NARCISSISM & US

Given the new gilded age we find ourselves in, I think it is appropriate to discuss narcissism a bit. There is much evidence to suggest that we live in the age of narcissism, as much navel gazing, tattooing, reality shows, soft-pornography as music videos, professional sports, political process, business ethics (or lack thereof), and so on demonstrate.The term narcissism is derived from Greek mythology.  Narcissus, the myth tells us, is a very beautiful man whom many women wanted to be with, but he was too arrogant, hence ignoring their attention. One day, Echo, who is a nymph sees Narcissus and, naturally, falls in love with him. As expected, Narcissus rejects Echo in humiliating fashion, much like what goes on in reality TV. This act of cruelty angers the gods. They decide to punish the beautiful young man by condemning him to love only himself.   

One day, Narcissus happens to see his own reflection in a pool of water and, naturally, falls in love with himself. He cannot stop looking at himself, not unlike the current governor of California, and dies right there near the pool. Afterwards, where he dies a new flower blooms, and the myth calls this flower “the narcissus.” Of course, the fact of the matter is that we all have a bit of narcissism about us, and if directed in the right channels and kept in check, it can be very helpful to build self-esteem and give us abilities to help others too. It is the narcissism that has morphed into all consuming self-absorption that creates problems for humanity. In a self-perpetuating form, reinforced by consumer mythology, narcissistic folks gain a misplaced sense of superiority about themselves, and we end up with things like Wall Street and Lobbyists…you get the picture!

Some folks maintain that phenomena like New Age Buddhism are narcissistic. What is important for us to note is that Buddhism misappropriated by those narcissistic individuals who wish to skip the suffering part of the path towards enlightenment and buy their way to it, is not the intended Buddhism—we can call it pseudo-Buddhism perhaps.Moreover, while narcissism is usually considered vis-à-vis individuals, it can also be a collective form. A narcissistic society can be a very dangerous society. A narcissistic group of followers of one kind or other religion can be destructive. The socio-political implications should always be part of a discourse of humanistic study.        

WHAT IS ANARCHISM?

Do folks who tend to support philosophy of anarchism wish to transform their society from a consensus-based contractual entity that has a conception of law and order into a society filled with pure and simple anarchy with no direction or meaning?Well, we mustn’t let the label fool us. Anarchists do not prescribe doctrines, formulas, and manifestos that, if followed, would lead society to disorder, chaos, and meaninglessness.

Au contraire, the “anarchists” subscribe to the notion that the world is quite complex—and it is—and therefore human societies must be complex too—and they are. Moreover, they would like to see society to be operating with diverse forms of organizations working together in a seamless web. Organizations must find and embrace different dimensions to their structure, purpose, and functions. Following this logic, one can argue anarchism is, in fact, aligned with what post-industrial democracy ought to be like.Dialogue, perpetual debate, cooperation, diversity, multitude, and altruism are the ways of anarchy—one can interpret.  

This sort of theory (i.e., a kind of social contract), when applied, gets messy and the terms of the contract are subject to change on a regular basis, hence the label!

IS DERRIDA’S WORK DIFFICULT TO GRASP?

It has been suggested, in not so subtle words, by many a reader that Derrida’s writing is extremely difficult. Some have gone so far as calling his treatments of language linguistically convoluted. When the man himself was asked about this he responded as follows.   “I suffer from it, yes, don’t laugh, and I do everything I think possible or acceptable to escape from this trap. But someone in me must get some benefit from it: a certain relation. In order to explain this, it would be necessary to draw out some very ancient things from my history, and make them speak with others, very present, from a social or historical scene that I try to take into account. It is out of the question to analyze this “relation” while improvising in front of this tape recorder, at this speed.

But don’t you think that those who accuse me in the way you described understand the essential of what they claim not to understand, namely, that it is a matter first of all of putting into question a certain scene of reading and evaluation, with its familiar comforts, its interests, its programs of every kind? No one gets angry at a mathematician or a physicist whom he or she doesn’t understand at all, or at someone who speaks a foreign language, but rather at someone who tampers with Your own language, with this “relation” precisely, which is yours… I assure you that I never give in to the temptation to be difficult just for the sake of being difficult. That would be too ridiculous. It’s just that I believe in the necessity of taking time or, if you prefer, of letting time, of not erasing the folds. For philosophical or political reasons, this problem of communication and receivability, in its new techno-economic givens, is more serious than ever for everyone; one can live it only with malaise, contradiction, and compromise.”

Given the way in which communications are in accelerated modes, whether in the form of body language, spoken word, written word, or moving pictures, Derrida’s work is indeed difficult to grasp. One needs to do further reading to prepare for Derrida. Moreover, one ought to cogitate with Derrida’s writing. First soak it in and then absorb the finer points. It is only upon reflection that one can gain access to Derrida’s thoughtfulness. In the end, it is always worth the trouble, because it will most certainly give one a deeper understanding of the human condition. This is of course not unlike what visual arts like Picasso’s paintings do for us. They teach us about the complexities of the human condition.    

DO ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS?

 

To answer this question one can look within and, as Nietzsche famously suggested, ask “what does my conscience tell me?” Or such a one can look at the greatest thinkers and their body of work in respect to the philosophical problematic of “means and ends.” In my view, one towering figure stands alone in this regard. And that is Mahatma Gandhi. For Gandhi there were no boundary demarcations between ends and means. Where some dialectical materialists steadfastly cling to the thesis of ends justifying the means, thereby excusing violent methods via which they and their followers sometimes achieve their goals, Gandhi always stood in a moral space diametrically opposed to such a view, never accepting it.

 

It suffices to say that Gandhi—correctly, I shall argue –believed in a direct moral connection between means and ends. Given the commitment he had to truth and nonviolence and their interdependence, it follows that one ought not employ immoral acts to gain social justice, as these acts will transform one from a moral agent to an immoral agent. In one of his early writings in Young India journal he wrote, “The means may be likened to a seed, the end to a tree; and there is just the same inviolable connection between the means and the end as there is between the seed and the tree.”  

 

To follow Gandhi’s duty-ethics of truth and nonviolence is to pursue what Rousseau called “civilization.” No civilization can be achieved by violent means. Dropping the atomic bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima may have led to an early surrender of Japanese imperial forces (one that many historians argue was inevitable without the bomb), but it destroyed hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and led to the nuclear proliferation, which is a major planetary concern. The means transformed the world in this case into a more violent place where smaller wars in tandem with potential nuclear annihilation are not farfetched realities. To be ethical human beings we must think in holographic ways and see the means as part of any end. In other words, ends do not justify the means. We must commit to the morally correct philosophy of truth and nonviolence if we seek planetary peace.

PHILANTROPY OR STATE GIVING

Some folks argue that certain rich people will give to the poor in enough numbers that will make up for lack of virtue attributed to their fellow wealthy counterparts. Bill Gates, for example, seems to be the perfect example to contextualize their argument. The world needs the super-rich, the argument goes, so as to balance the scale of poverty and prosperity. Those who utilize this line of reasoning call their words, statement of philanthropy.    

I should like to argue differently. I say, it is good that certain rich people willingly accept the moral obligation to give back to the world. That is all good and always welcome. But the world needs something else to balance the scale. There is too much evidence to prove that individual acts of altruism are simply inadequate. To permanently and in a wholesale manner remove poverty from the planet, help should come from the governments. What is more, the wealthy nations ought to take the lion’s share of this systematic contribution. If and when aid comes through the state, all citizens who earn above the mid range national income of their respective countries will contribute something as part of their duty-ethics—enforced by the law.

As it stands now, the fate of millions of people around the world hangs on the decisions of rich countries such as the US contingent upon the strategic interests of the giving nations. The fact of the matter is that rich nations have never given enough and that speaks badly about their ethics of state philanthropy. The Europeans and the US have benefited from the world’s resources, including its cheap and sometimes free labor (i.e., slavery) for the past five hundred years, but given back very little.

Given the planetary condition that humanity finds itself in, with all the cross-migrations and interdependencies that get more complex rapidly, the rich must give back systematically or the whole ship will go down like the Titanic.