for comments, Becker and Democracy

[Dan Liechty]

I had the following exchange recently and it struck me that there are
a number of you on this list who have thought about these issues as
much or more than I have, and that it would be beneficial all the way
around to open up this discussion for comment and contribution. Please
feel free to jump in!!

Prof. Liechty,

I have long appreciated Becker's work and still find him to be one of
the most unappreciated thinkers of the 20th century. I have Denial of
Death, Escape from Evil, Structure of Evil, Angel
in Armor, and The Birth and Death of Meaning. One thing I note about
his work is that he doesn't provide direct answers or resolutions. Am
I missing something? If I wanted to find Becker's thoughts on
democracy where would I turn? Thank you for taking the time to read
this. Richard Tilley, Johns Hopkins grad student, MLA program

Dear Richard,

You are right that Becker rarely moved into the programmatic voice in
his writings. In fact, the further he moved in his analysis, the more
he was starkly aware that his social, political and religious
criticisms applied equally to "both sides" in most discourses, and
hence was not always welcomed by those who want everything to be
divided neatly between the Good Guys and the Bad Guys (in fact, this
ubiquitous desire in and of itself is a case in point of his theory!)

However, at least in terms of the modern society, Becker did indeed
feel that "democracy" was the best we can do in terms of governing
ourselves. Note the small d and in quotes, because Becker would by no
means of thought that AMERICAN Democracy represented the best we can
do, not by a long shot, and he also would have dissented strongly from
the idea that somehow more tribal societies were "blessed" by the
introduction of western ideas of governing. It was more a matter of
regrettable inevitability.

But in terms of large, modern societies, Becker held to the Kantian
notion that what we look for is a dynamic ideal/real balance of
"maximum individuality WITHIN maximum community" (expressed in
Structure of Evil, if I am not mistaken.) Very important to this
notion is that the ideal balanced is never reached, it is a matter of
constantly moving back and forth between these poles on the continuum.

For example, in a situation of strongly censored sexual expression,
Becker might have supported the Henry Miller and Ralph Ginzburg types
who were pushing the limits in the name of individual freedoms. But in
a situation very much at the opposite end (think, NYC 42d street in
1980 or so) Becker might well have supported the idea that the
community has the right to clean things up a bit and assert a sense of
communal values, even if it means curtailing the "individual rights"
or open and exploitative pornographers.

This is actually a difficult path to tread, because you are never a
solid and permanent ally of any "one side" (which especially undercuts
your ability to do long term institutional fundraising, among other
things!)

The book in which Becker comes the closest to a programmatic statement
of his social and political advocacy is the 1967 book, Beyond
Alienation: A Philosophy of Education for the Crisis of Democracy. It
is out of print but not impossible to find, especially since you have
access to interlibrary loan. I hope this is helpful. Let's keep the
discussion going!
Sincerely, Dan Liechty


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Illinois State University RedbirdMail

[Doug Mounce]

Excellent, timely presentation, thanks Dan!  I always thought it was curious how primitives, for example, are explained as denying responsibility for procreation, and that part of the change with their ideology comes in the face of overwhelming evidence.  Same thing with the classical idea that your son can (or even wants to) carry-on your immortality.  So, global warming, guns-for-fun, etc. seem to carry piles of evidence that we deny.

Not that anything better comes-along, and I would add Fukushima and radiation poisoning that others might deny, but there you have it.  I'm so close to my own immortality projects that I can't see them, of course, and I'm sure they'd appear silly and contrary to all evidence if you observed me for even a week.  

[Dan Liechty]

I thought this might be interesting for folks on this list... I'll let
someone else be the first to comment, however!

http://religiondispatches.org/what-if-animals-believe-in-god/?utm_source=Religion+Dispatches+Newsletter&utm_campaign=50901ebe13-RD_Daily_Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_742d86f519-50901ebe13-42426881

[Gordon Shephard]

Aye, me...  

We are, each of us, imprisoned in our own experience.  We cannot experience the experience of another person...or being.  We cannot know (that is experience) what anything means to another being.  

What does "God" mean to you?  What is it to "believe?"  Surely these can be discussed.  But discussion involves translating one's experience into a language common to the discussants, and any translation inevitably requires reduction of one's experience to categories that may or may not adequately reflect one's experience.

Do nonhuman animals believe in God?  Do human animals believe in God?  Does it matter?  What is (would be) the benefit of discussing such questions?

My personal preference is to sit in wonder...

--

For Peat's Sake: www.upfromthebog.com

[Roadwalker]

Gordon Shephard distilled many of my thoughts in his message.

Even among human beings who use the word "god", there is no clear consensus as to the essence of the referent of the word "god."

Even the phrasing of the question (Do nonhuman animals believe in God?) implies certain assumptions.  For example, "Do nonhuman animals believe in gods?" implies multiple gods, whereas a capitalized "God" implies a unique, singular "god."

I like Becker's reminding us that language is symbolic.   In everyday life, it seems that a lot of people tend to think of words as real things rather than as merely symbols of concepts and ideas.   The word is not the thing it represents.   The height of insanity, IMO, is human beings slaughtering and murdering each other over differences, such as the difference between "Allah" and "Yahweh."

/ Bill Penner / 

---

From: Gordon Shephard <gordon.m...@GMAIL.COM>
To: GENERATIVE-DE...@LISTSERV.ILSTU.EDU
Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 7:21 AM
Subject: Re: Do nonhuman animals believe in God?

[Michael Baumgardner]

As Karen Armstrong said (History of God), “All talk of God staggers under impossible difficulties”.  In her latest book (The Case for God) she argues that  in premodern religion, religious discourse was not intended to be understood literally because it was only possible to speak about a reality that transcended language in symbolic terms .  "Authentic religious discourse could not lead to clear, distinct and empirically verified truth”.   The emergence of science, which has no reason to be at odds with transcendent religion, has somehow become the enemy of religion in the eyes of those who have chosen to take myth and transcendent truth to be something within our world.  In other words, when theologians adopted science:  "the mythoi of Christianity were interpreted as empirically, rationally, and historically verifiable and forced into a style of thinking" that is alien to what religion should be.  This has created atheists and has created fundamentalists, and in a world where I believe religion plays a role in ineffable and transcendent thought, is leaving an empty space for religion that needs to be filled.  Pascal’s words still ring a bell with me:  ""If one subjects everything to reason our religion will lose its mystery and its supernatural character. If one offends the principles of reason our religion will be absurd and ridiculous....There are two equally dangerous extremes, to shut reason out and to let nothing else in.”