Recently, I read a question on a forum, something to the effect of - What is the wisest thing you’ve ever heard?
Although some contributors put a laundry list, I thought the question called for one.
“Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.”
This is from Viktor Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning, a book I first read quite a few years ago – possibly as long ago as college or law school. He was a holocaust survivor. I believe his whole or almost his whole family was killed by the Nazis. Mostly, the book, or the first half anyway, is about forgiveness (the second half is about the psychotherapy he developed). I’m not talking about forgiving the descendants of Nazis, who should not be saddled with their ancestor’s sins. I mean the actual killers. I admit, while I think forgiveness is valuable and often healthy, his capacity for it greatly exceeds mine. Still, he managed to forgive brutal and prolific murderers – I am taking his word for it. Anyway, whether I could forgive the people who wiped out my family (or other people’s families) or not, having a good attitude is pretty key in this world. And, I just know too many people who don’t have one. Even people who were born into such a great time and place as our own and objectively seem to have little to complain of.
*
Good sense is of all things in the world the most equally distributed, for everybody thinks he is so well supplied with it, that even those most difficult to please in all other matters never desire more of it than they already possess.
Descartes, beginning his Discourse on Method. Actually, I think it is wise, but only because when I first read it, I read only the single sentence. I took it as ironic and funny. The idea that it is natural to think your own way of thinking is not only right, but common to any right thinking person. But, he wasn’t being funny. He seems to be serious and believed that reason existed “naturally equal in all men.” Here’s the longer quote from his Discourse.
“Common sense is the most fairly distributed thing in the world: because everyone thinks he is so well endowed, that even those who are hardest to satisfy in everything else, have no habit of desiring more than they have. What it is unlikely that all are wrong, but this shows that the power of judging well and distinguishing truth from falsehood, which is properly what is called common sense or reason, is naturally equal in all men, and as well as the diversity of our opinions does not come from what some are more reasonable than others, but only that we conduct our thoughts in various ways, and do not see the same things. For it is not enough to have a good mind, but the key is to apply it well. The greatest souls are capable of the greatest vices as well as the greatest virtues, and those who do not work very slowly may move much more, they always follow the right path, as do those who run, and away from it.”
If there really is such a thing as common sense, and it is not just a way we gratify ourselves by categorizing people we agree with, I disagree it is equal in all people. Probably the potential for it is when we are born. But, particularly among the more conventional, we think it is so. So, I’ll truncate his statement and take out the part I like. In the end, wouldn't it be better to have uncommon sense?
*
Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world - and it never will.
This from a Mark Twain speech, Consistency, which, to my thinking was brilliant start to finish. Not a lot of speeches like that anymore. Like many great sayings – you have to stop before you take it to its logical conclusion and read it in the spirit offered. But, if he wrote “Loyalty to petrified opinion rarely breaks a chain or frees a human soul in this world – and usually won’t in the future,” it would lose a lot of its oomph.
What opinion is petrified and what is just solid wisdom? How about “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” Old, venerable and petrified? Not yet it’s not. Really age has nothing to do with it.
So, why do I think it was wise? Because it often is. Twain meant (says I), don’t hold onto old ways of thinking when they’ve lost their usefulness and can’t be true. It’s what I see happen with friends and acquaintances, with different social groups all the time. Not that I’m opposed to tradition. I love many traditions and I’m sure I hang on to petrified opinions too. I’m pretty sure that, generally speaking, the older people get, the harder it gets to deal with change. I just hope that I can change when it is called for.
*
“For at least I know, with certainty, that a man’s work is nothing but the long journeying to recover, through the detours of art, the two or three simple and great images which first gained access to his heart.”
Albert Camus. Lyrical and Critical Essays.
I read L’Etranger (“The Stranger”) in high school French. Camus was a huge literary hit during WWII, in which he was part of the French “resistance” (as a writer, not a fighter). He wrote a few novels, which I liked, and some essays, which I found torture (unlike his sometimes friend, Sartre). The book from which the quote is taken was published a decade after his death, as he died a young man in an automobile accident. Politically, he was far left. When I was reading him as a kid, I had a lot more patience for the far left (never the far right – but, that’s how I was raised) than I do now. He was also generally a pacifist, a notion I grew up with in my head. Later in life he championed human rights. Not surprisingly, I was attracted to his personal story and I liked his created ones. Only a few years ago I read a biography about him and concluded, presuming it was relatively fair and accurate, however charming his personality might have been, however attractive to women he may have been, he was a jerk in his relationships.
But, whatever he was, I appreciate his statement about the great images we continue to seek after. For myself, I know where those images came from. They can be found in the first books my mother read with me – Born Free and Edith Hamilton’s Mythology. It shouldn’t be a surprise that books like Peter Mathiesson’s The Snow Leopard and Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, both of which drip in mythology and nature, are at the top of my list. Not only have I read both multiple times, but I am always looking for something else that might match them, not just in ability, but in the images – nature and myth that I apparently have sought to recapture since my youth. Wagner's Forest Murmurs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08vTtu4pmjk) captures the essence musically and to my ear is one of the most beautiful pieces ever composed. Camus' statement is true for me. I don’t know if it is true for others. But, if I take everything I think I know about human psychology, I suspect it is and so include it in my list. Many insights can be found multiple times and said multiple ways throughout literature. But, I don't think I've read this elsewhere. If true, it explains many things about people, particularly artists, that we will never understand, as it is buried in a childhood past that we can’t penetrate without the aid of scholars able to mine an unexpected amount of personal material from someone when they were little. More often, even with famous people, we get to pick these images up only later in their lives, if at all.
*
"I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said 'I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right — Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison.'"
Ben Franklin’s Speech at the Constitutional Convention, read by James Wilson. Franklin is my great American hero. One of the two indispensable men (along with Washington, that’s a convention that I agree with it – others were very important, but no others had the age, dignity, wisdom and personality to be indispensable).
There are many statements one can find that are odes to self-doubt. Darwin wrote – “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” I have a fondness for that type of statement. In fact, I have a tendency to like philosophers who explain our ignorance more than those who think they know a lot more than is possible. But, I don’t know that anyone ever stated it so effectively or charmingly as my favorite founder.
*
“I have long entertained a suspicion with regard to the decisions of philosophers upon all subjects, and found in myself a greater inclination to dispute than assent to their conclusions. There is one mistake to which they seem liable almost without exception; they confine too much their principles, and make no account of that vast variety which nature has so much affected in all her operations. When a philosopher has once laid hold of a favourite principle, which perhaps accounts for many natural effects, he extends the same principle over the whole creation, and reduces to it every phenomenon, though by the most violent and absured reasoning. Our own mind being narrow and contracted, we cannot extend our conception to the variety and extent of nature, but imagine that she is as much bounded in her operations as we are in our speculation.”
David Hume – The Sceptic
Karl Popper, also one of my favorite philosophers, wrote something similar once, using the psychologist Alfred Adler as an example. “As for Adler, I was much impressed by a personal experience. Once, in 1919, I reported to him a case which to me did not seem particularly Adlerian, but which he found no difficulty in analyzing in terms of his theory of inferiority feelings, although he had not even seen the child. Slightly shocked, I asked him how he could be so sure. "Because of my thousandfold experience," he replied; whereupon I could not help saying: "And with this new case, I suppose, your experience has become thousand-and-one-fold."
I suspect that the process of resorting to Hume and Popper describe pertains not only to philosophers and theorists but to all of us. And maybe it can be a good thing and a survival mechanism because having frequent resort to a defense makes it practiced and effective. That is, until we come up against something new or that needs a different approach. And we are almost always coming up against something new.
*
“What saves a man is to take a step. Then another step.”
St. Exupery, Wind, Sand & Stars
This is frequently attributed to C. S. Lewis, who was known for three things – writing the Narnia series, being a Christian apologist and being for a time J. R. R. Tolkien’s best friend and a member of their group, the Inklings, at Oxford. The falling out appears to be Tolkien’s fault, at least by more modern thinking, as he opposed Lewis’ second marriage on religious grounds.
Maybe Lewis wrote something similar. I couldn’t tell you and I have no intention of reading all of his works in order to try to find it. I did try to read a couple of his non-fiction books and couldn’t get past the first chapter. He probably was a really good writer, but, it was dull as far as I was concerned.
St. Exupery was, of course, most famous for The Little Prince. I read it in French when a kid for in French class (that is, the class read it – I believe I attempted it when awake enough on rare occasion), but found it much easier recently with the help of a dictionary, when necessary. It’s a fun and occasionally poignant story, and the desert plane crash that figures largely into it is autobiographical. St. Exupery was a pilot before he was a writer. I’m not sure that other than TLP, he was a great one. My experience with him is limited to one other book. Nevertheless, this pithy statement about perseverance resonates with me. Often in life, including in my own profession, there is nothing to do but put your head down and slog along. It is true as well, as was sung in one of my favorite songs, The Gambler, “you got to know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em.” It is at that dividing line that wisdom comes into play. But, when you fold ‘em, someone else walks away with the pot. Or the job. Or the victory. Or the girl.
*
“But extremes of all kinds are to be avoid[ed]; and though no one will ever please either faction by moderate opinions, it is there we are most likely to meet with truth and certainty.”
Hume, History of England
I’ve written on several occasions on the topic of moderation and what it means to me, but foremost in Why I am not a conservative (or a liberal) III; Eight political propositions on August 28, 2011, but in a great act of generosity and self-sacrifice, I will spare you having to read it and just give you the propositions:
Proposition 1 – Most statements about politics are general statements and should be subject to qualification, exception and nuance.
Proposition 2: Authority is necessary to a peaceful civilization, but, your obedience should end at the point it would require you to violate a deeply held belief or personal commitment, regardless of the ramifications.
Proposition 3: Being independent comes from a recognition that our political associations, particularly if formed when young, come from factors other than critical analysis or reason; it is deeply affected by how we were raised.
Proposition 4: Being independent requires an understanding that values are not immutable and often change over time for a society and for individuals as well; it is anathema to those who believe that ethics or morality are given to us by a deity, or must be a product of some authoritarian or historical factors.
Proposition 5: Moderation is a temperament that is necessary to learn or playing nicely with others, on a personal, political or societal level; however even moderation needs to be moderated, for in too strong a dose, it can be astronomically dangerous in the face of a lethal enemy (think Nazis, Bolsheviks and al Qaeda). Moderation also takes into consideration that conflicting principles or values can sometimes both be true.
Proposition 6: Just like honesty is the best policy, and yet not the only policy, the goal of individual freedom or liberty is but a primarily important political policy or value, and not the only one.
Proposition 7: Of all the values which contribute to the happiness of man individually and collectively, the value of individual liberty, as a direction and a goal, is the most efficient, the most effective, and the most desirable way to get there.
Proposition 8: The good news is that our society has always been directed to a large degree on a libertarian pathway and it is our heritage of what is called the enlightenment or enlightenment values that have forged the way.
I don’t know that I would write it the same way today, 7 years later, but I think it would be largely the same – only vaguer.
But, some other things are true of moderation that come to mind, and, since I cut out most of what I wrote 7 years ago, these points may also be in there somewhere –
1. As Hume points out, moderates aren’t too popular with most others, including other moderates, b/c they disagree with most everyone about any number of things.
2. Moderates don’t all agree on everything with one another, sometimes anything.
3. Most people think they are moderates, as they associate it with fairness, and who doesn’t think they fair? They also have trouble believing others are moderates because they disagree so much. But, I actually think it’s a plurality of American voters.
4. Being moderate doesn’t mean being in the middle on every issue, nor perfectly balanced between the views of partisans. Sometimes there only is one valid side.
5. Even if it were metaphysically possible to be absolutely in the middle politically, you couldn’t stay there without moving, because the two basic sides move, most often towards the extremes, and not always evenly.
6. People on one side or the other will see moderates as the other side; partisanship requires looking through the wrong end of a telescope at others, and not behind them on their side seems like they are in the distance – that is, the opposite side.
7. Because moderates are all over the board and have no group dogma, they don’t make good political parties and are only a political force when the two major opposing camps are roughly evenly split.
8. Sometimes moderation is only possible when one side wins and has all the marbles; this has actually happened many times in history.
*
These Bickerings of opposite Parties, and their mutual Reproaches, their Declamations, their Sing Song, their Triumphs and Defyances, their Dismals, and Prophecies, are all Delusion.
We seldom hear any solid Reasoning. I wish always to discuss the Question, without all Painting, Pathos, Rhetoric, or Flourish of every Kind.
John Adams letter to Thomas Jefferson
I can’t tell you how many times I have used that quote in a comment online. It is so apropos right now where two sides are yelling at each other and no one listening. Politics in general is largely about trying to keep the other side from even having a voice at all, and we see plenty of that.
I know most people will not be watching the Justice Kavanaugh hearing, maybe this fall (not if the Ds can help it – they will hope to delay until after the election to see if they can flip the Senate and block Trump appointments). I’ve watched every Supreme Court hearing since the eighties when C-Span started showing them, although some of them years after they were held, and they are pretty much a joke. The party out of power, now the Ds, will do what they can to make this about anything but whether he is a jurist qualified to be on the Supreme Court, which, obviously he is. They will try to find personal frailties, some mistake he made in life or something that looks like a mistake in the goldfish bowl of politics, someone who will tarnish him, they will ask him questions about hypothetical matters or to make them promises – anything they can think of which he can’t answer. I actually watched his hearing when he became a Court of Appeals justice in 2006 and it was pretty much just like that. In fact, other than the fact that he has aged a dozen years, you might not be able to tell the difference between the two hearings – unless they find some dirt.
*
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Another quote I use over and over again in my goal to write the least popular comments in media history. On rare occasion I get as many as 30 people writing angry replies, although more often I’m politely ignored by most people. It’s quite rewarding. Unfortunately, what I’m usually saying about the King quote is something like this – “Those who now pass for “civil rights” advocates have killed MLK, Jr. a second time, standing his dream of our judging people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, on its head – now, they want everyone judged by the color of their skin, or their sex, or some other superficial aspect, rather than their intentions and character.”
I’ve written about King a couple of times here (Beating up on Martin Luther King, Jr. in public, 10/30/08 and Killing the dream again, 8/28/17) so I won’t belabor it. He might not have originated the “I have a dream” concept and certainly much of his celebrated speech was taken from others (if interested, check out the 2008 post), but no rational person would argue that his speech wasn’t powerful and eloquent. There are many ways to say that we should judge people by their character. But, it seems like it was something everyone knew but rarely applied. And, then, something changed. I saw it in my lifetime. While you could not say without laughing that there was no longer prejudice or racism or that lifetimes of oppression does not have effects long after it is gone, oppression and discrimination began slowly, but steadily, to decline. I am not saying that it would not have happened without King and the dream, but I do believe he was a great leader and inspired a lot of people. It happened faster and better because of him. The length of time it took Rs to recognize what he accomplished and their long desire to minimize his contribution to all of our lives, is a mark against them. I doubt many of them would own up to it now. But, now it is the left that is looking to judge by ethnicity and color. All you need to do is read the articles that repeatedly come out taking this approach. Racism is disturbing in whatever form it comes in.
What happened to change this among those you would think would want to continue his legacy and success? Why is victimization, separationism and anti-education (a trilogy I learned from great linguist and writer on race, John McWhorter) still so prevalent, when it seems to increase, rather than decrease, racial disharmony? I have a theory. When people identify with a group that has been oppressed and denied dignity and respect for so long, and they finally get equality of opportunity - or approach it, it is hard for some to accept it without wanting something more. Call it revenge, call it comeuppance, retribution, social justice - call it whatever you like. But, the recent result in our country has been stepping away from wanting to be judged by character and instead demanding to be judged by skin color or something similarly superficial, to demand to be seen as a victim that needs retribution or required acceptance by others who might at least internally discriminate. In turn, there is a reaction of distrust and resentment from others and not only the minority - but those competing for the benefits of being a minority in our society. Sadly, this is what young people are being taught. It's more early Malcolm X, before he rejected his approach himself and was killed for it.
I don’t know what the solution will be, but I think it could be a return to the dream.
Next month or year I might have a whole different list of the “wisest” things, although probably most of these quotes have appeared in prior posts. I wasn’t going to exclude them from this post because of that. But it really doesn’t matter. I read a lot and am always looking for wise or inspiring things. And, I like to pass them on. Someone else might have an entirely different list. I notice that when I invite people to post their own responses, no one does – not even my few regular commenters. So, instead, I am inviting no one to offer their own opinion. See how that works.
