a huge +2 Ben!

Tom and Ken, thanks, I really appreciate it!

I don't mean to be disrespectful to anyone, but I want to point out that many societies -- and almost by definition the winning societies -- are blinded by their own "isms" -- whatever they maybe!! The more spectacular our past success, the more blinded (and thus dogmatic) we often become.

As a Chinese American who happen to be interested in history, I feel I have a good vantage point at viewing insularity. Take China as an example.

For literally thousands of years, we (I get to use that) simply viewed ourselves as the best -- bar none. And looking from our vantage point, who could say we were wrong? The amazing thing (to me) wasn't that the Europeans suddenly showed up with bigger and better -- but just how long and often they had to make that point to us -- over 400 years -- before we finally got it! In other words, just how blinded we were as a people -- because of the one belief we held as the truth -- the "thinking man's logical conclusion":

900AD - China invented gun powder and later artillery (more or less)
1300 AD -- The darn Europeans got wind of the technology -- no thanks to the Mongols and Arabs
1500 AD -- European artillery surpassed that of China -- though only marginally so. China saw, but didn't take note.
1700 AD -- Tiny Burma refused to pay tribute. China sent out the imperial army and navy to punish Burma. Burma fought China to a stalemate with a few Portuguese artillery pieces. Chinese generals filed back detailed technical reports -- staffers in Beijing failed to comprehend and filed all the reports away.

1840 -- China told Britain to stop importing opium. Britain refused. Chinese "DEA" agents seized British opium in Canton. Britain declared war -- and blasted away the Chinese ships and forts -- yup, armed with the same artillery pieces that were proven failures way back in 1500, and again in 1700.

1860 -- China declared yet another war -- same equipment -- same results. Oh, OK...

1870 - China buys "clever" Western technology -- but pointedly REFUSED to change ANY of its social / educational systems. Why change anything that's time tested? Just buy the cannons.

1895 -- Japan sank China's spanking modern (and much larger) fleet. China sank to semi-colonial status.

1985 -- After 90 years of turmoil and grappling at new solutions (communism, unfortunately), China finally turns around. China's new "ism":

1. Don't worry whether it's a white cat or a black cat. If it can catch mice, it's a good cat!
2. Yes, a few flies will enter if you keep the windows open. But so what?


Nothing is guaranteed, but I actually think China has a very good chance of success so long as it continues on its path of pragmatism -- the "anti dogmatic" dogma, if you will.

In contrast, we Americans (yes, I get to use that term too) seem to have become much more dogmatic, or "knee jerking" -- when it comes to choosing our future paths. Not saying Obama's medical insurance plans are great -- but why the ANGRY ACCUSATIONS that doing so will lead to socialism?? The emotion is akin to the earlier Chinese, who were so afraid of introducing even the tiniest of western methods -- for fear that would spell the end of all Chinese ways and traditions!! Ignorance -- and a lot of arrogance too. Compare that to the Japanese -- who didn't have that emotional baggage.

Another example of how our "ism" blinds us to reality. We've always been taught (thanks to Adam Smith) that letting individuals make their own financial decisions will lead to the benefit of the entire society as a whole. I think there's a lot of truth to that. But is it fail safe? Well, how do we explain the real estate / financial debacle that led to 2008 being such a gut wrenching year? The Republicans largely treated this as "an anomaly" and ignored it. Does this remind you of the imperial Chinese officials?

We don't want to kill personal initiative. But we don't want to bury personal responsibility either. The devil is in the details. And knee-jerking that capitalism is good and therefore regulations are bad isn't going to make the devil disappear. We need a society and an economy that strike a proper mix -- a proper balance if you will. And we can't accomplish this by holding onto this or that "ism" with a death grip -- or foolishly thinking that there is always just one logical conclusion!!

Edited by ben2world on 03/13/2011 16:33:03 MDT.

That's really good, Ben

How about American Exceptionalism?

How about American Exceptionalism?"

If we think we Americans are unique in thinking of our own uniqueness -- I can tell you that most major civilizations think the same about themselves! I believe China "invented" insularity. But I'll give Britain, France, and Japan credit for coming pretty darn close. And of course, America. :)

Ben you're on a rolL today. Very well written that was!

Edited by kennyhel77 on 03/13/2011 16:38:39 MDT.

Thanks again, Jerry and Ken.

Pragmatism rules!! I know Kissinger will agree with me.


EDIT: On second thought... maybe having Kissinger on my side isn't such a good thing... :)

Edited by ben2world on 03/13/2011 17:14:11 MDT.

"We've always been taught (thanks to Adam Smith) that letting individuals make their own financial decisions will lead to the benefit of the entire society as a whole. I think there's a lot of truth to that. But is it fail safe? Well, how do we explain the real estate / financial debacle that led to 2008 being such a gut wrenching year?"

Smith worried a lot about the unscrupulous gaming the system. The 2008 seems a pretty fairr example.

"EDIT: On second thought... maybe having Kissinger on my side isn't such a good thing"

Better beside you than behind you. ;-]

Ben,

Some very thoughtful posts. I too am a student of history. Probably one of the most important subjects in education, and life-long continuing education.

History can help analyze the past, determine trends, cause & causality, and even change the future by applying what we have learned from history (not making the same mistake twice). It must be recognized that conclusions drawn from history (cause/causality) are dependent upon what intellectuals/philosophers influence (consciously/unconsciously) the student. If one is influenced by Aristotle/Aquinas versus Kant/Hegel, two different conclusions will be identified.

Regarding the need to visit China or any other country to gain a true understanding, wouldn't the visit be rather subjective, depending where and what we see?

I don't think one needs to be a combat soldier or war correspondent to understand the horrors of war, or to determine whether it is justified.

It is my belief that to understand another country, we need to understand that country's sense of life (i.e. their view of the Nature of Man, Nature of Society, and Nature of Government). These are intellectual pursuits that can be accomplished without visiting in person.

You mentioned Pragmatism. Not sure if you embrace it, or just threw it out. Pragmatism is one of the few contributions of America to philosophy. I just want to point out that the 19th and 20th century pragmatists in the US, have intellectual roots to Kant and Hegel. And yes there is an implication in that statement.

One last note. In America there is a fragment of the population that is anti-China/protectionism due to racism and xenophobia. No implication towards anyone who has posted in this thread intended.

"We've always been taught (thanks to Adam Smith) that letting individuals make their own financial decisions will lead to the benefit of the entire society as a whole."

Society is not an organism. It is a collection of sub-sets, and the irreducilbe primary is the individual.

So what determines if something benefits society? Is it a percentage? If a policy benefits 200 million Americans, what about the other 107 million? How about benefiting 300 million? What about the other 7 million? Should we not apply principles that benefit 100% of the individuals? If we let individuals make their own financial decisions, have we not benefited 100% of the population, by providing them the freedom to think and act of their own volition?

I believe China "invented" insularity....

There is the amusing and often quoted (possibly apocryphal ) English newspaper headline from early last century :
"Fog over the Channel, Continent isolated "
Franco

Nick:

"You mentioned Pragmatism. Not sure if you embrace it, or just threw it out. Pragmatism is one of the few contributions of America to philosophy."

Not to diminish the contributions of any one individual, but voluminous contributions have been made by many ancient civilizations -- as well as many not-so-ancient civilizations that nevertheless preceded the US by millennia!!

Try this on for size: Imagine a person who knows ABSOLUTELY NO ENGLISH -- and doesn't spend much time studying translations of British or American literature or philosophy. Imagine just how VAST the store of knowledge that is basically out of bounds for this person!?! Multiply that by a factor or a hundred -- and you might begin to appreciate the wealth of knowledge in so many other parts of the world that is simply out of bounds for you! Knowledge that you don't even know exists!!

Nick, I think we differ in one main respect. Having interacted first hand with utterly different societies time and time again -- I completely accept the fact that not only do I NOT KNOW everything that's out there -- what's more, there are vast, vast, areas of knowledge that I don't even know exist!! In stark contrast, you are very assured that you know a lot -- and whatever you might not know -- you "know" that you have the ability to "think through them ultimately to the ONE, LOGICAL conclusion".

Parenting is the hardest job in the world. Bright teens acquire some initial knowledge -- and quickly conclude for themselves that they've "GOT IT". It's the result of a bright mind racing way ahead of actual (and very limited) life experiences. And their parents will tell you that it's really, really hard to tell a self-assured, know-it-all teen that there are still lots out there that're beyond their imagination -- never mind their understanding.

Nick, you've got a hellava lot more experiences than any teen. But reading your posts, you've also clearly made up your mind that you've GOT IT. That's way too soon, Nick, and also way too limited. Why? Reading some of your posts, they are mostly from the vantage point of YOU -- your struggles, your dilemmas, your triumphs. Based on this sample of one -- you've made many dramatic conclusions about "ultimate objectivity" -- such as the pursuit of happiness being everybody's ultimate goal (if they disagree with that, you simply conclude they haven't thought through sufficiently or rationally or both) -- and so on and so forth. Basically, Nick, your "sweeping" conclusions about humanity are linked right back to YOU.

Blessed are those who hunger. Why? Because be it food or knowledge -- you can't really feed someone who is already full of it. If you are truly interested in learning (and not just in acquiring and 'cataloging' facts), then I respectfully suggest that you jettison your "teenager approach" to learning -- and go back to being more child like -- and open! And along with innocence, a little humility will go a long way as well.

Finally, you wrote:

Regarding the need to visit China or any other country to gain a true understanding, wouldn't the visit be rather subjective, depending where and what we see?. Of course! But if you value only the objective, then the xerox machine is pretty darn objective and faithful. It is also rigidly limited. You can choose to faithfully parrot earlier philosophers -- or you can strive to synthesize your own -- by both exposing yourself to the world, and also by leveraging knowledge from the past.

I don't think one needs to be a combat soldier or war correspondent to understand the horrors of war.... My view? Intellectually, yes, you have a point. But emotionally, NO, not by a long shot. I've not been in combat and wouldn't even pretend to "know"!!

It is my belief that to understand another country, we need to understand that country's sense of life (i.e. their view of the Nature of Man, Nature of Society, and Nature of Government). These are intellectual pursuits that can be accomplished without visiting in person. My view? As described above, you will not believe me when I tell you that you are almost completely and utterly wrong! Like the teen who finds his daddy a dumb ass (no matter how much his daddy explains otherwise) -- the teen will have to go out and experience the world himself -- before he finds out, as most teens do, that his daddy was actually pretty darn intelligent.

Nick, you have been a great learner of your world. But there is a far, far bigger one out there.

Edited by ben2world on 03/14/2011 01:25:24 MDT.

Plus one big time for your input on languages. I was raised multilingual and aquired a few more later in life and the most frustrating and painful part of it has been how to try and explain the limitations of each language. No one wants to hear that other languages not only may better express an idea or a concept , but that being raised within a language also shapes one thinking, thus limiting it , by definition. And I only scratched the surface being limited to a few Indo European languages.
I studied Linguistics because this subject both affected me in person and fascinated me endlessly.

Edited by Kat_P on 03/13/2011 22:58:21 MDT.

Katharina:

Frustrating and painful trying to explain a language's limitation to someone who knows only one? I am not a linguist, but I feel your pain. OTOH, if you were in Europe, the limitations of any single language would pretty much be common sense ! Sigh...


EDIT: Read your post again. "[B]eing raised within a language also shapes one's thinking, thus limiting it, by definition.

That is so true!!

Edited by ben2world on 03/14/2011 00:18:27 MDT.

I am not trying to sound cocky and put down people that speak one language. We all have skills, and I was lucky to be born in an environment that required and facilitated my learning languages.

I understand. We all know there is no sin in not traveling abroad or not knowing a second language. Not everyone has the means or even the interest. As they say, HYOH. Just as long as they don't also say "there is no need to because they can learn the same stuff without the firsthand experience.: )

has been part of Chinese Philosophy since at least the time of Confucius, so it's hardly an American invention. Sort of like saying Columbus discovered America when it was already abundant with robust civilizations, not to mention that he thought he was in India.

Understanding a culture absolutely does involve spending time in it. This *begins* with learning the language. To claim to know much beyond the surface layer of any culture without having done so is ridiculous.

History is interesting, mostly in the way it presents the author's version of what is meaningful. Unless you read history in multiple languages written from a wide range of perspectives, it is only a bit more than an exercise in entertaining propaganda. But then, so is philosophy. If the American Revolutionary War had not been won by the minority who fought the British, world history would probably remember when the British forces "squashed the unscrupulous traitors."

A mathematician named Kurt Godel developed The Incompleteness Theorem, which is quite interesting. It basically sticks a fork in the basis of proof as the sole arbiter of truth--in any logical system, there will always be a truth that is unprovable. Thus truth is ultimately inscrutable, ineffable.

Hi Ben,

You did post "Pragmatism." Pragmatism is a philosophy. Did you mean something else?

You said that there is a lot of knowledge out there that I do not know. Absolutely!! What is the nature of the knowledge I do not know? Is it specialized knowledge of the teachings, culture, and art of each country?

Cary,

Perhaps you can shed some light on this. Do you mean being practical or pragmatic?

Or do you mean Chinese Pragmatism as a formal philosophy? I am very familiar with American Pragmatism, I have studied it quite thoroughly. John Dewey was instrumental in the development of the philosophy.

I do know that Dewey visited China in the early 20th century and introduced this American philosophy, and its Chinese version was a significant influence for several decades.

Are we talking about two different things?

I have never been to China. I only know that when we use words, they must be defined, so there is no misunderstanding.

"
You said that there is a lot of knowledge out there that I do not know. Absolutely!! What is the nature of the knowledge I do not know? Is it specialized knowledge of the teachings, culture, and art of each country?"

Perhaps the knowledge of what it is like "to think " in a language other than one where the subject always come first, then the verb, then the object. Word order ( Syntax) is an expression of our thinking, which is in turn partly shaped by word order. And this is just a tiny fraction on how a language is shaped and shapes its speakers. And this is still in the very limited realm of Indo European languages. Beyond that family, one can experience thought in ways unknown to most of us on this forum.
Personally, the more I know, the more I realize how much is really out there that I don't know.