April 20, 2003
From the desk of Jane Galt:Quote of the Day
Churchill described Lenin's sympathies as being "...cold and wide as the Arctic Ocean, his hatreds tight as the hangman's noose. His purpose to save the world, his method to blow it up." Those who love all mankind have frequently been ruthless: I would prefer to trust a man or woman who has loved well a few precious others. Such a person is more benevolent even to a stranger.
Posted by Jane Galt at April 20, 2003 10:45 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksNatalie Solent
Precisely. This is why those who object to patriotism are on the wrong track. See:
http://www.photoncourier.blogspot.com/2003_04_01_photoncourier_archive.html
Very interesting post by Natalie. And Holy Keirsey Abstract Cooperator. I thought I was the only one who pondered psychological/sociological/ontological crap like that. In a word, cool.
David Foster,
Please don't take this the wrong way but Hunh? What does your post have to do with a. Jane's Post, b. Your Link. In addition, does anyone object to patriotism (except for that wacko town in NJ)? Not many. I think people object to mandated patriotism, or others telling them how they should behave to prove their love of this country. But in essence, and perhaps it's me, I have no idea what your talking about or how it in any way relates to the quote of the day. Please explain (David or anyone). Thanks
Presumably, it's easy to "love humanity" in the abstract. Or, as Linus (from Peanuts) put it, "I love humanity! It's people I can't stand!"
Hi Kate...yes, there are indeed many people who object to patriotism. Not too long ago, Rachel Lucas wrote about a student who strongly objected to "God Bless America"--not the "God" part, but the "Bless America" part--based on the theory that this pro-America feeling encouraged people to be disrespectful of other countries. It's a claim I have heard made many times; indeed, much of the intellectual "elite" is openly suspicious of any expressions of patriotism. It's evidently been going on for a long time, because C S Lewis wrote about the same thing 50 years ago.
Tie-in to the Churchill/Natalie Solent quote: This refers to people who love humanity in the abstract, but not in the specific (as in an individual, a family, a region, or a nation.) In both cases, the issue is universalism vs particularism. Enlightenment universalism has done much good for the world, but has now reached an extreme level at which all "local attachments," to use Burke's term, are denounced. Another example is the teaching of Peter Singer, who sees no reason why you should (ethically) be more attached to your own mother than to some person way across the world who you have never met.
The specific relevant article in the link was "Should God Bless America?" I can see where "Logistics and Umm Qasr" might have seemed a little off-topic....
While the principle is sound, America is-- in terms of levels of abstraction-- a lot closer to Humanity than it is to Mom.
C. S. Lewis, in his brilliant The Screwtape Letters, gives a very relavant parallel to this. His devil-protagonist Screwtape advises his nephew, a junior tempter, to urge his "patient" -- the human he's working on -- to locate his benevolences in the abstract, as far from the immediate realities of his life as he can possibly force them, while drawing the man's malice, contempt, envy and spite inward and focusing it on the flesh-and-blood people he encounters every day.
Totalitarians are always full of pious rhetoric about "the good of the people"... in between their sessions in the torture chambers, of course.
Comments are Closed.