Thursday Thoughts

 Hari OM

I was struck by a post from blogpal Tomichan Matheikal earlier this week. My philosopher self dug in with a lengthy comment... and I realised the response meant enough to me to warrant being recycled here as my own post. 

As a small background, let me tell you that in some respects, TM and I come from opposite ends of the philosophical spectrum - and yet also have much common thought. Having read a book** I had recommended, which is admittedly on the slightly dippy end of optimism, TM maintains a pessimistic view. Do read the post linked - the arguments are correct for all their darkness. However, this is what arose by way of response.

There will always be a battle between our altruistic and selfish instincts, our openness and our protectiveness. It is a matter of the basic survival instinct to protect what one has. There could be some debate as to a few of the assumptions made by Bregman, bearing in mind he is a historian and not a philosopher, as such. But overall, his point (as is the case with pretty much every philosophy) is that the state of a society reflects the collective reality of the individuals within it. Therefore, to bring about change, there must be a sufficient number of individuals on the 'same page' about the aims for that society for change to be effected. 

John Stuart Mill  wrote: 

“To think [...] it is of no use to attempt to influence the constitution of the government by acting on opinion is to forget that opinion is itself one of the greatest active social forces. One person with a belief is a social power equal to ninety-nine who have only interests.” (One wonders if this is what prompted RB's 1% to 99% observation?) 

It is also from Mill that the following is quoted (and contains the basis of a much more widely used quote that is misattributed):

"Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject." (In that last sentence is contained that which TM alluded to in an earlier post, and with which I agree - not enough folk are willing to put the work into thinking for themselves.)

It is an unfortunate thing that throughout history, the waves of negative nature have been tapped into by those few who would use the fact that most want to be led like sheep. What history reveals, however, is that such regimes cannot last. The good will prevail again. What is important is that as many individuals as possible educate themselves to their higher possibilities, improve themselves to match the theories and ensure that enough positive opinion is spread to counterbalance the negative.

Do not for one moment think that there is no empathy or that this absolves one from caring for those under any form of victimhood - but that is exactly part of the process of determining what is right and what is wrong. The difference comes when we stop complaining and start acting... if we cannot physically act ourselves, we must do our best to educate those who can rise above their negative and work towards their positive. We do not do this by constantly pointing out the faults. We do this by highlighting the ideals and demonstrating them through our own conduct.

What is happening now - in India, but also in other countries, including the UK (albeit more subtly) - must generate, eventually, the revolution to overturn it. The scale of time is what is in question - how long will it take for "good men to associate to oppose the cabals of bad men." That is the line from Edmund Burke that is conflated with JSM and gives us that quote which needs now to be shouted from the rooftops...

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil 

is that good men should do nothing.”

** Humankind; A Hopeful History by Rutger Bregman