders encourage it by proxy wars, regime change, and intelligence operations. The erroneous assumption was that f there were more democratic governments, war would be less likely. One model of government will never stop conflict. Racial, national, and  religious hatreds are too powerful. The major world powers continue to exploit weaker nations for their own benefit. The desire for endless conflict could bright about the fall of civilization. The efforts of international bodies stopping global conflict are limited. The failure of the United Nations to promote international peace demonstrates how ineffective it can be as an institution. The UN has at times enabled hostility at particular countries. Peacekeepers to an extent are nothing more than an occupying force in war zones. Nations appear to follow policies that ensure humankind's destruction in a distant future. Nuclear weapons and persistent tension among the most powerful nations becomes a growing concern. An international peace movement does not exist to counter these developments. Citizens of various nations either support a war effort out of fear, ignorance, or thinking it is a patriotic duty. If war is ever going to be challenged, people must stop believing it is a normal state of affairs. National security has become a permanent state of warfare cabinet. That model has been replicated by most countries. The process has become to vast and complex to halt. Either soldiers refuse to fight or mass demonstrations have to be held to force change. The unfortunate reality is that most states are held together by some from of force. The military and law enforcement are instruments in enforcing a state' s will. War and armies are never going to disappear. The threat remains constant, causing destabilization around the world. 

       Activism has a limitation. Non-profit organizations , philanthropy, and protesting are not reducing the series of global concerns. There are activists who are still protesting the same issues years before. The fact can be a serious discouragement. Conditions can even revert back to a less favorable state. Progress always is out of reach. Two perspectives are held in regard to combating the crisis facing humankind. Either incremental approaches or acceleration to the objective are advocated. Reformers tend to favor  the incremental approach to change. Those with a more revolutionary position want acceleration. When economic, political, and social problems become so intense, gradual approaches are not going to be helpful. An emergency demands a rapid response. A  unified plan and collaboration among various groups is required. Solidarity is a practical  method among those seeking solutions to many societal problems. The obstacle is that each organization o group  has its own objectives. When their goals are met, the alliance falls apart. There are common grievances, but it all are not oppressed to the same degree. The coalitions that are built whether political or organization based are temporary. When the coalitions are operational they are not as efficient as they could be. The cycle of rise and collapse plagues movements. Activists have also gotten into the habit of allying with establishment figures they assume are sympathetic to their cause.  The politicians manipulate them to get votes, but never advance legislation that supporters desire. Then a faction of activists lose sight of their own agenda. The limitations of activism hinder it from preventing major catastrophes. 

     A general feeling of frustration and hopelessness has spread. The sentiment prevents a resistance to materialize. A charismatic leader can inspire the masses, yet the momentum dies when they are gone. The struggle against  apathy become a bigger adversary to defeat. At some point the world's problems become so numerous it would be pointless to do something. Corrupt governments have been a fixture of  civilization through out history. Climate change continues to be exacerbated, that nothing will reverse the damage. The response from range from lack of concern to willing ignorance. One has to wonder if humankind wants to survive. Unfortunately .enough people have to suffer  to motivate an insurrection against the established order. Such a development will not occur fast, if ever. With no movement or leaders those struggling have no options. The networks of communication are more vast than they have ever been, yet people are more isolated. The new phenomenon is the loss of community and the loss of a common welfare. This is not the manifestation of individualism, rather an  embrace of selfishness. Some just do not care about other people and just want to consume. The upper class elite are the major culprits of this behavior. The money, land, and its resources are being horded by them at the expense of average people. The world is filled with violence, hate, and unrelenting cruelty. The most powerful inflict harm with little consequence. The despair induced by horrible environments produce the frustration that could project in mass violence. A consistent cycle can be seen with few solutions to neutralize it.  

        Looking at the collective behavior of nations and their societies, the world is in a critical condition. The power structure becomes more potent having influence in all aspects of life. Media, government, and law remain under the domination of an elite. The policies that are enacted by them are accelerating harm to the the world and the public. The tools which should help to expose and  condemn such actions have become allies to power. The media does not scrutinize leaders or corporations engaging in questionable practices. Most rather support the status quo or uphold the ideas of the establishment. Citizens who live in a country in which they cannot select their leaders have no choice. Those who can select them are at fault for deterioration of their society. The cumulative mass of problems explains a level of dysfunction too common in various countries. Few are immune from them. Economic decline,  violence ,  racism, and corrupt government are becoming regular fixtures. The only logical conclusion is that it is a wasted effort to improve a world so broken. The  only problem with surrendering to the oppressive forces or just ignoring it completely is that it will always seek victims. The luxury of  apathetic existence or capitulation are no longer options. A war is being waged against the average citizen whether they are compliant or resist. The question then shifts to matters of survival.  The world at some stage will end as all things do. Saving it depends on how much people are willing to change and make it a better place.   

Neil deGrasse Tyson on God

The concept of God seems real to people. However, it has no basis in scientific fact. Neil deGrasse Tyson explains why this is problematic. There is no evidence that such a being exist. God may not be all powerful or all good. The reason religion is referred to faith is because it is conviction without proof. A belief system is not a description of the world rather, a philosophical perspective. A person accumulates ideas through experiences, exposure to different thoughts, or culture. Science gains information through experimentation, observation, and logic. God simply does not fit into our reality as currently perceived. Astronomers and astrophysicists have explored the known universe. Nothing has presented itself as a supernatural being. The challenge is proving an organism does not exist. There is so much humanity does not know. Simply saying there is a divine force behind particular phenomena cannot be a correct answer. Neil deGrasse Tyson wants people to question what is accepted and seek answers. Religion stifles free thought with the idea it knows everything.   

Stephen Hawking on Knowledge

Neil De Grasse Tyson on Asserting Truth

Jean-Paul Sartre - In Our Time BBC Radio 4

Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) was a philosopher and one of the major figures of existentialism. Not only was he a philosopher, but an activist. He was also a writer who produced novels. Sartre covered topics such as human knowledge, the question of existence, and the question of freedom. Born in Paris to a middle class family, Sartre lost his father at an early age. At an early age he was introduced to literature and gained a love a books. Simone de Beauvoir had a major impact on his life. They were lovers and collaborators to the philosophical condition. His most famous work was Being and Nothingness: An Essay On Phenomenological Ontology. This essay discussed the nature of freedom. This takes an element of consciousness. The idea "we are condemned to be free" challenges the determinism of our environment. Sartre was convinced that writing was a great form of resistance to oppression. Although writing can be used for reactionary purposes, there can be others who challenge them. Sartre rejected capitalism, colonialism, and imperialism.Jean-Paul Sartre supported anti-colonial liberation struggles and favored the Algerian movement for independence. Sartre attempted to combine both Marxism and existentialism into one ideology. He was supportive of the U.S.S.R, but he had some disagreements with certain ideas. Sartre's Marxism puts less emphasis on technocratic economy theory, but on its early philosophical roots. When developing complex ideas it is inevitable that contradictions can be avoided. To summarize Sartre's philosophy in a simplistic terms "we are what we do."       

Albert Einstein on Education

Camille Paglia on Third Wave Feminism

Camille Paglia is a professor and cultural critic known for criticism of  the contemporary feminist movement. Although a controversial figure, some of her points are valid. We cannot deny that biology does play a role in our behavior. However, this is not the only factor. Environment is essential element that forms a human being. Camille seems to value what she refers to as "masculine values." Inventing, discovering, and exploring are not masculine values. They are values of a person of vigor and ambition. Men and women who lack this, will not be movers of society and civilization.Saying that men were the only movers of history is subtle sexism. No one can deny that sexual dimorphism is biological fact, but that does not imply superiority. Men and women are different, but equal. The lugubrious fact is that society values men more than women. Hopefully, one day this can change, so that men and women can both be valued members in society.  

Stoicism

Stoicism is a branch of ancient philosophy, which sought to find joy through wisdom. Only with the acquisition of wisdom can an individual live a full and prosperous life. This concept was developed by Zeno (334-233 B.C.E). The word stoic derives from the area in which he began his school (stoa meaning porch in Greek).  Gradually, other philosophers contributed to this body of thought. Cleanthes, Aristo, Epictetus, Seneca, Cicero, and Marcus Aurelius adopted Stoic thought. Zeno regarded Socrates with high esteem and incorporated some of his ideas into his own philosophy. Stoicism examines elements of knowledge, ethics, logic, and the physical world.
     The stoic view of knowledge holds that exposure to matter builds the mind. Knowledge can be acquired through the senses and interaction with physical matter. This matter is not inactive, but an ever present force. It will not be static. It shall change constantly. Nature has an order due to this force and active matter. The way in which an individual thinks is related to how they perceive physical matter. Stoics believed existence was impossible without matter. Stoics did not want to become completely emotionless, but gain control of them from logical thought. Only when an individual can reason can they seek true happiness. Stoic thought in many respects became the foundation of materialist ideas.
        The stoics had a deterministic view of events. Nothing just happened; it had a purpose. Not only are events happening for a reason it is part of a larger plan. This plan is set fourth by God or Gods in accordance with the laws of  nature. Trying to interfere with this design would be pointless. Acceptance and rationalization of events can help an individual achieve full harmony. If one does not react to certain events, they will function better. The logos ( Gods or rather reason itself) are in control of all existence. Concepts such as fate and providence are emphasized. This is not in a fashion of mysticism, but the idea that the world and nature function on logic and laws. 
         Ethics are another area of concern to stoics. Individuals are in a manner actors in a drama. Everyone is given a role by the logos. It is out of their control which role in life one will receive. One of the major goals of the stoics was to relinquish excessive desires. Constant searches for pleasure could have negative consequences. Ideologically they were the opposite of hedonists. However, they do not agree with the basis of cynic philosophy.  Stoics did not repudiate society completely. The idea was to remain neutral to events. Ethical questions that discuss good and evil are regulated to the individual. Seeing as an individual controls their emotions and personal conduct  responsibility rests solely on them. Other factors are not relevant in regards to concepts of good or evil. Genuine virtue can only be acquired by indifference. 
             The most important contribution by the stoics was the early development universal natural law of justice. All human beings are connected. The link was the Gods and logos which were a part of nature. There for the law should function in the interest of all people. Even though your fate is predetermined in this philosophy, it does not give people  the right to dominate  other groups. The subject of freedom complicates aspects of stoic philosophy. Freedom from the stoic perspective is the elimination of emotional distress. Yet, if  a person has no choice in certain decisions this could induce distress. The concept of predestined roles can be abused to justify the discrimination of marginalized groups in society. This contradictory and ambiguous perspective on freedom complicates the relation with  universal natural law of justice. 
                 Stoicism would later be eclipsed by the rise of Christianity. During its golden age it influenced many philosophers, leaders,  and the people of the ancient world. The impact cannot be underestimated when examining Greek and Roman civilization. Modern vernacular changed the word stoic to mean " a person who can endure pain without emotion or feeling." The philosophic tradition of stoicism is more complex and has a vast body of thought. 

Further Reading 

   Stumpf, Samuel. Socrates to Sarte. New York: McGraw-Hill  Book Company,1982.

Popkin R.H.,  & Stroll A . Philosophy Made Simple .New York : Broadway Books,1993. 

What is Philosophy?

The word philosophy can be a confusing concept. The term comes from the Greek word philosophia,  which means the "love of wisdom." This field of study attempts to answer and solve  major human problems through rational argument and critical thinking. Philosophy explores such topics as knowledge,existence, and the nature of  life. Some of the earliest philosophies were religious and spiritual in perspective. As society grew more complex ,humankind began to develop new ideas. Philosophy began to diversify in subject matter. Philosophy has branches that include logic,ethics,ontology, epistemology, metaphysics, and aesthetics. There are also specific specialized branches which are philosophies of jurisprudence, science,religion, language, the mind, and politics. Another area of examination is metaphilosophy, which analyzes methods and techniques in philosophic discourse. Philosophy is an important subject, because the world is driven by an idea. The convictions that people adopt  can reveal much about society. 

Further Reading 

Stumpf, Samuel. Socrates to Sarte. New York: McGraw-Hill  Book Company,1982.