Why I am against atheism

My opposition to atheism is philosophical, not religious.

One of the four branches of philosophy is epistemology, it is concerned with ‘how we know things’, or more simply, it is just the study of knowledge. My concern with atheism arises from the dominance within modern western culture that there is only one ‘way of knowing’, this being scientific rationalism.

Here is an example of another way of knowing from history. A famous Red Indian chief (I cannot recall who now) was asked at a trial to “tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth”, he replied “I cannot do that; I can only tell you what I know”. To the Chief, truth was an impossibility, it cannot be known by any human. To the court, truth can be known.

What truth do you believe? Can we ever be certain of any truth? This is an epistemological debate; we should be prepared to accept that there are more ways of knowing than just the one currently dominating modern western culture. What irks me about many atheists is their certainty of a particular truth, that there isn’t a God.

Furthermore, this certainty in atheism arises at a time when definitions of God have become very broad indeed. Do atheists really dismiss every definition of God that exists in this post modern alternative age? One can only assume that they do, it’s not as if we are living a few centuries ago when the only God in the west worth denying was definitely a bearded elderly man with miraculous powers. No, today’s atheists cannot limit the definition of God, if they live within this culture and time then their arguments must be met in this context. Therefore, the question is, do atheists deny the biblical God, Allah, Jehovah, Godhead, Magick, Kundalini, Krishna, Haile Selassie, Ator of the Kabbalah, Gaia, Ganesh, the ‘secret’, Rael, L Ron Hubbard, and even Maradona? Clearly, we’d be astonished if anyone had seriously investigated all of the phenomena encompassed by modern definitions of God to arrive at a logical conclusion. Even earlier rationalists refused to move as far as atheism. Leibniz produced a mathematical proof that showed that evidence for or against the existence of God is equally implausible.

Consequently, modern atheists do not arrive at their position from careful research of empirical evidence; instead, they hold their opinions a priori. Thus, they are as guilty of certainty from mere opinion as the creationists. Therefore, I propose that many modern atheists are just the slogan chanting cheer leaders for the skeptical, anti spiritual, anti supernatural, scientific rationalist movement; rather than people with a carefully thought through opinion.

However, another of my contentions with atheism arises from moral philosophy. Aristotle’s ‘Nichomachean Ethics’ defines ‘reason’ in far more interesting terms than it appears today. He argued that to make a moral decision requires more of us than, say, solving a mathematical problem. We have to think and feel. Thus, ‘reason’ incorporates more than just thinking. Furthermore, this makes only morally good people ‘reasonable’, bad people are merely cunning. The importance of this is that it makes ‘I feel, therefore I am’, equally as important as ‘cogito ergo sum’. Again, it raises questions about how we actually know things, proposing that feeling is at least as important as thinking.

Similarly, there are arguments arising from literary expressionism and romanticism that also supports different ways of knowing. Meaning can exist outside of words, we may be unable to think without using words but we can feel without words. This personal experience is profoundly important to all of us. Think about how we feel when someone we love dies, this is a way of knowing that is very difficult to express in words. Many people who experience tragedy often complain that ‘no one understands’, this provides evidence for inexpressible personal truths. Oscar Wilde once quipped that “A truth ceases to be true when more than one person believes in it” wonderfully stating the value of individual experience in expressionist opinion. Novalis also provided a definition for romanticism, “To romanticise means to endow base matters with noble meaning, ordinary matters with a mysterious status, familiar matters with the dignity of the unknown, finite matters with the appearance of infinity.” Maybe I’m getting carried away, but the upshot of all this is the support these ideas provide for valuing personal truths. This is relevant because one of the claims made by religious people is that they have experienced ‘revealed knowledge’, truths only made apparent to them personally, it is on this experience that many of them base their faith. For example, when someone is born again they describe being touched by God, Buddhists experience Kundalini, etc. The scientific rationalist approach is to say that if it can’t be tested externally it is inadmissible as evidence; the humanist position, and our own consciousness, demands that internal individual truths be respected. In short, the expressionist and romantic movements of the late enlightenment, along with humanist ideals inherent in human rights; both provide sound reasons not to outrightly dismiss individual truths, as the scientific rationalists and modern atheists blatantly do. These are simply moot points of epistemological philosophy.

Moreover, actual scientific measurement of the supernatural or the spiritual would be so important to humanity that it cannot be taken lightly. Imagine what it would mean to us all if we really proved the existence of ghosts, or that the soul did live on after death. This criticism is therefore pointed sharply at both the religious, who claim actual physical miracles that they won’t put up for investigation; and to atheists, whose a priori position prevents open minded research. Furthermore, both camps prevent the wonder of epistemological philosophy through their ignorance and arrogance.

Additionally, belief in spirituality of some kind has been with us so long to just dismiss it seems rather stupid. Did Socrates not see ghosts? Did cavemen really worship their own ignorance? Is the non-western world just wrong in being mostly religious?

Atheism: At the least it’s narrow minded, at worst it’s arrogant.

In summing up.
1. Epistemology is a valued division of philosophy that allows for different ways of knowing. Atheists appear ignorant of it.
2. Atheists hold their opinions a priori. On what evidence do atheists dismiss all definitions of God in the current historical period?
3. Atheists and creationists are equally sure of their a priori certainty.
4. Leibniz’ mathematical formula still stands, irrespective of what atheists believe.
5. Moral philosophy provides support for valuing feeling as much as thinking in reasoning.
6. Literary expressionism and romanticism, along with humanism; both provide sound reasons to value inexpressible individual truths.
7. What is unknown is too important for atheists to outrightly dismiss without careful investigation.
8. The historical record is full of evidence for spirituality.
9. Atheists believe that their western rationality trumps other ways of knowing all over the world (heard that one before).

Finally, I want people to understand my ‘expressionist meanings’ when replying to this. Please, no shallow arguments about the order of my words and their suggested connotations; have some courage, try and understand my meaning as it is meant and then debate me on the real heart of my argument. I am not arguing for the existence of God, but I absolutely reject the certainty with which atheists claim there isn’t a God(s?).

Why humans matter more than the environment

I have to confess I’m really over the green movement although I did get caught up in it like everyone else for a while. However, I’ve come to a realisation. It occurred to me a few months ago when there was yet another charity collection going round for an environmental cause, I spontaneously thought, “I only donate to people”, and it got me thinking.

I distinctly remember live aid and the belief that we could make a difference, then it all gradually died off. Then there was live aid 2, even quite recently Bono and Geldoff were at it again with the ‘make poverty history’ campaign. However, the environment has really stolen the limelight and we’ve all forgotten the poor, diseased and war ravaged yet again; it needs to be asked why this has happened.

Perhaps, after decades of effort and so little result, the collective charitable conscience of the west has just given up flogging a dead horse. It’s an awful thought, but maybe it explains why there is so much fervent enthusiasm for the environmental movement. It’s something new to care about, we can forget about other people at last; here’s something we might have a chance to do something about. Could it be that the environment has become a handy distraction so we don’t have to face our failure in helping people in urgent need?

Think for a moment how we would feel if we weren’t distracted by climate change. We would have to admit that all the pictures of starving children with swollen bellies, the cries of weeping mothers and the faces of young men crippled by war, all this and more, failed to sufficiently move us to do something effective about it. Even more damning is that this occurred during the era in which media established a global reach, we cannot say we didn’t know like earlier generations can. We have a lot to face up to if only we had the courage to do so.

To come back to my point, could carbon dioxide be providing the perfect smokescreen behind which we hide our collective guilt? Has the environment become the conscience-easing alternative to caring about people?

I argue that realising our failure to care for others, facing this failure truthfully, and making permanent effective commitments in this area is the most important cause in the world today. Imagine, for a moment, that we had really had started to fix poverty, disease and starvation as we moved into the new millenium. Imagine a world where Africa wasn’t decimated by aids, the Taliban weren’t destroying Pakistan as well as Afghanistan, and millions of people didn’t starve to death every year.

It’s easy for this world to exist in our imagination, but how could we achieve it in reality? I don’t intend to answer this question, but I will point out one salient truth. The structures we need to solve global problems could have been built through caring about people.

We have missed the start of the race, fallen behind and squandered the opportunity to fix the world. We had the UN, human rights, global communications, unprecedented wealth, advanced technology, efficient farming techniques, modern medicine, etc, etc – what have we done with it? The simple answer is that we’ve been selfish and greedy, we just didn’t care enough. ‘Make poverty history’ may have been achieved if wealthy nations, corporations and individuals were prepared to ‘make wealth history’ too.

The carbon tax, emissions trading schemes, and other measures to help fix the environment all have serious economic ramifications. It’s astonishing that we have been able to consider a tax to deal with climate change but not one to feed the starving. The current state of affairs is truly appalling; middle class housewives are putting groceries in reusable bags, husbands are changing the old light bulbs to more environmentally friendly ones, and the kids are signing online petitions; all while the Prime Minister rushes through new environmental laws. At the same time, the same people watch TV and agree that the Prime Minister should get tough on refugees -  poor people fleeing the civil war in Sri Lanka, suicide bombers in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. While we do our bit to save the environment we foster racism, war and starvation with our cruel politics and obscene levels of consumption.

How ridiculous we must look to people in poor countries, worrying about the weather while they starve. I’ll ask you to imagine once more, but this time think of what the world would be like if we beat climate change and still carried on the same. There’d be electric cars, solar power plants, pretty flowers and war, starvation and disease. Would it really be worth it? Is this the kind of world we are being asked to all do our bit for?

Finally, if we can’t care for our own species how can we truly care for anything? Mammals survived the ice age because they were social animals that looked after each other, they shared food and huddled together to keep warm. For humans, the real question is, do we care enough to survive climate change?

Aristotle for the Dr Phil generation

Philosophical ideas can help people find happiness outside of religion and psychotherapy. Here is a brief exposition of Aristotle’s ideas on what ultimate happiness (Eudaimonia) is and how to achieve it.

Aristotle puts eudaimonia (ultimate happiness) in a list of various ‘good things’ that we all desire, placing eudaimonia at the top of this list. He explains that some of these ‘good things’ are better than others; that there are ‘goods’ that lead to other ends, such as wealth, which is desired because of what it can do; and there are ‘goods’ that are an end in themselves, such as health, which is sought for its own sake.

Aristotle says for something to be the ultimate good (eudaimonia – it’s a tricky word to translate into english) it must fulfill a number of conditions. Firstly, it must always be desired for it’s own sake and cannot be chosen for the sake of something else, that counts out wealth, fame, power, etc. Secondly, it must be self-sufficient, his words are “that which when isolated makes life desirable and lacking in nothing”. Finally, it must also cause the goodness of all the other goods, like putting money to good ends, health, and happiness.

However, Aristotle is also very practical, and it is how he links his idea of eudaimonia with the function / purpose of any human that really makes his ideas useful to everybody, so follow these next ideas closely.

Aristotle says that everything has a function; a hand is for grasping, an eye is for seeing, and so the whole human being also has a function – what is this function? To quote Aristotle and say that the human function is reason, “since reason more than anything else is man”, really misses the point. Because, what Aristotle meant by ‘reason’ is vastly different to the narrow meaning it has today. He actually struggles to put into words some rather profound ideas saying, “whether it be reason, something divine, or something else in us that is our natural guide taking thought of things noble and divine”. Therefore, ‘reason’ hardly describes what he sees as the function of the human being – that “something else in us” that makes us think “of things noble and divine” – is a far bigger idea. Fortunately, Aristotle provides us far more than this nebulous quote (it is important however to refute this narrow rationalist conception of Aristotelian philosophy).

Aristotle inextricably links his idea of eudaimonia (the ultimate good / happiness) with Arete (the practice of virtue). Aristotle believed that for every virtue there are two vices; for example, the virtue of courage comes between the two vices of rashness and cowardice. Therefore, it takes great intelligence to choose the middle path of virtue. Because of this, Aristotle argued that only moral people were actually intelligent, as it takes a great deal of effort to make a moral decision, moral decisions involve us more deeply as we have to consider our thoughts and our feelings. To Aristotle, people who are immoral or amoral are only cunning, they only use half of their intelligence; they only think, they cannot think and feel at the same time to arrive at a decision.

However, Aristotle doesn’t stop there, for him quiet philosophical thinking is not enough, he also demands we take action. In my opinion, this is where Aristotle provides the perfect eternal self-help manual for humanity.
Aristotle argued that we can grow our virtue through regular exercise, the more we are courageous or self disciplined the stronger these virtues become. Conversely, regular indulgence in vice can make these vices stronger; a regular gossip may eventually grow into a full-blown liar.

This is still great advice for people today, it doesn’t peddle the lie of sudden transformation, it says that we have to work at things, growing our virtues over time. It also allows us to approach problems in our life from different angles; for example, if you want to give up smoking, gambling, overeating, etc, it takes self control. Using Aristotle’s ideas, you would first grow the virtue of self control in other areas of your life, eventually, your self control will become strong enough to quit those habits. You can apply this approach to every area of your life, start by making a list of virtues (patience, humility, courage, self discipline, etc), identify the ones you need to strengthen, then by making small steps you can start growing your virtues.

In explaining how the exercise of virtue leads to ultimate happiness Aristotle is wonderfully precise, he says, “virtue is a state of character concerned with choice”. Because the exercise of virtue demands “taking thought of things noble and divine”, this activity fulfills ones human function; and, Aristotle explains, activity according to the function of any particular thing is the “best and most pleasant for each thing”, and thereby leads to ultimate happiness / eudaimonia. The activity associated with living virtuously fulfills all the conditions of the ultimate good; it is the natural function of the human being, it is self-sufficient and loved for its own sake, and it causes all the other goods to arise. This shows Aristotle’s timeless genius, as he managed to combine philosophical contemplation with action, in such a way that each idea mutually reinforces the other to provide a practical approach to doing good and finding ultimate happiness.

Furthermore, Aristotle also related eudaimonia to politics; he saw a distinct relationship between ethics and the structure of the ‘polis’. Through the exercise of the virtues, Aristotle saw social and political forms arising that would further encourage education, exhibition of the virtues, and a society within which one could pursue the eudaimon life. When Aristotle said that eudaimonia was the chief good for ‘man’ he also meant this in a larger political context, with eudaimonia being possible for whole societies as well as for individuals.

Finally, we should finish with a beautiful quote of Aristotle’s, encapsulating his eternal visionary philosophy. The chief good exists when we “so far as we can, make ourselves immortal, and strain every nerve to live in accordance with the best thing in us”.

For further reading see:
Aristotle, selections from ‘Ethica Nicomachea (Nicomachean Ethics),’ trans W.D. Ross, in The Basic Works of Aristotle, edited by Richard McKeon (New York: Random House, 1941).
MacIntyre, Alasdair, ‘Aristotle’s account of the Virtues,’ in After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, 2nd ed. (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984).

Everyone is not just in it for themselves

Have you every heard someone say that “everyone’s just in it for themselves”, this belief is known in philosophy as psychological egoism and I believe it’s dead wrong. Worse still, it’s often just a justification for outright selfish behaviour.

Psychological egoists often refuse to see any act of kindness as non self-regarding, they always claim some selfish motive is behind every kind act. Interestingly, it is this refusal to accept any example of a non self-regarding act that betrays the vulnerability of their position, because if just one genuine example can be found of a non self-regarding act the whole theory falls down. By refusing to accept any example, believers in psychological egoism show that they see their position as certain, without any need for investigation. Psychological egoism is therefore not a theory about human nature based upon observing the real world; their position is held a priori.

Because psychological egoism has no empirical content there is no justification for believing that every act is self-regarding. Their position presupposes a self-regarding ulterior motive in the many ordinary acts of human kindness when there is no reason to suspect one, so watch out if you hold this position as it means you just don’t trust anyone. In making this assumption, psychological egoism also says that goodness is impossible, this is a terrible outlook to have on life.

Furthermore, psychological egoism is not an ethical or moral theory, because it deals directly with motivation it is instead a psychological theory. That’s why it’s called psychological egoism, it has nothing to do with morality at all. This is revealing, as the holders of this belief have self-interest in it being so, for if every act were self-regarding then no one would be blamed, or called immoral, for behaving in this manner. Thus, it is actually a justification for selfish behaviour, and/or a lack of faith in other people.

Finally, one can point to a clear logical error in psychological egoism arising from a confusion of two principles. The first of these is the belief that every act is done to satisfy some desire of our own, and the second is that every act is done to satisfy some self-regarding desire. Psychological egoism rightly applies to the first principle; however, it does not apply to the second principle, as ‘own desire’ is not the same as ‘self-regarding desire’. The satisfaction of our ‘own desire’ may actually lay in someone else’s happiness (so this cannot be called ‘self-regarding’). For example, this is the satisfaction we feel when something good happens to someone we care about (or the unhappiness we feel when something bad happens to them), in this case our satisfaction is dependent on caring about someone else and is therefore not self-regarding. Thus, psychological egoism is unable to be defended successfully, everyone is not ‘just in it for themselves’.

REFERENCES
This article owes much to the brilliant expose done by Bond, see – Bond, E.J., ‘Psychological Egoism,’ in Ethics and Human Well-Being (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996). However, it cannot be said enough, there’s too many selfish people using this excuse.

Advertisement for my favourite colour

Everyone you love, everyone you have ever known, everyone who ever lived, all our joy and sorrow, every faith, every patriot and traitor, every President and labourer, every couple in love, all our hopes and dreams, every mum and dad, every newborn babe, every painter and poet, every saint and sinner, moviestar, popstar, icon and great leader. All live in the last 1% of time passed on a small blue planet orbiting a medium star at the edge of the milky way galaxy – one of billions of galaxies that make up what we know of the universe.

Everything, on one insignificant but heavenly blue sphere.

What we are cannot be defined by our race, gender, age, religion, where we live or how much we earn. These details deny our interconnectedness represented by the jewel like blue ball that is Earth floating in space.

In this era of globalisation without a uniting global plan for all people and all life, the image of Earth as seen from space is given to us as a reminder of our humanity, our humility and our place in the greater scheme of all things.

To build upon this beautiful idea surround yourself in the colour of our home.

Earth Blue for understanding, life, health and truth.

Wear Blue, Buy Blue and Live Blue.

Blue is Earth

Blue is Us.

(Thanks to Carl Sagan for inspiration)

The Politics of ‘Asian values’

INTRODUCTION

To say that there is such a thing as Asian values, with the implications of uniform socially dominant values, is highly contentious given the religious, political, economical, and historical diversity that exists in Asia. As such, making the claim for ‘Asian Values’ is an inherently political statement as a claim is being made that a united perception of values exists within such a diverse region.

Therefore, I put forward the assertion that promoting the idea of ‘Asian Values’ is a deliberate political act by many of the regions political leaders; this is what is meant by the ‘politics of Asian Values’.

DEFINING ASIA

Central to the emergence of the ‘Asian Values’ concept in the international realm is the difficulty of defining Asia as a region. Although ‘where does Europe end?’ may also be a tricky question, Europe is still far easier to define than Asia. For example, are Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan part of Asia? They are defined in many an Atlas as being in a place called ‘Central Asia’. Furthermore, some may wish to anthropologically define Asia in relation to the spread of peoples of ‘Asiatic appearance’, however, the Hazara people of Afghanistan are of Asiatic appearance and are the indigenous people of Afghanistan.

Therefore, difficulties in defining Asia geographically are by passed by uniting Asia through so-called ‘Asian Values.’ A pertinent question exposing the politics behind what is currently called ‘Asian Values’ is asking how similar are the values of Hazara Shia Moslems, Bangkok Buddhist Thai’s, and North Korean communists; or even between the Chinese and the Japanese?

Benedict Anderson’s ‘Imagined Communities’, is aptly subtitled ‘Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism’, and is of particular relevance here insofar as imagining of a community is consistent with the political goals of nationalism. I propose that similar political motive, but in the context of regionalism, is apparent in the ‘Asian values’ discourse of modern political actors and commentators. Furthermore, the use of ‘Asian Values’ rhetoric to imagine a regional Asian community, is a deliberate attempt by political actors of a certain persuasion to favourably shape such values (and politics) in any arising regional community.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF VALUES

The centralisation of ‘Asian Values’ in the political discourse imagining regional Asia is notable in contrast to the position of history, religion, politics, and economy in the same discourse. One could argue that APEC and ASEAN show the centrality of economics to Asian regionalism, but economics may only be a uniting force of such strength in the modern era of economic globalisation. Furthermore, economic integration such as in the EEC is currently impossible in Asia due to the economic disparity between different Asian states. Simply compare the average annual income of people living in East Timor, China, Indonesia and North Korea, to those living in Japan and South Korea.

So, what of history, religion, and politics? Shouldn’t these forces be shaping ‘Asian Values’, as they have done in other regional areas? In Europe, it can be argued that European values spring from a common history, religion, and politics, this is not the case in Asia. Where European countries share Christianity, liberal democracy, the enlightenment, a monarchical history, classical antiquity and many other ‘value forming’ commonalities, Asia does not.

Of these forces religion is perhaps most commonly believed to be a force that shapes peoples values. In contrast to the almost complete domination of Europe by various forms of Christianity, Asia has great diversity in religions, there is Confucianism, Islam, Buddhism, Hindu, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, tribalism, and some would add communism to this list. It is easy to draw interesting cultural differences between Asian states that are associated with religion, while rival leader Anwar Ibrahim sat imprisoned in Moslem Malaysia for sodomy, Thai’s underwent gender reassignment in Buddhist Bangkok.

Similarly, politics vary enormously across Asia in comparison to Europe. Asia is a source of much political study due to the existence in the one region of monarchies, liberal democracies, authoritarian democracies,  Stalinist communism, modern communism, and Military dictatorships. Again, certain conclusions may be drawn about how values have developed in relation to the political environment. It could be said that the Chinese value family and commitment to community, whereas Japanese value western style individualism.

With such variation in religion and politics it is not surprising that the history of Asian states also varies tremendously. Japan has a long history of asserting its hegemony over others; much of Asia has been colonised as part of European empires, such as the Dutch, Portuguese, British, and French empires, and then there are others, such as Thailand that has mostly avoided these difficulties through exceptional diplomacy.

Furthermore, historical changes in state sovereignty have led to a diverse range of languages in use throughout Asia. Not only indigenous Asian languages, such as Bahasa Malaysian, Lao, and Japanese abound, but also those of the colonisers, such as Dutch, English, and French. Additionally, the long and still current history of tribalism in certain areas has given rise to a great many languages within a small geographical area, such as in Papua New Guinea where English is the official language (although it is not widely spoken) there are 715 local languages.

However, if you look more broadly at Asia’s history there are some similarities to explain the rise of authoritarian government, most notably the threat of communism during the cold war (or capitalism depending on whose side you’re on) and the need for rapid economic development. This history instilled in many Asian political actors a need for greater centralised power, thus giving rise to authoritarianism. Such a history caricaturises political opposition as being either threatening (communist) or destabilising for the economy. Taking this into consideration one can see how certain political leaders would espouse a certain set of conservative ‘Asian Values’; nevertheless, these values are not shared throughout Asia and therefore should not be called ‘Asian Values’.

If religious, political, economical, and historical forces shape our social and cultural values, then evidence for similar formative processes towards a uniform Asian set of values appears virtually non-existent. It is very pertinent to ask, on what basis is there a claim for a general consensus on Asian values within Asia? When looking at the sources one would expect to produce such value consensus, there appears to be very little to draw upon. In fact, the opposite appears true, that so much diversity within a region would lead to a range of values, not value consensus. This appears to be the case, that Asia has a host of greatly differing values due to the differences in politics, religion, history, and economics.

THE ORIGIN OF ASIAN VALUES

The use of ‘Asian Values’ to counter the spread of liberal democracy first appeared in Singapore in 1976. Seah Chee Meow proposed that the failure of parliamentary democracy in new Asian states was indicative of a lack of appreciation, relevance, or desirability of the majority of Asian peoples towards such systems of governance.

Interestingly, early discourse on ‘Asian Values’ identified the diversity of ‘Asian Values’, as much of this essay thus far has been at pains to express. Ho Wing Meng wrote: “It is therefore more appropriate to use the term ‘Asian Values’ to denote not a particular set of attitudes, beliefs and institutions which all Asian people share in common, but rather to refer to the great diversities which characterize Asian values as such, and which in the context of this discussion, pose serious difficulties to the task of modernizing Asia for social, economic and political development” (Subramaniam, Surain, 2000, ‘The Asian values Debate: Implications for the Spread of Liberal Democracy’ Asian Affairs, vol 27, no 1).

Central to the discourse on Asian values is Singapore’s ‘first minister’, Lee Kuan Yew who has expressed distaste for “the fads and fetishes, disorders and aberrations of contemporary Western societies” in relation to the modernisation of his country. Having only recently gained its independence in 1965 it’s not surprising that Singapore should seek for new ways to define itself. It is clear that Lee Kuan Yew felt that Singapore was in danger of becoming overly Westernised; his affirmation of Asian values can then be seen as a response to western cultural imperialism. In only a short time the articulation of Asian values by Lee Kuan Yew had spread beyond Singapore and had become part of the rhetoric used by many other Asian leaders.

Although the term ‘Asian Values’ clearly suggests homogenous values throughout Asia, it can also be understood to be a pragmatic political position taken by Asian leaders to find the best systems of governance for their specific state. This is quite a generous idea as leaders such as Lee Kuan Yew could have used ‘Singapore Values’ instead of ‘Asian Values’ if they really wanted to represent the unique values in their own state.

However, ‘Asian Values’ discourse has germinated in the minds of many conservative leaders throughout Asia. A general definition of ‘Asian Values’ can now be understood to contain the following: “Respect for authority, strong families, reverence for education, hard work, frugality, teamwork, and a balance between the individuals interests and those of society” (quote from – David I. Hitchcock, Asian Values and the United States: How Much Conflict? Washington D.C.: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1994, 2)

THE POLITICS OF ASIAN VALUES

Traditional Western liberal political thought has individualism at its centre; however, the aforementioned definition of ‘Asian Values’ includes “a balance between the individuals interests and those of society” (ibid). In reality however, the Singapore school of ‘Asian Values’ generally asserts that “the collective economic prosperity of society … outweigh(s) the rights of the individual” (Vatikiotis, Political Change in Southeast Asia, 91). Singapore’s ruling People’s Action Party has no qualms in setting the moral and ethical standards of society, this is in direct opposition to traditional Western liberal values, which asserts the neutrality of governments in these areas.

An honest reason for the ‘Asian Values’ position, particularly as expounded by Singapore’s PAP, would be “a principled defense of their reluctance to broaden political participation” (Fukuyama, “Asian Values and the Asian Crisis,” 24). Given the PAPs vice like grip on power this is one of the more believable reasons conservative values that put the individual’s rights in a subordinate position to the state would be promoted. Subramaniam states that “most proponents are representatives of the leadership elites in these ‘Asian-style’ democracies”,  furthermore, that “the Singapore regime uses the notion of the existence of a unique set of ‘Asian Values’ as a basis for the rejection of continued democratic reforms” (See – Christopher Lingle, Singapore’s Authoritarian Capitalism: Asian Values, Free Market Illusions, and Political Dependency, Fairfax, Va.: Locke Institute, 1996). South Korea’s Kim Dae Jung is a strong liberal democratic voice amongst Asian leaders whose career is marked by his opposition to authoritarianism, his universalist stance is at odds with the proponents of ‘Asian Values’, Kim Dae Jung writes: “Asian authoritarians misunderstand the relationship between the rules of effective governance and the concept of legitimacy. Policies that try to protect people from the bad elements of economic and social change will never be effective if imposed without consent; the same policies, arrived at through public debate, will have the strength of Asia’s proud and self-reliant people” (Kim Dae Jung, “Is Culture Destiny? The Myth of Asia’s Anti-Democratic Values,” Foreign Affairs 73, no. 6, November/December 1994, 189-94).

Of particular relevance in the ‘Asian Values’ debate is the idea that ‘liberal democracy’ is actually two things, ‘liberalism’ and ‘democracy’. In understanding the misuse of the word democracy George Orwell is illuminating: “In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning” (George Orwell, Politics and the English Language. Accessed on the internet at http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html).

This eloquent statement of Orwell’s seems to counter the argument put forward by Emmerson that “… the debate about them (Asian Values) must be taken seriously by students of ‘democracy’ because it challenges us to consider what we mean by that term [democracy]. For if differing societies may democratically implement differing views of the relative importance of social order versus individual rights, it follows that alongside rights-tilted or liberal democracies there could be nonliberal–or at any rate less liberal–variants of democracy” (Emmerson, “Singapore and the `Asian Values’ Debate,” 96).

In comparing Orwell and Emmerson’s position I am more inclined to agree with Orwell, to apply his ideas to this issue I would suggest that the absence of a definition of democracy does not necessarily mean a state is a democracy just because it says so. For example, I assert that Singapore is not a democracy and that the term ‘illiberal democracy’ as some propose (Most notably proposed by Daniel A. Bell, David Brown; Kanishka Jayasuriya, and David Martin Jones, eds., Towards Illiberal Democracy in Pacific Asia, Oxford: St. Martin’s Press, 1996) is an oxy-moron, ‘illiberal’ and ‘democracy’ just do not go together. While there is a wealth of academic literature espousing the historical and theoretical differences between constitutional liberalism and democracy, there is an inherent danger in too broadly defining democracy and thus rendering it useless. In the case of Singapore not only does the government overrule liberal norms, but also the level of interference in the electoral process, through government action against legitimate opposition, brings the whole notion of Singaporean democracy into disrepute.

If we grant Singapore international legitimacy by calling it a democracy I suggest we are fooling ourselves indeed. Other academic work supports this idea, that without liberalism there can be no real democracy: “although constitutional liberalism has led to democracy, the reverse is seldom true. Democracy does not necessarily bring about constitutional liberalism” (Fareed Zakaria, “The Rise of Illiberal Democracy,” Foreign Affairs 76, no. 6, November/December 1997: 22-43). On this basis I assert that thinking about liberalism separate from democracy is a path away from true democracy (whatever that is), if we take up Orwell’s challenge to define democracy I suggest that any satisfactory definition will necessarily include reference to liberalism.

The Asian values discourse then, is in my opinion, an attempt to deceive the international community into believing that countries such as Singapore are in fact democracies, the same could also be said of Malaysia with its imprisonment of Anwar Ibrahim. These countries are not democracies; they are using the falsehood of homogenous ‘Asian Values’ to support authoritarian regimes when in fact Asia is a multicultural heterogenous diverse region. This deception, having been successful in securing international democratic status for Singapore, Malaysia, and others, is now being used to place conservative authoritarian values in a regional context.

Of great relevance to this debate is the use of ‘Asian values’ to marginalise political opponents within Asia, as the concept of Asian values gains ground in the political domain, those who disagree with some aspects of these values are being categorised as ‘un-Asian’ (sound familiar?). Moreover, the conservatism inherent within these ‘Asian Values’ means that the tag of ‘un-Asian’ applies more to progressive and less conservative political actors (see – Rodan, Garry, 1996, “The Internationalisation of ideological conflict: Asia’s new significance”, The Pacific Review, vol 9, no 3). In this context it is easy to draw some similarities with what it means to be ‘un-Australian’, and we can see how such Asian values are part of the rhetoric of nationalism. Furthermore, apart from marginalising internal political opponents within Asia, ‘Asian values’ also undermines external political influence.

CONCLUSION

In rejecting the Singaporean school of ‘Asian Values’ one is led to look for alternative consistent values throughout the region, one early commentator noted that “the most obvious signs of unity in Asia are, paradoxically, those of Western influence” (see – Steadman, John; 1969, The Myth of Asia, London: Macmillan). Given Asia’s diversity, the more homogenous Western influence would stand out, then fear of Western cultural imperialism is significant in the development of ‘Asian Values’.

The additional political mileage of being able to marginalise political opponents as ‘un-Asian’ is a bonus, a bonus that has been pounced upon as a way of legitimating authoritarian rule. Yet I suggest that there are ‘Asian Values’ that are completely different to the conservative values being pushed at present, I refer again to the earlier quote by Ho Wing Meng where the diversity of Asia is expressed. This Asian diversity has developed a high degree of tolerance in the region through a history of interacting with differing religions, cultures, languages, and politics. It could be argued then that Asian values are actually pluralistic and not conservative.

To support this idea one has only to look at political developments throughout Asia from the 80s onwards, which has seen a general collapse of authoritarianism. Beginning with the end of the Marcos regime in the Philippines; followed by the fall of military and civilian dictatorships in South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand; and the events of Tiananmen Square in China. The 90s began with the National League for Democracy winning 392 out of 485 seats in Burma; Taiwan has elected the pro-independence democratic candidate China most disapproved of; the Soeharto regime finished in Indonesia and regular democratic elections now take place; and Hong Kong citizens demand more democratic autonomy, more vociferously every year since the handover of sovereignty to China. Irrespective of the push for conservative ‘Asian Values’, more Asian people are demanding more liberal democracy with every passing year.

Two significant forces appear set to push Asia further along the path towards Western liberalism, rapid development and globalisation. Both these forces are responsible for the opening of new political space throughout Asia, private business owners, middle classes, NGOs, labour organisations, women’s movements, and others, are all today exercising political power in the new spaces that have appeared.

As these forces continue to provide supranational, subnational, and transterritorial space for individuals and organisation to act, so I predict we will see a liberalising of Asia. As the strains of ‘The Internationale’ remind us “change will not come from above”, so too will authoritarian governments fail to adapt and change in relation to these forces. More often the world will see the likes of Aung San Suu Kyi making use of the new political spaces to empower Asian people to define their own values. It is my contention that these values will emerge as pluralist. So long as ‘Asian Values’ are defined as conservative they will fail to represent Asian peoples. In the long run I predict a victory for the natural tolerance and diversity throughout Asia.

Finally, I assert that it is of global importance that Asian people find their voice above the rhetoric of politically motivated conservative ‘Asian Values’. Such a voice will be important for the West that has moved excessively to the right, away from liberalism and towards capitalism, following the end of the cold war. In the end I predict a triumph for the Universalists in the debate over ‘Asian Values.’

To finish, in contrast to the denunciation of the West by Lee Kuan Yew who places the blame on ‘values’, Aung San Suu Kyi espouses what ‘genuine Asian Values’ (or is it Universalism?) may have to offer the West as a necessary critique of the modern age.

“Many of the worst ills of American society, increasingly to be found in other developed countries, can be traced not to the democratic legacy but to the demands of modern materialism. Gross individualism and cut-throat morality arise when political and intellectual freedoms are curbed on the one hand while on the other fierce economic competitiveness is encouraged by making material success the measure of prestige and progress” (Aung San Suu Kyi, 1994, ‘Empowerment for a culture of peace and development’, address to a meeting of the World Commission on Culture and Development. 21 November, presented on behalf of the author by Corizon Aquino).

How the values of the Roman nobility led to the fall of the Roman Republic

The values and goals of the Roman nobility link on many levels, consequently I have used subheadings (Roman virtues, civic virtues, religion & philosophy, ancestral standards and business ethics) before dealing with the associated problems.

ROMAN VIRTUES

With Rome almost constantly at war martial talents such as bravery and physical training became core roman values. Although Plutarch writes retrospectively, his description of Marcellus as “glowing and burning with desire to return to the war” is typical of Roman nobility’s warlust, Polybius also provides primary evidence for brave actions in his time. (“Many Romans have volunteered to engage in single combat so as to decide a whole battle, and not a few have chosen certain death.” From – Polybius 6.53-54) Accompanying virtues are endurance, self-discipline and perseverance; Plutarch praises Cato for maintaining these virtues until old age. (“everybody admired Cato, when they saw others sink under labours, and grow effeminate by pleasures; and yet beheld him unconquered by either, and that not only when he was young and desirous of honor, but also when old and grey headed, after a consulship and triumph; like some famous victor in the games, persevering in his exercise and maintaining his character to the very last.” Plutarch) Oratory skills are also admired when put to practical ends and Plutarch provides a description of Marcellus encouraging his soldiers (Two sections are particularly pertinent. “Marcellus was the one man who overcame the great and inveterate fear and dread, and revived, raised, and confirmed the spirits of the soldiers to that degree of emulation and bravery, that would not let them easily yield the victory, but made them contend for it to the last.” And “… were by him (Marcellus) taught to esteem it base and ignominious to return safe but unsuccessful; to be ashamed to confess that they had yielded one step in the terrors of the fight; and to grieve to extremity if they were not victorious.” Both these descriptions are taken from Plutarch).

Learning, wisdom and knowledge are also valued; Velleius Paterculus retrospectively attributes these to Scipio Aemilianus (“Scipio was a cultivated patron and admirer of liberal studies and of every form of learning, and kept constantly with him, at home and in the field, two men of eminent genius, Polybius and Panaetius. No one ever relieved the duties of active life by a more refined use of his intervals of leisure than Scipio, or was more constant in his devotion to the arts either of war of peace. Ever engaged in the pursuit of arms or his studies, he was either training his body by exposing it to dangers or his mind by learning.” Velleius Paterculus 1.13.2-5). Similarly, having many children, receiving public honours and honourably obtaining wealth are mentioned by Pliny who provides secondary evidence of this in Quintus Metellus’ eulogy for his father in which he lists the “ten greatest and highest objects in the pursuit of which wise men pass their lives” (“his father had achieved the ten greatest and highest objects in the pursuit of which wise men pass their lives: for he had made it his aim to be a first class warrior, a supreme orator and a very brave commander, to have the direction of operations of the highest importance, to enjoy the greatest honour, to be supremely wise, to be deemed the most eminent member of the senate, to obtain great wealth in an honourable way, to leave many children, and to achieve supreme distinction in the state; and that these things had fallen to his father’s lot, and to that of no one else since Rome’s foundation.” Pliny, Natural History 7.139). Specific public honours bestowed upon the young Scipio Aemilianus are also listed by Velleius Paterculus (“He had already received in Spain the mural crown, and in Africa the corona obsidionalis for his bravery” Velleius Paterculus 1.12.2-13.1)

However, primary evidence for a precise list of qualities admired by nobility are found in the tomb inscription of Publius Cornelius Scipio praising his “office, fame, virtus, glory and natural talent” (honos fama virtusque gloria atque ingenium – Translation taken from – Earl, Donald; The Moral and Political Tradition of Rome, Thames and Hudson, p.22) Finally, both Plutarch (Auctoritas is what Plutarch describes when the Syracusans attempted to impeach Metellus. “…but they, struck with consternation by his majesty and confidence, stood astonished, and the power of his presence now, in his robe of state, appeared far more terrible and severe than it had done when he was arrayed in armour.”) and Cicero (The men Cicero is speaking about here are Lucius Aemilius Paulus, Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus and Quintus Fabius Maximus. “Men such as these displayed authority not only in what they said but by their merest nod, and the authority which belongs to old age, especially when enhanced by a distinguished record, is more precious that all the pleasures of youth.” Cicero, Cato Maior de Senectute XVII, 60.) describe particularly eminent men’s auctoritas.

CIVIC VIRTUES

However, for Roman nobility virtues only mattered when they served Rome. This inextricable link between civic and personal virtue informs Roman nobility’s values. As Earl explains, “the service of the state went hand in hand with self-interest”, also pointing out that “all Roman political invective shows an obsession with morality,” thus revealing this nexus between personal and civic virtue. Plutarch also records Cato saying he only wanted remembrance for honours that advantaged Rome (“and when any seemed to wonder, that he should have never a statue, while many ordinary persons had one; “I would,” said he, “much rather be asked, why I have not one, than why I have one.” In short, he would not have any honest citizen endure to be praised, except it might prove advantageous to the commonwealth.” Plutarch).

Moreover, a political career, attaining high office, doing important works and state distinction were noble’s goals (“to have the direction of operations of the highest importance, … to be deemed the most eminent member of the senate … and to achieve supreme distinction in the state…” Pliny, Natural History 7.139); primary evidence exists on tomb inscriptions praising political achievements (There are many inscriptions to these ends but here’s one that stands out from the inscription on the tomb of Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Hispanus – probably son of Hispallus, praetor peregrinus in 139 B.C. “Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Hispanus, son of Gnaeus. Praetor, curule aedile, quaestor, tribune of soldiers (twice); member of the Board of Ten for Judging Law-suits; member of the Board of Ten for Making Sacrifices.” Cn. Cornelius Cn. f. Scipio Hispanus pr. aid. cur. q. tr. mil. II Xvir sl. iudik. Xvir sacr. fac). However, Rome always comes first. The senacula was a senatorial waiting room; such buildings provide indirect evidence that senators were expected to be readily available for state duties.

Furthermore, the philosophical notion underpinning Cicero’s ‘On Duties’, that balancing self interest against morally right action is a false dilemma (according to Cicero what is morally right is all that needs to be considered), owes much to earlier values of state duty. Additionally, Cicero argues elsewhere that “the finest and noblest characters prefer a life of dedication to a life of self-indulgence.” Thus, Cicero’s republicanism and praise of the past expose his philosophy as a synthesis of earlier republican attitudes.

RELIGION & PHILOSOPHY

Rome was not secular, auspices were observed and religious rituals were regular activities (Livy regularly includes portents and subsequent senate meetings and religious proceedings throughout his histories), Plutarch explains that respecting religious observances trumped political action (“So much were all things at Rome made to depend upon religion; they would not allow any contempt of the omens and the ancient rites, even though attended with the highest success; thinking it to be of more importance to the public safety, that the magistrates should reverence the gods, than that they should overcome their enemies.” Plutarch). Religious office also enhanced “a politician’s dignity and prestige.”

However, the utilitarian Roman used religion to serve particular ends while metaphysical philosophy wasn’t highly regarded. Here Romans differ from Greeks; Plutarch betrays his Greek heritage when praising Archimedes disdain for engineering (“though these inventions had now obtained him the renown of more than human sagacity, he yet would not deign to leave behind him any commentary or writing on such subjects; but, repudiating as sordid and ignoble the whole trade of engineering, and every sort of art that lends itself to mere use and profit, he placed his whole affection and ambition in those purer speculations where there can be no reference to the vulgar needs of life”) and although Marcellus was distressed at Archimedes death, his respect was probably for Archimedes military engineering skills.

Furthermore, philosophy was even seen as dangerous, when Diogenes and Carneades arrived from Athens, Cato’s concern was that Roman youth would be distracted from doing well by speaking well (“but Cato, on the other side, seeing this passion for words flowing into the city, from the beginning, took it ill, fearing lest the youth should be diverted that way, and so should prefer the glory of speaking well before that of arms, and doing well.” Plutarch). Consequently, Cato invented a pretence to move all philosophers out of Rome. Also, in 139 BC a praetor’s edict expelled all astrologers from Rome and Italy (The reason being – ‘by their false interpretation of the stars and by their lies they were confusing shallow minds for their own financial profit’).

However, not all philosophers were unwelcome as the stoic Panaetius befriended Scipio Aemilianus. Stoicism provided a philosophic basis for Roman values such as virtus, pietas and gravitas, appealing to Romans for its application to everyday life. Plutarch’s description of Marcellus awaiting sentencing over the Syracusan impeachment shows his stoic nature (“Marcellus left his colleague to ask the sentences, and withdrawing with the Syracusans, staid expecting at the doors of the senate-house; not in the least discomposed in spirit, either with alarm at the accusation, or by anger against the Syracusans; but with perfect calmness and serenity attending the issue of the cause.” Plutarch). Seneca also later embodies Roman stoicism in the imperial age.

ANCESTRAL STANDARDS

The prerequisite for nobility was having a consul as an ancestor and Roman nobility strove to equal or surpass their ancestor’s achievements. Importantly, the presence of ones ancestors (via death masks) and repeated eulogies of their achievements at family funerals reinforced this desire. Polybius provides primary evidence of this influence on young nobles (“by this constant renewal of the good report of brave men, the fame of those who have performed any noble deed is made immortal, and the renown of those who have served their country well becomes a matter of common knowledge and a heritage for posterity. But the most important consequence of the ceremony is that it inspires young men to endure the extremes of suffering for the common good in the hope of winning the glory that waits upon the brave.” Polybius 6.53-54) and Sallust’s writings agree (“I have often heard that Quintus Fabius Maximus, Publius Scipio, and other eminent men of our country, were in the habit of declaring that their hearts were set mightily aflame for the pursuit of virtue whenever they gazed upon the masks of their ancestors … it is the memory of great deeds that kindles in the breasts of outstanding men this flame that cannot be quelled until they by their own prowess (virtus) have equalled the fame (fama) and glory (gloria) of their ancestors.” Sallust The Jugurthine War 4.5 – Loeb trans., modified). The pursuit of gloria also became the burden of the whole family – ancestors, the living and future generations (“Thus the ideal of the Roman aristocracy in its earliest expression known to us. It consisted in the gaining of pre-eminent gloria by the winning of public office and the participation in public life and by using these methods to achieve great deeds in the service of the state. It concerned not only the individual noble but the whole family, not only its living members but the dead ancestors and the unborn posterity.” Earl, Donald; The Moral and Political Tradition of Rome, Thames and Hudson, p.35), while regularly praising ancestors similarly influenced the whole of Roman society.

Importantly, the conversation recorded by Polybius between himself and Scipio Aemilianus is primary evidence that gives understanding of Scipio’s intense ambition (“ambition to prove himself worthy of his distinguished ancestry, a worthy grandson of Africanus; ambition for honour and glory, for military success and consequent fame, ambition to be a great and popular hero, to be the outstanding man in the state.” Astin, A. E., Scipio Aemilianus, Oxford, Clarendon Press, p.21). Cicero also has Cato speaking about belief in posterity as the reason for “mighty deeds” (“No one will ever convince me, my dear Scipio, that your father Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus, or your grandfathers Lucius Aemilius Paullus and Publius Cornelius Africanus, or the father or uncle of that Africanus, or other men too numerous to be named, would have done such mighty deeds to be remembered by posterity, if they had not understood that posterity was theirs.” Cicero, Cato Maior de Senectute, XXI, 77). Finally, some nobility even asserted Gods as ancestors; Suetonius describes Julius Caesar eulogising his Aunt Julia in this way (“When quaestor, he pronounced the customary orations from the rostra in praise of his aunt Julia and his wife Cornelia, who had both died. And in the eulogy of his aunt he spoke in the following terms of her paternal and maternal ancestry and that of his own father: “The family of my aunt Julia is descended by her mother from the kings, and on her father’s side is akin to the immortal Gods; for the Marcii Reges (her mother’s family name) go back to Ancus Marcius, and the Julii, the family of which ours is a branch, to Venus. Our stock therefore has at once the sanctity of kings, whose power is supreme among mortal men, and the claim to reverence which attaches to the Gods, who hold sway over kings themselves.”" Suetonius, Life of Julius 6.1).

BUSINESS ETHICS

The conservative Roman nobility were landowners, Plutarch describes Cato as “lay(ing) out his money in safe and solid things” (“resolving, therefore, to lay out his money in safe and solid things, he purchased ponds, hot baths, grounds full of fuller’s earth, remunerative lands, pastures, and woods; from all which he drew large returns.”). Moreover, Livy explains that “any form of trade (as) being beneath a senators dignity”, Earl also quotes several sources for this opinion.

Additionally, abstemious values and disdain for extravagance curtailed nobles’ business activities. Plutarch describes public appreciation for Marcellus bringing Syracusan artworks to Rome while the nobility admired Fabius more for not bringing such things from Tarentum (“Marcellus was more popular with the people in general, because he had adorned the city with beautiful objects that had all the charms of Grecian grace and symmetry; but Fabius Maximus, who neither touched nor brought away anything of this kind from Tarentum, when he had taken it, was more approved of by the elder men.” Plutarch). Furthermore, Cato was particularly abstemious, Plutarch describes him rejecting the Samnites present of gold explaining “he thought it more honorable to conquer those who possessed the gold, than to possess the gold itself.” However, primary evidence for abstemious Roman attitudes exists through several sumptuary laws such as the Oppian law (215 BC, which mostly limited female extravagance, 20 years later Cato opposed its repeal. Livy provides a narrative for the commotion this repeal created amongst the women in Rome. Livy XXIV 1-8) and the Orchian law (181 BC, which limited the number of guests at a party, Cato again vehemently oppose its repeal. For details of Cato’s speech see – Macrobius, Saturnalia, III.17.3º; Festus, s.vv. Obsonitavere, Percunctatum).

PROBLEMS

There are three main problems with the Roman aristocratic ethos of this period.

Firstly, as landowners the senate became over-concerned with land issues and often ignored the publics land interests, leading to the Gracchan land reform difficulties that heralded the republics demise.

Secondly, with emphasis on civic virtue, Roman nobles became overly focussed on Rome leading to misgovernment and abuse of foreign colonies. Additionally, Roman treaties that made conquered opponents recognise the maiestas of the Roman people supports Adcock’s statement that “many Romans had come to believe they were a master race.”

Thirdly, intense ambition arising from ancestor worship. Both Livy (“In my opinion the record has been corrupted by funeral orations and the false inscriptions attached to family portraits, with every family endeavouring to appropriate to itself the reputation and credit for achievements and magistracies by falsification and deception.” Livy 8.40.3-5) and Cicero (“Yet by these laudatory speeches our history has become quite distorted; for much is set down in them which never occurred, false triumphs, too large a number of consulships, false relationships and transitions of patricians to plebeian status…” Cicero, Brutus 62) complain about exaggerated eulogies falsifying the historical record; Sallust explains how descendants of famous ancestors were constantly under scrutiny (“The glory of ancestors (maiorum gloria) is, as it were, a light shining upon their posterity, suffering neither their virtues nor their faults to be hidden.” Sallust The Jugurthine War 85); mythical godlike ancestors only worsened the situation. Thus, Rome’s nobility became a society of over-achievers, aiming for exaggerated mythical ancestral pinnacles of success.

Consequently, such ambition undermined the state. Through populist means, Scipio Aemilianus circumvented political process, creating an atmosphere where individuals would consider unconstitutional methods to fulfil ambitions. Sallust provides philosophic insight describing ambition as “a fault which after all comes nearer to being a virtue” (Sallust’s analysis reminds me of Aristotle’s notion that virtue falls between two vices and we should aim for the middle path (or temperance). “At first, however, it was not so much avarice as ambition that disturbed men’s minds – a fault which after all comes nearer to being a virtue. For distinction, preferment, and power are the desire of good and bad alike – only, the one strives to reach his goal by honourable means, while the other, being destitute of good qualities, falls back on craft and deceit.” Sallust, Catilinae Coniuratio, 10,6). Finally, Dio also saw that “Scipio’s ambition was greater than was in keeping with his general excellence.”

In retrospective Roman histories we find this as a recurring theme. Aulus Gellius described M. Manlius Capitolinus possessing “in himself a great equipment for over-throwing the republic” (“He (M. Manlius Capitolinus), excelled in person, in exploits, in eloquence, in position, in energy, and confidence alike, so that it was easily seen that he possessed from himself and in himself a great equipment for over-throwing the republic.” Aulus Gellius, 17.2.13). Livy recounts the debate between Scipio Africanus and Fabius Maximus where Scipio sees ambitious jealousy as potentially harmful to the whole world (“I myself am convinced that the noblest minds compare themselves not only with their contemporaries but with great men in every age; nor do I pretend, Fabius, that I do not wish to rival your fame – indeed, if you will pardon my saying so, my ambition is to surpass it if I can. I hope your attitude towards me, and mine towards younger men, may never be such that we are unwilling for anyone else to come in time to be as we are; for jealousy like that would be harmful not only to its immediate objects, but to the country as a whole – indeed to the world.” Livy, Book XXVIII, 43). Finally, at the end of the republic Cicero encapsulates the moral of the whole Roman Republican story. “So everyone ought to have the same purpose: to make the interest of each the same as the interest of all. For if men grab for themselves, it will mean the complete collapse of human society.”

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ANCIENT SOURCES

Aulus Gellius, 17.2.13

Cicero, Brutus 62

Cicero, Cato Maior de Senectute (on old age), XXI, 77

Cicero, De Officiis I, 150f

Cicero, In Verrum II, ii, 122

Cicero, How to Make the Right Decisions. Transl. Michael Grant in Latin Literature: An Anthology. (NY, Penguin Books)

Dio, fgt. 84. I.

Festus, s.vv. Obsonitavere, Percunctatum

Livy, books VIII, XXI, XXII, XXIV, XXV, XXVIII, XXIX.

Macrobius, Saturnalia, III.

Pliny, Natural History

Polybius 6.53-54

Polybius 31.23-24 (penguin translation)

Plutarch, Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans; translated by Dryden, edited by A. H. Clough; made available online by the University of Adelaide library at http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/p/plutarch/

Sallust, Catilinae Coniuratio, (Penguin classics)

Sallust, The Jugurthine War, (Penguin classics)

Suetonius, Life of Julius

Valerius Maximus III

Velleius Paterculus 1.12.2-13.1 and 1.13.2-5

MODERN SOURCES

Adcock, F. E., Roman Political Ideas and Practice (University of Michigan Press)

Astin, A. E., Scipio Aemilianus (Oxford, Clarendon Press)

Earl, Donald; The Moral and Political Tradition of Rome (Thames and Hudson)

Scullard, H.H., From the Gracchi to Nero, (1982, 5th edition, London)

The insidious & inhuman nature of structuralist approaches to literature

Structuralism reveals its inadequacy when one compares the work of Ferdinand de Saussure with M.H. Abrams. Much of modern education is based upon a structuralist approach yet this distracts us from the reality of our human experience, a need only answered by romantic conceptions of literature. The structuralist position that meaning is only arrived at once the words are written is absurd; meaning does exist without words and without structure. So to blatantly make a point I’m saying that M.H. Abrams is right, and that Saussure is an inhuman structuralist who would have been one of the first forced into flowers following the romantic revolution! Here’s a deliberately emotive argument about why we need to look to romanticism over structuralism in english education.

W.H. Auden talked about how language obscures truth, I agree, language often (but not always) limits the expression of truth and meaning. To support this contention I point to the epistemological debate between ‘revealed knowledge’ and ‘modern rationalism’. A religious person will tell you they ‘know truth’ but will find it difficult or impossible to rationally defend their position. I don’t think this weakens their position, it definitely doesn’t weaken their belief, and faith / belief of all kinds is hardly showing signs of going away. Religious people are desperate to communicate what they believe; they are limited by language. Similarly, lovers often choke when trying to express themselves. We have all felt the limits of language at some point.

Saussure’s confusion arises from imposing limits upon what language tries to express; we need to realise that it is a tool to express everything an individual may experience. Some may argue that we cannot think without putting words to our thoughts, however, thinking is not all that language tries to communicate, we can also feel without putting words to our feelings. The point is that language has to communicate far more than just thoughts and feelings, there is more in the scope of human experience than language can ever express. The scope of experience is infinite, language is finite.

Saussure’s theories led to structuralism and determinism. In many ways they limit free will, they devalue the ability of humans, seeing their work as only determined by specific structures. This is almost a denial of individuality, of the idea that people are responsible for their own actions, or meanings. These are ancient philosophical debates: Is ‘beauty’ an absolute form that exists on another plane, and recognition of beauty on earth just our souls being reminded of this eternal beauty from whence we came (Plato)? Or, are concepts like ‘absolute forms’ and ‘beauty’ merely man made rationalist categories that have no external reality (William of Ockham)? I prefer Plato, that the artist imagines something far more beautiful than they could ever create on earth, and struggles with the materials for the artistic creation; be they marble, music or metaphors. Abrams also agrees with Plato, he talks about “the light of the writer’s inner soul spilled out to illuminate the world”. This is a beautiful idea, the truth of which my own revealed knowledge fails to express in the finite structure of language (humour intended).

To see meaning as contained only in the actual words is also dangerous in some contexts. Elaboration of all the various meanings in certain texts leads to endless debate and subsequent indecision. As experts debate narrow divisions of meaning, arising purely from syntax, political division and indecision continues on major issues, such as world poverty, the environment, etc. Put the same text in another language and another syntax arises with more associated meanings. My point is that we should see language as a limiter in some contexts, efforts should be made to understand the actual meaning in many political discussions, instead of teasing out additional and unintended meanings to fuel further division.

However, I do easily concede that the associated connotations arising from texts allows us as writers to find new meanings that we otherwise did not originally imagine, think or feel (that is why there is the ‘but not always’ in brackets earlier on). Nevertheless, this does not account for writing where the imagination has come first; it is only a possible outcome, and connotations change with time, timeless literature still contains meaningful truths that are timeless.

Shelley makes some wonderful comments on poetry; he says that it makes the usual appear unusual, and in so doing changes our perspectives and enlarges our imagination. He contends that it is through the expansion of our imagination we are able to develop morality and love more deeply and universally. What has this to do with the topic you may ask? Well, Saussure’s ideas, and structuralism in general, tends to lessen the importance of the human in the creation of a text, and this lessens the role of imagination, feelings, love, etc; and so to finish, here is a quote from Abrams: “We are human, and nothing is more interesting to us than humanity. The appeal of literature is that it is so thoroughly a human thing — by, for and about human beings. If you lose that focus, you obviate the source of the power and permanence of literature.”

An exhortation to study the spiritual experience of astronauts

THE COMMUNICATIVE AND CATHARTIC ROLES OF ARTISTIC EXPRESSION BY EXPLORERS ON LONG TERM EXPEDITIONS

“What did they send me for? They should have sent a poet.”

ABSTRACT

This is an exhortation for research to understand more about the communicative and cathartic roles of artistic expression by explorers on long term expeditions in relation to spiritual experience, in particular relation to space travel. The hypothesis is that artistic expression is useful to the mental well being of the explorer, and as a communication tool for profound and personal experiences.

INTRODUCTION

Far too little appears to have been done in studying the subjective – emotional, psychological and spiritual – experiences of explorers. As humanity enters an era of space exploration the personal experiences of astronauts should be taken more seriously, particularly because astronauts themselves have felt compelled to communicate these experiences.

I have chosen to use the term spiritual quite a lot as many astronauts themselves use this term. Spiritual does not fit in well with conventional science, what is the spiritual? Whatever it is it’s something that many astronauts have felt compelled to talk about on returning from space flight, so to them at least, much about space exploration has not been communicated. Something inspires them to communicate this scientifically unconventional idea of spiritual change.

Bearing in mind our limited perspectives as Earth dwellers, I suggest that something new and important is happening in space flight that is being missed by our Earth centred research. Here in brief are some of the spiritual responses of astronauts themselves:

Frank Borman
Frank Borman was commander of the first space crew to travel beyond the Earth’s orbit. Looking down on the earth from 250,000 miles in space, Borman radioed back a message, reading from Genesis 1: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” As he explained in a recent interview, “I had an enormous feeling that there had to be a power greater than any of us—that there was a God, that there was indeed a beginning.”

Gene Cernan
Gene Cernan was the last astronaut to walk on the moon from Apollo 17, When asked what he recalled from the journey in a recent interview he replied: “It was an awesome picture. Unreal. From there everything seems so serene, peaceful. It’s too beautiful. I thought then, and today also, that there must have been some Creator — only He would have been capable of bringing about such a creation as the Earth. I’m sure that viewing the world from the moon only enriched me spiritually and also gave me a new vantage point on life . . . Anyone who walked on the moon had such a spiritual experience, similar to it or stronger” (From the article Seeing ourselves from Outer Space by Yitzchok Roth, in Dei’ah veDibur information and insight, 17 Adar, 5763, February 19, 2003).

Charles Duke
Charles Duke, who followed Irwin to the moon, later became active in Christian missionary work. He has an Episcopal ministry and speaks frequently at religious gatherings around the country. As he puts it, “I make speeches about walking on the moon and walking with the Son – the Son of God, that is.”

Guy Gardner
Guy Gardner is a veteran astronaut and a member of Charles Duke’s own congregation who often speaks in churches on the reality of God.

James Irwin

James Irwin, who walked on the moon in 1971, later became an evangelical minister and founded a Baptist ministry. He often describes the lunar mission as a revelation. In his words, “I felt the power of God as I’d never felt it before.” Irwin dedicated the rest of his life to his religion here is quoted a section from his book More than Earthlings. “I am now more than an earthling, because I have walked on the moon. Being on the moon had a profound spiritual impact upon my life. Before I entered space with the Apollo 15 mission in July of 1971, I was a lukewarm Christian, to say the least! I was even a silent Christian, but I feel the Lord sent me to the moon so I could return to the earth and share his Son, Jesus Christ”.Edgar Mitchell
Edgar Mitchell was the sixth man on the moon as the lunar module pilot on Apollo 14. He reported a profound spiritual experience during the mission. Upon his return to Earth, he said, “On the return trip home, gazing through 240,000 miles of space toward the stars and the planet from which I had come, I suddenly experienced the universe as intelligent, loving, harmonious. My view of our planet was a glimpse of divinity… We went to the moon as technicians, we returned as humanitarians.”

Later on in the magazine Omni Mitchell said that it was an “explosion of awareness, an aha! A wow.” Omni added that what it meant to Mitchell was that God was real (although Mitchell’s is not a biblical God) and something more. The article goes on to explain that Mitchell “came to realise that the universe is made of matter and spirit but that they are not separate. The bridge is consciousness. God is something like a universal consciousness, manifest in each individual, and the route to divine reality and to a more satisfying human material reality is through the human consciousness”.

After this experience, the study of consciousness became Mitchell’s major interest. To pursue these ideas, Mitchell changed his life. In October 1972, two years after Apollo 14, he resigned from NASA and the Navy and founded the Institute of Noetic (from the Greek nous, meaning mind) Sciences to study human consciousness. Mitchell became convinced that scientific methodology could be employed to explain telepathy, psychic healing, and other paranormal events (this is the basic assumption underlying the discipline of parapsychology). He wrote in the book Mind at Large that “there are no unnatural or supernatural phenomena, only very large gaps in our knowledge of what is natural….We should strive to fill these gaps of ignorance.”

John White, co founder of the institute of Noetic Sciences said of Mitchell’s experience “It was clear to Ed, from the moment he had an epiphany or a religious experience in the space capsule coming back to Earth, that the problems besetting humanity are not inherent in the natural world. Social divisions and conflict and strife and all the political troubles, he saw that those problems arose at the level of the human mind, or human consciousness.”

DISCUSSION

With so many Astronauts committing themselves to some form of spirituality it can be seen that something spiritual does occur when humans leave the Earth. That these Astronauts have different spiritual leanings suggests they might struggle to understand their experiences in relation to their normal lives, and that these experiences may be beyond their limits of understanding. If this is so, a richer form of communication could be essential for those on Earth to understand these spiritual experiences, I believe art may be a useful form of communication in such circumstances.

May I be so bold as to suggest that this should have been obvious, how much of the understanding of human history have we gained through art? Painting, poetry, and music have been tremendously important in enabling humanity to understand and communicate many profound experiences. We are fortunate that the Astronauts have been compelled to provide some literature for us on the subject of their spiritual experiences. We owe a debt of gratitude to Jim Irwin, Frank Borman, Gene Cernan, Charles Duke, Guy Gardner, Edgar Mitchell and others of their like, for providing humanity with work beyond their call of duty. That the Astronauts themselves are compelled to do this work may belie the true importance and significance of it.

FURTHER RESEARCH

A collection of artistic and spiritual work done by Astronauts could inspire research in this area, it would be important not to vilify or ridicule any spiritual opinions no matter how far out they may seem. We should remember that Astronauts have had a perspective very few humans have had, this perspective should be valued and researched for the profound insights it may offer.

REFERENCE LIST

Duke, Charlie and Dotty. Moonwalker. Oliver Nelson, 1990
Gorman, James. Righteous Stuff in 0mni, May 1984, p. 48.
Hamilton, Craig. Toward Homo Noeticus in What is Enlightenment? Magazine, Issue 19.
James B. Irwin, More Than Earthlings; An Astronaut’s Thoughts for Christ-Centered Living, Broadman & Holman Publishers, January 1983.
Roth, Yitzchok. Seeing ourselves from Outer Space in Dei’ah veDibur information and insight, 17 Adar, 5763, February 19, 2003.
Sagan, Carl. Pale Blue Dot. Headline, London, 1995.
Sagan, Carl. Contact, Arrow Books, London, 1986.

Language development in early childhood

All over the world children begin speaking at the same age. This phenomenon has led many to ask if language is connected to our internal biological clock, as is puberty and menopause. Research suggests that this appears to be the case. Moreover, several noticeable characteristics of speech development provide strong evidence for this opinion, along with some do’s and don’ts for child language development.

Firstly, children start to speak well before it is actually necessary, at 18 months children usually still have their parents doing pretty much everything for them. Secondly, there appears to be no conscious striving by the child to learn speech, unlike learning how to play a sport, or drive a car, for example.

The third characteristic is that language appears not to be externally triggered, it is probably closely linked to brain development instead. All a child needs is to hear varied speech, children exposed to limited speech tend to have retarded sentence construction, although they usually improve once they enter school or a similarly rich language environment.

The fourth, and most surprising characteristic, is that what parents often regard as teaching has a negative effect on language development. Research findings show that consistent corrections, “it’s held, not holded”; ‘expansions’, “it’s the dog is barking, not dog bark”; and, using overly simplified language, has no positive effect, and may actually impair language development instead. Furthermore, imitation has been shown to fail when precision is demanded. Imitation is only beneficial when it is spontaneously initiated by the child, even then children will translate this into simplified speech appropriate for their age.

Many of these teaching misconceptions possibly arise from the non-linear way in which children develop language skills. Children will consistently use irregular past tenses such as ‘came’ and ‘saw’, then later on replace these with incorrect forms such as ‘comed’ or ‘seed’. Such apparent regression is not yet understood but is the norm. Additionally, the amount a child actually talks seems to have no bearing on how well they end up being able to talk as adults. Interestingly, it appears children learn the most from simply listening.

The fifth characteristic is that children’s language skills appear to develop according to quite specific biological age milestones. Crying at birth, cooing after 6 weeks, babbling at 6 months, intonation at 8 months, single words at 1 year, 2 words at 18 months, inflections at 2 years, questions and negatives at 2 ¼ years, more complex constructions at 5 years, then mature speech appears at about 10 years.

For parents, it is therefore important to realise that language skills are indeed linked to an internal biological clock, they should not expect, or hope for, mature speech at 6 or questions at 18 months. Instead, they should understand that to develop language skills a child needs to hear language full of variety, they need to be engaged in normal conversation at a level they can understand, without incorrect oversimplification, without criticism and with acceptance. Parents, just talk to your children.