Monday, April 12, 2010

PHILOSOPHY CORNER


I have a friend who has very unusual opinions about a lot of things, and who you might be interested in getting to know through these pages. I have to emphasize that the ideas expressed in this imaginary dialogue are his and not mine. I disagree with some of what's expressed here, but I like the spirit behind it. It's all so thought-provoking that I thought it deserved to see the light of day. See if you agree.

Oh, and this is not a rewrite of the somber piece that I said I wrote last night. That's on a different subject. Okay, here's the dialogue:



Eddie: "So Paul, let me get this straight. You're a monarchist?"



Paul: "Yeah...well, a constitutional monarchist. It's Biblical."

Eddie: "Ah, so you have a religious reason."

Paul: "Not entirely. Monarchy also makes sense because that's the only way to grow an aristocracy. We need aristocracy so that society can be guided by philosopher kings. We need them so we can have culture again."



Eddie: "But there have been so many evil aristocrats and crazy kings."



Paul: "Fewer than you might think. A lot of what we know about aristocrats was written by ideologues who hated them."

Eddie "What about the rights of man? Are you saying that a Pharaoh is entitled to own me?"

Paul: "Good Grief, no! Just the opposite! The monarch is one of the guarantees that you won't be owned and that your rights will be respected. The king has to answer to God for the stewardship of his people. The other guarantee is the Christian religion and the Judao-Christian tradition. Religion is a more trustworthy defender of your rights than politics."



Eddie: "But democracy allows us to get rid of people in power who abuse their office. It assures a degree of stability because at least 51% of the people get to be happy with the way things are."



Paul: "I think you're naive. The people in power try to set things up so they can't be voted out."

Eddie: "Aaaargh! There's not enough time to thrash this out, so let's move on. What kind of literature do you like?"

Paul: "Oh, Mallory's book on King Arthur, the one that the movie "Excalibur" was based on...some of Shakespeare. Those and 'Old Yeller.' "



Eddie: " 'Old Yeller!!!????' You mean the DOG story that Disney based a film on?"



Paul: "Yeah, that's it. It's a story about duty and the need to accept it with unshakable determination. It's also indirectly about honor."

Eddie: "Honor? Then you must like movies like the old black and white version of "The Four Feathers."

Paul: "Definitely, and the book is even better. The book makes a distinction between different kinds of honor, and reserves special praise for the man who realizes the downside of honor but pursues it anyway. The film's not half bad, though. There's a wonderful scene in it where the girl explains the necessity of honor, but it's not in the book."



Eddie: "Well, I guess you like "The Three Musketeers." That's all about honor."



Paul: "Mmmm...sort of, but it also ridicules it. At the end of the story the musketeers have nothing except their honor. D'Artagnon doesn't get the girl and they're all poor. Their only satisfaction is that they lived a life of honor and are respected by other men."

Eddie: "How about "Don Quixote?" I had to put it down about a third of the way through because the plot was so simplistic, and I hated the anti-heroic message."

Paul: "You should have persevered. The first half is anti heroic, anti-chivalry, but the second half says Don Quixote was right."



Eddie: "Wait a minute! That's not what I heard!...but...Aaaargh! We've gotta close this! See you later folks!"



Paul: "Bye, bye!"




23 comments:

Peter Bernard said...

Meh. Philosophy is the bunk!

JM said...

You know, the monarchy thing isn't completely inaccurate. The problem is that the king often controls religion instead of the other way around. Aristotle had some interesting stuff to say on that.

Eric said...

I kind of agree that monarchy is superior to democracy. However, a monarchy really works only when the ruler cares about the well-being of the people/nation and will not abuse his power; knows how to run a country/has a wise, trustworthy council; appoints governors wisely (for the well-being of the city to be governed and the nation as a whole and not as favors for his friends) etc. The only problem with that is it is difficult is that it extremely difficult to find a person like that (especially when it is not someone who actually knows he has been given the task by almighty God and therefore must answer to Him.) Democracy has its own problems: it is basically mob rule. A mob of ignorant people can be swayed more easily than can a good monarch who's interest is the well-being of his nation (especially if he has GOOD advisors.) And in a representative democracy politicians can be bought (as we see so commonly today.)

Jenny Lerew said...

This conversation is an awful lot like talking to you, you know. I realize it's not you, but still. I'm having fun imaging who this is-if it's indeed a real person and not an amazing simulation or a combination character, like they have in 40s biopics.

pappy d said...

As soon as modern man overthrew the monarchy, it was inevitable that he would eventually murder God.

To cultivate reason is to cultivate nihilism.

Anonymous said...

If you need god to find meaning in life. I'll take joyous absurdism over the Spanish Inquisition and Witch Hunts any day.

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7aroa3izuk&feature=related this is the best parody of the "decline" of our society.

Pete Emslie said...

Eddie: Your friend Paul looks like he could be the lovechild of Elton John and the cereal mascot, Quisp. I agree with his views on the monarchy, however - I believe in king and country, even if those views do seem outdated today.

Steven M. said...

I wouldn't mind having a king run a country.

Anonymous said...

Politically I'm a diehard rhinoceros party supporter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinoceros_Party_of_Canada#1984_Campaign

pappy d said...

On a serious note, I've always thought Ronald Reagan would have made an ideal King of America. He'd lack the magisterial powers of the presidency, but he'd be above politics.

pappy d said...

I recall in 1980, one of the Rhinoceros Party's campaign promises was to switch over to driving on the left side of the road. It was a phased plan which, at first, only applied to heavy trucks.

robward said...

Hello Colonialists, I live in Engerland, we got a Monarkey. It don't change nuffin. Just relax and enjoy a Democrat administration, or "normal folks" as we see it. Believe in the Knights of Elder and the Gods of Vengeful Spite if you must, but set-a-spell and think it through, unless you really expect to ascend to Yahweh's frat house, perhaps it might be nicer, if we were nicer to people, rather than less nice. Niceness has been relatively unpunished in history. Give it a whirl, it's nice. I got a free game of tennis today on my municipal court, out-of-the-blue, democracy is super (even under a Monarch).

Anonymous said...

Eddie, I don't know who your friend is, but I also disagree completely! I live in Canada, where remnants of the Monarchy are still in place, and every few years (ok, maybe DECADES) it almost causes a political crisis.

There's a terrific movement in Canada to switch to a Republic style government, and I think the best one is the American style Republic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_for_a_Canadian_Republic

pappy d said...

A popish plot against the Crown!

Anonymous said...

My name is Mrs. Mabel Oldbiddy, and all I have to say is honor, my patootie!

Your friend Paul talks about honor, but he wasn't behaving in an honorable manner yesterday! I saw him peering through the windows on my street! He was especially spending a lot of time peering through Miss Hawty's window, and he was making some really strange movements with his arm. An honorable man would be on his best and moral behavior, and he wouldn't do anything to embarrass his community.

While you're talking about government - we need to go back to the good old days where good Americans were God-fearing, respected and never questioned authority. We also need to go back to an America where people knew their place. It was much more orderly that way before the undesirables got uppity. We need to go back to where certain people were allowed to vote, because it guarantees to keep the riff-raff and Communists out of government. We need to AAAAAAAAUUUGGHH!
:
:
:
Mr. Fitzgerald, this is Sunny Schein from the Sunshine Home for the Aged, and I apologize for Mrs. Oldbiddy's hijack of your thread. Mrs. Oldbiddy is suffering from dementia, and she does have a tendency to cause trouble when she escapes supervision. We at the Sunshine Home for the Aged will take better precautions on keeping our residents under better supervision. Thank you for your understanding and patience.

pappy d said...

Jorge:

If you make a politician head of state, you tend to forget he's a politician.

Anonymous said...

pappy, it's better than having an unelected, unqualified head of state who although is supposed to be a powerless figurehead, commands a far too expensive salary and has to make HUGE decisions every few years that affect the entire country. Laaders should be elected, not appointed.

Eddie Fitzgerald said...

Jonathan, Rooni, Robward, Jorge, Eric: Interesting! Me, I like republics best. We have a great one, but we've gotta stick to the original plan.

Jenny: You might know this person...I'm not sure. It's someone you'd probably like.

Pappy: An interesting thought!

Anon: Haw!

Eddie Fitzgerald said...

Jorge: I read the link. Interesting!

Anon: The Rhinceros Party! There's some equivalent down here but I forget the name!

pappy d said...

Jorge:

I really can't argue with you there.

The one thing I'd want to see preserved is that the powers of head of state & head of government not be combined in one man.

The original plan called for independence to be a condition of citizenship, as protection against demagoguery. If you owed money or rent or owed your livelyhood to an employer, you could be too easily corrupted & probably lacked the leisure to argue & contemplate the big issues.

Jenny Lerew said...

Hmmm.

Eddie Fitzgerald said...

Jenny: Haw! On a theory site, which is meant to promote thinking, "Hmmmm!" is a completely appropriate thing to say.