I had a discussion a few nights ago. again on Facebook, that did leave me with a range of thoughts. Almost too many. It had started with a discussion of Madonna. This was after her appearance at the Washington DC protest on Saturday, January 21st.
The poster was critical of her, claiming that regardless of her stated intentions, she is primarily focused on selling her brand, her music and anything else she can sell. Ultimately it was said, she is in this game for herself, she is truly not interested in anyone else. I do not know if this is true. I do not really care. Madonna probably does not know.
The poster was critical of her, claiming that regardless of her stated intentions, she is primarily focused on selling her brand, her music and anything else she can sell. Ultimately it was said, she is in this game for herself, she is truly not interested in anyone else. I do not know if this is true. I do not really care. Madonna probably does not know.
In response to that, however, myself and one other asserted that this is true of most politicians. It is true of the President himself I claimed. And this, the original poster challenged. He came back, stating,"No Way, He was always upfront about his purpose. Never hid behind a cause and monetized peoples feelings and ideology! He was in it for the Money!"
To which I stated that he was honest. Specifically, I said,"OK so what you are saying is that he does not take positions contrary to what he actually believes. He is an honest man." I do not actually believe this, but it was an amusing position. And if not honesty, there is at the least a consistency there.
Interestingly, the original poster would not concede that the President was honest, just that he was not manipulative, as was Madonna. And we went back and forth on this. He was unwilling to say that the President was honest, based on the points made above. He went on to say that to be or even say that the President is honest was complicated. To which I responded, how so? Perhaps it is at hard to be honest, but it is not complicated.
So the other poster, who could not bring himself to say that the President was honest, and who claimed only that honesty is complicated, had to leave, and I went to bed. The conversation ended there. I got up, however, the next morning, and on the train into New York, I sat there thinking of the value of honesty, of the necessity of honesty.
When I say honesty, I am bringing with that term several others, no doubt. Truth, of course, needs to be included along with honesty. Trust goes hand in hand with these. Lastly, perhaps, as I pointed out above consistency. Philosophers have a range of theories on truth and with that honesty, but at the end of the day the value of it and these virtues in general are undisputed.
I sat there at the end of my train ride frantically sending a series of one-line emails to myself. Soon enough I would be in the tunnel and did not want to lose my gems. Each represented a case where honesty and truth were essential in some fashion.
Below is the list I thought of and emailed to myself that early morning on my train:
I sat there at the end of my train ride frantically sending a series of one-line emails to myself. Soon enough I would be in the tunnel and did not want to lose my gems. Each represented a case where honesty and truth were essential in some fashion.
Below is the list I thought of and emailed to myself that early morning on my train:
- Honesty and trust are necessary for a civil society
- Honesty and the principle of charity
- honesty and sophistry
- Capitalism itself is based on trust though it is a tenuous relationship!
- Economic nationalism - can it stand considering the need for honesty and truth.
- And lastly the tension between the President and Madonna clings to honesty. (The fact that they are not seen as the same is perhaps why they protested. The very core of the issue.
So I will try to go through these and make some sense of the ramblings.:
1. Honesty and trust are necessary to have a civil society
This is almost a bromide. It is simply the case that if all were dishonest and untruthful, than there would it would be impossible to trust. What would you trust? Perhaps you would come to expect to be lied to. Political institutions would be untenable. If two people could not agree on what belongs to who, or what is shared, than how could a group of people arrive at any type of agreement and proceed in any shared task.
2. Honesty and the Principle of Charity
This topic has and continues to be a pet project of mine for awhile!
I believe Augustine was the original author of the idea, certainly in the Christian tradition. For him charity was to see God in others. In this way, one recognizes the other, someone or something that otherwise would be foreign and unknown. It allows you to embrace someone that is foreign or non-Christian, as opposed to challenge or confront them. With Augustine you see others with love, versus fear or contempt. The other becomes, like yourself, one of God's children.
Jump ahead to the mid to late 20th century where you have philosophers looking not to god but to language to understand our world. In this case, Donald Davidson. Davidson was an American philosopher who falls in what is commonly described as analytic philosophy. Again this group is very focused on the nature of language and the belief that to understand language and how it works is to arrive at some philosophical gold.
Davidson and others were intrigued with what was known as Radical Interpretation. Basically the question of how exactly does an anthropologist make sense of a totally foreign culture. He made sense of this exercise through the Principle of charity. Now unlike Augustine who turned to God to interpret and make sense of unknowns, Davidson looks to Truth. For him, language, meaning and belief are intimate. The language people use, the meanings conveyed in that language, and the beliefs the speakers hold are almost if not identical. the anthropologist then interprets the person from the other culture through his own set of beliefs, which he largely holds to be true.
In short, we arrive at language and belief entailing a large set of true statements. When we engage in any type of communication it is in relation to that set of statements (beliefs, facts, etc.) that we determine whether the speaker makes sense and likewise if he speaks the truth. Again truth and meaning here are almost identical.
Going back to the discussion of honesty, the principle of charity allows for us to engage and assess a speaker and determine his honesty and truthfulness.
3. Honesty and Sophistry
this is Philosophy 101 - Socrates versus those nasty sophists! Recall the sophists were typically orators and teachers of oratory. They believed in the powers of rhetoric. Sadly, truth has little or no relation to oratory then or now. And by oratory I do mean political oratory. The sophists would claim that they could make the untrue more appealing than what is true. There is nothing to really dispute here. It has and is done routinely. Certainly in today's world it is done. Sadly to point to Socrates and his pleas for the truth and the good are often seen as absurd and amusing in today's world.
To go back to Davidson, it could be argued that there is so much uncertainty over what is true in today's world that meaning and belief are in jeopardy. Skepticism, and uncertainly, which in proper doses can be good, can now overwhelm. Gong back to sophistry and Socrates challenge to it, the willful mixing of truth and falsehood by a speaker, ultimately serves no one.
4. Honesty and Capitalism
This is kind of a return to our first point. Accept instead of looking to build a civil society, you are now a self-interested individual. This position is a commonly appealed to in economics, and assumes a certain amount of rationality and shared assumptions between these rational individuals or actors. Both want to negotiate the best deal for themselves. If, however, you find the other party is not rational, or untrustworthy, you will not in ideal circumstances negotiate with him. Often, however, we are not in ideal circumstances and we have to work with such individuals. the point here is that not only in politics but in economics and finance honesty is again required or certainly desired. I type this and find it mildly amusing. It is simply obvious.
5. Economic Nationalism
My 5th and 6th point are much more speculative, and not purely based upon the importance of honesty.
That said, they were arrived at in the fever of that moment on the train as I approached the tunnel and Grand Central, so I include them here.
Economic Nationalism is something that has been discussed recently n relation to the President's Advisor, Steve Bannon. He made reference to an "economic nationalist" agenda. In short his view of it has been expressed in one paragraph in one interview, that I am aware of.
For me this is a challenge to our values and perhaps that is where we can tie this back to honesty. (I know I am stretching here!). That said, we have come to a crossroads where we need to decide if we are citizens of a nation state, or are we individuals that pursue our dreams regardless of where those dreams lead us. Are we citizens or individuals? Likewise is our loyalty to the nation state or the international or multi-national corporation?
These are in honesty the questions we are pondering today.
In short, do national borders matter? Up until now they largely did not. A large part of the world held that borders should be open and that trade should be free, and yes I speak generously here. There will always be constraints in these domains, the question is regarding degree and the type of constraints.
Once we answer those questions, or as we answer those questions, we will be required to redefine the roles played by all of the above players. And this process will entail a questioning of our beliefs, what we hold to be true, and what are the facts. In short, we are applying what Davidson and others such as Willard Quine called Radical Interpretation. What some of us might simply paraphrase as us asking,"What the f is going on?"
Many I am sure will dispute and challenge the above. I am sure those in philosophy will point out the numerous misreading and simply poor readings of the philosophers I have referenced here. All I can say is that I welcome your feedback and suggestions.
6. The tension between the President and Madonna clings to honesty. (The fact that they are not seen as the same is perhaps why they protested. The very core of the issue.
This points to perceptions and thoughts on gender. I am going to save this for another day and another essay. Sorry.
This is almost a bromide. It is simply the case that if all were dishonest and untruthful, than there would it would be impossible to trust. What would you trust? Perhaps you would come to expect to be lied to. Political institutions would be untenable. If two people could not agree on what belongs to who, or what is shared, than how could a group of people arrive at any type of agreement and proceed in any shared task.
2. Honesty and the Principle of Charity
This topic has and continues to be a pet project of mine for awhile!
I believe Augustine was the original author of the idea, certainly in the Christian tradition. For him charity was to see God in others. In this way, one recognizes the other, someone or something that otherwise would be foreign and unknown. It allows you to embrace someone that is foreign or non-Christian, as opposed to challenge or confront them. With Augustine you see others with love, versus fear or contempt. The other becomes, like yourself, one of God's children.
Jump ahead to the mid to late 20th century where you have philosophers looking not to god but to language to understand our world. In this case, Donald Davidson. Davidson was an American philosopher who falls in what is commonly described as analytic philosophy. Again this group is very focused on the nature of language and the belief that to understand language and how it works is to arrive at some philosophical gold.
Davidson and others were intrigued with what was known as Radical Interpretation. Basically the question of how exactly does an anthropologist make sense of a totally foreign culture. He made sense of this exercise through the Principle of charity. Now unlike Augustine who turned to God to interpret and make sense of unknowns, Davidson looks to Truth. For him, language, meaning and belief are intimate. The language people use, the meanings conveyed in that language, and the beliefs the speakers hold are almost if not identical. the anthropologist then interprets the person from the other culture through his own set of beliefs, which he largely holds to be true.
In short, we arrive at language and belief entailing a large set of true statements. When we engage in any type of communication it is in relation to that set of statements (beliefs, facts, etc.) that we determine whether the speaker makes sense and likewise if he speaks the truth. Again truth and meaning here are almost identical.
Going back to the discussion of honesty, the principle of charity allows for us to engage and assess a speaker and determine his honesty and truthfulness.
3. Honesty and Sophistry
this is Philosophy 101 - Socrates versus those nasty sophists! Recall the sophists were typically orators and teachers of oratory. They believed in the powers of rhetoric. Sadly, truth has little or no relation to oratory then or now. And by oratory I do mean political oratory. The sophists would claim that they could make the untrue more appealing than what is true. There is nothing to really dispute here. It has and is done routinely. Certainly in today's world it is done. Sadly to point to Socrates and his pleas for the truth and the good are often seen as absurd and amusing in today's world.
To go back to Davidson, it could be argued that there is so much uncertainty over what is true in today's world that meaning and belief are in jeopardy. Skepticism, and uncertainly, which in proper doses can be good, can now overwhelm. Gong back to sophistry and Socrates challenge to it, the willful mixing of truth and falsehood by a speaker, ultimately serves no one.
4. Honesty and Capitalism
This is kind of a return to our first point. Accept instead of looking to build a civil society, you are now a self-interested individual. This position is a commonly appealed to in economics, and assumes a certain amount of rationality and shared assumptions between these rational individuals or actors. Both want to negotiate the best deal for themselves. If, however, you find the other party is not rational, or untrustworthy, you will not in ideal circumstances negotiate with him. Often, however, we are not in ideal circumstances and we have to work with such individuals. the point here is that not only in politics but in economics and finance honesty is again required or certainly desired. I type this and find it mildly amusing. It is simply obvious.
5. Economic Nationalism
My 5th and 6th point are much more speculative, and not purely based upon the importance of honesty.
That said, they were arrived at in the fever of that moment on the train as I approached the tunnel and Grand Central, so I include them here.
Economic Nationalism is something that has been discussed recently n relation to the President's Advisor, Steve Bannon. He made reference to an "economic nationalist" agenda. In short his view of it has been expressed in one paragraph in one interview, that I am aware of.
He absolutely — mockingly — rejects the idea that this is a racial line. "I'm not a white nationalist, I'm a nationalist. I'm an economic nationalist," he tells me. "The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f—ed over. If we deliver" — by "we" he means the Trump White House — "we'll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years. That's what the Democrats missed. They were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people. It's not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about."A better term or perhaps a comparable term is neo-mercantilism. Both are informative, though the first alludes to fascism and points one to Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy. Neo-mercantilism points one to Nineteenth century United Kingdom, and the United States. Both point to the "imposition of tariffs and other restrictions on the movement of labor, goods and capital"*Wikipedia.
In a nascent administration that seems, at best, random in its beliefs, Bannon can seem to be not just a focused voice, but almost a messianic one:
"Like [Andrew] Jackson's populism, we're going to build an entirely new political movement," he says. "It's everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I'm the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Shipyards, ironworks, get them all jacked up. We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution — conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement." (Ringside With Steve Bannon at Trump Tower as the President-Elect's Strategist Plots "An Entirely New Political Movement" (Exclusive), The Hollywood Reporter, 10:00 AM PST 11/18/2016 by Michael Wolff)
For me this is a challenge to our values and perhaps that is where we can tie this back to honesty. (I know I am stretching here!). That said, we have come to a crossroads where we need to decide if we are citizens of a nation state, or are we individuals that pursue our dreams regardless of where those dreams lead us. Are we citizens or individuals? Likewise is our loyalty to the nation state or the international or multi-national corporation?
These are in honesty the questions we are pondering today.
In short, do national borders matter? Up until now they largely did not. A large part of the world held that borders should be open and that trade should be free, and yes I speak generously here. There will always be constraints in these domains, the question is regarding degree and the type of constraints.
Once we answer those questions, or as we answer those questions, we will be required to redefine the roles played by all of the above players. And this process will entail a questioning of our beliefs, what we hold to be true, and what are the facts. In short, we are applying what Davidson and others such as Willard Quine called Radical Interpretation. What some of us might simply paraphrase as us asking,"What the f is going on?"
Many I am sure will dispute and challenge the above. I am sure those in philosophy will point out the numerous misreading and simply poor readings of the philosophers I have referenced here. All I can say is that I welcome your feedback and suggestions.
6. The tension between the President and Madonna clings to honesty. (The fact that they are not seen as the same is perhaps why they protested. The very core of the issue.
This points to perceptions and thoughts on gender. I am going to save this for another day and another essay. Sorry.
