Socrates, Confucius and Buddha

Hello! It's been a while!

I've resisted the lure of the keyboard for a while so I could really think of what it was I wanted to write.

I've been doing a lot of watching, thinking, pondering and just general "being" as is my way. I've had my 13yr old daughter with me over her half term which has been nice. Watching her grow up, and question things is quite enlightening, I now know what my own Dad meant by his comments about my bedroom when I was her age. Plus her questions to me, about me, family, about the world and her place in it invariably oblige me to re examine my own thoughts on so many things.

I've had a lot of time on my hands, since I've now finished much of the regular work of my two college courses, and am awaiting events for work this coming year. I had planned on writing something about the recent downfall of Milo Yiannopoulos, but never got round to it. As a result of all this free time my mind wandered off down paths of its own making and I found myself watching and re watching a mini series that the BBC produced. "genius of the ancient world", Narrated and presented by History Professor Bettany Hughes.

In this series Prof Hughes looks at Socrates, Buddha and Confucius, and examines their teachings in light of their relevance to the modern era and how human society has shaped and moulded itself over the intervening 2500yrs since these three men walked the earth. I took this further and completed a  short course with OU on philosophy, and I intend to take things still further and pursue this line of enquiry going forward. (perhaps an MSc I dunno .. )

Have look at the series here...

So why did I choose today to break my self imposed writing pause? Predominantly due to a Facebook conversation I had earlier this afternoon, and the fact its now snowing, so I'm certainly not going out.

It started with my reading a post from the guardian about a chap by the name of Trevor Phillips

This one here...

Essentially Trevor Philips is  questioning not so much what the  left  says, but  how it  says it, plus the  relationship the politcial left has with the political right.

The show in question airs tonight, and I'll be watching, 9pm channel 4, since many of the central tenants agree with my own forming views and also with some satirical and pointed remarks of the guy below. As the saying goes humour often has a grain of truth in it.

Now, Here is a case in point. The Facebook discussion that ensued when I posted this in response to The Trevor Phillips article. 

'Actually, one has to respect that he openly follows his changes in thought. The idea of "controlling" how people think or the expression of ideas as per the report is flawed, and is in no small part responsible for trump et al. As I said yesterday about milo yana"can't spell the rest" oils he was silenced for entirely mercenary reasons. While the man was silenced, his ideas were not. They have yet to be challenged widely, significantly and openly intelectually thus they persist. The general shift in recent years has been one of the main parties becoming shadows of each other such that their differences are minimised, coupled with policing of "left or right " viewpoints that harm re-election or upset status quo in the corridors of power. These are the conditions that breed an electorate screaming for change. And trump et al hear that, leverage it. Then set about their own agendas. We cannot control the expression of ideas. We need to cultivate the populations ability to discuss and critically debate them. Apathy, disenfranchisement, a belief/acceptance that "politicians are all, self serving" and a widely held view that "it's nothing to do with me" coupled with the idea of never stepping outside your own opinions to challenge their underlying principles gives rise to something akin to feudal society, with little micro groups that will fight amongst each other for the privilege of being "right"..." 

One observer pointed out that Milo Yiannopoulos advocated genocide, amongst other things....which of course which any morally responsible human being would have issue with. Heres my response to that remark ... 

Genocide: adocacy of that is a thorny one agreed. However not debating it does not allow one to bring morality to the table. Thus we assume all rational viewpoints would be against genocide without any argument actually occurring. Also, consider that governments throughout history merely call genocide "war" and legalise it. Both are morally questionable yet this is not up for debate? Milo has been effectively silenced by a restriction of his audience. To silence an idea one must explore it and expose it to reason such that those listening can see it as illogical, unfounded etc. In other words debate must occur. Of course humanity being what it is we are unlikely to reach accord, but the debate occurring is the key. Visible meaningful debate. As your comment regards men, on that I'm confused. I reference milo, Trevor and trump "et al". Trumps administration has a few women, notably Kelly Anne Conway? ive previously advocated for professor Greer though I disagree with her style and some of her substance. So your extrapolation that my comments exclude men is I suggest an erroneous reading of my original text. Intellectual and critical thinking is available to all humanity, and while formation of opinion and experience may be linked to gender, the ability to examine them is not. Neither is the expression of that examination via debate.

Note the text in bold. Thus ensued a discussion whereby the observer pointedly requested me to make rational observations defending the act of genocide, and in particular the holocaust. 

I wont go into the whole long thread, for reasons of brevity, but here's another extract from my reply...

the Iraq war. Debated in the law courts. Afghanistan. Debated in parliament. Britain going to war with Germany, debated in U.K. Parliament, to name but three. All these decisions lead to mass death, which dependent on your POV counts as a form of genocide and anyone who thinks politicians don't know that ahead of time is a fool. Therefore they are debating the morality of sending their armies to fight, kill and be killed. One could say for the greater good. in the case of Hitler/fascism that's fair, but Iraq? This is the reason pacifists exist. They see all war as genocide thus oppose it. Others just see one form of war as more morally defensable than another. Killing becomes abhorrent or justified based entirely on your internal morality. ( an indivdual case being that of Sgt Blackman. He shot an insurgent. His "crime" was not the shooting. But HOW he shot him and WHEN) also, since you suggested you're all ears, yet initially said genocide wasn't up for debate I guess I've proved my point?

Remember this discussion started over a point raised about whether censoring of extreme or even differing viewpoints and labelling those who hold them as "bad people" is in some way responsible for the condition that brought about americas trump etc. The opening comment from my respondent was thus:

ok but milo advocated genocide - that's not up for debate.

Yet, 48 replies later, and some 3 hours in the respondent was still debating that which they intimated was not up for debate. There was even a point at which i was accused of being: 

"i think you're a psodo-intelectual, an illetist, a right wing crack pot and an anti-semite." 

Interesting. Here is an educated, rational and moral indivudal, who - based solely on a short single exchange between myself and themselves - concluded they knew exactly who and what I was, simply on the basis that I disagreed with some of the provisions of their preceding arguments and presented a  differing definition of what genocide is and it's causality. 

(For the record I'm not denying or justifying what is and always will be a lasting stain on humanities history, namely the holocaust. Rather I'm stating that war in and of itself is a form of justified genocide made legal by means of a uniform and things called governments, the pure unadulterated horror of war, while not beyond discussion is well known and its morality always questionable) 

Now you may ask why do I share this? Is it to be all holier than thou and go "ha you're too wrong" NO. In fact neither one of us was proven right or wrong, since there was a central issue of difference on the meaning of "genocide" thus we were to some extent talking past each other. No, to claim I was right would simply be crass egocentric bafoonery. I share this to highlight that which Jonathon Pie so eruditely encapsulated in his video above. 

Consider that someone judging another so harshly and erroneously based on minimal info and their own internal view of both the world and their own virtue is an example of the very thing that Trevor Philips is seemingly observing and questioning. A lack of a critical thinking,  evidence based mindset. A lack of  research based aproach and consideration that one's own viewpoint is not sacrosanct nor does that viewpoint give one the legitimacy to denigrate others. 

(Unbeknownst to the observer and respondent in my above conversation we very likely agree on many political things, since I'm a left leaning centrist if i had to box myself as anything and about as far from a right wing crack pot as one can possibly be. But that's besides the point) 

Politicians and people of either persuasion who seek to censor meaningful debate do harm to the process. Of course Milo was an ass. Of course his ideas are reprehensible, and of course the holocaust and any genocide for that matter is awful. BUT not all people think like that. Not all people will ally rational thought with moral consideration or courage. It is for this very reason that we must debate theses issues HOWEVER distasteful... indeed it is their very import, distastefulness and scope of consequence that require us to do so. 

How do we know these distasteful things are morally wrong? How do we know where that line is? Because the generations before us had discussions and debates on these very issues, and set the guidelines. Socrates, Plato, Confucius, and the Buddha. These questions have been debated for 25 centuries. 

It is the hight of arrogance to believe we no longer need to do so because the debate "is settled". 

If we do not teach our children and young people to critically analyse, debate and think for themselves, and if we continue to no platform those who hold views diametrically opposed to "right thinking liberals" then what we hold to be obvious truths are lost in a generation or two and we descend once more into the Trumps and (to a lesser extent perhaps) the May's of this world having created a situation where previously right wing candidates are seen as moderate, and actual Nazi type extremists gain false legitimacy. If we cease to debate these things, our ability to discuss and advocate for the ideas we hold as incontrovertible and universal truths, things like liberty, freedom, morality, justice, is reduced. When the extremists rise and question "why" we then only have a weak defence of "Because we believe it to be so". and "it has always been thus in our life times"

I was also accused of being elitist. Perhaps this one is true. The core values I hold to certainly include wisdom, thought, education and learning amongst others.  I have during my life been to University. Twice. I continually learn, explore and think. Is that elitist? As for being pseudo intellectual, I'm not entirely sure what that is? Do we place legitimacy on the qualification or on the knowledge that one learns to aquire the qualification? can one have knowledge without qualification? of course, since Socrates and his compatriots couldn't simply go to university and study philosophy, they invented it. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge, and discussion for the sake of learning are at the heart of any intellectualism. Qualifications? They're nice, and I have a few, but "needed" to define legitimacy? not so much. 

So is the left in danger of becoming anti intellectual except for those ideas that mirror the perceived wisdom? if so, be wary, for we are at the edge of the map and there be monsters.....

President Obama in 2016 on Donald Trumps err. . . . style and substance? 

Back to that Milo guy....

My original Facebook post mentions Milo Yiannopoulos and like I said at the top of this article I had intended writing about him a little. I was as relieved as the next person to see Milo Yiannopoulos have his platform shrink. However the manner in which it was done was in deference, not to morality, but rather to mercenary things like saleability and political "collateral". He was cut loose not because his views were reprehensible, although they undoubtably are, but because he was no longer marketable. 

So I take no joy in any perceived victory that his demise may bring to others who share my political leaning. The real fight isn't with Milo. It is with the ideology he is a proponent of. One cannot as easily no platform an entire ideology. (although a few short decades ago the LGBT left was on the receiving end of a fair few attempts) One has to debate it, consider it, discuss it and if required discount it,  and KEEP discounting it, never assuming the job is done and that we can pack up and go home cos "everyone knows we are right". 

Democratic process doesn't require apathy, it requires action, advocacy and tireless exchange of  ideas. EVEN those ideas we may on occasion find abhorrent, immoral and repugnant.  As Prof Bethany Hughes  commented recently in the documentary series I mentioned above. 

"it's not so much that "man" is the measure of all things, 

but rather his relationship towards his fellow man" 

I leave you all to ponder with a classic, from pink Floyd...

Until next time keep it #stubbornlyoptimistic 

and keep talking to each other, much may depend on it. 

Sarah 

I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing

Socrates