About a week and a half ago I was attending and assisting with the Lindenwood philosophy conference on the American decentralist tradition. Political philosophy has never quite grabbed me the way philosophical disciplines like ontology, metaphysics, ethics, and theology have, and I suppose much of this personal disinterest is a failure to see where all the nuts and bolts connect political philosophy to the latter disciplines. James Schall particularly helped me with this one, and many of these answers were hiding in the very title of his book I just recently finished: “The Unseriousness of Human Affairs”. Yet I think we could dig a little deeper than “human affairs” and illuminate human nature as an even finer focus, at least to make sense of connections between something like ontology and political philosophy.
I think, more than anything, the tension between ontology (the study of being and essences) and political philosophy and the complexity of the relationship between the two has engaged as well as frustrated my reflections. Nevertheless, Schall’s insight into this matter, however unintentional it may be, has particularly helped me identify the internal links between internal and external human affairs, for ex., how virtue might shape a character and how human character shapes executive decisions concerning political and governmental affairs. If intellectuals and philosophers are ever going to understand the relevance of political philosophy to the politically disengaged individual, we must understand the necessary connections between politics and human nature.
I would bet that there isn’t a more popular topic for our century in politics than war and not a more popular subject within the past decade for philosophers than dialogical conflict within the public square. But Schall hits beneath the surface. The most fundamental beginning point of a conflict, he suggests, is not on the battlefield or even in public forums. The primary source of conflict, resides in the minds and hearts of human beings during their leisure time, a topic I focused on in my previous entry. Conflict originally arises from a free choice, but once the choice has been made, necessity follows. It’s not so easy to repair hazards which arise necessarily, but it might be easier to curb the conflict if we can confront the human when he is perceived and perceives himself to be the most free, during his leisure time. In that moment we are faced with an obligation to make a responsible choice which forms our character, which in turn, influences our future decisions under the public eye and effects the world around us. This topic of leisure might be a pivotal bridge between the essence of human nature and the purpose of human government and politics. Leisure is when we find ourselves to be most free, to engage in activities which are often simply done for themselves as an end in themselves. And once we open this arena, theology, religion, and all those other out-of-fashion topics to discuss among philosophers become all the more pertinent to discuss.
At this point, virtue becomes important; moral development becomes important, and the shaping of the personal character of the philosopher becomes his primary task. The other night, a very insightful cousin of mine pointed out that conflicts which arise from semantic confusion are not essentially semantic at all. They are essentially misunderstanding and a failure on both sides to clarify and articulate. And a quote from Pope Benedict couldn’t be more relevant here, "The 'best hypothesis' which, to be accepted, requires that man and his reason 'give up their position of dominance and take the risk of humbly listening.'" An unwillingness to listen has the individual turned in upon his own reasoning or faith. We can only be more careful in our consideration of how much blood is actually on our hands. Selfishness and pride really do murder lives.
I think, more than anything, the tension between ontology (the study of being and essences) and political philosophy and the complexity of the relationship between the two has engaged as well as frustrated my reflections. Nevertheless, Schall’s insight into this matter, however unintentional it may be, has particularly helped me identify the internal links between internal and external human affairs, for ex., how virtue might shape a character and how human character shapes executive decisions concerning political and governmental affairs. If intellectuals and philosophers are ever going to understand the relevance of political philosophy to the politically disengaged individual, we must understand the necessary connections between politics and human nature.
I would bet that there isn’t a more popular topic for our century in politics than war and not a more popular subject within the past decade for philosophers than dialogical conflict within the public square. But Schall hits beneath the surface. The most fundamental beginning point of a conflict, he suggests, is not on the battlefield or even in public forums. The primary source of conflict, resides in the minds and hearts of human beings during their leisure time, a topic I focused on in my previous entry. Conflict originally arises from a free choice, but once the choice has been made, necessity follows. It’s not so easy to repair hazards which arise necessarily, but it might be easier to curb the conflict if we can confront the human when he is perceived and perceives himself to be the most free, during his leisure time. In that moment we are faced with an obligation to make a responsible choice which forms our character, which in turn, influences our future decisions under the public eye and effects the world around us. This topic of leisure might be a pivotal bridge between the essence of human nature and the purpose of human government and politics. Leisure is when we find ourselves to be most free, to engage in activities which are often simply done for themselves as an end in themselves. And once we open this arena, theology, religion, and all those other out-of-fashion topics to discuss among philosophers become all the more pertinent to discuss.
At this point, virtue becomes important; moral development becomes important, and the shaping of the personal character of the philosopher becomes his primary task. The other night, a very insightful cousin of mine pointed out that conflicts which arise from semantic confusion are not essentially semantic at all. They are essentially misunderstanding and a failure on both sides to clarify and articulate. And a quote from Pope Benedict couldn’t be more relevant here, "The 'best hypothesis' which, to be accepted, requires that man and his reason 'give up their position of dominance and take the risk of humbly listening.'" An unwillingness to listen has the individual turned in upon his own reasoning or faith. We can only be more careful in our consideration of how much blood is actually on our hands. Selfishness and pride really do murder lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment