Human Nature is not Human Nature and our Self is a Deception

Human Nature is not Human Nature and our Self is a Deception

by Paul Ewing

 

The term human nature may be a misnomer. It might be more accurate to call it “person nature.” A human being can be a member of the set of homo sapiens but not part of the set that includes “persons.”  A person exhibits consciousness or self-awareness, emotional response, the ability to communicate, etc.. Some human beings–say a flat-lined homo sapien on life support –have none of these qualities. They are human beings but not persons.  So the actual issue at hand is “person nature” not “human nature,” however awkward the new moniker may seem. By the way, the issue of personhood lynch-pins the debate over abortion. Right-to-lifers see the fetus as a person; pro-choice folks see the fetus as a potential person but not a person.

The fact that we experience so many different mental states following in rapid succession one upon the other proves we don’t have a self!   David Hume suggests that the concept of “self” is an essence. Essence implies a sense of consistency, endurance, and permanence.  A real “self” would not contradict itself by being capricious, changeable, plastic. An essence must not lack essence!  But when we look at our “self” or try to find our “self,” Hume suggests all we discover is an ever-changing stream of consciousness. Just like our cells replenish themselves every ten years or so, we are continually changing, continually new, never the same.  We can’t step into the Self Same River twice! Since there is nothing we can point to in our experience that is fixed, static, permanent, there is nothing we could call a consistent “self.”  The concept is meaningless and irrelevant to human experience.*

Similarly, if human nature was concrete, then we’d be able to expose it to the light of day, weigh it on a laboratory scale, begin to sketch its shape  on our drawing pads. Philosophers have gone around and around on this. Some say human nature exists; others say it’s a figment of our imagination. Both positions have their representatives. Plato would argue that human nature exists and  St. Augustine would agree but in the context of a monotheistic, Christian God.  It’s human nature to be rational, to choose  good over evil, and and to be eternal.  On the other hand, B.F. Skinner would say humans are plastic, can be shaped via reward and punishment into whatever the psychologist wants. Classical conditioning can create human monsters or angels.   Sartre argues that each of us is an individual project “hurtling itself toward the future.” Since none of our projects are the same, there is no human nature.  Or as he said, “existence precedes essence.”

*If you ditch your “self” you can avoid entirely the self-help section of bookstore. You can change the channel when the self-help gurus ask for your money. You can stop buying Self magazine. In other words, if you divest yourself of your self, you can save lots of money!

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

True Love or Success: Should we Pursue One or the Other?

True Love or Success: Should we Pursue One or the Other?

by Paul Ewing

 

“True love”?  “Success”?  What are these things? Before deciding upon one or the other, or neither, we need to understand the concepts.  I hesitate to attempt definitions for either as they are in some ways indefinable. But let me take a stab at it. “True love” means romantic love, love of the sort first defined by knights and damsels in the Middle Ages. In that case, true love was unattainable, unrequited love—the woman on a pedestal (frequently married) worshipped afar by a man who demonstrated his love by jousting or combat in Crusades. This evolved into the kind of love portrayed in the movie Gone With the Wind with Scarlet O’Hara ‘loving’ Rhett Butler, not to mention Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. True love in all of the above seems impractical. So what about “success”?  According to American philosopher William James, “the moral flabbiness born of the exclusive worship of the bitch-goddess success. That—with the squalid cash interpretation put on the word success—is our national disease.”  Success may be practical but we might lose our integrity in the pursuit of it.  Having said such negative things about both ‘true love’ and ‘success,’ I’d say that it might be better to avoid both.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Change, Awakenings, and War: Paul Ewing’s Grand Theory of American History [short course]

Change, Awakenings and War: Paul Ewing’s Grand Theory of American History

[the short course]

                                          © Paul Ewing 2013

  • If we look at the whole of American history, a distinct pattern emerges. Times of rapid socioeconomic change lead to psychological disturbance in the population.
  • Negative emotions of fear, insecurity, envy, rage, anomie and alienation prevail. Such feelings jump-start  Christian evangelical  revival movements: the First, Second and Third Great Awakenings.
  • These  movements promise, falsely, a return to the status quo, yet offer some relief from angst through religious practice.
  • Paradoxically, the “Awakenings” stir up further trouble in political, social, and cultural realms. Evangelicals who believe they have a personal relationship with God feel empowered.
  • Their empowerment feeds into growing political and social activism, and vice versa. Political and social activism of the “born-again” accelerates either in government or in grass roots movements.
  • Political conflicts, social upheaval, Revolution, Civil War are likely outcomes.

The following three periods are illustrative of Ewing’s Grand Theory:

1. Stage One: Early 18th Century:

a. First Industrial Revolution,

b. First Great Awakening,

c. Intensified colonial political activity

d. Culture wars: Loyalists vs. Patriots

e. American Revolution in 1776.

2. Stage Two: Early 19th Century

a.  Second industrial revolution

b. Second Great Awakening,

c. Explosion of social reform movements including Abolitionism

d. Culture Wars: Abolitionists and Republicans vs. slaveholders

e. The American Civil War in 1861

3. Stage Three: Late 20th Century

a. End of the Industrial Revolutions and Dawn of information age

b. Third Great Awakening (Ewing was one of the first to call it that)

c. Family Values movement, the 700 Club, Tea Party (irony abounds)

d. Culture Wars:  Liberals versus Conservatives

e. 2013 Constitutional Crisis; Government shut down by radical minority of evangelicals and Tea Party.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

America’s Status as Superpower is One Day Away From Suicide

Since 1945 and the end of World War II, the US and the Soviet Union were the only two superpowers. We saw the Soviet Union self-destruct in 1991. And now we are witnessing the collapse of American hegemony due to our own internecine ideological warfare. If we do default on our debt on October 17, then that date will mark the end of the American Empire. It will be another “day that will live in infamy” only we will have brought the disaster upon ourselves.  The only thing left to do then will be to submit drafts for the inscription on the tombstone of Uncle Sam.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/16/world/viewing-us-in-fear-and-dismay.html?adxnnl=1&smid=tw-nytimes&partner=rss&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1381928513-hk8OxY8TD1zB1mdSOpr05Q

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Watergate: Richard Nixon’s Political Suicide

Watergate: Richard Nixon’s Political Suicide

By Paul Ewing

July 17, 2011

 

Tragic character flaws of the kind that brought down Oedipus in Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex brought down Richard Nixon. Greek drama focused on hubris or excessive pride. If one has this character flaw, then nemesis or downfall inevitably follows. Pride goeth before a fall. Shakespeare’s tragedies painfully show us the inevitable downfall caused by flaws like excessive ambition in Macbeth, jealousy in Othello, and narcissism in King Lear.  My thesis? Richard Nixon harbored all these flaws because he exhibited them   in his political career.

 

My research began with Professor James Shenton of Columbia College. Professor Shenton delivered a lecture on “Richard Nixon and Watergate” for The Teaching Company’s History of the United States. [1]I’d like to start with some of Shelton’s observations and then branch off into a few other sources.

 

Professor Shenton starts off with the admission that “Any discussion of Richard Nixon is guaranteed to generate a great amount of heat”[2] That’s probably because Richard Nixon was the only American President ever removed from office. He could have faced criminal prosecution and jail time.

 

Shenton asks a very pertinent question, “What exactly explains this stunning career, a career that brought him to the very apogee of politics and then plunged him into the depths of humiliation?”  I argue it was a seriously flawed character.

 

First off, Nixon had a terrible inferiority complex.  He was a dirt-poor Quaker whose abusive father lost the family ranch and was forced to become a grocer. Some sources suggest that Francis Nixon, the father, beat his boy, Richard. Nixon’s mother, Hannah, was a strict Quaker who instilled in her son a strong sense of guilt Hannah taught her son that if he should face damnation, he, himself, would be the cause of it.[3]

 

One might compare Richard Nixon’s dirt-poor origins with those of Abraham Lincoln’s. Yet the two men emerged from the punishing ordeals of their poverty in two radically different ways. Lincoln endured his trials with a very healthy sense of humor and developed empathy and humility as a consequence of his own suffering.  Nixon battled his way out of poverty with a sense of himself as underdog, victim, and pariah. Shenton says he couldn’t laugh, conducted himself in a rigid, uptight manner. Poverty drove both Lincoln and Nixon to aspirations of political power. In his practice of politics, Nixon offered no quarter, showed no mercy, went for the throat.  Lincoln on the other hand forgave and forgot in defeat or victory. Nixon lacked totally Lincoln’s flexibility.

 

Murray Kempton in America Comes of Middle Age plugs the character of Nixon into the entire decade:

The Fifties were not the Eisenhower years but the     Nixon years.  That was the decade when the American       middle-class in the person of this man moved to engrave into the history of the United States, as the     voice of America, its own faltering spirit, its self-pity    and its envy, its continual anxiety about what the    wrong people might think, its whole peevish resentful   whine.”[4]

Nixon went to his hometown college of Whittier, definitely not Ivy League. He failed to gain admission to the ‘social fraternity’ at Whittier so he created his own. John Fitzgerald Kennedy went to Harvard Law School, Nixon to Duke. Nixon worked his way through both college and law school; Kennedy didn’t have to work.  Shenton claims that Nixon was “haunted by the knowledge that he was marginal.”[5]

 

Nixon’s physical appearance also contributed to his sense of inferiority. In the 1960 Presidential Debates, the first ever televised:

“The thick curls of black hair, the bushy eyebrows,     and the five-o-clock shadow enveloped Nixon in an    aura        of gloom He scowled and frowned, prematurely     creasing his forehead and cheeks”[6]

Nixon’s beard figures into the title of an interesting book Nixon’s Shadow: the History of an Image by David Greenberg.   Nixon desperately wanted Kennedy’s handsome charisma but no matter how hard he tried he could not achieve it. H.R. Haldeman, White House Chief of Staff, put it this way:

[Nixon] ‘took pains with his public image; he dressed   neatly and conservatively, handled himself calmly in    public…and yet, no matter what he did, he seemed to   come across as flat, unattractive, unappealing.”[7]

Those who watched the debates on television thought Kennedy won; those who heard it only on radio perceived Nixon as the winner. Could this be because of appearance?

Nixon had pasty skin and a 5 o’clock shadow, sweated        and looked somewhat sickly and even haggard, and     appeared glowering and angry at times. Kennedy, by

contrast, appeared relaxed, vigorous, and fit.

See for yourself by watching the video clips provided by the source below.[8] Also, see photos 2 and 3 in the Appendix to this paper.

 

So much for poor self-image, self-pity and resentment, how did Nixon manifest his character flaws in politics?  In 1946 the Republican Party tapped Nixon to run against a shoe-in Democratic incumbent, Jerry Voorhis, for the 12th Congressional District in California.  In the debates Nixon painted his opponent as an ineffectual, elitist intellectual and even worse, a Communist sympathizer. Like Ronald Reagan, Nixon cut his political teeth in the heyday of McCarthyism. (See first photo in Appendix). He achieved the overthrow of Voorhis by using the scapegoat, witch-hunt tactics of McCarthy himself. In 1973 Martha Mitchell, wife of Attorney General John Mitchell, had this to say about Nixon’s style of politics:  “He bleeds people. He draws every drop of blood and then drops them from a cliff. He’ll blame any person he can put his foot on.”  Excessive ambition? It would appear so. The thing is to win, no matter what it costs, no matter whom you destroy.[9]

Nixon’s star rose when he was elected as a Republican Senator in 1950. When it came time for Eisenhower to pick a running mate, he chose Nixon in 1952.  Early in the campaign, Nixon was accused of taking political bribes from contributors. Eisenhower was prepared to dump him as an extreme liability.  But Nixon begged Dwight to let him go on TV to plead his case before the nation. The result was the famous “Checkers” speech in which Nixon paraded before the nation his wife, his girls, even the family dog “Checkers” (a gift) in a maudlin display of victimization and self-pity. Guess what? The viewers bought it!  Must have been the “Queen For a Day” factor!

Being Vice President of the United States is one of the worst jobs in politics.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt treated his Vice Presidents (including Harry Truman) like “mushrooms,” kept in deep bullshit, in the dark. Under Eisenhower Nixon fared no better.  Nixon was not included in Eisenhower’s inner circle and felt himself marginalized as usual.

But in 1960 Nixon was nominated as the Republican candidate to run against Kennedy. Kennedy defeated Nixon by the narrowest of margins by 112,827 votes or .0.1 % of the popular vote.[10]

 

In 1962 Nixon ran for governor in California and got creamed by Pat Brown. Against the advice of his political advisors, Nixon went on National TV and told the American people in his self-loathing way, “You won’t have Nixon to kick around any more?”[11]  You might think that this was the final self-prophecy of political doom for Richard Nixon. But never underestimate the man’s all-consuming ambition. He needed politics like a shark needs to swim through salt water to stay alive. In 1963, three years into his Presidency, Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated Kennedy. Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson became President. Nixon’s best chance for the Presidency came with that bullet and the failure of leadership of Lyndon Baines Johnson that followed it.

 

Johnson’s failure to win a war in Southeast Asia combined with his attempt to wage a “war on poverty” proved to much for one man (or nation) to take on. In a way, Johnson and Nixon both became pariahs. Outside the Oval office, protestors chanted, “Hey, Hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?”  In March 31, 1968, Johnson announced on national television:  “I shall not seek and I will not accept the nomination of my partyFor another term as your President.”

 

Nixon’s time had come!  In 1968 by a narrow margin he defeated Democrat Hubert Humphrey and American Independent George Wallace for President. He had made it! But ultimately he would undo everything he had achieved.

 

If you look at his accomplishments from 1968 to 1972, one could say, especially domestically, that Nixon was a successful President. And surprising he started many programs that would appear “liberal” for example, the Clean Air and Water act, Medicaid, and a fair minimum wage for all. Most radically, he made peace overtures to the Communist Premier Brezhnev with his policy of “détente” or relaxation of Cold War tensions.

 

When the ’72 Presidential campaign rolled around, Richard Nixon sat in the catbird seat. He had achieved many successes in his first term of office. A huge contingent of the American public supported him. But best of all, the Democrats chose to make the left wing, loved-by-hippies Eugene McCarthy their choice as the man to run against Nixon. Shenton says that if Nixon could have handpicked the Democrat he could beat, it would have been McCarthy.

 

Nixon had the whole situation in hand and he threw it away by ordering CREEP, the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, to burglarize the Democratic headquarters in the Watergate Hotel. Why?

 

In Nixon: A Psychobiography, Volkan, Itzkowitz and Dod take us back to Shakespeare’s King Lear for they suggest that Richard M. Nixon was a classic narcissistic personality.

What are the traits of such a personality disorder?  The two characteristics I find most compelling are:

1) A grandiose self, convinced of his moral and political excellence, bent on the utilization of ruthless power at all costs.

2) A hungry self, crippled with the paranoid distrust of others, trapped by behavior that led to his own destruction.[12]

 

There was absolutely no need for the President to fear being beaten by Eugene McCarthy. Had Humphrey been the candidate, it might have been a different matter. But Nixon had it in the bag. Why couldn’t he accept that? Why would he orchestrate a criminal fiasco so stupid that it would guarantee his removal from office if discovered, as it would be?

 

My answer to the question of what drove Nixon to Watergate was that he had character flaws of a serious and tragic nature: hubris, excessive ambition, narcissism, jealousy but most important of all a pathological sense of inferiority.

 

I’d like to conclude with some important questions raised by Nixon: A Psychobiography. Keep in mind the above character flaws and I think it will be easier for you to answer the questions:

  • “Why did he appear very moralistic and ‘clean’ while he bypassed personal integrity and frequently used ‘dirty’ words while talking with his staff and others?”
  • “Why did he order the bombing of Cambodia when many of his aides advised him not to do so?”
  • “Why did Nixon hold onto the Watergate tapes instead of destroying them?”
  • “Why would a man with as much intelligence as Nixon had, and with the ability to govern the most powerful nation on earth, behave at times ‘irrationally’ and in a self-destructive manner?”[13]

 

Allow me to propose some answers to these well-framed questions.  Why did he try to appear moralistic when he spoke foul language and acted immorally? I think he was playing a narcissistic con game with the people around him and with the entire electorate. Why did he order the bombing of Cambodia when advised not to? Pure hubris, arrogance, a sense of superiority that goes along with an inferiority complex. Why would he hold onto the Watergate tapes?  Consider the sense of guilt that pervaded the man’s life? By not destroying the tapes he condemned himself to the hellfire and damnation that his mother Hannah had warned him about. Why would a man with as much intelligence as Nixon behave irrationally and in a self-destructive manner? If you want the answer to that question I suggest you read again Sophocles Oedipus Rex or Antigone. Look for answers in Shakespeare’s King Lear, Hamlet, Macbeth, and Othello. In doing so you will discover that Richard Millhouse Nixon was a classic tragic hero.

 

“But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,
Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass;
I, that am rudely stamp’d, and want love’s majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
I, that am curtail’d of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deformed, unfinish’d, sent before my time
Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them;
Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace,
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to spy my shadow in the sun
And descant on mine own deformity:”—monologue, Act I, Scene I, Shakespeare’s Richard III

 

 

 

 

Appendix: Photographs

 

 

 

 

Nixon in ’46 as Communist baiter.

 

 

 

1960 first televised Presidential Debate between Nixon and Kennedy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


[1] Shenton,  “Richard Nixon and Watergate,” History of the United States, edition 1, Teaching Company Lecture 65)

 

[2] Ibid.

[3]  Ibid

 

[4] Murray Kempton, America Comes of Middle Age: Columns, 1950-1962. Boston: Little, Brown, 1963.

 

[5] Ibid.

[6] David Greenberg, Nixon’s Shadow: The History of an Image, New York, NY, W.W. Norton, 2003

[7] David Greenberg, Nixon’s Shadow: The History of an Image, New York: W. W. Norton, 2003.

[8] “Kennedy Nixon Debates.” Mary Ferrell Foundation, http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Kennedy-Nixon_Debates

 

[9] “Richard Nixon,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon

[10]United States Presidential Election of 1960, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1960

[11] Shenton, op. cit.

[12] Vamik D. Volkan, Norman Itzkowitz, Andrew Dod, Richard Nixon: a psychobiography, New York: Columbia University Press, 1997.

[13] Vamik D. Volkan, Norman Itzkowitz, Andrew Dod, Richard Nixon: a psychobiography, New York: Columbia University Press, 1997.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Ad Hominem Attack on “Zealot” Makes Book Wildly Popular

I watched the Fox News interview and would like to make the following observation.The whole thing is based on an informal fallacy, a fallacy of relevance called the ad hominem attack. You discount what someone knows or claims to know because of something about their background. What would Reza Aslan know about Jesus? He’s a Muslim. It’s really a cheap shot. And yet the ad hominem attack is one of the more commonly used (and swallowed) fallacies around. Ms. Green, on behalf of her network, did a most admirable job of demonstrating it. She says Reza Aslan can’t know anything about Jesus because he’s Islamic. By the same turn, she and Fox news can’t know anything about Reza Aslan because they are right-wingers. I just did an ad hominem attack on the ad hominem attackers. It doesn’t prove anything. I’m going to get the book “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth” because what little this guy was able to say (aside from batting off the repeated ad hominem blows) sounds true to my own reading about the life of Jesus. Footnote on the virgin birth: You don’t have to be Islamic to disregard that silly nonsense.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Gettysburg Was Not the Pivotal Battle of the Civil War

Gettysburg was not the pivotal battle of the American Civil War. Antietam was.  So says Professor Edward T. O’Donnell in his “Turning Points in American History” series of lectures.* Although the loss of 50,000 casualties by July 3, 1863 made Gettysburg the most costly battle of the Civil War, loss of life does not a turning point make.

The results of the Battle of Gettysburg were inconclusive. As in so many other Civil War battles, the Union did not pursue the enemy army to extinction. Lee escaped to fight again. O’Donnell goes so far as to suggest that  if Lee had won at Gettysburg, his options were not promising. Washington, D.C. was the most well fortified city in the world! Lee would have mucked about the Chesapeake countryside like Hannibal outside Rome .

So why was the September 16, 1862 Battle of Antietam the pivotal battle, even though it occurred a year before Gettysburg?

1) The battle could be conceived as a tactical victory for the Union because Lee had retreated.

2) Because it was a victory, Lincoln’s Republicans did better in the mid-term elections in November.

3)  England decided not to intervene on behalf of the Confederacy because it didn’t want to back a loser.**

4) Lincoln needed a victory in order make his Emancipation Proclamation official. If  he issued it before such a victory, his action would be perceived as desperate.  Antietam gave Lincoln what he needed.

5) Long before 1863, the United States had become the last bastion of chattel slavery in the world. Although the war had always been   about slavery, the Emancipation Proclamation made it official. No self-respecting European government*** would now come to the aid of the South. Lincoln’s Proclamation hammered the last nail into the  coffin of the Confederacy’s hope for European aid.

6) Furthermore, the Emancipation Proclamation legalized what had already been occurring, the self-emancipation of slaves. Whenever a Union army was in the neighborhood, slaves just up and left the plantations. Now after Antietam and the subsequent Emancipation Proclamation, their freedom became official.

Each slave that defected to the North deprived the South of a laborer who could feed and clothe   Confederate soldiers. Alternately, freed slaves now constituted a new labor force for the union—they first served in labor battalions and then in combat units.

Antietam signified the beginning of the end for the Confederacy.

The words above are my own but they are based on what I learned from Professor O’Donnell and some subsequent reading.

*“1862 Terrible Reality—The Battle of Antietam,” Lecture #22 in “Turning Points in American History” by Professor Edward T. O’Donnell, College of the Holy Cross. The Teaching Company: http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=8580

**The victory of the American colonists at Saratoga brought the French in on the side of the Revolutionaries.

***Not even Russia, which had abolished slavery by decree in 1861!

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized