Getting the perspective of many different cultures is certainly healthy and reading literature from different parts of the world is an element of a good education. But is it essential?
Good literature is timeless and great books are not restricted to their geographical place of origin. The ancient Greeks were modern people having the same human concerns as the people of today wherever they live in the world. Shakespeare was not an Englishman, well, he was, but that is quite irrelevant for he talks to any person on this earth.
The origin of the literature adds a certain color to it. It supplies the scenery and sets the stage for whatever action will take place. Anything has to happen somewhere and the author usually chooses his own environment out of convenience, as it is what is most neutral for him. Then the reader should not take these background settings and place them in the foreground and let them overshadow the central message of the play.
If the importance of studying multicultural texts is exaggerated, that is what happens: the focus is twisted and the background becomes the foreground. If the study is done out of respect for different cultures, the opposite may be the result. Any work of art should be appreciated for what it is and not because of some irrelevant attribute. It should be enjoyed because it is good and not because the artist happens to come from somewhere.
Moreover, if you want an overview of the best of the world’s literature, it is unlikely to be found evenly spread around the planet. Great art has an odd tendency to be clustered in certain regions during certain golden ages. Greece had its moment around 400 BC and Italy during the Renaissance etc. All countries and regions are not equally important at the same time and there is even no reason to believe that every one of them has had their moment of superiority. That can be assumed from the start by the law of probability and if upon closer inspection it turns out that some regions of the world are overrepresented in art and literature, we should not be surprised. If the students are to get an overview of the best, it would therefore be a distraction to require a multicultural balance.
Before the artist arrives there is chaos; nothing but scattered pieces that make no sense. To create is to make something out of nothing. To produce is to make something out of something. Art is creation.
Whenever something truly new is made, one has to take a leap out of the existing order. What is already neatly ordered can only lead in a preconceived and predictable direction. Computers are programmed to calculate the next step and thereby produce what is actually already there; nothing really new comes into being.
The builder who puts the bricks together according to the drawings of the architect, is like a computer; he produces, but he doesn’t create. The architect is the creator, but even his activity is only partly an act of creation for he also relies on the existing order of things; the conventions, expectations, routines and habits. Structure is needed to frame the ideas into a recognizable unity, but the ideas as such are conceived in chaos.
The two, chaos and order, are tightly connected throughout the creative process, but only chaos is truly creative. The artist has learned a certain technique, he has his organized way of doing things, he lives in a society, he follows certain conventions and he is disciplined. That is a necessary order and a part of his profession. The artist has perhaps developed habits of inciting inspiration. He goes for a walk in the forest, listens to music and reads the newspaper. That may be an ordered path to his ideas, but the ideas themselves don’t come from there.
We are all bombarded with impressions. Everywhere we turn we see another image and they reach us quite arbitrarily depending on where we happen to look. That is all chaos and there is not really any logic as to what emotions and ideas might pop up in our minds.
A robot has a predictable reaction; a certain image always produces a certain response. Pavlov’s dog always wants food when hearing the bell. We, human beings are also largely predictable creatures. We tend to act habitually, orderly and non-creatively and we have to exclude much of the surrounding chaos to stay sane. But whenever we actually create, we open up for some of that chaos and let it hit us unguarded and unfiltered. We only get new ideas when we are able to tear down our habitual thinking that puts things into predetermined categories. We only create when we let chaos be chaos.
The government always restricts the freedom of the people. That’s what governments are for. That’s why we need a government. Any law is a restriction of freedom.
To be free is to be able to do whatever we want without any restrictions whatsoever. A perfectly free person should even be allowed to take away the freedom of others if that’s what he wants. Obviously a society of perfectly free people is not possible and instead they choose to give away their freedom to the government. This is the old Hobbesian argument: People prefer security to freedom. That is, freedom is not the highest good, or maybe it is hardly a good at all.
But there are other ways to interpret the governmental restriction of freedom. One is to consider it a compromise designed to actually maximizing the possible freedom for each citizen. It could then still be the highest good, but since everybody is entitled to an equal amount of it, it has to be reduced to a level where everybody has some, but not too much. One person’s freedom is another person’s lack of it, and it is better to grant a moderate quantity to each citizen instead of a lot to some and nothing to others.
However, there is something sad about this way of thinking. It means giving up an ideal and dismissing it not just as impractical, but also as useless even as a theoretical aim. (All ideals are impractical, but it is good to keep them as something to approach.) If we maintain that freedom is one of the highest goods, we shouldn’t be content with a watered down version of it.
What is then the solution? The laws of the state are indeed there to stop people from doing what they want and being able to do what one wants is the definition of freedom. That definition cannot be changed if the word is to retain its meaning, but maybe we can look at the actual content of what it means to want something.
The potential criminal wants to commit a crime, but the government stops him. As it stands, that makes him less free that he otherwise would have been. But suppose he doesn’t really want to do it, he only thinks he does. In that case the police actually help him act according to his own will. The government thus forces him to be free.
This is plausible, but then we sure move into dangerous territory. It could mean that a government that seemingly goes about restricting the freedom of the people on a large scale, a totalitarian state that is, in reality gives them more freedom than they ever had before. It could mean that, but who is to tell? A brutal police state would be happy to use that as an excuse and then any meaningful idea of freedom would be gone.
In your search for truth, the beliefs and values of society must be challenged. It is highly unlikely that the society where you happened to be born is right about all things. You should ask yourself if the value system that you have is really your own or a mere copy of what has been imposed on you. You should challenge it and ask questions for an unexamined life is not worth living, says Socrates.
But be careful if you think you have found your truth. Your fellow citizens may not want to know it.
People live their habits and that is what they want. Because they are used to it, it is comfortable and therefore they prefer to keep it. Anything that we want is valuable to us, so our habits are values. But some habits are evidently bad. They cause injury and that of course we don’t want. We feel like keeping them and wish to get rid of them at the same time. They are values, but they are not values, and those are the kinds that you may be justified in fighting.
But let people keep their harmless little values, some of their false beliefs and illusions. It makes them happier than crude reality can do. An old racist who lives in some remote corner and has hardly ever seen a dark face, might as well keep his prejudiced world view if he does no harm. Educating the public only makes sense for those who are capable of receiving education, and the pain that will be the result of losing one’s safe deceptions must also be taken into account.
However, for the person who is honest in his pursuit of the truth, lies are also painful and therefore challenging social illusions is important for the purpose of self-education. Being a prophet for people who don’t want to listen is a waste and a nuisance and fighting wind mills has never enlightened anyone. Do examine your life and preconceived social values, but know when to keep it to yourself.
We should always question the status quo because it is never right. How could it be? Of all the possible societies that might have been and all the possible states of human affairs, it is extremely unlikely that what we happen to have today is the best of all conditions.
History has taken its more or less arbitrary path, seen many kingdoms and produced many different cultures. Everything has been the result of an infinite number of interactions – and here we are today, living in this obscure combination of circumstances. According to the law of probability it is unlikely to be anywhere near perfect. It is just what it is; it is the status quo. Of course we must question it.
But posing questions and criticizing is not the same as trying to change or even wanting to change. Change is in a way always unrealistic since whenever something new is tried, it will turn out different than imagined. Any active contribution that goes against the general social currents will be just another force that will compete for power. The outcome is always a compromise and even the best of intentions may lead to something worse.
How can anyone engage in politics? one might wonder. It is a great responsibility and a dangerous risk. No matter how miserable a society is, it can still get worse so maybe it is better to leave things as they are? This is the reasoning of a conservative mind and so far it makes sense. But from there it is not reasonable to conclude that the status quo is good and that our little world is the best of all possible worlds.
Of course there are irrational structures and injustice everywhere and that should be criticized and even ridiculed.
Questioning the status quo is not the same as having a realistically better alternative. It is good to know what is wrong even if we don’t know how to correct it. It is good to know the truth.
Freedom of thought is what matters the most. Freedom of speech is a good thing, but most people can live well without having to broadcast their views to the world. Misery, injustice and gross irrationalities should never be accepted and if you are able to state in your own mind that something is wrong, you have already taken a step on the path to freedom.
You may stand up, you may resist, but you don’t always have to throw yourself to the wolves. No one can fight all battles and many potential conflicts are not worth the strain it will cost you and the risk of losing it all. Courage is an admirable virtue, but when it has an unworthy aim, it turns into rashness or plain stupidity.
People who live in a totalitarian state might as well be members of that one party if being outside creates too much trouble. You can give them apparent obedience without giving your heart and mind. If you are forced to do what is immoral in itself, it’s time to oppose by quitting, but until then the practical part of your choice may rightfully prevail.
However, often physical obedience leads to mental obedience and then our own self is at risk. It is easy at first to obey out of convenience and then after a while let the moral senses go dull. That is probably what happens when seemingly ordinary citizens start committing atrocities for totalitarian regimes. Active opposition may have a morally purifying effect and help us stay alert. It can then be a personal struggle for keeping one’s own freedom of thought.
But just being right is not always a reason to oppose. People may need their little harmless illusions, and they are not always better off knowing the harsh realities.
No principle is worth defending for the sake of principle. No fight is justified that can lead to nothing.
Sometimes it’s more important what you think than what you do.
“Who decides the criteria for good art?” The question is often heard, but it is wrongly put. Who decides what is beautiful? No one. Then beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Who decides what is right or wrong. No one. Then there is no right or wrong. Who decides what is a fact? No one. Then there are no facts.
Just because no one has an objective right to make themselves authorities on any subject, it doesn’t mean that objective judgments don’t exist.
Who decides that two plus two equals four? Your opinion on that subject is not dependent on anyone’s judgment. You think it’s four whatever any authority might think. Even if everyone said it was five, you would probably stick to your conviction. Still you don’t dismiss the question as a matter of arbitrary taste. You say: I am definitely right.
Surely some issues are more easily agreed on than others, but there is hardly anything, not even scientific facts, that everyone agrees on. But the existence of truth and objectivity is not dependent on human agreement. The truth is there even if no one is capable of finding it. It is simply irrelevant to ask “who decides?”. For aesthetic issues it is equally irrelevant to ask that question. No one decides the objective criteria for good art, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t any.
Now I could try to argue for what those criteria are, and you could choose if you want to agree with me or not. We would then have the same situation as for any other dispute. But you shouldn’t react by saying “that is your opinion and I have a different one, but we are both right.” No, we can’t both be right.
Granted, there is a considerable element of taste in art, but then we are not disagreeing about what is good or bad. It’s perfectly possible for me to claim that something is good art and at the same time admit that I personally don’t like it.
Only I decide what I like and no one decides what is good. But still, there is a good.
Utopia is the place that is nowhere. It is not real and therefore it is unrealistic. But that charge could be brought against any conception of society other than what exists at present. Only what is, is possible, for whenever we try to make something else, it will turn out different from what we imagined. Any idea of social change is therefore in a sense Utopian.
Some people react to this more or less unconscious observation by idealizing the present. What we have has proven its superiority by defeating all alternatives, they think. That, however, could have been said about all societies at any previous stage of history. When living under absolute monarchy, people of conservative mentality would think that they had the best possible system of government. At that time imagining something like 21st century Western democracy would certainly have been a Utopian undertaking.
Although most people realize that status quo is not perfect, they don’t allow their imagination to go beyond a slight reform of the current system. Revolutions are not fashionable anymore. It is true that most attempts at radical social change since the French revolution have proven disastrous, but that does not mean that there was something inherently wrong with the original ideas. They may have been realistic enough given another context. If the circumstances had been right, maybe communism or Plato’s republic could have been possible.
The problem is that the circumstances are never right. Nothing is realistically possible except what happens to be or what the uncontrollable forces of history are leading towards. One logical consequence of that could be to give up all ideals; let politics be a pragmatic business for businessmen.
But another possible response is to allow the ideals to be independent of the current realities. It should be acceptable to muse about Utopia and look at all social shortcomings in its shining light. That would make us more aware of all deficiencies and it would also prevent us from falling into the common trap of thinking that something is good just because it is. The idea of Utopia can actually make us more realistic.
Why do we need beliefs? We might as well ask: why do we need perception? We could shut ourselves up inside our wardrobe and try hard to avoid sense impressions, but of course we don’t. We live in the world and want to experience the world. We let our senses perceive data, but before we have interpreted them, they are meaningless. We must form an understanding of the objects around us. That is, we must develop a belief about some of the things we see and hear. When we don’t, it is as if we didn’t perceive it at all; pictures remain anarchic colors and words just noise.
We cannot be sure about any of the sense signals we get, but we can believe and that’s how we experience the world.
Now some beliefs are more complex than others. Beliefs about politics and religion and about ethical rights and wrongs go a step further and are attempts to interpret the uniquely human experience. We may prefer to shut that out also, but the more we avoid it the more we become automatons merely reacting to input like pre-programmed computers.
When we interpret our social environment and form a belief about how it really is, we naturally also conceive ideas about how it should be. We think of something as right or wrong, something working properly and something needing repair and then we get increasingly emotionally involved and develop stronger preferences. That is how our values come about. (A value is whatever is important to us.)
This is a natural process of being human: Perception > belief > value. We can choose to exclude ourselves from any of the stages, but then we reduce our human experience. If we don’t form a belief, we avoid reacting to our perceptions and without values we ignore our beliefs. A full human being reacts emotionally to the world. A computer draws conclusions but doesn’t care about them; human beings have feelings and therefore they care and therefore they need values. We need values to be human.
A Bear - Poles Apart 