Philosopher views
THE SEARCH FOR KNOWLEDGE IS HOPELESS
Download 5.81 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- ANTI-FEDERALISTS
THE SEARCH FOR KNOWLEDGE IS HOPELESS1. CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE IS OUTSIDE THE REALMS OF HUMAN UNDERSTANDING Robert Adams, Professor of Philosophy at Sophia University, NISHIDA KITARO’S STUDIES OF THE GOOD AND THE DEBATE CONCERNING UNIVERSAL TRUTH IN EARLY 20TH-CENTURY JAPAN, 1999, http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Asia/AsiaAdam.htm, Accessed June 1, 2003. p-np. Takahashi Satomi (1886-1964) gives a third competing view, one based on the idea that the human condition is characterized by radical finitude, which means that there are certain limits beyond which human knowledge or experience cannot reach. This existential insistence on human finitude leads him to dismiss all absolutist claims, including Nishidas panentheism and Katôs positivism. This outlook is found in Takahashis critique of Nishida, one of his earliest publications, which appeared in the March and April 1912 issues of Tetsugaku zasshi under the title of Facts of Phenomena of Consciousness and their MeaningOn Reading Nishidas Studies of the Good. 2. SKEPTICISM IN REGARDS TO TRUTH AND KNOWLEDGE CAN NEVER BE OVERCOME Robert Adams, Professor of Philosophy at Sophia University, NISHIDA KITARO’S STUDIES OF THE GOOD AND THE DEBATE CONCERNING UNIVERSAL TRUTH IN EARLY 20TH-CENTURY JAPAN, 1999, http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Asia/AsiaAdam.htm, Accessed June 1, 2003. p-np. In the essay, Takahashi addresses the metaphysical implications of Nishidas conception of pure experience, and the reasons for his dissatisfaction with Nishida become clear: for by claiming that in pure experience human beings connect to the infinite mystery of God, the unifying force of the universe, Nishida has implied that human beings are at ground infinite beings, a conclusion Takahashi vehemently disagrees with: It is not to be expected that the entirety of realities infinitude could be manifest in the finite development [found in human beings]. Takahashi goes on to say that Nishidas use of pure experience as the model for the sacred encounter in fact cheapens the mystery of religion by equating the experiences of average people and those of saints: There would be nothing simpler in this world, he asserts, than attaining enlightenment, if we could unite ourselves to the spirit of the universe merely by forgetting the distinction between ourselves and things .If humans are not privy to the most immediate truths of the universe, they are likewise unable to comprehend any absolute truths about the physical universe. Human finitude in this respect indicates for Takahashi that skeptical doubts can never be completely overcome; nor does he think they should be, for skepticism of certain truth enlivens the creative aspect of human thought. Though many in the history of philosophy have rejected skepticism, calling it suicidal, it is he says always skepticism that calls forth new philosophies.
Robert Adams, Professor of Philosophy at Sophia University, NISHIDA KITARO’S STUDIES OF THE GOOD AND THE DEBATE CONCERNING UNIVERSAL TRUTH IN EARLY 20TH-CENTURY JAPAN, 1999, http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Asia/AsiaAdam.htm, Accessed June 1, 2003. p-np. Accepting the limitations of human knowledge does not, however, lead Takahashi to espouse a radical form of skepticism. He holds what should be termed a pragmatic view of truth, similar to the Human view of knowledge appropriated by Nishida, but without Nishidas subordination of human knowledge to Gods perfection. Human beings must be satisfied with relatively certain truth, which is generally reliable but, as a product of the human mind, limited. Through the course of history such reliable knowledge has accumulated in a dialectical process, as new knowledge answers old doubts but at the same time gives rise to new problems. The solving of these problems in turn leads to the formation of more new knowledge, which creates different doubts to answer, and so on in an unending process that leads, over time, to a gradual increase of what he calls fundamental knowledge that is, knowledge that can be relied on. New doubts are formed as new knowledge answers old doubts, but at the same time a core of reliable knowledge is solidified and expanded.
Perhaps the greatest question that American political theory has struggled with is to what extent the power of the federal government should be limited. There have been a variety of different approaches to that question over the years, with that of the Anti-Federalists being one of the most extreme. Given their position in history as one of the main political groups at the time of the crafting of the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists are no mere moment in history, but instead have had a profound influence upon the entirety of American politics. This essay will explore the context surrounding the Anti-Federalists, some of the major figures behind the movement, and the various potential pros and cons to such a political system. Historical Context The driving issues in early American political theory arose as a response to the treatment of the original colonies by Great Britain. The American Revolution came about for a myriad of reasons, all connected to the desire to have independence from the tyrannical rule of the British monarchy. Therefore the issue of liberty was foremost in the minds of Americans when considering how to craft a government of their own. The first attempt was guided by the Articles of Confederation, which established a very limited central government with strong powers left to the individual states. The Confederation could not collect taxes, regulate commerce, or a great many other things that are matter of course for the federal government today. Moreover, amending the Articles required unanimity among the states. Viewing these and many other aspects of the Articles as deep flaws, many called for some kind of reform. During the time of various Constitutional Conventions, a great deal of writing was done by various political figures that advocated different positions on what direction the country ought to take. Although far from universally read at the time – the pamphlets were mostly published in New York – a group of 85 documents which came to be known as the Federalist Papers came to be the most famous articulation of Federalist views. These papers, written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the pseudonym “Publius,” advocated a much stronger central government than what the Articles provided. This federalist camp by and large supported the proposed Constitution that was being debated at the Conventions. The inability of the federal government to take care of a lot of problems, notably the Shays Rebellion that occurred in Massachusetts for half a year before it could be quelled, seemed to the Federalists a clear signal that a new Constitution was needed. Although the new Constitution was passed largely the way that the Federalists hoped it would be, support for it was by no means unanimous. The contingent of people who felt that the proposed Constitution had too strong of a Central government were known as the Anti-Federalists. Contemporary readers might feel as if these terms are backwards, given that in today’s lexicon “federalism” refers to the doctrine that the federal government should not encroach upon the proper powers of the states. However, it is important to keep in mind that terminology changes, and back at the time of the signing of the Constitution the Anti-Federalists were those opposed to it on the grounds that it gave too much power to the federal government. They felt that the essence of democracy could only be carried out on a small scale, the benefits of which were lost in such a massive government. Anti-federalists, therefore, supported a more direct democracy, as opposed to the republican government that connected to the citizens only via mediating representatives. Anti-Federalist differ from the Federalist Papers in a few significant ways. First, the Anti-Federalists were not as organized in their publications; there is not an established number to each document or speech that constituted Anti-Federalist contributions to the political debate. Secondly, the identity of the authors of the Anti-Federalist papers is not always known. Even though the Federalist Papers bore the same pen name, who did which paper (Hamilton, Jay, or Madison) is well documented. The Anti-Federalists also used pseudonyms borrowed from past figures from Rome (as well as other names), but it is not always conclusive which actual person lies behind what name. This is partially due to the less organized nature of the Anti-Federalists, and partially to the fact that history has not glorified their accomplishments as it has the Federalists. Who They Were While the issue of which Anti-Federalist authors were behind the works of pseudonyms such as “Brutus,” “Old Whig,” or “Federal Farmer” may be an ongoing debate, some of the more important figures in the theory are well known. One such person is Patrick Henry. While his famous quotation in which he prefers liberty to life became one of the central rallying cries of the Revolution, Henry did not support the Constitution that was eventually passed in 1787. Henry associated the Federalist supporters with the kind of aristocracy that the Revolutionary War was meant to free America from. The inclusion of a Bill of Rights into the Constitution is owed in part to Patrick Henry; while he never supported the Constitution, one of his greatest criticisms of it was the lack of any explicit limitations upon the powers of the federal government, which the Bill of Rights provided (to some extent). While the Bill of Rights was not included in the initial signing of the Constitution, it was promised to be included by Congress shortly thereafter. Another prominent Anti-Federalist was George Clinton. No, not the one in the Funkadelic Parliament. George Clinton was the first governor of New York during the ratification of the Constitution, and later would become Vice President for both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Clinton authored some of the Anti-Federalist papers that were published under the name “Cato.” Clinton did his best to block ratification of the Constitution, but when it was approved by the requisite nine states at the Convention in his very own state, Clinton acquiesced. Ironically he ended up Vice-President to Madison, one of the authors of the Federalist Papers. Clinton despised Madison, but took the post after his own Presidential ambitions were dashed. There are a great many other important Anti-Federalist thinkers: James Winthrop, Samuel Bryan, Richard Henry Lee, Robert Yates, and others. While of course they all had minor differences, the thread running through them all was a mistrust of too massive a government. The Case For The Anti-Federalists So what is it that is positive about the theory of Anti-Federalism? The primary emphasis is upon promoting liberty and freedom. But what liberties are being shoved aside in the current system? The premise behind Anti-Federalism goes deeper than knee-jerk mistrust of the federal government. To understand Anti-Federalists merely in terms of modern-day states-rights discourse would be in a sense misleading; while they share some of the same beliefs, Anti-Federalism is an entirely different view of what government means than is considered in contemporary political discourse. The first major premise in Anti-Federalism is that true government is only possible on a small scale. When the words “big” or “small” are used to describe governments today, it is typically meant to designate the bureaucracy, or amount of control, that the government has. And it is true that Anti-Federalists would argue for a less massive government, but they would also stress that said governing body has to be concerned with a vastly smaller area than the US currently is. This is because when a regime is in control over a large enough populace, direct democracy becomes simply unfeasible. Today what we have is a republic, where representatives are elected with the supposed task of voicing the opinions of all of the people in Congress. There would be no way for common individuals to stroll onto the floor of Capitol Hill any time they wished and have a real voice in crafting national legislation. Direct democracy of that sort is appealing to Anti-Federalists because it makes up for the myriad of shortcomings in the current system of “representation”. For one, there is no way for Representatives to actually know the desires of the people they are voting for. The closest way to understanding the will of the electorate – polling – is remarkably inaccurate, and only samples a small part of the population. Even were polling perfectly accurate, the problem of majority tyranny arises. Especially given the US’s self-proclaimed status as a melting pot of races, cultures, ideas, and so on, it becomes all the more difficult for any group to get the policy they want. Since potential actions to be taken by Congress are almost never a black and white issue, there are a host of different possible options to be argued for. This ensures that oftentimes the majority opinion does not even constitute over half of the population, making most of the people’s wishes going unheeded. This is democracy at its most tenuous. Part of the problem stems from the type of people that are going to be the Representatives in a large republic. The Anti-Federalists argued that a result of that type of government would be that only the elite would have the capability to run for office. To achieve enough public recognition to get elected, one would have to not be tied to any sort of private concerns that would distract from that goal. No one struggling to earn enough money to survive, let alone the middle class who spend a great deal of time working to (for example) put their kids through college, have the time and resources to become a serious politician. This problem has gotten even more out of control given the importance of self-advertisement during campaigns. The current controversy over money spent in campaigns is telling. But even if stringent campaign finance reform measures were to pass, there would still be cultural and economic barriers that would make it extremely difficult for anyone but the elite class to realize the goal of playing a role in the public sector. Therefore, the type of person who is elected into office will never be the same type of person that she or he is supposed to represent. While it is certainly possible for a person of a different station to understand the situation of a common person, this is often not the case. How can a rich white Senator born into privilege know how difficult it is to be poor? It becomes difficult for any interest aside from the elite’s to be advanced in government. Indeed, many Anti-Federalists charged that it was elite interests that motivated the structure of the government set up in the Constitution. But even if all of the things above were not true, and Senators and Representatives were somehow able to represent the wishes of their constituents completely accurately, Anti-Federalists would still have a large problem with the massive republic that we live in today. The difference lies in the fact that our conception of politics is as a means to an end. In other words, people tend to be only concerned with issues such as representation insofar as they get what they want. Provided that a Senator votes the way someone theoretically would want them to, the political sphere and one’s own relationship to it can be safely ignored. Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, find that situation lacking, precisely because they see participation in politics as an end to itself. Christopher Duncan explains why it is that Anti-Federalists place intrinsic value upon direct democracy. The reason for this is because, interestingly enough, Anti-Federalism dovetails nicely with one of the main tenets of Hannah Arendt’s belief on the nature of politics. Arendt, an important political theorist from this century, contends that the highest form of human existence lies in the participation in politics. She draws upon Greek culture in her book The Human Condition to explain the various degrees of human activity. The lowest is that of labor, whereby one toils to take care of private necessities, such as food and shelter. The next highest is work, which encompasses crafts, the arts, and similar pursuits. There is the possibility of public appreciation of work, but it is often still private in nature. Finally, the highest type of human activity is what Arendt says the Greeks considered true “action”: politics. Once all private demands are met, then one can spend their time caring for the polis (city). The ancient Greeks despised labor, and therefore used slavery to divest themselves of the need to do tasks that they consider menial. Therefore the most glory came from being an honored statesman in the city-state. This is not to suggest that the Anti-Federalists merely wanted to copy the Greeks, but instead that understanding the rationale behind the Greek priority of action in the public realm sheds light on why Anti-Federalists find value in pure democracy. In fact, many of the Anti-Federalists papers make explicit reference to Greek and Roman societies – before they developed strong tyrannical central governments – as being ideals insofar as democracy is concerned. Anti-Federalists desired the smaller town-hall type governments were individual could have a say and come to some consensus about issues that affected them and their town. Only that way can the desire to life a public life, and therefore be happy and free, be achieved. The Case Against The Anti-Federalists As pretty of a picture of an idyllic small town democracy this paints, one can readily find fault with such a small-scale system of government. The same problems that were apparent at the time of the Articles of the Confederation are still present in a system that devolves a great deal of authority. First and foremost is a problem with security from threats both internal and external. The incapability of internal uprisings and the like to be dealt with a weak central government was arguably shown back as early as Shay’s Rebellion. What is to stop one state from deciding to use aggressive force against another to take, say, some economic resources? Threats from other countries are even more frightening. Even if every state kept standing militias, it would seem difficult to coordinate efforts, and without a strong federal ability to tax, there is no way a national army could be built and maintained that would comport to the standards necessary to be competitive. A strong central government seems to be a prerequisite of peace and order. Even if there is some sacrifice of liberties in order to make those things possible, is it not obvious that life and peace are more important? Being free from one’s own government is hardly a concern when another country is invading. In addition to security, economic prosperity seems to be a direct result of a strong federal government. Given how complex the economic system is today, there are a variety of important tasks that can only be performed by the national government that seem integral to maintaining a healthy economy. Having a national bank system, issuing bonds, the Federal Reserve – all are functions that are distinctly national in character. None could be performed during the Articles of Confederation. A thriving economy is a necessary condition for a lot of other things, such as funding of the sciences and arts. Would the technological and cultural progress that has been made in the past two hundred years be possible in a country with decentralized governments? Yet another goal that has become of more importance in recent years that seems impractical without a strong central government is the protection of the environment. While the Anti-Federalists sought to organize small like-minded communities, environmental theory has taught that those situations are dangerous given the transitory nature of pollution. The negative effects of industry in one county or state could most directly affect another area completely, with those citizens lacking any method of recourse. Environmental disputes were not much of a problem back in colonial times when the majority of the United States had yet to even be charted by European settlers, but it is a huge issue now. Strict laws governing the states are needed to keep them accountable for their environmental damage. One of the revolutions in the past hundred years has been the increasing role of the federal government as the protector of individual rights from state discrimination. This picture of rights flips on its head the problem envisioned by the Anti-Federalists of a tyrannical national government. The most famous example of this comes with the controversy concerning segregation in the South. Until the Supreme Court decision of Brown versus the Board of Education of Topeka, schools wouldn’t allow blacks the same educational opportunities. This case was but the most visible of a massive effort by the federal government to outlaw a host of racist policies held by many States. These protections against discrimination apply to sexism and other forms of oppression through the Equal Protection amendment. By passing amendments that protect rights not merely through limiting the power of the federal government but instead positively restricting certain behavior of the states and local governments, a brand new turn is taken in the relationship between individuals, rights, and the government. There might not be any way to have stopped that discrimination throughout the country in the system promoted by the Anti-Federalists. While the fundamental motivation for the Anti-Federalists was the protection of liberty through democracy, it is very possible that their mistrust of a strong central government was not merely reactionary fear stemming from their dealings with Great Britain. Many authors claim that the federal government has proven to be self-limiting in such a fashion so as to avoid the pitfalls the Anti-Federalists predicted. Power over such things as taxation has certainly not spiraled into overwhelming tyranny. Nor is there a complete disregard for the rights and powers of the states even within this system. The 50 states retain a massive amount of control over criminal laws, internal commerce, and so forth. Few would call the powers that the federal government claims right to now “tyrannical” by any means. RESPONSES TO SOME OF THE ATTACKS ON THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS While this list of problems might seem difficult for the Anti-Federalists to overcome, hope is not lost yet. Many authors specifically respond to some of these criticisms and explain why they might not seem as problematic as they seem. With regard to the security issue, one might question the incentive for other countries to attack the United States if it were more decentralized. Countries don’t just go around attacking each other for land nowadays; wars tend to start due to tensions over disagreements. In that sense there likelihood of an attack against the US might decrease; countries would no longer have cause to resent the US throwing its superpower weight around world affairs. As for internal problems, it is natural that uprisings like the Shay’s Rebellion would occur during a country’s birth pangs, but there is less reason to believe such events would be a matter of course without a powerful federal government. Issues such as the environment and minority rights could be dealt with in a collective fashion. Just because power would be devolved to a large degree does not mean that national laws would not work pending the acceptance of the majority of states. Given the swing in opinion towards protecting the environment and ending discrimination, it is logical that even without things like strong Supreme Court decisions it is still plausible that those problems would be voluntary dealt with by the states. It is certain that the country would be less economically prosperous if it had developed more along Anti-Federalist lines, but economic might is not necessarily the highest aim for a country. Money alone cannot produce happiness, and it can even create tensions in a society where the wealth is increasingly becoming concentrated in a small percentage of the population. As the lower class gets larger and poorer, it is natural to question just how successful the country is economically, no matter what the Gross Domestic Product statistics say. Participation in a public democracy, as Hannah Arendt suspects, can be much more fundamental to human happiness than amassing material wealth. Perhaps the widespread depression exhibited in American society today is a result of the alienation felt towards one’s fellow humans. The Federalist model did establish an effective system for pursuing one’s private wishes, but those are nothing more than glorified necessities taken too far. True happiness is found in one’s civic existence, and therefore in direct democracy. CONCLUSION Anti-Federalism, as a political theory taken in general, has many potential benefits and downfalls. The most skillful use of it will be to argue for a particular type of democracy that actually involves people, instead of merely a republic where no one’s interests but the very powerful are furthered. It can be used in its specific historical context to criticize or justify the Constitution, or to help argue for or against other political objectives that would affect the balance of power between the people and their state, local, federal governments. One thing that is important to keep in mind for the purpose of utilizing this theory in a debate round is that one does not necessarily have to advocate every thing that the Anti-Federalists would. Instead, its principles of maintaining a genuine democracy can be utilized to argue in favor of smaller changes, such as greater states rights in a particular area. Even if the federal government has not proven to turn into a tyranny, there is little denying that politics in this country has become an affair of the rich and elite, excluding most people from participating in it in any meaningful way. Moreover, no political system is wholly comprised of one ideology or another; the Constitution may have been promoted mainly by Federalists, but its inclusion of a Bill of Rights, as well as a few other modifications to it are distinctly Anti-Federalist in nature. The American political tradition has always been a product of the dialectic of both of those movements. Truly understanding the various twists and turns of American politics requires a grasp upon its roots in both the Federalist as well as Anti-Federalist traditions. Both theories have strong advantages and disadvantages that can be used to shed light on a variety of political issues in our own day and age. Directory: uploads uploads -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 uploads -> Department of science and humanities department of mathematics part-a questions and answers uploads -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? uploads -> For want of a nail uploads -> Ownership Models There are two different types of ownership models uploads -> Police Militarization uploads -> City of rising star regular meting thursday, july 14, 2016 uploads -> Township of winfield uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 uploads -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program What We Want Now! Download 5.81 Mb. Share with your friends:
|