The myth of…
by Eric, 25 April 2008
Simon Blackburn on his top ten myths. I’ve chosen just one I found interesting, and agree with most (I somewhat disagree with number 10). Paulie, Shuggy, and the, now rural, Chris Dillow will probably like number 5.
1. The myth of meaning
2. The myth of religious belief
3. The myth of British values
4. The myth of the scientist
5. The myth of management
6. The myth of democracy
7. The myth of culture
8. The myth of equal respect
The belief that everyone deserves equal respect and that anything else is discriminatory and elitist. The truth is the exact opposite: discrimination is a virtuous activity and elites are to be admired. The very few human beings who are good at anything, whether football or playing the violin or writing or painting, form an elite and deserve respect for their excellence. Other people either deserve sympathy for trying and failing, or should be ignored if they have not even tried.
Respect is not the same as toleration. I am lucky if my neighbours tolerate my singing when in the garden, but they would have to be tone deaf to respect it, and if they did then of course they in turn would forfeit my respect as music critics.
There are people whose chosen lifestyle disqualifies them from any respect at all, such as celebrities, although a more charitable view is that they deserve respect for the amount of publicity they can bestow, which is why they get into nightclubs and Downing Street. Religionists know in their hearts that they are always teetering on the edge of being ridiculous, and are therefore nervous about respect and constantly insist on it.
9. The myth of choice and competition
10. The myth of the public service ethos
Friday 25 April 2008 at 16:07
I disagree with 6 and in particular this line:
“For Icelanders, Scandinavians and Europeans, with our long parliamentary traditions, democracy may be the least bad system of government, but it is a long way from being any use elsewhere.”
Friday 25 April 2008 at 16:19
I think we can go further than merely disagreeing with that statement. It is in fact factually inaccurate.
According to Freedom House, an American organisation that tracks global trends in political freedom, at the end of 2005 there were 122 “electoral democracies” (64% of the world’s states, compared with 40% in the mid-1980s). On a more stringent criterion, 89 of these were rated as “politically free”—46% of all states, compared with only 25% in 1975.…
Still, to be fair, Blackburn later says of scientists:
These may be very bright people, but the moment one of them steps a millimetre or two outside their special area of expertise, they are no better than the rest of us.
That can equally be applied to philosophers.
Friday 25 April 2008 at 16:23
The myth of progress.
Friday 25 April 2008 at 17:03
Er, number 6 ….. (*small explosion in Central London. Human entrails scattered over a wide area, passers by drenched in a mixture of blood, pus and undivested Guinness*)
In direct opposition to most conventional mythical creatures, democracy exists and works very well, but no-one thinks it does.
Friday 25 April 2008 at 18:05
That can equally be applied to philosophers.
There is no such thing as a philosopher.
Saturday 26 April 2008 at 5:44
Of course, #6 is entirely wrong. Democracy does exist. OTOH, if he’d said “liberal democracy”, he’d have been spot on.
The others are right - #10 on the caveat that it may still be possible to rebuild the public service ethos, though it’ll take a process of deep de-Thatchification.
Saturday 26 April 2008 at 18:45
***That can equally be applied to philosophers.***
Sometimes, maybe, [no shit Sherlock] but there’s a difference between scientists and philosophers [that’ll be why there exists two different words to describe two different activities]. Scientists are engaged in the empirical ascertaining of physical reality [not always - sometimes they engage in the most ridiculous of ideological shit - thus you have constructed a Weberian ideal type with which you then proceed to counterpose a non-ideal type in order to belittle one sphere in the field of human endeavour and the attempt at getting closer to ‘truth’.]; a lover of wisdom [ooo err - aren’t we all] engages in more ambiguous, humanistic business [everyone says that - it sounds good]. Or they should, ideally [aha! - the magic key again]. The most ridiculous philosophers are the ones most eager to make their philosophy “scientific.” [no — the most ridiculous philosophers are the ones who write and talk utter shite] A philosopher can never be anything other than pseudo-scientific [wrong - a scientist can never be other than pseudo-philosophical - a philosopher can indeed be scientific - or at least utilise science in their philosophical enquiries]; that’s why the most interesting ones are the non-systematic, non-dogmatic ones [subjective and also tautological statement - basically, nonsense written for effect]: Socrates, the Stoics, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche,Wittgenstein, etc. [very questionable list - could easily be refuted or damned - depends on what your point is you are trying to make]
Though Plato, Aristotle, Hume, Kant, Hegel are awfully interesting too, if ridiculous here and there. [ahistorical horseshit - needs fleshing out somewhat]