Posted by
Thrasymachus on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:46:09 AM
In the Garden of Eden Adam was allowed to name all of the animals as
they walked before him. On the sixth day God created the animals, but
it was man who named them.
By naming animals Adam sought to separate them from the rest of the
universe. By naming animals Adam sought to know them as well. It can be
easily imagined that a person names a thing only when that thing has
some use to the namer. Adam saw an entire Garden in front of him, but
only sought to name the animals. Adam must have been at ease with his
ignorance of the other objects in the Garden.
We name things that have a practicality and are somehow applicable
to our lives. We put into use these names and seek to establish an
order with them. With order come the rules for that order. With these
rules comes the hierarchy of the rules so that one is above the rest.
These days we have people who wish to see every action, punishment,
and reward codified into law, that is to say, named. If it is not named
in law then it may as well not exist. When thought of in this manner,
laws seem to be used to "get the herd moving" in the right direction.
The need to put into law the proper ways leads to an attempt to
control, as much as possible, the actions of others (if controlling
thoughts were also a possibility then laws would be needed for those as
well-ie. hate crimes).
Just like in 2nd grade, being able to name a friend "cool" or a foe
"doo doo head" gave the speaker a sort of control over the person being
named. This control may not actually manipulate the actions of this
other, but it at least allowed us to categorize the other as
essentially useful or not useful. The other is now a thing. He has been
dehumanized and, ultimately, subjectified.
This need that positivists have to name all the good/bad actions
that people can take and name all of the punishments/rewards that they
will receive if those actions are or are not taken is antithetical to
what the Founders intended. It also acts to force out tradition as parallel means to social control.
The Founders believed that citizens should enjoy a well ordered and
well informed liberty, but they did not name every single liberty
citizens could or could not have. Even in the Declaration it is written
that "among these Rights..." How could the Founders have named every
single Right?
They had no need to. To name all things in a category is to
constrain yourself in several ways. First, if a Right is not named then
it does not exist if we assume this "naming=existing" to be correct.
Second, if a Right is named it must be constantly revised according to
current understanding. Why? Because a Truth, any Truth, cannot be
confined by language. Once you describe a Truth with words that Truth
can be misunderstood or words will otherwise fail in the attempt to
become that Truth. By attempting to make a map as big as the thing you
are mapping, so to speak, you act in a manner contrary to that Truth.
Description of Rights or Truth must necessarily summarize (and not
become) that Right or Truth. The Founders knew this. Positivists do not.
That
brings us to one of the bigger differences between the Founders and
todays positivists and many libertarians, if I my add. The Founders had
a language that was connected to Nature and Natures God whereas todays
positivists do not. Without the anchoring of the positivists language
to something outside of itself, it (the positivists language) becomes
simply self referential and ultimately cut off from a universe and
humanity that it looked to name, that is to say, categorize and
conquer.
Does an anchor exist for them? God? Not any more. God, as you
know, isnt allowed into our governmental language and cannot be fully
named as The God. Science? Maybe, but science cannot admit or
experiment on and prove the existence of morals as morals. How long
will a society last without morals? Popular opinion? No, people are too
easily swayed and opinions are no longer well thought out enough to be
respected (Read Plato's Thaetetus for the impossibility of knowledge and the necessityof good solid opinions).
Adam needed to bring order to chaos by naming the animals, but
probably recognized that an unknowable chaos still existed. He did,
after all, separate animals into different names which implies
multitude which, of course, is the opposite of unity (ie. absolute
order). Adam did not try to name everything that he came across and God
did not command him to do so.
Unlike Adam, the positivists of today that find the need to name all
things will likely discover a need to name their trek, as it stands
today, a "failure." Adam only had animals to name. Positivists want to
name, and hence know to one degree or another all human actions. By
knowing them they also seek to control those actions.
This circular naming and knowing leads to the naming and knowing of
all things, that is to say, of all knowable (ie. human) things. To know all
things is to place before humans all of the universe, which, would include the one doing the "naming." If this person subtracts himself from the universe then the universe is incomplete or this person s God. Since the human issues cannot be separated from the universe, the positivist must also be an expert of himself. He must know the human as a human. That is to say, he must know both what a human can know
and what a human cannot know. Here lies the problem.
The positivist can never come to know his own ignorance because he only names those things he knows and not those things he does not or cannot know. Thus,
can never fully examine himself, never mind other people. If he cannot
know himself or others fully, the positivist is left prone in a sticky
web of vague "facts " that he can no longer discern from vague
"opinions."