The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Monday, August 20, 2012

Freud Says "You Didn't Build That"

Over at the New York Times this last Sunday was an article by Professor Firmin DeBrabander, titled "Deluded Individualism".  Referring to Sigmund Freud, he says:
By Freud’s account, conscious autonomy is a charade.  “We are lived,” as he puts it, and yet we don’t see it as such.  Indeed, Freud suggests that to be human is to rebel against that vision — the truth.  We tend to see ourselves as self-determining, self-conscious agents in all that we decide and do, and we cling to that image.  But why?  Why do we resist the truth?  Why do we wish — strain, strive, against the grain of reality — to be autonomous individuals, and see ourselves as such?

Perhaps Freud is too cynical regarding conscious autonomy, but he is right to question our presumption to it.  He is right to suggest that we typically — wrongly — ignore the extent to which we are determined by unknown forces, and overestimate our self-control.  The path to happiness for Freud, or some semblance of it in his stormy account of the psyche, involves accepting our basic condition.  But why do we presume individual agency in the first place? Why do we insist on it stubbornly, irrationally, often recklessly?
There you have it.  Per the Professor you really didn't build that yourself.  You are, in the words of Richard Dawkins, the product of "knobs and tuning" (inheritance and environment).  Going back to the article,
One might say there is something profoundly American in this.  It's our fierce individualism shining through.  But, the truth is, we can hardly fathom the depth of our dependence on government, and pretend we are bold individualists instead.
(Note that this is from the article in the print edition—the link is to the on-line version.  Read the whole thing, since fair use doesn't allow me to cover all the argument through quotes.)

At any rate, doesn't this approach sort of make a mockery of the whole election thing?

On the other hand, I believe our delusion of rugged individualism is much preferable to the concept that those who don't go along with the current majority fad are introduced to Madame Guillotine.  For one thing, when the power shifts within the controlling elite the appetite of Madame Guillotine changes and a whole new group of people are introduced.

But, before I close this out, one of my sons sent me a Washington Post item where the author said his success was a partnership with the government.  The author, Mr James C. Roumell, praises the Government help that allowed him to get educated and to start his own business, and says without it he would not have succeeded.

I get Mr Roumell's point.  Almost all of us have benefited from the actions of government at every level, from lead paint abatement to Pell Grants to national defense.  The question is, should we emphasize that side of the discussion by denigrating the other side—the contribution of the individual to his or her own success.  I say no.  But, further, I say we do need a discussion of those Government interventions in terms of their effectiveness.  Taking Senator Claiborne Pell, of Rhode Island, as an example, is it correlation or causation that the cost of a college education has skyrocketed since the introduction of Pell Grants?  Is it possible that we are no better off now than in 1972 in terms of college financial issues?

Some would cut this discussion off, but it is a discussion worth having.  It is a discussion that goes to the heart of our democracy.  Not all democracies are the same.

Regards  —  Cliff

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

A few comments. With regard to government and the good it does cannot be denied. THAT is one of the reasons...if not the ONLY reason that we organize and promote government....to serve the people. And that leads to the next point which is the American goal has always been to keep the government AS the servant of We The People. However, in the past few decades, we have begun a slow slide toward We the People as servants of the government.

Thus comes the now infamous Obama quote, "you didn't build that." What he is articulating in a phrase is the dominance of government over any individual activity. It is a short step from having government "assistance" to government "dictate."

Freud's posit is correct. Man is not ruggedly individualistic. We are social beings and have always fared better as a group than as islands. However, we are also imbued with a desire for some degree of choice and those choices are driven by our personalities (which are a summation of our experiences) and the context of the moment of need for choice. This is where the arguments about things go awry.

There is a balance that can be attained and maintained...and sometimes in our history we've approached that balance..but the characteristics of man have prevented us from reaching a nirvana. Man is at once a self serving organism interested primarily in his or her own survival and safety. Thus, every behavior is influenced by those needs. In group of individuals all competing for the same general needs (survival and safety) comes conflict....some may not get what they want or need because someone else got there first. And thus comes duplicity as a means to an end. It is this "other" human characteristic that begins to muddy the water for everyone...especially those in groups. The quest for self serving power is a means of securing both survival and safety....and is in many a very strongly defended quest.

I suspect...as a very broad generalization......almost all of human conflict has arisen from some one being threatened by a loss of security or safety in the lives....as perceived by that individual.

So....if you get a group of people who want to ensure their own need satisfaction through collective actions.....you now have the seeds of "politics" and all that comes with it.

Government then is merely the collective provider of need satisfaction to the people it serves. Its size correlates only to the intensity of needs felt by the group currently in power of that government.

Implicit then in the political speeches is the honey sweet promise that "if I am in charge of government" you will feel much safer and secure in your survival. One says I can do that for you with less government involvement...and the other says you have to have more government in order to feel good.

The two sides will never be in harmony...but at some point...size of government will serve "the greatest number" of people....but never ALL of them.

Jack Mitchell said...

A great clip here:
Did America's bygone 'golden age' truly exist?
Salon's Joan Walsh joins Morning Joe to discuss Todd Akin's comments on "legitimate rape," and her new book "What's the Matter with White People?" Walsh argues that many middle class Americans feel as if they achieved a level of success without help from the federal government.

I think a key component to this discussion could be branded as the "bitter clingers." Those that felt the advantage they had economically have been stripped away from them in pursuit of affirmative action.

I also call these folks, "Hooray for Me!, Democrats."

Certainly Scott Brown and Romney/Ryan are in hot pursuit of their bitter votes.

Anonymous said...

Walsh's argument is a tired one. You can only sing a chorus so many times and then it just becomes tiresome noise and monotony. The Federal government may have "helped" in financial ways, but those middle class Americans who felt that their accomplishments were because of their hard work...actually did the work themselves. Much of my higher education was paid for in large part by my tax dollars as well as those of millions of others. I am grateful for that support and acknowledge freely that without it...I couldn't have afforded the bills (I would have tried however because it was that important to me). However...THAT is where the help to me of the Federal government ends. I did all the research, the endless hours of studying, the reading of hundreds if not thousands of journals and reports.....it was MY 8 years of life that I gave up....and frankly...."NO"...I am not about ready to give the government credit for that part.

A partnership.....absolutely.....

And do I feel like my success is being....and about to be even more....the means by which someone else to lazy to get up off of their tired butt and do the work. And...I resent it. I am more than willing to help someone who is down and out...and do through many venues here in New Hamster.....but for those who just want to "live free" without any effort...without any contributory quid pro quo....they can die as far as I am concerned.

Years ago....in the depression...my grandparents fed a number of itinerant folks....but they did so in exchange for a little work on the seeker's part...chop some wood...weed the garden...paint a fence piece.

We don't do that any longer. Now...if you have a blood pressure, a respiration rate, and a core temperature somewhere in the vicinity of 98.6....you are entitled to the fruits of others labor....just because you exist.

Obama has emphasized that entitlement by removing any requirement for work from all the Federal welfare programs.

Bitter??? You bet.

Jack Mitchell said...

Bob McDonnell says Obama is "unwinding" welfare-to-work requirements

PolitiFact.com: FALSE

Anonymous said...

Politifact is little more than a pro-liberal mouthpiece.....much like the lapdog MSM.....

No hit, no runs, no errors......

Jack Mitchell said...

With one fell poop, Neal kills the referees. At any given moment, gravity won't be real and science will be cast aside.

C R Krieger said...

Can we go back to that "science" thing for a second?  Science is weird.  At any moment some scientist, resisted by all the other scientists, will discover about gravity that it isn't what we think it is.

I am not taking the Tampa Bay Times as authoritative in these matters, and I have lived in the Tampa Bay area—twice.

Regards  —  Cliff

Jack Mitchell said...

Should we discredit Pulitzer next?

PolitiFact has won the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting for our coverage of the 2008 election.

The Pulitzer Board announced the prize during a news conference Monday afternoon at Columbia University in New York.

The board cited PolitiFact's use of "probing reporters and the power of the World Wide Web to examine more than 750 political claims, separating rhetoric from truth to enlighten voters."

-snip

Does the bumper sticker braintrust have a link backing up their outlandish, discredited claim?

C R Krieger said...

Didn't Walter Duranty get a Pulitzer for his reporting on the Soviet Union in the 1930s?

And he was the Moscow Bureau Chief for The New York Times from 1922 to 1936.

I'm just saying...

Speaking of which, the person I most associate with that short saying had this in an EMail, on another topic (the OBL kill):

QUOTE
I'm not sure that I'd necessarily consider Politifact any more unbiased than most of the rest of the news media these days.

An interesting study suggests that, at a minimum, there may be selection bias within Politifact on which statements they CHOOSE to "fact-check," which in turn presents an image of "truthiness" for one side or the other.

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2011/02/selection_bias_politifact_rate.php

Others (themselves of a more partisan nature) question the ratings themselves.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/08/18/PolitiFact-campaigning-for-Obama

Suffice to say that determining the truth (especially when we start adding shades of "half-true," and "partially accurate") rapidly degenerates into an eye-of-the-beholder sort of thing.
UNQUOTE

Regards  —  Cliff

Jack Mitchell said...

Cliff, citing conservative blogs in such a situation is the equivalent of asking a mom if her son is smart and handsome.

The UMinn blog has a bigger fig leaf, but the conclusion assumes bias.

Selection Bias? PolitiFact Rates Republican Statements as False at 3 Times the Rate of Democrats

Is UMinn suggesting that PolitiFact picks what to rate because they know in advance that the rating will be negative? Are the in what us warriors call a "target rich environment?"

That said, it is clear to me that indeed GOPers are 3 times more false. This is the twisted genius of Karl Rove. Stuffing the GOP with evangelicals allowed the conservative calliope to pump out falsehoods without constraint.

Evangelicals take things on faith. Worse yet, or better(?), they will believe something in the face of proof to the contrary.

When the GOP field presidential candidates like Rick Perry, Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann; are you surprised that an objective news organization catches them with their pants down, never mind on fire?

Dais Isnafirlah said...

Thank you for nice information. Please visit our web :
www.uhamka.ac.id
Dais Isnafirlah
Dais Isnafirlah