I found the following posted on Greg Mankiw’s blog under the heading “An Epistemological Digression.” The passage comes from Robert Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
After a while he says, "Do you believe in ghosts?"
"No," I say.
"Why not?"
"Because they are un-sci-en-ti-fic."
The way I say this makes John smile. "They contain no matter," I continue, "and have no energy and therefore, according to the laws of science, do not exist except in people’s minds."
The whiskey, the fatigue and the wind in the trees start mixing in my mind. "Of course," I add, "the laws of science contain no matter and have no energy either and therefore do not exist except in people’s minds. It’s best to be completely scientific about the whole thing and refuse to believe in either ghosts or the laws of science. That way you’re safe. That doesn’t leave you very much to believe in, but that’s scientific too."
Science only tells us what exists, right? And only things that have energy exist. According to this somewhat silly argument, law in general can’t really exist except in our imagination, (and I mean ‘imagination’ in a very sophisticated way). And because laws are not real, that means that the scientific conclusion we arrive at using those laws are unsound, and we can’t prove much of anything scientifically. We must have conjectured theory to logically guide our scientific methods. This is where my methods class and my theory class meet. Even in 300, we talk about the importance for content validity in the context of setting up experiments and hypotheses. Really, what can we know except what we expect that we will come to know.
There is no free knowledge. Everything we learn we first must anticipate through theorization. And I’m talking about those things that we understand. Sure we can discover things blindly, but how much do we comprehend them? All epistemology starts with ‘what if?’ What if the earth was round? What would happen? There’s only one way to find out. Well, two ways. Launch a satellite with a camera on it into space to take a picture of the planet, or sail around it. Seeing how King Ferdinand didn’t have the means to take a picture of the earth, he settled for the latter and sent Columbus on the ocean blue. But it started with a theory.
Would alternative possibilities also describe the phenomenon? It seems that we respect and revere those who ask this question more than any other kind of person. Columbus is one example. Another is Benjamin Franklin. He essentially thought that something other than the sin a member of a certain household committed, thus bringing the wrath of God upon that house in the form of a lightning-started fire, could cause the house to be struck by lightning. The outcome is the same, that is a burning house, but the cause could be different. Through this process, Franklin developed the building-saving lightning rod to redirect the lightning’s energy away from the house. The church, it seems, would now have to look for some other deterrent from sin than a lit-up house.
So, what are some alternatives to present posits? And I’m no natural scientist, so I’ll have to stick with social science. What’s so bad about gay marriage? Why is “socialized health care” a bad word? What would a minimum wage increase do? Is complete laissez-faire really going to bring prosperity to everyone, even the poor? Are we actually capable of even knowing these things?
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Post-Positivism
Popper takes it a couple steps farther. He pushes positivism to say that we can’t really know what we can prove. We can’t even know what we have proven in the past. All we can know is what is not true. Then, returning to the junior high science classroom, we can’t know that light is requisite for plants to grow, we simply know that the little bean we planted in the paper cup filled with potting soil won’t grow in the dark. What Popper strives for is to try to prove science wrong, and with each unsuccessful attempt to prove something wrong, all we know is that it is more not wrong.
This seems a lot easier to me that to prove something right. The ‘march of science’ then would be so much slower-going. Let’s say we want to prove a soldier is dead on the battle field, and that soldier is nowhere to be found. We cannot say that just because we don’t see him means that he is dead. So let’s look through a pile of dog tags that are collected from dead soldiers. If his own tags are not in there, all we know is that no one put them in the pile. Still do not know whether he is dead. If they are in there, we cannot say that he is dead. All we can prove is the presence of his dog tags. Dead does not mean that someone other than the owner of the tags is in possession of them. So, to falsify the claim of a dead soldier would mean that we would need to have a live soldier. Of course, dead is dead and live is live, and not even Sir Karl Popper can debate that. So maybe my example is not ‘scientific’ enough. But it still addresses the issue of what the posited evidence actually proves.
This seems a lot easier to me that to prove something right. The ‘march of science’ then would be so much slower-going. Let’s say we want to prove a soldier is dead on the battle field, and that soldier is nowhere to be found. We cannot say that just because we don’t see him means that he is dead. So let’s look through a pile of dog tags that are collected from dead soldiers. If his own tags are not in there, all we know is that no one put them in the pile. Still do not know whether he is dead. If they are in there, we cannot say that he is dead. All we can prove is the presence of his dog tags. Dead does not mean that someone other than the owner of the tags is in possession of them. So, to falsify the claim of a dead soldier would mean that we would need to have a live soldier. Of course, dead is dead and live is live, and not even Sir Karl Popper can debate that. So maybe my example is not ‘scientific’ enough. But it still addresses the issue of what the posited evidence actually proves.
Positivism
I distinctly remember the test question in junior high science class that queried “name the steps in the scientific method.” That question is actually quite logical. The scientific process is the process by which we come to acquire knowledge. But when we start putting big words to it to describe the steps, what used to be simply burning ants with a magnifying glass became a laborious, official process. ‘Conjecture’ and ‘hypothesis’ and ‘null hypothesis’ and ‘control group’ not only complicated the matter, but made a whole lot more work. “You mean I have to write all this stuff down before I do anything? That’s lame. Just give me the knife and let me at that dead frog. Why does everything have to be so official?”
Well, I’m finding that out. The scientific method, or positivism, doesn’t tell us anything more about truth or reality than the exact, specific thing we observe for the exact, specific time we observe it and under the exact, specific conditions that exist as we observe. That’s why writing it all down, which is boring and takes all the fun out of it, is important. For each exploration into positivism, we must know what assumptions we are making. We have to know what we are taking for granted, or taking as given. Hence the statement that epistemology really is more fundamental than is ontology. Of course we can know what we know; but can we really know what is? You only know what you can prove.
Well, I’m finding that out. The scientific method, or positivism, doesn’t tell us anything more about truth or reality than the exact, specific thing we observe for the exact, specific time we observe it and under the exact, specific conditions that exist as we observe. That’s why writing it all down, which is boring and takes all the fun out of it, is important. For each exploration into positivism, we must know what assumptions we are making. We have to know what we are taking for granted, or taking as given. Hence the statement that epistemology really is more fundamental than is ontology. Of course we can know what we know; but can we really know what is? You only know what you can prove.
Sui Generis
We see this concept in all kinds of group settings. I work at Enterprise Rent-A-Car. We have a very distinctive culture and there is certainly an underlying message that we send as we adopt this culture to ourselves. There are parts of the business that an employee is not socialized into, but trained on. Things like the computer system and the dress code and the homogenous look of the individual offices are not what Durkheim was going for when he explains how a culture doesn’t change simply because the individuals change. In the example of work, we’re all younger men. We don’t take the job too seriously, despite our wearing shirts and ties as mandated from our corporate headquarters. No matter if I go to a new office or if our branch gets a new manager, the basic perception of the company doesn’t change. I phone other offices often, even out of state, and the way we interact is always the same.
When I hear the cliché that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, I usually think back to various examples I learned in team-building exercises or priesthood lessons. Images of two candles making more than twice as bright a flame come to mind. Or two wooden boards holding more than twice their individual capacities, or horses pulling more together than they otherwise could separately are other popular object lessons. But in the context of sui generis, the whole is not simply bigger than the sum of its parts, but more important than the individuals. The wanna-be Communism of Stalin, Mao, Castro, and more modernly Kim impose this idea on its participants, which is the very reason it works so much better in our Western, capitalistic firms. Workers in a capitalistic society see their involvement in groups as voluntary. Sure, there are critics of the sincerity of volunteer when they are prostituting their labor for simply the highest wage they can negotiate. But those people also have their unions they can run too to undermine the work that others are doing. Durkheim came at this idea, however, from a descriptive angle. I don’t believe that he was creating an ideal, but rather describing a phenomenon.
When I hear the cliché that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, I usually think back to various examples I learned in team-building exercises or priesthood lessons. Images of two candles making more than twice as bright a flame come to mind. Or two wooden boards holding more than twice their individual capacities, or horses pulling more together than they otherwise could separately are other popular object lessons. But in the context of sui generis, the whole is not simply bigger than the sum of its parts, but more important than the individuals. The wanna-be Communism of Stalin, Mao, Castro, and more modernly Kim impose this idea on its participants, which is the very reason it works so much better in our Western, capitalistic firms. Workers in a capitalistic society see their involvement in groups as voluntary. Sure, there are critics of the sincerity of volunteer when they are prostituting their labor for simply the highest wage they can negotiate. But those people also have their unions they can run too to undermine the work that others are doing. Durkheim came at this idea, however, from a descriptive angle. I don’t believe that he was creating an ideal, but rather describing a phenomenon.
Durkheim's Suicide
What constitutes a living person? In my junior English class, we discussed an epic tale. I think it was Beowulf. It was one of the oldest stories told. In the centuries-old story, the hero is promised immortality. The teacher made the argument that this hero achieved immortality, by the simple fact that we were still studying his story now hundreds of years later. If a person can be dead, yet alive, then can a person be living, yet commit suicide? I believe that life exists on a sliding scale. Sure, Durkheim was only talking about those whose body ceased to support life. But his sociological discoveries can still be applied to social hermits and misfits and even those who have consecrated their own lives to ends that other people give them. Elder Maxwell spoke often of consecrating our lives to the Lord. Could he be talking about altruistic suicide? As interesting this is to think about, Jesus Christ himself puts it to rest when he tells us that “He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.” Hence the idea of being born again as an adopted son or daughter of God lays to rest whatever draw-backs we may feel to committing ourselves to the gospel.
During my travels to the Orient (I served my mission in Taiwan), I met a wise old man (he was the high-council representative for my ward) who took it upon himself to mentor me in the ways of good and decency (he told me neat story once. Intriguing, huh?).
Anyway, the story goes that a gardener was famous for miles around for his beautiful flowers. People would come from everywhere to see his flowers. He was something of a hermit, so when people came to see the sprawling gardens; they would wander around by themselves. But they didn’t mind him staying to himself because they loved the flowers so much. He eventually died. People still came by once in a while to see his garden, but after a time of no one tending to them, they became overgrown and ugly. No one came by anymore to see his garden.
A second man wrote beautiful music. He would stay up in his house for hours and days at a time without seeing anyone, but just write and write and write his beautiful music. Like the gardener, his work drew quite the crowd. Kings and noblemen would commission this man to write his beautiful music for special occasions. He was like a superstar. But even superstars are subject to Father Time, and he also died. People still loved to listen to his music, but since they didn’t have any new music, they just listened to the same songs over and over. Eventually, other great musicians came along with their beautiful compositions, and the man who used to be the most famous and popular became just another name in a long list of dead guys.
The third man in the story lived a different kind of life. He really enjoyed gardens and music. He went quite often to see the beautiful flowers and listen to the lyrical music. But he never went without taking someone with him, and that companion of his was always someone who was depressed or troubled. He was always cognizant of the people who needed help in his community. When they were sad, he was also sad along with them. He and his wife also raised a strong family, and taught his children to always look for opportunities to help others. This man did not have very much money, because he was always giving it away to people who didn’t have enough to eat or didn’t have clothing or didn’t have enough to buy gas to put in their car to go to work. Everyone in town knew this man and of his willingness to help out however he was able. He was an inspiring example to whoever met him of charity and kindness. Whoever received from him felt all the more willing to do their own part in helping others.
This man also eventually died. But no one ever forgot about him. Rather than spending all his effort with things, he invested himself in people. The interactions of others have a strengthening and growing impact on the participants. So then, life and death are functions of our relationships and our propensity to integrate ourselves into a group outside ourselves. The first two men, while still alive, suffered from egoistic suicide. Gardens and music do not constitute group integration.
During my travels to the Orient (I served my mission in Taiwan), I met a wise old man (he was the high-council representative for my ward) who took it upon himself to mentor me in the ways of good and decency (he told me neat story once. Intriguing, huh?).
Anyway, the story goes that a gardener was famous for miles around for his beautiful flowers. People would come from everywhere to see his flowers. He was something of a hermit, so when people came to see the sprawling gardens; they would wander around by themselves. But they didn’t mind him staying to himself because they loved the flowers so much. He eventually died. People still came by once in a while to see his garden, but after a time of no one tending to them, they became overgrown and ugly. No one came by anymore to see his garden.
A second man wrote beautiful music. He would stay up in his house for hours and days at a time without seeing anyone, but just write and write and write his beautiful music. Like the gardener, his work drew quite the crowd. Kings and noblemen would commission this man to write his beautiful music for special occasions. He was like a superstar. But even superstars are subject to Father Time, and he also died. People still loved to listen to his music, but since they didn’t have any new music, they just listened to the same songs over and over. Eventually, other great musicians came along with their beautiful compositions, and the man who used to be the most famous and popular became just another name in a long list of dead guys.
The third man in the story lived a different kind of life. He really enjoyed gardens and music. He went quite often to see the beautiful flowers and listen to the lyrical music. But he never went without taking someone with him, and that companion of his was always someone who was depressed or troubled. He was always cognizant of the people who needed help in his community. When they were sad, he was also sad along with them. He and his wife also raised a strong family, and taught his children to always look for opportunities to help others. This man did not have very much money, because he was always giving it away to people who didn’t have enough to eat or didn’t have clothing or didn’t have enough to buy gas to put in their car to go to work. Everyone in town knew this man and of his willingness to help out however he was able. He was an inspiring example to whoever met him of charity and kindness. Whoever received from him felt all the more willing to do their own part in helping others.
This man also eventually died. But no one ever forgot about him. Rather than spending all his effort with things, he invested himself in people. The interactions of others have a strengthening and growing impact on the participants. So then, life and death are functions of our relationships and our propensity to integrate ourselves into a group outside ourselves. The first two men, while still alive, suffered from egoistic suicide. Gardens and music do not constitute group integration.
Holism
I am finding myself agreeing more and more with the importance of socialism. And I am not talking about the political structure, but rather the idea and importance of socialization, but ‘socializationism’ is not a word. (The red squiggly line says so.) From a divine, eternal standpoint, we are social creatures by nature. We will always live with other people. Throughout recorded history (that is to say during the history of the earth and exclude pre-mortal and post-mortal life), we have learned what we know from each other. Everything in our lives is interrelated.
This leads me to think of the real meaning of religion. Religion is what we invent for ourselves, it would seem. And whether or not that invention would include the aspect of spirituality, which mistakenly goes hand-in-hand with religiosity, then becomes a decision for the individual to make. Just because someone is religious does not necessarily denote spirituality. A person is religious by his or her conviction to the religion’s respective totem. Totems in the LDS faith would include males wearing a white shirt to church, going to church and attending other activities, hanging pictures of temples and deity in the house, and even paying tithing, but only when someone is watching. These totems intrinsically are neither good nor bad. But their value is determined by their use. The cross from religious to spiritual comes when the person does not let his left hand know what his right hand is doing, and when he prays in his closet, and when gives alms in secret. For instance, in Sunday school, the teacher asked the class whether or not we had ever read the Book of Mormon. Making a lame joke, I left my arm up and drew attention to it. “Everybody sees my hand is up, right? That means I’ve read the Book of Mormon.” I don’t mean to disrespect the scriptures, and I could go ahead and bear my testimony of them. But the point is the totem of not just the Book of Mormon itself as a publication, but the act of reading it. The group may determine what it holds as totems, but the individual determines, even interprets, the meaning and significance of the established totems.
This leads me to think of the real meaning of religion. Religion is what we invent for ourselves, it would seem. And whether or not that invention would include the aspect of spirituality, which mistakenly goes hand-in-hand with religiosity, then becomes a decision for the individual to make. Just because someone is religious does not necessarily denote spirituality. A person is religious by his or her conviction to the religion’s respective totem. Totems in the LDS faith would include males wearing a white shirt to church, going to church and attending other activities, hanging pictures of temples and deity in the house, and even paying tithing, but only when someone is watching. These totems intrinsically are neither good nor bad. But their value is determined by their use. The cross from religious to spiritual comes when the person does not let his left hand know what his right hand is doing, and when he prays in his closet, and when gives alms in secret. For instance, in Sunday school, the teacher asked the class whether or not we had ever read the Book of Mormon. Making a lame joke, I left my arm up and drew attention to it. “Everybody sees my hand is up, right? That means I’ve read the Book of Mormon.” I don’t mean to disrespect the scriptures, and I could go ahead and bear my testimony of them. But the point is the totem of not just the Book of Mormon itself as a publication, but the act of reading it. The group may determine what it holds as totems, but the individual determines, even interprets, the meaning and significance of the established totems.
Locke
I see Locke as a very responsible philosopher. While being a devout Christian and staunch supporter of a solid political system, he realized the danger in blindly subscribing to either. Trigg explains Locke’s observation of religion, that in its context, ‘men often appear most irrational, and more senseless than beasts themselves.’ What a sad, but true description of how religion can leave men. Locke would agree that reason and choice are essential elements to human being-ness, and even gifts from God. They are what separate us from all other animals. What is interesting, however, is that many other things that make us distinctly human are not objects of us not using this gift of reason. Locke wants tradition to fall under the scruples of reason. If no tradition were unreasonable, then there would be no incentive for us to double-check them; really think and ponder over whether or not they make any sense. Locke explains that God is reasonable, and that he would give neither religion nor tradition contrary to reason. And so, all things are subject to reason, even God.
I wonder what empiricists and agnostics would counter-argue to Locke’s inclusion of reason into religion. Even science requires what religious folk call a ‘leap of faith’ in order to truly subscribe to what the scientific method yields. The difference from faith is that science calls these leaps ‘assumptions.’ And without reasonable assumptions, the validity of the science goes away. Once a religious person makes the spiritual assumption that God exists, the rest of his or her claim to faith can be explained reasonably.
I wonder what empiricists and agnostics would counter-argue to Locke’s inclusion of reason into religion. Even science requires what religious folk call a ‘leap of faith’ in order to truly subscribe to what the scientific method yields. The difference from faith is that science calls these leaps ‘assumptions.’ And without reasonable assumptions, the validity of the science goes away. Once a religious person makes the spiritual assumption that God exists, the rest of his or her claim to faith can be explained reasonably.
Kant
How have we come to be such mindless disciples of empirics? Who decided that the only things that are real are those that we can explain and observe? Is natural science and mathematics to blame? Is the reality that surrounds us really 100% objective? I would argue that those who subscribe to this are shutting themselves off from a myriad of new realization, which is not something that Kant wanted to be found guilty of.
In reading the text before lecture, I came across Trigg’s explanation of Kant’s constructionism: “What we think the world is like (aka ‘reality’) depends as much on the nature of human understanding and the categories we bring to bear, as on reality itself.” I call it ‘subjective objectivity.’ This says that empiricism really isn’t as final and terminating as some natural scientists would like to assume. Constructionism says that we know things, facts, reality, or whatever, only in context of those things that we already know.
This may be why it is so hard for Latter-day Saints to think of the Nicene Creed in a positive light. Whenever it is mentioned in General Conference or even sacrament meeting, it is mentioned negatively. Is that just the preconceived notion that we have: a bunch of wicked men producing an apostate doctrine? According to Kant, we know that the Creed is negative because we think it is negative, and then we find negative parts about it. This isn’t completely irresponsible, but we don’t know the complete truth because of the theory we accept that surrounds it already. The Creed itself doesn’t contain any doctrine that Latter-day Saints do not already consider true. The negativity and falseness surrounding the Creed comes in its source, inasmuch as it was authored not through revelation, but through the logic of men. That’s where our argument against the work should rest, especially without actually reading it first.
In reading the text before lecture, I came across Trigg’s explanation of Kant’s constructionism: “What we think the world is like (aka ‘reality’) depends as much on the nature of human understanding and the categories we bring to bear, as on reality itself.” I call it ‘subjective objectivity.’ This says that empiricism really isn’t as final and terminating as some natural scientists would like to assume. Constructionism says that we know things, facts, reality, or whatever, only in context of those things that we already know.
This may be why it is so hard for Latter-day Saints to think of the Nicene Creed in a positive light. Whenever it is mentioned in General Conference or even sacrament meeting, it is mentioned negatively. Is that just the preconceived notion that we have: a bunch of wicked men producing an apostate doctrine? According to Kant, we know that the Creed is negative because we think it is negative, and then we find negative parts about it. This isn’t completely irresponsible, but we don’t know the complete truth because of the theory we accept that surrounds it already. The Creed itself doesn’t contain any doctrine that Latter-day Saints do not already consider true. The negativity and falseness surrounding the Creed comes in its source, inasmuch as it was authored not through revelation, but through the logic of men. That’s where our argument against the work should rest, especially without actually reading it first.
Hobbes
Bill Watterson created the comic strip “Calvin and Hobbes.” Calvin takes on the role of creative, idealistic boy with a narrow view of the world. Hobbes, his stuffed tiger that comes to imaginary life, is based on Thomas Hobbes. Watterson makes a strong case for thought with the following: “When Hobbes is a stuffed toy in one panel and alive in the next, I'm juxtaposing the "grown-up" version of reality with Calvin's version, and inviting the reader to decide which is truer.” The real Hobbes gives us such a strikingly downer, yet valid view of the world. Trigg says that Hobbes even ‘attack the objectivity of value.’ It makes me question whether Hobbes is perhaps reconciling his observations of the world with what he believes the world should be. Does Hobbes truly hold other humans in such deep contempt for riding armed, or locking their doors? He will even argue man’s resentment of his own children by the act of ‘lock(ing) his chest.’ I lock my doors for a myriad of reasons, many of which I can’t specifically think of. It’s not because I don’t trust mankind, I just don’t trust the person who would break into my house. A small number of people who would act immorally is hardly grounds to project that same tendency on everyone.
Hebrew v Greek Thinking
I am from Mesa, AZ. I grew up there. I grow nostalgic just thinking about the place. It has changed quite a bit over the past decade and a half, and while the borders of the city have changed, the spirit of the city has not. There’s a quiet municipal patriotism that Mesans share. It’s just as strong as any Texan might feel toward his or her home state. Loyalty to hometown notwithstanding, we all have some degree of attachment to the place we grew up; the place that is our home. I teeter on pity when I hear of parents who moved their family around every few years. They simply missed out on the chance to establish roots and make memories that renew themselves with each passing of the park or smell of the trees.
I could imagine that Christ felt nostalgic, even loyal to Jerusalem. He wept over the city. He assigns the attribute of ‘peace’ to the city, explaining that because of the peaceful things that its citizens have done, the city has earned special ‘things,’ but cannot enjoy them (Luke 19: 42). This is the place where the Savior was tempted, where He taught, where He performed miracles, where He saw people come to know Heavenly Father and gain a testimony of the Atonement. Might the case be that the feeling that Christ is experiencing is correlated, somewhat, with the Hebrew tradition that the actions of the citizens of a city actually define the city rather than the borders defining the city?
These things we’ve discussed and read about concerning the alternative way that Jewish scholars consider reality clarify what plain and precious truths we have in the Book of Mormon, and those plain and precious truths that are left in the Bible. For example, what an eye opener I had the other night while reading John 17. Here is one of the most tender, touching peeks into the Saviors’ relationship with the Father. In verse nine, Christ says “I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.” In the verses following nine, he continues to speak of the world. If we were to take this verse in Hebraic context, then we would know that ‘the world’ is referring to ‘people who do worldly things,’ not the actual planet. This may be somewhat obvious, even outside the context of Hebraic context. But taking it a thoughtful step further we know that the Lord is putting the burden of allegiance on us, not himself. He invites by telling us what to do, and we may follow.
I could imagine that Christ felt nostalgic, even loyal to Jerusalem. He wept over the city. He assigns the attribute of ‘peace’ to the city, explaining that because of the peaceful things that its citizens have done, the city has earned special ‘things,’ but cannot enjoy them (Luke 19: 42). This is the place where the Savior was tempted, where He taught, where He performed miracles, where He saw people come to know Heavenly Father and gain a testimony of the Atonement. Might the case be that the feeling that Christ is experiencing is correlated, somewhat, with the Hebrew tradition that the actions of the citizens of a city actually define the city rather than the borders defining the city?
These things we’ve discussed and read about concerning the alternative way that Jewish scholars consider reality clarify what plain and precious truths we have in the Book of Mormon, and those plain and precious truths that are left in the Bible. For example, what an eye opener I had the other night while reading John 17. Here is one of the most tender, touching peeks into the Saviors’ relationship with the Father. In verse nine, Christ says “I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.” In the verses following nine, he continues to speak of the world. If we were to take this verse in Hebraic context, then we would know that ‘the world’ is referring to ‘people who do worldly things,’ not the actual planet. This may be somewhat obvious, even outside the context of Hebraic context. But taking it a thoughtful step further we know that the Lord is putting the burden of allegiance on us, not himself. He invites by telling us what to do, and we may follow.
Aristotle
The story is told of a rich man who must transport a heavily-laden barge down the river. This is long before domesticated beasts of burden (who actually talks like that?), so he hires a large group of poor men, let’s say fifty, to pull the barge up the river. He pays them $250 total, so five bucks per person. They do manual labor for a living, so they are strong. But individually, they have no intrinsic incentive to pull the barge. As long as the barge is moving, each worker is content to slack off, merely acting like he is working hard. They are all prone to this lack-luster labor, so they hire one in their midst (really, who?) the role of task master. Task Master, or simply The Master, as they call him, does not pull the barge. He simply walks alongside the barge and looks for those laborers whose ropes are not taught and whose muscles aren’t flexed and whose sweat glands aren’t excreting (not me!). The kicker is that the role of The Master is so valuable to the rest of the company that they are each willing to pay him one dollar to ensure that no one is slacking off. So each of these laborers is now netting four dollars, but the one who is just walking and looking and occasionally whipping is netting $55.
This is a representation of Trigg’s explanation of Aristotle’s critique of Plato’s guardians of the society. Aristotle asks, “If the guardians are not happy, who are?” This makes me believe that according to Aristotle, the most essential and valid members of society, on an individual basis, are those who are in charge. For the barge to keep moving, we could sacrifice one or two pullers without losing too much power. But if we lose the task master, the whole system breaking down is not far behind. So, to avoid that, Aristotle wants to put the guardian on a higher plane than everyone else. If we are able to keep the task master happy and productive and doing his job, then it benefits everyone else. We call that trickle-down economics. You give the tax breaks to publicly owned corporations, and those benefits take hold on the actors all the way from the CEO to the guy who owns a few shares of the company
This is a representation of Trigg’s explanation of Aristotle’s critique of Plato’s guardians of the society. Aristotle asks, “If the guardians are not happy, who are?” This makes me believe that according to Aristotle, the most essential and valid members of society, on an individual basis, are those who are in charge. For the barge to keep moving, we could sacrifice one or two pullers without losing too much power. But if we lose the task master, the whole system breaking down is not far behind. So, to avoid that, Aristotle wants to put the guardian on a higher plane than everyone else. If we are able to keep the task master happy and productive and doing his job, then it benefits everyone else. We call that trickle-down economics. You give the tax breaks to publicly owned corporations, and those benefits take hold on the actors all the way from the CEO to the guy who owns a few shares of the company
Acquinas
It’s interesting, in studying these philosophers, how spot-on close they come to identifying doctrines of the Restoration. Despite Aquinas starting out with flawed theological undertones, he makes some very important observations about the fundamentals of human character. ‘Individuals can,’ explains Aquinas according to Trigg, ‘exist in a disembodied state, engaged in a life of understanding.’ Our Latter-Day Saint doctrine would agree with that. Aquinas even continues on with the importance and inevitability of the resurrection to complete our human-ness, or bringing into semblance what a human being should really be
One part he missed out on, as far as doctrinal truth goes, is the fact about the fall, with respect to human nature. Aquinas talks about the original state of justice as when the will was subject to God; but this would denote a change in the will’s allegiance. Essentially, Aquinas argues, the will is no longer subject to God. But, the will has never been wholly and unavoidably subject to God. If it were, then our current fallen state could only have been brought about by a decision God would have to make to disorient Himself from us. It would not have been of our own choosing. The only other possibility would be that Satan, who Aquinas does not mention, would have had to steal us away from God, then forfeit the control he would have had back to us.
Aquinas also seems to be something of a social psychologist. He observes that attitude follows behavior. Aquinas even explains that our attitude is caused by our behavior. We are a product of our actions. Our actions demonstrate in true form what it is that we desire to become. I believe that this idea is both descriptive and prescriptive. For example, there are some songs that are played over and over on the radio that we don’t feel positive or negative about. But if we keep listening to the song, we will develop a preference or deference about the song. On the prescriptive side of it, we can force ourselves to do things that we don’t want to do, and eventually we will want to do it. Examples include a person who hasn’t gone to church in a long time and feels uncomfortable at first, but then he grows more and more at home when at church; a child whose parent compels him to practice an instrument, but the child grows up to truly delight in playing and performing his respective music; a stubborn student who resists studying, but comes to find it quite enlightening and enjoyable once he starts.
One part he missed out on, as far as doctrinal truth goes, is the fact about the fall, with respect to human nature. Aquinas talks about the original state of justice as when the will was subject to God; but this would denote a change in the will’s allegiance. Essentially, Aquinas argues, the will is no longer subject to God. But, the will has never been wholly and unavoidably subject to God. If it were, then our current fallen state could only have been brought about by a decision God would have to make to disorient Himself from us. It would not have been of our own choosing. The only other possibility would be that Satan, who Aquinas does not mention, would have had to steal us away from God, then forfeit the control he would have had back to us.
Aquinas also seems to be something of a social psychologist. He observes that attitude follows behavior. Aquinas even explains that our attitude is caused by our behavior. We are a product of our actions. Our actions demonstrate in true form what it is that we desire to become. I believe that this idea is both descriptive and prescriptive. For example, there are some songs that are played over and over on the radio that we don’t feel positive or negative about. But if we keep listening to the song, we will develop a preference or deference about the song. On the prescriptive side of it, we can force ourselves to do things that we don’t want to do, and eventually we will want to do it. Examples include a person who hasn’t gone to church in a long time and feels uncomfortable at first, but then he grows more and more at home when at church; a child whose parent compels him to practice an instrument, but the child grows up to truly delight in playing and performing his respective music; a stubborn student who resists studying, but comes to find it quite enlightening and enjoyable once he starts.
Plato
No disrespect to the book, but my understanding on Plato seems somewhat superficial. I find myself asking “Is this guy for real?” He talks about philosopher-kings and makes the claim that he, himself, is able to know everything. His claims seem over-the-top. On the other hand, Plato has been studied for centuries and centuries. He can’t be as crazy as he sounds, can he? The market of philosophical thought has decreed Plato to be a genius by its continued study of his teachings. That is—we wouldn’t have been studying him for so long if what he has to contribute is not legitimate. So maybe I simply don’t understand his claim of being able to know all things.
Continuing down Plato’s path of omniscience, he will also become the greatest human being to live. Speaking in terms of the Forms, he asks what creates the human form; which is a wonderfully Platonic method of asking “What separates humans from monkeys and other animals?” What makes the human form, or what is humanity, is the fact that we think in forms, according to Plato. Thus, Platonic philosophers live the fullest lives, since they are the one who form... forms. Plato conceptualized the Forms, and then created humanity to exist within the Forms; he invented his own way of saying how ideal a human being he is! I love it! On a parallel note, the funniest people are those who laugh at their own jokes the loudest, the most beautiful people are those who hang the most pictures of themselves in their house, and the most obedient people are those who follow all the rules that they set for themselves.
Continuing with Plato’s contributions, we arrive at the difference between descriptive and prescriptive observations. Humans are constantly trying to understand the world in which we live, and furthermore predict the world in which we will live. This helps us understand each other, because we are able to know not only how we act, but why we act. When confronted on the road by a large white van coming up behind us with a serpent or a cross on the side and flashing lights and a loud siren and the word “AMBULANCE” painted above the grill, we willingly move to the side of the road to allow this van to pass. We know, descriptively, that the van is moving quickly to help someone who may be hurt. But when we see a suped-up Civic come charging up behind us with neon lights glowing underneath it and we hear the engine play the exhaust pipe like a tuba player with canker sores, we are a little less willing to yield. Some even stay in the way and slow down just out of spite and the urge to teach a lesson. The reason why the two people behind their respective wheels drive the way they do fall on opposite ends of the ‘social acceptability’ spectrum.
Sometimes, however, we confuse descriptive and prescriptive observations. For example, my roommate and I came home after completing a home-teaching visit. I mentioned how good-looking one of the sisters we home teach is, and our other roommate perked right up and said “Hey, so-and-so ended up marrying a girl he home-taught.” My non-companion roommate was describing a past relationship, but at the same time prescribing that relationship onto me. The occurrence of a past experience does not mean that a similar future experience is inevitable.
Continuing down Plato’s path of omniscience, he will also become the greatest human being to live. Speaking in terms of the Forms, he asks what creates the human form; which is a wonderfully Platonic method of asking “What separates humans from monkeys and other animals?” What makes the human form, or what is humanity, is the fact that we think in forms, according to Plato. Thus, Platonic philosophers live the fullest lives, since they are the one who form... forms. Plato conceptualized the Forms, and then created humanity to exist within the Forms; he invented his own way of saying how ideal a human being he is! I love it! On a parallel note, the funniest people are those who laugh at their own jokes the loudest, the most beautiful people are those who hang the most pictures of themselves in their house, and the most obedient people are those who follow all the rules that they set for themselves.
Continuing with Plato’s contributions, we arrive at the difference between descriptive and prescriptive observations. Humans are constantly trying to understand the world in which we live, and furthermore predict the world in which we will live. This helps us understand each other, because we are able to know not only how we act, but why we act. When confronted on the road by a large white van coming up behind us with a serpent or a cross on the side and flashing lights and a loud siren and the word “AMBULANCE” painted above the grill, we willingly move to the side of the road to allow this van to pass. We know, descriptively, that the van is moving quickly to help someone who may be hurt. But when we see a suped-up Civic come charging up behind us with neon lights glowing underneath it and we hear the engine play the exhaust pipe like a tuba player with canker sores, we are a little less willing to yield. Some even stay in the way and slow down just out of spite and the urge to teach a lesson. The reason why the two people behind their respective wheels drive the way they do fall on opposite ends of the ‘social acceptability’ spectrum.
Sometimes, however, we confuse descriptive and prescriptive observations. For example, my roommate and I came home after completing a home-teaching visit. I mentioned how good-looking one of the sisters we home teach is, and our other roommate perked right up and said “Hey, so-and-so ended up marrying a girl he home-taught.” My non-companion roommate was describing a past relationship, but at the same time prescribing that relationship onto me. The occurrence of a past experience does not mean that a similar future experience is inevitable.
Good Intentions
Is politeness more self-serving than selfless? According to Mead’s Play Stage, we should do unto other as we would have them do unto us. That selfish thinking will leave us with a lot of assumptions and not much by way of real relationships. If I only act toward others the way I want to be acted, then I’m trying to turn everyone into me. I’m imposing my values and ideals and preferences on other people, all in the name of “Well, that’s what I would want.” We make the ‘me,’ or what we want from others, more important than the ‘I,’ how we really believe we should act.
Consumer attitude
“We are what we consume.” What an excellent ontological assumption. In the spirit of descriptive, not prescriptive, social science, this really is dead on. We judge others by what clothes they wear, by their preferences, by what they choose to spend their money and time on. And isn’t it great? What do we have that is more limited than money and time? Not relationships. We can make all the friends we want. Not education. We don’t have a shortage on what we can learn. Certainly not enjoyment. We don’t have only a certain number of utils in our lifetime, and once they’re used up, we can achieve no more satisfaction. But time and money is in short supply. There is only 24 hours in a day, and there is only a certain amount of money in our bank account. So, spending our time and money is essentially making priorities. If I spend my time watching TV rather than studying, it shows I value television over grades. If I spend my money sending my kids to college rather than buying a new truck (shout out to my dad), then I value my child more than a truck.
The critique, then, of this ontology comes in each individual’s ability to manage his time and money. Of course I would rather have good grades than watch whatever is on television. But I may not manage my time in a way to express that. Not everyone acts in his or her best long-term interest, which we all have a pretty good handle on. And if we don’t, it’s because we either simply put it out of our mind thus not think about it, or we don’t realize our potential. Once we do have a clear understanding of our long-term interests, the goal then would becomes to make our short-term interests match up with our long-term interests. Enter now other disciplines in the social sciences like economics, and more specifically accounting, which is a branch of economics. These help us understand our goals over time. After short- and long-term interests harmonize, everything we do in the “now” will contribute to the “later.”
The dark, unclear side of the consumer attitude is that our being is limited to what is available to buy. If we truly are defined by what we consume or buy, then we are limited in our identity development by what consumables are available. We are free to make ourselves what we wish, but are nevertheless limited by what resources we have to spend in order to “consume” our identity. And because we consume one thing, we are not able to consume another. Hence, the true being is defined not by what we consume, but by what we don’t consume.
The critique, then, of this ontology comes in each individual’s ability to manage his time and money. Of course I would rather have good grades than watch whatever is on television. But I may not manage my time in a way to express that. Not everyone acts in his or her best long-term interest, which we all have a pretty good handle on. And if we don’t, it’s because we either simply put it out of our mind thus not think about it, or we don’t realize our potential. Once we do have a clear understanding of our long-term interests, the goal then would becomes to make our short-term interests match up with our long-term interests. Enter now other disciplines in the social sciences like economics, and more specifically accounting, which is a branch of economics. These help us understand our goals over time. After short- and long-term interests harmonize, everything we do in the “now” will contribute to the “later.”
The dark, unclear side of the consumer attitude is that our being is limited to what is available to buy. If we truly are defined by what we consume or buy, then we are limited in our identity development by what consumables are available. We are free to make ourselves what we wish, but are nevertheless limited by what resources we have to spend in order to “consume” our identity. And because we consume one thing, we are not able to consume another. Hence, the true being is defined not by what we consume, but by what we don’t consume.
Bureaucracy and BCS
Elements of a bureaucracy include de-humanization of society; it is almost impossible to destroy; it is founded in legal-rational authority; becomes an iron cage; multiple, bad outcomes. These sound an awful lot like they describe a certain organization that every American lives and dies by. That organization, of course, is the Bowl Championship Series; or the BCS. The BCS de-humanizes society by shoving the teams’ statistics in a computer, which then pukes them back out in some kind of ranking that is supposed to order the teams from best to worst. What ever happened to “any given Saturday?” With all the money tied up between the individual bowls games, sponsors, and broadcasting, it is currently impossible to destroy. Yet, we are all trapped by the potential to see our team be selected, by a mathematical computer model, no less, for a higher spot in the weekly ranking. Pitiful.
Legal Rational authority
Our fascination, even fetish, over this type of authority lends itself to many a joke. Take the Soup Nazi as an example. What kind of restaurateur would assume such strict authority over his patrons down to even the manner in which they order their soup? Do you remember the characters’ abject fear and horror of disappointment as they scooched down the line? Hilarious! I say strongly our society’s connection to this type of authority because it is essentially built around it. Everyone is scared of getting pulled over by the cops because they know that the ensuing ticket is going to mean more than just a piece of paper. Children love to tattle-tale on their counterparts to figures of legal-rational authority. My elementary-school classroom was established by the presence of our regular teacher, and that same classroom seemingly ceased to exist by the presence of a substitute teacher. It just fell apart.
Charasmatic Authority
Society saves a more special, exclusive place in its collective heart for this one. This type of authority is usually saved for people who Oprah refers to as “The One.” Not many people get to be looked upon as an intrinsic motivation for other people, like those with charismatic authority do. These kinds of people end up being role models and live lives larger to their followers than they would when filling a role other than their charismatic one. Joseph Smith, for example, is a standout, historically, because his followers saw in him something that no one else really cared about: his diving calling. They don’t say that he was simply a good man or a loving person. There were lots of those in the 1800s. Those who grant Smith charismatic authority do so as a byproduct of his calling as a prophet chosen by God.
I see charismatic authority as perhaps the most important and sought-after type of authority. We resent the cops for their legal-rational authority. We are defiant to our parents, with their traditional authority. But charismatic authority must be freely given, and only by those who will become subject to such authority. Trust and charismatic authority go hand-in-hand. There is not one without the other. Home teaching is a clear example of this. I don’t expect the people whom I home teach to automatically feel comfortable talking about their problems with me, just because I’m assigned to be their home teacher. I don’t expect them to come to my companion and me to request a blessing just because we come once a month to visit for 15 minutes. I expect to be required to earn their trust in order for our relationship to merit a request, like a blessing; or even a ride to the airport or changing a tire.
The power from charismatic authority comes in the relationship between the person in authority and the person granting authority. It is not granted by the bureaucracy; it is not intrinsic within us from birth or instilled by society. It is so powerful that we often forget completely about the actual position that a charismatic person has. We think of Martin Luther King Jr. as a civil rights activist more than a pastor. We think of Mother Theresa as a great humanitarian rather than a nun. We think of Barack Obama as the Messiah rather than the President (just kidding). I think of my brothers as a friend rather than my brothers. These examples show that charismatic authority will over-shadow the other two types of authority.
I see charismatic authority as perhaps the most important and sought-after type of authority. We resent the cops for their legal-rational authority. We are defiant to our parents, with their traditional authority. But charismatic authority must be freely given, and only by those who will become subject to such authority. Trust and charismatic authority go hand-in-hand. There is not one without the other. Home teaching is a clear example of this. I don’t expect the people whom I home teach to automatically feel comfortable talking about their problems with me, just because I’m assigned to be their home teacher. I don’t expect them to come to my companion and me to request a blessing just because we come once a month to visit for 15 minutes. I expect to be required to earn their trust in order for our relationship to merit a request, like a blessing; or even a ride to the airport or changing a tire.
The power from charismatic authority comes in the relationship between the person in authority and the person granting authority. It is not granted by the bureaucracy; it is not intrinsic within us from birth or instilled by society. It is so powerful that we often forget completely about the actual position that a charismatic person has. We think of Martin Luther King Jr. as a civil rights activist more than a pastor. We think of Mother Theresa as a great humanitarian rather than a nun. We think of Barack Obama as the Messiah rather than the President (just kidding). I think of my brothers as a friend rather than my brothers. These examples show that charismatic authority will over-shadow the other two types of authority.
Methodology behind Weber
Let’s look at a fundamental difference between the natural/physical sciences and the human/social sciences. (Why didn’t Bill Nye the Science Guy ever talk about ideal types or the generalized other or the iron cage of bureaucracy? I feel jipped that I didn’t know that these were also ‘science,” and I had to come to college to find out. How ‘bout that?) Natural scientists look to describe their world. They try to figure out why something happened, and how to make it happen again. The natural sciences are predictable. I don’t know that my car will go when I engage the engine because we’re good friends who have spent a lot of time with each other and I can read the engine’s emotions and think the engine’s thoughts. I know the car will go because the battery lights up the spark plugs, which in turn ignite the gasoline, which in turn explodes and pumps the pistons (or however the heck the car works.)
But the social sciences can’t be prescriptive about what will happen like natural science can be. Economics comes the closest to predicting future phenomenon, but even the market is subject to finicky, fickle human players, and people are left scratching their heads when they compare economic forecasts with present situations. When we look at the theses of ontological, epistemological, and pragmatic differences and see the same picture. We look at a certain aspect of human behavior and the best we can hope to ask is “what possible intentions might the actor have meant?”
These three theses, by the way, look at some very fundamental aspects of human-ness and godliness: know, do, become. We see these three come up a lot in the gospel. First we must know the commandments, then we must follow the commandments, and in the end they become second nature to us and we do them naturally. We become predictable, in terms of natural versus social science. On an eternity basis, this predictability will be essential. God is an unchanging god, and if He were not so, He would cease to be God. But in this mortal life, the process of “know, do, become” is where the adventure happens. It is what makes life suck. It is what makes life awesome. It is what allows us to become closer to Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. Of course, predictability does not prevent progression, or even inhibit it. Consistency is never bad. After all, we are commanded to be built upon a rock; and upon such a rock is our church built.
So, natural science can predict the future, social science cannot. Natural science is passive; social science is active. But that’s why social science rocks! There is always excitement. No wonder or surprise comes up when doing natural science. It already exists, and there’s nothing we can do about it. The rocket fuel will ignite, the space shuttle will go up into space, and it will fall back to the earth really, really fast; big deal. The real romance comes out when we see Tom Hanks throwing his smack down all over Bill Paxton’s and Kevin Bacon’s collective grill in Apollo 13. Yeah, the Freedom and Liberty are awesome to watch as they get flipped around the moon and land on the giant, Texas-sized asteroid. But I didn’t cry at that. It took Bruce Willis cramming Ben Affleck back into the elevator to sacrifice himself in Armageddon to my cheeks shiny. There’s always the “possibility of being otherwise,” and that’s what Weber cares about. It could’ve turned out differently, but it didn’t. Why not? Social scientists, to Weber, are trying to tackle the hard questions. We can figure out physics and biology, but we can’t figure out the human spirit.
But the social sciences can’t be prescriptive about what will happen like natural science can be. Economics comes the closest to predicting future phenomenon, but even the market is subject to finicky, fickle human players, and people are left scratching their heads when they compare economic forecasts with present situations. When we look at the theses of ontological, epistemological, and pragmatic differences and see the same picture. We look at a certain aspect of human behavior and the best we can hope to ask is “what possible intentions might the actor have meant?”
These three theses, by the way, look at some very fundamental aspects of human-ness and godliness: know, do, become. We see these three come up a lot in the gospel. First we must know the commandments, then we must follow the commandments, and in the end they become second nature to us and we do them naturally. We become predictable, in terms of natural versus social science. On an eternity basis, this predictability will be essential. God is an unchanging god, and if He were not so, He would cease to be God. But in this mortal life, the process of “know, do, become” is where the adventure happens. It is what makes life suck. It is what makes life awesome. It is what allows us to become closer to Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. Of course, predictability does not prevent progression, or even inhibit it. Consistency is never bad. After all, we are commanded to be built upon a rock; and upon such a rock is our church built.
So, natural science can predict the future, social science cannot. Natural science is passive; social science is active. But that’s why social science rocks! There is always excitement. No wonder or surprise comes up when doing natural science. It already exists, and there’s nothing we can do about it. The rocket fuel will ignite, the space shuttle will go up into space, and it will fall back to the earth really, really fast; big deal. The real romance comes out when we see Tom Hanks throwing his smack down all over Bill Paxton’s and Kevin Bacon’s collective grill in Apollo 13. Yeah, the Freedom and Liberty are awesome to watch as they get flipped around the moon and land on the giant, Texas-sized asteroid. But I didn’t cry at that. It took Bruce Willis cramming Ben Affleck back into the elevator to sacrifice himself in Armageddon to my cheeks shiny. There’s always the “possibility of being otherwise,” and that’s what Weber cares about. It could’ve turned out differently, but it didn’t. Why not? Social scientists, to Weber, are trying to tackle the hard questions. We can figure out physics and biology, but we can’t figure out the human spirit.
Marx v Weber
What an interesting switch from the feudal system to capitalism. According to Weber, it is not a progression, just simply a change; particular and mutually exclusive to one another and all other times and eras, for that matter. Weber sees history in terms of individuals, hence the striking contrast between the kinds of people who lived during the time of lords and vassals and serfs and the kinds of people who lived during the time of firms and profit-maximization and supply and demand.
Biologists, when talking about mitochondria and ATP manufacturing, talk about “following the energy,” as it is broken down and changing forms. In business, money is the lowest common denominator. Businessmen have a saying: “Follow the money.” Money shows trends in the market. Where the money is, investors will be. Where money is, interest groups will be. The prophetic nature of money is especially obvious on the environmental front. The global warming scare (which seems now to be ‘cooling off’) led to a huge spending increase in so-called ‘green’ energy. It became popular to be environmentally conscience, so people spent money appear such.
Anyway, back to sociology. Just as energy and money each hold a telling place in biology and business, respectively; so does labor exude telling changes in sociology. Marxists might say “follow the labor.” In the feudal system, the people who did all the labor were the poor people. It was socially undesirable to have a tan and muscles and callused hands. The fashion of the day was powdered faces and punch-bowl bellies; not exactly the tell-tale signs of the working class. In those days, the richer you were, the less you had to work. The wealthy would simply pay people to labor for them, even in behalf of them, as their proxy. In a time of tradition, religion, and subjectivity to one’s class superior, it was easy to let your subjects believe that their labor to you was an honor and that through their work; they are simply fulfilling their purpose.
But where is the labor now? Now, in the market system, a person lives, eats, sleeps, and dies by his labor. Now, the rich are generally those who work the hardest. Capitalism rewards those who produce things of value. Here is crucial departure point of Weber from Marx. To Marx, labor is the grand ontological assumption. We are what we make. Our labor and creation create us. To Weber, labor is simply a tool. His ontology lies in the gaining of wealth. The whole reason we should work is to make money, as outlined in Weber’s “Spirit of Capitalism.”
This assumption, that human being-ness is dictated by accumulation of wealth, spills over into religion. Weber contends that the more you have; the better person you are. And good people are more god-like. He makes a literal argument for the teaching “by their fruits ye shall know them.” Simply-put, the rich are beloved by God. We see today that this is still alive and well, at least in the Protestant world. My brother made a joke about my dad switching jobs: “Maybe now you’ll get rich enough to be bishop.” As I lazily channel-surf, I am fascinated by the televangelists on the air. They have a beautiful stage set up with fancy furnature and nice suits in enormous auditoriums and they lead a massive group of people in prayer or song or scripture reading. And supposedly, because they are well-off, they are thus qualified to lead my spirituality and communion with God Almighty.
Weber observes, not predicts, this phenomenon of how the spiritualization of a society turns to gaining wealth in the name of religion. It is all our church leaders can do to emphasize the importance of giving to the poor and acts of charity. Especially with this greed turned godliness staring us in the face.
Biologists, when talking about mitochondria and ATP manufacturing, talk about “following the energy,” as it is broken down and changing forms. In business, money is the lowest common denominator. Businessmen have a saying: “Follow the money.” Money shows trends in the market. Where the money is, investors will be. Where money is, interest groups will be. The prophetic nature of money is especially obvious on the environmental front. The global warming scare (which seems now to be ‘cooling off’) led to a huge spending increase in so-called ‘green’ energy. It became popular to be environmentally conscience, so people spent money appear such.
Anyway, back to sociology. Just as energy and money each hold a telling place in biology and business, respectively; so does labor exude telling changes in sociology. Marxists might say “follow the labor.” In the feudal system, the people who did all the labor were the poor people. It was socially undesirable to have a tan and muscles and callused hands. The fashion of the day was powdered faces and punch-bowl bellies; not exactly the tell-tale signs of the working class. In those days, the richer you were, the less you had to work. The wealthy would simply pay people to labor for them, even in behalf of them, as their proxy. In a time of tradition, religion, and subjectivity to one’s class superior, it was easy to let your subjects believe that their labor to you was an honor and that through their work; they are simply fulfilling their purpose.
But where is the labor now? Now, in the market system, a person lives, eats, sleeps, and dies by his labor. Now, the rich are generally those who work the hardest. Capitalism rewards those who produce things of value. Here is crucial departure point of Weber from Marx. To Marx, labor is the grand ontological assumption. We are what we make. Our labor and creation create us. To Weber, labor is simply a tool. His ontology lies in the gaining of wealth. The whole reason we should work is to make money, as outlined in Weber’s “Spirit of Capitalism.”
This assumption, that human being-ness is dictated by accumulation of wealth, spills over into religion. Weber contends that the more you have; the better person you are. And good people are more god-like. He makes a literal argument for the teaching “by their fruits ye shall know them.” Simply-put, the rich are beloved by God. We see today that this is still alive and well, at least in the Protestant world. My brother made a joke about my dad switching jobs: “Maybe now you’ll get rich enough to be bishop.” As I lazily channel-surf, I am fascinated by the televangelists on the air. They have a beautiful stage set up with fancy furnature and nice suits in enormous auditoriums and they lead a massive group of people in prayer or song or scripture reading. And supposedly, because they are well-off, they are thus qualified to lead my spirituality and communion with God Almighty.
Weber observes, not predicts, this phenomenon of how the spiritualization of a society turns to gaining wealth in the name of religion. It is all our church leaders can do to emphasize the importance of giving to the poor and acts of charity. Especially with this greed turned godliness staring us in the face.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)