OUGHT PHILOSOPHERS FLOAT ABOVE THE FRAY?


Ought we avoid the toxicity of polarization by a noncommittal floating above the fray that does not commit to one side or the other? I think not. Politics is war. You must take a side. You can’t play the philosopher on the battlefield. A warrior at war cannot be “a spectator of all time and existence,” as noble as such spectatorship is.

A warrior who is fully human, however, will know when to put aside his weapons and take up his pen. He will know that in the end “The pen is mightier than the sword.” But only in the end. Now you are in the field. If you don’t survive the fight, there will be no life left for ‘penmanship.’

‘Each Other’ and ‘One Another’

“Style is the physiognomy of the mind.” (Arthur Schopenhauer) Depending on your style of mind, you will find the following either tedious and pedantic or a pleasurable exercise in precise analysis and careful thinking.

Ought the title phrases be used interchangeably by good writers, or is there some distinction we need to observe? Compare ‘less’ and ‘fewer.’ Good writers know that ‘less’ is used with mass nouns such as ‘food,’ ‘furniture,’ and ‘snow’ whereas ‘fewer’ is employed with such count nouns as ‘meals,’ ‘tables,’ and ‘snow plows.’ Correct: ‘If you eat less, you consume fewer calories.’ Incorrect: ‘If you eat less, you consume less calories.’ The second sentence should grate against your linguistic sensibilities.

No doubt there are schoolmarm strictures that good writers may violate with impunity. ‘Never split an infinitive’ and ‘Never begin a sentence with a conjunction’ are two examples. But I deny that the fewer-less distinction is in the same grammatical boat: it reflects prima facie logical and ontological distinctions that need to be acknowledged. They are distinctions of the Manifest Image, to borrow a term from Wilfrid Sellars, distinctions that are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Whether these distinctions can survive deeper logical and ontological analysis is a further question.

Bill and Ron are chess players who play each other on Sunday afternoons. But we could just as well say that they play one another on Sunday afternoons. For if each plays the other, then each plays another. And if each one plays another, then each one plays the other given that there are only two players. Now suppose Bill and Ron start a chess club with more than two members. When the members meet they play one another, not each other. Why? Suppose there are four members. Each one plays one of the others; it is not the case that each one plays the other – for the simple reason that there are three others. Since each one plays one of the three others, each one plays another.

The Sage of the Superstitions therefore lays down the following rule. ‘Each other’ and ‘one another’ are stylistic variants of each other, and are to that extent intersubstitutable salva significatione in contexts in which two things stand in some sort of reciprocal relation. In contexts in which more than two things stand in some sort of reciprocal relation, however, ‘one another’ is correct and ‘each other’ incorrect.

How did I arrive at this? Well, I gave an argument that appeals to your reason. I did not invoke any authority – that would be unphilosophical. Nor does actual usage cut any ice with me. Since grammar has a normative component, it cannot merely describe actual usage. For if boneheads prevail, usage degenerates. Describing the details of degeneration may well be a worthwhile socio-linguistic exercise, but conservatives, here as elsewhere, want to impede degeneration rather than merely record it. Grammar must be based in logic, logic in ontology, ontology in what, onto-theology? That is one philosophical project.

Hypatia and Her Lover

An excerpt from the journal of Basile Yanovsky, M.D. reprinted in Michael Rubin, Men Without Masks: Writings from the Journals of Modern Men (Addison-Wesley, 1980), p. 206:

A woman philosopher and religious teacher of the fourth century, Hypatia of Alexandria, had a striking discussion with her lover. To discourage his earthly temptations, she addressed him, at the most passionate moment of their relations, in the following manner: “See what it is you adore, Archytas, this foul matter, this corruption, with its secretions, its excrements and its infections. . . .”

But the tenacious and passionate Archytas gave her this answer: “It is not matter I love, but form.”

How many times, discouraged and depressed in the V. D. clinic, have I repeated these saintly words of Archytas. . . .

In the New York Review of Books, in Veni, Vici, V. D., W. H. Auden reviews Dr. Yanovsky’s The Dark Fields of Venus: From a Doctor’s Logbook.

Bourgeois Anti-Heroism

What follows are excerpts from an article by Ian Buruma and Avishai Margalit published in the New York Review of Books, Vol. XLIX, Number 1 (2002). They strike me as having more than a little contemporary relevance.  Emphasis added.


Enemies of the West usually aspire to be heroes. As Mussolini exhorted his new Romans: “Never cease to be daring!” Islamism, Nazism, fascism, communism are all heroic creeds. Mao’s ideal of permanent revolution was a blueprint for continually stirring things up, for a society invigorated by constant heroic violence. The common enemy of revolutionary heroes is the settled bourgeois, the city dweller, the petty clerk, the plump stockbroker, going about his business, the kind of person, in short, who might have been working in an office in the World Trade Center. It is a peculiar trait of the bourgeoisie, perhaps the most successful class in history, at least so far, according to Karl Marx, to be hated so intensely by some of its most formidable sons and daughters, including Marx himself. Lack of heroism in the bourgeois ethos, of committing great deeds, has a great deal to do with this peculiarity. The hero courts death. The bourgeois is addicted to personal safety. The hero counts death tolls, the bourgeois counts money. Bin Laden was asked by his interviewer in 1998 whether he ever feared betrayal from within his own entourage. He replied: “These men left worldly affairs, and came here for jihad.”

Intellectuals, themselves only rarely heroic, have often displayed a hatred of the bourgeois and an infatuation with heroism–heroic leaders, heroic creeds. Artists in Mussolini’s Italy celebrated speed, youth, energy, instinct, and death-defying derring-do. German social scientists before World War II were fascinated with the juxtaposition of the hero and the bourgeois: Werner Sombart’s Merchants and Heroes and Bogislav von Selchow’s The Civil and the Heroic Man are but two examples of the genre. Von Selchow was one, among many others, by no means all German, who argued that bourgeois liberal society had become cold, fragmented, decadent, mediocre, lifeless. The bourgeois, he wrote, is forever hiding himself in a life without peril. The bourgeois, he said, is anxious to eliminate “fighting against Life, as he lacks the strength necessary to master it in its very nakedness and hardness in a manly fashion.”

To the likes of von Selchow or Ernst Jünger, World War I showed a different, more heroic side of man. That is why the Battle of Langemarck, a particularly horrific episode in 1914, in which Jünger himself took part, became such a subject for hero worship. Some 145,000 men died in a sequence of utterly futile attacks. But the young heroes, many of them from elite universities like the Japanese kamikaze pilots thirty years later, were supposed to have rushed to their early graves singing the Deutschlandlied. The famous words of Theodor Körner, written a century before, were often evoked in remembrance: “Happiness lies only in sacrificial death.” In the first week of the current war in Afghanistan, a young Afghan warrior was quoted in a British newspaper. “The Americans,” he said, “love Pepsi Cola, but we love death.” The sentiments of the Langemarck cult exactly.

Even those who sympathize with the democratic West, such as Alexis de Tocqueville, have pointed out the lack of grandeur, the intellectual conformity, and the cultural mediocrity that are supposed to be inherent in our systems of government. Democracy, Tocqueville warned, could easily become the tyrrany of the majority. He wrote that there were no great writers in America, or indeed anything that might be described as great. It is a common but somewhat questionable complaint. For it is not at all clear that art and culture in New York is any more mediocre that it is in Damascus or Bejing.

Much in our affluent, market-driven societies is indeed mediocre, and there is nothing admirable about luxury per se, but when contempt for the bourgeois creature comforts becomes contempt for life you know the West is under attack. The contempt can come from many sources, but it appeals to those who feel impotent, marginalized, excluded, or denigrated: the intellectual who feels unrecognized, the talentless art student in a city filled with brilliance, the time-serving everyman who disappears into any crowd, the young man from a third-world country who feels mocked by the indifference of a superior West; the list of possible recruits to a cult of death is potentially endless.

Liberalism, wrote an early Nazi theorist, A. Moeller v.d. Bruck, is the “liberty for everybody to be a mediocre man.” The way out of mediocrity, say the sirens of the death cult, is to submerge one’s petty ego into a mass movement, whose awesome energies will be unleashed to create greatness in the name of the Führer, the Emperor, God, or Allah. The Leader personifies all one’s yearnings for grandeur. What is the mere life of one, two or a thousand men, if higher things are at stake? This is a license for great violence against others: Jews, infidels, bourgeois liberals, Sikhs, Muslims, or whoever must be purged to make way for a greater, grander world.

… Self-sacrifice is the highest honor in the war against the West. It is the absolute opposite of the bourgeois fear for his life. And youth is the most capable of sacrificial acts. Most kamikazes were barely out of high school. As bin Laden has said, “The sector between fifteen and twenty-five is the one with ability for jihad and sacrifice.”

… There is no clash of civilizations. Most religions, especially monotheistic ones, have the capacity to harbor the anti-Western poison. And varieties of secular fascism can occur in all cultures. The current conflict, therefore, is not between East and West, Anglo-America and the rest, or Judeo-Christianity and Islam. The death cult is a deadly virus which now strives, for all manner of historical and political reasons, in extreme forms of Islam.

… Al-Qaeda is making a serious bid to stage an Islamist revolution that would bring down governments from Indonesia to Tunisia… The West, and not just the geographical West, should counter this intelligently with the full force of calculating bourgeois anti-heroism. Accountants mulling over shady bank accounts and undercover agents bribing their way will be more useful in the long-term struggle than special macho units blasting their way into the caves of Afghanistan.

Face it, Kamala: You’re Finished

Here she is in all her cluelessness:

In her new campaign memoir, Kamala Harris wrote that Pete Buttigieg, the former transportation secretary and mayor of South Bend, Indiana, “would have been an ideal [running mate] — if I were a straight white man”. But, Harris wrote, “We were already asking a lot of America: to accept a woman, a Black woman, a Black woman married to a Jewish man. Part of me wanted to say, Screw it, let’s just do it. But knowing what was at stake, it was too big of a risk.”

I hate to be so harsh, Kamala dear, but the problem with you is that you are a silly goose, a hopeless clown, a know-nothing, an airhead, and a slanderer with no understanding of your political opponents. That is why you were sent packing. When you were asked why, in your capacity as “Border Czar,” you never visited the southern border, you replied that you had never been to Europe either.  Your refusal to answer a serious question with a serious answer shows you are a contemptible joke, unfit to be anywhere near the levers of power.

You either know nothing about conservatives or you are unwilling to speak the truth about us. We have no objection to a female president of any race.  What we object to are the destructive policies of leftists like you.

Saturday Night at the Oldies: September Songs

But first the absolute best version of Dylan’s From a Buick Six just to get your blood up. But now that Gary U. S. Bond is in the house, here is Twist, Twist, Senora with a trio of 1940s dancing girls. New Orleans, live, with Jeff Beck.

…………………..

September ends.  A transitional month leading from hot August to glorious October, Kerouac month in the MavPhil secular ‘liturgy.’

Dinah Washington, September in the Rain

Rod Stewart, Maggie May. “Wake up Maggie, I think I got something to say to you/It’s late September and I really should be back at school.”

Carole King, It Might as Well Rain Until September

George Shearing, September in the Rain

Walter Huston, September Song 

This from a London reader:

Thanks for linking to the George Shearing ‘September’. I had forgotten he grew up in London (in Battersea, just down the road from me). I love the Bird-like flights on the piano. Indeed I think he wrote ‘Lullaby of Birdland’. Another Londoner is Helen Shapiro who does a great version of ‘It might as well rain until September.’ Great alto voice, never made it in the US as far as I know. 

I was first hipped to Shearing by Kerouac who referred to him in On the Road.  I too love the ‘Bird’-like flights on the piano. The allusion is to Charley ‘Bird’ Parker, also beloved of Kerouac.  Helen Shapiro is new to me, thanks. She does a great job with the Carole King composition.  Believe it or not, King’s version is a demo. That’s one hell of a demo. A YouTuber points out that Shapiro was not part of the 1964 ‘British Invasion.’  I wonder why.

UPDATE 

Jim Soriano recommends Try to Remember — which I had forgotten.

Mark Anderson introduces me to Big Star, September Gurls. Nice clangy, jangling guitar work reminiscent of the Byrds and some Beatle cuts.  Wikipedia article.  Which Beatle cuts?

Well, Rain is one, And Your Bird Can Sing is another.  Wow! I forgot how good these songs are.

Assassination as Inadvertent Secular Canonization

Redacted Substack version.

Bear in mind that ‘redact’ (v.t.) has more than one meaning in English.  It can be used correctly, as I just used it, to mean: revise, although these days it is more commonly used to mean: delete or remove (private or sensitive information).

The same goes for ‘retribution.’ Although it can be correctly used to refer to revenge, it can also be correctly used to refer to retributive justice, which has nothing to do with revenge.

Leftists fear Trump’s retribution, as well they might, given what they have done to him. And they are right to fear it in both senses, especially the second sense: the miscreants will be brought to justice for their crimes against him.

Many of us will then succumb to schadenfreude.

Resist Not the Evil-Doer?

Steven Nemes weighs in on Matt. 5:38-42 in his Substack entry, When should Christians not resist an evildoer?

He makes some of  the same points I have made over the years, most recently, here at Substack: Morality Private and Public.

But he also makes good points that didn’t occur to me.

Is Federalism a Way to Reduce Political Violence?

A while back, in a Substack article, I posed the question: Can Federalism Save Us? I suggested that it might. Now I am wondering whether that piece embodies a tension if not a contradiction.  But what is federalism? The term does not wear its meaning on its sleeve. As I wrote in that article:

Federalism is (i) a form of political organization in which governmental power is divided among a central government and various constituent governing entities such as states, counties, and cities; (ii) subject to the proviso that both the central and the constituent governments retain their separate identities and assigned duties. A government that is not a federation would allow for the central government to create and reorganize constituent governments at will and meddle in their affairs.  Federalism is enshrined in the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” 

Now suppose that in some city or jurisdiction ruled by crime-tolerant leftists, rape, carjacking, murder, and so on are out of control. Chicago is a prime example. We right-thinking people despise crime and the policies of those who allow it and in some cases promote it. The agents  of the Trump administration, in conjunction with local law enforcement, could easily clean  up Chicago in the way they restored order to Washington, D. C.  So most of us Trump-supporting conservatives who hate crime and want to see it reduced, support federal intervention, even  when the Feds are uninvited and can be accused of meddling in local affairs. 

The tension, then, is between a commitment to the Constitution with its Tenth Amendment, which implies respect for states rights, and a salutary concern for the welfare of the poor souls who must inhabit a city dominated by benighted leftists.

Of course, we’ve been here before.  I don’t recall anyone in 1962 calling John F. Kennedy a fascist, though. Standards of civility have deteriorated drastically.  The times they have a changed.

Bob Dylan, Oxford Town. Paul Butterfield Blues Band, Born in Chicago.