Philosophy Journal #3/ Machiavelli/ Virtù and the Herbivore Men

Virtù and the Herbivore Men

I dare assume that Machiavelli’s Il Prince can be summarized into one word: virtù. Virtù is a word that means “range of personal qualities that the prince will find it necessary to acquire in order to ‘maintain his state’ and to ‘achieve great things,’ the two standard markers of power for him,” according to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Machiavelli accentuates this trait’s significance as an essential quality for a potential prince to acquire in order to face fortuna, which can be roughly translated as vicissitudes of life (and a state). He seems to identify the state with its ruler, so virtù is clearly a personal quality that influences the whole state. Those with the capability to withstand fortuna can overcome random and at times adverse circumstances and accomplish something great.

Machiavelli is pretty macho in explaining this term. While personifying fortuna as a mettlesome woman, he insists that a young, less cautious, more spirited, bolder man with virtù can “master” her by treating “aggressively” and “violently.” Though I do not think men (compared to the past) do not (and should not) mistreat women, maybe such masculinity can be ‘virtuous’ for individuals who seek to acquire what they want and change their communities by fighting off external influences. Period. Nothing more, nothing less.

And I’m not the only one who thinks so. A Professor of Government at Harvard University Harvey Mansfield takes it even further by saying that men these days lack manliness, citing on the Machiavellian virtù. Following a Machiavellian line of thought, he does not wish to judge right or wrong of a man with virtù, for he is a man who wishes to change his community, including the value-judgment system. He elaborates on the concept of virtù by naming it manliness, a quality that makes heroic individuals say and act boldly to accomplish what they want, regardless of perils on its course. Although Professor Mansfield almost lost his job for being criticized as “chauvinistic” by feminist thinkers, I pretty much agree with him. And I think his remark on contemporary society as having less virtù or manliness is quite insightful.

In 1999 Blair administration initiated a term “NEET (Not currently engaged in Education, Employment or Training).” It designated unemployed young men who have no will to engage in advanced education or a stable employment. They instead work as part-timers in department stores, convenient stores, restaurants and etcetera.

Or we see “herbivore men” of Japan and Korea. A term coined by pop culture columnist Maki Fukusawa, the term “herbivore men” designates male that take up a 30% portion of Japanese male population who reject eagerly engaging into social movements or occupation but choose to enjoy hobbies like foot cosmetics and gardening. Fukusawa comments that their carnal instincts for rich, reputation, social change, and sex had been nearly castrated.

Some might say that these NEETs or herbivore men have adapted well to the Machiavellian fortuna by following the current of the “violent river” Machiavelli pointed out as a trait of fortuna. Nonetheless, they would be neglecting the latter part of Il Prince that mentions how a prince should treat goddess fortuna “violently” and “aggressively;” they are neglecting that Machiavelli supported an active adaptation to circumstance, not a passive. By ferociously fighting with vicissitudes, a prince might acquire dominance over state, whether it be literal or metaphorical. In a modern application, would NEETs who were excluded from the society due to depression be ever able to wiggle out of their cashiers and Buy The Way uniforms and initiate social change? I doubt it; until they acquire virtù for the guts for change, they will never be able to rule the state. 

Philosophy Journal #2/ Thomas More/ An Outsourcing State

An Outsourcing State

I once heard an interesting analogy on the comparison between Communist North Korea and Capitalist America. He would say that North Korea is a Darwinist competition society while America is a socialist one. His rationale was that North Koreans compete to climb mountains for tree barks and grass roots to eat and Americans wait in line for federal-issued free lunch boxes. This half-humorous half-sour joke gives something beyond poking fun at the ideological confusion in two countries; it seems to hint a Hegelian notion that in order for an idea to sustain, it must have its complementing (and at times binary) substance within. This can be signified by the white dot in yin and black dot in yang in the Taoist Taiji symbol.

Reading More’s Utopia gave me a similar impression of the anecdote above. In a place where ‘everyone’ is meant to be happy without any need for private property, people prepare gold to hire mercenaries that would fight for them, and although they think war should be avoided, they engage in it when they have to. In order to maintain a ‘clean’ ‘state,’ the utopia outsources uncleanliness that is essential to the sustenance of the state. Formal-logically speaking, utopia can never be a universal form of society, for it has to have a complementing part of the dystopian society for its sustenance.

And I see a modern-adaptation of this kind of community in one country: America. It is very indicative that More places in Amerigo Vespucci as the founder of such a place. Not to mention the outsourced manufacture of Nike shoes in African sweatshops, Blackwater private military company is a modern version of mercenaries. Completely multi-national and external to any sovereignty, there is practically nothing that could stop this company nominally other than UN Security Council in which its hirer holds the veto power. When Blackwater USA agents massacred a native town, US government was free from its prone criticisms. When more human rights and less collateral damage is expected from the sovereign government, it can simply outsource it. Same goes to tortures; we have an International Herald Tribune op/ed that asks for a stricter human rights measure for US government while demanding more torture for terrorists outside the borders. There has to be filth to keep the cleanliness, so we can just kick it out and leave it to barbaric states who are willing to this for, literally, ‘gold.’

More was somewhat very insightful in how the future would come, but not how it should have come. Outsourcing had surely induced better lives, or has it? Mega-corporations like Samsung outsource high-risk works by setting up a paper company and making manual laborers toil. When human rights issue or industrial accidents should take place, it is something that the employers of the paper company should be responsible of. More’s utopia is menacing because it not only functions as a state but as a corporate, or any group that needs some filth but is unwilling to be responsible for it. Thinkers and social philosophers other than More were busy how to solve the problem; More found a way to sweep it away. As a result, we now have a contradictory state where it discriminates between humans in and humans out of the community, which hardly bear any difference. A reason why EU is building up electric trenches against North African immigrants, and US builds immigrant blockade against Hispanics. But unless this outsourcing and filth-ing the outward societies doesn’t cease, such desperate immigration will not stop. And one day these utopias would have to pay the price for all the dust they swept underneath the carpet.

And here comes a million-dollar question: how could More even think of corrupting foreign political leaders with gold, when he thought it was such a corrupting, evil substance for the utopians to use as building material for toilets and handcuff chains? Or has nationality or race already become a major dividing line between entities of the Homo Sapiens Sapiens species by More’s era?

Philosophy Journal #1/ Spinoza / From Spinoza to Democracy

From Spinoza to Democracy

When I had presented that Spinoza was a pantheist philosopher who claimed that all that ends well is well, I was over-simplifying. I was probably confused on how any ethical discussion could be possible if everything was to be operated under god’s will. To me at that time, Spinoza said God was always logical and reasonable, so everything just had to be good. If everything was operating logically well, why think over what is right or wrong?

And precisely at that point, I had made a grave mistake in leaving out ‘myself’ from the godly operation of the world. If ‘everything’ were to operate under God’s logical, inevitable, and reasonable will, that would include me as well as many others. Moreover, since the operation was logical, I would have to contemplate, just as a reasonable God would, to make a logical, inevitable, and reasonable decision and an ensuing action.

This explanation may clarify how freedom is possible in Spinoza’s deterministic universe. With knowledge and reason, we can avoid unenlightened circumstances or external influences which would have been otherwise unavoidable. And when we do, we are not merely obeying something, even God, but becoming a more substantial part of it, the order of the universe. So in a sense, Spinoza’s philosophy is more than mere obedience to authority. It is actually closer to ascension of reasoned minds, where every mind is capable of reasoning regardless of social classes. This notion indicates freedom from ignorance and any authority other than a higher power. And even this higher power is strictly bound to inevitability and natural laws (as in rain falls downwards). No wonder the church had to excommunicate Spinoza, for there was no place for unnatural miracles and a mysterious church in his philosophy, not to mention unquestioned authority (for people who are not priests could also understand God’s will).

As Spinoza notes, a more complete comprehension of the world is indeed freedom within the worldly system. To people who still persist that there is no freedom in a determinist system, I would like to ask them whether they feel less freedom every time they realize the Earth spins around every 364.4 days. When we usually discuss freedom, it is freedom from other humans or social institutions, not natural circumstances that we already perceive as natural.

Now that we realize what freedom Spinoza has been trying to fight for, we must contemplate on how such freedom should be acquired in a political dimension. It is a famous anecdote that Spinoza had been excommunicated from his Jewish community, for he wrote that faith and philosophy (governance) should be separated. Offended, the Jewish community pushed him out of its circle. At this time, I would have no other choice but to support the church’s decision. I believe Spinoza articulated his theory in a misleading way, and that church nonetheless had interpreted it right and reacted appropriately.

Spinoza, while discussing on the concept of social contract, quotes Moses and the Jews as an ideal historical example. He cites the Hebrew state, and that upon people’s agreement Moses was able to rule with boundless authority. As implicitly shown in the example, what Spinoza meant by the separation of faith from philosophy was actually of faith from church. As reasonable persons, the Hebrew could respectively ‘choose’ a sovereign subject such as Moses. And their decision was a pretty good one. In short, religious faith is newly amalgamated to reason and logic, the persons themselves. Unlike what Spinoza had bluntly stated, it can be reversely interpreted that a Spinoza-n social contract is that of a democracy that places faith in themselves and their decision.

It was a long way from God’s will to democracy, but from the point that Spinoza made clear that his concept of God was not a human-like being but reason and logic attainable by any men if there were efforts, there is a way from a theocracy to democracy, while the theos is naturally converted into demos. As Spinoza puts it, all’s well that ends well; vox populi vox dei.