Is a new "aristocracy", based on talent and ambition, necessarily a bad thing?
I think that the new "aristocracy" based on talent and ambition that Tocqueville describes is definitely a step up from the more conventional aristocracy. In the old aristocracy, individuals were for the most part, immobile, and could not improve their fixed position in society. The good thing about this new aristocracy is that a person can create a better life for him or herself, based on their talent and ambition. This, I feel, is surely a more natural way of living. It's comparable to both Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection and Smith's Division of Labor, in that the people most suited to their particular environment or task will rise - in this particular case, to the top of the new aristocracy. The ideal outcome of this image would be a society where each and every individual is able to excell at his or her particular skill. But this Utopian view point does not consider the factor of competition.
Competition is what creates the different tiers of an industrial aristocracy. Out of this competition rise a few individuals who are very talented at what they do, and also very ambitious. I believe these individuals who use their talent to rise to the top deserve to be there. But what about the others whose talent is not great enough? The untalented and unambitious are now the ones in fixed positions in this new society. This argument is a very tough one, and I guess I'm still struggling with it. On one hand, I believe that people with talents and skills should be able to make their way in the world. But on the other hand, I have to acknowledge that the ordinary mass is unable to advance because of the exceptional few. But while competition creates differences within a society, it also fuels individuals' advancement by creating ambition. Without the wish to excell among each other, we would all remain immobile. So, just as a new aristocracy based on talent and ambition is a two sided argument, so is competition.
In her book, Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand delves more deeply into this new contradictory aristocracy. She takes the side of the talented and few, by arguing that talent and ambition are absolutely essential in order for a society to function. She tells a story of how a group of very talented, ambitious, and powerful people are condemned by the rest of society for being too talented and too ambitious. They are expected to withhold their talents, and are unable to perform to the best of their ability, for fear of hurting the rest of society's opportunites. Eventually, the government completely restricts them and helps the ordinary citizens rise to power. But because of this, the talented ones aren't able to do their job, and the rest of society fails at attempting to do so. So by trying to provide everyone a fair chance in this aristocratic competition - by letting the less talented individuals get a head start - society malfunctions. Rand is convinced that the talented and ambitious few are the glue that holds society together.
Before I started reading Atlas Shrugged, I hadn't considered Rand's view point. And at first, I was bound and determined not to agree with her. I held fast to the conviction that everyone should have a fair chance in society - and still do. But I eventually had to admit that she has a point. It just doesn't make sense to allow people who don't know what they're doing to do the work at the expense of the few who actually can.
So the answer to this question can be either a yes or a no. It just depends on whose side you're on. Or if you're like me, stuck in the middle examining both sides of the argument, the answer can be both. Yes, I do believe that an aristocracy based on talent and ambition can be a bad thing, but I also believe that it can be a good thing.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Questions for Observation and Experiment
HERE ARE THE PRE-READING QUESTIONS. PICK ONE. ANSWER IT. THEN READ THE SELECTION WITH THE INTERPRETIVE NOTE SOURCE IN MIND (IS IS BELOW THE PRE-READING QUESTIONS).
Pre-Reading Questions
1. Is reason or imagination the more important tool for learning about the world?
2. Are there limits to what science can discover?
3. Can a person know a lot of facts and still be ignorant?
4. Why do two people observing the same thing frequently disagree about what they have seen?
5. How would you go about setting up an experiment to determine whether people are more or less friendly to you when you are wearing the color red?
6. Why is it often so hard for people to admit that an idea of theirs is wrong?
Interpretive Note Source (first reading)
Mark places where Bernard points out something good, or bad, about a scientist having preconceived ideas.
Interpretive Questions for Discussion
1. Why does formulating ideas in science require both reasoning and imagination?
2. According to Bernard, why can't we learn from nature just by observing?
3. Can facts be discovered without ideas?
4. Why does Bernard insist that experiment and observation are distinct but not separate? (137 - 138)
5. Is it desirable for the experimenter and the observer to be different people?
6. Can nature ever answer questions that are not asked?
7. For Bernard,does scientific investigation begin with an idea or a fact?
8. What does Bernard mean when he says "we never conceive a question without an idea which invites an answer"? (139)
9. Why does Bernard call facts discovered from hypotheses that turn out to be false, "indestructible materials for science"? (141)
10. Why does Bernard reject "utterly" specialization in the theory of science? (142)
11. According to Bernard, is the knowledge won by experimental science primarily factual or theoretical? (142-143)
12. Why are failed experiments valuable to scientists?
13. Why does Bernard think that observation does not involve any preconceived ideas?
14. Does Bernard think a scientist's pursuit of truth is ever completed?
Post Discussion Writing
1. Why do some people view science with hostility or suspicion?
2. Are you an observer or an experimenter?
3. Is science unable to solve the really difficult questions of life?
4. Through science, will human beings eventually know everything, or is the pursuit of knowledge endless?
5. Are you more likely to base your actions on ideas or observations?
6. Are there widely-accepted theories in society for which there are few, if any, supporting observations?
7. Do all "facts" have an element of personal interpretation in them?
Pre-Reading Questions
1. Is reason or imagination the more important tool for learning about the world?
2. Are there limits to what science can discover?
3. Can a person know a lot of facts and still be ignorant?
4. Why do two people observing the same thing frequently disagree about what they have seen?
5. How would you go about setting up an experiment to determine whether people are more or less friendly to you when you are wearing the color red?
6. Why is it often so hard for people to admit that an idea of theirs is wrong?
Interpretive Note Source (first reading)
Mark places where Bernard points out something good, or bad, about a scientist having preconceived ideas.
Interpretive Questions for Discussion
1. Why does formulating ideas in science require both reasoning and imagination?
2. According to Bernard, why can't we learn from nature just by observing?
3. Can facts be discovered without ideas?
4. Why does Bernard insist that experiment and observation are distinct but not separate? (137 - 138)
5. Is it desirable for the experimenter and the observer to be different people?
6. Can nature ever answer questions that are not asked?
7. For Bernard,does scientific investigation begin with an idea or a fact?
8. What does Bernard mean when he says "we never conceive a question without an idea which invites an answer"? (139)
9. Why does Bernard call facts discovered from hypotheses that turn out to be false, "indestructible materials for science"? (141)
10. Why does Bernard reject "utterly" specialization in the theory of science? (142)
11. According to Bernard, is the knowledge won by experimental science primarily factual or theoretical? (142-143)
12. Why are failed experiments valuable to scientists?
13. Why does Bernard think that observation does not involve any preconceived ideas?
14. Does Bernard think a scientist's pursuit of truth is ever completed?
Post Discussion Writing
1. Why do some people view science with hostility or suspicion?
2. Are you an observer or an experimenter?
3. Is science unable to solve the really difficult questions of life?
4. Through science, will human beings eventually know everything, or is the pursuit of knowledge endless?
5. Are you more likely to base your actions on ideas or observations?
6. Are there widely-accepted theories in society for which there are few, if any, supporting observations?
7. Do all "facts" have an element of personal interpretation in them?
Essay
When Tocqueville got to have his say, the situation for workers was dire. They would put a person to work on the same task day in and day out, until that was all that person could do. And with no chance for promotion, and no hope for ever getting out. However, this is no longer the case. Nowadays there is still an aristocracy, but it is a reformed one. Now workers can spend many years doing the same task, but there is hope for promotion, and because of the further division of labor, even when they are still stuck doing their job, they can do things after work that will keep their mind active and prevent stagnation.
In the days of old, you were assigned a particular job, and unless you had some great wealth or influence, you would likely be assigned the position that no one else wanted. The people who manufactured the very base essentials of society. A society which considered itself so “reformed”, yet could not exist without the continual effort and destruction of the factory worker. Destruction of their mind, destruction of their spirit, and destruction of any hope they had of being in the society that could not exist without them. But there were those, like Tocquville, who realized this and attempted to at the very least let it be known by future generations what had really happened. And he reported what he saw.
Because of people like Tocqueville, those who saw the darker, more sinister side of society, we now have made not steps, but leaps of progress. In the post-modern world, for the most part has moved beyond such tyranny. And whenever injustice towards workers begins, reporters will let it be known, people will protest, and something that Tocqueville never lived to see, the workers will organize themselves and go on strike. In effect, it is all but impossible for a true aristocracy to develop, for the inequalities shall never grow large enough to allow such an aristocracy to develop.
This is not to say that it is all rosy. There is still a huge number of people whom are forced to work long hours, at repetitive tasks, for the majority of their lives, and without any hope of promotion. And as was the case in the past, they make up the very most base of our society. These people are the most important part of our society, yet the most ignored, and the least thought about. Many of them live in conditions that we would consider uninhabitable, and lead lives that we would think were unlivable. And the worst part? Their misery is completely our fault. It is our fault that they live hoping that tomorrow will be better. Our fault that they must work with little to no hope of something as simple as retirement. And how is it our fault? Because of our insatiable desire for cheapness in money, no matter what the cost is ethically. Because we continue to buy from the companies that own them, they stay in business. We claim to hate these people's plight, yet we complain whenever prices rise. We claim to be compassionate, yet do nothing as more and more companies buy into the scheme. We care for the people, but we care for ourselves more.
When Alexis De Tocqueville wrote his piece, the aristocracy he saw was terrible. Now, the entire world has succumbed to aristocracy, and is simply made up of democracies. Perhaps this is the ultimate end, for every happiness, there is an equal unhappiness somewhere else. Perhaps all that democracy is simply a Sand-castle. You can build it as big and as complex and as stable as you want to, but it will still be destroyed the next time the tide of aristocracy comes rushing in. if this is not so, then how is it that china, the worlds largest aristocracy has an economy matched by none, and the US, now that it has turned it's economy into a democracy, is now floundering? And just think, when you think about it, the entire world is simply one huge aristocracy, with the first world countries on top, being supported by the third world countries beneath.
I still have hope, however. If the human race can evolve past greed, past all prejudice, then all of this is reversible, and a stable democracy can finally be realized.
In the days of old, you were assigned a particular job, and unless you had some great wealth or influence, you would likely be assigned the position that no one else wanted. The people who manufactured the very base essentials of society. A society which considered itself so “reformed”, yet could not exist without the continual effort and destruction of the factory worker. Destruction of their mind, destruction of their spirit, and destruction of any hope they had of being in the society that could not exist without them. But there were those, like Tocquville, who realized this and attempted to at the very least let it be known by future generations what had really happened. And he reported what he saw.
Because of people like Tocqueville, those who saw the darker, more sinister side of society, we now have made not steps, but leaps of progress. In the post-modern world, for the most part has moved beyond such tyranny. And whenever injustice towards workers begins, reporters will let it be known, people will protest, and something that Tocqueville never lived to see, the workers will organize themselves and go on strike. In effect, it is all but impossible for a true aristocracy to develop, for the inequalities shall never grow large enough to allow such an aristocracy to develop.
This is not to say that it is all rosy. There is still a huge number of people whom are forced to work long hours, at repetitive tasks, for the majority of their lives, and without any hope of promotion. And as was the case in the past, they make up the very most base of our society. These people are the most important part of our society, yet the most ignored, and the least thought about. Many of them live in conditions that we would consider uninhabitable, and lead lives that we would think were unlivable. And the worst part? Their misery is completely our fault. It is our fault that they live hoping that tomorrow will be better. Our fault that they must work with little to no hope of something as simple as retirement. And how is it our fault? Because of our insatiable desire for cheapness in money, no matter what the cost is ethically. Because we continue to buy from the companies that own them, they stay in business. We claim to hate these people's plight, yet we complain whenever prices rise. We claim to be compassionate, yet do nothing as more and more companies buy into the scheme. We care for the people, but we care for ourselves more.
When Alexis De Tocqueville wrote his piece, the aristocracy he saw was terrible. Now, the entire world has succumbed to aristocracy, and is simply made up of democracies. Perhaps this is the ultimate end, for every happiness, there is an equal unhappiness somewhere else. Perhaps all that democracy is simply a Sand-castle. You can build it as big and as complex and as stable as you want to, but it will still be destroyed the next time the tide of aristocracy comes rushing in. if this is not so, then how is it that china, the worlds largest aristocracy has an economy matched by none, and the US, now that it has turned it's economy into a democracy, is now floundering? And just think, when you think about it, the entire world is simply one huge aristocracy, with the first world countries on top, being supported by the third world countries beneath.
I still have hope, however. If the human race can evolve past greed, past all prejudice, then all of this is reversible, and a stable democracy can finally be realized.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)