Tar Sands development is intimately linked with racist colonialism, land rights, destructive water and environmental destruction, and capitalist inequality. Download at SpeedyShare
Sunday, October 19, 2014
Saturday, September 24, 2011
The Preacher
“Death is the opposite of time. Death transcends time, breaks through the veil, transmutates our reality so that nothing exists. Death is a final note, a wristwatch in amber, a townclock on fire.”
I imbued these words with a passion I did not feel. I hid my ennui, knowing that my congregation was sharply attuned to the stench of inauthenticity. They swayed and murmured in the pews, hanging on my words like the junkies they were.
“Dispel time and you will dispel fate. There can be no morality without suffering, no purpose without loss, no salvation without the absolute corruption of the soul.”
As I spoke these words I pressed a button beneath the altar. I felt the generators roar to life from below, grumbling like a hungry beast. As the lights flickered, my followers became more agitated. Their eyes were wide but empty, their limbs jerking rhythmically. They shared a need, a desperation, a lunacy so single minded as to grant them a haunting beauty. These were my people.
“Nothing chills the heart like symmetry,” I say. I am feeding off the energy of the crowd and letting it speak through me. I am channelling their greed, their piteous despair, spewing it back at them.
“Beauty is at the heart of grief.” The generators finally reach full power. From the shadows above, the squeal of rusty chains heralds the appearance of an iron pallet. As it lowers to the altar, my worshippers see an angelic figure wearing only manacles. He is a youth of exquisite beauty, and the crowd rises from the pews and sighs in unison, pressing forward.
“Beauty is at the heart of grief. Symmetry is the shape of boredom, the mask of despair. Death is the end of time and the end of mystery. Death is the only morality.”
I raise one arm as I speak, injecting the youth with my latest cocktail. My syringe is silver and so are his eyes, glassy from terror. The drugs reach his brain in seconds, and adrenaline floods his bloodstream. A flush touches his pewter flesh, and I can feel the heat of his body warming the air. He is gasping, convulsing, a victim of my chemical gift.
“The Garden of Eden is filled with reminders of a time before. Fallen statues weep rusty tears into broken fountains. It is only I that sees the light, holds the key, and offers you my love.”
With this I slash my dagger across his throat. Dark arterial blood sprays across my flock, covering their faces and filling their mouths. The drink greedily, anxious for the sweet release. I gaze upon them with boredom, unmoved by their ecstasy. Yet there is one brief moment when I admire the beauty of my own dark soul, reflected so clearly in their half-closed eyes. The moment passes in an instant, and one by one their fall to their knees, shivering with pleasure. I am once more filled with ennui, now tinged by disgust at the vulgarity of the feed.
“Fucking junkies,” I mutter, before leaving them heaped within their pools of filth.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Thomas More's Utopia Essay
Thomas More's famous Utopia can be seen as a treatise on a variety of subjects having to do with good governance in a republic, building on the ideas of classical theorists such as Plato, and imbued with the spirit of the Enlightenment. During the conversations related in the book, the issue of whether it is better to live a life of philosophic contemplation or to pursue a life of politics is discussed several times, with More's character favouring political involvement, while his new friend Raphael Hythloday maintains that quiet contemplation is preferable. This paper will relate the arguments these two men engage in, to show the advantages and disadvantages of both kinds of life, proving in the end that Hythloday was correct in asserting that a life of philosophic contemplation is preferable.
When More's friend Peter Giles introduces him to Raphael Hythloday, Giles early on suggests that Hythloday enter into the service of a king, because his “learning and knowledge ... would entertain ... while [his] knowledge and ... examples would be helpful at the counsel board” (More 2002, 13). This explains one of the main arguments seen in Utopia for why a person should enter into political life – to be of assistance to a King and his counsellors. Peter goes on to say that Raphael could “advance [his] own interests and be of great use ... to all [his] relatives and friends” (More 2002, 13), introducing another argument in favour of political service, namely that it is possible to use it as a springboard to personal advancement, as well as a noble form of altruism – or, at the least, of nepotism. In addition to this service, Peter feels political advisement to be a sure method to make Raphael happy. Surely these are worthwhile reasons to engage in political life.
Raphael is quick to counter Peter's reasons in support of a political life. He says that he has already been of use to his relatives, having given them their inheritance early. He does not, therefore, see this as justification enough to “enslave [him]self to any king” (More 2002, 13). This is the first indication that he views a political life in a manner radically different from the views of Peter (and More). He goes on to say that such a life is “absolutely repellent to [his] spirit” (More 2002, 13), and so therefore could not possibly make him happy. Instead, he notes that he is able to live life as he pleases, whereas “very few courtiers ... can say that” (More 2002, 13). Finally, he counters Peter's idea that he should serve in politics for a king's own sake by professing that so many other men are seeking to fill such a role that he could not be missed. This initial salvo lays the groundwork for Raphael's refutation of politics, in favour of a contemplative life, based on the freedom and happiness it offers him.
More's character is clearly intrigues and impressed by Hythloday's opinions. He interjects that, while a political life may not make Raphael happy, it would be “worthy of [his] noble and philosophical nature [to] devote his intelligence and energy to public affairs” (More 2002, 13). This is one of More's main arguments in favour of a political life – that it is a way to utilize one's learning and experience to encourage in a king “just and noble actions” (More 2002, 13). More initially feels this is a self-evident benefit to pursuing a political life.
Raphael is quick to disillusion More on this point. He asserts that he does not have the skills that More attributes him, and that even if he did “the public would still not be any better off” (More 2002, 14). The reason Hythloday feels this way is that he thinks that “most princes apply themselves to the arts of war ... instead of ... peace” (More 2002, 14), pursuits to which he is not inclined. Raphael would prefer a contemplative life than one supporting kings' pursuit of “new kingdoms by hook or crook” (More 2002, 14). Even despite this ideological stance, Raphael points out that kings' counsellors generally think themselves “so wise already that they don't need to accept or approve advice from anyone else” (More 2002, 14). This forms part of Raphael's main opposition to More's beliefs. He goes on to suggest that most counsellors are self-aggrandizing seekers of favour, more inclined to find “fault with the proposals of others” (More 2002, 14) than to accept good advice. Most counsellors, Raphael says, will denounce innovative policies as disrespectful to ancestral traditions – at least when they are put forth by others (More 2002). Thus Raphael shows a contemplative life as one that avoids having to support war-mongering or face groundless attack from a king's council, and thus as preferable to political engagement.
At this point Raphael relates his opinion on the current state of England's policies toward both thieves and sheep. These disparate topics initially seem unrelated to the merits of a political or contemplative life, but they are in fact integral. Raphael claims that England's policy of executing thieves is not only unjust, since it is overly harsh and in defiance of God's law, but also ineffective, since there are systemic changes occurring which leave many people with literally no choice but to steal, since the only alternative is to starve (More 2002). He says that land enclosure policies, done in the name of raising sheep, are a prime cause of unemployment, poverty, and the need of men to steal. Instead of retributive execution, Raphael suggests a restorative approach, so that society could benefit from the labour of convicts, while they themselves would have the possibility to rejoin society if pardoned by their king (More 2002). This analysis clearly represents the end product of a period of philosophical contemplation for Hythloday, yet it is met with scorn by those who hear it. Raphael says that, when a Cardinal offered his support for the idea, those gathered nearby were soon “praising enthusiastically ideas which they had received with contempt when [Raphael] suggested them” (More 2002, 25). This helps underscore Raphael's assertion that, were he to pursue a political life, his counsel would not be heeded, and it shows how a contemplative life can lead to a better understanding of truth and justice.
Despite Raphael's clever story to illustrate his position, More tries once more to persuade him. He again stresses the idea that a political life would enable Raphael to be “of the greatest advantage to the public welfare” (More 2002, 27), which he asserts to be an important duty of a good man. At this point he even recalls to mind Plato's call for a philosophic political class of kings, trying to ally his arguments with those of respected classical scholars. More claims that an active pursuit of politics offers a chance to make positive change in a kingdom, and is thus preferable to a contemplative life of philosophy.
Yet Raphael again refutes More. He claims that while philosophers are available who would advise, kings are not “willing to take their good advice” (More 2002, 28). He illustrates how kings, lacking a philosophical tendency, would not receive his advice well. For example, what if Raphael recommended the King of France put aside his military expansionism, instead focusing solely on France itself in an effort to govern it well and win the love of his citizens (More 2002)? Even More appears swayed that such advice would not be received “very enthusiastically” (More 2002, 31). Raphael goes on to ask what would happen if he were to suggest, to the contrary of other counsellors' advice, that the King avoid raising money through taxation or unfair economic practises, and that he should instead permit his citizens to flourish by living modestly (More 2002). He is showing that a political life would not in fact allow him to enact positive changes, since his advice would not be well received or subsequently enacted.
More admits that such advice would be ignored. However, he chastises Raphael for delivering it in such an uncompromising and radical manner. He recommends that Raphael use guile, and to not “abandon the commonwealth” (More 2002, 35) just because he is unable to cure every evil at once. Instead, More says that by adopting a more tactful approach, Raphael could prevent the worst abuses of royal power, modifying their governance to be “as little bad as possible” (More 2002, 35). This represents a shift in More's argument, as he has clearly been convinced that deception is necessary in order for Raphael to be successful in a life of politics. Yet still he believes that this harm reduction approach justifies political pursuits.
Raphael does not agree with More. He points out that deception would not permit him to make the change that More believes, instead serving only to support the destructive policies of others – to “confirm them in their madness” (More 2002, 36). He feels prevaricating would “make people feel more secure about doing evil” (More 2002, 36), hardly the noble deed More has suggested. Raphael feels that the system of private property in itself prevents a kingdom from being “just or prosperous” (More 2002, 37), and that while some policies may serve as dressings on the wounds of “sick bodies that are past cure” (More 2002, 37), in the end the only cure is to adopt communism. Thus, at the end of their discussion, Raphael has held fast to his assertion that a life of private contemplative philosophy is preferable to that of the active pursuit of politics.
In summation, this paper has outline the discussion between the characters of Thomas More and Raphael Hythloday regarding whether it is better to live a contemplative or political life. More's initial preference for the political was met with resistance by Raphael, who countered his arguments repeatedly throughout. Raphael pointed out that, were he to become a political adviser, his council would be belittled or ignored, or would have to be moderated in such a way as to be an immoral equivocation. He showed how he would be unhappy and unable to enact the sweeping changes he felt necessary. In the end, the best that More was able to say for a life of political pursuits was that it could offer a man some personal advancement for himself and his kin (a rather small and shallow benefit), and that it could – perhaps – mitigate some of a king's worst policies. Even still this remained doubtful, as the kind of man willing to so moderate his own position as to be well received by a king and his council would be unlikely to be able to maintain enough integrity in the face of constant opposition to fight for incremental moderation of harmful policies. Raphael, on the other hand, showed that contemplative philosophy was a way to maintain his integrity, avoid enslaving himself to a king, and further the search for truth and justice, free from the tyranny of a council of self-serving political advisers.
References
More, Thomas. 2002. Utopia. In Logan, George and Robert Adams, ed. Cambridge, UK: University Press.
Machiavelli's The Prince
Since Machiavelli's death in 1527, the Italian's name has become synonymous with duplicity, deceit, and amorality. His work The Prince was meant as a guidebook for a new ruler on how to gain and maintain power Yet a significant cornerstone of advice he offered was that “a ruler must take care … to avoid those things that will make him an object of hatred or contempt” (Machiavelli 1995, 56), a seeming incongruity from one with such a devious reputation. Yet further study on the recommendations Machiavelli offers to his Prince reveals that he proposes a path which, while taking a flexible approach to commonly held moral standards, still holds others' views to be of pragmatic importance. For this reason Machiavelli dictates a course of action which places highest importance on being feared, both by subjects and fellow rulers, followed by being loved, and that to be hated or held in contempt is to be avoided at all costs. This essay will explain the seeming incongruities of this advice, noting his deference to circumstance, by examining Machiavelli's advice to a Prince.
Primarily Machiavelli can be thought of as embracing a morality based on pragmatism. While he admits that action good is surely a preferable course of action, he is sure to make clear in his instructions to a Prince that morals must be swept aside at a moment's notice if need be. He writes that “anyone who wants to act the part of a good man in all circumstances will bring about his own ruin … [so] it is necessary for a ruler … to learn how not to be good” (Machiavelli 1995, 48). This typifies the advice of Machiavelli, which dictates a fluid style of leadership, responsive to the ever changing moods of fickle fate. Further, the author recommends avoiding “those evil qualities … compatible with holding on to power” (Machiavelli 1995, 48) if possible, but attempts to assuage the conscience of any Prince who finds it necessary to engage in them, since “above all you are supposed to have those vices a ruler needs if he is going to stay securely in power” (Machiavelli 1995, 49). Clearly based on this alone it is evident that Machiavelli's advice is at best an overall suggestion, to be discarded as circumstance demands.
Despite his flexibility, Machiavelli uses strong words in warning a Prince against inciting hatred. In order to explain how Machiavelli could recommend being feared above being loved, yet insist a Prince must avoid hatred, it is important to note that he outlines the causes of hatred rather narrowly. He claims that a ruler will “only be hated if [he] seize[s] the property or the women of [his] subjects and citizens” (Machiavelli 1995, 52). Because of this specific delineation of the causes of hatred, Machiavelli is able to suggest a wide range of detestable actions without concern that they would elicit hatred.
Machiavelli's semantic differentiation of the emotions a ruler should incite seems to be based on two aspects - that those actions which provoke fear are in some way expected, or within the rights of a ruler to commit, whereas those which result in hatred are those which violate the most basic human dignities. Further, that when actions cause the hatred of a small few, especially when they are a powerless minority, they in turn cause fear among the masses. For example, Machiavelli recommends that a ruler, when acquiring new territories in a region with a different culture, establish colonies as a way of strengthening control over the area (Machiavelli 1995). In order to do this, a Prince must steal the land of some of the people, to give to the new settlers. This necessarily, according to the definition he has set out, incurs the hatred of those whose land is appropriated. Yet Machiavelli notes the action will “offend only those from whom you seize fields and house... and they will be only a tiny minority” (Machiavelli 1995, 9). He further says that “those whom you offend will be scattered and become poor, so they will be unable to do you any harm” (Machiavelli 1995, 9), showing that to be hated is not so terrible so long as it does not become a widely held view. In noting that “all the rest … will be afraid to make a false move, for they will have before them the fate of their neighbors as an example of what might happen to them” (Machiavelli 1995, 9), Machiavelli shows that he is recommending a cost-benefit analysis to determine how a Prince may get the greatest benefit and deference from the most subjects. This clearly shows that Machiavelli believes that stealing a man's property or women may make him hate you, but will make others fear you, and so is not in fact to be avoided entirely.
Machiavelli instructs his Prince that “no ruler is secure unless he has his own troops … nothing is so fragile as a reputation for strength that does not correspond to one's real capacities” (Machiavelli 1995, 45). This threat to a Prince's power is a result of the fact that without his own troops he will come to be regarded with contempt, as an “armed man has … for the man without weapons” (Machiavelli 1995, 46). Furthermore, this contempt will express itself as a lack of respect from his troops, whom he “cannot trust” (Machiavelli 1995, 46). If not having one's own army is contemptible, then it is to be avoided whenever possible, since Machiavelli looks with scorn upon those rulers who are contemptible.
Machiavelli offers instructions on ways to minimize the negative effects of hatred, if it must be incurred. He recommends that “people should either be caressed or crushed” (Machiavelli 1995, 9). He feels that if one must commit an act that would inspire hatred, it is better to do it in such a way that the person who will hate you is severely weakened. In his own words, the person should be “injure[d] … in such a way that you do not have to fear their vengeance” (Machiavelli 1995, 9-10). This helps explain how the author can recommend that a new Prince should wipe out not just the previous, now-defeated leader, but also should exterminate local nobles and charismatic figures – and even their memory (Machiavelli 1995). Another method Machiavelli recommends is that a Prince commit undesirable actions in one fell swoop. He advises his Prince to “make a list of all the crimes you have to commit and do them all at once” (Machiavelli 1995, 30) so as to mask the full degree of his hateful actions. He further recommends that “whenever you have to kill someone, make sure you have a suitable excuse and an obvious reason” (Machiavelli 1995, 52), demonstrating he recommends taking hateful actions only when they will be supported by, or at least seem justified to, the populace. Surely these examples prove that Machiavelli views being hated as something to be avoided where possible, but that if hateful actions must be taken, they be mitigated or minimized.
In addition to avoiding or minimizing hatred, Machiavelli recommends a Prince manage his reputation. By so massaging his image, a ruler may gain ever more support from his citizens. He may do this by attempting to win his people's love, or by inciting their fear. To win their love, a Prince may institute good governance. Although introducing new government and institutions presents a dangerous time for a Prince, since those who are satisfied under the old system will resist strongly, and those who stand to gain will offer only the support of a skeptic, doing so is beneficial in the long run (Machiavelli 1995). In addition to the new elite that is created, and is made dependent on the Prince for their success, new institutions can help “render [the principality] peaceful and law abiding” (Machiavelli 1995, 51). This helps prevent disorder from spreading, “which leads to murders or looting” (Machiavelli 1995, 51), and therefore leads the populace to, in time, support the Prince even more. Another way a Prince may magnify the love of his people is the corollary of doing evil deeds all at once. He advises a Prince to “do good … little by little, so people can fully appreciate it” (Machiavelli 1995, 31). He goes on to recommend that a Prince court the affections of the masses rather than the elite, since the masses only want to be free of oppression, whereas the elite want, immorally, to oppress (Machiavelli 1995, 32). These examples show how Machiavelli believes that a Prince must seek to attain the support of his citizens, and demonstrate his pragmatic view that earning their love must be approach with a tactical eye.
Another way in which Machiavelli advises his Prince on manipulating his reputation is when he says that attempting to be generous may lead to a reputation for quite the opposite in the long run. He shows how a ruler who attempts to seem generous will have to finance his lavish favours for the few by raising taxes on the many (Machiavelli 1995). Since raising taxes is in effect a way for the Prince to seize some of his citizens' property, this is certain to incite their hatred, especially since the tax burden is so widespread, while the Prince's generosity will benefit “only a few” (Machiavelli 1995, 49). Machiavelli shows how a fiscally conservative policy of small government institutions benefits the people via low taxes, which in turn leads them to view the Prince as generous (Machiavelli 1995). This once more exemplifies Machiavelli's pragmatic approach to governance, with the goal of attaining the support of the greatest number of people for the lowest political cost.
Machiavelli make it clear that it is better to be feared than even loved. He claims that men are “ungrateful, fickle, deceptive and deceiving, avoiders of danger, eager to gain” (Machiavelli 1995, 52). By this he means that whatever warm feelings the masses have toward you - even love - are inconstant, uncertain, able to be swayed by circumstance beyond your control. He says that “men are less nervous of offending someone who makes himself lovable, than someone who makes himself frightening” (Machiavelli 1995, 52), an insightful view of the psychological workings of men. He goes on to say that “since men are wicked, they break whenever their interests are at stake” (Machiavelli 1995, 53), showing how love is an imperfect tool for garnering support, based on the whims of fate, whereas fear is a tool at the Prince's disposal, able to be deployed as necessary and with precision. This shows how Machiavelli believes that, for the Prince, garnering the obedience of his citizens is of primary importance. His pragmatic advice is that fear is a more useful tool in maintaining political power than even love.
Machiavelli's insights have garnered his work The Prince an ongoing importance in political theory, and more than earned him his Machiavellian reputation, This essay has shown that while he cautioned against actions arousing hatred or contempt, he understood expediency might require them, and offered ways to minimize their harm - to the Prince, rather than the citizenry. Machiavelli understood the need for the support of the masses, and called for a variety of deceptions, such as the appearance of piety, to help achieve it This support could primarily stem from the love of the people, which Machiavelli knew was powerful, if inconstant, or fear, which he knew to be the most powerful emotion, through which a Prince could control his citizens with ease and certainty. This is why Machiavelli argued that it is better for a prince to be feared than to be loved.
References
Niccolo, Machiavelli. 1995. The Prince. In Wootton, David, ed. and trans. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett
Publishing.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Ability Grouping: Students Swept Downstream
 |
| Check out my snazzy floooooow chart -WK |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
