thomaspainerevisited
11-04-2004, 04:55 AM
HERE ARE A FEW FUNDIMENTAL QUESTIONS:
1. Have not civilizations done little more than tell themselves lies regarding functional and yet disingenuous imperfect strivings towards variations of Darwinist competition? Or, is it not true that mankind has left the brutish state of nature --post Eden-- and evermore accorded with or adopted higher truths, which benefit man’s life on earth?
2. And, are, are not, and to what degree do the foundations of civilization involve expedient artifice, or outright falsehoods? Or, are there such things as societal falsehoods, for does not everything in existence justify itself as being rational by its victory over all other competing potentialities, that is, until such loses in the competition of and for existence, but are not falsehoods of utility in that they serve as cause for effect?
3. And, have not often religious scribes and secular philosophers as well as historians, biographers, and all those apparatuses that create popular notions done little more ---on balance--- than serve as remunerated propagandists for those in and/or seeking power? Or, has the weight of religion, philosophy, and literature as well as those apparatuses that create popular notions served more as beneficent endeavor than secondary gamesmanship?
4. And, may one truly rise above the “Spirit of the Times,” or does the “Spirit of the Times” determine who shall be influential and/or determinative in the shape of things to come?
5. And out of our agents of change, is there not a danger in revealing our yesterdays for what they were and thus might have been, for do not cleaver men threaten to unleash the pent-up frustration and anger of the masses—to garner power? Or, do not the conservative, the unorthodox, and the radical serve WE THE PEOPLE, so that WE THE PEOPLE may incrementally decide and act upon that which was and is the best and worst in life?
6. And will those who support or oppose the “Spirit of the Times” add or detract from civilized existence?
7. And, do the ends justify the means, or do not the means justify the ends?
8. And, to what extent do logic or emotion stem from or impact social life?
9. And, to what extent does emotion or logic serve base or noble strivings.
10. And, if the competition for hearts and minds determines the direction of civilized existence, does such competition primarily entail the world of ideas (i.e., truth for truth’s sake and let consequences be dealt with as secondary concerns and hurdles), or materialism (i.e., utility and the economy of advantage)?
11. And, is there such a thing as a “thing-in-itself,” or is truth so much outcome of human endeavor that it is an inextricable product of man?
12. And, if truth is simply a product of man as well as democratic norms are to be given weight, is it not a crucial abutment to man’s piggery that any form of utilitarianism seeks to insure self-rule through the utmost scrutiny via participation and transparency, or do the masses remain more often than not base, superfluous, and antithetical to their own happiness.
13. And, have “THE PEOPLE” held or shall they ever attain sovereignty over that which is desirous in civilization?
14. And, how far is man’s government from being of the people, by the people, and for the people?
THOMAS PAINE REVISITED
1. Have not civilizations done little more than tell themselves lies regarding functional and yet disingenuous imperfect strivings towards variations of Darwinist competition? Or, is it not true that mankind has left the brutish state of nature --post Eden-- and evermore accorded with or adopted higher truths, which benefit man’s life on earth?
2. And, are, are not, and to what degree do the foundations of civilization involve expedient artifice, or outright falsehoods? Or, are there such things as societal falsehoods, for does not everything in existence justify itself as being rational by its victory over all other competing potentialities, that is, until such loses in the competition of and for existence, but are not falsehoods of utility in that they serve as cause for effect?
3. And, have not often religious scribes and secular philosophers as well as historians, biographers, and all those apparatuses that create popular notions done little more ---on balance--- than serve as remunerated propagandists for those in and/or seeking power? Or, has the weight of religion, philosophy, and literature as well as those apparatuses that create popular notions served more as beneficent endeavor than secondary gamesmanship?
4. And, may one truly rise above the “Spirit of the Times,” or does the “Spirit of the Times” determine who shall be influential and/or determinative in the shape of things to come?
5. And out of our agents of change, is there not a danger in revealing our yesterdays for what they were and thus might have been, for do not cleaver men threaten to unleash the pent-up frustration and anger of the masses—to garner power? Or, do not the conservative, the unorthodox, and the radical serve WE THE PEOPLE, so that WE THE PEOPLE may incrementally decide and act upon that which was and is the best and worst in life?
6. And will those who support or oppose the “Spirit of the Times” add or detract from civilized existence?
7. And, do the ends justify the means, or do not the means justify the ends?
8. And, to what extent do logic or emotion stem from or impact social life?
9. And, to what extent does emotion or logic serve base or noble strivings.
10. And, if the competition for hearts and minds determines the direction of civilized existence, does such competition primarily entail the world of ideas (i.e., truth for truth’s sake and let consequences be dealt with as secondary concerns and hurdles), or materialism (i.e., utility and the economy of advantage)?
11. And, is there such a thing as a “thing-in-itself,” or is truth so much outcome of human endeavor that it is an inextricable product of man?
12. And, if truth is simply a product of man as well as democratic norms are to be given weight, is it not a crucial abutment to man’s piggery that any form of utilitarianism seeks to insure self-rule through the utmost scrutiny via participation and transparency, or do the masses remain more often than not base, superfluous, and antithetical to their own happiness.
13. And, have “THE PEOPLE” held or shall they ever attain sovereignty over that which is desirous in civilization?
14. And, how far is man’s government from being of the people, by the people, and for the people?
THOMAS PAINE REVISITED