Holding on somewhat white-knuckled to armrests while enduring the months of mid-term election politicking, I found solace in the philosophizing of some old friends. The theories of Plato, John Stuart Mill, and Henri Bergson still ring true and their wisdom serves both as solace and as challenge as I write this piece on Election Day.
In The Republic, Plato seeks a pure understanding of the concept of Justice. What is the meaning of Justice? What constitutes a Just state? This ancient Greek guru held fast to his vision of a world of perfect ideas - Courage, Love, Freedom, for example - and he taught students in his Academy that clear thinking and heartfelt conversation about these ideas paved the way for good living. Though we may never know the exact meaning of this or that idea, an earnest quest for understanding takes us closer to certainty with every inquiry. Asking the question is all-important; and,civil dialogue is essential in the movement of one and all towards clarity. Plato's mentor Socrates was adamant: "The unexamined life is not worth living." Neither he nor his pupil excused settling for lazy assumptions, following the crowd mentality of the moment, or taking the opinions of others as one's own without serious detective work. Plato's warning in The Republic comes alive today: Peace and justice can exist only if rulers are also philosophers; politicians must be invested in the world of ideas and gifted in engaging others in the search for meaning. Plato's rueful prediction, however: No philosopher would want to enter public life with its guarantee of chaos and pandering. Hmmmm...Can philosophy and politics go hand in hand? Isn't philosophy, the love and pursuit of wisdom, functional? Scores of my students of all ages echo my fervent YES; mental vigor is a most practical tool. We must ask the best questions. Pat answers are easy; the good questions are tough to find, tougher to ask.
And so I wondered: What would Plato think? In what campaign or during which debate was there a discussion of those powerful concepts that every school child learns by heart: "with liberty and justice for all"? Do children discuss what these words mean? Do we...now or ever? What is Liberty? What is Justice? Who is ALL? What if, as individuals and as a collective body, we were willing to go back and to ask as if for the first time, "What is Responsibility?" How about pondering the meaning of Democracy? Is this country a democracy? It is Plato's conviction that with clarity about key ideas our way forward will become obvious. But beware: Without clear thinking we remain unable to pinpoint and therefore address society's problems; we spin without direction, lost in meaningless argument about.... Worst of all, the efforts of those who are driven by ideas and willing to challenge themselves and others will be unwelcome at best.
From his vantage point in nineteenth century England, John Stuart Mill saw the United States as the test-case for democracy. He had great hopes for a nation that was enduring its own civil war when he penned On Liberty in 1865. Mill worried that without education and tolerance a democracy devolves into a form of unexpected yet suffocating tyranny. Mass mediocrity would win the day and power be relinquished to a strong minority. Uh oh.
Students love guessing at Mill's view of this country today. Is the citizenry educated? Do we prize education? In Plato's spirit, do we question its meaning? Were the people, the "of" "by" and "for" the people, well-informed on the issues and the candidates' stances in the mid-term elections? Were the citizens active and engaged? Did they vote? Mill's allegiance to tolerance proves even more discomfiting to consider. Both as a Member of Parliament and in his philosophical and personal life, Mill hollered (quietly) for differing ideas to be spoken and heard. The more viewpoints, the better the chance of finding our way! What about this and what about that? Tuning out another's opinion assumes infallibility and precludes changing one's mind when convincing evidence appears. Hmmmm.... How accepting of difference are we as a whole? Any persecuted minority faces slammed doors everywhere without open-mindedness and appreciation of shared humanity, Mill forewarned. Does every voice count? What grade would our British fan assign the United States on education and tolerance? What grades do we assign ourselves in our private lives?
A reprieve! Philosopher/Comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert organized a rally for...sanity on October 30. What in the world does Sanity mean? What is that?! Never have I witnessed early twentieth century French philosopher Henri Bergson more validated in his theory that comedy can serve as a powerful social remedy. "The comic spirit has a logic of its own, even in its wildest eccentricities. It has a method in its madness" ("Laughter"). Intelligently poking fun at what needs fixing in a society leads to action. Laughter points out stalemates, what is unmoving and entrenched, and invites everyone to get moving and make changes.This special kind of comedy appeals to the intelligence rather than the emotions; it is not malicious. On a sunny Saturday, Stewart and Colbert focused on all that we as individuals have in common and they saluted the "resasonableness" that governs most of our daily interactions. By and large, we deal as best we can with personal difficulty and help each other as well. Watching the smiling faces gathered in D.C., an estimated 250,000 people glad to make their lighthearted presence known, I loosened my grip on the armchair and relaxed. What was the comedians' goal? Stewart swears that he's not quite sure! But two recurring themes hung in the air. First, seeds of fear and panic are sown by the media, especially the cable news networks; we can choose to gather our information from other, varied sources, and we must keep digging for the facts. And, second, an uncommon and embarrassing inablility and/or unwillingness to work together is showcased by government officials in Washington. No other workplace, neighborhood, family, or team could afford such paralyzing discord. Bergson states that humor targets "a certain rigidity of body, mind, and character that society would like to get rid of in order to obtain from its members the greatest possible degree of elasticity and sociability." Time for a stretch! Time to turn and make introductions. Whew.
How about "with sanity for all"? Regardless of political affiliation or religious pursuasion, can we be reasonable and hospitable on principle? Why not? How about a good laugh at ourselves and a fresh start?
