Author: C. P. Lawrence

The Uneducated Voter

by C. P. Lawrence

As the results of this election settle into the collective minds of the country, the responses we are seeing are interesting. One of the words lobbied about in reference to the Trump voter is the word, “uneducated.” The Washington Times, The Washington Post, Time Magazine and even Sunny Hostin of The View, a Notre Dame graduate, have all labeled Trump voters as uneducated. A professor at the University of South Carolina has gone as far as calling the Trump voters stupid and “holding the rest of us hostage,” which prompts the question, what do all these people mean by the term, “uneducated?”

Well, let’s start by examining what it means to be educated. In a keynote address in 2011, J. Casey Hurley, spoke on this very issue. In his address, he gave, what many consider a solid definition of educated, he presented a six virtue definition, stating that we “know that understanding imagination, strong character, courage, humility and generosity are the six virtues of the educated person.” There are many other definitions out there and most have to do with high test scores, content, course work and degrees, but do those really define who is educated and who is not or who is intelligent and who is not?

Back to Hurley, he acknowledged that many of today’s schools “are driven by a definition that says educated people are those who score high on standardized tests.” He deems this not useful and missing the mark. Why? He goes back to the six virtue definition and acknowledges that educated people should have virtues, the question is, which ones? He proposes these six virtues for multiple reasons. They produce other virtues; they are a recipe for improving every learning situation; they provide an answer for how to teach, and finally, they are inspiring. There are many others who endorse this definition, or something like it, but the question is, are Sunny Hostin and others right in labelling Trump voters as uneducated or stupid?

Sunny Hostin was blessed to attend Notre Dame where she earned a law degree. Many of the pundits we listen to each day attended Ivy League institutions or other prestigious universities. Does attending a prestigious insitution quantify as educated? Or, does attending a prestigious institution equate to club membership? That is now a more difficult question than it used to be. In the past, the answer was clearly the affirmative due to admission and entrance requirements. These institutions were looking for the best and the brightest, but today they are merely looking for a specific ideology. Is a Harvard-educated hedge fund manager better educated than an electrician? Probably, but what about intelligence? 


The question, in my opinion, is one of equity more than intelligence. If the electrician was afforded the same opportunities as the hedge fund manager would the electrician achieve the same results? I would actually put money on the electrician to outperform the hedge fund manager. Why? Chances are the hedge fund manager was born in privilege (which is almost a prerequisite for club membership) and educated in privilege (in the club) which suggests a life with little to no struggle. How do we learn? Well, there is a good bit of evidence supporting the fact that dissonance is necessary to learning. My bet is the electrician had lots of struggle to get to the point of being an electrician, which equates to real learning, which is why I would put my money on the electrician. So, back to our issue, is it an educated thought to label all Trump voters as uneducated? Probably not; actually, the term all of these people should be using is “schooled.” Trump voters are, in general, not as schooled as Harris voters. That much is true, but that has more to do with equity than it does with intelligence.

  
Now there is something interesting about most of those connecting Trump voters to the term, “uneducated;” many of them are doing it in vile and hateful ways, which begs the question, are hateful people more intelligent than kind people. According to Psychological Science, there is research to support that those with lower cognitive abilities feel more prejudice and more bias towards others, especially those who are different, than those with higher cognitive abilities. The article summed it up with the following quote, “Hateful people are typically simple people.” Those assuming that the thoughts and motivations of those people who voted for Trump are uneducated and stupid are, in essence, exerting a prejudice and bias towards those who are different than they are … those who did not vote the same way they did. There are many idioms and metaphors to describe this but let’s just say it is hypocritical and leave it at that.

   
Are Trump voters really uneducated? Maybe, but that has nothing to do with whether they are intelligent or not. All it means is that they tend to not be educated in Ivy League institutions or prestigious institutions, which is logical considering most of these institutions hold to liberal positions and seek a liberal ideology when it comes to admissions. Sure, there may be some conservative intelligent people who attend these places, but most go elsewhere for various reasons, which brings us back to the term “schooled.” Most Trump voters probably were not schooled in Ivy League institutions or prestigious universities, but that has nothing to do with whether they are intelligent or not, which is the implication of most of those spewing these thoughts.

On matters of intelligence, when you vote for one party all the time as if that party has all the answers … well, that is a sign of something other than intelligence, and that applies to both parties. One party, one person, one ideology and even one philosophy is never right all the time. That is statistically impossible and logically improbable no matter your belief system. Pretending the dichotomy of right and wrong or true and false does not exist is not intelligent; it is actually delusional.  So, to answer the original question once and for all, the answer is no, due to a confusion of terms. The better word is schooled and the answer to that questions is yes, they are most likely not as schooled as Harris supporters, but as far as intelligence, they are as intelligent as anyone else. They may not be part of the club or afforded the opportunities of the elites, but neither issue has anything to do with their intelligence. Again, this why it is important to not let others do your thinking for you. Think your own thoughts and do your own research and you will find that your efforts will be rewarded. Thinking still matters!

Existentialism: Part VI

by C. P. Lawrence

Part VI: Living an Existential Life

With existentialism being so abstract, how does one live inside its philosophy? This is the last question I will tackle in this series in this last post. 

I begin with a quote from Le Monde, a Parisian newspaper who attempted to define existentialism in 1945. In their December edition, they admitted that “Existentialism, like faith, cannot be explained; it can only be lived.” 

A few posts back I referenced that it is indeed more a faith than a philosophy. Why is that? One of the main reasons is that it bases conduct on a belief in individual freedom more than anything else. One is free to choose one’s own conduct, but here is the difficult part, inside that freedom there is a belief that no objective moral order exists independent of the human being. It is up to each human being to create his or her own moral order by way of living it and affirming it through their own authenticity as they live. I don’t know about you, but that seems a bit daunting. 

Existentialism, you could say, is obsessed with individual authenticity—how individuals choose to live their lives. It rests on some bold ontological speculations, about what does and does not exist. One of the weightiest speculations is the belief that there is no god or entity outside of the human being; therefore, moral values do not exist outside of the human being. There are no moral absolutes nor are there universal laws or codes of ethics that apply to all of us. Values come to us as we live our lives in authentic ways. If we live our lives as if values were given to us by God or existed outside of our being, that would amount to existential sin: it would equate to living a life refusing to face the freedom you have been given to live your own authentic life, but from where does that thought come? Is it even a valid thought if it comes to us from others? You can see the dilemma we face. This individual authenticity, it is very important to the existentialist. 

Inside an existential world, every individual is responsible for deciding, on their own, how to evaluate their choices, and it is only through those individual choices given to them by the individual freedom they have that values come, but do they? An existentialist believes that it is the action rather than the principle that creates value but is the action not principled action, especially if it applies only to the individual. To value one action as more important than any other action is to prioritize it—to set it apart as an ideal, which is value, is it not? That ideal is what we strive to achieve as we live our lives. In existentialism, it is authenticity; in the Christian faith, it is the glory of God. Is there a difference? When we choose to act in a certain way, we are choosing what we think is the right as it applies to us. Inside existentialism, we are to live for ourselves; inside Christianity, we are to live for others. The only difference is the direction; in existentialism, all actions are directed inward to self, but inside Christianity all actions should be directed outward to others.

Existentialism, as we have referenced, does not believe human beings have a pre-existing nature or character, but in many ways, it instills this belief as an existing nature. We are “existentially” free to become “self-created beings” by virtue of our actions and our choices but is that not an existing nature that must take hold of us for us to live as existentially-free individuals? We are told that we possess absolute freedom … that we are free to choose and this truth is so self-evident to us, or it should be, that it never needs to be proven or argued. Again, is that not a pre-existing nature or maybe the better word is condition. 

There is acknowledgement that no one chooses who they want to be completely. Even Sartre recognized this and he also recognized that each person has a set of natural and social properties that influence who we become, which we might refer to as social conditioning. He gave them a name, “facticity.” Here is where, in my opinion, essentialism gets a little upside down. Sartre thought that one’s facticity contained properties that others could discover about us but that we would not see or acknowledge ourselves. Some examples of these are gender, weight, height, race, class and nationality. There are others but it was thought that we, as individuals, would hardly every spend time examining these ourselves and yet, today, many spend all their time lamenting them or agonizing over them. An existentialist would describe these as an objective account not capable of describing the subjective experience of what it means to be our own unique individual. As we look out at our world, what we see is the breakdown of not only society but of existential philosophy.   

Existentialism came to age between the years of 1940 – 1945, during and after WWII, which was a unique time, especially when considering the views of freedom and choice in Europe at the time. Europe, at this time, was, in my opinion, the perfect storm for existentialism to blom and grow. Its focus on individual freedom was so very appealing to those coming out of war-torn Europe who had lost all freedoms for many years. The appeal was every bit as emotional as it was intellectual. Sartre was quoted as saying, “If man is nothing but that which he makes himself then no one is bound by fate, or by forces outside their control.” He was pushing the idea that only by exercising personal freedom could people regain the civil liberties they had lost, which, was taking advantage of the situation and the state of those coming out of the war having lost everything.   

There is a problem and a price to be paid for the freedom to do whatever you want when every you want, which existentialism advocated, and that price was steep. In such a culture, everyone gets to have that same freedom, even those who oppose your right to freedom. Coming out of a war that took everyone’s freedom, individual freedom was embraced and even needed to repair and restore, but with came a burden that we are no just realizing. There is really no such thing as individual freedom unless you live alone on a remote island. Any type of freedom, especially one advocating that every choice that is ours is ours alone will eventually affect others. There is just no way around this. 

In the situation coming out of a long war, the burden was light as our individual choices were directed at restoring those individual freedoms lost, but eventually those individual freedoms would move beyond our own individual freedoms and seek other things beyond us. The desires would extend beyond what we had and seek what we were owed and what we deserved. It is in those times that this light individual burden became heavy and hard. Sartre recognized these times and presented an explanation. He said it is in these hard times that we adopt a cover of sorts to escape the pressures of choices that extend beyond us, which he called those choices “bad faith.” He said that we used “bad faith” when the pressure of choice was so overwhelming that one pretends there was no freedom after all. Sartre would say that this is a special kind of self-deception or a betrayal of who one really, but there is also evidence that this “bad faith” was a personal betrayal of existentialism. It was a desire for more … more freedom … more liberties and more rights. Sartre would claim that this “bad faith” was merely a denial of the freedom afford to us, but who will deny freedom? He claimed that one common form of deny one’s freedom was to present excuses for one’s behavior, but is not an excuse presented in a situation as a means of justifying a wrong action knowing the right one? Again, this is another sizable hole in existentialism.

As I close this series, let me summarize the main tenets of existentialism and present a few questions to consider in response to each. 

First, true existentialists believe individuals should embrace their own freedom, and that everyone has the freedom to make their own choices and these choices will and should define who we are. The problem with individual freedom, as I have referenced, is that it often comes at the expense of someone else’s freedom, unless, again, one lives as a hermit or in paralysis. The other issue of freedom is this one: There is no such thing as individual freedom. Everyone lives in some sort of community where are choices infringe upon others, which makes most of our choices not individual.  

Second, true existentialists acknowledge the absurdity of life. They believe that life is absurd and devoid of inherent meaning which, for them, prompts individuals to create their own meaning and values through their own choice, but is this absurdity pre-existing either in culture or as a thought? It is presented as ever-present which is pre-existing unless it comes from the individual living freely in a world where everyone is living their own different life, which does make absurdity a reality. My question is this, does this individual freedom contribute to the absurdity or create it?

Third, true existentialists believe in accepting responsibility for one’s own actions. They believe, and rightly so, that with freedom comes responsibility and one should own one’s decisions and the consequences that come as the result of them. They believe doing this will empower one to live authentically and with integrity, which I am in full support of living with both, but the question is will living an existential life produce both? What we have seen is that living authentically does not necessarily lead one to live with integrity, which also suggests something else is involved in life. In most cases, integrity never reveals itself in isolation as there is no opportunity to put it in practice. Most of the time we put integrity into practice in our interactions with other when we place them as more important than ourselves. How can we do that if living our best existential life is to live an authentic individually-free life?  

And, finally, true existentialists believe in living authentically at all costs. They strive to be true to themselves and to avoid conforming to cultural or societal expectations and norms. The key to authenticity to an existentialist is to understand one’s desires and values and live in accordance with them to the best of one’s ability. This is existentialism, but is it, really? As I have pointed out there are some real issues of consistency and causation that must be addressed to make sense of this world in which we live, whether we are existentialists, Christians, atheists, agnostics or aliens.  

As I close, the idea of existentialism tends to scare most when they hear the term, but the reality is that it is another philosophy trying to make sense of the world in much the same way we are. At the end of the day, I think we all want the same thing … for the world to make a little more sense to us than it did yesterday. I hope this has been a fruitful experience for those who have joined me on this journey. I hope this has pushed you think a little deeper and to spend a little more time considering different thoughts. I hope you don’t see difference as threat, but as that friend that sees the world differently than you do. You may not agree with him, but he makes you better because he pushes you to think about the things you want even stop and think about with his prodding. Difference is not something to be afraid of if you can think. This why thinking matters … always! Blessings! 

Existentialism: Part 5

by C. P. Lawrence

Part V: The Manifestation of Existentialism and Its Miscalculation 

In my first post, I posited that we live in a culture dominated by existentialism with most of us unaware of its supremacy. I also referenced that two of the loftier goals of existentialism were personal freedom and personal responsibility, but what seems to be more prevalent in culture currently are their opposites. Very few take any kind of personal responsibility anymore, choosing instead to judge or cancel and freedom has all but disappeared, replaced by affirmation and acceptance, which have more to do with attention and recognition.

Every cultural change that has been “thrust” upon us (I use Sartre’s word intentionally.) moves us beyond original ideas, which is normal for culture, but in areas of freedom the cultural movement has been substantial in recent years. In the past, there was truthful (I hesitate to say true) freedom of speech. I may not have liked what some had to say, but I supported their right to say it and they did the same for me but that mindset has become hard to find. Say the wrong thing and risk being canceled. Post the wrong thing, even in the past, and be canceled. That is not freedom of speech; that is attacking the very idea that gave the right to hold such a view. The attacks do not come from one side but from all sides. Those on one side blame the other side and vice versa. Everyone wants to blame everyone else, but the blame is ours … all of us. Those looking to judge and cancel, do so from behind a curtain we have built and continue to support … a social media account, an obscure email or a nondescript text message. The informal restriction of freedom is here, and unless something changes, it will become formal soon. All of this, in my humble opinion, is a manifestation of existentialism’s miscalculation, which is the subject of this post. 

Existentialism’s advocacy, in my opinion, for agency and condition regarding man is not the problem. The problem, as I see it, is the failure to address human nature, which is and has been a foundational issue in philosophical circles forever. That failure has left much unexplained and wide gaps of inconsistencies, which weakens all philosophical approaches, especially existentialism. The question regarding human nature is still there, despite the effort to remove it from the conversation, and there is still many referencing its presence. Existentialism untethered man, like no other philosophical approach before it, from his religious moorings, giving him boundless freedom and power; what did he do with it? Well, to be honest, that is the issue. Nothing changed; nothing was different. Man did what he had done in the past; he is no closer to the truth than he was prior to existentialism. However, man does appear to be more broken than before, which suggests to many, whether right thinking or wrong thinking, that there is something to the issue of human nature after all, especially considering all that is new to culture.   

I think Sartre, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and maybe even Camus would be surprised, maybe even shocked at where we are in culture today. There would be astonishment as to why we have not evolved past crime, selfishness or deceit. If a human being does not have a pre-ordained nature, why does he keep repeating the same mistakes over and over as if he did? If we develop and create our own essence, is there no means to learn from past mistakes? I believe there would be little support from the past for the canceling of others as that betrays several foundational beliefs of existentialism, especially in the areas of personal freedom and authenticity. Sartre did acknowledge that man is conditioned by culture, but he still advocated for man to fight against this conditioning. The issue of human nature, however, is still an issue. 

Let’s look at this issue through a different angle; let’s look at it through the lie, as all of us are familiar with it and can follow its progression. If man’s nature is not bent towards the lie and instead, it is bent towards the truth or its neutral alternative, then from where does the lie arise? It cannot flow out of the nature of man if man has no preordained nature to lie, as there would be no nature from which it could flow, nor can it flow out of a neutral nature due to the constancy we see regarding the prevalence of lies. If nature in neutral we would see lies but we would not see it so widespread, seemingly in everyone. Therefore, the only other option available to us is that it must be conditioned into us through societal influences, but there are issues with that thinking as well. With no preordained nature, we are told that our essence is created and developed through our own agency. There are those who advocate lying as a means of self-perseveration or as the manifestation of confusion as one contemplates how to live in an absurd world, but both of those do not answer this question, why do small children lie? 

As the father of two children who are now grown, I distinctly remember not teaching them to lie when they were small. On the contrary, my wife and I tried very hard to teach them to tell the truth. We did not send them to a place where they were taught to lie. Everything we did was done with the goal of telling the truth. Even before they attended school, they lied. Why is that? How do we explain the lie in small children without including in our explanation an innate nature? How do we explain that we all have lied and continue to lie without including in that explanation an innate human nature predisposed to lying? I admit the issue is more convoluted than simple, but it does present a dilemma. 

I have no answers to offer other than the one we do not want to hear … All indications are that we do have a preordained nature that predisposes us to lie. I am open to other options, but for me, this option checks more boxes than any other option. This is just one issue; there are others, but they all come back to this issue of essence. If we create and develop our own essence, from where do we develop a disposition that lies and is capable of doing other more serious offences? Conservatives, liberals, atheists and even existentialists will have many fundamental disagreements on many issues, but on these issues, there is a consensus. No one endorses lying, murder, theft or any other heinous act, and yet, they continue to exist. Why? 

An existentialist would suggest, as I stated earlier, that they are the result of the problem or the confusion faced in the search for meaning in life that is, to existentialists, absurd, but that is a weak retort if, inside the same philosophy, we acknowledge the astounding ability to develop and create our own essence. Would this confusion that causes us to lie not also affect the creation and development of our essence? As you can see, there are more questions than answers, but I do believe there are enough questions to justify more discussion. I do respect the stance an existentialist takes in the complete rejection of murder on the grounds of it infringing upon another’s efforts to live an authentic life, but would that rejection not, itself, be an infringement on the murder’s life and the attempt to live it? There are difficult questions with seemingly no easy answers.  

Sartre would suggest that one’s freedom cannot place a limit on the content of choice, again, a hard stance to take in certain situations; he valued the manner of the choice more than the actual choice itself, but still the choice, according to Sartre rested completely within the individual or at least it should. Yes, existentialists believe life is absurd, but in an absurd world, there is plenty of room for order and structure, especially if creation and development contribute to both. For Sartre and other existentialists, it always came back to the idea of freedom and how it was defined. Inside existentialism freedom is always defined as an individual choice, which is confined to and owned by the individual. 

Here is my issue. Individual freedom, which is owned and confined to the individual, will move outside the individual at some point if exercised. One never exercises individual choice in a vacuum. Individual freedom that splashes over into crime will act upon another; the same can be said of individual freedom splashing into altruism. The issue in both cases is that individual freedom is no longer individual; once it is put into action in community, and it will, it moves away from the individual, interacts with others and infringes on them. Nihilism rejected the idea of morals and values for this very reason while existentialism embraces individual morals and values, presenting a dilemma. When it comes to morals and values, can they be held in isolation by the individual or does that place the individual into a kind of moral paralysis or turn the individual into a moral hermit? 

Questions like these are why thinking matters. I will have one final post on this topic. Until then … 

Part IV: Existence Precedes Essence

by C. P. Lawrence

Part IV: Existence Precedes Essence

In the first three posts, I attempted to define existentialism through the idea of individual choice, but definitions are next to impossible when referencing anything to do with existentialism. The idea of individual choice, however, is featured prominently and pushes existentialism into another idea much more complex than any before it; it is the idea of existence preceding essence. F.W.J. Schelling was credited with being the very first to use the phrase in a speech he delivered in 1841. Soren Kierkegaard, who was in attendance of Schelling’s speech, has used this idea in some of his works, but it was Jean-Paul Sartre who formulated the idea and expanded on it. The phrase is featured prominently in a lecture of his entitled, “Existentialism is a Humanism,” which was given in 1945. The phrase is foundational to many philosophers and foundational to much of their work, especially Martin Heidegger and his metaphysics featured in his masterpiece, “Being and Time.”  

This phrase, in my opinion, captures the spirit of existentialism better than all others. Its basis flows out of a defiance to the dominant idea of the time, that our essence was more fundamental than our existence. The existential inverted phrase promotes the opposite; it presents the idea that essence, something thought to be distinctly human, is not given, as has been thought, but, instead, it is developed, which is radically different than any thinking before it. Existentialism believes that we first exist (existence) and then create and develop our own essence through our existence, i.e., our choices and our actions. Sartre believed that existence preceded essence and saw it as defining and determining our thinking. This next part is quite brilliant, in my opinion.

Sartre, instead of arguing about the true nature of man, turned the argument on its head by insisting that there is no such thing as human nature … only human condition. Sartre posited that we live as “self-conscious first-person perspectives” imagining and reimagining who we are as we live. What he was saying was that being conscious of our own existence is ultimately what it means to be human. That is our condition, which implies that our nature is neither good nor bad but a condition that is creating and developing our own essence. For Sartre, there is no pre-ordained sinful nature; each person comes into existence and then through decisions and actions creates their own unique essence. 

This issue of human nature, a philosophical battle ground for many years, was seemingly answered with this one phrase; according to Sartre, there is no predefined subject, no fixed identity and no pre-ordained path or objective, at least that was his assertion. There is only existence and all things come after it, which leaves everything in our hands as human beings. Sartre writes, “Man, first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world—and defines himself afterwards.” While Sartre believed this, he also acknowledged that we face, as human beings, a number of constraints in our lives. He believed human beings had appetites and desires for power and fame, which deals directly with the nature of man whether he acknowledges it or not. He did acknowledge that pre-existing identities and meanings will be “thrust” upon us, but our role is to define ourselves and not allow them to define us. 

As I have referenced, existentialism establishes as one of its fundamental truths—if one can even use the word “truth” in reference to anything existential—that human beings are not born with a pre-defined purpose but instead forge their own path through their own human existence. I must ask this question; is that not a predefined purpose? The idea or phrase attempts to push aside any thoughts of an involved or interested deity in favor of individual human agency, which suggests that individuals are not born with or given an essence but develop it through their individual existence, which fits nicely with an evolutionary mindset. Most existentialists believe this mindset produces personal freedom and personal responsibility while acknowledging that situations and circumstances do fall outside of our control at times. We can acknowledge that existentialism produces a kind of freedom, but I am not sure we find the responsibility Sartre thought would follow. If we are now living in an existential world, what do we see? Do we see personal responsibility? Do we even see personal freedom? What exactly do we see before us because it is a manifestation of existentialism, but that is a post for another day. This post is already too long so I will take that line of thinking up next time. Until then, please remember, thinking matters! 

Existentialism: Part III

by C. P. Lawrence

Part III: Existentialism and Pavlov’s Dogs

In my last post I referenced Pavlov’s dogs and operant conditioning. That is an incorrect reference, my apologies. The correct reference to Pavlov’s dogs is classical conditioning, which is Pavlov’s foundational theory, which involves pairing a neutral stimulus with an unconditioned stimulus to elicit a conditioned response. In his famous experiment, he found that dogs naturally salivate (a conditioned response) when presented with food (an unconditioned stimulus). What does any of this have to do with existentialism? Let me retrace my steps and bit and explain the differences between operant and classical conditioning and how both become important in existentialism.  

Operant conditioning is a learning process that uses rewards and punishments to modify voluntary behaviors. In operant conditioning behaviors that are rewarded are more likely to be repeated than those that are punished. Naturally, you want to reward wanted behavior and punish unwanted behavior. Operant conditioning is based on the work of Edward Thorndike whose law of effect theorized that behaviors arise due to whether consequences are satisfying or discomforting. Thorndike’s theories were foundational to early public education in this country and are still employed in classrooms today.   

However, operant conditioning differs from classical conditioning in that classical conditioning involves stimuli paired with biologically significant events that produce involuntary and reflexive behaviors This is much different than operant conditioning which is voluntary and depends on the consequences of a behavior whereas operant conditioning depends on the event, i.e., the reward or the punishment, more than the behavior. 

As I said, existentialism, at its core, is about the individual and the individual’s choices in life. As the world becomes more connected, we run the risk of this connectivity being used as stimuli to condition us into certain behaviors. This can only take place if we exist in a bubble where our individual choices become more important than collective choices or commonalities, which I see taking place more and more. In this world, there is no longer a need for the collective or the common because most choices and beliefs are considered acceptable by the world. 

As a matter of point, anything bringing us together actually makes conditioning, both classical and operant, more difficult. The impact is less due to observational learning, where individuals within a group learn through the observation of others within the group. Groups have norms which impact conditioning due to the natural tendency and desire of individuals to adopt the norms and behaviors of the group. In that situation, individual actions are less likely to respond to conditioning due to their natural tendency to focus on the behaviors and the norms of the group in order to be accepted by the group (There is a lot of research regarding group dynamics that supports this assertion.).  

If we live more as individuals and less as a collective group or community, there is a better chance of stimuli be used to manipulated us (either with an unconditioned stimulus or with rewards or punishments), especially if our individual choices are only about us. Eventually, when we make choices and benefit from those choices, as we will when we make choices that are only for us, we become conditioned to believe that our functional order (see my last post) is our moral order when it is not. We are merely living in the moment of our functional order which seems moral due to our actions being our actions, which are the direct result of making functional choices that only benefit us. One author put it this way, “we become ‘just’ by performing ‘just’ acts” but these just acts are merely our acts,” which we believe are just because we can perform them, and they can help us attain what we want. That is not morality. 

Our actions, which we control, root us in our own individual lived existence. Again, this does not make them moral, but because they are our actions, they do something to us. That something takes on greater significance if we live in an existential world, where the individual is the focus at the expense of the community. This isolates us and makes us sensual, pushing us toward living by feelings and comfort, which both tend to be deeply intimate and emotional, while pushing us away from any kind of dissonance, which is necessary for actual learning. In this state, we are never wrong, never challenged and never confronted with new and different ideas. We become our own god, sovereign in all things, always right and unchallenged in any way.   

Inside existentialism and its focus on choices, we slowly become conditioned to think that our individual choices determine our character and impact who we are as a human being and not the other way around. Our choices, in an ideal world, should be impacted by who we are and what we believe, which tends to be impacted by our community. A community thrives when it is diverse but united, but the only way to unite a community is with a common identify. In an existential world, there is no common identity; there is only acceptable identities, which are individual, personal and isolated. This is existence and it produces emotional reactions that divides and never unites. This pushes everyone to examine everyone else with no concern for self; it also pushes us to condemn the past, judge the present and think nothing about the future. This is existentialism and where I see us presently. This concludes this post. Stay tuned for Part IV!  

Existentialism: Part 2

by C. P. Lawrence

Part II: Existentialism and Functional Order

In this section, we dig a little deeper into existentialism. Remember, I am proposing that existentialism is our new foundation for moral order, which is not really a moral order as much as it is a functional order. Let me explain. 

Let’s start with existentialism’s obsession with individual choice. Choice … the choices we make … how we live our lives through choices … all of these are extremely important to existentialism. When we choose, we do so through our own actions, which are matters of power according to Foucault. To choose involves deliberating and, in most instances, our deliberations will only involve those things that we control. One never deliberates over time or gravity. Why? Simple, over those things we have no control. We will only deliberate over individual choices that we can control, which, by their nature, directly affect us, which I am labelling as functional.  

Inside this functional order (my phrase) the choices we make, which we view as moral (even though they are functional), we can and will control. These choices range from the concrete, i.e., where to work, to the abstract, i.e., what to believe. While these choices seemingly look and feel different, they are not. They are all rooted in who we are, and they are all choices that we can control. Therefore, by being in our control, these choices cannot be moral; they can only functional. 

These choices range from political beliefs to scientific beliefs to teleological beliefs; the choices themselves are not good or bad but they do impact us in ways that create and develop us. Let’s not be too hasty as this can also apply to moral order as well. We can turn authentic moral order into functional order in the same manner. The big issue here is operant conditioning. We can, in essence, turn ourselves into one of Pavlov’s dogs, but we will only do this if we worship our individuality and our individual choices, which is what existentialism preaches and pushes us to do.

This is the new moral order is really a functional order. Why? It is really quite simple. We will tend to choose our choices over people. The choice sits at the heart of existentialism, and it is worshiped as if it was a god. When we do this, we are actually conditioning ourselves to worship ourselves and our choices. We think thoughts like … my choices are right. My beliefs are right. My party is right. It’s the other guy who is wrong. There is just one small problem … being right every time is statistically impossible and yet, there will be some who will still insist that their choices are always right, but do not be too hard on these people. Why? Because we are these people! We all do this, especially now, because this is the world in which we live and it is the world in which we have been living in for many years. We are all Pavlov’s dogs! So, how do we deal with this? Well, that is for another time and another post. Remember, thinking matters! 

Existentialism: Part 1

by C. P. Lawrence

Existentialism: The Current Moral Order, Part 1

Are you anxious about the world in which you live? You are not alone. It seems to be all the rage these days. The media bombards us with negative ideas like global warming, melting glaciers, terrorism and global conflicts. They tell us that these things are happening for the first time in our history … that we are the reason for them. Some defy logic while others defy science and yet all are to be accepted without question. Whether they are right or wrong, is for another time, but the facts are that there is little positive in our news these days and even less in our world, at least according to those who are supposed to know these things. Why? 

This begins a series of post that will attempt to make sense of the world in which we live because it is a different world than the one in which I was raised as a child. It seems to me that the change that has taken place over the last ten years is radically different than other cultural change over a similar time frame. I, and I am sure all of you, just don’t know who to believe these days. Who do we trust? The media … the government … medicine … science … the church … all have given us reasons to doubt them, but is it the institutions themselves or is it something else? I think it is something else. I think something has changed in who we are and in the world in which we live. 

My theory begins with our current state, which is this, we live in a world currently dominated by existentialism, which has replaced Christian morality as the foundation for all thought and feeling. It is a stark contrast to the Christian morality or the Christian faith of the past, but in a sense, it is also similar in that it is every bit faith itself in that it is most difficult to explain in tangible terms. In this series, I will try to explain it in ways that we all have experienced to come to a better understanding.  

Most existentialists believe it (existentialism) cannot be explained; it can only be lived. As far as philosophies go, it is one that bases conduct on a belief that must be chosen as an act of faith, due to the belief that no objective moral order exists, independently of or external to human beings. There is no school of thought, no statement of belief nor is there a set of core values to follow. We, human beings, are morality. Our souls, feelings and ideas are to serve us as our own morality. Everyone must live in a way that affirms their beliefs in an authentic way that is rooted in who they are as their own human being. Authenticity is the objective, but it is different for each person. It is a bit like throwing mud at the wall if you will. What sticks today may not stick tomorrow or even be there and every wall is different. 

Existentialism is obsessed with individuality and how we choose to live as individuals. It seeks to reinforce our individuality, which seems positive, but in that individuality, we give up commonality and true community. If you are wondering what’s missing … wonder no more, it is community. It is missing in government, medicine, science, academia … and the list goes on and on. Republicans cannot mix with Democrats or risk losing the next election. Liberals cannot mix with conservatives; Christians cannot mix with atheists … the divide is wide and there are seemingly no planks to bridge the gap. Existentialism has come along and pronounced the gaps as good and given everyone their own island.  

There are many issues but the larger more egregious one, for me, is the thought existentialism produces. It is not higher categorical thought, nor does it have anything to do with dialectic thought, for which so many philosophers advocate or at least used to advocate. Existentialism just wants you to exist in the moment; it believes it is the moment that is the best means of living authentically. To live in the moment is to live for yourself, your choices and your desires. Thinking of others is not condemned but it is not advocated either. If it is authentic for you, great, but if it is not authentic for you, then that too is fine. There is no shame or guilt in this world. There is no personal responsibility nor is there fault. This is the world in which we live and it affects all of us. 

In a very non-existential way, I would love to hear all of your thoughts, especially those that are different. I still believe in a dialectic way of thinking which is why I am putting my thesis out there for all to see. The only way to confirm it as valid is to measure it against an antithesis or two, which are comments and ideas that are different. This is higher categorical thought and why it matters!    

Do We Still Have Common Sense?

by C. P. Lawrence
Common Sense sign card

The other day, in the middle of a conversation, the idea of common sense was presented as something all but gone in our culture. The subject came and went too quickly. It was only after, upon reflection of the conversation, that it came to my mind, and I couldn’t dismiss it. It stayed with me, prompting me to do a little digging as to its origins and to its current reality.

Let’s establish, first, that common sense is not a liberal or a conservative mindset. It is not a particular worldview or political position. I think many of us look at the absence of common sense as positional; to have it one must hold a certain position, usually a position that aligns with our position. That is not common sense.  

The origin of the phrase is found with a school of philosophy, which is said to hold the notion that we should begin our thinking with the fixed beliefs of mankind and move on from there. This phrase or notion, whatever you want to call it, was first penned by Aristotle who believed that all living beings have nourishing souls, but it was only human beings who possessed a rational soul. He believed it was only this rational soul that perceived. Aristotle proposed that every act of perception involved a modification of one of the five senses that then interacted with one’s entire being, when engaged with one of the fixed beliefs associated with all human beings.

Aristotle saw one’s perception as provinces of sensation and believed that human beings perceive by means of difference between the polar extremes contained within each sense. For example, he saw these provinces of sensation as a “kind of mean” between two extremes as in the difference between soft and loud in sound or bitter and sweet in taste. His inference was that human beings perceive by means of difference, but he believed that one sense cannot perceive itself. According to a host of theorists, Aristotle speculated that there must be an additional sense or a “common sense” that coordinated the other senses. He suggested that this “common sense” instituted a perception that is common to all the other senses yet one condensable to none of them. 

Most theorists agree that this common sense, referenced by Aristotle, was not a sixth sense or an additional sense; instead, it was more a sense of difference or a unity of the senses that manifests together when considering something of significance, a fixed belief, if you will, engaging all five senses, which in turn act collectively on one’s being. 

Mention common sense today and most default to the ideas of practical judgement and social awareness as both relate to an individual being living in a world with all beings, but there is a deeper implication … the one with which we started. Do most still have common sense? Or is there still a need for common sense? Both questions have implications socially and culturally. 

First, are there any commonly accepted fixed beliefs to which almost everyone, even in their differences, agree or acknowledge? It is thought that agreement or acknowledgement of these fixed beliefs manifest common sense but if there are a dwindling number of fixed beliefs … what happens to common sense? I am proposing that culturally there is indeed a diminishing number of commonly accepted fixed beliefs but that is due to all individual beliefs being given positions of acceptability. The question not yet answered is this one: does the acceptance of all individual beliefs still produce common sense in the same way a communal acceptance of a fixed belief did in the past?  

When was the last time you heard common sense referenced? I can’t say that I have heard the phrase in quite some time. As I look out at our world, I see an absence of common sense but does anyone else? Common sense seems, to me, to be an individual trait produced by communal membership. Does the absence of common sense signal an absence of community or an absence of something else? I am thinking of submission or empathy, two areas I see less of these days. 

The idea of common sense was the sense that kept you “in the middle of the road,” if you will, kept you connected with all others with your differences intact. It was this “common” amid all your differences that you shared with your fellow men and women in ways of connect-ability. It connected you with others and allowed you to keep your differences while connecting with others who were themselves different. It was “common sense” that tolerated individual differences for the sake of the collective whole. Over time, some individual differences became acceptable to our collective common sense, but what happens when all differences are given equal status of acceptability? Well, first, we lose the need for common sense, and second, I am not entirely sure, but my sense is that we lose something important … something communal … something distinctly human.    

I would love to hear your thoughts? Hit the comment section with them because thinking matters! 

The Changing Context of Wisdom

by C. P. Lawrence

Aristotle once said, “All men by nature desire to know,” which is a statement about being human. What he was saying is that we—human beings—have a built-in thirst to know … to gain knowledge. Is this still the case or was Aristotle mistaken?

To support his statement, Aristotle referenced our senses and our love for them. That has not gone away; I would actually propose that we are more in love with them now than we have ever been. We love to see, taste, hear and feel. We are sensual beings and even more so today. Our senses contribute to our thinking. We input information through our senses, but do we still use all of them?

Consider this: many of us use computers, laptops, iPads and cell phones to think. I, myself, now write on a laptop, which is a change from years ago when I was a pencil and paper thinker. I can’t do it anymore. I need to type on a computer to think. What does that do to the input of information? Well, it actually reduces the use of my senses down to two: sight and sound, with one (sound) delayed. What does this mean when it comes to wisdom?

Wisdom is many things; it is the use of one’s knowledge and experience to make good judgement. It is the ability to make good judgements. Wisdom, ultimately, is the ability to discern, which is a higher ordered form of thinking. What are we discerning when we discern? Well, we are discerning right from wrong, the good from the bad and the wise from the foolish. Can we do that with our senses only?

Can you see right and wrong? Can you hear it or feel it? How about taste it or smell it? Do you just know? Many of us would never admit to being able to do any of this and yet, we say all the time … I feel this is right or I feel that is the wrong thing to do. The fact is alone, your senses are not enough to determine anything. Aristotle thought senses would be dangerous if they became an end in themselves, but is that not where we are today? Do our senses drive us in all that we do? Where do they fit when it comes to experience? I think right now they trump experience, but is that a good thing?

Aristotle saw both experience and the senses as vital to wisdom, which is why he valued the artisan. He saw the artisan as knowing both the how (experience) and the way (sense). Wisdom is not just feeling; it is also not just factual. It is a blend of both, but both do not come together naturally; they need help. How do the senses become married to knowledge? The answer is through the spiritual. We are spiritual beings whether we believe in a Divine Being or in atheism.

Wisdom is a balanced blend of the senses and experience held together by the spiritual through values and beliefs, but I am proposing that wisdom’s context is changing. Why? Well, I believe the context of wisdom is affected by the predominant beliefs and values of the day, which have changed radically in the last ten years. In the past, those were some form of a Christian moral standard, but today, they are more existential, which affects the context of what is wise. What it means to be wise today has changed a lot. Wisdom is now associated with ideology, certain beliefs and certain values. We say we are more tolerate but we are less. We say we are more open but we are more closed. We have less freedom, less excellence, less leadership and way more excuses.

This all comes back to the context of what is wise, which is much different than it used to be and because it is different, who we are as human beings is different. Does it matter? I believe it does, but that is a discussion for another day. For now, thinking matters and today’s thinking involves wisdom. Think about your thoughts on wisdom … have they changed? If so, why? Love to engage with your comments. Until next time …

Tragedy Tends to Confirm

by C. P. Lawrence

As the sun sits in a cloudless sky today, it bares no resemblance to the sky of last week. Last week many of us experienced rain and wind like we have never seen. We became isolated from our world as many of us struggled to find the normal that was just beyond our grasp. And, yet, today, things are slowly returning to normal, for some of us, which prompts me to present a few thoughts.

In the midst of our recovery, the world went on, which prompts a question: what did we see and what did we learn? Well, here are a few lessons I learned. The government is not God and cannot be seen as supernal, especially when it comes to natural disasters. As much as things change, they do stay the same. If you think you have it bad all you need to do is look over at your neighbor. At the end of the day, we all have too much stuff! And, finally, if you need help and ask for it, someone will reach out and give you a hand.

I am very thankful to live where I live. I have a great church, great neighbors and a great school. Yes, the government is made of people just like me, but they have risen to the challenge and I am thankful for them. I am not concerned about their party or ideology; I am only concerned about their concern for the citizens who elected them, and at the end of the day, all I can ask them to do is their best.

Government is made of people, and whether you are red or blue … I hope you will agree that when it comes to people, despite our wishes, people are pretty much the same. So, what have I noticed about government lately. Well, the more things change the more they stay the same. The idea of government solving all of your problems is probably not a good thought and an even worse plan for the future. You see the government is not a for-profit entity. It makes no product and therefore makes no money. All it does is spend your money.

The problem I have seen in goverment in the last 5-7 years is a growing incompetency. Before you get upset, this growing incompetency is not confined to red or blue; it is purple and applies to both sides of the aisle. Let stop before going too far and ask this question: what produces excellence? I mean if you had to guarantee excellence how would you do it? I know what my answer is, but what is yours? Think about it for a minute, and if your answer is government then point me to excellence produced by government. I am not sure you can, but it’s not their fault. It’s our fault.

What produces excellence? Where do you find it? Here is a hint: Find an example of excellence, any example and go backwards until you determine what produces it. My next post will give you my answer, but I would love to get your answers! Leave them in the comments!

So, what truths have I learned in the midst of tragedy. Well, here are a few!

  1. Science is no more the answer than it was 50 years ago.
  2. Meteorologists are never wrong(What’s the difference between partly cloudy and partly sunny?).
  3. There is always hope!
  4. During times of tragedy, we learn quickly who people are.
  5. Blaming this storm on global warming is lazy science. It is impossible to determine the cause of anything in the midst of tragedy.
  6. There is something to be said of a good neighbor!
  7. Churches are always there filling the gap in times of tragedy.

What have you learned? I would love to hear your thoughts! I believe we learn from each other. The path to right thinking is full and occupied! Let’s learn and think together. Until next time …

The Tragic Response of Media

by C. P. Lawrence
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

The horrific school shooting in Uvalde, Texas was yet another reminder to all of us that there is something wrong in our country, and yet as horrific as this tragedy was, there are responses that maybe just as tragic. 

A prominent newspaper recently offered a response that might serve as such an example. One author in this newspaper wrote a piece that was highly critical of those who turn to faith in God in the aftermath of such tragedies. The author suggested that the Christian faith is to blame as it enslaved people to terrible laws in this country for centuries. A reminder that a few of these “terrible laws” actually allow this columnist the right to publish such statements at such an inappropriate time. 

One does not have to read too far into the story to discover the true intent of the article and the reason for the slander of the Christian faith when the author expresses concern that the Christian faith would be “a distraction” from gun control. The author speculated, offering no supportive or collaborating documentation, that the intent of conservatives was to push the conversation about these mass shooting away from gun control and towards God, which brings up a good question, is this really about guns?

Let me begin by saying that I do agree there are some needed changes in gun policies across the nation. That much is clear, but the issue is clouded by the politicizing of these tragedies. Each time a tragedy like this happens both sides re-energize their bases to either attack or protect the Second Amendment. The issue, for me, is not the gun, but something deeper. There is a hopelessness running rampant in our people … a hopelessness that produces despair, anger and rage. That hopelessness will not be solved by gun control or lack of gun control. 

These issues will not disappear until politics are put aside and real solutions are explored and it will take both sides to do this. Both sides must stop looking at every issue as a means to an end in regard to their own power. Continuing to politicize issues like these is disrespectful to the families affected by these senseless tragedies. The brazen political attacks mere hours after these tragedies reveal a little something about each side, if we are paying attention, and to be honest, both sides are banking on the fact that we are not paying attention. 

The issue has many facets to it with guns being one of those facets, but gun control will no more solve this issue than sofa control will solve the issue of obesity. There are other facets like hopelessness, escalation, anger, race, poverty and family that are as important if not more important, and yet no one is talking about any of those issues. Why not? Could it be that none of those issues will bring votes, power or money?

A Relevant Quote

by C. P. Lawrence
Photo by Markus Winkler on Pexels.com

Here is another great quote although there is a bit of controversy associated with it. The quote has been attributed to George Orwell and his book, 1984. The quote is not found in the book nor is there any documented instance of Orwell every uttering these words. However, the quote is too good to ignore so here it is.

“During time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

Very appropriate for our present times!