Category Archives: Rebel

Mennonite Mothers are to Blame

Conspiracy Theories, Critical thinking, Death of Truth, Epidemics/Pandemics, Ethics, Health, Mennonites, Philosophy/Ideas, Rebel, religion, The Sleep of Reason, Trust and Distrust

 

Let’s get back to Mennonites.  We have noticed that in many places in North America the resurgence of measles on account of vaccine resistance has occurred in areas with a large number of Mennonites. Why is that? Is that a coincidence?

In my view, the problem is that many Mennonites live in a culture of belief. What I mean by that is that often Mennonites robustly indoctrinate their young. From a very early age, Mennonite mothers (and of course fathers) are careful to foster Christian faith in their offspring. They teach those children that they must have faith. Faith in God and the inerrant word of God evinced in the Christian Bible. I know that many religious groups do the same thing, but Mennonites definitely do and they do it thoroughly. Their children must believe what they believe without evidence.

 

Personally, I consider this a mistake. That is a very bad habit to get into. By doing that Mennonites (and others who do it too) shackle their children. If parents don’t give their children the opportunity to think for themselves their children will not learn to think for themselves in the real world. They won’t learn if they are not given the opportunity. That means they must be allowed to make their own mistakes. Even if we think they are wrong. We should give them evidence to encourage them to change their minds. Not indoctrination. Children must learn to think and think critically. This is true even when it comes to important matters such as choosing to believe or not to believe what their parents have taught them. In fact, this thinking skill is most important in the most important matters.

If children do not learn to think for themselves, they will be constant prey for charlatans, con-men, and hucksters.  That goes for religious hucksters as well. And there are legions of them. They are ubiquitous. It is much better for children to learn to think for themselves and make decisions based on evidence and logical arguments or inferences rather than faith inculcated by their parents. Thinking is a good habit to get into. Believing without evidence is a very bad habit to get into. I know when we are very young we need to believe our parents to keep us out of children or get hurt. But when we are old enough we must learn to think for ourselves or we will be in big trouble. And if enough children overly credulous when they get older society will be in trouble.

Those are skills that are worth much more than any belief. Such skills are literally invaluable.  That is what parents should teach their young charges.

To take away their right and obligation to think for themselves is to rob them of what they will most need after their parents are gone, namely, the ability to think and overcome challenges which they will inevitably meet. I know parents mean well when they try to inculcate their children, but they are misguided when they do it after their children are old enough to think for themselves. And to the extent they are old enough, they should be allowed to make decisions for themselves.

It is only by trying to think that we can learn to cultivate a spirit of questioning, of scrutinizing evidence, of weighing evidence and making rational decisions.  These are the skills children will need as they grow and have to make important decision such as whether or not to take vaccines. Robbing children of that skill could be considered child abuse, because it robs them of one of the most important skills they will ever need and they will otherwise be unable to learn.

Parents can guide such learning and offer help to them in learning these skills, but to take away their decision-making power is unfair to them.

Children must also learn to avoid the trap of wishful thinking. It is one of the easiest traps to fall into. The most difficult thing in the world is to disbelieve what you want to be true.  The easiest thing in the world is to believe what you want to be true.

The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche said it was not important to have the courage of one’s convictions. It was much more important to have the courage to attack one’s convictions.”  That is what we have to learn to do. That is the basis of critical thinking. It is perhaps its  most important element.  Nietzsche also said, “Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.”

He also said, “if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire”

Nietzsche realized he was radical in this respect. He showed thinking is fun. He said, “I am dynamite.” I think he meant to say that he was on this earth to break up encrusted ‘truths.’ He was here to attack them, to expose them.

I think many Mennonite mothers, but not all of them, and many Mennonite fathers, but again not all of them, have taught their children to believe what they have been indoctrinated to believe, and that is a dangerous thing as is shown by the fact that too many Mennonite children  have refused to believe measles vaccines are better for them than the alternatives, such as, in extreme cases, such as the woman in Ontario, eating wild flowers.

 

 

The Great Rebellion

Books, Classic Books, Rebel, religion, Religious Quest in the Modern Age

 

One of the great themes in the novel The Brothers Karamazov is the problem of evil. In other words, is the fact that evil exists in the world proof that God does not exist. If God is all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful, as most believe, how could God allow evil to exist? Sice evil exists, it is argued, God cannot exist.

 

In the novel, Ivan Karamazov says “I’m not properly equipped to deal with matters that are not of this world.” In other words, he cannot fathom how this world makes sense and finds no solace in saying it is mysterious and will all make sense when we are in the world that follows. To him that is no answer to the problem of evil. It is not good enough to say we will learn in the next world why evil was necessary. Yet, amazingly, he accepts that it makes sense, even though it does not appear that way. This is hard to untangle. As Ivan tells his brother, Alyosha,

“I would advise you too Alyosha never to worry about these matters, least of all whether He exists or not. All such problems are quite unsuitable for a mind created to conceive only three dimensions. And so not only do I readily accept God, but I also accept his wisdom and his purpose, of which we really know absolutely nothing, the divine order of things, the meaning of life, and the eternal harmony into which we are all to be refused.”

 

Even though we don’t know these things we must accept them. Ivan says, “I believe in his Word.”  In other words, he has faith. I think that is what he means. What else could he mean?  Yet, there is something he does not accept.  As Ivan says,

“I do not accept this God-made world, although I know that it exists. I absolutely refuse to admit its existence. I want you to understand that it is not God that I refuse to accept, but the world that he has created.—what I do not accept and cannot accept is the God-created world.”

 

What Ivan cannot accept is a world in which children suffer. How could a loving God create such a world?  And if it is necessary for a child to suffer—even just one child—Ivan cannot accept that. Yet Ivan, despite that,  amazingly has faith. Or at least that is what I call it. Dostoevsky does not use that word. He uses a different word, “trust.” That might be a better word. As Ivan says,

“…let me make it clear that, like a babe, I trust that the wounds will heal, and the scars will vanish, that the sorry and ridiculous spectacle of man’s disagreements and clashes will disappear like a pitiful mirage, like the sordid invention of a puny,  microscopic, Euclidian, human brain, and that in the end, in the universal finale, at the moment universal harmony is achieved, something so magnificent will take place that it will satisfy every human heart, allay all indignation, pay for all human crimes, for all the blood shed by men, and justify everything that has happened to men.  Well that day may come to pass—but I personally still do not accept this world. I refuse to accept it!”

 

That is the great rebellion of Ivan Karamazov. Nothing can make him accept a world in which a child must spend an entire night freezing in a shed at night until he dies.  Nothing can justify that in Ivan’s eyes. Even if it is a miracle. This is the magnificent rebellion of Ivan Karamazov. The only rebellion that compares to it is the rebellion of Huck Finn who will go to hell rather than give up his friend Jim. These, I think are the two most astounding rebellions in all of English literature and they are what makes this novel and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn the two greatest novels ever! Both novels embody magnificent rebellions against what they find on their religious quest.

We need rebellion: a Tiananmen Square Moment

New Attitude to Nature, Rebel

 

Professor Moriarty said that we need a moment now like the moment in Beijing in Tiananmen Square where a man who had been shopping, stepped off the pavement and stood up to the line of tanks that were gathered to support the Communist regime and lifted his shopping bag and forced them to halt. We need to resist this reduction of life to utility. As John Moriarty said,

 “It is time for us to do what that little Chinaman did. Stand in front of the modern world, wave a red flag, step off the pavement, it is a safe place, it is made for pedestrians, and say, ‘if human beings want to destroy themselves fine, but in the course of destroying themselves we have no right to destroy whales, we have no right to destroy dolphins, gazelles, elephants, behemoths…’ We need to stand in front of the world and speak the great perennial truths into it. The perennial truths are divine ground that the whole universe had its origin in divine ground, and it is a blossoming out of divine ground, and it is blossoming still in divine ground. That is there is soul, and by soul, I mean that there is something in me that is older and prior to the elements. There is something in me and you that is older and prior to the sun, the galaxy, and the universe itself. There is something that isn’t even involved in the universe. It is transcendent. “

 

I interpret that to mean that there is something sacred in nature and in us that must be respected. It cannot be reduced to what is useful. It is divine and we need an entirely new attitude to nature to properly appreciate it. We must standup to the prevailing world view that says nature is only something we can use as we choose. Just like that man in Tiananmen we can stand up to authority. We can rebel. It takes courage but we can do it.

 

Land of the Free because of the Brave

2023 Grand Finale Tour, Rebel

 

Brave?  You gotta be kidding

The sign out front on our yard which we were renting in Arizona said: “Land of the Free because of the brave.”  I agree with this sentiment, but this is not just because of the military. I admit a brave military is important. We all need a military to defend us in case of attack. This year Russia, under Putin, proved that there are still predatory countries out there willing to take astonishingly aggressive measures to exploit a country. It is naive not to have any defence.

 

However, I believe domestic enemies actually pose a larger threat than foreign enemies to countries such as the USA and Canada. Many of those domestic enemies falsely claim to be inspired by the ideal of freedom, but actually they actively work against freedom. To them freedom means the freedom to do anything they want. That is not freedom; that is anarchy. It takes even more courage to confront domestic enemies. For example, it takes a great deal of courage to speak up against our neighbours when they are speaking nonsense. Our domestic enemies must be resisted. The domestic mob is as dangerous as any foreign enemy and is often even more difficult to oppose. These domestic mobs typically demand conformity to their tarnished and narrow views. We must dissent from the views of those around us when they are based on fear and ignorance rather than critical thinking and compassion. Such oppression is every bit as bad as anything our foreign enemies could impose on us.

Confronting Truth and finding spiritual freedom

Classic Books, Fellow Feeing, Freedom, Rebel

 

Authorities have known for a long time, at least since the time of Plato, that the rebellion of poets and artists is dangerous to established authority and power. Their alternative reality is also one that is deviant and defiant. The members of the Republic of the Imagination are always prepared to dissent. That makes them uncompliant to power that wants to dominate. That makes them subversive and hostile to arbitrary authority. Not all authority.

 

One can only belong to such a subversive group if one has not only the courage of one’s convictions, but as Nietzsche said, “the courage to attack one’s convictions.” No truths are too sacred to be attacked or challenged. Even those we hold most dear. There should be no barriers to pursuing truth. One should be free to challenge all conventional wisdom. Even the truths of patriots are open to question. The country cannot demand absolute obedience or obeisance. Great literature is always ready, willing, and able to attack any sacred cows. That is why, as Nafisi said, “If we need fiction today, it is not because we need to escape from reality; it is because we need to return to it with eyes that are refreshed, or as Tolstoy would have it, “clean-washed.”

We must recognize that there are more freedoms than one. Nowadays the idea of freedom has been besmirched. In Canada we recently had the freedom convoy in our nation’s capital. The members of that convoy basically demanded the freedom to do whatever they wanted. They really recognized no limits on freedom, which of course, means they advocated for anarchy which is not freedom at all. It is an illusory freedom that they urge upon us. It is not the freedom to light out for the territory of Huck Finn.

Once again, Azar Nafisi made this point eloquently:

“But of course, there are all different kinds of freedom, and the kind that is most precious, you will not hear much talked about in the great outside world of wanting and achieving and displaying.  The really important kind of freedom involves attention and awareness and discipline, and being able to care about other people and to sacrifice for them, over and over, in myriad petty, unsexy little ways, every day.  That is real freedom. That is being educated, and understanding how to think. The alternative is unconsciousness, the default setting, the rat race, the constant gnawing sense of having had, and lost, some infinite thing.

 This is the freedom of Huck Finn. He was willing to sacrifice not just his life, but put himself in peril of eternal damnation, to save his friend, a black slave. That was the freedom he wanted. And he would do anything to achieve it. It was not a selfish freedom; it was real freedom. It was not the freedom of the convoy for whom freedom was all about me.

In its essence this is the freedom to think. Even if it’s a “long think.” The freedom to think for oneself, not chained to the conventional wisdom. It takes courage to be free. And no one had more courage than Huck Finn. After, all he was willing to risk eternal damnation. This is the freedom of Huck Finn!

 That is what a spiritual declaration of independence is all about.

Books Matter in the Republic of the Imagination:

Classic Books, Freedom, Rebel

 

Perhaps people living under totalitarian regimes know better than the rest of us that books matter. In such countries people are not allowed to read any book they desire to read. They can only read the approved books. Those are the books that align well with the interests of those in power. If they want to read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn they may not be able to do so. Even in Canada and the United States some people want to control the books that the rest of us read. Such people don’t believe in freedom of expression or the freedom to read. They usually have a “good cause” to justify their intrusions into our reading lives.  I am not saying all restrictions are unjustified intrusions. I am only saying we must be vigilant to ensure that only the very rare books justify such an intrusion.

That is why we learn that books really do matter. As Azar Nafisi said,

 

“…books matter, that they open up a window into a more meaningful life, that they enable us to tolerate complexity and nuance and to empathize with people whose lives and conditions are utterly different form our own.”

 

In unfree states, or in states on the road to unfreedom, such as perhaps the United States is headed, some people want to prevent others from reading anything contrary to the truths they hold dear. In Iran that means no deviance from the form of Islam the regime has approved. In the southern US that means no deviance from the approved belief among the powerful that the US is not a racist country. In some parts of the US, like Florida, among conservatives, that means no books that foster a view of gender and sexuality that fails to conform to the conventional wisdom of evangelical Christians. At least the children should not be allowed to read such books. They do not want others to have fellow feeling for those living lives different from their own.

Huck Finn refused to give obeisance to the conventional wisdom about race. He was the consummate rebel from the conventional wisdom. Nafisi put it well:

Huckleberry Finn is perhaps the most memorable of those humble citizens of the imaginary America who stand up to forces great and terrible, but Huck refuses to return home, thus foreshadowing the destinies and shaping the choices of so many other fictional American characters who either leave home, never return, or long to do so. Those homeless protagonists of American fiction become the true guardians of what is best in American individualism, never identifying happiness with wealth or power. Perhaps in no other fiction, in fact, is materialism so frowned upon, or defined as the root of so many evils—an ironic but salutary reminder for a country so blatantly devoted to the pursuit of wealth and power.

 

Only brave rebels like Huck Finn can resist the lure of that materialism. They make the mistake Bob Dylan warned about namely, “don’t go mistaking paradise for that home across the road.” Like Huck Finn who preferred the freedom of life on a raft to the comfortable but “smothery” home.

The members of the Republic of the Imagination are the writers, musicians and artists that are rebels who say no to the smothering ideology of the conventional wisdom. As Azar Nafisi said,

“All writers are strangers, or pariahs, as Hannah Arendt put it. They look at the world through the eyes of the outsider” but only the American writers turn this attribute into a national characteristic…we need to reflect on this constant restlessness, this unending questioning, this battle between the desire for prosperity and success and the urge to walk away from it all, to be wary of complacency—in short to perform the miracle of the small vagabond Huck, who followed his heart as he floated on a raft down the Mississippi.

 

That was why Huck decide to “light out for the territory” rather than be smothered in comfort. That is why Huck is a charter member of the Republic of the Imagination. But we can all join.

 Books matter in the republic of the Imagination; none more so than the classics like Huckleberry Finn.

Thinking not dying

Classic Books, Freedom, reason, Rebel, Social Democracy and Trust, The Sleep of Reason

 

Can great literature lead to great societies?

There is no obvious and direct link between democratic societies and great literature. As Joseph Brodsky correctly pointed out, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were all very literate men. That did not help societies in the countries they led. But that does not mean there is no connection.

Democratic societies, it has often been observed, need good citizens. Citizens who have not forgotten how important freedom is and know that to protect a fragile democracy—and all democracies are fragile—an alert and informed citizenry is essential. Azar Nafisi explained how books like the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn were important as a consequence:

For this they need to know, to pause, to think, to question. It is this quality that we find in so many of America’s fictional heroes, from Huckleberry Finn to Mick Kelly in The Heart is a Lonely Hunter. How can we protect ourselves from a country of manipulation, where tastes and flavors are re-created chemically in laboratories and given to us as natural food, where religion is packaged, televised, and tweeted and commercials influence us to such an extent that they dictate not only what we eat, wear, read, and want but what we know and dream. We need the pristine beauty of truth as revealed to us in fiction, poetry, music and the arts: we need to retrieve the third eye of the imagination.

Democracies can benefit from its citizens engaging in what Huck called “a long think.” Nothing is better for purpose than literature or art, or other works of the imagination. This is what Nafisi called “The Republic of the Imagination.” This is what allows us to live and avoid a smothery death.

In totalitarian societies people risk their lives to achieve this. The risks are clear and present. But even in democratic societies lives are at risk to, for smothered lives are not worth living.

People in totalitarian societies often appreciate the freedom to read much more acutely than citizens of democratic societies. But they are not the only ones. As Scout said in that wonderful book To Kill a Mockingbird, another classic, “Until I feared I would lose it, I never loved to read.  One does not love breathing.”

In the Republic of the Imagination, as Nafisi says, “We must read, and we must continue to read the great subversive books, our own and others.”

And in my opinion there is no more subversive book than The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. That is why it is a great book. Perhaps the best novel of all time. That is a possibility.  It is my favourite novel.  That is a certainty.

Tom Sawyer, who appears in this book at the beginning and then returns to wreak havoc near the end of the book, is completely befuddled by what he has “learned” from reading books. It gets Tom into trouble and more importantly endangers the lives of others, such as the slave Jim. He keeps insisting how they must conform to the books no matter how absurd and no matter how little he understands of what those books actually say. Sawyer is continually barking up the wrong reality tree.

 

Tom asks Huck, “Do you want to go doing something different from what’s in the books and get things all muddled up?” Huck agreed, saying: “all kings is mostly rapscallions…You couldn’t tell them from the real kind.” Huck’s conclusion was a sound one: “Sometimes I wish we could hear  of a country that’s out of kings.” Huck would appreciate the wisdom of John Lennon.

We can think or we can die. That is the  choice.

Avoiding a Smothery Death

Authoritarianism, Classic Books, Freedom, Rebel

 

I know I have been going too long about the wonderful book, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. But it is a classic and classics are worth it. At least in my opinion they are worth the extra time. I promise to bring these posts to a close soon. But I think there is so much to learn from that novel.

It is obvious that totalitarian societies impose horrendous encroachments on freedom.  Democratic societies are more subtle.

Of course, in a democratic society the arts of the imagination don’t usually threaten the state, but they help seduce us into what Nafisi e called “a paralysis of consciousness” and what she also referred to as “an intellectual indolence.” Both of those were  recognized by Huck Finn, though he expressed it in other words such as “smothery.” Huck Finn demonstrated that in order to avoid the “smothery” embrace of a conformist society it was absolutely necessary to rebel and “light out for the territories.” Nothing else will suffice.

Nazar Nafisi put the issue this way:

“Every state, including a totalitarian one, has its lures and seductions. The price we pay for succumbing is conformity, a surrender of one’s self to the dictates of the group. Fiction is an antidote, a reminder of the power of individual choice. Every novel has at its core a choice by at least one of its protagonists, reminding the reader that she can choose to be her own person, to go against what her parents or society or the state tell her to do and follow the faint but essential beat of her own heart.”

 

No one better exemplifies this awful choice more than Huck Finn who is willing to go to hell for doing the “wrong thing” so that he can save his friend Jim. Who is a better emblem of freedom and dissent from conformity that that?

Huck knows that to give in to “sivilization” and the Sunday school marms like Miss Watson, is to accept a “smothery” death and he won’t accept that. Instead, he will “light out for the territory” because  “there warn’t no home like a raft, after all. Other places do seem so cramped up and smothery, but a raft don’t. You feel mighty free and easy and comfortable on a raft.” Huck would not give up freedom for a comfortable home.

Huck was like the great artists mentioned by Nafisi when she said,

“What made Brodsky, Nabokov, Czeslaw Milosz and Hannah Arendt—all of whom took refuge in America (Einstein too for that matter)—resist the totalitarian states of their home countries and reject the empty temptations of Western democracies was essentially one and the same thing: they knew that to negate and betray that inner self was not just a surrender to the tyrant’s will but a sort of self-inflicted death. You become a cog in a vast and invisible wheel over which you have no control—Charlie Chaplin’s Modern Times, only without the comedy.”

Not for them a “smothery” death. Not for me either.

The Revaluation of Morals

Classic Books, Critical thinking, Morality, Rebel

 

When Huck Finn does what he thinks is wrong—helping a slave to escape his master and gain his freedom and deprive his master of her property—Huck decides he must be wicked, because to do “the right thing” is the wrong thing. He turns morality on its head. In doing so, Huck helps to turn civilization on its head too.

 

Hopefully this can help all of us to think better by making a “long think” about what is right and wrong. Is it what we were taught in Sunday school? Is it what our parents taught us? Or our friends? Or our betters? Or is it something we can discern for ourselves? Are Indigenous children slovenly brutes as many of us were taught? Do Jews really smell as many were told? What is respectable? What is civilized?  Don’t just believe what we are told. We must look for ourselves. We must give it a “long think.” We must be willing, if necessary, to turn the world on its heads even if means risking a place called hell.

 

Azar Nafisi said this is what she tried to teach her students when she was a professor,  in Iran, where they were indoctrinated from birth to believe what the Imams and parents told them. Who can do this in America? Who can do this in Canada? In her view, gleaned from Twain and other writers, “I tried to share with my students in Tehran , explaining to them that moral choice comes from a sound heart and from a constant questioning of the world and of oneself and that it is just as difficult , if not more so in society that appears to give you every freedom.

 

I think it comes from starting with fellow feeling and then a long think where all the relevant facts must be ascertained and then weighed.

 

I remember one time having a serious discussion with a young lawyer on an issue of morality.  His argument against what I said consisted of saying, “Well this is what I learned at home.”  It is all well and good to be taught at home. We all needed parents to do that as we could not have survived without their help. But when we become adults, we have to learn to think for ourselves too. Mark Twain once said elsewhere that “education consists mainly in what we have unlearned.” And as much as we loved our parents and respected their viewpoint they were not always right. Just as our children won’t think we were always right.  Thank goodness for that.

 

The same goes for teachers. I know I have learned a lot from good teachers. But Friedrich Nietzsche that great German philosopher, said “One repays a teacher badly if one always remains a pupil.”

 

Azar Nafisi said this source of wisdom was “the rebellious heart that beats to its own rhythm.” What we really need, in addition to good parents and good teachers is critical thinking combined with fellow feeling. This is what I have gleaned from one of my old philosophy professors. I am eternally grateful to him for that.

 

 

Deep Freedom

Classic Books, Exploitation, Freedom, racism, Rebel, Religious Quest in the Modern Age

 

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a book about freedom.  It is about the freedom of young boys who are smothered by demands that they conform to narrow constraints of maiden aunts and Sunday schools. And that is important. Revolting from such constraints is the freedom Huck seeks. That is the freedom that Huck seeks and is willing to pay the ultimate price when he lights out for the territory. He wants it even if means hell.

 

But it also about freedom that a large portion of Americans didn’t enjoy, namely the indigenous and black people of America. The freedom extolled by Americans since the time of the Puritans that for some reason was not for them. Some of them in fact were enslaved—i.e., as unfree as they possibly could be in this land lauded as being the land of the free.  It was free only for some. Most them were white and most of them were men.

The novel is also about freeing humans like Huck from the ideas that enslave him. These are the ideas—like making humans into property—that Huck must learn to renounce. And it is hard to renounce ideas with which we have grown up.

How can anyone who believes in and relishes freedom as so many Americans and Canadians do, ever think that slavery is acceptable? Canadians have to remember that slavery was also prevalent in Canadian society. Canada was much more than the underground railway inviting in slaves to sanctuary.

When charlatans, murderers, and thieves join the “God-fearing” white folks of the community to chase down en mass Jim the runaway slave, Huck says, aptly, “It was enough to make a body ashamed of the human race.”

Mark Twain once said, “Lincoln’s proclamation…not only set the black slaves free, but set the white man free also.” I believe that is profoundly true.

This is beautifully materialized in the character of Jim the black slave. Jim frees Huck. In pursuing freedom for Jim, Huck is also freed from the chains of the Sunday school marms.