Rachel’s Musings

For one of my classes, I had to put together a creative project. Since writing is my creative outlet, I chose to write a poem. After reading Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, I wrote the following poem inspired by the liberating energy I felt in the Allegory. After re-reading a piece from Iris Murdoch, I decided to post it here. Maybe the sun of the Good will shine through to reach some of us to go beyond ourselves to develop morally as Murdoch suggested great art can do (note: I think Plato’s work is the great art here!).

Deep down in the appetitive cave of my soul
I dwell amongst the shadows which I belief to be real.
Drawn by the bright rays of the form of the good
I start my accent up the divided line.
First I see only images but then I make out things,
Of which I am quick to opine.
Allying my spirited part to help train my rational part,
I harness my appetitive part to jump across the line
So that I can start thinking about math and science.
Not quite satisfied yet, I seek to understand the forms themselves
Floating around in the realm of being.
Finally reaching knowledge and the light of the form of the good
My soul is happy, well aligned as it is, and justice is served.

This poem touches on a lot of Plato’s teaching, including the divided line and his tri-partied soul. In part, I used these pieces because they also sound great (like “appetitive”…) but also to give a little idea of Plato’s work. I was trying to make the terms obvious in the poem but I might not have succeeded, so please use the comments to ask for more details if you’re interested…

Plato’s Allegory of the Cave (Republic, 514a-520a) summarizes his metaphysical as well as his educational theories. In the cave are prisoners who see nothing but shadows projected onto a wall by puppeteers who are behind another wall that blocks direct sunlight (514a-b). The prisoners believe that the shadows are images of the real world (515c). One prisoner is forced up a path out of the cave into the sun (515e). As his eyes adjust to the bright light of the sun, he begins to see first the images of objects and then the objects themselves (516a). Finally, he can see the sun and study it (516b). As Plato unravels his Allegory, he explains that the journey of the prisoner out of the cave reflects the journey of the soul from the depths of the realm of becoming – perceiving only images via the faculty of imagining, then noticing the concrete objects and forming beliefs about them – to the height of the realm of being, where he first uses his faculty of thought to think about the sun. Then finally using the faculty of understanding, he achieves knowledge of the sun (517b). Education, as Plato sees it, helps a soul accent up the divided line (518d).

I just watched Waltz with Bashir. And I am under shock. How much human inflicted suffering! From the actual massacres to the post-traumatic stress syndrome of the soldiers involved. Lives destroyed. When I was a little kid, I supposedly swore that nothing like the Holocaust would ever happen again. Yet, where was I when those massacres happened? When did they even happen? I didn’t even know about them until this movie.

I started reading Peter Unger’s book “Living High and Letting Die.” It’s subtitle is “Our Illusion of Innocence.” He writes about children dying all over the world while we worry about the latest software upgrades or the coolest party to go to. There is so much more that we ignore and pretend to be innocent about. But what to do? What can we do in face of these massive inequalities, this disrespect of life – human and otherwise – for the profit of the few? How can we change all that and maybe safe the planet while we’re at it? It’s overwhelming to think about our global responsibility. Yet, it’s hard to deny, too, because everything we do, everything we buy, has an impact somewhere else. Sitting here at the computer typing has an impact. The energy it uses. The children who might’ve been involved in its assembly. It’s all interconnected; something we love to deny. Is that what we need to realize again? That we’re all interconnected? If I play music loudly, someone else will hear it? If I double-park someone else will have to drive around me? These are the little things where we ignore our interconnection but that’s where the realization has to start. We have to start somewhere. Buy local. Buy from non-chain stores. All that good stuff. But that’s not enough. We cannot hide behind our claim of innocence and deny interconnection world-wide. What massacres am I ignoring right now? And how do we get the masses to start waking up?

Obama’s campaign was all about change. Presumably his presidency will be about this as well, if his first few days in office are an indication, there certainly will be quite a few things changing, for the better. But is this change fundamental enough? I suspect not. The financial crisis and the specter of climate change are clear reminders that our way of life is not sustainable. There is a limit to growth no matter what economists are trying to make us believe. We need to rethink our fundamental assumptions instead of calling on each other to defend our way of life. We cannot defend our way of life – against what would we defend it anyway? Reality?

Here are some changes we need to reverse our march toward doomsday:

• Build an economy on the notion of enough, rather than more: We need to abandon the idea that more is better because we’re suffocating in the trash.
• Replace the focus on coupling with rebuilding community ties: The nuclear family has choked out other ties that are important for a fulfilling and meaningful life. Instead of putting all of our eggs into the basket of one other person, we need to (re)learn to connect deeply and intimately with many people.
• Create jobs that are life-affirming rather than mind-numbing: Most jobs address small, often rather irrelevant, parts of the big corporate machine. We could harness the intelligence wasted on these jobs to address the problems we need to confront.
• Face the reality that capitalism is undermining democracy: If the most powerful institutions in our society are run as kingdoms, we cannot expect democracy to flourish.
• Stop ignoring the problem of overpopulation: There are too many people on this planet to live comfortably. The current population size is not sustainable – another example where more is not better. Addressing this issue will be painful and extremely difficult ethically. The longer we wait, though, the worse it is going to get.

I am sure there’s much, much more that needs fundamental change. Obama will not bring this about. He can’t really. He is a politician after all. But we can. All of us can start looking – really looking – at our lives and decide what works and what doesn’t, what is sustainable and what isn’t. And then we can start to make changes, slowly but surely. Will it matter? Maybe. However, rather than pondering our impact (or lack thereof), we could simply decide to act as if our actions matter. If enough of us make that decision, things will change.

Obama and his administration can make these changes easier by enacting things like universal health care, mandatory sick leave, and even by targeting the economic stimulus toward project that build sustainability. These are important foundational blocks onto which we can build real change.

Sustainability must be in the air. Here’s a great post from the Regressive Antidote that touches on similar themes that I covered here.

In A Guide to Personal Happiness Albert Ellis and Irving Becker suggest ten rules for achieving personal happiness among them:

1. Decide to strive primarily for your own happiness.
2. Decide to put other people’s happiness a close second to your own.
3. Decide that you largely control your own emotional destiny.

Essentially, we are responsible for our own happiness. Yet, society seems to suggest that we can find happiness best through marriage. In her book Singled Out, Bella DePaulo debunks that myth thoroughly but, of course, it remains pervasive.      Continue reading this post » » »

Reading on the Frame Problem about yet another attempt of sneaking ID into classroom reminded me of a discussion I watched yesterday. Akeel Bilgrami, a philosopher at Columbia University, raised an interesting question during an interview on the Humanist Perspective (a show put together by the Center for Inquiry; also see this comment for another link): What is it about the US that makes it such a fertile ground for things like creationism, ID, and other non-scientific nonsense? New Zealand supports evolution. In Europe, evolution is not under attack (as far as I know). So, there might be something rather unique about the US. Bilgrami suggested that a possible reason might be the lack of any social democratic tradition in the U.S. (he mentioned unions in particular that were not offering a secular community). The attitudes that have prevented such things as universal health care might tie in there as well.

Bilgrami calls on us to investigate questions like this rather than spending our time to point out irrational thinking (he says it’s very obvious that ideas of God are irrational). Religion bashing doesn’t get us anywhere. We need to start looking at the needs met by religion and religious institutions. I think answering these questions is an important next steps in making secular humanism a viable option in the U.S..

Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart have written about religion in Europe and contrasted it with the US. They touch on similar themes as Bilgrami.

In the latest issue of free inquiry, Paul Kurtz published an editorial about his idea for multi-secularism. Now, I know that Kurtz is a very important figure in the secular humanist movement. I certainly appreciate all the work he has done for us. But what is he trying to say in this editorial? It is a rather confusing read – and I must admit I read the piece in parts, so maybe I missed the connections. As far as I can decipher he is distancing himself from atheism, or what he calls negative atheism, and he is arguing that we should reach out to moderately religious folks to build a multi-secularism. These two themes are intertwined to a point where the message is becoming muddled, which is Kurtz’s call for multi-secularism:

However, secularism needs to be adapted to diverse cultural conditions if it is to gain ground. [...] Accordingly, multi-secularism seems to be the best strategy to pursue: that is, adapting secular ideas and values to the societies in which they arise.

     Continue reading this post » » »