Anarchism is a delightfully well-written book about the ideology that denies the need for "the state," however benevolent, in any form. I tr3.5+ stars
Anarchism is a delightfully well-written book about the ideology that denies the need for "the state," however benevolent, in any form. I try not to be too rigidly defined by my politics but if forced to pigeon hole myself, it would be as an anarcho-communist along the lines of Emma Goldman so there was much for me to like about Sheehan's exposition.
It's fitting that anarchism's best definition comes from Goldman's mouth (as quoted by Sheehan):
Emma Goldman spoke of anarchism as not a theory of the future but 'a living force in the affairs of our life, constantly creating new conditions... the spirit of revolt, in whatever form, against everything that hinders human growth.' In this sense, anarchism is an idea [emphasis mine] not an opinion, [it's] a compass, a potential, an ambience, qualitative not quantitative, a desire to orientate the world and life's possibilities in terms of becoming and autonomy. (pp. 157-8)
A few other choice quotes include:
Anarchism is revolutionary in that it desires a new social order based on libertarian socialist ideas. There is a principled opposition to most forms of imposed, centralized or hierarchical authority.... Anarchism... is very much about people taking responsibility for their workaday lives and sets itself the challenge of developing forms of participatory democratic government for modern, complex societies. (p. 15)
At the heart of anarchist thought, is the conviction that people should determine their own future... and live and work within an economic system that allows them to control their destiny as far as possible. (p. 18)
[A]narchism cherishes the realization that the way things are now is not fixed, and what is so often taken for human nature may be the habit of many lifetimes but it is not immutable. (p. 64)
To believe in libertarian socialism does not depend on a utopian belief in the perfectability of human beings, just an appreciation of mutual aid and solidarity as basic principles for the betterment of life.... What anarchism rejects is the bourgeois mind-set that sees life as a game in some economic playground with winners and losers. Anarchism [holds to] the conviction that capitalism makes people unhappy and that the cause of alienation is the application of laws of supply and demand to human needs.... (p. 153)
Even if you don't have much sympathy for anarchist ideals, I'd still recommend taking a look at this slim volume, which not only lays out anarchic principles clearly but discusses places where they've been put into effect. If you are reluctant to read nonfiction, however well-written, then I'd recommend Ursula K. Le Guin's The Dispossessed, which brilliantly shows how an anarchic society would function. (I'd also recommend Iain Banks' Culture books. He tends to shy away from explicitly talking about how the Culture functions but it is another take on an anarcho-communist future.)...more
A clearly written book on Chinese intellectual traditions, focusing primarily on Confuciansim but looking at other classical and medieval philosophersA clearly written book on Chinese intellectual traditions, focusing primarily on Confuciansim but looking at other classical and medieval philosophers like the Legalists and Daoists. Sterckx sticks strictly to native traditions; he hardly mentions Buddhism or other non-Chinese influences.
This book is for a general, non-Chinese audience. Anyone with any background in Chinese history and philosophy will probably not find much new here.
I did like his final summation of what makes Chinese philosophy distinct from most of its Western rivals:
The idea of the Chinese philosopher conceiving of his trade as butchery or cookery might raise an eyebrow. Nevertheless, I believe some things ring true in the metaphor. The dividing line running through ancient China's intellectual landscape was not one between rationalists and idealists, or between those who believed or disbelieved in the forces of the supernatural; it was not between adherents of logic or advocates of intuition, or between those who developed theories of knowledge and those skeptical of it. "To carve or not to carve" was the question that exercised the thinking minds of ancient China. The point of departure for most intellectual traditions we have encountered in this book lay here: do we gain more from life by cutting up the world into units or categories we can control, manipulate and (pretend to) understand, or is human existence better served if we leave the world intact to operate following its own internal and spontaneous logic? Is it better to alter or adapt, be in or out, engage or withdraw? Is our inner self best left untouched, like an uncarved block, or should we work and sculpt it? And when we fashion ourselves and society around us, what shape should it take? Crucially, through it all, how do we preserve the harmony of the whole and the integrity of the one: the self, the family, the state, the monarch, the empire, Heaven, the cosmos, the Way? To most, then, thinking Chinese meant focusing on society, politics and the ethics of the here and now. The shape of the cleaver mattered little as long as it could cut. Perhaps not much has changed. (pp. 431-33)
The book starts out strong with Shermer deconstructing the delusions of religious, philosophical and scientific "heavens" but then becomes to2.5 stars
The book starts out strong with Shermer deconstructing the delusions of religious, philosophical and scientific "heavens" but then becomes too much a paean to a technophilic, libertarian vision of society.
Of course, that's a complaint from my own point of view & may not bother other readers so much....more
Seven Ways of Looking at Pointless Suffering is not, on the surface, an argument for a particular way of rationalizing suffering. Samuelson clearly beSeven Ways of Looking at Pointless Suffering is not, on the surface, an argument for a particular way of rationalizing suffering. Samuelson clearly believes there is a purpose but is circumspect and careful not to favor one creed’s or philosopher’s belief over another. I don’t agree with that assumption, however – that suffering has meaning beyond what an individual might give it in the context of her life. Which is my beef with the book. If the author had limited himself to breaking down the thoughts seven thinkers have had about the matter, I would have enjoyed the book more.
As it is, Samuelson dismisses my point of view in an aside about Epicurus in his chapter on Epictetus and the Stoics.
I’m not being entirely fair. He does spend an admiring chapter with Confucius, for whom I have much respect, and whose view of suffering doesn’t require that it have a purpose:
Thus, Confucius regards Heaven as having an amoral quality. I’ve been trying to argue that the stubborn fact of pointless suffering is constitutive of being human. Confucius doesn’t argue the point. He simply embodies it. When pointless suffering comes, he cries out. Most fundamentally, this experience of suffering is what launches his whole philosophy: it generates the sympathetic understanding and the ritual propriety that exult human life. The very definition of humanness is our ability to rise above the amoral, if not immoral, energies of nature and create a society where power operates without oppression, where who we are emerges fully in the graceful performance of our relationships to one another. But this humanness can appear and grow only against a backdrop of suffering that overwhelms us. In a sense, Confucius is more Daoist than the Daoists, more Stoic than the Stoics. He doesn’t imaginatively transform pointless suffering into something else; he lets it be just what it presents itself to be. (pp. 200-1)
Another positive about the book is that Samuelson doesn’t solely focus on philosophers and theologians. He looks at how “regular” people (his students, in this case, who come from both the college he teaches at as well as from a group of prisoners he volunteered to teach) respond to suffering.
Overall, I’d recommend the book. Samuelson’s breakdown of the philosophical/religious beliefs he looks at is good and readable. My personal quibbles with the book are just that – personal, and didn’t ultimately detract from the value I got from reading it.
Two asides:
While reading, two authors kept coming to mind. The first is Somerset Maugham, who observed that it is not true that suffering ennobles the character; happiness does that sometimes, but suffering, for the most part, makes men petty and vindictive. (It’s in one of his essay collections but I can’t remember which one.)
The second author is Walter Miller. In A Canticle for Leibowitz there is a passage in the third part of the book that I Samuelson would have been nodding his head over in agreement. An atom bomb has destroyed Texarkana, near the abbey. A secular aid organization (the Green Star = the Red Cross) has set up a refugee camp. One of the things they provide is euthanasia for people too sick to live, sparing them the agonies of radiation sickness. Dom Zerchi is trying to convince a young mother who, along with her infant, is dying not to take that option:
It is not the pain that is pleasing to God, child, it is the soul’s endurance in faith and hope and love in spite of bodily afflictions that pleases Heaven. Pain is like negative temptation, God is not pleased by temptations that afflict the flesh; He is pleased when the soul rises above the temptation and says, “Go, Satan.” It’s the same with pain, which is often a temptation to despair, anger, loss of faith….
[A Canticle is one of the greatest post-Apocalypse novels ever written and you should immediately go out and read it. :-)] [You should also read Maugham!]...more
Loading...