Theory and Practice

What does the word Individualism mean to us as human beings living in these United States of America in the 21st century? It is a word and concept that is thrown around a lot by politicians and pundits, punks, plumbers, and proles of all sorts—but is there any content to this seemingly thoughtless verbiage? Invididual Liberty—solidified in Private Property—is the foundation of our system and the supposed guarantor of all our Rights, but this has been seriously undermined by not only modern theory but also modern practice. This is a forum to open up the discussion about what exactly this abstract idea—Individualism and its corollary Freedom—means or can mean in the context of the situation we as a people now find ourselves in.

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Lovers Need Lawyers



“Man is born free, yet everywhere he is in chains!”—Rousseau, The Social Contract 1762
In the beginning, there was the Social Contract: a freely constructed community of Individuals who willingly give up their natural Freedom and voluntarily consent to the community's Laws if—and only if—it can sufficiently protect their Life, Liberty and Property/Pursuit of Happiness.

This is the foundation of Liberalism (the type of System we currently live under), which was discovered through a hypothetical thought experiment called the State of Nature: a device used by early Enlightenment Philosophers to imagine how Man would live if stripped of all seemingly conventional attachments to Country, Religion, and Family and existed only as the isolated, separate beings that the unity of our individual Bodies suggests.

The point of this experiment was to foment a conspiracy to undermine the legitimacy of all previously existing political regimes by exposing their Rulers’ supposed claim to serve the Common Good as nothing more than a means to exploit the Ruled for their own selfish, greedy ends.

(The formula goes something like this: We are all Selves + the Self is naturally selfish = its two strongest motivating passions are Self-Preservation and Self-Interest)

The goal was to give an equal Right to selfishness to the Ruled; to allow them to be the sole judge of their own Interests; to have the Right to freely choose Rulers who would best serve those ends. And, once the old legitimacies were sufficiently disposed of (i.e. Revolution), then the Rulers and the Ruled could consciously—using their Reason—construct a new Contract that would equally protect the Interests of both parties.

But, if one constructs a Society founded on our basest, most animal instincts will it not eventually reduce us back to them; if all these Social relations are shown to be merely conventional, with no natural basis, how do you prevent that line of thought from eventually extending to every form of relationship? And now, “History” has seemingly led us full circle back to the once fabled State of Nature—not as an experimental hypothesis as those who first proposed it, but, instead, as an ever increasingly realized reality.

The Youth today are now well provided for by our Country—and continue to demand more and more social security from their government—yet there is really little to no reciprocal civic engagement required of them; they are free to choose which, if any, Religion they wish to practice; and now, even sexual involvements have been completely liberated as well—no longer necessarily leading to commitment or Family life—completing the triumvirate of conventional attachments: Country, Religion and Family. We now exist as the naked Individuals who once “inhabited” the State of Nature—but with one little difference: we still inhabit Society and like to think of our-Selves as “civilized” creatures, but, as the State of Nature originally showed, the result of disconnected Individuals all asserting equal Rights to a finite amount of Nature’s bounty is really…a War of All Against All.

Despite the radicalism of the Philosophers that first proposed this new scheme for Society, they never imagined the break down of the Family as well, and had relied on this semi-natural, or at least unavoidable, necessity to provide some sort of bridge to connect the Individual and Society. The Individual would take a material stake in his community, in order to provide the best possible atmosphere in which to raise his Family—a way to ensure the Common Good that flows naturally out of our Self-Interest. Also, the concern for the safety of one’s Family is a powerful reason for loyalty to the State that protects them.

Rousseau, however, knew better and could see where the rising tide of Egalitarianism and Individualism (which he agreed with in principle) caused by this new philosophy would eventually lead. This inspired him to devote his entire career to encouraging passionate, Romantic Love to attempt to create a bond between Men and Women that was greater than mere Bourgeois calculation of Self-Interest. But, based on this sketch by Chappelle, it would appear that his great effort has failed and our view of our-Self as simply freely contracting Individuals has now penetrated our every relation—officially destroying any semblance of a natural basis that once connected Human Beings to one another.

Rousseau tried to discover/create Molecules (Family), as opposed to simply Atoms (Individuals), as the building blocks of Society because then Society’s parts would already be moved by different motivations than mere Self-Interest—which then could hopefully be extended to Others. People in love constitute a visible proof that Man can act for other reasons besides the Economic/Utilitarian motivations that dominate Modern Theory. In contrast, each partner in the Molecule is instead motivated by forces found in true attachment and concern for Others, whereas a Society constructed out of radically separate Atoms creates no shared basis of concern—only diffidence or, even worse, war.

We have now turned the most intimate connection that can unite two Human Beings into just another contest in the War of All Against All—the final development of founding all human relations on mere contracts; simply another contest for the “Will to Power” to assert itself. The only possible peace is to be found in an artificial construct: the Business Contract—which we enter into for as long as it is convenient and serves our Interests; a union of two equally Self-ish Individuals who hopefully each have a good lawyer to settle the statistically inevitable Divorce.

And you know what the silliest part of all this is: a concurrent attempt by the same Individuals to turn the actual Social Contract—the societal one—into a more compassionate/caring relationship—i.e. some sort of Socialist type structure that could help to reduce our selfishness—while at the same time reducing real Human connection to an abstraction, with no natural basis. In the end, it appears that we all love our Rights, but hate their consequences. We want to be respected as an Individual, but also want to have real human connections.

And, what we are creating instead are a bunch of Social Solitaries and Isolated Individuals—all with their “own little separate systems”—who have no alternative to collapsing into their Self because everything else has lost its foundation. There is no longer any connection—natural or artificial—to make us care for anyone, except for number one; to draw our attention outward and give us a reason to care about a Community or Society; to not just use one another simply for bodily pleasure…

“I don’t know about you, but I’m still horny.”

8 comments:

  1. When Zarathustra had spoken these words, he again looked at the people, and was silent. "There they stand," said he to his heart; "there they laugh: they understand me not; I am not the mouth for these ears.
    Must one first batter their ears, that they may learn to hear with their eyes? Must one clatter like kettledrums and penitential
    preachers? Or do they only believe the stammerer?
    They have something whereof they are proud. What do they call it, that which maketh them proud? Culture, they call it; it distinguisheth
    them from the goatherds.
    They dislike, therefore, to hear of 'contempt' of themselves. So I will appeal to their pride.
    I will speak unto them of the most contemptible thing: that, however, is the last man!"
    And thus spake Zarathustra unto the people:
    It is time for man to fix his goal. It is time for man to plant the germ of his highest hope.
    Still is his soil rich enough for it. But that soil will one day be poor and exhausted, and no lofty tree will any longer be able to
    grow thereon.
    Alas! there cometh the time when man will no longer launch the arrow of his longing beyond man- and the string of his bow will have
    unlearned to whizz!
    I tell you: one must still have chaos in one, to give birth to a dancing star. I tell you: ye have still chaos in you.
    Alas! There cometh the time when man will no longer give birth to any star. Alas! There cometh the time of the most despicable man,
    who can no longer despise himself.
    Lo! I show you the last man.
    "What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?"- so asketh the last man and blinketh.
    The earth hath then become small, and on it there hoppeth the last man who maketh everything small. His species is ineradicable like that of the ground-flea; the last man liveth longest.
    "We have discovered happiness"- say the last men, and blink thereby.
    They have left the regions where it is hard to live; for they need warmth. One still loveth one's neighbour and rubbeth against him;
    for one needeth warmth.
    Turning ill and being distrustful, they consider sinful: they walk warily. He is a fool who still stumbleth over stones or men!
    A little poison now and then: that maketh pleasant dreams. And much poison at last for a pleasant death.
    One still worketh, for work is a pastime. But one is careful lest the pastime should hurt one.
    One no longer becometh poor or rich; both are too burdensome. Who still wanteth to rule? Who still wanteth to obey? Both are too
    burdensome.
    No shepherd, and one herd! Everyone wanteth the same; everyone is equal: he who hath other sentiments goeth voluntarily into the
    madhouse.
    "Formerly all the world was insane,"- say the subtlest of them, and blink thereby.
    They are clever and know all that hath happened: so there is no end to their raillery. People still fall out, but are soon reconciled-
    otherwise it spoileth their stomachs.
    They have their little pleasures for the day, and their little pleasures for the night, but they have a regard for health.
    "We have discovered happiness,"- say the last men, and blink thereby.

    ReplyDelete
  2. OK- two things:

    1) You write the strangest love letters.

    2) What definition of "family" did you have in your head and how did that come to be your definition?

    ReplyDelete
  3. http://www.therulesbook.com/


    Love’s already dead Pennywisdom.
    Don’t get yourself all Pet Cemetery on it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. But there is still this:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=JXMiD5e90mUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=four+loves+c.s.+lewis&hl=en&src=bmrr&ei=Q6ZyTZ_qCcjngQe8lcw4&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=four%20loves%20c.s.%20lewis&f=false

    From it, I think you’d probably appreciate this, particularly, the same way I did.

    -

    Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art, like the universe itself (for God did not need to create). It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things which give value to survival.

    Friendship arises out of mere companionship when two or more of the companions discover that they have in common some insight or interest or even taste which the others do not share and which, till that moment, each believed to be his own unique treasure (or burden). The typical expression of opening Friendship would be something like, "What? You too? I thought I was the only one.”

    Affection obviously requires kinships or at least proximities which never depended on our own choice. And as for Eros, half the love songs and half the love poems in the world will tell you that the Beloved is your fate or destiny, no more you choice than a thunderbolt, for 'it is not in our power to love or hate.'...ree of all that, we think we have chosen our peers.

    In reality, a few years' difference in the dates of our births, a few more miles between certain house, the choice of one university instead of another, posting to different regiments, the accident of a topic being raised or not raised at a first meeting- any of these chances might have kept us apart. But,... A secret Master of the Ceremonies has been at work... The Friendship is not a reward for our discrimination and good taste in finding one another out. It is the instrument by which God reveals to each the beauties of all the others.

    -

    ReplyDelete
  5. A family is a Man and a Woman

    ReplyDelete
  6. Or a human child and a bunch of wolves.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Or a Man and a bunch of women

    ReplyDelete