From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Sep 06 2004 - 14:01:50 BST
Dear Wim,
As usual you have put your finger on a key philosophical problem based on
the most challenging of all questions: Why?
> When we agree first on WHY it is well and good to champion some equality,
> we can then continue more easily to discuss the specifics.
We have Pirsig's answer:
"Of all the contributions America has made to the history of the world,
the idea of freedom from a social hierarchy has been the greatest. It was
fought for in the American Revolution and confirmed in the Civil War. To
this day it's still the most powerful, compelling ideal holding the whole
nation together.
"And yet, although Jefferson called this doctrine of social equality "self-
evident," it is not at all self-evident. Scientific evidence and the
social evidence of history indicate the opposite is self-evident. There is
no "self-evidence" in European history that all men are created equal.
There's no nation in Europe that doesn't trace its history to a time when
it was "self-evident" that all men are created unequal. Jean Jacques
Rousseau, who is sometimes given credit for this doctrine, certainly
didn't get it from the history of Europe or Asia or Africa. He got it from
the impact of the New World upon Europe and from contemplation of one
particular kind of individual who lived in the New World, the person he
called the "Noble Savage."
"The idea that "all men are created equal" is a gift to the world from the
American Indian. Europeans who settled here only transmitted it as a
doctrine that they sometimes followed and sometimes did not. The real
source was someone for whom social equality was no mere doctrine, who had
equality built into his bones. To him it was inconceivable that the world
could be any other way. For him there was no other way of life. That's
what Ten Bears was trying to tell them. Phaedrus thought the Indians
haven't yet lost this one. They haven't yet won it either, he realized;
the fight isn't over. It's still the central internal conflict in America
today." (Lila, 3)
I think Pirsig's attribution of the concept of social equality to the
American Indian is dubious because if equality was "built into his bones,"
i.e., biologically determined, one can legitimately ask why it wasn't
built into everybody's bones.
Perhaps we can agree first that social equality is a value judgment and
that value judgments, while indeed built into our bones, will vary
dramatically from individual to individual depending on life experiences.
Certainly many Muslims have a different notion of equality than we in the
West.
Second, maybe we can agree that those in authority would do well to treat
their subjects equally else resentment of those who perceive themselves
treated unfairly boils over into revolution. But, it seems that such
resentment must be learned because so many people are perfectly willing to
accept their lot in life.
Third, perhaps we can agree that in the Western World the notion of social
equality is widespread due to Christian doctrine which preaches that we're
all God's children and therefor equal in His eyes.
Who creates such ideas such as equality and why they become popular is a
fascinating subject. I suspect Martin Luther was a key figure in the West.
I'll be interested in your answer as to why social equality is judged
desirable.
Best,
Platt
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 06 2004 - 13:59:22 BST