Two Scenarios

 

Scenario A: A team of four people assemble, and they have a common goal. They all wish to share in the responsibility. However, soon after the project begins, one member finds that the other three are not participating in the planning stages. They do not contribute to the decision making. The one member, finding no reason to engage with the other members, begins doing all the plan making on her own.  Eventually, a decision is made that the other members of the party dislike. They become pissed off and accuse the one of taking control of the group.

If you were in the position of the one engaged person, would you behave differently?

Scenario B:  A team of four people assemble, and they have a common goal. They all wish to share in the responsibility. However, soon after the project begins, two members appear to have very different ideas about how the group should proceed. But both sides are convinced that they are correct, and so they’re only objective with the other person is to criticize the other’s views; they do not question their own beliefs nor attempt a compromise. This does not get anything accomplished, so each individual ceases to speak to the other individual and begins the working and decision making on his own.

WWIV and the NeoConservative Paradigm

 

 

I’ve just begun reading a book called World War IV, by Norman Podhoretz. If you don’t know, he’s a neoconservative—he calls himself one on page seven of the prologue. According to wikipedia.org, he’s been a neocon since the 1970s and is sometimes considered the ‘godfather’ of neoconservatism. Currently, he’s Guiliani’s foreign policy advisor and is an advocate of an attack against my first homeland, the Islamic Republic of Iran. The book’s title refers to the interpretation that the Cold War ought be considered WWIII, and the current episode WWIV.  

 

If you know me, you know I’m a liberal. But I find again and again that once I’ve read too many pieces of literature from one paradigm, I forget that it’s a paradigm. So I’m reading this with an open mind, and, one chapter in, my mind is already opened. A few important things have occured to me already:

 

1. Simply because we recognize that the two political factions operate under a different paradigm–simply because we can say that and say, “yes, that is true,”–it doesn’t mean we understand the extent to which that paradigm affects the way we, and the other ’side,’ thinks.

 

2. I am led to believe 1, because the vast majority of criticism that comes from the left to the right seems to assume that the right is operating under the same paradigm that the left is.

 

3. That the left assumes the right is operating under the same paradigm as the left is an implicit paradigm, not an explicit one: the critics on the left are unaware that they are even making this assumption.

4. The paradigm that masses of the neoconservative movement adopt is not the paradigm that the intellectual leaders of the neoconservative movement hold. And the intellectual leaders do not have the same paradigm as current Republican leaders or oil tzars.

The book is frightening, but not because Podhorotz has evil motives. His paradigm makes sense internally, and as far as I can tell, it has the same end-goal as most of us do: to acquire as much peace, stability, and democracy in this world as possible.

But there are differences. First, it reduces individual people to points in a system that can be adequately explained down to a handful of their explicit beliefs and definitive actions. Podhorotz is analyzing the situation, and he’s doing it well.

No analysis can account for all qualities that a person possesses and all the factors that are involved in a system while still maintaining any sense of clarity: analysis is how we think, but analysis works on ideas, not on actual things: actual things are too complicated for an idea to capture outright. 

Because an analysis is required to achieve clarity about a situation and make conclusions, and because an analysis is necessarily limited in the scope of things it can account for, then theories about what sorts of analyses are best are developed. But while theories can be more or less accurate, our meager minds are simply too limited to have a completely adequate, objective analysis.

Back to Podhoretz and the neoconservative paradigm: the analysis reduces individuals to a certain set of qualities: a group of their most explicit beliefs and definitive actions. Osama bin Laden is someone who wishes to destroy America and the freedoms that we possess and that which America stands for. This is, in fact, true. But it’s only a limited understanding of Osama. There is no need to take into account his social status, the affect his education and upbringing had on him, the affect his religion and random experiences had, or the things that he wishes to do that he legitimately believes are acts of good will. Not only is there no need, but to investigate these things has often been criticized as being traitorous; not by Podhoretz as far as I know, but certainly by others less crazy than Coulter.   

“Jarhead”

I’ve just finished reading Anthony Swofford’s book Jarhead (made into a movie starring Jake Gyllenhal a couple years back). As a former Marine, it hit home, emotionally, many times.

In short, I recommend this book to anyone who has limited exposure to the insides of a modern American infantry unit at war, even though the book will resonate with former Marines more than it will for life-long civilians. Swofford does an excellent job illustrating the brutality and naivety of the average Marine trooper; an impression that matched my own time as a peace-time Marine.

 It was also enlightening in showing me how little I once knew about the world, how far I’d come in wizening and growing up, because I saw myself in the stupid brutality of Swofford’s Marines. But it also reminds me something about my current students, who, while on a very different path than these Marines, are generally not any more wizened or educated about the world than we were.

Also, while the movie was excellent and did a good job at representing most of the ideas in the book, it is no replacement.  It’s an enjoyable read to boot (no pun intended).

Some days

Last night (Halloween) most of my friends decided to go out and celebrate with an all-night Halloween themed pub crawl. I declined, because I’ve got to teach a class tomorrow, and no matter what I may think, I just can’t talk about philosophy very well when I’m recovering from a hangover. Fortunately, we also celebrated last Saturday night, so no big deal.

So I stayed in, studied, went to bed early, and hoped to get a good night’s rest. Except I woke up feeling like crap and cancelled class anyway. 

Dear God: if I thought you existed, I would be shaking my fist at you.

Beer Showdown

 

 

About a week ago, I promised a showdown of two beers: Two Brothers’ “Heavy Handed IPA” vs. Dogfish Head’s “60 Min. IPA.” Actually, I did the test about a week ago with the help of my roommate. But, for your benefit, I will perform the test again, right now, as I write this. 

First, I should warn the reader that no one in their right, informed mind should call me a beer connoiseur, simply because my taste buds are quite dull and unpracticed. However, I guess I am undoubtedly a beer connoiseur in relation to all those hapless “Guinness is the greatest beer on Earth” sorts of people. Yes, I was among those unwashed, unbaptized infidels a few years ago. But since then, I have seen the light, and it was shining through a pint-sized glass of truly artistic beer.  Guinness is bland. It is not heavy. It is not a meal. It does not have a deep, rich flavor. I suppose if you are so pathetic that Miller Lite is your normal fair, then yes, Guinness has a deep, rich flavor, and yes, it is “Brilliant.” And if worms were the only species that had ever existed on Earth, then the sudden appearance of a lemming would be brilliant as well. You get the idea. Drink better beer, you poor, poor soul.

 First of all, there is a clear difference between these two in sight, smell and taste. When doing the blind test, administered by my roommate, I did not smell or taste the beers beforehand. I used my vague memories from weeks ago as my only reference point. I could tell one smelled much, much stronger than the other, which is what I didn’t pay attention to before. My first inclination was that the stronger smelling beer was the Heavy Handed, since, you know, it’s heavy handed with hops. But the great richness that entered my nose made me think that this, certainly, was the Dogfish Head. Then I tasted the beers. The relatively mild-smelling beer had the powerful, pure, but uncomplicated taste of hops, whereas the richer-smelling beer filled my mouth with an army of flavors: still with a strong hoppy taste, but not quite as strong, and not overpowering the distinctive flavors in the 60 min.

The open-eyed portion of the test confirmed what I was already beginning to understand.

Visually, the Heavy Handed is foggy, reddish, and relatively dark for an IPA. This, I suppose, is what one would expect from a beer than fetishizes the hops. It is not quite as red as a Killian’s, but it is darker, and there is more variation in the color than, say, Guinness. Without a doubt, it is attractive. If you swing that way.

On the other hand, the 60 Min. IPA is light and clear. Keep in mind that I am color blind, but it looks like it could pass for a wimpy lager on sight alone. The color is a tad darker than a budweiser, and there is no active carbonization occuring as far as I can tell. I like the color better than a Budweiser, but without a Budweiser in front of me, I can’t tell if this is a true difference in quality, or my personal biases influencing my perceptions. Shoo, stinky biases! Be gone!

 Now for the odor. Strangely enough, the Heavy Handed, despite it’s heavy handedness in other aspects, has a very mild odor. For some reason, I want to say it has the faint hint of Rasberries, but there is no mention of Rasberries from the brewer.  Whatever it is, it is mild, but good nonetheless.

On the contrary, the 60 Min possesses a rich odor. Ironically, I can smell more hops coming from this one than the Heavy Handed. Also, it seems to have a small variety of fruity smells that mix together nicely. Greenish Apple most stronly comes to mind, but so does watermelon, something citrusy (like the rine of a lime, maybe), and maybe rasberry.

 (By the way, the method recommended by “experts”–which I use– is to first smell the beer with the nose directly over the beer, and the mouth shut. Then, open the mouth and continue to inhale through the nose. Third, and finally, breath in through the mouth.)

Finally, the taste: The Heavy Handed is true to it’s name. It delivers a powerful, hoppy taste that is relatively uncomplex. It goes down smoothly, but it leaves a mild, hoppy aftertaste that I’m perfectly alright with, although I would understand if some think it’s a bit too much.  In this way, it is very consistent with it’s look, it seems, but inconsistent with it’s smell. Not that that’s a bad thing. It seems that the flavors of this beer stay trapped within the liquid, which is fine for tasting, but not so fine for smelling. But beer isn’t really about smelling, is it?

The Dogfish Head, true to it’s odor but not it’s looks, has an amazing, complex, slightly sweet but mostly rich and hoppy flavor. The relatively high alchohol content (damnit…think it’s around 5.5-6%) comes through, but certainly doesn’t overpower the flavor: quite to the contrary, it enhances the flavor (unlike some of the 10-11% beers I’ve had at Goose Island).

So, which beer is better? In my younger days, when I liked the thrill of powerful flavors, and couldn’t pick up on the more subtle flavors, I would have preferred the Heavy Handed. Only in my very earliest days of beer drinking (when I was an underage Marine and usually drank Bud Lite from a contraband keg, resulting in me low-crawling in front of the barracks, naked, with my underwear operating as a helmet, and loving it), I would have wrinkled my nose at the bitter hops. So, if you also can’t stand the flavor of hops (you poor, pathetic soul), I would avoid this. On the other hand, if you think Guiness is the greatest thing on Earth, it’s time to upgrade your taste (it’s cheaper, too!). 

Now, on the other hand, I’ll leave the crown for Dogfish Head 60 Min, reigning champion of Natural Causes. But you can count on me to be ever vigilant in my search and exploration of new contenders.

Yikes

As I’ve mentioned before, I’m currently teaching two philosophy classes on my maiden voyage as a college teacher. This is great, but it doesn’t pay a lot of money. I just got word from one school that they’re upping my load from one to three classes in the spring time. I don’t know about the other school, but it looks like I might get offered three there as well. My money problems will temporarily disappear, for sure, but six classes? I might have to discontinue my drinking problem  hobby and start working my butt off ’till my brain bleeds philosophy. So, shall I face the lion and see what I can take, or run for the hills? I’m just crazy enough to do it. This will truly be a combination of all my Marine Corps training (except the literal combat training) and philosophy training.

Spinoza, Democracy, and true Enemies of the American State

 Despite my near fanatical devotion to Spinoza, I had never read much of his political book (The Theological-Political Treatise, or TTP) until the last two weeks for my Ethics class. He’s got some interesting ideas about what a democracy is and the role of the “sovereign power.” Here are some of the critical points:1. A ’state of nature’ is defined as an environment where there is no political or governing body. If you were in a state of nature, you would not be a citizen of any state or government. Basically, barbarism, whether it appear noble or malevolent. There is no universal law that dictates what an individual ought or ought not do, and so, there is no “right” or “wrong.” An individual’s natural rights include the right to do whatever the individual wishes to do. This includes killing helpless people and eating babies.

2. All individuals are concerned with self-preservation above all other things (although the meaning of “self” can change somewhat: it can be argued that a mother sacrificing her own life for her own child is a type of “self” preservation, as the child is in some way a continuation of the mother).

3. Individuals can better preserve themselves when they join with others and agree not to do harm to one another and strive to do good for the group rather than the individual. This essentially brings the individual to forfeit their natural rights to the entity of the group in exchange for security.

4. By surrendering their natural rights, the individual has freely chosen to subordinate themselves to the group. The group is governed by a “sovereign power” of some sort.

5. The sovereign power’s will is the law, and it determines what is “right” or “wrong” within the group.

6. Because this new sovereign power is something that the people have freely chosen to subordinate themselves to for their own good, this is called a “Democracy.”

This is the first interesting and counter-intuitive point. We like to think of a democracy as one where no individual holds absolute power over another individual, and that the end-goal is freedom, not security. But this seems to be the opposite. However, Spinoza justifies this by arguing that because the individual has forfeited their natural rights for the sake of preservation, and that they freely chose to pursue preservation, the citizen is more capable of achieving freedom in this state (which is now equated with preservation) because and only because they have subordinated themselves to the sovereign power of the state. Furthermore, this is distinct from the rule of the typical tyrant because the tyrant/dictator commands for the end-goal of the tyrant dictator, whereas this democratic sovereign power, while possessing equal power in ordering, commands for the end-goal of the individual people.  Continuing,

7. The sovereign power, because it is identical with the power of the government, is only bound by the state of nature. Therefore, the sovereign power can do no wrong: it’s will defines what is right or wrong.

8. Anyone that disobeys the sovereign power makes themselves an enemy of the state, and the state has the right to destroy that enemy (although it may be more prudent and wise to merely punish or otherwise change the course of the enemy, such as a rehabilitation process).

So the question is, under this definition, do we as Americans live in a democracy? It seems, initially, that the answer is no. First, few people have voluntarily forfeited their natural rights to the state. Second, many people would argue that our politicians work for the end-goal of the people. Third, our ”rulers” do not have absolute control.

 However, I suspect that Spinoza would say that while our state is not a pure democracy under his definition, we do possess a democracy in more ways than one might suspect. First, although we have not voluntarily forfeited our natural rights, it seems that the originators of our nation largely did. Many people fought for a new government, elected representatives, and those representatives worked to create a nation that, at least on paper, theoretically aimed to treat all people as equals (depite this not being put into practice for a very long time, if ever). And second, it would be incorrect to think of our politicians as our sovereign power in any way. Rather, it makes more sense to treat our Constitution as the soverign power, making us a constitutional democracy. The president, senate, house, and supreme court can break a higher law other than themselves, and that law is the constitution. Even if they are all in agreement with  what is legal, that does not make it so.

Because our polititicians are not the soverign power and are capable of breaking the “will” of the sovereign power, it is also possible that the politicians can become enemies of the state. So, Spinoza might argue, if President Bush, members of senate, the supreme court, police officers, etc., are acting unconstitutionally, this does not mean that the United States of America is corrupt or flawed. It means that there are very powerful enemies of the state acting to destroy the United States, whether or not they believe they are or whether or not they intend to do so.

Some might read Spinoza’s political book and conclude that there is no such a thing as just civil disobedience (example, Rosa Parks acted immorally during the famous bus episode), because in any case that one breaks the law, one is doing the “wrong” thing. However, if the law was counter to the “will” of the constitution, then Parks was not fighting against America, but for America against the enemy: our elected and appointed lawmakers.

The implications of Spinoza’s theory are powerful, because in assuming it, the thing that America is has radically changed. We often treat the state as either the actions of the government, military, and citizens. But in Spinoza’s conception, it is the constitution, and if people are behaving unconstitutionally, then these people are not defining what the United States of America is, but have rather made themselves enemies of the state, and it is then the duty of loyal Americans to destroy these enemies.

 Am I calling for rebellion? No. Rebellion would be seek the destruction and invalidation of the constitution. In Spinoza’s philosophy, rebellion is always wrong in a genuine democracy. And, if the Bush administration is acting unconstitutionally, then the Bush Administration is the true rebel, and ought to be destroyed.

 I have not here stated that the Bush administration is rebellious. I could make that argument, but I didn’t do that here. Just so you’re clear, in case you can’t read well.

Favorite Chicago Places

Alright. Bemidjians. I love that faraway town. You know I do. But in the two-plus years I’ve lived in Chicago, I’ve fallen in love with it. Especially since I moved out of south-side Hyde Park and into Lakeview, which is a social hotspot for ages 20-35. One of the hottest in America, in fact. And yet, I still try to avoid some very thick veins of social activity, particularly along the Wrigleyville Clark St. strip, which is teeming with frat-type bars. Anyway, here are a few of my favorite places in Lakeview:

 Matilda: Anyone who’s visited me here has also visited Matilda. In the past year, this has become the staple once (or more) per week hangout. Thursday night is ours. The staff has probably missed us no more than four times. And they love us there. It’s our Cheers. Great food, decent beer & wine selection, and a very interesting decor. It’s a bit on the pricey side, and the minimum age is 23 (they can do that in Chicago!), but it’s nice because it keeps the college crowd out. Decent specials during the week (along with having a few friends that work there) make this fairly cheap if you plan it right.

The Fixx This is the coffee shop right across the street from Matilda. Everyone at The Fixx knows everyone at Matilda, and, obviously, vice versa. Very nice, very quiet coffee shop with lots of room and a very friendly staff. The mixed coffee drinks are excellent, as far as I can tell (although I usually just get a black coffee). They also have lots of open-mic (every Wednesday) and other performances.

 Sheffield’s: As far as I can tell, this is the best bar to go to in my neighborhood if you want an excellent craft-brewed beer selection. On the surface, it looks like a lot of bars in the Wrigleyville area (other than the rockin’ beer garden), but it seems to be just far enough away to avoid the worst crowds. The staff is cool, too.

For the best beer selections in Chicago, head to Hopleaf up north in Andersonville or Maproom out west in Bucktown. Yes, they serve Miller Lite. But they charge $5 per bottle, and only $3 for their current special, which has always been a great beer everytime I go. The Maproom, as far as I can tell, is better for beer, but they have almost no food. They may have free food set out or something. They also have a huge National Geographic collection. The Hopleaf has such a great food menu, you can bring your foolish non-beer drinking friends or family knowing that they’ll be satisfied as well. The Lincoln Tap Room and Longroom are also excellent for beer. The Longroom’s beer selection may even rival Hopleaf’s and Maproom’s, but it’s so smoky in there, I can’t appreciate the beer as well. I’ve heard of other bars, such as Smallbar, but I have yet to visit that one.

 Finally, I can’t talk about all these bars without mentioning Goose Island Brewery down on North and Clybourn (because the Wrigleyville location sucks).  Goose Island has the largest brewery in Chicago and an enormous range of beers. Many of these will only ever be available at the North and Clybourn location, although you can buy more popular varieties of GI across the country. They only sell their own brand of beers, but I’ve only had a couple that were mediocre at worst. And I should know. I’ve almost completed my Goose Island MBA (Masters of Beer Appreciation). 6 more beers to go!

My favorite thing

Tonight, I’m grading student papers. Which, in case you’ve never done it yourself, is SO much fun. Students have the most creative, original ways of completely obscuring the thesis, grammatical rules, and spelling standards. At the same time, they skillfully weave every logical fallacy into a two-page, size 14.5 font, triple spaced, 1.25 inch margined paper that if you truly understood what has been accomplished, you might decide to just give them an A and set them on their way.

On the plus side (guess what…I was being sarcastic before) I decided to enjoy a little beer with a side of pizza for dinner. The beer of the week is from a Chicago suburb, the Two Brothers Brewing Company. It’s a seasonal IPA that they’ve labeled “Heavy Handed,” as in, “our hands were heavy with the hops we used for this beer.” It’s great. Much, much better than the Longhammer I wrote about before. I’m sorta color-blind, but the color looks like a beautiful, rich red (I’m not completely color-blind). The flavor is, well, hoppy, and fantastic. I also bought a 6-pack of the 60 Minute IPA from Dogfish Head that I mentioned before. I’m not going to touch that tonight, but within a couple days, I’m going to do a comparison. They’re both really good. I’m looking forward to it.

 As for the pizza, that’s really good too. But not quite as special.

Solitude and the Pursuit of the Virtuous Life

“Wanderer Above a Sea of Mist,” by Casper David Friedrich (Germany), 1818.

It is ironic how much more solitude and how fewer close friends I have in the Chicago metropolis than I ever had in tiny Bemidji.

For the second weekend day in a row, I find myself awake before 4am, sitting at my desk alone, in the quiet, working and thinking. I admit I feel the pangs of loneliness more often here than I did in Bemidji. However, I still have a few very close friends here that pull me out of my cave three or so times per week.

 Overall, I enjoy this. In my class, we were recently discussing Aristotle, who argued that the only truly happy life is the contemplative, or philosophical life. His argument compels me, but it is not entirely satisfying for most (my students generally exclaim that everyone has a different happiness…of course, most of them haven’t even tried to understand the argument before criticizing it). And I’m not entirely satisfied with it, either. However, there is a great, high quality joy that accompanies legitimate contemplation. And the great lesson that all of this solitude is bringing me is that this can be actualized in my life when my life is conducted in a certain way.

That brings me to question what this “certain way of conducting life” that leads to the highest happiness might be. In practice, I am asking what the most virtuous, superior life would be. Lately, however, it is out of fashion to ask this sort of question: all people are equal, even if different. But after thinking over it for years, I reject this notion. Appreciating variation enriches life, I agree. And I am glad that there is variation in how people live their lives. But I do not agree that all of these lives are eqaully capable of achieving happiness, virtue, or worthiness, nor do that have the same inherent level of worth.* 

Once one accepts that there are more or less inferior modes of life, it doesn’t follow that there is one superior mode of life. However, it does follow that one can improve one’s life by modifying the mode of one’s life. And so it seems worthwhile to pursue an understanding of what this might be. It may seem narcissistic, but this goal may be what my life’s project has been up to this point.

Therefore, a project that I will attempt to formally begin at this point is understanding what a superior person might look like. Certainly, this has been done before and will be done again, but I would rather take up the project from scratch and see what I can come up with.

*[Everyone at birth, I agree, should be regarded equally. And ideally, they should all be afforded the same opportunity to reach their potential (our nation, in this most important sense, is not egalitarian). On the recent debate at Froyd's Mutterings, for example, I agree that all children ought to be afforded adequate, free medical attention. Otherwise, we are effectively allowing some children more or fewer benefits based on something for which they have no control over: their parents. And while a parent ought to take care of their children, they often do not, and we ought not hold children responsible for the sins of their parents.]