Render Unto Caesar

Watching the news Tuesday while running on the elliptical, I could only be struck by the sheer chaos currently occurring on capitol hill.

Caesar, in the form of our currently coronated President, Barack Obama, has declared that many shall render their goods unto Caesar. Now, I'm not an opponent of increasing taxes at this point. The continuing expansion of the Federal Government at the expense of the deficit and the national infrastructure is obviously taking its toll across the board. The offset to spending is taxing, which is why we called the Democrats "Tax and Spend." However, it seems both sides are terrified of the "Tax" part, and Republicans have become more enamored of spending. So both sides have basically become "Spend and Spend."

This bodes exceedingly well for the health of our economy.

I am especially offended by the monumentally foolhardy $825 Billion dollar "Economic Stimulus Package" offered by our President. Considering that a recently much less expensive investment in Democracy overseas was deemed "mortgaging our children's future," this one is treated more like a crooner in a crowd of teenage girls by the media. The most interesting element is that despite the fact that I have see no specifics of the plan, and indeed seen no evidence of new taxes or benefits that will be caused by it, people are already predicting a surplus by 2020.

The sheer irony and ludicrousness of that statement should bring us all to tears. Of laughter or pain depends on the person's particular temperament.

This reminds me of Bill Clinton's "surplus," which seems to be taken and preached as gospel nowadays. Especially during the Imperial reign of our dear George Bush the Second, the surplus of our lovable philanderer was bandied about by all to show what a cad our latest George Bush was. For those who remember those sunny bucolic days of isolationism, nationalism, and artificial market bubbles, you may, with me, puzzle over the idea that we had a surplus. You see, gentle reader, there was no surplus. No. Like in the used car ads, and particularly cruel contracts, you had to read the fine print. You see, a surplus would occur if "spending decreased at the same rate and taxes increased at the same rate until the year 2012." Of course, Americans, being the people we are, only saw "Surplus" and jumped for joy. They couldn't be bothered to read the fine print, for that is what lawyers and politicians are for: Delivering despite the fine print.

It actually reminds me of a story that may relate to the current, or future, state of our taxpayers. I recall a man who, signing a contract, wished to breach it. He talked to his lawyer, a hen-pecked, albeit competent, man who catered to his eccentric client's every whim. While explaining to the man that he would be in breach of contract, the client cut him off. "I don't care about what I signed, I am going to do this. I don't care about breach, I want to do what I want! I don't care about the details, just get me the hell out of this without trouble!" The lawyer, rather than explaining to him that was not the way that judges, courts, justice, and reality worked, retreated promising his best efforts. They did not succeed in getting the boor out of the contract.

Unfortunately, I think this is where America is headed. We have foolhardily mortgaged, or are in the process of mortgaging, ourselves to a number of contracts: Medicare, social security, Iraq, biofuel, socialized medicine are the ones that come to mind.

However, we need not despair at this, even those who are exceedingly right wing. Our culture contains more anarchists, militants and resistants than any other in the world (Except perhaps some African tribal cultures) due to being the dumping ground for the failures, screw-ups and malcontents of every European Nation. Even if we embrace the worst of European Socialism with the worst of our self-hatred, we will still have the core of rugged individualism, extroverted idealism, and protestant work-ethic that has made us one of the greatest nations on earth.

Despite everything the government is doing to "fix" our virtues, I think America's sheer cussed stubbornness, and our audacity, will prevail.

What Use Is Philosophy?

This is pretty much, in the legal vernacular, a threshold question: "What use is philosophy? Why talk about it? Hasn't philosophy just been replaced by science? Isn't it now defunct? What's the point?"

I'll admit, this is a pretty good question. However, if there's one thing I've learned it's that a perspective can more clearly be defined by it's questions than its answers: "Don't you want to be normal?" "Why don't you just grow up?" "Wouldn't that make you a Conservative?" "You are intelligent, right?" A thousand debates might never show the insight that these questions allow. People's questions most often reveal things about themselves that you they won't reveal in their statements.

You see, when a person *says* something, unless they're an egomaniac they are performing for an audience. They're presenting what they think you want, or will be the best to convince you of their perspective. Questions are quite different. Some people (I'm not pointing fingers... except at myself) routinely use false questions to steer the debate, "Don't you mean X?" "What are you referring to?" "How is that important to you?" "What do you think about X?" These questions are not really questions, they're a cross-examination, an attempt to steer the story into a place where they can leap upon it and dissect it like that frog in biology.

True questions are from a person's need to understand in context. A person asks from what they deeply desire, to fill a need for knowing. "Don't you want to be normal?" Comes from a person who sees the only path to acceptance is through conformity and group identity. They see "normal" and "average" as good things, and don't understand people who don't want them, nor do they understand people who want acceptance for things other than those. "Why don't you just grow up?" Stems from a desire for proper, adult, behavior. This person believes in play acting, in rigid rules of behavior, and does not understand that one can be adult, and yet enjoy childish things. Adulthood, the good, is the anti-child, instead of the fully-grown youth.

The question "What use is philosophy?" itself can reveal why Philosophy, the study of knowledge as itself, does not need to have "use" to be good, and how "use" begs the question of philosophy.

Opening

Since it has been quite a while since I've written any formal or informal philosophy, I figured I would start slowly, with my philosophy of blogging:

I never plan on being published. It's a long, costly, arduous and frustrating process which I will save my energy for when my sister tries.

However, I'm quite a prolific writer of scenes, philosophy, novellas, short stories, editorials and political commentary. Many of these things, people like to read. Many of these things I have on hard copy scattered amongst the million others in my room.

I still have friends asking me "where can I read your metaphysical philosophy?" (Yes, I do, I have friends as strange as I am) Rather than say "well... it's around here somewhere... ah, here's a page... and here's another... hold on, let me go through my notebooks," I can say "read my blog."

While blogging is a lot like standing at a street corner, yelling at people and hoping they respond (The people themselves are standing at street corners, yelling at other people to see if they respond), I think I'll try my hand at it nonetheless.

-WC