I've been defending the USA a lot lately, as well as investigating its cultural anthropology and philosophy, etc. One of the things I'm just starting to understand is that during the enlightenment, there were two competing ideologies that influenced the evolution of human consciousness and hence, human nature and civilization.
On one side, the realists insist that there is an objective reality that exists, completely independent of the observer. One the other side, the post modern philosophy proposes that reality is subjective and that the observers perspective is all there is. The realists say that natural reality and all of its diverse components have an essence, in and of themselves. Post modernists believe that we create reality, and our opinion is the fundamental principle of reality.
Now, I haven't read, The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith, but I understand that it proposes that if everyone does what is best for their own self, it will produce the most wealth. I have read the Federalist Papers and many other stories about the history and philosophy of the United States.
So, on the one hand we have this notion that is self centered, by definition, and another idea that is more submissive and adaptable. One ideology claims to create reality, the other accepts reality. Both of these philosophies have influenced the evolution of western civilization.
I'm definitely a realists. However, I do believe that there is truth in both ideas. For example, the computer I'm writing this story on both exists independent of my perception of it and is created by human creativity.
I believe that there is an essential human being, created by Almighty God, and that creative freedom is an inherent attribute of that human nature.
Now, the question becomes, are individual human rights more important than our common wealth, or vice versa? I propose that we can and should transform the self interest and competition inherent in western philosophy and civilization, into self improvement and cooperation.
Yes, western civilization is the richest civilization in history. At least up until now. However, it has attained that prosperity at a very great cost, especially for people outside of western civilization. Any civilization that is based on the Darwinian ideology of survival of the fittest is barbaric. Yes, Darwin's ideas about natural history are fairly accurate. However, relative to the animal kingdom of life on earth, civilized human beings are a separate and distinct kingdom of life on earth.
Cooperation, service and unity in diversity are distinctive traits inherent in human nature. Yes, I know that animals cooperate, but not to the extent that humans do. The rule of law is the difference between wild animals and civilized human beings. That's the part that western civilization got right.
However, they didn't completely eliminate the barbaric struggle for leadership and advantage over other people, reasoning that competition is an inherent attribute of human nature.
This story would be incomplete without referring to the influence of religion in human nature. I believe that Almighty God is the Source of most of the major religions on earth, and that the religions are the original source of the rule of law. Our civil laws are secondary effects of the moral values and spiritual principles taught in the divine education revealed in the Religion of God.
This divine education teaches us, not so much that our natural instincts are evil, but that we should regulate the expression of our natural instincts with the rule of law, revealed by Almighty God. Different cultures have used different stories to explain this spirituality inherent in human nature, but they all teach it in one way or another.
While I am saying that western civilization is not sustainable, I am not saying it is wrong or evil. Quite the contrary, the American revolution was essentially a civil rights movement, and the great republic of the west, its people and its government, have done more to advance the cause of human rights than any other nation or people in history.
At the time of the American revolution the philosophy and governance of the United States was a giant leap forward in the advance of human affairs. Now, the imperfection inherent in the system are becoming increasingly unsustainable. American businessmen have run roughshod over the world economy and alienated most of the world population against the USA.
I'm not saying the USA is all wrong. I'm saying that allowing the most aggressive and selfish individuals to advance and lead our people is not fair and it is not sustainable. That idea is an ancient and obsolete ideology, better suited to the Assyrian Empire or Babylon, than 21st century human civilization.
The American Indians had a very successful and sustainable communist culture. Karl Marx and the Soviet Union gave communism a bad name, by the way. By communism, I do not mean the state owns the means of production. I believe God owns heaven and earth and everyone and everything in them. Individual human rights and our common wealth need to be properly balanced. Private property needs to be protected.
What I am writing about is transforming the culture that essentially glorifies bullying, self interest and competition, into a culture that has a reasonable balance of individual human rights, our local community welfare and the universal common wealth of all people everywhere on earth.
This idea that I'm right and if you have a different understanding of the truth than I do, then you are wrong, is a half truth. And all the conflict and contention is destroying our peace and prosperity. Sure, it has produced unprecedented wealth for a small minority of the people, at the expense of the majority of the people.
We, the people of earth, have a right and responsibility to improve this situation. I do not claim to have all the answers. This is just an article in an ongoing conversation as far as I'm concerned. We, the people of earth, not any individual or group of human beings, need to accomplish this improvement of human nature, this more perfect union.
On one side, the realists insist that there is an objective reality that exists, completely independent of the observer. One the other side, the post modern philosophy proposes that reality is subjective and that the observers perspective is all there is. The realists say that natural reality and all of its diverse components have an essence, in and of themselves. Post modernists believe that we create reality, and our opinion is the fundamental principle of reality.
Now, I haven't read, The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith, but I understand that it proposes that if everyone does what is best for their own self, it will produce the most wealth. I have read the Federalist Papers and many other stories about the history and philosophy of the United States.
So, on the one hand we have this notion that is self centered, by definition, and another idea that is more submissive and adaptable. One ideology claims to create reality, the other accepts reality. Both of these philosophies have influenced the evolution of western civilization.
I'm definitely a realists. However, I do believe that there is truth in both ideas. For example, the computer I'm writing this story on both exists independent of my perception of it and is created by human creativity.
I believe that there is an essential human being, created by Almighty God, and that creative freedom is an inherent attribute of that human nature.
Now, the question becomes, are individual human rights more important than our common wealth, or vice versa? I propose that we can and should transform the self interest and competition inherent in western philosophy and civilization, into self improvement and cooperation.
Yes, western civilization is the richest civilization in history. At least up until now. However, it has attained that prosperity at a very great cost, especially for people outside of western civilization. Any civilization that is based on the Darwinian ideology of survival of the fittest is barbaric. Yes, Darwin's ideas about natural history are fairly accurate. However, relative to the animal kingdom of life on earth, civilized human beings are a separate and distinct kingdom of life on earth.
Cooperation, service and unity in diversity are distinctive traits inherent in human nature. Yes, I know that animals cooperate, but not to the extent that humans do. The rule of law is the difference between wild animals and civilized human beings. That's the part that western civilization got right.
However, they didn't completely eliminate the barbaric struggle for leadership and advantage over other people, reasoning that competition is an inherent attribute of human nature.
This story would be incomplete without referring to the influence of religion in human nature. I believe that Almighty God is the Source of most of the major religions on earth, and that the religions are the original source of the rule of law. Our civil laws are secondary effects of the moral values and spiritual principles taught in the divine education revealed in the Religion of God.
This divine education teaches us, not so much that our natural instincts are evil, but that we should regulate the expression of our natural instincts with the rule of law, revealed by Almighty God. Different cultures have used different stories to explain this spirituality inherent in human nature, but they all teach it in one way or another.
While I am saying that western civilization is not sustainable, I am not saying it is wrong or evil. Quite the contrary, the American revolution was essentially a civil rights movement, and the great republic of the west, its people and its government, have done more to advance the cause of human rights than any other nation or people in history.
At the time of the American revolution the philosophy and governance of the United States was a giant leap forward in the advance of human affairs. Now, the imperfection inherent in the system are becoming increasingly unsustainable. American businessmen have run roughshod over the world economy and alienated most of the world population against the USA.
I'm not saying the USA is all wrong. I'm saying that allowing the most aggressive and selfish individuals to advance and lead our people is not fair and it is not sustainable. That idea is an ancient and obsolete ideology, better suited to the Assyrian Empire or Babylon, than 21st century human civilization.
The American Indians had a very successful and sustainable communist culture. Karl Marx and the Soviet Union gave communism a bad name, by the way. By communism, I do not mean the state owns the means of production. I believe God owns heaven and earth and everyone and everything in them. Individual human rights and our common wealth need to be properly balanced. Private property needs to be protected.
What I am writing about is transforming the culture that essentially glorifies bullying, self interest and competition, into a culture that has a reasonable balance of individual human rights, our local community welfare and the universal common wealth of all people everywhere on earth.
This idea that I'm right and if you have a different understanding of the truth than I do, then you are wrong, is a half truth. And all the conflict and contention is destroying our peace and prosperity. Sure, it has produced unprecedented wealth for a small minority of the people, at the expense of the majority of the people.
We, the people of earth, have a right and responsibility to improve this situation. I do not claim to have all the answers. This is just an article in an ongoing conversation as far as I'm concerned. We, the people of earth, not any individual or group of human beings, need to accomplish this improvement of human nature, this more perfect union.
No comments:
Post a Comment