Definitions for clarity's sake (and of course there are different schools of thought with diverging philosophies but essentially they all share these characteristics)
Liberalism - the political structure which was birthed in America; product of
Enlightenment; fundamental principle: individuals should be free from external accountability as to how they should live their lives insofar as others are not harmed through their action; NOT indicative of modern democrats, really both parties are proponents of liberal democracy
Communitarianism - opposes focus on the individual and supports community wide agreement as to fundamental principles. this agreement on a basic level allows for the possibility that agreement can be reached on specific levels such as moral discussion and questions of competing rational justifications.
We are individuals who choose to live in communities. This clash has been on my mind for some time now, and I try to resolve the libertarian-communitarian debate by a simple synthesis. At the present date, Man has surmounted Nature, used her for his benefit and understood many of her secrets. This has caused an abstraction in the relationship: Man sees himself as largely outside of Nature. However, Man can never be outside of Nature. Man, like everything else that exists, is a component of Nature. As seen as outside of Nature, this idea of Man is a pure construction, a fiction. In much the same way, the individual is a construction. As much as we have individual self-interests and perceive ourselves in the light of the idiosyncrasies which differentiate us from each other, we all share in some pretty fundamental characteristics and we choose to live in society with others. It is my contention that philosophies advocating individualism and communities are not as incommensurable as appears, and that a neutral standard of value found from biology can reach across the chasm between the two sides.
Within libertarianism is there philosophical room for valuing individuals feeling, and actually being, accountable to others within the community for their beliefs? This, despite an apparent conflict with libertarian core principle of maximum individual freedom whereby action is limited only with respect to its harm on others, and belief, insofar as it does not harm, is immune from criticism. Obviously, it would be antithetical to force this (and how could you), but could this accountability be a solution to the problem of individuals within a libertarian, and liberal, society perhaps unable to get past already entrenched beliefs and be open to the possibility that they are wrong (which would seem to possibly flow from the freedom within both to believe/do whatever insomuch as it does not harm anyone else)? Aren't actions born from beliefs? And we live in communities where our actions and life course naturally affect many people, right? Therefore, wouldn't it be worthwhile to encourage open, rational discourse with accountability as opposed to what we have now: bitter disagreement to the point of incommensurability and the acceptance that the best we can do is disagree? I think there's a home for rational accountability between citizens within libertarianism. It's not necessary of course, it could go down another way, but this would seem to be the best manifestation of the philosophy: a libertarian society where people choose to be accountable and to hold others accountable for their beliefs/knowledge claims/reasoning because it is in the community's (and really the species') best interest and thus their individual best interest. For however much people may want to solely look at their micro situation and find happiness existing, the macro still exists as a framework, dictating the existential possibilities and limitations.
Anyone who does not engage in consistent self-reflection cannot and should not assume that they aren't pursuing a phantom happiness which will always require more and more inputs for less and less satisfaction. It hasn't been put through the appropriate tests and is most likely a false positive, the result of a life devoted to pleasure, power, money, or all three. In short, Liberalism, or any system which values protection of individuals from outside influence as to questions of the "good life", diminishes self-accountability and self-reflection and constrains our ability to agree. This disagreement limits progress, and in combination with human tendency towards a life of pleasure fulfillment, provides an inaccurate picture of human potential. (Another piece down the road will deal with The Life of Pleasure and our period's prime exploitation of it, consumerism. The sad thing is that people actually do buy into the concept that the ability to purchase whatever they want is an acceptable manifestation of their freedom...but another time. Actually, I did write something indirectly touching on consumerism, here)
The best way for this unity to become a reality is that people who share this general philosophy should all populate a given area, molding the local forms of government in accordance with their principles, and slowly expanding outwards like the aftershock of an earthquake which never stops. You'd think that as the number of people moving in became greater, those who disagree (and don't wish to ever agree) would move elsewhere. This would also encourage people of the same philosophy to immigrate because I'm sure there are many people out there who feel lost/illfit in this world but are unable to/don't articulate it or have an outlet for it. The initial "immigrants" would be key. That's why it'd be nice for it to occur in a state like NH or Vermont because they already have a nice libertarian core to serve as a foundation. Of course, a libertarian does not a communitarian make, but just intuitively I feel that many within the ranks would be persuaded by my argument advocating agreement and accountability through honest, rational discourse. They don't want to be accountable to gov't about their personal beliefs, and I'm not suggesting that this would happen: I'm proposing an accountability to each other, and ourselves, as to how we rationally justify these beliefs.
A big question to be answered prior to this new paradigm's implementation is whether government's function should also include promoting forums for such discourse to take place within. Should gov't facilitate agreement? I don't know. This would seem too close to force. Maybe I should rephrase. Should gov't remove barriers to agreement? But are there actual government produced barriers or barriers capable of gov't removal. Or is it a much more ethereal, unknown cause requiring some other kind of change? To legislate or use judicial means would contradict libertarian principles, that'd be big gov't. And for the people to demand change and be successful, it would have to be a large number of people, probably large enough to where agreement would have already been reached and gov't would be unneeded. Again, I go back to the core group argument. It would have to be a grassroots effort type thing where people recognize a common experience of the world and just join up, either moving to the state like that hypothetical or just simply by action, holding people accountable: asking Why?, staying free from detrimental bias, and engaging in rational dialogue.
A key element in attaining this unity or agreement (besides agreeing that agreement is possible) is a recognition that biology holds the answer to our general purpose, and the ultimate fate of our species depends on acknowledging this evolutionary edict: How will homo sapiens respond and adapt to the environment of Reason, of Emotion, of Love, of Hate, of Choice, of Consciousness, of our ridiculously, ridiculously, ridiculously, complex and powerful brain? In this way, I think that the evolutionary question facing homo sapiens is the same as it was 2000 years ago and really probably 100,000 years ago. Or would the epoch have begun when the first humans left the cave, overcame fear of the beasts, began making tools, and began living in communities of interdependence and specialization? It doesn't matter really; the key is that all these advancements which were critical in human evolution came primarily as a result of the brain. I don't have great hope for science's full understanding of the brain anytime soon, but that doesn't mean we all can't act responsibly and take biology as perhaps the only neutral standard of value out there. (And conflicting standards of value are really the problem at the root of the disagreement issue. Individuals enter discourse with them, and there is a presupposition within each as to the conclusion that should be reached. There are different streams of rational justification, across which agreement is impossible because each values different concepts)
Different biologists obviously reach different conclusions from the same results, but I guess I just mean looking at ourselves from a level which maybe very few would disagree with: Our brain gives us the ability to reason, feel, and choose. Our brain produces consciousness, our base of operations from which we compile our experience of the world and where reasoning takes place. Human beings feel and think with incredible variation, without significant limitation to previous modes of each, and use each in choosing how best to act. Individual human beings have the capacity for an autonomy so far beyond any other species. Every species must adapt to environments as well as deal with consequences from previous adaptations and genetic developments. We must adapt to the environment and conditions created by the brain. We must realize that we create and destroy much like the characteristics ascribed to the gods. Our will is constantly manifesting itself and surmounting nature in myriad forms. We must realize most are born with tremendous possibility; we are not inherently good or bad; intelligent or stupid; we exist, then we become what we will be; existence precedes essence. Our lives should be consumed, not with consumption of products, but with moving ourselves from potential to actual, with actualizing the god potential within us all.
"We ought not to follow the proverb writers, and 'think human, since you are human', or 'think mortal, since you are mortal'. Rather, as far as we can, we ought to be pro-immortal, and go to all lengths to live a life that expresses our supreme element; for however much this element may lack in bulk, by much more it surpasses everything in power and value (Aristotle, Ethics, 1177b34-1178a3)."
I really don't think that the mediocre, as we know it, must exist. Of course, it is a relative saying; in an excellent world, there would still be something which is far greater than our best but less than the most excellent of the day. Hopefully, by then, mediocre will have become an archaic concept. There will be things which are 'more excellent' or 'less excellent', but there won't be a need to use the comparative qualifier. Comparisons are odious, especially at the top: a more evolved homo sapien will not need a contrived reassurance of his worth through some constant Olympic medal platform.
Ownership of our mind is the greatest freedom we are capable of enjoying. In this case, "a little bit pregnant" is a valid answer: complete freedom is impossible; we are finite, fallible beings contingent upon fate, luck, the environment. Whatever word is chosen, the concept remains the same: there is another variable in the Reality equation which constrains, acquiesces, or some hybrid thereof when added to our will. The best we can do is ground our actions on strong beliefs/knowledge claims and evaluate how best to enact our will in combination with nature to bring about the desired result. Autonomy is wrought from the birthing pains of holding oneself accountable for not only acting in accordance with one's standard of value and creating a standard of value that is your own, not derived from church, state, family, friends, any externality; but mostly from keeping emotion and bias largely excluded from decision making as well as not allowing oneself to become an instrument to another's will.
But let's start with self-reflection, an art really, which is the mode of existence making both of the above possible. No more excuses. No more bias. No more tyranny of the moment. No more quick fixes. No more silencing our inner voice with pleasure, money, or power. You can't take it with you, and it needs constant refills: the relationships you have with other people, the effect your mind has on human progress, those are long-lasting and flow directly from our essence, and are therefore the most worthwhile pursuits of a human being. The happiness derived from pleasure, money, and power is always depleting and thus requires a constant influx of new materials. Learning all the time. Loving the people around you, enjoying them for who they are and not for what they bring you. These are the most basic components of an ethical life. These naturally manifest what the Greeks called eudaimonia. Commonly mistranslated as happiness, the Greeks probably saw it as such but to equate it with modern 'happiness' would be to denigrate the word, allowing all sorts of modern people to inappropriately appropriate it for their own usage. Eudaimonia is human flourishing. Flourishing is not a short term fix; it is a period of consistent growth with no necessary end. How do human beings flourish? A life of learning and love which strives to avoid stagnation should suffice.
