In the first round of polling Saturday, Kant won the poll. People were attracted to his individualistic approach, in which
he said that the enlightened person is the one who can develop their own philosophy without any kind of help from anybody else. Immaturity, in his view, is the state where people must depend on others to form their views.
However, Kant himself would be happy with the results. There were no big winners; nobody got over 15% of the vote. And there were 13 other people nominated, whose names I will put in today's poll. One of the biggest strengths of this community has always been its ability to have people think for themselves and put their views out on the table. So, in keeping with Kant's own individualism, if Kant wins (for example), I will write about him a lot. But he would by no means be the only person I would talk about.
There is a tremendous upside to the view that enlightenment means the individual making his or her own decisions and not letting anybody else make them. The problem with this country is that too often, people get so wrapped up in causes that they do not think for themselves. This is the sort of thing that leaves us vulnerable to people like Bush and Rove. The right-wingers are masters of exploiting this; witness the passage of all of the anti-gay laws in states around the country.
Right-wing fundamentalists would rant and rave on talk radio, news, and in the pulpit about how the gays were in a vast conspiracy to destroy the American family and that they were trying to recruit more people into the fold to fuel their perversions. Churches would tell their people to vote for the candidate who takes the best stand against abortion and gay rights. They would also play videos like "I pledge allegiance to the lamb," an apocalyptic Christian music video lamenting the loss of school prayer, ranting about how Nameless Evil People were taking away God from our public life, and warning of a return to the days when the Romans would persecute Christians and kill them if they did not take a stand for what is right and wrong.
You see what happens when you get wrapped up in causes instead of thinking for yourself? The Bush administration is a logical consequence of looking for causes instead of thinking for yourself. But imagine what would happen if we all started thinking for ourselves? People like Dobson, Falwell, Norquist, Rush, O'Reilly, and all of the other charming fellows we have all come to know and love would have no power whatsoever.
But there is a downside to being too individualistic. Going too far would put us in the camp of the Libertarians. The Libertarians have provided some of the best criticisms of the war, the Patriot Act, the attacks on our civil liberties, and the police state mentality of the Bush administration. And yet, they would take more money out of our social programs than the right-wingers would ever dream of taking out. They believe that you are on your own when it comes to surviving in this country. They believe that you should not have to contribute to the betterment of others.
So, the question becomes, how do we balance individuality and community? Which of these philosophers best answers the question?
Immanuel Kant: See above.
Ambrose Bierce: He was one of the first authors to use grotesque imagery. He took realism to an extreme, writing first-hand about the horrors of the Civil War. He was a master of the English language and of snark and had a contempt for fundamentalism, believing Christianity to be about the science of your neighbor's well-being.
Voltaire: He was one of the first advocates of seperation of church and state. Very satirical, much of his works undermined the basis for church authority that was still prevailant during his day. With Rosseau and Locke, he was one of the main people who influenced our early political thought.
Thoreau: He advocated natural simplicity over the capitalistic accumulation of material goods. He also was one of the first practitioners of civil disobedience, influencing King and Gandhi with his writings about it. He was also one of the first advocates for the environment along with Emerson.
Lao Tse: His work was a reaction against the more authoritarian forms of Chinese philosophy that were prevailant in his day. He taught the art of being flexible, like water and its ability to slip into the smallest cracks. For him, it was not a matter of inaction or blind stoicism, but a matter of knowing when to act and when not to.
Deleuze and Guattari: He was a master of the art of being different for the sake of being different. He challenges the very core of capitalistic thought, saying that although it freed us from the shackles of authoritarian dogma, it too often restricts ideas to what the market wants. In order words, political opinion is too driven by polls and opinions, rather than by creative thought.
He collaborated with Felix Guattari extensively; Guattari believed that capitalism is inherently flawed because it positively reinforces neurosis, or a permanent state of hyperanxiety. For example, people are extensively influenced by ads on TV and enter a state of constant anxiety until they can get their hands on that product.
Both were very similar and both loved to coin their own words for their concepts. Since they were so similar and wrote many books together, I will combine them into one polling slot.
Alain Baidou: He studies the underlying causes of revolutions and how they occur. He argues that they happen when diverse groups of people come to a universal singularity on the need to overthrow the established order and the principles by which the new order will be governed by.
Albert Camus: Developing the ideas of Kierkegaard, he believed that life is ultimately meaningless, that we are all mortal, that happiness is fleeting, and that we must make the most of it when it is offered to us.
Sun Tzu: He teaches the art of winning battles before the first shot is fired. He teaches the importance of a complete understanding of what the other person is doing and what your own strengths and weaknesses are.
Arthur Schopenhauer: Along with Emerson and Thoreau, he was one of the first philosophers to synthesize Western and Eastern philosophy. He rejected the materialism of this world, arguing that non-attachment and aesthetics like art as well as love were essential to living well.
Cesar Chavez: As much as anybody, he was the one labor union organizer that the right feared the most. He regularly engaged in hunger strikes to promote the rights of workers and unions. He was largely responsible for the growth in political power of Hispanics and Mexicans.
John Rawls: He was one of the foremost giants in liberal political philosophy, explaining how public policy can accomodate pluralistic views.
Bernard Williams: He combined idealism and liberalism, and was even more individualistic than Kant, although he was not a moral relativist. He says that we have to be ourselves as opposed to try to act on some abstract universal law of nature; otherwise, we lose our individuality. He was neo-Kantian; he took Kant's writings and developed them even further.
Motze: Last but not least, I found him as I was looking up stuff on Lao-Tse. A contemporary of Lao-Tse and Confucius, he believed that the goal in life should be universal brotherhood, or holding people around the world in the same regard as one would hold their own family. He was a major opponent of offensive warfare and infuriated rulers with his logic. He was one of the world's first peace activists.