The Philosophy of Negation (534 hits)
Category: GeneralRating: 0.25 on 10 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Steven Durel (View user info) at 2006-04-14 15:22:09 EDT
Snow blanketed Connecticut on the morning of April 5 when George W. Bush's plane landed at Tweed-New Haven airport. His imposing presidential motorcade — police cruisers and SUVs, ominous white vans, armored black trucks and limousines packed with Secret Service agents — rushed down I-95 to Bridgeport at 90 miles-per-hour, a speed achieved by closure of interstate traffic. Once he reached the city, Bush not only gave a speech on private healthcare accounts; he also philosophized.
Via his "compassionate conservatism" — a.k.a. Republocratism — Bush emphasized that he does want to keep the poor and elderly dependent on government programs like Medicare, Medicaid and funding for community health centers. Simultaneously, behind a thick cloud of "individualism," he jeered federal management and endorsed sincere reliance upon capital investment as the antidote to fear. Said the president, "In Washington, DC, there is a philosophical debate that rages...To simplify the debate, it basically says government ought to be the decider, government ought to drive demand and government ought to control supply, versus a system in which individuals are in charge of their own healthcare decisions. I recognize that it may be oversimplification, but nevertheless that's the crux of the debate."
As the president continued he blurred the distinction between individuals and their accounts, but despite any purported libertarian spirit he also made clear that his motivations were collective, detailing, "My attitude is that the United States is the leader of the world and that, by putting good policies into place, we'll remain the leader of the world and that's where we should be." Bush's discussion on the "consumer-driven system" highlighted that there is indeed an extremely important philosophical debate taking place all around us, not just one of the individual-versus-government or community-versus-capital, but rather both of these calamities transpiring concurrently.
Thomas Aquinas once declared that reality is comprised of both spiritual and corporeal forces, epitomized by the human mind and body. Our psyche operates within an abstract world, one of form and reason. The corpus, to the contrary, functions emotionally based on sensations. Following Cartesian logic—I think, therefore I am—it is clear that our conscious ego is self, while bodies are created from and will be eternally shared with others. For most of history, humanity has thrived by balancing these dual forces, espousing nearly equal selfishness and egalitarianism. In the postmodern era, however, what we are now seeped in is a pervasive anti-philosophy destroying all meaning and leaving nothing in its wake but illusion.
Many are now taking part in this historic non-debate. Even here on the pages of the Daily Campus Commentary section [and Ubersite], you can often find the young defenders of individual "freedom" championing the glories of capitalism. These friends not only detest French rebellion for hindering more "open" labor markets, but they also welcome corporate mergers in exchange for Thoreau's self-reliance. Key to their arguments, though, is always at least some defense of state authority. Similarly, you will be hard pressed to find a Democrat opposed to capitalism, especially in the Clinton or Kerry bloodlines.
Today there is hardly an opposition left between state and market, as any spectacular Barmecidal antagonism between these institutions is much like a wrestling match in which adversaries are actually close friends behind the curtain. This is because neoliberalism, like oligarchies of old and the fascist regimes, operates by way of partnership between government warrant and private capital. Examples can be found everywhere, the nearest being last year's Kelo v. New London Supreme Court decision, wherein government gave itself the power to bulldoze the homes of citizens in order to hand over the land for commercial development. States thus exercises their power, corporations have investment returned with massive interest and these partnered institutions are eventually defended, one way or the other, by the very people who they persecute.
Listen closely to mainstream media and notice that our neo-pundits never take the time to actually defend anything, only demonize. This is because pop-culture has degenerated into a universal hatred for all ideology, whether collectivist or individualist — only simulacrums like money and power are ever acknowledged. What we are now asked to embrace are flags and dollars in exchange for bodies and souls. Charade has become the norm and it grows exponentially with every defense of authoritarian altruism and cash-value selfishness. The cancer germinates whenever a stranger is not given aid because that is the assigned job of bureaucrats, or when petty rights and independent thoughts are taken as frivolous since the market affords all real luxury.
Hordes of America's disillusioned will attest to how painful it is to turn on the television or open a newspaper just to witness all debate dumbed down to a head-butting of two colors, two mascots, two props of the very same entropy. Everywhere people are getting angrier as reality is gradually sucked into itself by an insatiable hatred for truth. Still, the tide of Moloch can unquestionably be reversed, if only our tortured species can become mindful enough to discover that the abyss cannot be filled with sandbags of nothingness. What we need is a return to compassion and independence, to authentic welfare and autonomy, to the unified self and other. Every defense of corporate or government dominion, however, only accelerates reality's consumption.
User Reviews
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-07-27 18:35:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Now THIS?
Is really well written. Well done.
r.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-04-24 10:43:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
By the way, Bush 'philosophizing' is like a jellyfish tyring to knit a doily.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-04-24 10:40:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I like your style.
Submitted by stevendurel (user info) at 2006-04-24 10:22:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by MisterMojoRisin (user info) at 2006-04-15 19:53:08 (#)
Ranking: -2
"Even here on the pages of the Daily Campus Commentary section [and Ubersite], you can often find the young defenders of individual "freedom" championing the glories of capitalism. "
So who really wrote it?
---
I wrote this for the school paper and then posted it on here afterwards.
Submitted by MrSparkle847 (user info) at 2006-04-15 20:25:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You really did try, so +0, but I think (at least in the case of his last post) ETS presents this sort of thing more rationally.
Submitted by MisterMojoRisin (user info) at 2006-04-15 19:53:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"Even here on the pages of the Daily Campus Commentary section [and Ubersite], you can often find the young defenders of individual "freedom" championing the glories of capitalism. "
So who really wrote it?
Submitted by zajebisty (user info) at 2006-04-14 17:05:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
too many big words
Submitted by goferforhire (user info) at 2006-04-14 16:10:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2006-04-14 15:51:49 (#)
Ranking: 0
try getting laid and see how little you care about this shit.
---------------------------
It works like a charm!
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2006-04-14 15:51:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Someone got a new thesaurus. It's kind of cute.
Now, try getting laid and see how little you care about this shit.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-04-14 15:37:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Once again, Durel whips out his Flaccid Penos of Knowledge to flog us about the head again...