Last Post on Patriotism

You may have noticed looking at my blog; I am very engaged with patriotism. For some reason the irrationality of it bugs the heck out of me. I do not expect humans to be only rational beings and devoid of emotion in their decision making process, but why is this emotiv connection to one's country so persistent?

In the ideal world we would agree to abide by political structures out of our own volition, instead of needing an emotive fix. 

The Foundations of Patriotism

An interesting fact I just read (burried in the latest issue of the NY Review of Books) is that when asked if "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is in the US constitution, fifty percent of people said yes. The article then went on to make another relevant point that more than eighty percent of Americans believe the bible is either the literal or inspired word of God (at least thats what they say to these guys), but that percent of americans has not read the Bible.

What is this tendency to make out texts that we don't even read to be sacred? Why are people so attached to the ideal of a nation? After all a nation is just a convenient legal fiction, why attach so much emotive importance?

Unanswerable Questions

It may be that philosophy's sisyphean task is to try and answer unanswerable questions. Maybe this is where it's vitality comes from, providing endless challenge to the most curious human minds. By failing to directly answer 'the big questions' a fertile and creative intellectual realm where humans can strive to be 'better' (whatever that is).

I cannot see that the philosophy of time is one of these places. Ok, at least the portion of it trying to describe the nature of time. We only can access our experience of time and whatever the reality of it is seems to be irrelevant. Furthermore, I don't think we can access any evidence on weather time is this way or that, because we are limited by our subjective view of the universe.

A Note from Banksy

"People who enjoy waving flags don't deserve to have one"

I disagree with this statement but I think I agree with Banksy's general frustration with those who do wave flags. Patriots are not up for a rational discussion of patriotism in the same way a religious person is not up for a rational discussion of their beliefs. This is perfectly fine, and I would hope people have the right to be unreasonable as long as it isn't harming anyone else. In this case however it does seem to be causing harm.

While moral imperatives are supposed to be universal it often seems that our moral obligation to others stops at our boarders for the arbitrary reasons of closeness and legal proximity. Though cultural relativism is in vogue, it is still the case that justice is universal for many things that are not culturally specific. Murder is murder, rape is rape, ect. And while patriots seem to value the lives within their nation more than others, it is a moral imperative to break down these artificial barriers to moral action.

Often American interests are put ahead of the interests of other nations full of people who are and should be considered equal in value to any other human citizen. A particularly strong example of this is the United States continuous physical and diplomatic interventions in Latin America. These interventions often happen to the detriment of democracy and human rights in that region. Here is an (admittedly bias) cronological list of US interventions in Latin America.

Q&A Four Question Two

• If you dislike America so much why don't you leave? [finding an appropriate philosophical response to this question]
  
  
  This question seems to tie into weather patriotism is a specific gradation in love of place. Patriotism seems to be a special love or favor of a place to the detriment of other places. Which is a more extreme form of attachment to  a place than simply liking it more than other places, but not letting that get in the way of moral judgments.
  
   This is the place that I am from, and though I do not agree with the polities actions that does not man that there is not a nonpolitical culture that I am involved in.
  
  Even more practically, moving is a bit of a hassle.
  
  

Q&A Four Question One

• Is patriotism necessary to maintain a nation state?
  
  
  Patriotism is historically tied to the concept of the nation state. When the land in Europe was owned based on inheritance there was clearly no or little concept of national sovereignty  For example the crown of Spain gained a significant part of the Netherlands through inheritance  and the resistance to this was largely religious, and unlike you may see today, Dutch nationalists did not raise a fit. It would seem that patriotism is integral to the survival of the nation-state because patriotism occurs everywhere this sort of concept of governance occurs.
  
  
  Fundamentally I do not think patriotism is necessary.  There are other groups that we function as part of just fine without fanatical devotion. These groups include states (as in Massachusetts), universities, businesses, and non-profit organisations.

Q&A Three Question Two

Why is anti-empiricism at the root of all totalitarianism (assuming this is so)? Is totalitarianism therefore impossible because our discourse is based on empiricism?

I know that the author does eventually argue that empiricism can also be a totalitarian ideology, but I don't believe that this is really consistent. If empiricism is free dialogue based on the available facts of a situation then totalitarianism can only happen when that dialogue breaks down, because the dialog must necessarily be discussing the facts of the situation which includes that totalitarianism is a negative force that does not create a space where rational dialog can be had.