| « | Before we talk about mandatory weapons training, how about a self defense course for students? |
»
|
|
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Quasi-Philosophical Rants
Fran here. The Curmudgeon has been rather tiresome of late, always barking about misplaced modifiers and questioning my use of semicolons, so I've sent him out to wash the garage floor -- yes, I'm one of those obsessives -- while I wax just a wee bit philosophical about some frequently abused conceptions.
Hey, cut me some slack. It's Tuesday!
1. "Strengths"
Lately it seems as if for every human characteristic or proclivity, there's an activist or institution somewhere that wants it to be considered a "strength." All right, maybe not every human characteristic; I have yet to hear anyone speak well of gluttony. But still, the list of human attributes that someone, somewhere claims to be "strengths" has gotten appallingly long.
But what do we mean by "strength," categorically? What does a "strength" do for its possessor when he puts it to work? Doesn't it have to be a contextually usable asset of some sort, which assists the wielder in meeting a goal or overcoming a challenge? Shall we have a big of course?
By recurring to the fundamental concept of "strength," we enable ourselves to chuckle away quite a lot of nonsense that employs the word. Consider, for example, "female strengths." What are these, please? What are they good for? And why should anyone accept that they're the exclusive possessions of women?
Or consider "strength in diversity," where the sort of "diversity" meant is racial and/or ethnic. Excuse me? What sort of goal or challenge does that help us to meet? What's that you say? It helps us to meet Affirmative Action diversity quotas! Mystery solved!
Possibly the weirdest sort of "strength" that's come my way is "submissive strength." The person who used that phrase is a seriously deficient woman, unable to make or act on any sort of decision without having it ratified first by everyone she knows. Any slightest hint of disapproval of her intended course is enough to send her into a protracted emotional paralysis. But this must be a strength of some sort. After all, isn't everything else?
A gift of laughter, coupled to the ability to equably endure the displeasure of those at whom one laughs, is invaluable in dealing with nonsense such as this.
2. "Prides"
There are quite a lot of proud persons out there, if we go by the catalogue of days and marches for this or that sort of "pride." "Gay pride." "Black pride." "Puerto Rican pride." The question that's seldom asked is "What on Earth are you so proud of?"
"Prides" are multiplying almost as fast as "strengths." The common factor among these newfangled "prides" is that in these "prides," the "proud" have absolutely nothing to be proud of. They didn't do one single thing to bring about the condition of which they're "proud."
Homosexuals all claim to have been "born that way." Let's leave aside the lack of biological evidence for that contention. Consider their riposte to those who suggest that their orientation might be alterable, on the strength -- whoops! -- of the thousands of former homosexuals who've done so. Isn't it almost always "Do you think I want to be this way?" But if they're unhappy about being "that way," what's there to be proud of?
The "black pride" canard is just as foolish. Skin color is a genetic bequest. One has no choice in the matter, barring recourse to rather risky skin-bleaching treatments. Considering that everything substantive about a man -- his character; his social skills; his educational and occupational attainments; his position in his community -- is subject to enhancement by his own efforts, why would he even bother trying to be proud of his skin color?
Finally, ethnic "prides." No one gets to choose his parents. (Yes, we're getting closer to being able to choose our children via genetic engineering, but that's a subject for another tirade.) No one gets to choose where he's born. Insofar as ethnicity is taken to imply cultural norms and practices, some are exemplary, some are tolerable, and some are most definitely vile. But the norms and practices are detachable from accidents of geography, as the experiences of Man's "diaspora" demographics clearly demonstrate. Nothing prevents me, with my Irish-Italian parentage and my fiercely American allegiance, from adopting Russian, Iranian, or Afghan norms and practices, except for my distaste for them...particularly their ideas about what constitutes food.
Pride in one's achievements is rational and acceptable, as long as it doesn't lead one to denigrate the legitimate achievements of others. Pride in accidents of birth or geography is simple lunacy. It's intended to foster a collectivist mindset that the lightest brush with rationality would dispel...which says a lot about the intellects of those who immerse themselves in such a mindset, doesn't it?
3. Organizations.
There's a belief abroad on the left side of the political spectrum that holds, albeit without articulation, that any sort of organization can be tasked to achieve any goal whatsoever. Armies can "promote diversity." Churches can be made into political lobbying forces. Corporations can "protect the environment" or distribute "affordable health care." Governments can make all of us rich.
Dear God in Heaven. Are there any leftists with a grasp of why particular organizations come to exist in the first place, or does that require too many functioning brain cells?
An organization isn't just a random group of people thrown together by chance. It arises because its organizers have a particular goal in mind. It takes its shape from the imperatives that apply to that goal. If its characteristics, structure, and assets allow it to succeed in meeting that goal, it will prosper and attract emulation. If it adopts non-functional or destructive characteristics, it will falter, and possibly fail.
More, the organization most likely to succeed is one with a single, well-defined goal on which its people can focus to the exclusion of all other considerations. An organization that adopts several goals will inevitably find them in competition with one another, compelling the bosses to set priorities and make decisions that will inevitably cause disaffection among interested parties who disagree.
(It's important to distinguish between goals and constraints. A goal might be capable of degrees of attainment; indeed, most goals are like that. A constraint is binary and absolute; it's a "thou shalt not" that's superior to the goal. If you say that your organization exists to do X while avoiding Y, you've stated both a goal and a constraint. Be careful not to confuse them, as it's just about always possible to satisfy the constraint without attaining the goal to any degree.)
The "diversity" canard is a good case to study. If "diversity" becomes a goal of an organization whose purpose is commercial -- that is, to profit by making and selling some good or service -- then it will eventually face the question of whether to hire Smith, whose skills are best suited to its needs, or Jones, who's less able and less experienced, but whose presence on the staff would render it more "diverse." In the case of a publicly traded corporation, choosing Smith might draw the ire of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, but choosing Jones would constitute a betrayal of the company's obligations to its stockholders. Having to face such choices regularly has damaged many a firm.
Yet such dilemmas are what the American Left wants to saddle every American organization with. Of course, it wants to set the priorities among those competing goals as well, and damn the consequences...which answers our earlier question about leftists and functioning brain cells, with extreme prejudice.
The above mini-rants are united by a common theme: A thing is what it is, and not what it is not. This rule, which seems tautological when applied to specific objects, is critical to our definitions and categorizations. For one defines a category of things by explicitly stating what it is -- its genus -- and what it is not -- its differentia. A definition that lacks either of those parts is no definition at all.
An old gag, the famous Qualifying Exam, ends with the extra-credit question: "Define the universe. Give two examples." Consideration of this puzzle is left as a (hopefully) mind-expanding exercise for Eternity Road's Gentle Readers.
Comments
” Any slightest hint of disapproval of her intended course is enough to send her into a protracted emotional paralysis. But this must be a strength of some sort. After all, isn’t everything else?’
No, it’s not a strength, it’s the classic passive/aggressive technique of getting-your-own-way-without-having-to-take- responsibility-for-the-outcome, as in: “everything’s fine in my world until you point out what’s wrong - at which point it’s YOUR FAULT, for spoiling my fun”.
Remind you of any Presidents we know?
Posted by on 06/16/2010 at 12:28 AM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
