A Conversation Over Spring Rolls

Last week I had a pretty deep conversation with a friend over a meal at the Wok's Taste restaurant. She was complaining that no one wants to talk about politics during this election. She asked me if I could think of a reason, but I was reticent to comment---.

I really enjoy her company and relish the time spent together. But we totally disagree about a lot of things. For example, she thinks that President Trump's attempt to get the Ukrainian government to dig up dirt on Joe Biden's son is a great idea. She also thinks Brexit makes sense. I also think Lloyd Longfield is a pretty nice guy while she says that she had a glimpse of an Orwellian nightmare while visiting his maximum-security constituency office.

Intellectually, we come from totally different worlds. She has little formal education but has traveled widely, lived many adventures, and, is a strong adherent of Jungian psychology. I have a Master's degree in philosophy and am very committed to the idea that logic and evidence need to be at the core of human life.

I didn't want to directly answer her question about why people weren't talking about the election (ie: I didn't feel comfortable doing so) so we got talking about emotions. She thinks that they are wonderful things and that our society doesn't allow people to be as emotional as it should. I said that they are very dangerous and that a lot of problems come about because too many people let their emotions over-ride their rational mind.

&&&&

Spring rolls, photo by jeffreyw.
Image c/o Wiki Commons.

&&&&

I suppose it comes down to one's personal experience. If your experience of emotions is of people who can't control themselves being verbally and physically abusive, emotions can seem to be horrific and scary things. In contrast, if your experience of life includes being around people who bottle up everything in their lives and who are afraid of expressing their true feelings, then you probably are going to be in favour of "letting it all hang out".

I'm the guy writing the op ed, so I get to decide how I frame this discussion, and I am of the opinion that some emotions get far too much emphasis. As I pointed out in my last post (News as Reality Television), I think that sometimes what passes as journalism nowadays is more concerned about people's feelings than whether or not something is actually right or not. And I get profoundly upset when journalists just repeat what someone says without actually checking to see if it is true in any meaningful sense.

I also get a little concerned every time I hear someone talking about how much they like the "passion" that they see in a candidate. And there are a couple candidates in this local election that are REALLY passionate about what they believe in. The problem is that you can be passionate about things that simply aren't true. Moreover, I think that a lot of what I am hearing in discussions isn't "true" in very significant ways that aren't necessarily factual, but could be seen as being emotional.

&&&&

Want to advertise your business or event?
Contact the Back-Grounder---affordable rates!
Email it at thecloudwalkingowl@gmail.com .

&&&&

Let's look at an issue that has come to the fore because of the People's Party of Canada.

The first thing to consider is the question of whether or not Canada should force immigrants to assimilate to "Western values" or whether we should allow them to retain specific elements of the traditions that they bring from their home country. As the PPC states on their website:

Our distinct values are those of a contemporary Western civilization. They include: democracy; individual rights and freedoms, including freedom of religious belief and freedom to criticize religion; equality between men and women; the equal treatment of all citizens regardless of ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation; the rule of law; separation of state and religion; tolerance and pluralism; and loyalty to the wider society instead of to one’s clan or tribe.

I don't think that many folks of any stripe would take issue with these statements. As I see it, however, the problem comes down to that label: "Western values". The sticking point is the idea that the ideals espoused in the quote above can be described as something both intrinsic and exclusive to Europe and it's major white colonies: Canada, the USA, Australia, and, New Zealand.

I've read a great deal of history---both European and from around the world---and I can safely say that what we know of as modern democracy is not representative of the way most European societies have governed themselves over the past 2,000 years. Just about any system you can imagine has been used: absolute monarchy, imperialism, feudalism, radical theocracy, plutocratic republic, fascism, communism, and, probably a few more I haven't thought of. Why would we say that democracy is intrinsic to the European culture when about half of the countries that have it now only got it when they had it imposed upon them by bayonet point after WWII?

If democracy isn't intrinsic to Europe, it isn't exclusive either. To cite a local example---as many people have commented before me---one of the traditional role models for democratic decision-making comes from the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy. I suspect that it would be possible to find similar examples among the various traditions that exist all over Asia and Africa.

Much the same sort of things could be said about the other things that the PPC talks about: women's rights, freedom of religion, sexual orientation, etc. Europe has had just as big a history of opposition to these ideals as the rest of world, and similarly you can find examples of their support around the world. The point is that these cultural constructs didn't only arise in Europe, instead they are universal human ideals.

So what does it mean when you say that all of these things are something that have only arisen from the nations of Europe? In effect, you are implying that they come about because of the only thing that truly is exclusive to European countries---and that is the so-called "white race". Given this fact, is it any wonder that many people see an appeal to "Western Values" as being implicitly racist?

I would argue that the above is implied from the ideal of "Western Values", even though I suspect that many people who espouse them haven't really thought through the logic of the idea. (Indeed, for many years I also thought that talking about "Western Values" made sense.) What this means to me is that many people can espouse these values without self-consciously deciding that they are a "racist" and that this is a good thing. (Although I would remind the reader that the reverse isn't necessarily true: while it's true that all supporters of the PPC aren't self-consciously racist, I do think that you could argue that a lot of the people in Canada who are self-consciously racist do support it.)

&&&&

This raises yet another question. When people talk about racism they have a tendency to emphasize the idea that some people are or are not "racists". I'd argue that it makes a lot more sense to talk about specific actions, ideas, or, policies and whether or not they encourage racial discrimination. 

There are people in the world who are racists and who self-consciously want to push a racist agenda. I'm not going to talk at all about them, as I think that they constitute a very small fraction of the population. Instead, I'm more concerned about the people who support actions and points of view that they don't see as being "racist" and which others believe have "racist implications".

The sticking point in a lot of loud arguments comes down to intent. People who want to support something like "Western Values" get called "racist" and they bristle because they think to themselves "that's nonsense! I don't think of myself as a racist, I don't support racism, I don't want to discriminate against others---I am not a racist!" The others who call these people "racist" think to themselves "why would someone do such a thing? they must be racists! why else would they say or do such things?"

The "intent" thing is what pumps up the emotions in the discussion. If instead you look at the question of whether or not a specific policy has "racist implications", you take the air out of "the emotional tires" of the debate. What if someone suggested, for example, that saying that Canadians are in favour of the universal human rights of democracy, equality between the sexes, non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, etc----instead of tying them to this pseudo category of "Western Values"?

At this point the question becomes "We all believe that racism is bad. What particular policies tend to foster racist discrimination? And what ones tend to lessen racist discrimination?" At that point we can talk about the question of immigration dispassionately. How much is enough? How much is too much? All governments have to make a decision about this, but no party before the PPC has ever made the issue so central to their entire policy. (For example, I've heard the local candidate suggest that immigration is key to problem of housing affordability.) Does that foster racism in Canada? Or does it diminish it? That's the question that I'd suggest makes more sense for voters in this election. 

More importantly, once the issue becomes "universal", then it ceases to be a question of one culture versus another. And at that point, the concerns being raised with regard to immigration could be re-framed into policy questions like "how could we bring more real democracy into Canadian society?", "how could we realize more equality between men and women?", "how could we bring about less discrimination based on sexual orientation?", and so on. There are parties that are promoting things like a move towards proportional representation (more democracy), increased daycare (more equality between men and women), and, standardizing the definition of a "hate crime" to include attacks on gays and trans people everywhere in Canada (less discrimination based on sexual orientation).

At this point, concern about immigrants "diluting" specific values becomes besides the point.

I freely admit that I have said and done things that are sexist, racist, and, homophobic. But I refuse to admit that I have ever been a self-consciously sexist, racist, and/or, homophobic person. I was just another human being stumbling through life trying to make the world a better place. 

&&&&

If you like what I write, why not subscribe? You can do it through Patreon or PayPal. 

&&&&

I would suggest that the above digression about racism and "Western values" is an example of how rational analysis can "tamp down" the extreme emotions that can be whipped into a frenzy and cause real problems.

To get back to my conversation with my friend over Chinese food, I talked about the importance of using reason to control violent emotions. I suggested that people don't want to talk about the election because so many people are so emotionally caught up in various policy issues that they are afraid that they will get into crazy arguments and lose friends. At that point I pointed out how profoundly I disagree with her on a wide variety of issues and I think she's gone down a few too many rabbit holes in the Internet. And I don't want to patronize her, or, lose her as a friend.

We had a few heated words at that point. She opined that she didn't see why my sources of information were so much better than hers. I said that telling the difference between a good source of information and a bad one is key to the separation of fact from falsehood.

Then she said that we share emotions with one another to build a bond between us---one that is stronger than just shallow acquaintance. She said that fact that we are willing to get emotional with each other---like we just did---reinforces the bond of friendship. And because we have that bond, even though we sometimes violently disagree, she will always want to be my friend. I responded that that sort of connection simply cannot be developed between people unless they are willing to invest the time necessary to really make the effort. And that people only have enough time to make such a time investment with only a vanishingly small number of people in our lives. This is why people try to avoid truly speaking their minds on emotionally fraught subjects like politics.

She disagreed and said that if you go about it the right way one can make the necessary connection very quickly. I don't know if she's right---but I will entertain the idea that she might be. And that was the way we parted still friends and both having benefited from our conversation. 
  
&&&&

Furthermore, I say onto you the Climate Emergency must be dealt with!

Why Rationality is Important

This morning I had the unpleasant experience of spending a half hour listening to a Guelph candidate in the federal election. I won't go into details, but I haven't heard such a dense avalanche of total nonsense for a very, very long time. It got me thinking about how tremendously fragile a democracy can be.

People naively assume that all you need for a functioning democracy are relatively fair elections. But if you've really thought about it, that's the end result of developing several foundational cultural norms such as freedom of speech, the rule of law, a vigorous free press, and such. When I was listening to this Niagara of idiocy I got increasingly agitated because it was obvious that this fellow's campaign seems to be based on the principle of undermining and destroying at least one of them: the commitment to anchor policy on facts by using logic. 

&&&&

Most people don't think about the relationship between philosophy and science, and, democracy. But I believe that it wasn't just a coincidence that ancient Athenian participatory democracy flourished during the time of the great Greek philosophers, or, that modern liberal democracy came into being during the time of the European scientific enlightenment.

If you read Plato I think you get evidence of this relationship by considering the reoccurring theme of the disagreement between Socrates and the Sophists, or, between philosophy and rhetoric.

Philosophy is based on the premise that there are rules that one should follow in conversations that allow you to gain new information about the world. I think modern people often forget what a tremendously radical idea this really was. Just about every other society in the world at that time was based upon tradition, religious authority, and, brute force. People believed what they believed primarily because they had always believed it, because the priest told them, or, because if they said anything different---bad things would happen to them.

But something unprecedented happened in Greece---and Athens in particular. A space opened up in society that allowed people to ask the "unpleasant questions" that would usually result in getting the crap beaten out of you (or worse) anywhere else. As a result, the city state became a place where brilliant thinkers from all over the Mediterranean came to live. And they met and talked with each other, which allowed them to sharpen their insights.

I don't know much about ancient Athenian democracy, but it seems clear to me that there had to be a relationship between the philosophers and the assembly, because both are based on the idea that truth emerges from a conversation between people.

Plato. A Roman copy from a portrait made at the time of the philosopher's death.
Made by the sculptor Silanion. From the Boehringer Collection.
Image c/o the Wiki Commons

Unfortunately, at the same time that people like Heraclitus, Thales, Plato, Socrates, and, Aristotle were trying to work out the way to tell a good argument from a bad one, there was also a counter-current of people who were figuring out the best way to confuse the public in order to get what they wanted.

Probably the most infamous example was one of Socrates' students: Alcibiades. He sought to build his political career by promoting an unnecessary adventure that involved invading Sicily. The result was a catastrophic defeat that involved the annihilation of the cream of the Athenian military. It never recovered, and eventually Athens was conquered by Sparta. And the Athenian citizens lost their democracy.

Philosophy survived, primarily because it was excellent training for members of the elite who would then go on to study rhetoric. With democracy totally discredited---because it seemed to invariably result in demagogues like Alcibiades being put into power---the paragon of societies became Republics, like Rome. These were oligarchies:  societies where power resided in a wealthy elite. Politics and voting still occurred---which meant that rhetoric was considered an essential part of an ambitious man's education. But never again would butchers, bakers, stone masons, and, the guys who pulled an oar in a war galley have a say in how their society was run---at least until modern times.

&&&&

I generally ask individuals to support the "Back-Grounder" through Patreon and PayPal. But this time I'd like to ask businesses and community groups to consider purchasing an advertisement. If you provide me a graphic that I can incorporate into the body of the article (like the one that follows), it will be something that isn't taken out by an ad-blocker because it is permanently incorporated into the article.

This is an important point. I keep track of the number of hits on an article, and old articles are repeatedly looked at by lots of people. Unlike the newspapers which end up lining bird cages, washing windows, and, starting wood stoves---the articles in the "Back-Grounder" continue to be read months and years after they are published. 

The other thing to consider is that the readership of the "Back-Grounder" is concentrated on a very specific demographic: local, progressively-minded, engaged individuals. If you have a business or organization that is based on this slice of the population, these people are "the sea" that your business swims in. My readership is tiny compared to national blogs---but it consists only of people who would be of interest to you!

My rates are also affordable. I'm only asking a few bucks for an ad---and I'm quite open to things like in-store credits and barter. So why not give the Back-Grounder a try? You can email me at: thecloudwalkingowl@gmail.com .

&&&&

Liberal democracy (the modern form) arose during a similar period of philosophical exuberance. Only the driver for this wasn't logic, but rather science. The European enlightenment was driven by the "new learning" that came from people like Galileo, Newton, and so on. The tremendous growth in human knowledge that grew out of the scientific method emboldened philosophers to look at their societies in much the same way that the experimental method had dramatically changed people's understanding of astronomy, physics, medicine, chemistry, and so on.

These people ceased to look towards some divine basis for government and were instead "empiricists". This was the idea that human society could be studied just like any other part of the world around us. And that we could use the insights that arise from that investigation could be used to improve how we make collective decisions.

John Locke. Line drawing by Crovonrosso.
Image c/o the Wiki Commons.

One of the great fathers of Enlightenment political theory was John Locke who said

"whatever I write, as soon as I discover it not to be true, my hand shall be the forwardest to throw it into the fire." 

This is totally at odds with rhetoric, which is used not to find the truth, but rather to "score points", convince people, and, amass power.

&&&&

This gets me back to the noxious individual I had to listen to this morning. I suspect that he genuinely believes what he said. But if he does, it's because he's expended very little effort in trying to find out if what he says is actually true. That is especially pathetic because we live currently live in an age when it is so incredibly easy for a person to find the facts about most contentious issues.

Just to give one tiny example. When asked about whether or not his party is in favour of the pipeline to the West coast, our stalwart candidate said "Alberta is the engine driving the Canadian economy". I'm not suggesting that he invented this idea, but he was certainly helping to spread it. And this is something that it is very easy to "truth-test". It took me about a minute to use Google to look up the Gross Domestic Product of Ontario ($728 billion), Quebec ($338 billion) and Alberta ($335 billion) in 2018. Indeed adding together all the numbers for all the provinces and territories, it turns out that the Alberta GDP only comes to about 17% of the total Canadian economy.  So in actual fact Alberta isn't "the engine driving the Canadian economy" by any stretch of the imagination---. (Repeating this statement over and over and over and over again simply doesn't make it so.) 

The problem with this guy isn't that he's wrong. It's that if you point out that he is wrong, he won't change what he says. He certainly won't be like John Locke and "be the forwardest to throw it into the fire". That's because he isn't interested in finding the truth, but rather in pushing his agenda.

&&&&

And that's tremendously dangerous in a democracy. If enough politicians, journalists, and, voters stop caring about whether something a politician says is actually true, then we start edging towards the bad old world where everything gets decided on the basis of money and brute force.

That's the thing about democracy. All societies have to figure out how how to make decisions and divide up scarce resources. Throughout most of human history this has been done through tradition or brute force. What is unique about both ancient Athens and modern liberal democracies like Canada is that---at least in principle---they do it by having an honest and open debate between different points of view. The idea is that this conversation is the best way for truth to assert itself and that the general opinion of the mass of citizens usually comes to---if not the best, at least a "good enough" decision.

Unfortunately, this isn't always the case. Sometimes people temporarily lose their way and become overwhelmed by their emotions---both individually and collectively. When they do, fast-talking, "slick Willies" can use rhetoric to bamboozle them into voting against their best interests. That's how ancient Athens ended up sending their fleet off to it's destruction. It's also how the people of Germany pissed-away the Weimar Republic. It's also how Canada could sleep walk its way into a climate catastrophe.

It looks to me---from what I've seen in the last decade or so---that many politicians are trying transition from making the best logical, evidence-based argument to instead creating rhetorical appeals to people's emotions. That's why truth seems to be so much less important than "truthiness" today. It's also why the lies seem so much more brazen. People often aren't ashamed when you catch them fibbing---and many just ignore you if you point out an error. They just keep repeating the same bullshit over and over again, because telling bullshit is what they are all about.

The problem with emotions is that they are dangerous beasts. They need to be tamed and kept under control. We've seen where the politics of emotions can lead people---and it's a dark, dark place. That's what made the 20th century the time of enormous wars. Let's hope that we can collectively step back from this time of delusional politics and find some "new enlightenment" that can inform our political institutions.

&&&&

Furthermore, I say onto you the Climate Emergency must be dealt with!