My brother and I have had various debates and arguments over the years, one of which I like to think about from time to time -
The only real virtue is wisdom.
I thought that was a real quote, but nothing comes up in Google...and the various discussions of Plato, Aristotle and Socrates don't quite seem to capture it. Which makes me think I condensed one of our debate points down to something that is, perhaps, oversimplified. I think the closest quote related to this point of view was Plato's - "all knowledge, when separated from justice and virtue, is seen to be cunning and not wisdom"
The point is that, without wisdom, all our virtues stop being virtues. Courage becomes foolhardiness, boldness becomes recklessness, and so on and so forth.
I periodically remember this point because I don't think there's any one perfect system. And every time I try to think of a better way, of something that would help fix the issues I see, I wind up thinking that what we really need is wisdom. That our system only works when people are wise enough not to exploit the inevitable weaknesses, or rather wise enough not to exploit them to the point that the system breaks.
That is a rather broad and vague statement, mostly because nobody knows when a breaking point is until well after you've passed it. Yet it captures something I worry about, with what I see going on today.
The whole concept of someone obeying "the letter of the law and not the spirit" is to show how you can exploit loopholes in legislation to such a degree that you completely subvert the intent.
Sometimes this is considered wise and cunning (and is actually a trait prized by hackers, who exploit loopholes in code). And yet, flaunting the spirit of a law betrays the weakness of the system. It means that the system either has to tighten up the law, closing those loopholes, or demonstrate on a daily basis that it can't, and that people can get away with things that go against the entire point of what was legislated in the first place. It is...dissonant.
Which is, to a certain extent, inevitable with any human institution I suppose. Going back to an earlier post, if the system has checks and balances that keep it in place it's probably not worth worrying about too much. Yet when things get out of hand, when everyone is a lawyer or hacker looking to exploit the loopholes in the system, I think it does become a problem. Sort of like if morality is subjective (or relative), then there's no point trying to argue something is good or evil, since the terms become meaningless.
I actually started thinking about something different, this morning. I remembered a point I had made, about the decision making done when I was assigned to the New York National Guard, versus the professional way I would have expected it to have been handled.
See, when determining which unit would control a building, I'd expected the interested parties to lay out their reasoning (i.e. why they needed the building, what their alternatives were if they didn't get the building, etc.) and when all the information was presented to the key players they'd decide on the best course of action. All of it based on the needs of the unit as a whole.
I was rather disillusioned and disgruntled to realize, in this unit at least, that instead it was more a matter of trying to pull one over on others. Sneaking something into an opord, only to have someone else figure out what was going on and get it squelched before it was ever published.
I know politics is kind of inevitable when we're talking about people, and yet I still expected something...more professional. Something that considered the needs of the unit as a whole, instead of requiring games played with almost no regard for what was best for the team.
That assignment made me think I was overly idealistic, perhaps. And that being angry about it just made me less effective, with pretty much no impact on the ones who continued playing games. Annoying, when there is so clearly a better way, but it's one of the things I didn't have control over...and a junior officer isn't going to make field grade officers 'see the light' and do things differently. Hmm, okay, I possibly could if I worked on influencing people in the long term, though that's debatable. Even if it was possible, though, I didn't have the long term to work with.
I was thinking about all this, because I've repeatedly mentioned my disappointment with the system today. The system that gave us Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton for 2016. The world just seems to get crazier and crazier every day, and there's no real force for...well, sanity. Just the constant aggravation of choosing between the lesser of two evils, hoping that the negative traits of what you choose will not be bad enough to make you regret that choice.
Yet I'm concerned that any attempts to make things better will wind up in failure...mostly because we're lacking in wisdom. That the same powers and influences screwing things up are the ones who would be most influential in affecting any changes, and will just find a way to screw things up in a different way.
Actually, that's sort of what I'd noticed about the early Progressive attempts to break the control of party bosses. The party system found ways to maintain control despite Progressive attempts.
And yet, somehow, those cigar smoke-filled rooms did seem less influential. For a time.
Wisdom. Easy to say, hard to define. It's the sort of thing you only notice after the fact, and even then someone may second guess later.
No comments:
Post a Comment