PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERPINNINGS, PART I

By

Karl H. Puechl

March 15, 1988

More and more frequently, I seem to get perturbed and disturbed by remarks that are commonly accepted without questioning, and by people or their movements that espouse actions for the common good when the consequences of such actions have not been given serious consideration. Have people, in general, always avoided looking beneath the surface? Do I notice this human failing more now because I am older? Is superficial reasoning more prevalent with the "Yuppie" generation because the Yuppies want not only instant success but also instant answers? In thinking more about this, I've concluded that this is not a new phenomenon, although it may be more prevalent. Paul Tillich, the Protestant theologian probably had similar misgivings about human rationality when, as I recall, in the 1940's he coined the phrase "two-dimensional thinking"; that is, thinking that doesn't look beneath the surface. Let me give a few examples of things that bother me.

Consider the Pro-life Movement. Have these people ever considered the consequences if they achieve their objectives? Every year, millions of more children born to women who don't want them. What an endowment to give to these children! And what of the women who will seek illegal abortions performed by hacks? Is there no empathy for their physical and mental well-being? And what if we carry this concern for the creation of human life to its logical conclusion---then wouldn't it be shear asininity to leave such creation to the haphazard and chancy action of sexual intercourse---then shouldn't all sperm and ova be collected so that procreation can be performed in a test-tube under laboratory controlled conditions? I see, by your faces, that most of you agree with me that pro-lifers don't think very deeply. But, quite frankly, two-dimensional thinking by ideologues is not particularly disturbing to me because I expect no rational development from people who have predisposed positions based upon a particular ideology. I may violently disagree with them, but I am not disturbed by their fuzzy thinking. What frightens me is sloppy thinking by espoused liberals who want us to rely on their supposed rationality.

This brings to mind, Ralph Nader. In my estimation, because of his simplistic rationality, Ralph Nader (and his cohorts with their altruistic motives) did more damage to the U. S. economy than did any other person in history. This probably requires some explanation. Before Nader's name became prominent, the market analysts at General Motors concluded that a substantial number of U. S. car-buyers would opt for a smaller car if such were available. The car designers as well as anyone with an ounce of common-sense realized full-well that a smaller car would be less safe than the standard-sized models, but a large portion of the populace was apparently willing to sacrifice safety for economy, ease of handling, etc.. Such compromise, of course, was not a novelty; the public had always sacrificed safety for convenience and price---otherwise we all would have been wheeling around in army tanks. Based on the changing public sentiment regarding size, and the historic willingness to compromise safety, GM went ahead with the design, development and production of a small car. Corvairs started to roll off the production lines. Enter Ralph Nader. He made a name for himself by accusing GM of malpractice, even with intentional murder, for producing an automobile that was less safe than its larger cousins. Frankly, I don't know what motivated him to do this---perhaps it was for personal glory. Certainly, it was not to educate the public. We already knew that a smaller car, somewhat like a motorcycle, would be less apt to survive when being clobbered by a monstrous Cadillac. Whatever, his personal motives, the end result was that GM withdrew the Corvair from the market. A reasonable decision since the function of General Motors was to build cars, not to keep lawyers gainfully employed. This decision left the American public in a quandary. Many people wanted to buy a smaller car, but none was readily available. Enter the Japanese. They solved the problem for us. They almost forced Detroit into bankruptcy and even today, most of our balance of payments deficit is due to the importation of small foreign cars. By getting Detroit out of the small car business, Nader cost us billions of dollars, probably more than a trillion, and we have not yet fully paid for his intellectual myopia. Largely because of this fiasco, the five largest banks in the world are now Japanese, as are 6 of the 10 largest California banks. Without the enormous profits from automobile exports, the Japanese financial community could not have developed into such a powerhouse. This example took longer than I had intended but let me give another that is somewhat more timely.

This last example is what precipitated this talk. When we had the panel discussion with representatives from Beyond War and the Greens a comment was made that one of the functions of these organizations was to induce parents and teachers to instill less aggressive attitudes in children. Most of us seemed to like this idea. Get the Rambo-type character out of society and we will be less apt to have war. This bothered me somewhat at the time, but I was not prepared to speak up. My later thoughts ran somewhat like this: There is high probability that man has survived the vagaries of nature largely because of his aggressiveness; has he really evolved to the point where this aggressive nature is a detriment rather than an advantage? If we can, in fact, teach our children to be less aggressive, what will happen in sports and the business world wherein besting the competition is synonymous with survival. What will happen in the political arena? Can mankind effect sociological changes for the good without being aggressive? If being less aggressive is such a great character trait, where do we draw the line? Should everyone step up or be forced to have a frontal lobotomy? More realistically, what will we do when the necessary mood-altering drugs begin to become available; we already are beginning to have disagreements about the utilization of their precursors. Getting back to the intent of the proposed mild form of brain-washing, I question whether aggressive attitudes on the part of individuals have anything to do with war. I know a little something about war, having been in the Army during World War II. I don't recall anyone ever making the remark that they were eager to kill "Japs or Krauts" just for the fun of it or to satisfy some aggressive desire. Wars start and are fought for a number of reasons; none of which have anything to do with individual aggressive attitudes. Such attitudes might lead to wife-beating or shooting an annoying neighbor, and therefore, perhaps, they should be moderated; but such moderation will not reduce the probability for war. Rather than nodding our heads in agreement when something sounds nice and reasonable, shouldn't we, instead, raise all sorts of questions? I don't scare easily, but I get truly frightened when I am with a group of liberals and find that they accept premises without raising questions.

Finally, this brings me to the topic of my talk today. In order to question intelligently, in order to probe in depth. we must first come to grips with the basics. What is inherent in human nature? What can we change? What should we try to change? What is best left alone? In order to get a handle on these types of questions, we must first examine, in some detail, the development of the human race and its cultures. From both a philosophical and psychological standpoint, we must ask, "what makes human beings tick?". This is not a simple question to answer, and it will take a number of Sunday mornings to present a convincing viewpoint. Today, I will only skim the surface with sort of an overview.

It is my contention that man, the thinking animal, has two problems that he has never resolved. He has trouble accepting the fact that human life has no particular meaning and therefore that he, as an individual, has little significance. Further, he has trouble accepting death as being final. Eric Fromm in his book "MAN FOR HIMSELF" makes much of the fact that man is brought into being stifled by the "existential dichotomy" that is death. Birth means life, but at that glorious moment, death is already preordained in the not-too-distant future. Even though man has trouble accepting his true situation, his ingenuity makes life bearable. Specifically, I contend, that one of man's strongest attributes, one which separates him from other animals, is his power of self-delusion. The delusions allow man to accept his condition, to contemplate the future and to act accordingly; psychologically speaking, the delusions are defense mechanisms. I point out that the ultimate strength of delusionment is that the delusions can always be discarded after they have out-lived their usefulness; nevertheless, man always has difficulty in relegating out-worn delusions to the intellectual garbage heap. The religious fervor, relative to an out-dated religion, seems to reach a crescendo just prior to its abandonment.

What does man's acceptance or non-acceptance of his condition, or his rationalizing through delusions, have to do with current events, or each of us, as individuals, trying to make this a better world? I think that recognition of these simple factors can help define the possible and the impossible, the sane and workable approaches from those that are doomed to failure. Let me explain.

Let's first consider the delusions since they are easier to discuss and are of lesser importance than the basic reasons for their creation in the first place. I believe that Unitarian-Universalists, in general, find it easier to accept man's true condition than the majority of mankind; also, we, perhaps, tend to be somewhat more rational. However, since delusions are not rational, it is a worthless exercise for us to argue against someone else's delusions using rational discussion. The delusions that I am talking about are powerful and have gained many followers not only because they allow some individuals to accept the human condition, but also because they are irrational and therefore are beyond debate. Eric Hoffer, the longshoreman philosopher, repeatedly points out in his book "THE TRUE BELIEVER" that irrationality of the basic premise is a key ingredient for any particular movement or religion to be successful. However, this does not say that believers of certain delusions cannot be made to change their minds. In order for them to alter their beliefs, they must be convinced that a new viewpoint will allow them to better accept the human condition. In short, a delusion, in general, cannot be overthrown unless it is replaced with another delusion that allows certain individuals better able to cope with man's insignificance and mortality. Man, made in God's image, does much good for man's ego. Heaven, or even hell, make man immortal. These and similar religious pronouncements are soothing balm for anyone who has trouble accepting the human condition. Can we offer better delusions that do not lead to strife, religious wars, and alienation of one peoples from another? I believe that we must; and I believe that we can because technology has led to the out-moding of many currently widely-accepted delusions. Delving further into this aspect of human belief and behavior can be the subject for a later talk.

Now I've finally gotten to the gist of today's talk. In any action that we propose, we must not forget man's basic insecurity---his inability to accept his insignificance and his mortality. An individual will do almost anything to gain a measure of recognition or a measure of immortality, however broadly or narrowly these terms are defined. Put a man in uniform, which makes him stand out of the crowd, and he will transform from an amiable German youth to an SS trooper. Further, give him a gun, which makes him even more distinctive, and he may subjugate his fellow men. Finally, teach him the delusion that death, while fighting for an irrational cause, will give him immortality in Valhalla, or wherever, and you will have a fanatic warrior be he German, Shiite, or American. Then, put someone in power who knows these facts, who himself is thirsting for recognition, and who is capable of instilling fear in the populace, fear of losing whatever they cherish if their irrational cause is not successful,--- the end-result then becomes predictable and inevitable. What can we do to lessen the chances for war? Quite simply, we must make it relatively easier to gain recognition some other way. Perhaps, surprisingly, technological developments during the past half century have gone a long way towards making war unattractive for both the world leaders as well as the lowly men in uniform. Modern warfare is no more an individualistic affair; there is little personal glory. Of even greater importance is the risk of racial annihilation from nuclear war. What recognition will accrue to a world leader when, as a consequence of his actions, there are no more history books, no-one around to read them? Yes, war is becoming out-moded as a means for individuals to achieve recognition and immortality but mankind must have some outlet, with similar objectives, to take its place. A "beyond war" movement must directly address this question. What is a better way for individuals to come to grips with their insecurities---for achieving a measure of recognition and immortality?

Let's now consider another topic that is of interest to liberals. What is the best way to curtail the population explosion? Is it to warn people about increased pollution, increased depletion of natural resources, increased psychological stress. If your answer is "yes" you've missed the point of my talk. None of these factors means anything to the individuals who contribute most to the birthrate. They are reproducing like rabbits because it is the only way they are able to achieve some recognition and a measure of immortality. If you are a lowly uneducated peon, what easier way is there to satisfy these basic needs? Giving everyone on earth a TV set wont even produce much of a reduction in the birthrate since it wont help satisfy the innate desire for recognition and immortality. If we are to effectively reduce the world's birthrate, we can do it by edict, as done in the People's Republic of China, or we can do it by giving individuals other outlets for satisfying their basic needs. Make it possible for them to achieve some recognition in sports, in the arts, in the sciences, or, generally, in their everyday endeavors. Education to create individual excellence is probably the most effective means of birth control.

In summary, it can be said that the human condition is currently much the same as it always was. The pertinent question is how do we get from today to tomorrow while, at the same time, providing thrust in the direction of a much-improved human condition in the future. Except for individual survival, the actions of early man had little impact on the future and this gave him little reason to contemplate the consequences of his actions. Throughout the history of human development, man's actions consistently have had longer and longer enduring consequences. Today, since many of man's actions can have far-reaching consequences, he is compelled to contemplate the distant future more than ever before. But his immediate problem is still simply surviving until tomorrow. Broad new concepts will probably be required to view the future, but the nitty-gritty practical problems of today must also be solved. The short-term and the long-term are intertwined. Over-pragmatism can ordain ultimate disaster; over-philosophizing can bring stagnation. To be an effective societal force, it is imperative that Unitarian-Universalists be involved with both the near-term and long-term aspects of life. We must recognize the near-term problems and we must strive for their effective resolution by using longer-term philosophical principles as guides. Two-dimensional thinking is sufficiently wide-spread, it requires no reinforcement by rational Unitarian-Universalists.