The Perfectibility of Man (& Iraq)

[August1991]

As much as I disagree with the opinions of Michael Enright, I enjoy listening to political commentary without advertising. I paid for the CBC, I'm entitled to listen to it.

This morning, Enright had an interview with Chris Hedges about Bush and Iraq. Here's the blurb:

CHRIS HEDGES Duration: 00:30:46

Michael Enright in conversation with Chris Hedges about his new book, I Don't Believe in Atheists, published by Simon and Schuster. Hedges, a long time foreign correpsondent for The New York Times, is an articulate observer and thinker about the role of religion in the world. His latest book is an assualt on what he describes as the New Atheist movement. He spoke with Michael while he was in Toronto.

You can listen here 23 March 2008

If I understand properly, Hedges has a new anti-Bush rant that somehow is also anti-Atheist. (Before this morning, I had no idea who Hedges was.)

In Hedges' view, Bush went into Iraq because Bush is a utopian. Bush wants to make the world a better place and improve Man. Truly religious people understand that Man is not reformable or at least, we can't change Man at will. According to Hedges, when ordinary men try to reform Man, the result is death, war and genocide. Man refuses to change and so the irreligious utopians (ie. Bush) must resort to force to eliminate people who object to the Utopian ideal.

Hedges then compared Bush to Stalin, Hitler and Lenin who also, as Utopians, tried to perfect Man. (Here's the Amazon plug for his book.)

----

Well, this is certainly an original take on the usual anti-Bush rant. (I'm reminded of a Trudeau comment in response to a journalist's question about the FLQ. Trudeau complimented the journalist for his ability to bring the FLQ into an interview about Canada's economy.)

And speaking of Trudeau, I have always felt that his greatest flaw was that he wanted to perfect humans. Trudeau was a Roman Catholic and a product of the Second World War. He saw what nationalism did. He wanted to create a society where people would not fall victim to such forces. Like many parents of boomers in the 1950s, after the War, Trudeau wanted to perfect Man.

Bush? I don't think Bush wants to perfect Man. First of all, I think Bush (and Blair and Howard) made the reasonable calculation that Saddam with WMD was too great a risk to accept. In addition, and underneath it all, Bush et al wanted to teach some evil people a lesson. Tit-for-tat. The West will defend itself.

To perfect Man? Bush may also have thought that the status quo in the Middle East was hardly a workable option. The invasion of Iraq could hardly be worse than the status quo circa 2001. In this sense, Bush thought an invasion would improve the political situation - because it couldn't make it worse.

[in case it matters to anyone, I was against Bush's decision to invade Iraq and remove Saddam. IMV, I would have preferred that the Iraqi people themselves overthrow Saddam. It's their history and their country.]

----

Apart from Bush Jnr or even Trudeau, is Man perfectible? Can we make humans better and make the world a better place to live? Or, is there nothing new under the Sun and so we should leave well enough alone. Progressive, utopian adventures to improve Man invariably become Killing Fields.

Edited March 24, 2008 by August1991

[Peter F]

is Man perfectible? Can we make humans better and make the world a better place to live? Or, is there nothing new under the Sun and so we should leave well enough alone. Progressive, utopian adventures to improve Man invariably become Killing Fields.

There's no improving man despite himself. People as individuals may change if they percieve advantage, But no state can make the population change by fiat and force of arms.

[eyeball]

I think people can and do improve themselves all the time, but they resist when someone else tries to perfect them. Iraq is no different.

Edited March 24, 2008 by eyeball

[Brain Candy]

I think different cultures might have different desires as far as the "The End of History and the Last Man". But a true end state would require total control over nature, resources, and of course a consensus among people strong enough that nobody really questions the direction (as well as leaders smart enough to maintain it). I think if utopia is theoretically acheived anywhere the more adventurous and intelligent among the populous would seek out a new goal or direction, if given the chance.

Edited March 28, 2008 by Brain Candy

[August1991]

I think different cultures might have different desires as far as the "The End of History and the Last Man". But of course a true end state would require total control over nature, resources, and of course a consensus among people strong enough that nobody really questions the direction (as well as leaders smart enough to maintain it). I think if utopia is theoretically acheived anywhere the more adventurous and intelligent among the populous would seek out a new goal or direction, if given the chance.

Well, here's a vote in favour of all the progressives.

Europe, North America and Japan have created something very close to utopia. At no time in history have so many ordinary people lived so well with so few major fears and worries. If any left-leaning intellectual from, say, 1850 could be brought to the present, he or she would be proud of all that has been accomplished.

I don't know if Man can be perfected but it's certainly possible for people to live better and more comfortably. Such a world may be more just but is it more civilized?

[Brain Candy]

Well, here's a vote in favour of all the progressives.

Europe, North America and Japan have created something very close to utopia. At no time in history have so many ordinary people lived so well with so few major fears and worries.

But there are many problems, everything is governed by the market, which is governed by the people, which would be fine if we didnt as a majority go for the least work, most immediately pleasing option every single time. The effects of this will only worsen since it seems the smart are slowly being outbreed buy the dumb.

Some neat ideas for a realistic, forward thinking (though by no means utopic) nation:

-Cut all social safety nets, everyone is responsible for their own well being though healthy couples with average iq's over 120, if they decide to have children, should be given benefits.

-Immigrants must be extremely intelligent individuals with no criminal background or in possession a skill that is currently in desperate need of the nation

-Cut all tax grants to charities, either give the money back to the people or put its towards environmental projects (and no, buying loads of CFL lights does not count).

-Drug, prostitution, gay marriage, firearm, and abortion laws made up on local levels, as long as each community understands that if they fail, no one is going to bail them out.

-Military strong enough to defends its own borders, but does not involve itself in conflicts that do not directly threaten its existence,

Edited March 28, 2008 by Brain Candy

[WIP]

As much as I disagree with the opinions of Michael Enright, I enjoy listening to political commentary without advertising. I paid for the CBC, I'm entitled to listen to it.

This morning, Enright had an interview with Chris Hedges about Bush and Iraq. Here's the blurb:

You can listen here 23 March 2008

If I understand properly, Hedges has a new anti-Bush rant that somehow is also anti-Atheist. (Before this morning, I had no idea who Hedges was.)

In Hedges' view, Bush went into Iraq because Bush is a utopian. Bush wants to make the world a better place and improve Man. Truly religious people understand that Man is not reformable or at least, we can't change Man at will. According to Hedges, when ordinary men try to reform Man, the result is death, war and genocide. Man refuses to change and so the irreligious utopians (ie. Bush) must resort to force to eliminate people who object to the Utopian ideal.

Hedges then compared Bush to Stalin, Hitler and Lenin who also, as Utopians, tried to perfect Man. (Here's the Amazon plug for his book.)

----

Chris Hedges is the worst of both worlds to me - a far left religious fanatic! Hedges condemns the religious right in the U.S., and then gets all upset when people like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens point out that you can't have religious extremism without the religious dogma as the catalyst. In his imaginary world, Christian nationalists like John Hagee and Pat Robertson aren't really Christians...and of course neither is George Bush! And he makes the same excuses for the violence and abuses that have been perpetuated by Islam in the Middle East (tiny minority of extremists)

The new religious left typified by people like Hedges, David Kuo, Joel Osteen and Tim LaHaye, have a vested interest in keeping America's obsession with religion going. They just want it to be the driving force on the left side of the political aisle as well.

Hedges point about the dangers of utopianism is total stupidity. There might be a case to be made that Neoconservative ideology of nation-building which George Bush bought in to is paternalistic, but how is it utopian? I'm not going to bother reading his books, but in the interviews I've listened to, Hedges never developes a point that trying to improve world conditions is a utopian vision. Is sending aid to Africa utopianism also? By his logic, any action that might improve people's living conditions might be trying to make them better people. With Hedges's twisted logic, there's no point to trying to improve our lot in life. His way of thinking would have left us mired in the dark ages.

[cybercoma]

To assume atheists believe in a utopian society and are out to perfect man is ridiculous. The definition of atheism has nothing to do with man or society, it's simply not believing in the faith-based concepts of theism, nothing more, nothing less.

An atheist could be a genocidal maniac who slaughters millions or an atheist could be the most saintly person on the planet helping those in need. Atheism has nothing to do with what they do with their lives.

Edited March 28, 2008 by cybercoma

[WIP]

To assume atheists believe in a utopian society and are out to perfect man is ridiculous. The definition of atheism has nothing to do with man or society, it's simply not believing in the faith-based concepts of theism, nothing more, nothing less.

An atheist could be a genocidal maniac who slaughters millions or an atheist could be the most saintly person on the planet helping those in need. Atheism has nothing to do with what they do with their lives.

That's true, but from a humanist perspective I would rather see the pop-atheism writers like Dawkins and Hitchens devote more time to establishing secular ethics and morality and worry less about disproving religious beliefs. If someone, regardless of what their religious beliefs are, shares the same perspective I have on social and ethical issues, I don't really care what else they believe in.

This is a central argument in C.F.I.'s Austin Dacey, who says that most atheist groups have tried to privatize beliefs and keep them out of the public square and this has made it impossible to resolve issues like abortion, embryonic research, euthanasia etc.. Instead, all beliefs should be brought into these debates, but beliefs that are based on metaphysical notions such as immortal souls, should be subjected to the same scrutiny as beliefs based on arguments from psychology, sociology and other research. And the secular push to privatize belief and strip secularism of developing ethical and moral positions have left it to the religious to define morality. And if secular atheists refuse to define what principles they believe in, it's easy for hacks like Chris Hedges, William Lane Craig and Dinesh D'Souza to define our beliefs as they wish.

http://www.austindacey.com/writing.html

[myata]

One way to approach the question of "perfectability" of man (by another man - or who else??) is to apply the concept of relativism (see Einstein). Really. Either there's one unquestionable authority who/which is universally known to be perfect (and by extension, can perfect anybody else) - or, perfection must be a relative concept. Which one is true? If there's one individuum who does not recognize some /any however glorous, leader or guru (such as e.g G. Bush or any of the ones quoted above) as a universal and unquestionnable source of perfection, it has to be the alternative #2. I.e one man's perfection may very well be another's anathema. What happens than the former attempts to perfect the latter? Your guess.

Another question must be, of course, does the intent to perfect others require their consent (to be perfected)? Most of the forementioned gurus, implicitly, assumed that perhaps it doesn't. I.e that their (self appointed) position of ultimate perfection already allows them to go and improve others, even if against their will (but certainly in their best interests). That proposition of course easily and naturally extends to a more general one, that pretty much any act committed on anybody, with or without their consent, can be justified by the intent of doing them good. It has been widely applied in practice throughout the history, always with the desired effect (ie. the wanted outcome forced, no, let's say: transferred onto the recepient, while the perfector may enjoy the feeling of having performed another act of, goodness). Sadly though, it is also not the approach taken by our backward justice system, the one that puts the nature of the act, and its effect on the recepient of the intended good (or victim; really, it's only a matter of viewpoint) ahead of the perfector's motifs. For that, there's always hope. Hope that things will turn around, and go back to the glorious past, where they'll remain unquestioned, forever.