Living in a World All Our Own

I had a conversation this morning with an old friend who talked about how much he enjoys not being on social media. I often hear this from my friends. I understand why they say this---I pretty much loathe what it does to me too. But part of me feels really annoyed when I hear this. I couldn't quite articulate what it makes me feel this way until today, but now I think I understand.

The ancient Greeks were very odd ducks compared to most of the other world civilizations. During what historians call "the Axial Age", most of the world's great religions and philosophies came into existence. This was when the monotheistic religions that we tend to call "Abrahamic" (first Judaism, then Christianity, and, later Islam) first came into existence with the Persian religion of Zoroastrianism (this connection is given lipservice in the Gospels when the "three Magi"---Zoroastrians---came to the manger bearing gifts). It was also when Buddhism and Hinduism arose in India, and, Daoism and Confucianism in China. (If you are a religious scholar, don't get your knickers in a knot---I know that this is a gross overstatement. But this blog is for public consumption, not your grad seminar!)

While all this was going on, the Greeks were experimenting with something

Socrates was a really annoying participant in the
ancient Greek version of social media. Public
domain image from the Louvre, c/o Wiki Commons.

completely different: philosophy and democracy. Philosophy is different from religion because it is based on critical thinking and direct experience instead of following a revealed authority. And democracy is not about finding and training the perfect ruler, but rather that of developing a culture where the general public manage their own affairs. And both these two different things were based on the idea of the "dialectic", or an argument within the public square.

This is an important point because the thing that I find that most people hate about social media is the arguing that goes on within it. That's understandable in a world where people are paid money to derail intelligent discussions by being "trolls". But unfortunately I find that a great many people learn the false lesson that there is no value at all in any form of dialectic. People like this not only won't argue, they won't even let anyone know what they really think. They just "disengage". Moreover, they often just walk away from any venue where the people they are with are not in fundamental agreement with them.

I can certainly understand if someone is so weak-minded that they cannot handle this sort of dissent. I can also understand getting burnt out and taking a vacation from social media idiocy. But what my friends are saying is very different. They are taking pride in disengaging from this conversation. They see it as an act of self-discipline that they no longer have a FaceBook, Twitter, or, Reddit account. They are looking down on me for my participation because they think that they are better than I am---since I obviously lack their superior self control.  

There is an apocryphal story to the effect that the ancient Athenians called people who weren't engaged in their social life "idiots", and that's why it is a pejorative term to this day. From what I've read, this isn't true.

Many political commentators have interpreted the word "idiot" as reflecting the Ancient Greeks' attitudes to civic participation and private life, combining the ancient meaning of 'private citizen' with the modern meaning 'fool' to conclude that the Greeks used the word to say that it is selfish and foolish not to participate in public life. But this is not how the Greeks used the word.

It is certainly true that the Greeks valued civic participation and criticized non-participation. Thucydides quotes Pericles' Funeral Oration as saying: "[we] regard... him who takes no part in these [public] duties not as unambitious but as useless" (τόν τε μηδὲν τῶνδε μετέχοντα οὐκ ἀπράγμονα, ἀλλ᾽ ἀχρεῖον νομίζομεν). However, neither he nor any other ancient author uses the word "idiot" to describe non-participants, or in a derogatory sense; its most common use was simply a private citizen or amateur as opposed to a government official, professional, or expert. The derogatory sense came centuries later, and was unrelated to the political meaning.

From the Wikipedia entry on "Idiot" 

My sense of annoyance is that what I consider a vice (not being engaged with the society we live in), they consider a virtue. 

&&&&

In this article I talk about the ancient Greek's participating in civically engaged arguments. The best example of this was Socrates---who ended up being executed after the Athenian state lost it's war with Sparta and its democracy was replaced by an oligarchy. He described himself as being like what we would call a "deer-fly" who's job is to bite the comfortable and force them out of their complacency. 

That's sort of what a journalist should do, IMHO. And that's at least part of why I write this blog. If you think that it serves a useful purpose, why not subscribe? Most folks pony up $5/month, but as little as $1/month is really helpful. (I support a couple YouTube channels by that much---so it isn't an insult.) It's not hard to do through PayPal or Patreon.  

&&&&

The fact of the matter is that people have a choice about how much they choose or do not choose to engage in the world around them. Moreover, they also get to choose who they engage with, and who they do not. This issue came home to me recently when I heard about Lisa Raitt's recent little "kerfuffle" on Twitter. 

For those of you who don't know, she posted a link to an article in the Financial Post (ie: the National Post) by Ross McKitrick (who happens to be an Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph). This article suggested that the climate emergency hasn't resulted in more and worse extreme weather events, and, moreover there appears to be a world-wide conspiracy aimed at keeping this "fact" out of public discourse. McKitrick ends his piece with the following statement: 

The continual claim of such links is misinformation employed for political and rhetorical purposes. Powerful people get away with it because so few people know what the numbers show. Many scientists who know better remain silent. And the few who push back against the propaganda, such as Roger Pielke Jr., find themselves on the receiving end of abuse and career-threatening attacks, even though they have all the science in their corner. Something has gotten scary and extreme, but it isn’t the weather.

Ross McKitrick, U. of Guelph Economics prof, who purports to know a great deal about 

climate change. Public domain image by the U. of Guelph c/o the Wiki Commons.

I won't try to get into the "nitty gritty" of the science behind "heroic" economists pushing back against a conspiracy of climate scientists on the pages of the Post-Media flagship. Instead, I want to talk about a "Twitter Storm" that erupted when Raitt posted a link to the latest McKitrick eruption.

It appears that Raitt was absolutely inundated by people who attacked her for spreading misinformation. Interestingly enough, this resulted in an invitation by an actual climate scientist (ie: not an economist) to re-examine her opinion based on something like real evidence. Amazingly enough, Raitt seems to have changed her mind on the subject. But then she offered a quote that I found absolutely gob-smacking:

While Raitt said she can’t speak for Scheer, she believes “people are just getting their heads around this kind of stuff.” [My emphasis.]

What upsets me is the fact that Raitt is the deputy leader of the Conservative party---which has built it's brand around attempting to sabotage any real attempt to deal with the climate emergency---and, she doesn't seem to have bothered to put much thought into the subject up until now.

Conservative MP, Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Lisa Raitt.
Hasn't really thought very much about the Climate Emergency until last week.
Public Domain image from Wiki Commons by Tabercil.

At first glance this might sound surprising, as she has a Master's degree in chemistry from the University of Guelph. But she also has a law degree and has done extra training in the United Kingdom on international trade and commerce. This is a lot to have accomplished for someone who's only 51 years old. (Oh, and in addition, she has two sons---but there was a "stay-at-home" dad.) Plus, of course, all the political work that goes into rising to the deputy leadership position in the official opposition. And, being a child born out of wedlock who was raised by a dockworker's family, she probably didn't receive any "special favours" in her life either.

I suspect that like a lot of very successful people, Raitt has learned to be incredibly focused in where she puts her attention. Not only do I doubt if there are many nights where she kicks off her shoes and watches Neflix, I also suspect that she never reads anything unless it is specifically directed at the task in hand. Moreover, I also suspect that she rarely gets any time in face-to-face with lunatics like myself who have opinions totally outside of anything Conservative.

More's the pity.

I'm concerned that our society is being guided by more and more by people who's way of dealing with information overload and a general decline in civility in public discourse is to create their own little "walled gardens". Within these secluded enclaves they tend to thoughts that don't disrupt their view of the world and don't entertain visitors who talk too loud and stomp all over the primroses. Retirement can be more peaceful in these gardens. And a career can be carefully nurtured free from wasteful distractions. But society suffers when people cease rubbing up against the "other types" in the public square.

&&&&

Furthermore, I say to you---the climate emergency must be dealt with!