A Survey of Knowledge

Where has philosophy, politics, history, science, our everyday experiences and all human consciousness gotten us in terms of overall knowledge? Is there anything near cohesiveness, a pile, togetherness of knowledge? Or has knowledge all fallen to pieces, as wisely (that is, by logical extension [although logic would have no jurisdiction]) so, as matter-of-factly there is no knowledge, no facts?

When Nietzsche screamed that we reevaluate all values he didn’t mean we chuck out everything. This was a man who comprehensively studied the classics and knowledge of yesteryear. His point was that our consensuses need tweaking and despite the Victorian optimism existent across Europe, pretty much, Nietzsche stated that we not only need broader thought but deeper thought (that is, critical thought). Nietzsche believed Christianity was rated too importantly and that it misunderstood itself (no religious scholar worth their salt would say otherwise about 19th Century Christianity today). Marx and Freud were practically more of the same. The former thought that there were unreasonable, that is unconvincing social and economic realities which held sway only due to society’s mislaid trust in capitalism. Freud thought individuals were unintelligently locked into believing and practicing certain things because of their psychological setup (i.e. the racist is a racist because of a specific upbringing), due to the dominance of the unconscious and the intricate interactions between the self and his/her environment (for example, parents, physical pain, school, sexual experiences etc. etc.).

The takeaway from all this is not only that as Kant said should we dare to know, but we are imperiled to know as circumstances could possibly be stacked against us (including parts of ourselves)!

A few notes on Derrida, deconstruction and the like. Valuable things obtained from recent intellectual history are: one, that what is often seen as superfluous or supplementary may well be apart of, or necessary for what is essential. Anyone who has done scientific research would well be aware that things once regarded as irrelevant to knowledge have an uncanny ability to wind up being essentially relevant, like the brain being the central point of the mind. Also I’ll go on a Nietzschean and Derridean theme of good and evil never being clear-cut and it being rather shades of grey that map out the moral universe. The “civilizing missions” done by empires upon indigenous populations at the start of the 20th Century is amply a case in point.

What results from this is firstly discussions are often very specialized and cover boring minutia. Due to this few people grasp the larger scenario and can weigh up the importance of all the pieces of the puzzle. Also, everyday people are stressed with the seeming irrelevance of issues and reason that they don’t deserve much attention (this clearly is a strain on democracy and being reasonable, civil in general). Furthermore, and this intertwines with the previous points, it is difficult to improve morality and justice when issues aren’t as demonstrably arguable as, for instance, slavery is cruel (instead we deal with climate change may incrementally destroy the planet over 100 years, Islam, a religion we over a millennium of history and lengthy, detailed religious scripture is overall peaceful and single verses or acts by a few don’t exemplify it’s over one billion followers, etc). Also it is hard to keep up detailed, complicated and necessary discussions about right and wrong in the age of the 24 hour news cycle.

Lastly I would like to make some crucial distinctions. I am a Kantian and I believe there are three spheres: pure reason (that is science, largely analysis [in it’s etymological sense of breaking things down: distinguishing), practical reason (that is social justice and ethics, which is, firstly, that there is by and large one way to set up a society and that is with social democracy and secondly day to day ethics are inevitably pragmatic and case by case) and lastly judgement (that is, for me, the good life, which is always a completely individual matter and inarguable to a point, some will think rock music while some will like jazz, a person will have a specific lover and another will have another; Kierkegaard is pretty much the last speaker on the subject). Mistakes are often made when false expectations come into play. Someone discussing society and social justice is faulted for not explaining what makes life worth living. Or when someone who focusing on what makes life valuable is faulted with not confronting global capitalism. There are complicated crossovers and we can never simply dwell in one sphere. We must do the seemingly impossible. We must master them all.

Nobel Season

It is the time of the Nobel prizes again and here focus will be only on the prize for literature and the prize for peace. Literature was just announced with Latin American writer Mario Vargas Llosa coming away with the goods. This illustrates gladly that you don’t have to be an out and out leftist, you just have to be on the winning team (i.e. the broad coalition of centre-left people who are so broad no particular term is commonly used to describe them). Also it shows that some name recognition doesn’t disqualify a writer, as was suggested after the past two winners. Peruvians may be disappointed that someone who left the country to gain citizenship in former colonizer Spain won the prize. The reasons behind this self exile seem to be disappointment around losing the 1990 Presidential election of Peru and simply a difference of feeling between himself and the public who elected Alberto Fujimori. “I feel sorry for Peru” is what Vargas Llosa said shortly after losing the election. Later he would claim that citizens voted not for ideas but “out of some mysterious impulse”. Fujimori, in presenting himself as the strange, different “other” gained the support of Peruvians who felt excluded (link 1). Fujimori left Peru after a 10 year presidency and despite human rights groups believing he used excessively heavy-handed methods and paramilitary death squads to get rid of terrorist groups in Peru, which he did minimize, the Peruvian public overall positively regard him.

Mario Vargas Llosa is apart of the Latin American Boom (Boom Latinamericano) of literature roughly existent in the 1960s and 1970s. Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Carlos Fuentes, Julio Cortazar and Vargas Llosa himself are often the most named individuals to comprise this literary wave. Beyond writing books which transcend national boundaries and managing to embody Latin American concerns (all of the above named writers are from different countries by the way) there isn’t much which the writing of The Boom has in common. Magic Realism is often associated with their literature, yet certainly isn’t defining of the movement. The movement is largely male and rather elite (in the sense that writing and reading is sadly then and now a significant bit of cultural capital and is exclusive, as well as discussing of specific writings). The Nobel committee might well of appreciated the ability to express national identity whilst being able to amiably intermingle with people beyond one’s national boundaries. The Boom did inevitably draw upon some local and national characteristics whilst it expressed regional, Latin American concerns and endeavored to illuminate and explore the universal human self. Lastly it may be said the Latin American Boom opens writes of politics. Of the above writers and more associated with the movement often write of dictators, oppression and the lives and anguish experienced by normal, ruled over human beings. That he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature for writing about “structures of power and (for) his trenchant images of the individual’s resistance, revolt and defeat” it clearly shows that the Nobel committee believes the world needs more discussion about power and governance and the treatment of humanity in general.

For more on Mario Vargas Llosa here is the life story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/mar/16/fiction.books

Liu Xiabao is easily the most deserving Nobel Peace Prize candidate of the year. While last year their was uncertainty and the committee went with the surprising choice of Barack Obama, this year there is no real difficulty and ambiguity regarding who is most deserving. Xiabao’s achievements include:

In the spring of 1989, Liu Xiaobo left his post at Columbia University and returned to Beijing to play a crucial role in the spreading pro-democracy movement, staging a hunger strike in Tiananmen Square in support of the students and leading calls for a truly broad-based, sustainable democratic movement. He was instrumental in preventing even further bloodshed in the Square by supporting and advancing a call for non-violence on the part of the students. He spent two years in prison for his role, and another three years of “reeducation through labor” in 1996 for publicly questioning the role of the single-party system and calling for dialogue between the Chinese government and the Dalai Lama of Tibet.

(link 1)

The Charter 08, modeled after Vaclav Havel’s influential Charter 77, is easily Liu Xiabao’s crowning achievement, his Pièce de résistance for the Nobel Peace Prize. The charter deliberately worked to reference the existent Chinese Constitution on matters like freedom of association, freedom of assembly and a 2004 amendment to the constitution which effectively indicates that by the People’s Republic of China’s own standards they have fallen short and need reform. Further the charter is simply an excellent document on the fundamentals for a free society including the likes of separation of powers, election of public officials, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, social security, independent judiciary and furthermore reform processes to transition to these goals (link 2). Finally the initial signatories, there have been many declarations in press and public in support of the charter since, were “hundreds of Chinese thinkers, academics and writers” and “a prominent Tibetan blogger to lawyers and a disgraced former senior Communist Party official” (link 3).

The Nobel Peace Prize is meant to be bestowed upon an individual for having “done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses” (link 4). When Liu Xiaobo did the primary authoring of Charter 08 he wrote “the awakening Chinese citizens are becoming increasingly aware that freedom, equality, and human rights are universal values shared by all humankind, and that democracy, republicanism, and constitutional government make up the basic institutional framework of modern politics” (link 2). May it happen that deliberation and reason can guide the Nobel committee to realise who has done the best work. May the people of China think of society with popular sovereignty and human liberties and strive towards it. May people when the public good is concerned follow ideas and not some mysterious impulse!